What Does Vance's Pro-Worker AI Agenda Require?

VP Vance has called for a pro-worker AI agenda. Which policies could realize that important goal?

This post was published by the Tech Policy Press.

A protest in the future? (generated with ChatGPT).

We will always center American workers in our AI policy. We refuse to view AI as a purely disruptive technology that will inevitably automate away our labor force. We believe and we will fight for policies that ensure that AI is going to make our workers more productive, and we expect that they will reap the rewards with higher wages, better benefits, and safer and more prosperous communities.

—Vice President JD Vance at the Paris AI Action Summit, Feb 11, 2025.

In his first address as vice president, JD Vance generated headlines for unambiguously pivoting US AI policy from “AI Safety” to one focused on realizing AI opportunities. Less attention has been paid to the Vice President’s call for a pro-worker AI agenda—a policy position he reiterated in a speech at the American Dynamism Summit this week. This gap in coverage is unsurprising. News outlets have focused on AI policy's “shiny” objects: the alleged race with China, the drama between Sam Altman and Elon Musk, and developments on the leading edge of AI research. Less attention has been paid to Vance’s focus on workers. That’s a problem because directing AI development in a manner that benefits workers is easier said than done.

Let’s start with the ideal best-case scenario: AI unleashes a new era of worker productivity by augmenting their ability to complete tasks in a timely fashion. Increased productivity leads to increased wages. The increase in wages allows workers to spend more time upskilling, pursuing other passions, and relaxing. It may even be that workers spend less time working as a whole. Even in this ideal scenario, it’s accepted that some jobs will disappear as AI becomes more capable. AI tools that could outperform a human on one task will eventually be able to outperform them on nearly every task within a certain job description. In the ideal scenario, however, AI also sparks a number of new jobs. Workers can leverage their increased free time and access to upskilling opportunities to earn those new, more exciting roles.

Early economic analysis suggests we’re quite a ways away from realizing that ideal outcome. Let’s start with the idea that AI will create new jobs. A recent report from South Korea suggests that AI innovation has led to more job destruction than creation. Sangmin Aum and Yongseok Shin analyzed how AI, big data, and the Internet of Things affected employment patterns in South Korea. Their findings cut against our best-case scenario. They found that areas with greater exposure to technological advances saw decreased employment in high-skill professions and, more generally, among female workers. And while some job postings increased for high-skill workers, those openings were reserved for workers with the skills required to thrive in this new technological environment. They conclude:

As digital technologies continue to evolve, labor markets will require substantial adjustments, particularly in terms of retraining and upskilling workers to meet new demands. Policymakers and firms should focus on supporting education and training programs that can equip workers with the skills necessary to thrive in a digitally-driven economy.

Though this study focused on South Korea and included more technologies than AI, it illustrates that technological advances do not guarantee increased job opportunities. What’s more, to the extent such job opportunities do come about, they will necessarily cater only to workers with new skills—after all, these are jobs tailored to a new technological reality.

Upskilling opportunities

That begs the question—how are upskilling programs going? A report from DeVry University suggests these programs have yet to become readily available. The vast majority (72 percent) of employers do not offer upskilling opportunities to the entirety of their workforce. Those denied such opportunities will have to look elsewhere--outside of working hours--for opportunities to learn new skills. Of course, that's not a small ask. Enrolling in a community college or online course may involve substantial time and money. Even among workers with access to upskilling programs, however, low participation rates suggest that workers face barriers to making the most of those opportunities. DeVry found that only 55 percent of eligible employees make use of upskilling opportunities.

A final inquiry turns on how workers familiar with AI and using it in their daily jobs have fared—are these workers enjoying shorter weeks and more free time? Wei Jiang, Junyoung Park, Rachel (Jiqiu) Xiao, and Shen Zhang find the opposite true. In short, they observed that “higher AI exposure—whether stemming from the ChatGPT shock or broader AI evolution—is associated with longer work hours and reduced leisure time, primarily due to AI complementing human labor rather than replacing it.” While I have some methodological reservations about the applicability of these findings to the current AI age, the study nevertheless suggests that the AI ideal is not guaranteed. Firms and consumers may benefit from increased AI use on the job, but those gains have yet to reach workers.

A handful of studies do not definitively foreclose the possibility of the AI ideal. More research (much more) is necessary to understand the effects of AI on workers thoroughly. Still, these initial inquiries make clear that the administration’s pro-worker AI agenda must tackle a number of significant problems. In his speech, Vance outlined three policy areas that will play a part in that agenda: immigration, workforce development, and education.

Immigration

On immigration, Vance touted a “worker-first approach to immigration[.]” As expressed in other statements and speeches, this presumably calls for reducing immigration. However, given the incredible success of immigrants in starting new businesses here and bringing new skills to the country, the administration may want to reconsider this narrow approach. An immigration policy that actively welcomed and encouraged individuals with expertise in AI-relevant fields could increase the odds of the United States achieving the AI ideal. The administration should lean into the nation’s proud legacy of helping immigrants realize their entrepreneurial goals here. The resulting increase in jobs and economic dynamism aligns with the administration’s pro-worker goals.

Workforce development

Vance announced that the administration would “make sure that America has the best-trained workforce in the world.” That’s a tall order. It’s a feat that will require substantial investments in vocational programs, community colleges, four-year programs, and employers that offer universal upskilling opportunities. Such a bold vision for upskilling has yet to be announced. The administration should not wait to make progress on this front. It will only become harder for workers to upskill as AI progresses. Put differently, we’re already behind in helping workers keep pace with rapid technological change.

Education

Finally, Vance claimed that “[o]ur schools will teach students how to manage, supervise, and interact with AI-enabled tools as they become more and more a part of our everyday lives.” Here, again, the administration has a lot of work to do. The nation’s educational infrastructure struggled to support staff and teachers when it came to teaching digital literacy during the Web 2.0 era. Increasing the capacity of teachers to cover AI literacy is an even more difficult battle. The administration should consider something on the scale of the Civilian Conservation Corps to rapidly develop an AI education corps that can help teachers create AI literacy programs.

Conclusion

The administration's purported pro-worker AI agenda represents an important shift in American technology policy, but recent research suggests significant obstacles to achieving this vision. Early studies indicate that AI may destroy more jobs than it creates, particularly for workers without specialized skills. Meanwhile, upskilling programs remain limited in availability and participation, and AI users are experiencing longer work hours rather than increased leisure time.

To realize a truly worker-centered AI policy, the administration must reconsider its restrictive immigration approach and recognize immigrants' contributions to entrepreneurship and innovation. It must also make substantial investments in workforce development across educational institutions and employers. Finally, AI literacy education must be dramatically enhanced, potentially through large-scale initiatives like an AI education corps.

Without bold action addressing these challenges, the promise of AI benefiting American workers risks becoming rhetoric rather than reality. The administration's commitment to worker-centered policies must be matched with comprehensive strategies and substantial resources to navigate the complex economic and social transformations AI will bring.