The idea that America might need a new social contract for the age of AI sounds radical until you remember that Americans have done this before — not once, but repeatedly, and always under the same conditions: a transformation so large that the existing rules no longer protected ordinary people, and a public that organized t…

Read more

Read more

That promise is now under direct assault. Not by foreign adversaries. Not by a financial crisis. By a technology that its own creators cannot fully predict, control, or stop.

The rise of artificial intelligence — and in particular, the large language models now capable of performing cognitive tasks that have sustained white-collar livelihoods for decades — is not merely a disruption to labor markets. It is a challenge to the foundational compact between citizens and their government, between workers and the economy they built, and between this generation and the next. It is, in other words, a constitutional moment.

The Scale of What Is Coming

The numbers have been stated often enough that they risk becoming abstract. They are not abstract.

Goldman Sachs estimates that AI could replace the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs globally. OpenAI’s own researchers estimate that roughly 80 percent of the American workforce could see at least 10 percent of their work tasks affected by large language models — with nearly one in five workers facing impacts on more than half of their tasks. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who builds these systems, has warned publicly that AI could eliminate 50 percent of entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, and that most lawmakers “are unaware this is about to happen.”

These are not projections from AI skeptics or doomsayers. They are assessments from the people who are building the technology — people with every financial incentive to describe the future in the most optimistic terms possible. When the architects of a system warn that it will destabilize the economy that most Americans depend on, citizens are entitled to take that warning seriously.

What makes this moment structurally distinct from prior technological disruptions is not the scale alone. It is the speed. The Industrial Revolution unfolded across generations. Entire communities had time — imperfect, agonizing, often inadequate time — to adapt. Families had time to move, to retrain, to recalibrate. AI is advancing in months, not decades. The adaptive mechanisms that once cushioned technological change — gradual retraining, regional economic diversification, the natural pace of occupational transition — are not calibrated for this velocity.

The billing specialist whose medical coding role is automated this quarter is not being asked to navigate a shift that will unfold over a generation. She is being asked to reinvent her livelihood now, with the same fraying safety net that was designed for a slower world.

Not Just an Economic Crisis. A Health Crisis.

What the economic data does not capture — and what Moonshot Press insists on naming — is the dimension of this transformation that reaches below the income floor.

Work, as the sociologist Richard Sennett has written, is not primarily what we do. It is who we are. The psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, writing from within the extremity of the Nazi concentration camps, identified meaningful work as one of the three primary sources of human purpose. Sigmund Freud, asked what a psychologically healthy person required, answered simply: to love and to work. Aaron Antonovsky, the founder of the salutogenic tradition that anchors the Institute for Salutogenesis’s work, established through decades of research that meaningful occupation is among the most reliable daily sources of what he called Sense of Coherence — the global orientation toward one’s world as comprehensible, manageable, and worth investing in.

When AI displacement threatens work, it threatens all of this. Not just the paycheck. The identity. The community. The structure that gives days their shape and lives their narrative. The sense — fundamental to psychological health — that what one does matters, that one’s contribution is valued, that one has a place in the world.

America already knows what happens when that sense is stripped from communities at scale. The deindustrialization of the 1970s and 1980s — the closure of steel mills, auto plants, textile factories — did not merely produce unemployment. It produced what economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton named the “deaths of despair”: the surge in premature mortality from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease that has shortened the life expectancy of working-class white Americans for the first time since the Civil War. Research is unambiguous: unemployment is a major risk factor for suicide and substance abuse. The connection is neurobiological. Social rejection and physical pain activate the same brain centers. Opioid dependence suppresses the endogenous opioid system that is essential to human socialization — creating a neurological feedback loop in which social pain drives substance use, which deepens isolation, which deepens pain.

If deindustrialization created social vacancy by removing the physical work that anchored communities, cognitive automation threatens something broader still: the erasure of economic purpose across white-collar and professional occupations that tens of millions of Americans built their identities around. The accountant, the legal associate, the software developer, the financial analyst — these are people who were told, explicitly, that education was their insurance against displacement. They followed the rules. AI does not honor the rules.

The AI revolution, if it lands without adequate social response, will not merely produce unemployment statistics. It will produce the next wave of despair — and this time, in communities that have never before understood themselves as vulnerable.

The Government Is Not Prepared

The federal government — the institution constitutionally charged with promoting the general welfare — is not meeting this challenge. The assessment is not partisan. It is structural.

Only 12 percent of surveyed civilian federal agencies report having completed AI adoption plans. The agencies that should be studying, planning for, and managing the workforce consequences of AI displacement are themselves being hollowed out. Federal morale is at historic lows. The mid-career technologists who understand both legacy systems and AI capabilities — precisely the people needed to craft adequate workforce policy — are leaving government at exactly the moment when their expertise matters most.

Legislative responses exist but are dwarfed by the scale of the challenge. Proposed measures would authorize $160 million for AI-related teacher development and $90 million for affected workers. Against projections of 300 million jobs affected globally, these figures represent aspiration, not adequacy.

And the federal advisory architecture that is supposed to guide AI policy? The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, as currently constituted, includes twelve technology company executives among its thirteen members. There is no labor economist. No workers’ advocate. No community health researcher. No representative of the workers whose lives and livelihoods are most directly at stake. When the builders of a technology are also its exclusive advisors to the government, the resulting policy will reflect their interests. This is not a critique of the individuals involved. It is a structural observation: a council whose members profit from the acceleration of AI is not constitutionally equipped to govern its human consequences.

States are filling some of the vacuum — Illinois, Texas, and Colorado are each implementing AI workforce protections in 2026, even as the federal government signals its intent to eliminate state-level AI regulation. The constitutional tension between protecting workers and accelerating innovation is real, unresolved, and directly on the 2026 ballot.

The Inadequacy of “Retraining”

The most common political response to AI displacement — and the response most likely to be offered by candidates who have not thought hard about the problem — is retraining. “We need to invest in education.” “Workers need to learn AI skills.” “The future belongs to those who adapt.”

These statements are not false. They are insufficient. And their insufficiency matters, because substituting a platitude for a policy is its own form of political failure.

Retraining solves for income. It does not solve for identity. It does not solve for the fifty-year-old healthcare administrator whose professional credentials have been automated, who may or may not be able to pivot to a new occupation, but who will not recover her previous sense of expertise and standing regardless of what she learns next. It does not solve for the community of workers in a regional economy where an entire occupational category disappears simultaneously — because the problem is not individual skill gaps, it is structural transformation of the labor market.

Retraining at adequate scale does not exist. The workforce development infrastructure of the United States was designed for marginal adjustment, not mass transition. Community colleges, vocational programs, and CareerLink offices are valuable institutions doing important work. They are not equipped, as currently resourced, to manage the retraining of tens of millions of workers on the timeline that AI displacement is imposing.

And retraining cannot be the only answer because displacement is not the only problem. An economy that produces AI-driven productivity gains and directs them almost entirely to owners — while imposing the costs of transition on workers — is not a more efficient economy. It is an economy in the process of eating its own customers. Henry Ford understood, a century ago, that workers are also consumers, and that wages suppressed too far produce markets too thin to sustain production. The AI moment is testing that logic at a scale Ford could not have imagined.

What an Adequate Response Requires

Moonshot Press does not believe that adequate response to the AI transition is impossible. We believe it is urgent, and that urgency has not yet been matched by political will commensurate to the challenge.

An adequate response begins with honest diagnosis. The triple coherence attack that AI displacement imposes — simultaneously undermining the comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness of working life — demands policy that restores all three dimensions, not merely the income dimension. A policy framework that replaces lost wages without rebuilding identity, community, and civic capacity has solved the wrong problem with the right resources.

The policy proposals that rise to the level of the challenge include, but are not exhausted by: automation taxes that redirect AI-driven productivity gains toward public investment in workforce transition; a Public Wealth Fund that gives every citizen a direct stake in AI-driven economic growth rather than concentrating returns in capital ownership; a 32-hour workweek as a mechanism for distributing efficiency gains to workers rather than extracting them as profit; automatic safety net stabilizers that activate when displacement metrics exceed defined thresholds; portable benefits that follow workers rather than jobs; and the full investment in early childhood development that the First 1,000 Days of life requires — because the capabilities that the AI economy will reward are built in those years or they are not fully built at all.

What connects these proposals is a single animating conviction: that the social contract is not a relic of a prior era. It is a living obligation, renewed by each generation, requiring those with authority to act on behalf of those most exposed to the risks that power creates. In an age of intelligent machines, that obligation does not diminish. It intensifies.

Why This Matters for Democracy

The political danger of AI displacement extends beyond economics and public health. It reaches into the foundations of self-governance itself.

A workforce that is economically precarious is a citizenry that is civically diminished. The time, energy, and psychological resources required for democratic participation — attending meetings, engaging candidates, following policy debates, exercising informed judgment — are not equally available to workers navigating the stress of displacement and financial insecurity. Research on political participation is unambiguous: economic precarity suppresses democratic engagement, particularly among the communities with the most at stake in the outcomes.

Despair, moreover, is not politically inert. The communities most devastated by deindustrialization did not simply withdraw from politics. They redirected their political energy toward leaders who promised, however implausibly, to name the source of their pain and punish it. The politics of resentment is not an irrational response to displacement. It is a predictable one. A democracy that ignores the material conditions of its citizens does not produce apathy. It produces rage.

Moonshot Press holds that the AI transition is therefore not merely an economic challenge or a public health challenge. It is a democratic challenge. The consent of the governed — the foundational premise of legitimate government in the American tradition — requires that the governed be materially capable of participating in their own governance. An AI transition that concentrates wealth and destroys economic security for tens of millions of Americans is not merely an injustice. It is an attack on the preconditions of democratic life.

This is why the 2026 elections matter as much as they do. Every level of the constitutional architecture — federal, state, county, school board — is on the ballot. Every level has specific jurisdiction over policies that will determine whether working families navigate this transition with dignity or absorb it alone. Madison designed a system built for exactly this kind of challenge: a system where citizens inform themselves, engage their representatives, hold elections, and course-correct every two years.

The AI transformation is the test of whether we still know how to use it.

What Moonshot Press Is Here to Do

Moonshot Press is not a spectator. We are a civic institution, and we understand civic institutions as entities with obligations — to the truth, to the citizens we serve, and to the democratic traditions that make genuine journalism possible.

Our commitment, in this section and throughout our work, is to provide the factual foundation that informed democratic participation requires. That means cutting through the optimistic techno-boosterism that treats AI displacement as an inevitable feature rather than a policy choice. It means cutting equally through the dystopian catastrophism that produces paralysis rather than action. It means treating citizens as intelligent adults capable of evaluating evidence, weighing competing claims, and making their own judgments — and giving them the tools to do so.

The articles, analyses, and civic resources that follow are built around a single standard. Not the standard of what is economically convenient. Not the standard of what is politically safe. The salutogenic standard: whether the conditions for human flourishing — for comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness — are being created or destroyed, preserved or squandered, for the citizens of this country and for the children who will inherit the world we are building right now.

That is the standard we apply. That is the standard we invite you to apply. And that is the standard against which, in 2026 and beyond, we intend to hold every person who asks for the public’s trust.

“The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

— Thomas Jefferson

Moonshot Press is a project of the Institute for Salutogenesis and a cornerstone of the Democracy, Opportunity and Citizenship Moonshot. We are nonpartisan, constitutionally grounded, and committed to the proposition that an informed citizenry is not a luxury of democratic life — it is its precondition.

Subscribe to Moonshot Press and Thrive in Montco PA at thriveinmontco.substack.com

The gap

In January 2025, the White House launched the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) to restore American leadership in science and technology. In March 2026, the administration announced its first appointments. Together, those actions created a prominent federal advisory structure for innovation and technology policy. They did not create an equivalent public institution centered on the workers, families, and communities whose lives and livelihoods will be transformed by AI.

What the Council is

The People’s Commission on Technology and the American Future is the citizens’ answer to that gap. It is not a government body, a think tank, or another expert panel. It is a deliberative civic institution in which displaced workers, healthcare practitioners, educators, labor economists, and elected officials sit in the same room, and in which citizens hold authority over the agenda rather than merely offering input to conversations others control.

What has been built

The Commission is being built with real civic infrastructure rather than rhetorical aspiration. That work includes a civic curriculum on AI and work, structured citizen briefs on major workforce-policy options, an AI Workforce Accountability Scorecard, and a planned hybrid People’s Conference on AI and Work designed to convene workers, civic organizations, labor economists, and elected officials in a common deliberative space.

Why this framework matters

The civic curriculum behind the Council is rooted in a salutogenic understanding of work. Work is not merely an economic transaction. It is also a health-creating institution that helps sustain coherence, agency, and meaning in daily life. The People’s Commission on Technology and the American Future is designed to evaluate AI workforce policy not only in terms of productivity and growth, but in terms of what happens to the human beings, families, and communities living through the transition. The People’s Commission is not anti-technology. It is pro-democracy: a civic effort to align technological change with human flourishing rather than assume the two will naturally converge.

Why it exists

Its long-term purpose is to give democratic form to a question too often treated as merely technical: what does society owe the people whose labor, identity, and civic stability are being reshaped by artificial intelligence? The Commission’s answer is clear. Citizens are not passive subjects of the AI transition. They are sovereign stakeholders, and sovereignty in a republic is exercised through institutions, deliberation, and public demand.

The People’s Commission on Technology and the American Future strategy and plan

Join Our Effort