In recent months, warnings about AI and jobs have shifted from Silicon Valley speculation to the center of economic debates. In the US, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook said we appear to be approaching “the most significant reorganization of work in generations.” Goldman Sachs economists now estimate that AI could displace 11 million US jobs. In the UK, the British Chambers of Commerce now warns that youth unemployment could rise to nearly 18 per cent next year as “labour costs and AI erode entry-level jobs.”
AI Is Coming First for the Bottom Rung
Job losses are likely to hit the entry-level end of the employment ladder first. And that means this represents more than an economic crisis. Entry-level jobs are where young people learn the habits, confidence, and skills that carry them into adulthood.
Even if there’s still some uncertainty about AI’s job-market impacts, policymakers should treat the challenge as what it is: the most serious risk to people’s livelihoods in memory.
Still, the question is: what should policymakers do about it? While some researchers and advocates emphasize investing in trades and skills for the physical economy, others press for more fundamental shifts, like a universal basic income.
National Service Deserves A Second Look
Yet there’s one key policy response that’s now hiding in plain sight: national service.
The words “national service” can provoke strong feelings. Even if our societies have deep traditions of volunteering and civic contribution, there’s also long-standing skepticism about compulsory service because it’s often associated with military conscription. It’s a good thing that people are wary of coercion. The best civic instincts often show up locally rather than through big national directives.
Yet the emergence of AI changes that math. If technology replaces entry-level jobs, then we face something more than an economic problem. We face a problem of civic and social cohesion, with fewer ways for people to enter adulthood with meaning, dignity, and belonging.
The Work Machines Cannot Do
National service offers a straightforward answer. If the market outsources human work to machines and won’t provide opportunities to work, then government should invest in creating opportunities to contribute to the common good.
This isn’t about keeping young people busy. It’s about preserving meaning, purpose, connection to community, and a place in the social order. In short, it’s about belonging.
Yet it’s also about addressing timely practical needs. Around the world, there are massive needs for infrastructure upgrades, mitigation of climate risks like flooding and extreme heat, tutoring and literacy support for kids, ecosystem restoration, care for older people in long-term care, and reviving neglected downtowns and public spaces.
The list goes on and on. Many of these challenges represent market failures, where we need the public sector to step in and put people to work to contribute to the public good. These are vital functions that we can’t simply automate — because nearly all this work depends on human presence, trust, and local knowledge.
Many countries already have a foundation on which to build. In the United States, AmeriCorps exists as a national service initiative that connects people to work in areas such as education, disaster preparedness, and environmental conservation. Other democracies have their own civic service programs and traditions. The problem is scale. Volunteerism alone cannot absorb the kind of labor-market shock that we’re facing.
Governments should create or expand a “service year” that’s not a boutique program, but a core piece of labor and social policy. That’s to say it should be paid, socially respected, and built at a scale commensurate with the challenges of the day.
A Service Year Built For Dignity, Skills And Mobility
We should start with a major expansion of service that’s not compulsory – think hundreds of thousands of placements in non-profits, municipalities, Indigenous governments, local agencies, and public institutions, with a living wage stipend, real training, and meaningful pathways into further education or work. Participants in these programs should earn a career credential and a meaningful set of benefits — like tuition support, apprenticeship credits, or a wage subsidy that follows them into their first post-service job. Employers should be able to recognize it as proof of basic standards of reliability and skills, as with prior employment.
The Case For Shared Civic Contribution
Over time, governments should also consider service requirements. Conventional wisdom holds that most people would oppose mandatory national service. Yet the real opposition tends to be to the militarized version of it, like a national draft. Other countries show what a shared service institution can do for building community and social cohesion. Singapore’s national service has long been framed as a rite of passage that brings people from different backgrounds to train, live, and contribute together — and as a tool for building a shared national identity. By working toward a common purpose and the public good, we bolster our shared sense of belonging.
Whether voluntary or mandatory, the real question is whether young people have the opportunity to put their skills and passions to use toward solving shared challenges that need our attention. Today, more and more people are rightly questioning whether we’re taking the AI jobs challenge seriously enough. National service is an idea whose time has come.