The regulatory instinct runs deep in human nature, right alongside our oldest pitfalls: the hunger for power, the pull of greed, the comfort of control. And like any other sin, it’s something that must be constantly checked, not indulged.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the debate over artificial intelligence.
As AI products embed themselves across the American economy, in businesses, homes, and daily life, calls to ban the technology from replacing workers have grown louder. Where politicians haven’t gone that far, a broad, bipartisan consensus has emerged: let government force AI companies to slow down, giving workers “more time” to find new jobs. That same instinct pervades the AI data-center debate, drives arguments over whether the most advanced models should be released to the public, and fuels proposals to create federal regulatory structures that can clamp down on the industry at the first hint of perceived risk.
But history suggests not just that this fear is misplaced, but that regulation is not the best way to adapt.
About 60% of US workers today are in jobs that DID NOT EXIST in 1940.
— Cicero Institute (@InstituteCicero) September 3, 2026
Share of jobs new since 1940:
✅ Health services: 82%
✅ Technicians: 76%
✅ Professionals: 75%
New technology came. The work multiplied.
80 years of evidence says new technology creates work.
States… pic.twitter.com/XZYotKMyCA
According to the Cicero Institute, roughly 60 percent of today’s jobs didn’t exist 80 years ago. That includes 82 percent of jobs in modern health services, 76 percent of technician roles, and 75 percent of professional positions. In other words, almost two-thirds of the modern American economy was simply unfathomable in 1940.
Did that mean the 1940s should have been defined by regulation? Does that mean our ancestors’ goal should have been to halt American progress in place after World War II and expect to maintain the nation’s hegemonic position?
Obviously not.
What this does mean, however, is that we have a duty to make transitions between jobs easier, to mitigate the creative destruction that will inevitably come. How is that done? Not through a government bureaucratic institution, but through a free and fair labor market.
Do we need occupational licensing regimes that lock workers out of entire trades? Do we need minimum wage laws that price low-skilled labor out of the market? Do we need non-compete clauses that chain workers to their current employers? Do we need zoning rules that keep housing costs high and mobility low? Do we need a tax code that punishes entrepreneurship and rewards stagnation? Do we need an education system that prioritizes credentials over actual skills?
AI is an unknown: a force brimming with both transformative promise and real risks. But that uncertainty is no excuse to hand government the reins, regulating the known negatives while blundering blindly into the unknown consequences for AI’s extreme positive potential.
The strength of American society has always been its capacity to adapt. It’s what kept our economy ahead of every rival, past and present. AI cannot be the excuse that turns us into a nation that believes adaptation is optional, that we can simply cling to what once was and expect to remain first.
