When AI Makes Half of Us Redundant: What Breaks, What Survives, and Why Bitcoin Matters

There’s a version of the near future where the robots don’t roll tanks down Main Street and AI doesn’t become a cartoon villain. Instead, it quietly makes more and more human work optional—first for white-collar keystrokes, then for services, and eventually for a chunk of the physical economy once cheap dexterous robotics catches up. Prices for a lot of things slide down. Profits pool up. Wages don’t keep pace. And the gears of the system we call “capitalism” start grinding, not because markets “failed,” but because the market’s core feedback loop—work → income → demand—isn’t the center of gravity anymore.

Let’s push the thought experiment all the way: 30–50% unemployment, not for a quarter during a crisis, but as a steady background condition of life. What happens to an economy built on paychecks if half the population doesn’t have one? What do companies, central banks, and politicians do when deflation from technology collides with debt that demands inflation? Where does Bitcoin fit—salvation, sideshow, or something in between?

Below is my map of that world—how we could get there, how the plumbing would actually behave, and what a rational plan for people and builders looks like.

---

Why this time really can be different

Every technology wave kills jobs and creates new ones. Historically, the second effect wins with time. But the speed and scope of AI are new in three ways:

1. It eats across tasks, not just industries. Generative models don’t just do “one job”; they chew through tasks in nearly every job—drafting, planning, coding, analysis, design, customer support, marketing, legal research, you name it. That lets firms swap labor for inference calls everywhere.

2. Distribution’s already solved. AI is an API. You don’t have to refit a factory to use it. You plug it into your workflow, your CRM, your IDE, your call center. Adoption can be viral.

3. Embodied AI is coming up fast. Once robots get cheap, safe, and dexterous enough to handle even a fraction of “last-mile” physical tasks, the substitution frontier moves from screens into kitchens, warehouses, clinics, and streets.

It’s not hard to sketch the macro consequences: unit costs fall, prices soften, margins rise for owners of compute/data, and wage share of GDP shrinks. Left alone, that’s deflationary. Deflation plus heavy debt is a bad mix; it raises the real burden of what’s owed just as incomes are stagnating.

If you’re designing macro policy inside that world, your instincts pull you toward financial repression (keep interest rates capped while allowing inflation to run above them), yield-curve control (pin long rates), bigger transfers (UBI/negative income taxes), and directed credit (because markets won’t fund what you need at the returns you’re offering). You also reach for digital money rails—stablecoins or CBDCs—not because you’re a blockchain fan, but because precision payments are how you steer demand when wages aren’t doing the job.

That’s the background hum. Now let’s crank the dial.

---

What 30–50% unemployment actually looks like on the ground

Start with a picture, not a model:

• Downtowns feel hollowed out but not poor—there’s activity, but more of it is automated. Cafés run with two people and five robots. Clinics have one doctor supervising a panel of AI systems that triage, draft notes, and suggest treatment plans. Law offices are “one lawyer + orchestration + AI,” not armies of associates.

• Housing demand bifurcates. Premium locations for the high-skill, high-equity class and the “third places” they love; more emptying out in marginal cities as work decouples from place for everyone else.

• Retail prices slide for AI-tradable services (advice, media, back-office work) and some goods. Physical services stay stickier—until robots push into those tasks.

• Household income is lumpy. Some people live entirely off capital, royalties, datasets, or platform revenue. Some assemble incomes from micro-gigs. Many rely on a baseline transfer that keeps them solvent without a “job.”

• The culture shifts. “What do you do?” stops being the first question. For a lot of people, “work” is something you dip into—projects, care, crafts, sport, teaching—because you want to, not because you need to. That’s the best-case version.

There’s a darker version if policy whiffs the landing:

• Demand sags because labor income collapses faster than transfers ramp.
• Defaults creep as nominal revenues fall and debts don’t.
• Concentration gets worse: a few AI platforms take the surplus; everyone else fights under cost.
• Legitimacy erodes. People don’t hate technology; they hate being excluded from its upside.

When half your citizens don’t get paychecks, capitalism as we practice it—consumption funded by wages and credit priced on expected paycheck growth—runs out of oxygen. Either you re-plumb income flows, or the system throws sparks.

---

The four places capitalism breaks first

1. The demand loop. Wages scale consumption. If wages shrink and you don’t replace them with something else, aggregate demand drifts down. That forces prices lower or revenues miss. Either way, it’s deflationary pressure.

2. The debt loop. Our system is built on nominal growth. Mortgages, corporate loans, sovereign debt—all assume expanding nominal incomes/tax bases. If prices fall and wages stagnate, the real weight of legacy debt rises. Repression becomes the only politically feasible solvent: hold rates below inflation for a long time, compel certain savings behavior, and let time do the rest.

3. The firm loop. When AI is cheap and scalable, returns to scale explode. The winners are those who already own distribution, data, and compute. Without tough competition policy, you end up with “winner-take-most” dynamics and a long tail of price-takers.

4. The legitimacy loop. People will tolerate elites making outsized returns if everyone can climb. A world where productivity soars and most households don’t see income gains is a world that produces social anger and hard politics.

---

What policymakers actually do in a high-jobless, AI-deflation world

I don’t expect a single grand plan. I expect a bundle of messy, overlapping hacks:

• Baseline income plumbing. Call it UBI, a negative income tax, or wage insurance—something that replaces a chunk of the demand wages used to fund. This won’t create jobs; it preserves social peace and consumer solvency while the economy reconfigures.

• Financial repression with a smile. Cap long rates (explicitly or implicitly), keep depositors captive in “safe” channels, and run inflation moderately above those capped rates for years. Quietly liquefy debt.

• Digital rails for granular transfers. Whether it’s CBDCs or tightly regulated stablecoins, programmable money gives the state fine-grained control over timing, targeting, and compliance. It also makes capital controls easier when things get hot.

• Ownership tweaks. Expect proposals for data dividends, public stakes in foundation models, sovereign AI funds, or profit-sharing mandates in concentrated AI sectors—imperfect attempts to spread upside.

• Competition policy with teeth. Interoperability mandates, limits on self-preferencing, aggressive merger scrutiny, and compute export controls. Not because regulators suddenly got brave, but because concentration + mass non-employment is a legitimacy bomb.

• Skills and complements. Training won’t save everyone, but targeted programs that teach AI orchestration and physical complements (robotics maintenance, installation, safety) will matter. So will investments in care, health, and infrastructure that remain person-centred longer.

It’s an awkward mix. It’s also the least bad path through a decade where the production function is changing faster than the social contract.

---

So… where does Bitcoin actually fit?

Here’s the straight answer: Bitcoin won’t hire 50 million people. It won’t fix the demand loop. It isn’t a macro policy wrench. But in a world of repression, controls, and politicized money, it gives individuals and firms three very practical things:

1. A savings asset outside the repression zone. If your government pins long rates at 2% and lets inflation run 4–6% to melt the debt iceberg, your “safe” savings lose real value by design. A hard-capped asset with global liquidity and bearer custody is one of the few ways to opt out.

2. Permissionless settlement. If income becomes more micro (creator payouts, machine-to-human streams, cross-border gigs), programmable custodial ledgers will do a lot of the traffic—but some users will want a neutral, censorship-resistant rail for settlement and savings. Bitcoin + Lightning is built for that.

3. Jurisdictional exit. In places where capital controls bite or censored money becomes normal, Bitcoin is a lifeline. Not all at once, not for everyone—but reliably enough to matter.

What Bitcoin won’t do:

• It won’t, by itself, make aggregate demand whole.
• It won’t abolish taxes or make policy go away.
• It won’t be volatility-free just because macro got weird.

I think of it as personal sovereignty infrastructure. As repression becomes a quiet policy default, the option to hold value outside the gate stops being an ideological luxury and starts being standard prudence.

---

Three scenarios to keep in mind

1) Augmented capitalism (most likely in the next 3–5 years)

• Unemployment inches up at the margin; labor-force participation softens; lots of “poly-work.”
• Disinflation from AI services, inflation in scarce physical bottlenecks, net moderate prints.
• Transfers expand modestly; repression is background music.
• Bitcoin adoption grows as savings tech; rails get more mainstream; volatility persists.

2) Capitalism under strain (plausible mid-decade)

• Sustained 15–25% unemployment. Wage share falls, corporate concentration rises.
• Yield-curve control, beefy transfers, tough platform policy, programmable money at scale.
• Bitcoin appreciates as repression hedge and settlement rail; on-ramp/off-ramp frictions rise.

3) Post-work shock (the 30–50% case)

• Work becomes optional for a huge share of people, not by choice but by arithmetic.
• UBI (or cousin) is default; the state has partial equity claims on AI capital; repression is explicit and persistent.
• CBDCs/stablecoins are the retail plumbing; precise stimulus and controls are normal.
• Bitcoin thrives for those who care about exit and scarcity; cycles are violent because macro is too.

None of these are prophecies. They’re contours to plan around.

---

A practical playbook for people and builders

For people (not financial advice):

• Treat AI as a tool you direct, not a rival you race. Learn orchestration: composing agents, checking outputs, owning workflows.
• Don’t build your life on high fixed costs and optimistic wage trajectories. Flexibility beats leverage.
• Own scarce things. That can be equity in yourself (skills with compounding returns), stakes in the platforms that actually pay you, or hard-supply assets if you value exit options.
• If you use Bitcoin, learn self-custody properly. It’s not magic. It’s a skill. Practice small, back up well, assume nobody is coming to save you from your own mistakes.

For builders/operators:

• Build complements, not replacements. If your product makes 1 worker equal 10, you win adoption and legitimacy.
• Capture scarce inputs. Data rights, distribution, and access to compute/energy are moats; APIs are not.
• Assume repression. Model worlds where nominal yields are capped, where transfers rise, and where programmable money is a given. Your pricing, treasury, and financing should survive that.
• Go multi-rail on money. Support fiat rails (including stablecoins) and neutral rails (Bitcoin/LN). Optionality is resilience.

---

Signals worth tracking (so you’re not surprised)

• Capability curves: frontier model competence (reasoning, tool-use), inference cost per token, robot dexterity benchmarks.
• Adoption curves: percent of enterprise workflows with AI in the loop; robot installs per employee; capex into AI/robotics vs. traditional IT.
• Labor metrics: prime-age employment-to-population, wage growth for the median worker vs. productivity, hours worked per capita.
• Market structure: profit share of top AI platforms, interoperability mandates, notable antitrust outcomes.
• Policy drift: pilots of UBI/negative income tax, talk of yield-curve control or “locking in lower long rates,” legal treatment of stablecoins/CBDCs, export controls on compute.

If these move together—capability up, adoption up, median wages flat, repression murmurs getting louder—you don’t need a model to tell you what decade you’re in.

---

A note on ethics (and sanity)

I’m not rooting for a world where half of us are “unemployed.” I’m rooting for a world where technology sets people free—from drudgery first, from scarcity later—and where we share the benefits widely enough that freedom doesn’t curdle into resentment. That requires grown-up choices:

• We can’t pretend training solves everything. It helps some; it won’t help all.
• We can’t shrug at concentration. Open ecosystems and real competition matter.
• We can’t fund the transition with magical thinking about debt and growth. If we’re going to use repression, we should say so plainly and design it fairly.
• We should preserve exit rights. A society that builds programmable money for surgical stimulus should also tolerate self-custodied, non-state savings. It keeps everyone honest.

Bitcoin isn’t a government. It’s not a safety net. It’s a guarantee that one part of your economic life can sit beyond the reach of the next policy pivot. In a decade where every other knob gets more tunable, that one knob being untouchable has value.

---

Closing

If AI drives productivity up and wage income down, capitalism either adapts or gets brittle. The adaptation looks like income plumbing (transfers), credit plumbing (repression), and market plumbing (tougher competition rules and digital money). That won’t feel like the capitalism we grew up in, but it can keep the machine from seizing while we discover what humans choose to do when work is less necessary.

Bitcoin doesn’t fix mass unemployment. It does fix one thing: whether your savings and settlement options must sit inside the same apparatus that’s being tweaked to manage a post-work economy. In the world I’ve outlined, that separation of powers is not a luxury. It’s table stakes for dignity.

My plan: build complements, cut fragility, learn to direct machines, and keep a slice of savings outside the repression zone. That way, if we glide into the better version of this future, I get the upside. And if we stumble into the darker one, I still have options.

That’s not fear. That’s just good engineering for a weird decade.