A groundswell of support is building among American workers for a radical proposal that would require artificial intelligence companies to place 50% of their stock into a public wealth fund. The initiative, which has been circulating through employee networks at major tech firms and beyond, aims to ensure that the extraordinary wealth generated by AI benefits society as a whole rather than a narrow class of investors and founders.

The idea gains momentum

The concept is straightforward: any company that develops or deploys advanced AI systems would be mandated to transfer half of its equity into a fund owned collectively by the U.S. public. The fund would then pay out annual dividends to every citizen, similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund that distributes oil revenue, or be used to finance universal healthcare, education, and infrastructure. The proposal has found particular resonance among employees who fear that AI will displace millions of jobs while concentrating unprecedented riches in the hands of a few.

“We’re the ones building these systems, and we see firsthand how they’re going to transform the economy,” said a software engineer at a leading AI startup who asked to remain anonymous. “If we don’t act now, the next few years will create a new Gilded Age. This is our chance to ensure that everyone shares in the prosperity.”

Surveys conducted by independent researchers suggest that around 60% of tech workers now support some form of mandatory wealth transfer from AI companies, up from just 30% two years ago. The shift reflects a broader disillusionment with Silicon Valley’s culture of extreme inequality and a growing appetite for systemic change.

Historical precedents and economic rationale

The idea of a public wealth fund derived from corporate equity is not entirely new. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, built on oil revenues, has become a model for turning natural resource wealth into a permanent source of national income. Alaska’s Permanent Fund, established in 1976, sends an annual check to every resident. More recently, advocates have proposed “people’s shares” in major companies as a way to spread ownership.

What distinguishes the current proposal is its specific focus on AI, a technology that many economists believe could be as transformative as the steam engine or electricity. A report from Goldman Sachs estimated that AI could replace the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs globally while adding $7 trillion to the global economy over the next decade. Without intervention, the vast majority of that new wealth is likely to flow to shareholders and executives.

“We’re facing a unique moment in history where a single technological leap could make a small group of people unimaginably wealthy while leaving everyone else behind,” said Dr. Elena Torres, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. “A public wealth fund is one of the few mechanisms that could rebalance the scales without breaking the engine of innovation.”

Employee activism takes center stage

The campaign has been fueled by employee activism at major AI companies including OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic, and others. Internal Slack channels, anonymous forums, and all-hands meetings have become arenas for debate. In some cases, workers have organized petitions demanding that their employers voluntarily establish such funds. When those efforts stalled, many turned to political advocacy.

“We started by asking our company to commit 10% of its stock to a foundation,” recalled a product manager at a large AI lab. “Management barely acknowledged the request. So we got more organized, connected with lawmakers, and now we’re pushing for legislation.”

Several members of Congress have expressed interest. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut has floated the idea of a “people’s share” in AI companies, and Representative Ro Khanna of California has held listening sessions with tech workers. While no bill has been formally introduced, the concept is gaining traction in progressive circles.

Arguments from opponents

Critics argue that forcing AI companies to give up half their stock would be a confiscatory policy that would deter investment and innovation. Venture capitalists warn that startups would simply relocate to countries with more favorable regulatory environments, such as the UAE or Singapore. Others question the constitutionality of such a measure, noting that it could be challenged as a taking of private property without just compensation.

“This is a solution in search of a problem,” said James Whitaker, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “We don’t know exactly how AI will evolve. Imposing a massive wealth transfer now based on speculation could kill the goose before it lays the golden eggs. The better approach is to let the market work and then tax the winners later.”

There are also practical hurdles: valuing AI companies is notoriously difficult, especially when they are private. Enforcing a global mandate would be nearly impossible, as tech companies can easily assign intellectual property to foreign subsidiaries. And once a public fund is established, who manages it? How are dividends distributed? Political battles over control of such a fund could become intense.

Global echoes and the path forward

Similar debates are unfolding in Europe and Asia. The European Union is considering a “digital dividend” tax that would fund a universal basic income. In Japan, some lawmakers have proposed creating a sovereign wealth fund fueled by tech company shares. The World Economic Forum has hosted panels on “wealth funds for the AI age.”

Back in the United States, the employee-led movement is beginning to build coalitions with labor unions, civil rights groups, and climate activists. The argument is that AI can be a force for good if its benefits are shared, but it could also exacerbate the very inequalities that have fueled political polarization and social unrest.

The campaign faces long odds. Powerful interests will fight it. But as more workers inside the AI industry itself raise their voices, the conversation is shifting from “whether” to “how.” The next few years will determine whether the promise of artificial intelligence is harnessed for the common good or captured by a fortunate few.

Source:TechRadar News