Current trajectory vs. AIP including AI displacement
Crisis Analysis"We seek critique, not endorsement. Please be harsh. We can handle it."
Two Paths
The Current Trajectory vs. AIP Implementation
The Core Thesis
America faces multiple converging crises. Medicare and Social Security trust funds will be depleted within the next decade. The national debt is accelerating toward unsustainable levels. And now, AI-driven job displacement threatens to eliminate millions of jobs faster than new ones can be created. Both parties refuse to address any of it. A perfect storm is coming—the only question is whether we reform proactively or are forced to by catastrophe.
This document compares two scenarios: the Current Path (no structural reform) versus AIP Implementation. The numbers are stark. The current path leads to crisis, mass unemployment, austerity, and decline. AIP offers a path to solvency, shared prosperity, and human flourishing alongside AI advancement. The window for proactive reform is narrow—roughly 2025-2031.
SCENARIO A: The Current Path
The Debt Trajectory
By 2034, interest payments alone will consume more than Medicare, Medicaid, or defense. We'll be borrowing money to pay interest on money we already borrowed.
Social Security Depletion
Medicare Depletion
Hospital response: Reduce Medicare patients, close rural facilities, longer waits
The Demographic Time Bomb
Math: Fewer workers supporting more retirees for longer. System designed for different demographics.
The AI Disruption: A Crisis Within the Crisis
The Scale of Displacement
AI and automation are advancing faster than any previous technological revolution. Unlike past disruptions that primarily affected manual labor, AI targets cognitive work—the jobs we told displaced factory workers to retrain for.
McKinsey estimate: 400 million jobs displaced globally by 2030, 12 million in US
Jobs Most at Risk (2025-2040)
Why This Time Is Different
Cognitive work: Previous automation hit muscles. AI hits minds—including "safe" professional jobs.
Compounding: AI improves itself. Each year's AI is dramatically more capable than last.
Capital concentration: AI benefits flow to owners of AI, not workers displaced by it.
Current Path: AI Displacement Outcomes
Scenario A4: Mass Technological Unemployment (2028-2040)
Unemployment spikes to 15-25% (Great Depression levels)
No safety net—unemployment insurance exhausted in 26 weeks
Healthcare tied to employment—mass uninsured
Retraining programs overwhelmed and underfunded
College degrees become worthless faster than debt repaid
Consumer spending collapses (who buys AI products?)
Social Security payroll tax revenue plummets (fewer workers)
Scenario A5: Neo-Feudalism (2035-2055)
Gig economy becomes only option—no benefits, no security
Wages race to bottom as humans compete with AI
Democracy hollowed out—economic power = political power
Social mobility ends—no path from displaced to owner class
Dystopian outcome: productivity paradise for few, subsistence for many
Scenario A6: Political Radicalization (2030-2045)
Populist movements promising to "stop AI" or "tax robots"
Luddite violence against AI facilities
Authoritarian "solutions" promising order
Scapegoating (immigrants, tech workers, billionaires)
Anti-technology backlash slows beneficial innovation
US falls behind nations that manage transition better
The current path has NO ANSWER to AI displacement. The system assumes full employment, employer-provided healthcare, and income-based taxation. Remove employment and the entire structure collapses.
Current Path: Combined Crisis Scenarios
Scenario A1: Austerity Crisis (2031-2035)
Medicare cuts 11%: Hospitals refuse Medicare patients, rural facilities close
Social Security cuts 21%: Millions of seniors fall into poverty
Political crisis: Both parties blame each other, no solutions
Emergency response: Rushed, poorly designed "reforms" that make things worse
Generational warfare: Young vs. old political conflict intensifies
Scenario A2: Debt Crisis (2030-2040)
Interest rates spike as investors demand higher returns
Higher rates increase debt service costs, accelerating spiral
Dollar loses reserve currency status (partial or full)
Inflation spikes as Fed forced to monetize debt
Austerity imposed by markets, not choice (Greece model)
Standard of living decline for a generation
Scenario A3: Political Collapse (2028-2040)
Austerity blamed on political opponents (both directions)
Extremist movements gain power on left and right
Democratic norms further erode
Political violence increases
Institutional trust collapses
Potential: Constitutional crisis, national fragmentation
Current Path: 30-Year Outcomes
SCENARIO B: AIP Implementation
The Transition Timeline
Years 1-5: Foundation—Stability Accounts launched, GRT begins at 13.2%, Alliance founding members
Years 5-15: Transition—SS/Medicare phased into accounts, debt reduction begins, Alliance expands
Years 30+: Sustainability—GRT at 2.5% permanent, accounts self-funding, Type I civilization progress
Solving the Entitlement Crisis
Social Security → Stability Accounts
Current retirees: Benefits maintained (grandfather provision)
Near-retirees (55+): Choice of old system or transition
Workers under 55: Transition to Stability Accounts
New births: Full Stability Account ($25K seed → $1.89M at 65)
Key difference: Accounts are OWNED, not promised. Government can't change terms.
Medicare → Universal Healthcare
Medicare merged into universal system (not eliminated—expanded)
Everyone covered from birth, funded through accounts
Administrative savings: 30% → 3-5% overhead
Prevention focus reduces long-term costs
AIP Path: AI Displacement as Opportunity
Why AIP Is Built for the AI Era
AIP was designed with technological disruption in mind. Unlike the current system, which assumes full employment and employer-provided benefits, AIP decouples survival from employment.
Stability Accounts: Security Without Employment
Healthcare not tied to job: Lose job, keep healthcare. AI displaces you, you're still covered.
Account provides cushion: Stability Account available for transition, retraining, entrepreneurship
Productivity Sharing: AI Gains Flow to Everyone
GRT captures AI productivity: Tax on transactions means AI-produced goods fund accounts
Productivity sharing mandate: Corporate gains tied to worker gains (+160% over 30 years)
Capital gains flow to accounts: DRIPS investments mean everyone owns the AI companies
Transition Support: Managed Disruption
Human work valued: Care work, creative work, relationship work—things AI can't do
AIP: AI as Liberation, Not Threat
Under AIP, AI becomes what it should be: technology that frees humans from drudgery while sharing prosperity. The robot takes your job, but you own part of the robot. The AI writes the code, and you get the benefits. Work becomes optional, not mandatory for survival. This is the promise of technology—finally delivered.
Solving the Debt Crisis
AIP Path: 30-Year Outcomes
Side-by-Side Comparison
2035 (10 Years)
SS/Medicare trust funds depleted, automatic cuts in effect
Debt: $50+ trillion, interest: $1.6T/year
AI displacement accelerating, 10M+ jobs lost
No safety net for displaced workers
Political crisis over austerity + unemployment
Stability Accounts operational for 10 years, first cohort seeing growth
Universal healthcare implemented, admin savings realized
AI displaced workers have accounts, healthcare, retraining
GRT capturing AI productivity gains for all
Debt growth halted, beginning to decline
2045 (20 Years)
Debt: $70+ trillion, interest consuming 25%+ of budget
20-25% unemployment/underemployment
Neo-feudal economy emerging—AI owners vs. everyone else
Dollar weakened, inflation persistent
Political extremism normalized, democracy degraded
Debt: $15 trillion and falling
GRT dropped to 7%
Full Alliance operational (895M market)
AI productivity shared—everyone benefiting from automation
First full Stability Account cohort reaching retirement ($1.89M average)
2055 (30 Years)
Debt: $100+ trillion or currency/default crisis
Two-class society fully established
US no longer dominant economic power
Multiple generations worse off than parents
Political system failed or authoritarian
Debt: Near zero
GRT at 2.5% permanent
AI as partner—work optional, prosperity shared
Kardashev 0.95+ (Type I civilization progress)
Next frontier: space resources, post-scarcity trajectory
The Window: 2025-2031
There is a narrow window for proactive reform before crisis forces reactive, damaging responses:
2025-2028: Pre-crisis window. AI disruption beginning. Reform possible without immediate pressure. Best outcomes.
2029-2031: Medicare crisis + AI acceleration. Pressure building, reform harder but possible.
2031-2035: Full crisis. Medicare/SS depleted + mass AI displacement. Reform forced, outcomes worse.
Post-2035: Damage done. Neo-feudalism entrenched. Any reform is damage control, not optimization.
The best time to implement AIP was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. Every year of delay narrows options and worsens outcomes. AI is not waiting for us to figure this out.
Why the Current Path Continues
Short-term incentives: Politicians serve 2-6 year terms, crisis is 10 years away
The current path continues not because it's chosen, but because choosing differently requires political courage that doesn't exist in the current system. This is why AIP includes political reform—the same captured system that created the crisis cannot solve it.
Discussion Questions for Validators
Are the AI displacement projections too aggressive? Too conservative?
Does AIP adequately address AI disruption, or are additional mechanisms needed?
Are the trust fund depletion timelines accurate? What are alternative projections?
Is the crisis window (2031-2035) the right target for AIP positioning?
What current path scenarios are we missing?
Are the AIP projections (debt elimination by Year 40) defensible?
How does AIP handle the transition—who pays during the overlap period?
Is the "crisis as opportunity" framing appropriate or opportunistic?
Note: This document presents projections based on current CBO and Trustees reports for fiscal data, and McKinsey/Goldman/WEF for AI displacement estimates. Actual outcomes depend on many variables. The contrast between paths is intentionally stark to highlight the stakes. Validators are invited to challenge assumptions and provide alternative scenarios.