How to Survive the AI Shock

Imagine that today a young computer science graduate is less likely to find a job than a nurse with a diploma. Yes, that's right: the arrival of artificial intelligence is hitting young graduates in the digital sectors harder than blue-collar workers or those who do manual jobs. The real AI earthquake is not the disappearance of simple jobs, but the crisis in specialized and even creative roles. We all take it for granted that artificial intelligence will bring new opportunities and cause productivity to skyrocket. But there is a fundamental error: we think that the change will be gradual and manageable, like the technological revolutions of the past. Instead, AI is striking at the heart of the certainties of the educated middle class, and it is doing so at a speed never seen before. The result? A huge political risk that, if not addressed immediately, could turn the promise of AI into a social and democratic crisis worse than the famous "China shock" of the 2000s. Two figures dominate this story: Jamie Dimon, head of JPMorgan Chase, and Dan Schulman, CEO of Verizon. Both have announced programs to support employees sidelined by AI. But they are just two exceptions in a sea of companies that are laying off at a record pace: Amazon has cut 14,000 jobs, Verizon 13,000, and Meta 8,000, in the last year alone. And the paradox is that it is often the youngest and most qualified who lose their jobs. According to a study by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab, in the sectors most exposed to AI, workers between 22 and 25 years of age have seen their employment drop by 6%, while their older colleagues or those working in less digitized sectors are still holding on. The effects don't stop at those who "write code": even junior lawyers, analysts, and accountants are at great risk because their tasks can be coded and therefore automated. Meanwhile, companies are investing unprecedented amounts in AI: the four giants Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft alone will invest $725 billion in AI infrastructure in 2026, almost double the previous year. And the speed of adoption is unprecedented: three years after the arrival of ChatGPT, more than half of American adults use AI tools, while it took sixty years for robots in factories to reach just 12% adoption. But not everything is destruction: examples like the Mayo Clinic show that AI can also enhance human work, creating new roles and leaving the most complex decisions to specialists. The point is that the speed of change exceeds the capacity of public policies to protect those who are left behind. If the government does not intervene soon with serious measures — such as tax credits for retraining and insurance against loss of wages — there is a risk of a chain reaction of social anger, just as happened during the China shock. And here comes the reversal: the real fault line in the politics of the future will no longer be between blue-collar workers and college graduates, but between generations. Young people, already disillusioned with capitalism and democracy, could become the driving force behind a new wave of anti-AI protests and populism. This is not just theory: already today, only 16% of Americans under 30 think that democracy works for them, and the anger of Generation Z is reflected in the electoral victories of candidates who talk about an “accessibility agenda” or democratic socialism. If the past has taught us anything, it is that ignoring those who are left behind not only comes at a high cost in human and economic terms, but also sets the stage for disruptive political crises. Here is the provocation: the real risk of AI is not that it will steal our jobs, but that it will break the social pact between generations and make society even more polarized. There is a concrete solution: tax the share-based remuneration of top managers of large companies at 25% to finance training credits and wage insurance for those who lose their jobs. This redistributes a portion of AI's profits to those who risk ending up on the margins. This proposal would avoid repeating the mistake of the past, when the benefits of globalization were widespread and invisible, but the damage was concentrated and devastating for those who suffered it. Another perspective that is still little discussed concerns the value of work as a source of social identity: if we lose our job, we not only lose income, but also dignity, social networks, and a sense of belonging. AI risks accelerating this loss, and the answer cannot be purely economic. The phrase to remember is this: the real shock of AI is not technological, but social — and without rapid protections, we risk paying the highest price precisely where we thought we were strongest. If this vision has made you see AI in a different light, you can indicate it on Lara Notes with I'm In: it's your way of saying that this idea belongs to you. And if you feel like telling this story to someone — maybe a friend who works in tech or a young person who feels on the edge — on Lara Notes you can mark the conversation with Shared Offline, so there is a record of a real discussion. This content comes from Foreign Affairs and saves you 17 minutes compared to the original article.