{"text":[[{"start":8.45,"text":"The writer is former director of the National Economic Council and executive director of the Economic Dignity Lab at Georgetown "}],[{"start":17.15,"text":"The jukebox of major AI companies is shuffling between two tracks. For some time, tens of millions of families have only heard REM blaring “It’s the End of the World as We Know It”. With the booing of graduation speakers praising AI and polling showing overwhelming fear of its impact, some tone-deaf tech leaders now seem to believe they can reduce AI backlash by downplaying the potential for massive job losses by skipping to Bobby McFerrin’s “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”. Neither tune captures the moment."}],[{"start":47.05,"text":"AI enthusiasts need to lose the delusion that if working families could only comprehend the productivity gains, consumer conveniences and potential medical breakthroughs that the technology may bring, they would get over their fear of losing their standard of living, meaningful work and hopes for their children’s economic future. They won’t."}],[{"start":66.44999999999999,"text":"Tech titans also need to stop seeing fear of job loss as harmful only to the degree it triggers regulatory backlash. Instead, they should take seriously legitimate opposition to economic policies or technological trends that threaten to reduce — not uplift — dignity for workers. We are not a nation “of the people, by the people, but for massive, rapid AI productivity growth regardless of its impact”."}],[{"start":90.54999999999998,"text":"If AI giants have any hope of reducing the backlash, they must urgently come to grips with the fact that the only legitimate end goal of any democracy is the degree to which it lifts the economic dignity of its people."}],[{"start":104.54999999999998,"text":"The moment of truth for tech and business may not come until we see stronger evidence of AI-induced job losses. Will tech leaders now expressing support for a token tax or mandatory contribution of equity stakes in AI companies remain committed to some form of redistribution or refuse to share their fortunes? Will they agree to share AI gains with workers through higher pay with shorter work weeks or — as I have argued elsewhere — a dedicated revenue stream to create millions of dignified jobs?"}],[{"start":134.6,"text":"What we don’t need to do is wait until the worst happens before moving corporate and public policy on AI in a pro-worker direction."}],[{"start":142.4,"text":"If the optimistic crowd is so confident that AI will spark new jobs, they should start by demonstrating that at their own companies. Why not make corporate pledges and support public policies that promote retraining of workers and redeployment when AI adoption does lead to displacement? "}],[{"start":158.25,"text":"It was not so many years ago that corporate giants like AT&T and JPMorgan publicly offered paths to redeployment over severance to many of their workers. The Washington Center for Equitable Growth’s Jacob Leibenluft documents how, following the second world war, major CEOs worked with unions on “automation funds” to moderate job loss. "}],[{"start":179.1,"text":"Only public policy will enforce pro-human AI development. But business leaders calling for commitments to pro-worker AI would be a welcome change from today’s Hunger Games-like competition of who can most impress investors with the severity of AI-induced lay-off announcements."}],[{"start":196.25,"text":"US business leaders could start by supporting a redeployment tax credit to encourage companies to choose apprenticeships, skill enhancement and on-the-job training as opposed to lay-offs. Singapore is already examining this. Such a fund for redeployment would be paid for by businesses — via a corporate surtax, ending 100 per cent expensing for investment in automation, an AI token or compute tax, or a combination of the above. Large businesses would pay higher taxes to create an incentive that would lower taxes only on those who chose to lead on redeployment, augmentation or job sharing with higher wages."}],[{"start":231.7,"text":"The major danger of such a tax credit is so-called “deadweight loss” — paying companies for actions that they would have taken anyway. To combat this risk, the credit should start with a competitive application process reviewed by the Treasury, commerce and labour departments. This tax credit could provide up to 75 per cent of costs for apprenticeship or training for new jobs and up to 50 per cent of first-year wages. The credit would include clawback safeguards for those who renege on their pro-worker commitments. Priority would go to employers who applied jointly with workers."}],[{"start":264.3,"text":"Would it be messy and imperfect? Yes. But if we are serious about more structural pro-worker tax reform in the age of AI, it is better to be working out the kinks now."}],[{"start":275.6,"text":"Would it be enough? No. But it would be a start to ensure AI is structured to raise the dignity, economic security and work opportunities of the many and not just provide a financial bonanza for the few."}],[{"start":295.75000000000006,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1781768279_7032.mp3"}