AI’s Jobless Prosperity: Can Tech Preempt Populism Before the Backlash Arrives?

There has never been an economic shock in modern American history like the one the leaders of the AI industry are warning about.

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, has cautioned that the labor impacts of AI will be “unusually painful” and “bigger than any before.” His forecast includes the potential elimination of half of all entry-level white-collar jobs and a surge in unemployment to between 10% and 20% within five years. He is not alone in his assessment.

Both OpenAI and Anthropic have released expansive policy memos outlining the social contract they believe the post-AGI economy will require. Their proposals include shorter workweeks, public wealth funds, and a complete overhaul of the taxation system. The message is clear: abundance is coming, and they want to help shape how it is shared.

But can the tech industry successfully preempt American populism by drafting this post-AGI social contract before the public even demands it—or before it is clear whether speculative growth and job displacement will materialize? After months of analyzing polling data, policy proposals, and historical parallels with coding agents, the answer appears to be no.

The Politics of Jobless Prosperity

The scenario envisioned by AI labs suggests that the politics of AGI will be defined by jobless prosperity. This makes forecasting particularly challenging. The economy could grow rapidly even as jobs disappear, resembling the upheavals of the Industrial Revolution or the China Shock more than a typical recession. While a small elite reaps explosive enrichment, mass disruption will leave many behind.

In this world, voters will not fear a shrinking economy—they will be enraged at being excluded from one that is booming. Their anger could stall progress entirely. Jasmine Sun has documented how this anxiety is already fueling political resentment, noting that “the anti-elite and nihilistic attitudes that have dominated US political culture in the last few years are transmuting into anger at AI billionaires.”

Economic Disruption: How Serious Is the Threat?

Alex Imas, in his paper What Will Be Scarce?, presents the most rigorous economic case for taking the potential disruption seriously—even as he challenges both short-term and long-term doomsayers who predict mass unemployment. The labs see the risks clearly, which explains the urgency behind their policy memos.

At first glance, this might seem like good news. After all, those who would bear the costs of redistribution are volunteering to foot the bill. But there are two critical flaws in this approach:

• Social contracts are not granted from above. They are extracted from the powerful by those affected. A public that has not yet decided what it wants cannot be handed a preemptive deal.
• The economic contours of AGI remain unknown. We do not yet know whether it will lead to job loss—or, more specifically, to the massive job loss predicted by some. Our understanding is still evolving.