AI Will Double GDP, But Will It Double Your Paycheck?

What if GDP doubled in 15 years? Citrini's latest AI economics report paints exactly this picture—one that Financial Times Alphaville calls "extreme and improbable." Yet the very audacity of these projections reveals something crucial about our AI-driven future.

The Promise vs. The Reality

Citrini's numbers are staggering: AI could boost global GDP by 200% by 2040, generating $25 trillion annually in the US alone. If true, we're looking at the greatest economic expansion in human history.

But here's the catch. While Google, Microsoft, and Nvidia shareholders have already priced in these AI dreams—with stock valuations reaching stratospheric levels—the average worker hasn't seen their paycheck reflect this supposed revolution.

Consider this: despite decades of technological advancement, real wages for most Americans have barely budged since the 1970s. The internet promised similar economic miracles in the 1990s, yet productivity gains largely flowed to capital owners, not workers.

Winners and Losers in the AI Economy

The Winners are crystal clear. Tech giants with vast data moats will see their dominance amplified. OpenAI, Anthropic, and their backers are positioning themselves as the new oil barons of the digital age. Early investors and shareholders of AI-first companies stand to capture enormous value.

The Losers face a more complex fate. McKinsey estimates 800 million jobs worldwide could be automated by 2030. But it's not just factory workers this time—radiologists, financial analysts, and even software developers find themselves in AI's crosshairs.

The middle class faces a particular squeeze. High-skill, high-pay jobs that seemed immune to automation are now vulnerable, while low-skill service jobs requiring human interaction remain relatively safe. This creates an hourglass economy where the middle hollows out.

The Productivity Paradox Returns

Here's why Citrini's projections seem "extreme and improbable": they assume AI's benefits will be broadly shared. History suggests otherwise.

The productivity paradox of the 1990s offers a cautionary tale. Despite revolutionary computing advances, productivity growth remained sluggish for years. When gains finally materialized, they concentrated among tech companies and their investors, not workers.

Today's AI boom shows similar patterns. Companies are using AI to reduce headcount, not increase wages. Meta laid off 21,000 employees while investing billions in AI. Amazon automated warehouse operations while keeping worker pay flat.

The fundamental question isn't whether AI will boost GDP—it probably will. The question is whether those gains will trickle down or concentrate at the top.

The Regulatory Wild Card

Governments worldwide are scrambling to respond. The EU's AI Act, Biden's executive order, and China's AI regulations all attempt to shape this transformation. But regulation often lags innovation by years.

Meanwhile, the concentration of AI capabilities in a handful of companies raises antitrust concerns. When OpenAI and Google control the infrastructure that powers AI applications, they effectively control the economic benefits too.

The answer may depend less on the technology itself and more on the economic and political choices we make about how to distribute AI's bounty.