Faced with mass job loss from AI, governments are unlikely to seize assets from the wealthy. The politically easier path is to print massive amounts of money for social support, preserving the existing capital structure while devaluing the currency.

Contrary to fears of mass unemployment, AI will create massive deflationary pressure, making goods and services cheaper. This will allow people to support their lifestyles by working fewer hours and retiring earlier, leading to a labor shortage as new AI-driven industries simultaneously create new jobs.

The narrative of AI destroying jobs misses a key point: AI allows companies to 'hire software for a dollar' for tasks that were never economical to assign to humans. This will unlock new services and expand the economy, creating demand in areas that previously didn't exist.

A viral chart linking ChatGPT's launch to falling job openings is misleading. Job openings began declining months earlier, largely due to Fed interest rate hikes. This highlights how complex macroeconomic trends are often oversimplified in popular narratives that rush to assign blame to new technology.

The most immediate systemic risk from AI may not be mass unemployment but an unsustainable financial market bubble. Sky-high valuations of AI-related companies pose a more significant short-term threat to economic stability than the still-developing impact of AI on the job market.

Rather than causing mass unemployment, AI's productivity gains will lead to shorter work weeks and more leisure time. This shift creates new economic opportunities and jobs in sectors that cater to this expanded free time, like live events and hospitality, thus rebalancing the labor market.

The labor market faces a dual threat. Weak demand, linked to tariffs and deglobalization, has already pushed job growth to zero. As AI adoption accelerates productivity, it could further suppress labor demand, potentially tipping the economy into a state of net job decline.

Unlike the private sector, government often focuses on offering employment rather than driving innovation. This inefficiency creates a buffer against AI-driven job cuts, making public sector roles paradoxically resilient, despite being a catastrophic waste of taxpayer money.

By openly discussing AI-driven unemployment, tech leaders have made their industry the default scapegoat. If unemployment rises for any reason, even a normal recession, AI will be blamed, triggering severe political and social backlash because leaders have effectively "confessed to the crime" ahead of time.