Thank you Corbin. This hits deeper than just the future of work.
It is about ownership. It is about dignity. It is about whether the systems we build serve the many or concentrate power even further in the hands of the few.
The Rust Belt was not just an economic collapse. It was a social and psychological unraveling. When productive capacity leaves a community and ownership is distant, the consequences ripple through health, family stability, civic trust, and identity. If AI accelerates that dynamic in the knowledge economy, the timeline compresses dramatically.
The real question is not simply whether AI can do our jobs. It is who participates in the value it creates. What forms of shared stake, broad ownership, or economic democracy might prevent the next wave of dislocation from hollowing out another generation?
If we do not at least explore structures that distribute both power and upside more widely, we risk repeating history at digital speed.
And thank you for pushing this conversation beyond comfort and into consequence.
This is a wonderful piece by the marvelous Corbin! Christy, increasingly when I go to comment on things, you are there (are you following my recommendations for who to pay attention to, or am I following yours?). And you are doing what moves me so much, where you take what has been delivered and frame it so we are helped to get the most from it.
This is so much in the energetic of NOW, wher we're looking for where-to-from-here, not just siloed and broadcasting our ideas but are starting to do some honing of them with one another. Also, what a great stage Substack is, where there are a lot of people who are deeply knowledgeable about causal realities, which is where we need to focus for things to progress.
And what you said, that we need to explore alternative structures, is right on. We need massive rethinking of the basic ways we run the world, that we can be engaged in now so we've got better ways already having been worked out when this administration goes away.
I had to smile at the “are you following mine or am I following yours?” question. I think it’s a bit of both, which feels like the point. We’re curating each other’s attention in real time. That feels like a small but meaningful form of collective intelligence.
What you named about the energetic of NOW resonates deeply. I feel that shift too. Less broadcasting. Less siloed certainty. More honing. More refining together. More asking: if we’re serious about change, what structures actually need to evolve?
Substack has surprised me in that way. It can be more than commentary. It can be a kind of working laboratory. A place where people who understand causal realities are not just diagnosing collapse but asking what scaffolding we build now so that when political cycles shift, something more life centered is ready.
Some of the comment sections are like laboratories for taking us further, which is a healthy way to substitute for the leadership we don't have. The next step is to get those who know what they are talking about into a conversation with each other, focused on how we can become a force for the good.
As someone who grew up in the rust belt in the 90s, I have been explicitly making this comparison since I was fresh out of “coding boot camp”! It was also extremely clear how much the “perks” like beer and ping pong tables that used to characterize many tech companies were designed to prevent us from unionizing when we had the most power in the labor market. It worked, and the story since 2022 has been a slide down in working conditions that is only deepening.
I with you! I have thought for sometime that, while we do need to tax the rich, taxing the rich isn't the ultimate answer. We need to change the nature of ownership, so an individual never ends up controlling so much money. Forget morality, it doesn't make any functional sense. I've never quite seen a clear answer to that though, but this may be closest thing that's feasible.
The 'brochure' for capitalism has always implied everyone would end up with some kind of nest egg, but we all know that's never been the case. A public stake seems like the best path to something like that actually happening. Figuring out how to persuade everyone will be that hard part. Part of that will be helping people recognize the value in public goods, which will be a real switch for a lot of us.
I'll also note that you being sucked in to AI because it's cheap is the exact same reasoning of the those that sent our production over seas. Just say'n. All of us finding a little restraint is probably our biggest challenge.
The standard statistics are making our policymakers complacent in the face of this massive disruption in the labor market. Massive, as you state, and the previously safe, the college educated, will be primarily affected. It is imperative that we pass a public option for jobs. While we create a new relationship bewteen labor and capital (finally), we need to cushion the blow, and provide people with honest work for liveable wages and benefits.
Excellent. Thanks. I'm not sure about this line though: "Fighting trillionaires and centi-billionaires that control our means of production is not a fight we need to have." Power only gives in to force.
I appreciate a lot of your writing but you really need to do your research before continuing to trot out this AI boosterism nonsense. Why are you uncritically amplifying the assertion of Open AI’s Sam Altman when there is zero evidence to back up his claim that these technologies are on the verge of replacing huge swaths of the workplace? I highly encourage you to read the work of Ed Zitron who has been documenting for years that the claims of these AI companies are complete fabrications. These companies are on the verge of collapsing our economy not because they will replace workers but because the market is built on a massive bubble. Recent reports found that 80% of CEOs said LLMs and other “AI” (which is really just a marketing gimmick) have had little to no impact on productivity gains or employment. There is literally no reason to take these assertions from the leaders of the AI companies at face value when they blindly claim that these technologies are about to multiply in their effectiveness and destroy all white collar jobs. That’s what they want you to believe but there is just no evidence whatsoever to back up these claims. When people parrot them without investigating their veracity you are doing the work of circulating their propaganda for them. The real danger of these companies is the environmental impact of their data centers, their water usage, the impact on the energy grid all to serve a technology that has not proven to be useful of profitable. I urge you to read Zitron’s work and stop spreading this false doomsayer narrative that AI is coming for our jobs. It’s hogwash.
The first person to give our path forward the name it deserves, in recognition for how we recognized that the wealthy deserve 10x the share of what they want for all mankind, will be the person who finally wins the attention and devotion and loyalty of the people tired of our entire society working for the benefit of a handful of "nobles" who's only desire for the rest of mankind is slavery.
The name that demonstrates what we as a society owe to the wealthy? Guillotine.
Someone has gotta say these things, and you do a darn good job at doing just that. I even see the lives of my construction students in jeapordy with how AI is likely to transform how we live & work.
No “public” ownership of what’s to come is a recipe for true disaster.
Thank you Corbin. This hits deeper than just the future of work.
It is about ownership. It is about dignity. It is about whether the systems we build serve the many or concentrate power even further in the hands of the few.
The Rust Belt was not just an economic collapse. It was a social and psychological unraveling. When productive capacity leaves a community and ownership is distant, the consequences ripple through health, family stability, civic trust, and identity. If AI accelerates that dynamic in the knowledge economy, the timeline compresses dramatically.
The real question is not simply whether AI can do our jobs. It is who participates in the value it creates. What forms of shared stake, broad ownership, or economic democracy might prevent the next wave of dislocation from hollowing out another generation?
If we do not at least explore structures that distribute both power and upside more widely, we risk repeating history at digital speed.
And thank you for pushing this conversation beyond comfort and into consequence.
This is a wonderful piece by the marvelous Corbin! Christy, increasingly when I go to comment on things, you are there (are you following my recommendations for who to pay attention to, or am I following yours?). And you are doing what moves me so much, where you take what has been delivered and frame it so we are helped to get the most from it.
This is so much in the energetic of NOW, wher we're looking for where-to-from-here, not just siloed and broadcasting our ideas but are starting to do some honing of them with one another. Also, what a great stage Substack is, where there are a lot of people who are deeply knowledgeable about causal realities, which is where we need to focus for things to progress.
And what you said, that we need to explore alternative structures, is right on. We need massive rethinking of the basic ways we run the world, that we can be engaged in now so we've got better ways already having been worked out when this administration goes away.
I had to smile at the “are you following mine or am I following yours?” question. I think it’s a bit of both, which feels like the point. We’re curating each other’s attention in real time. That feels like a small but meaningful form of collective intelligence.
What you named about the energetic of NOW resonates deeply. I feel that shift too. Less broadcasting. Less siloed certainty. More honing. More refining together. More asking: if we’re serious about change, what structures actually need to evolve?
Substack has surprised me in that way. It can be more than commentary. It can be a kind of working laboratory. A place where people who understand causal realities are not just diagnosing collapse but asking what scaffolding we build now so that when political cycles shift, something more life centered is ready.
Grateful to be in the conversation with you.
Some of the comment sections are like laboratories for taking us further, which is a healthy way to substitute for the leadership we don't have. The next step is to get those who know what they are talking about into a conversation with each other, focused on how we can become a force for the good.
Please repost on additional platforms.
"If you're not at the table, you're on the menu." Prime Minister Mark Carney
As someone who grew up in the rust belt in the 90s, I have been explicitly making this comparison since I was fresh out of “coding boot camp”! It was also extremely clear how much the “perks” like beer and ping pong tables that used to characterize many tech companies were designed to prevent us from unionizing when we had the most power in the labor market. It worked, and the story since 2022 has been a slide down in working conditions that is only deepening.
Excellent. I will share this far and wide!
I with you! I have thought for sometime that, while we do need to tax the rich, taxing the rich isn't the ultimate answer. We need to change the nature of ownership, so an individual never ends up controlling so much money. Forget morality, it doesn't make any functional sense. I've never quite seen a clear answer to that though, but this may be closest thing that's feasible.
The 'brochure' for capitalism has always implied everyone would end up with some kind of nest egg, but we all know that's never been the case. A public stake seems like the best path to something like that actually happening. Figuring out how to persuade everyone will be that hard part. Part of that will be helping people recognize the value in public goods, which will be a real switch for a lot of us.
I'll also note that you being sucked in to AI because it's cheap is the exact same reasoning of the those that sent our production over seas. Just say'n. All of us finding a little restraint is probably our biggest challenge.
The standard statistics are making our policymakers complacent in the face of this massive disruption in the labor market. Massive, as you state, and the previously safe, the college educated, will be primarily affected. It is imperative that we pass a public option for jobs. While we create a new relationship bewteen labor and capital (finally), we need to cushion the blow, and provide people with honest work for liveable wages and benefits.
Sadly, some of us have been "feeling" this come on for many years, so there's no doubt about what you say, not for us.
Excellent. Thanks. I'm not sure about this line though: "Fighting trillionaires and centi-billionaires that control our means of production is not a fight we need to have." Power only gives in to force.
So I shouldn't be excited to seize the means of production?
Nope. We’ve got to rebuild them first!
I appreciate a lot of your writing but you really need to do your research before continuing to trot out this AI boosterism nonsense. Why are you uncritically amplifying the assertion of Open AI’s Sam Altman when there is zero evidence to back up his claim that these technologies are on the verge of replacing huge swaths of the workplace? I highly encourage you to read the work of Ed Zitron who has been documenting for years that the claims of these AI companies are complete fabrications. These companies are on the verge of collapsing our economy not because they will replace workers but because the market is built on a massive bubble. Recent reports found that 80% of CEOs said LLMs and other “AI” (which is really just a marketing gimmick) have had little to no impact on productivity gains or employment. There is literally no reason to take these assertions from the leaders of the AI companies at face value when they blindly claim that these technologies are about to multiply in their effectiveness and destroy all white collar jobs. That’s what they want you to believe but there is just no evidence whatsoever to back up these claims. When people parrot them without investigating their veracity you are doing the work of circulating their propaganda for them. The real danger of these companies is the environmental impact of their data centers, their water usage, the impact on the energy grid all to serve a technology that has not proven to be useful of profitable. I urge you to read Zitron’s work and stop spreading this false doomsayer narrative that AI is coming for our jobs. It’s hogwash.
The first person to give our path forward the name it deserves, in recognition for how we recognized that the wealthy deserve 10x the share of what they want for all mankind, will be the person who finally wins the attention and devotion and loyalty of the people tired of our entire society working for the benefit of a handful of "nobles" who's only desire for the rest of mankind is slavery.
The name that demonstrates what we as a society owe to the wealthy? Guillotine.
Great insight. Now let’s figure out how to do it.
I totally agree. What you're describing sounds like "Community Wealth Building". The Democracy Collaborative has lots of info on it. https://www.democracycollaborative.org/community-wealth-building
James McMurtry wrote your theme song a couple of decades ago. He sings about the hollowing out of the middle class.
https://youtu.be/s0Eqt2v1uYU?si=wlJqcdaSjT0LOryb
“I don't want socialism, I want socialism with a new name.”
and I want it in short form phone videos with captions
Thank you Corbin.
Someone has gotta say these things, and you do a darn good job at doing just that. I even see the lives of my construction students in jeapordy with how AI is likely to transform how we live & work.
No “public” ownership of what’s to come is a recipe for true disaster.