Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Economic Obsolescence, Labor, and Replacement

Welcome to Your New Disability: Cognitive Automation, Fiscal Disaggregation, and the Apathetic State

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Working paper. Not peer reviewed.

Written
September 2026
Version
v0.7
Pages
21
Download PDFExport BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

Democratic responsiveness has a price, and the price is fiscal. A state that funds itself by taxing its population and defends itself by conscripting that population acquires a structural reason to attend to what the population wants, and a growing body of causal evidence links taxation to accountability through exactly this channel. Recent work applying the mechanism to advanced automation reaches for resource-rich autocracies as its comparison case, an inference confounded by differences in regime type, institutional history, and legal order. This paper substitutes a within-system observation. Disabled people in the United States have occupied the condition that literature forecasts for more than a century: separated from the revenue base, excluded from the labor market by the operation of the labor market itself, and dependent on transfers rather than contributing through them. What follows is therefore a record rather than a projection. The Supplemental Security Income resource limit has stood at two thousand dollars since 1989, thirty-seven years without adjustment, across administrations of both parties, despite bipartisan bills introduced repeatedly and despite the fact that more than two-thirds of recipients hold no savings at all. Non-response at negligible cost is not a budget failure. It is the absence of any mechanism that compels a response. The paper argues that cognitive automation withdraws that same mechanism from the general population, that the resulting posture is structural indifference rather than hostility, and that the constitutional premise of legislative responsiveness expires by operation of the withdrawal rather than by anyone deciding to abandon it. Two clarifications are load-bearing and are stated at the outset rather than in a footnote. The claim is not that non-disabled people will become disabled; disability is not a metaphor and is not borrowed here as one. And the claim is not that disability protections are adequate, or that generalizing the mechanism licenses treating them as a solved problem. The protections analyzed here are thin, and the argument is that their thinness is diagnostic.

Keywords

  • political economy
  • disability policy
  • tax bargaining
  • rentier state
  • deliberate indifference
  • administrative burden
  • fiscal disaggregation
  • structural indifference
  • Cleburne
  • Olmstead
  • Supplemental Security Income
  • labor displacement

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "Welcome to Your New Disability: Cognitive Automation, Fiscal Disaggregation, and the Apathetic State." Real Safety AI Foundation Working Paper, September 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/welcome-to-your-new-disability/

References (68)

  1. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §706(2).
  2. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).
  3. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12134 (regulations).
  4. Asongu, S. (2014). On taxation, political accountability and foreign aid: Empirics to a celebrated literature. South African Journal of Economics, 83(2), 180–198.
  5. Baekgaard, M., Moynihan, D. P., & Thomsen, M. K. (2023). It’s not merely about the content: How rules are communicated matters to administrative burden. Public Administration Review, 83(4).
  6. Barnes, C. (2020). "It takes a while to get used to": The costs of redeeming public benefits. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2).
  7. Barnes, C., & Sheldon, A. (2010). Disability, politics and poverty in a majority world context. Disability & Society, 25(7).
  8. Bendtsen, K.-E. (2026). Increasing take-up of social benefits: A meta-analysis of field experiments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
  9. Boucoyannis, D. (2021). Kings as judges: Power, justice, and the origins of parliaments. Cambridge University Press.
  10. Brynjolfsson, E. (2022). The Turing trap: The promise and peril of human-like artificial intelligence. Daedalus, 151(2).
  11. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2023). The case for updating SSI asset limits.
  12. Chis, I. (2023). The centrality of disablement subjectivation to the reproduction of capitalist social relations. Global Political Economy.
  13. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985).
  14. Community Mental Health Act of 1963, Pub. L. No. 88-164, 77 Stat. 282.
  15. Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, 596 U.S. 212 (2022).
  16. Cupać, J., Schopmans, H., & Tuncer, F. (2024). Democratization in the age of artificial intelligence: Introduction to the special issue. Democratization, 31(5).
  17. Delano-Pyle v. Victoria County, 302 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2002).
  18. Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. 752 (2019).
  19. Department of Justice. (2011). Statement of the Department of Justice on enforcement of the integration mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C. (updated February 28, 2020).
  20. Department of Justice. (2026). Clarification on Department of Justice guidance titled, "Statement of the Department of Justice on enforcement of the integration mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C." Federal Register, 91, 45287.
  21. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. (2024). Employment of workers with disabilities under section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Federal Register, 89, 96466.
  22. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. (2025). Employment of workers with disabilities under section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; Withdrawal. Federal Register, 90.
  23. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. (2026). Section 14(c) certificate holders.
  24. Devarajan, S., & Do, Q.-T. (2023). Taxation, accountability, and cash transfers: Breaking the resource curse. Journal of Public Economics.
  25. Dom, R., Morrissey, O., & Tran, A. (2023). Taxation and accountability in sub-Saharan Africa. WIDER Working Paper.
  26. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001).
  27. Fair Labor Standards Act § 14(c), 29 U.S.C. § 214(c).
  28. Gallego, A., & Kurer, T. (2022). Automation, digitalization, and artificial intelligence in the workplace: Implications for political behavior. Annual Review of Political Science, 25(1), 463–484.
  29. Gerlach, L. B., Kales, H. C., & Maust, D. T. (2023). Falling off a cliff: Psychiatric care of nursing home residents. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 71(9).
  30. Granulo, A., Fuchs, C., & Puntoni, S. (2026). Perceiving AI as labor-replacing reduces democratic legitimacy and political engagement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  31. Grover, C., & Piggott, L. (2005). Disabled people, the reserve army of labour and welfare reform. Disability & Society, 20(7), 705–717.
  32. Hamilton, L. (2020). Asset limits in public assistance and savings behavior among low-income families. Social Science Quarterly, 101(4).
  33. Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2025). Administrative burdens in the social safety net. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 39(1), 129–150.
  34. Hurst, E., & Ziliak, J. P. (2006). Do welfare asset limits affect household saving? Evidence from welfare reform. Journal of Human Resources, 41(1).
  35. Jacobs, J. (2024). The artificial intelligence shock and socio-political polarization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
  36. Koon v. North Carolina, 50 F.4th 398 (4th Cir. 2022).
  37. Koreh, M. (2015). The political economy of social insurance: Towards a fiscal-centred framework. Social Policy & Administration, 51(1), 114–132.
  38. Korinek, A., & Suh, D. (2024). Scenarios for the transition to AGI. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 32255.
  39. Kulveit, J., Douglas, R., Ammann, N., Turan, D., Krueger, D., & Duvenaud, D. (2025). Gradual disempowerment: Systemic existential risks from incremental AI development. arXiv:2501.16946.
  40. Lamb, H. R. (1984). Deinstitutionalization and the homeless mentally ill. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 35(9), 899–907.
  41. Lamb, H. R., & Bachrach, L. L. (2001). Some perspectives on deinstitutionalization. Psychiatric Services, 52(8), 1039–1045.
  42. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).
  43. McGuirk, E. F. (2013). The illusory leader: Natural resources, taxation and accountability. Public Choice, 154(3–4), 285–313.
  44. Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in state and local government services, 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d).
  45. Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
  46. Parra, A. (2024). The political economy of disability and the nursing home industry in the United States. Science & Society.
  47. Parra, A. (2025). Disability and the relative surplus population: Towards a crip critique of political economy. Science & Society.
  48. Powers, E. T. (1998). Does means-testing welfare discourage saving? Evidence from a change in AFDC policy in the United States. Journal of Public Economics, 68(1).
  49. Prichard, W. (2015). Taxation, responsiveness and accountability in Sub-Saharan Africa: The dynamics of tax bargaining. Cambridge University Press.
  50. Prichard, W., Jibao, S., & Orgeira, N. (2025). Sub-national property tax reform and tax bargaining: Lessons from a quasi-randomized reform program in Sierra Leone. World Development.
  51. Roy, P., & Khan, M. H. (2021). Digitizing taxation and premature formalization in developing countries. Development and Change, 52(4), 855–877.
  52. Ruppel, E. H. (2023). Disability and the state production of precarity. Work and Occupations, 51(4), 510–549.
  53. Ruppel, E. H. (2024). The making of a reserve army of labor: Paradoxes of American disability policy. Critical Sociology, 51(3), 451–469.
  54. Russell, M. (2001). Disablement, oppression, and the political economy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 12(2), 87–95.
  55. Sa-Fernandes, L., et al. (2025). Putting mental health deinstitutionalisation back on track: A scoping review of what empirically hinders and drives deinstitutionalisation of adults who experience mental illness. BMC Public Health, 25.
  56. Scull, A. (2021). "Community care": Historical perspective on deinstitutionalization. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 64(1).
  57. Segal, S. P. (2021). Deinstitutionalization in macro practice. Encyclopedia of Social Work. Oxford University Press.
  58. Sjursen, I. H. (2023). Accountability and taxation: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 216, 386–432.
  59. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).
  60. Social Security Act § 1611(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(3).
  61. Social Security Act § 1619(b), 42 U.S.C. § 1382h(b).
  62. Social Security Administration. (2026). Monthly disability claims processing and hearings performance data.
  63. Social Security Administration. (2026). SSI federal payment amounts for 2026.
  64. Social Security Administration. (2026). Understanding Supplemental Security Income: Expedited reinstatement.
  65. Supic, N., Stojanović, Ž., & Ristić, B. (2026). AI-driven shifts in the U.S. labor market and economic power: Can we expect progressive institutional change? Journal of Economic Issues.
  66. Supplemental Security Income resource limits, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1205.
  67. U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means. (2023). Hearing on the Social Security disability claims backlog.
  68. Wellschmied, F. (2021). The welfare effects of asset mean-testing income support. Quantitative Economics, 12(1), 217–249.

All research