Anthropic’s Economic Policy Framework
Read our Economic Policy Framework →
We are publishing our proposal for a US policy response to AI-driven labor market disruption.
If AI delivers even a fraction of its potential, it could generate unprecedented abundance. We could see decades of scientific progress compressed into years, and levels of productivity growth that today seem implausible. But if that happens, it's likely that AI will have acted as a general substitute for labor: these gains could come with a reduction in demand for human work that is difficult or impossible for many workers to absorb.
In this world, the central economic challenge would no longer be producing growth, but how to ensure that this abundance is shared. But it’s difficult to confidently forecast exactly how (and how quickly) this might happen, since the pace of both AI capabilities and diffusion are uncertain. Instead, we need to prepare for a range of impacts.
Our framework is our attempt to do so. It sets out recommendations for how the US government should respond to three potential levels of labor market disruption: a world of roughly 5% unemployment, one of 10% unemployment, and one of unprecedented unemployment.
A few values shape this framework.
- We are not seeking job displacement. We are working to prevent or minimize it. Some amount of displacement, though we cannot say how much, may be an intrinsic consequence of the technology, and our responsibility is to prepare for it and respond to it. That is what this framework is for.
- Supporting people financially is necessary, and it is the primary focus of this document because it is the more tractable of the two problems. It is not sufficient. There is dignity in work. We should help people find work wherever we can, and society should keep searching for ways to remain at full employment.
- At the same time, people are more than their jobs. Over a longer horizon, AI may move society toward a world in which people work far less, or in which work carries a different meaning than it does today. Changes of that scale would reach beyond labor policy into how society is organized and how it relates to work.
- Whatever happens, we are on the side of people. We are trying to solve these problems. We take no satisfaction in contributing to them, and we are not working to make them more likely.
The responses we recommend are ones that we are willing to help fund—including those that are not traditionally financed by private firms. For the same reason, alongside the framework we’re making two further investments, totaling $350 million:
- A $200 million commitment to an Economic Futures Research Fund, an evolution to our Economic Futures Program established a year ago, which will fund major research trials and program evaluation on promising public policies. We’ll have more to share soon on our first pilot program, and on our plans for future research.
- A $150 million national fellowship program designed to help early-career people extend the benefits of AI to communities across America. We’ll have more to share soon.
The economy has real capacity to adapt. These policies are designed to buy time to make the economy more resilient, help workers move into growing fields, and encourage businesses to retain and retrain their people.
But even these measures might not be enough to guarantee a stable, full-employment economy on the other side of the AI transition. We don't have all the answers. But our goal should be more than economic stability. It should be a society where people can live well.
What we're proposing
Our framework outlines some foundational measures that will be valuable no matter what happens. Government statistical agencies were built for slower-moving economies; they need investment and enhanced reporting to track AI-driven labor market disruption as it develops. Governments also need dedicated analytical capacity to interpret these signals. And the systems that deliver benefits today, like unemployment insurance, need to be modernized in order to be ready to scale much more quickly.
Beyond these measures, our recommendations are calibrated to the severity of labor market disruption. If we’re entering a period in which growth and unemployment accelerate at the same time, high unemployment is the single strongest signal that a large portion of society is not benefiting from the immense prosperity brought by AI. That said, governments will also need to watch signals like labor force participation, underemployment, wages, and labor's share of national income. People may keep their jobs even as the pay, security, and quality of that work decline.
In the 5% unemployment scenario, we propose expanding eligibility and permitted holdings for existing pre-distributive capital accounts. Currently, these accounts can hold only index funds—not a stake in AI companies. We also propose policies like workforce training grants, occupational licensing reform, and wage insurance, that make it easier for workers to find new roles and enter new industries. Incentives for firms who retain and redeploy their workers can buy time and build resilience.
In the 10% scenario, our priority is expanded unemployment insurance, which we propose supplementing with sector-specific transition support and basic-needs relief. If AI does become a general substitute for human labor, policymakers will also need to consider the pace of its rollout, including by incentivizing firms to manage displacement gradually.
If AI causes unprecedented levels of unemployment, the policy challenge will shift from providing temporary transition support to sustaining income replacement for a large share of the workforce. We’ll need new sources of tax revenue, and new ways of sharing this broadly, which might include basic income, sovereign wealth models, and equity-sharing mechanisms. This scenario is novel economic territory, so we’re less certain about the right answers here. We’ll continue to develop our views through The Anthropic Institute, in partnership with policymakers and external researchers.
Policy is not the only lever—companies deploying AI can choose to retrain and redeploy rather than reduce headcount—and we're working with our customers to make that easier. But voluntary action isn’t a substitute for a government response that holds companies to the same standard.
What comes next
This framework is necessarily incomplete, and the pace of AI development may render some of these proposals inadequate before they can be implemented.
We’re publishing it because we need to plan for the future now, even though we’re uncertain. The economic transition ahead is not predetermined. The choices made in the next few years will shape whether AI delivers on its promise of broad-based prosperity or concentrates its benefits narrowly. We should help people find work wherever we can, and society should keep searching for ways to remain at full employment.
This framework is focused on the US because we’re an American company. But the principles underpinning it are intended to be global. Preparing institutions ahead of disruption, sharing AI's gains broadly, and modernizing the systems workers depend on will be necessary everywhere. We hope to think through these questions with governments around the world, and to see them on the agenda at the G7 and the upcoming AI Summit in Geneva.
These proposals will be stronger if workers help shape them. Workers, unions, small business owners, and worker organizations know things about how AI is changing jobs that no dataset tells us, and we’ll be engaging them directly. And more generally, we welcome feedback, criticism, and partnership from anyone committed to ensuring this technology serves humanity broadly.