michael-dean-k/

1. A HYPE TERM: "Permanent underclass" is a dramatic mutation of an old term: class inequality. "Underclass" was coined in 1963 (Gunnar Mydral in Challenge to Affluence) and captured the anxiety of automation destroying common jobs. Now that AI is here in a real way, we can't help but imagine the irreversible evisceration of all jobs. When people say "you have 2-3 years to escape the permanent underclass," they mean that this is your last chance to build wealth, because in post AGI-economics, humans don't have economic relevance anymore. Employers employ agents (and eventually robots) instead. And so what will we do with all the meat bodies? The speculation has shades of darkness that start with mass employment, and spiral into feudalism, slavery, and even genocide. The uncertainty is real, but it gets delirious, and often ignores history, and also the many self-stabilizing mechanisms that get triggered on route to a collapse.
2. MIDDLE CLASS ANOMALY: The real fear here is "the collapse of the middle class," which sounds like a news headline. But separate from AI, my generation is certainly already feeling it. My wife's grandfather was a painter (of houses) and got a million-dollar house (in today's terms) for $10,000. Now people are saying $100k/yr is the new poverty line. While this certainly feels like "the system has screwed us," middle classes are an anomaly, and a mass middle-class—what we had post WW2—is extremely rare. They existed in Athens, Rome, Byzantium, etc. but they were often in isolated cities (ie: Florence at 70,000 people), compared to the Han China Dynasty (100,000,000 people in a two-tier system). The total number of human-years in a middle class is probably around 5%. The relative size of our middle class is even more rare: pre-Industrialization, it was 10-30% of society, where ours is 50-70%. And finally, a middle class rarely persists: it either disintegrates back into an two-tier king/serf system, or, it's forced to transform it's method of work.
3. FROM WORK TO PERSONAL WORKFORCE: AI will force a change in how next generation's middle class works: from employment to entrepreneurship. I think this is the unspoken tension between elites (who are not concerned with the future being filled with new opportunities), and the normal person (who have never earned a dollar outside of a W2 job). Entrepreneurship is maybe the greatest force for class mobility. This is where "new money" comes from. A poor person could become a billionaire if they know how to work the OS of the market. That is an anomaly and not going away! What's changing though is the economic mobility of non-entrepreneurs. The rising tide is reversing (92% of children born in 1940 earned more than their parents, and it's shifting the other way now), and the rapid automation of jobs via AI certainly won't help. I personally don't doubt that most jobs will get automated away, because I run a small business and I don't have the financial abundance to hire humans at the price they need. I've hired graphic designers, editors, and almost software designers, but found that today's AI models were able to do equal or better work, for a fraction of the cost, and are way more nimble to evolve with my evolving needs. Won't every rational business make this tradeoff? The consolation is that the "end of the work," brings a new era where every person has a personal workforce. It may be hard to find a job, but for $100/month you'll have 10-100 agents on hand, and so do you have a vision? So, no, no one will be in a permanent underclass, so long as they can succeed as an entrepreneur. It's as if the rise of AI has taken the startup/entrepreneur model of Silicon Valley, which once was and still is a minority, and scaled that up to become the new paradigm of work. That is better than nothing, but the odds aren't good. Only 0.05% of startups get funding, maybe 20% get a return; small businesses—the more likely path for the average person—also only have a 20% survival rate after 20 years. So again it's not the decimation of a middle class, but a contraction of the rare post-war middle class (and most middle-classes do emerge after wars) from 60% down to the historical norm of 20%.
4. REVOLUTION UNLIKELY: The relative size of the lower class isn't necessarily associated with unemployment or risk of revolution. Consider how Mexico has ~70% lower class but only 3% unemployment. I guess the important question for stability in America is if, after AI automation, gig jobs can sustain people who lose their current jobs. 10-20% unemployment would lead to political instability, and 20-30% would create the situation where a revolution could form. If you read Tocqueville (or Brinton or Goldstone, who I haven't read), he says that beyond economics, a few things are required for revolution: an under-utilized but educated youth, elite extraction during widespread suffering, failed reform attempts, defection of intellectuals, coordination capacity... we seem to have all of these. He also notes that revolutions don't come from a collapse of the middle class, but from a perceived sense of being excluded from a new economic order (ie: massive gains from AI, hoarded by a few companies). But Tocqueville also says that the original American Revolution succeeded because we were able to retreat to open space, where the French Revolution failed because it was an open clash within the territory of the aristocracy. If there were a revolution here, it would almost definitely be thwarted, considering NSA surveillance, military power, geographic dispersion, and how most conflict is absorbed into left-right political feuds instead of up-down class feuds. So instead of class war, what's more likely in America is political warfare (underway), which in the worst case leads to authoritarian capture and state fragmentation. A civil war is a distraction from a revolution. The eeriness of all this is that it's right on schedule according to the Strauss-Howe theory; they mapped revolutions going back in 80 years cycles (American Revolution > Civil War > WW2), and predicted 2026 as a crisis that would spawn the next world order.
5. PROPHETS OF REDISTRIBUTION: So if there is massive job loss and social strife, but no potential for revolution, how will the elites respond? The cynical view is that they will retreat into their already-constructed drone-protected bunkers and let the mess sort itself out. The optimistic view is that the entrepreneurs who are triggering the AI revolution are actually problem solvers at heart, and once or if the AI race is ever "over," they will be unimaginably wealthy and eager to play the role of utopian planners to restructure society in their image. Will elites side with the common man? It's happened. Voltaire was a French intellectual who died a decade before the French Revolution, but through his salons he injected ideas of equality, liberty, and reason into the aristocracy. It was like a Trojan Horse, because the elites became enamored with ideas that undermine aristocracy without realizing, and so they were quick to defect and enable the revolution. In terms of the Strauss-How cycle, Voltaire was a Second Turning "awakening prophet" that laid the spiritual grounding for the Fourth Turning of that time. The parallel to our time is the 1960s, where counter-cultural ideas about communal living, redistribution, and the end of work were forged; and also the very fabric of computing, the Internet, and AI all came out of the consciousness revolution—the sway of egalitarian-minded intellectuals could determine how the elite allocate their trillions. What we're facing is something like a crisis in capitalism. If the market is left to its own terms, with everyone on Polymarket "trading the madness," then it could turn Landian (re: Nick Land's vision for markets as inhuman alienating forces). Or, hyper-capitalism pushed to it's limits just turns into Marxism, and the counter-cultural ethos of the 60s gets fully mainstreamed (it's already in progress: hitchhiking turned to Uber, free love to Tinder, pad crashing to AirBnB, freak foods to Whole Foods).
6. PAID TO SCROLL: But who will be doing the redistribution and why? I'm skeptical of a "universal basic income," which implies a world government (if you take "universal" seriously). Each country will have different policies on distribution (aka: welfare). We'll likely see a range of implementation, some being highly dysfunctional welfare states, and others being prototypes of a modern democratic socialism. Realistically though, governments will only have the means to redistribute any wealth if they seize and nationalize the AI companies (which Palantir's Karp is suggesting needs to happen). But if we go the way of The Sovereign Individual (where Thiel wrote the forward), it means that companies will replace governments, and lead us to a kind of lawless "anarcho-capitalism." And so in this model, what would elites do? Bunkers or philanthropy? Will Anthropic be anthropic? (We already know OpenAI didn't live up to their name). I think there's a more practical middle, where companies will be incentivized to provide "UBI" themselves. Assuming everything doesn't collapse into a singleton-powered mono-corp, there will still be 3-10 big companies competing, but now with massive budgets. What they used to spend on employees is now automated for a fraction of the cost, and so they might chose to re-allocate that budget to paying citizens, or really, their users. Attention is the last scarce resource, and so by paying users to lock in to their platforms (using their feeds, apps, cars, etc.), they hold that advantage over their competitors. I know that sounds extremely circular, but is not the current AI economy already circular? Is NVIDIA not paying OpenAI to buy their chips? And so why wouldn't OpenAI pay users to pay for their AGI?
7. NOT SERFS, BUT HIPPIES: If AGI/ASI does bring upon all the sci-fi advances we dream of, then we could see a dramatic cost collapse in everything: materials, medicine, food, energy. It could be trivial for a company to provide all the basic luxuries of living for little or no cost, but in exchange for loyalty. So to bring this back to the permanent underclass: the elite-backed companies, in order to prevent revolution and to beat competitors, could be rationally incentivized to offer a luxury quality of life to its users. What's strange though is that it's luxury without mobility. Meaning, the average person could be provided a sweet apartment and unlimited Grubhub, in exchange not for labor, but loyalty. They might not have the discretionary freedom to do things outside of what's in "the contract" (rings of indentured servitude, but with air conditioning!). ie: Your plan might include a free train and bus pass, but if you want to fly to Europe, you need to grind at gig work for 6 months to get actual money, since the plan offers only amenities. Different communes, I mean... companies... will offer different deals, and if one offers a yearly international vacation (possible by some fuel breakthrough), the others will follow. The citizen will have the freedom to pledge freely, which would make this not like socialism, but the first ever manifestation of communism. We confuse those terms: socialism is when all power is absorbed by the state, where communism is actually stateless and decentralized. North Korea, the USSR, and Maoist China were not communist, but socialist. Communism was Marx's ideal, and he would've never conceived that the path to the first instance of communism was through hyper-capitalism (though of course an alien bastardized version that he would probably hate). And to bring this back to the spirit of the 1960s, heavily anchored in communal ideas: the "permanent underclass," will be a lot less like being a serf and a lot more like being a hippy. Except more like a state-sponsored, highly-surveilled, find-your-meaning-through-our-menu-of-options hippies, with of course competing hippy factions, the permaculturists, the hedonists, the transhumanists, the bloboids, the transcendentalists, the academics, but shared among all of them is a new identity that is decorrelated with their economic value, and more anchored to new social systems of vainglory that are hard to imagine.

In addition to building a "classical" syllabus that I read, I figure my audio diet should be of a different nature, one that's as modern as possible. I'm going with the Moonshots podcast, with Peter Diamandis. This group of guys are probably more anchored in the future than anyone else I've found. It feels adjacent to the All In podcast format, but less business-focused, and more centered on futurism. There is a certainty among them that we are in the singularity, accelerating to a techno-optimist future, which is antithetical to the Neo-Romantic essayists (it is rare to find an essayist who is both a humanist and a technologist).

I do have to be skeptical of their worldview, however, for they are schmoozing among the elites building this stuff, and so they're likely to have a rosy-eyed view on how this might all fare well for millionaires, without realistically focusing on or caring about how it effects the daily lives. They do seem to harbor a certain fetishism about technology and progress, and a boyish fascination with going to space and uploading our consciousness, for maybe the simple fact that it's a science fiction dream beyond our current life. There's a Faustian sin in summoning the future for future's sake.

They also very openly want to live enough to live forever; if they can survive another 15-years, they are rich enough to have access to anti-aging technology. The whole premise of technologically cheating death is also a philosophy that feels disconnected from our history. But I wonder if you could make the claim that Montaigne didn't have the luxury of philosophizing about life extension. If we make shape our philosophies to justify our situation, then is our whole canon on "the importance of dying" only stemming from pains and fears of a low-tech society? I guess, intuitively, from a child's perspective, the idea of not wanting to die is a natural one, and to embrace it is the wisdom of an adult, but I suppose we're nearing a flood of new cultural debates stemming from a new reality where the immortality choice isn't theoretical, but real, which changes the whole calculus.

So the point of listening to a group like this that is openly "transhumanist" is to model the future, hear them out, but then take it one step further, and truly consider the moral and ethical implications of where all this is heading.

Revolutionary tax proposal #1: anything above $100m/year is taxed at 90%, but in exchange for political equity in the country (ie: delegation and voting). It formalizes lobbying and makes it transparent. To prevent the rich from steering the country too hard in their favor, there can be provisions where legislators, citizens, and oligarchs have checks and balances. Ie: to put it kidishly simple, each can have a 33% stake in directing that taxation. Another way to think of it is forced investment in pre-approved pro-American funds, companies, etc.

TBF: I have little sense of what I'm talking about in these matters. But the general context behind this is that power dynamics organically took control of the country and defied the spirit of the founding architecture. I assume there are many examples on how the Constitution and it's amendments dit not protect the original vision. And so the principal is to understand how power actually moves and work with it; don't kill it or shun it, but formalize it into legal structures, make it transparent, and then force it to comply with specific standards that muzzle and channel it's wolf power.

Anti-AI sentiment is escalating: the Pause AI movement, state-level data center bans, molotov cocktails at Sam Altman's house, artists going to dumb phones, witch hunts for AI prose. Protesting and boycotting AI, at a personal level, is the exact wrong approach. It misunderstands the Luddites. They were not against the machines in principle, they were against the factory owners not sharing the profits of the factory. This is possibly about to play out a grand scale: AI and robotics labs could capture nearly all economic value, and there will be a plea to nationalize these companies and redistribute the profits.

While the scope and effects here are way bigger, the workers of the Industrial Revolution were far more disempowered. You couldn't "just do things." You could operate someone else's machine, but you couldn't just spin up a competing factory; that required land, resources, labor, none of which you had. There was just a certain amount of capital needed to compete, and it wasn't possible. Workers were limited to being workers, so they had no choice but to revolt with violence.

The difference today is that the worker and artist suddenly have access to build-your-own-factory tooling. A single person for $100/month can compete with companies valued in the millions and billions. It's asymmetric labor. Regular people can build civilization scale infrastructure, distribution labels, social media engines, software, etc. Never before has there been a democratic opportunity for people to self-organize into their own collectives, tribes, governments, and whatnot.

At least to me, this kind of optimism—principled, delirious, ambitious, but still careful and skeptical—is better than the cynicism of the "resist" factions. There is nothing you or your circles gain by putting your head in the sand; it brings a distanced, crabby, virtue-signaled posture that does nothing to change the actual situation. You gain nothing by staying on the ChatGPT free plan on default settings and complaining no how it's an ineffective, incapable, sycophant. It requires an ounce of nuance, to be critical of how the labs act, but to then use that lab's best tools towards your own sovereignty and vision.

I think what I'm trying to get at here is that the Luddites of the 21st-century will not be reverting back to typewriters and flip phones, they will be wielding AI tools in ways to foster human connection, and the kind of pro-human cultural that the Internet originally promised, but was never realized under capitalism.

When we say we "distrust institutions," we're pointing at the wrong thing; it's the institutes that are withering. We use these words interchangeably, but I think the separation clarifies.

An "institution" is an abstract, permanent, inter-generational primitive—like education, marriage, the free press, the essay—while an "institute" is a concrete embodiment that serves it. Think of an institution as a societal organ. Think of institutes as the specialized tissue that keep the organ functioning and regenerating.

As generations turn, new sets of people are handed down the great responsibility to protect and evolve institutes through the storms of time and technology. Without upgrading our institutes, society goes through slow-motion organ failure, with phantom pains and spiritual malaise that can't be traced back to the source. Schools still look like schools, but everyone is cheating through a Homework Apocalypse, and suddenly we have all sorts of cultural cancers that seem inevitable. Institutes are the civic building blocks of a sane society, and yet we glorify unicorns who create "value" but feel no responsibility for their dying elders.

Institutes operate through the inverse of market logic. Where startups are designed to accrue all of the upside, an institute is sacrificial, designed so society gets the upside, even at its own peril. Of course they swim in the same water, but institutes swim differently: they have opposite answers to questions on how to steer, what to make, where to focus, who to include, and when to stop. An attempt at some principles:

• mission-driven, not market-driven;
• timeless contributions, not self-serving content;
• involved in ecosystem building, not niche extraction;
• active members, not passive users;
• century-long legacy, not liquidity through an exit.

Usually an institute comes from patronage: you can’t resist market currents unless you’re supported by endowments, donations, foundations, tuitions, grants, and such things. You can’t start an institute in your garage, but now with AI and the collapse of cost, I suppose you could try. So many of the one-person AI company fantasies are about a single founder reaching a billion-dollar valuation, which is the cheapest form of ambition there is; the better question is around the scale and spirit of cultural impact achievable by a one-person micro-institute.

I got charged $4,500 for a band-aid.

For that price I could’ve bought 90,000 band-aids on Amazon (two for each person in my NYC neighborhood), but emergency room band-aids must be of a different substance.

A month ago we cut my newborn daughter’s finger with a nail clipper and it wouldn't stop bleeding for an hour. The on-call pediatrician—who was naturally grumpy since it was after midnight—insisted we go to the ER, and after 5 hours in the waiting room, the bleeding stopped right before we were called in. After one minute with the doctor and five with the nurse (most of it small talk about islands in Greece), we left with a band-aid on a dry scab. I assumed it would be an expensive lesson, a few hundred dollars to breathe hospital air, but we were charged a whole family’s round-trip tickets to Athens.

What's weirder than American private healthcare is how used to it everyone is. A family member said, “well, it was March, so you didn’t hit your deductible yet.” I’m willing to pay the $577 for the emotional labor of fixing a boo boo, but the remaining mystery, the $3,923 on yesterday’s mail bill, feels beyond reason. I’ll be requesting an itemized breakdown to call their bluff, and if they don’t bring it down to a normal but still ridiculous level ($500 for a band-aid—10,000x above market price) I will evade the debt collectors until they tank my credit and jail me.

What we have is much worse than a king. Another round of protests erupted, another round of the “no kings” thing. These irk me, not because I am a Trump supporter, but because I think we’re being deceived and misdirected from the real, much worse, problem. A king is a known thing. An easy target. What I mean is, there are centuries of histories of kings gone rogue, with examples of the populace exgorging them in different fashions. The idea that America is sick from a single leader (at this point really just a Great British Monarch, a representational figure head with little actual sway), is an idea that misunderstands the shadowy geopolitical forces that have recently been coming to light. It’s like we are obsessed with a gross-looking mole, when really we have a late stage cancer, have no idea, and most importantly, really don’t want to accept it.

I guess you could say I’ve taken the democracy black pill, as in, we haven’t had a real democracy for quite some time. Of course, socially and symbolically and historically, we do. In some respects, we are the center of the universe in terms of democracy. But in terms of power, all those virtues are more so shields for aggression. The US, Russia, China, Iran, despite the rhetoric, are all more similar than dissimilar, in the sense that they act from selfish geopolitical interest, more than anything else. This is “geopolitical realism.” No country is a representation of their citizens. No one really cares about sovereignty. When things get desperate, inalienable human rights are optional. The US is just the most theatrical in pretending it does. I guess this is Foucault's idea? It all just really comes down to power?

My simplistic assessment of what’s happened is that we were unable to turn off the war machine after WW2. All sorts of emergency measures went in place to enter the war, like massive defense production and intelligence agencies. Those never stopped. They tried, and failed, and Truman warned us. Pair this with Israeli intelligence, and you get the whole Epstein situation. What I’m getting at is that Trump has not acted so differently from the last many US presidents, possibly since Kennedy. We are the paranoid police force of the world, now dangerously neglecting domestic matters. Trump campaigned on defying this machine, on putting American first, and it’s obvious he’s unable to do so; either he was lying, or he found the limits of his own power in the face of more powerful oligarchs, or both. Realistically, he was Chief Dick of one oligarch faction, thinking he could take down another oligarch faction, and failed.

Trump spent the last two decades criticizing a potential war with Iran. I think he knows that this extended conflict will tank his ratings, and the Republican’s chance in the 2026 midterms. Iran was political suicide for him, and he knew that (which maybe explains rumors of his meltdowns behind the scenes). When we see him speaking about the war, lying and flip-flopping and saying whatever he says, those are words of an actor who has no other option now to defend what the callmakers are doing, to control the optics in the least damaging way possible. The seams in the shtick are showing.

So all I’m saying is that the “madman in the White House” is not the primary concern; it’s theatre, and conveniently timed. Trump is the perfect scapegoat, and you could imagine that the geopolitical financiers behind everything saw him as the perfect fall guy, an unignoarble, reasonable explanation for a coming rupture/rapture/reset. If you were a cabal trying to elect some asshole to go down in history for killing America, is there a louder asshole than Trump? What we have is worse than a king, because it’s acephalous, a shadow thing, transnational, unsuspecting, hiding in plain sight, etc. It has such a conglomeration of capital, resources, power, and it’s so distributed and entrenched that there’s no obvious way of bringing it down. We are dealing not with a king, but something more like the shadow monster from Stranger Things.

I realize this sounds like a conspiracy theory, and that’s because it is. We are in the Age of Conspiracy. Ockham’s razor is proving insufficient. The simplest explanations aren't holding up anymore. It seems there are layers and layers of abstractions and lies, all of which are very hard to make sense of, but what were fringe ideas in 2012 are, now in 2026, proving to be true, and as extreme as we thought. This should not be surprising though. Whenever there is a power asymmetry, there is naturally a scheme for those in power to construct narratives, fibs, facades and viels to maintain order among their subjects. Conspiring is a method of peacekeeping. Parents do this. Companies do this. Would governments not?

I have been brewing on this Call for New Aesthetics. I’m stuck on the question of why we need a new aesthetic for the 21st century. To go one layer deeper, what role does an aesthetic actually achieve? Like let’s say you can trace the lineage from the iPhone’s design back to Bauhaus. If the Bauhaus never existed, and smartphones took on a different aesthetic, say one that is more ornate, would we not still have TikTok? I guess this all ties back to my conclusion at the end of architecture school, that probably played some role in leaving the industry: it is capital that controls everything, and as revolutionary as architecture aspires to be, it is something like frivolous dressing atop capital aspirations (picked this up from Manfredo Tafuri, a Marxist critic of architecture; IANA Marxist, but the critique is hard to forget). No matter how you design a bank, a bank is a bank. Bauhaus was not a revolutionary aesthetic movement, but a response to the economic reality of mass production (could be an oversimplification, but I think it's accurate to see it as a response, as most architecture is). There is a long history of architects trying to proactively change culture, but failing because they don't actually have leverage. And so what you really need is not just an aesthetic or formal style, but a reimagining of the programs, institutions, and rituals of society, and then a way to use form/ornament to realize those ambitious visions. Put another way, architecture can’t matter without the vision and power of a client, and I don’t think there’s a future for architecture within the OS of capitalism—but if capitalism is about to implode, maybe there’s a new opportunity.

Silicon Valley has cannibalized The Fountainhead and inverted its meaning. They celebrate Roark-like rhetoric—innovation, disruption, individual genius—but then go on to act like Keating: obsessed with markets, perception, appeasement, hype, status, and conformity. To be Roark is to fundamentally not care what the market thinks or wants, which goes directly against the main ethos of “build things people want.”

Roark had an unshakeable ethical core, a vision for the world that the world didn’t want, yet. He was willing to endure hardship, poverty, and hate, but didn’t despair over it; he had patience, faith in his destiny, and saw no other point than to follow his dream even if all signs pointed to it being a dead end. He stuck to his vision long enough for it to manifest in the world, and eventually others saw the transcendent beauty in it (Roark is modeled off of Frank Lloyd Wright). Roark was a force of nature, understood by no one in his life time, but everyone afterward.

In contrast, Keating is a status-chaser that plays social games. He is practical, while Roark is extremely unreasonable.

The point of Fountainhead, to me, is that Roark tolerated pain without suffering for his virtues, making him far more like a Christ-like character than a capitalist. There is no doubt, anxiety, despair, spiraling. He accepts all pain and does what he needs to; it’s the reader that experiences the pain and questions his almost inhuman reactions.