AI and Work: Economists Demand a Bonus-Malus Instead of Mass Job Destruction

TVS News AI, editorially supervised, presents AI and Work: Economists Demand a Bonus-Malus Instead of Mass Job Destruction.

TVS News AI editorial team presents AI and work: Economists demand a bonus-malus instead of mass job destruction.

Why Lorenzi and Villemeur are calling for a fiscal U-turn

The starting point is paradoxical for the two economists: They want to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence without ignoring its price. At the heart of their demand is how the costs are distributed when AI replaces jobs or enables new activities.

“To harness the economic benefits of artificial intelligence without repeating the earlier industrial revolutions” — this is how the report describes their position. Specifically, Lorenzi and Villemeur advocate a “fiscal revolution” and a bonus-malus system designed to regulate the costs of creating and destroying jobs.

The focus is therefore not on banning AI, but on its economic consequences. The proposal aims to create incentives so that employment is not treated solely as a cost factor.

Why the past, in their view, does not argue against change

As historical justification, the two authors point to previous industrial revolutions. According to Lorenzi and Villemeur, these have always created more jobs than they destroyed in the long run. That is their central long-term thesis — not a claim that every transition phase proceeded smoothly.

For the present, this means: Short-term displacement of tasks would not, in itself, constitute proof against the technology's longer-term benefits. What matters, they say, is how the economy and politics respond to the consequences.

“Les précédentes révolutions industrielles ont, sur le long terme, toujours créé plus d’emplois qu’elles n’en ont détruits.”

What the bonus-malus is concretely meant to change

The bonus-malus system is intended to replace a purely growth-driven approach to the labor market. According to the report, it should regulate the costs incurred when positions are eliminated or newly created. In doing so, the proposal links two sides of the same debate: job losses and employment.

For you, this is primarily a policy question: If artificial intelligence changes tasks, it does not act as a market trend alone. Through the design of taxes, levies, and subsidies, it can be steered so that companies bear a greater share of the social cost of job cuts. This is the line along which the authors' fiscal U-turn runs.

What the op-ed leaves open

The information available provides no concrete design for the bonus-malus system: Neither the amounts, nor the industries affected, nor a timetable is specified. Nor can it be inferred from the report how the authors assess possible job destruction in individual sectors.

What is clear, however, is the political thrust. Lorenzi and Villemeur want the fiscal consequences of AI to be taken seriously and the groundwork laid early, rather than simply accepting change. Their thesis is: Earlier revolutions produced more jobs in the long run — the decisive question now is how the costs of the transition are distributed.