DISCLAIMER: GoldInvestors.news is not a registered investment, legal or tax advisor or broker/dealer. All investment/financial opinions expressed by GoldInvestors.news are from the personal research and experience of the owner of the site and are intended as educational material. Although best efforts are made to ensure that all information is accurate and up to date, occasionally unintended errors and misprints may occur.

A growing number of American workers, frustrated by widespread layoffs and the breakneck development of artificial intelligence, say they want a bigger piece of the technology boom that may soon define the economy. According to a new national survey, most U.S. employees favor creating a government-controlled “AI Sovereign Wealth Fund” — one that would force leading AI companies to hand over a significant portion of their ownership to the public.

The survey of nearly 1,700 adults, conducted by Verasight in June, revealed that 69 percent of respondents support the idea of transferring half of major AI firms’ stock into such a fund. The intent behind this proposal is to ensure ordinary citizens share directly in the returns generated by AI innovation, rather than watching the profits accrue exclusively to powerful corporations and Silicon Valley executives.

Benjamin Leff, CEO of Verasight, said that the public views these funds as a way to rebalance the spoils of an AI-driven economy. “In the eyes of the public, AI Sovereign funds are seen as a tool to distribute the gains from the AI industry back to broader society,” Leff noted.

That enthusiasm comes as political voices echo similar sentiments. Senator Bernie Sanders recently introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, which would give citizens a 50 percent stake in large AI companies operating in the U.S. He claimed the move would guarantee that economic rewards generated by AI would “improve the lives of all of us — not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer.”

Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement

Sanders argued that America’s technological destiny should not be left solely in the hands of “billionaires seeking to maximize their power and profit” in secretive boardrooms. His proposal fits a long-standing populist message that blames corporations for deepening inequality while automation displaces jobs and undermines job security.

The public’s appetite for such drastic measures seems to be tied to growing instability across the technology sector. Layoffs have accelerated across major companies, from startups to well-established giants, as firms redirect resources toward AI projects. For employees, it has become a bitter paradox: even as corporate earnings climb and AI stock prices soar, the human workforce is being trimmed in favor of algorithms.

Goldman Sachs Senior Global Economist Joseph Briggs has estimated that as many as 15 million jobs — roughly 9 percent of the U.S. workforce — could be lost during the next decade due to AI-driven changes. That kind of shock, he said, could resemble the painful transition periods of the late 1990s and early 2000s when digital automation reshaped entire industries.

Despite these warnings, Briggs believes that while the disruption may be harsh, it could eventually give rise to new opportunities. The Goldman report forecasts that AI innovation will ultimately create new categories of employment, offsetting much of the short-term pain. Yet for many American families, the prospect of losing their current livelihood outweighs the distant promise of new AI-based jobs.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

Sovereign wealth funds, if implemented, could serve multiple roles. They might invest directly in AI infrastructure, fund domestic AI research, or collect profits from private firms to add to the public treasury. Supporters believe this could keep the United States competitive globally while ensuring citizens are not left behind as technological change accelerates.

At the same time, major challenges remain. Analysts warn that there is an inherent tension between using a public fund to maximize returns for taxpayers and using it strategically to shape national AI capacity. If the best financial returns lie in foreign AI companies rather than American ones, policymakers could face uncomfortable decisions about where loyalty and prudence intersect.

Research group Windfall Trust noted that the balancing act could become contentious. “There is a tension between the financial mandate and the strategic mandate,” the firm stated, emphasizing that the fund’s design would need to carefully manage competing priorities in a rapidly evolving sector.

For many in the private sector, talk of government control over corporate equity sets off alarm bells. Critics contend that “forcing” companies to give up ownership stakes risks stifling innovation, deterring investment, and creating bureaucratic inefficiencies. They argue that rewarding success through government appropriation sends the wrong message to entrepreneurs building new technologies.

Still, for millions of workers watching their industries transform before their eyes, that debate feels distant. Their immediate concerns are stability and fairness. To them, the “AI wealth fund” represents not socialism, but a form of insurance — a safeguard against being left behind in a world where machines increasingly hold economic power.

Ultimately, this growing movement reflects a deeper anxiety about who will truly benefit from the rise of artificial intelligence. As layoffs mount and profits concentrate among a narrow set of tech leaders, the public’s willingness to endorse radical solutions appears to be rising in kind.

Whether Washington follows through on the idea or not, one thing is clear: the promise of AI prosperity is colliding head-on with fears of economic displacement. And that collision may define the next great political and financial debate of the digital age.

DISCLAIMER: GoldInvestors.news is not a registered investment, legal or tax advisor or broker/dealer. All investment/financial opinions expressed by GoldInvestors.news are from the personal research and experience of the owner of the site and are intended as educational material. Although best efforts are made to ensure that all information is accurate and up to date, occasionally unintended errors and misprints may occur.