AI displacement is measurable right now. The question is whether we let it spiral — or act. These charts show what both futures look like across five pillars of economic health.
These are not projections. This is what the data shows today.
Two scenarios modelled across Labour Costs, Corporate Profits, Worker Income, Purchasing Power, and Investment Returns — from 2026 to 2046.
2046 outcomes without COAD intervention
2046 outcomes with COAD — graduated from $20K (2027) to $35K (2041)
Index values (0–100) represent relative economic health across each pillar. Source data: CSIRO, IMF, McKinsey, WEF. Hover over any data point for year-by-year values.
These are not activists or theorists — they are the architects of the technology itself.
COAD's projections draw exclusively on peer-reviewed research, multilateral institution reports, and on-record public statements by named authorities.
Two announcements from November–December 2024 directly validate COAD's core architecture — before COAD was ever formally presented to Cabinet.
The Australian Government formally confirmed the Future Fund will not be drawn down until at least 2032–33. The Future Fund corpus stood at AUD 269.1 billion at 31 March 2026 (up AUD 28.3 billion over twelve months, per the Future Fund Portfolio Update released 5 May 2026), with a 12-month return of 11.7 per cent against the 8.1 per cent target, and a 10-year per annum return of 8.6 per cent against the 7.1 per cent mandate target. Whole-of-agency funds under management (Future Fund agency, including MRFF, ATSILSFF, Future Drought Fund) total AUD 337.2 billion. Treasury projects the Future Fund corpus alone will reach ~$380B by 2032–33. This is the Government's own validation of COAD's Pillar 1 assumption — that the Future Fund corpus can be preserved while only its returns are deployed for citizen benefit. COAD's 7 per cent Pillar 1 planning return assumption sits comfortably below the Future Fund's reported 10-year per annum return, providing headroom in the funding model.
For the first time in its 19-year history, the Future Fund was directed to invest with regard to three national priorities: the energy transition, residential housing supply, and Australian infrastructure. The Government explicitly stated this "lays the foundation for the Fund to become an enduring sovereign wealth fund for Australia."
These developments confirm three things independently of COAD:
COAD analysis of the Massenkoff & McCrory (2026) observed-exposure measure, applied to ABS Occupation Standard Classification for Australia (OSCA) 2024 occupational employment data, yields an exposure-weighted estimate of approximately 512,200 Australians in the ten most AI-exposed occupations. The figure measures task exposure, not confirmed job losses.
Jobs and Skills Australia’s own analysis (August 2025) is more cautious than some headline figures suggest: it finds around 4 per cent of the workforce in occupations with high AI-automation exposure today, with augmentation outweighing automation so far and no current evidence of widespread displacement in Australia. COAD’s case does not depend on that figure being larger — even a shock concentrated in a handful of occupations means real, immediate job losses for the people in them, which is precisely the gap COAD is designed to cover.
A common and legitimate question: if the Future Fund was created to cover unfunded Commonwealth public servant superannuation liabilities, how can its returns simultaneously fund a citizen dividend? The answer lies in the Fund's liability trajectory and return headroom — not in a conflict between the two purposes.
The unfunded APS superannuation liability is projected to peak at $190.5B in 2033–34, then decline steadily to $62.4B by 2060 as the old defined-benefit scheme cohort matures and exits. The liability is a net present value figure spread across decades — not a single lump-sum obligation.
At the Fund's projected ~$380B by 2032–33, annual returns at 7% equal approximately ~$26.6B per year. The annual cash payment obligations for superannuation are a fraction of the $190.5B NPV figure — meaning substantial return headroom exists beyond what is required to service the super liability each year.
The new December 2024 Investment Mandate Direction establishes a clear priority order: meeting superannuation obligations is the primary mandate. The three national priorities (energy, housing, infrastructure) operate under a "have regard to" obligation — expressly subordinate. Treasury has stated the Fund will "enable not only all of the super liabilities to be met over ensuing decades but also generate earnings that form the basis of an enduring sovereign wealth fund."
COAD is not a fringe concept. The same thesis — AI companies fund a sovereign dividend for citizens — has now been formally introduced as legislation in the United States Senate.
Senator Bernie Sanders formally introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act — the most direct legislative analogue to COAD yet introduced in a national legislature. The bill proposes a one-time 50 per cent tax paid in company stock on AI companies with annual sales above USD 200 million, capitalising a sovereign fund projected at approximately USD 7 trillion that would pay a 5 per cent annual dividend of more than USD 1,000 per person per year.
How COAD differs: COAD preserves the Future Fund corpus (never liquidates it) and draws only investment returns — no equity acquisition, no share transfers. COAD rests on three independently modelled funding pillars and is targeted at displaced workers, not a universal payment. The mechanisms are categorically distinct.
Bill not yet enacted. Projected fund size and dividend figures are the proponent's. Source: Senator Sanders press release, 18 June 2026; Roll Call, 18 June 2026.
The validation point for COAD: The policy thesis that the productivity gains from AI should flow back to citizens — via a mechanism anchored to sovereign wealth — has now been formally tabled in the United States Senate. While COAD's mechanism is categorically different from the Sanders approach, the convergence of ideas across the world's two largest English-speaking democracies confirms that COAD is not ahead of its time. It is on time.
It's the most intuitive response — and it's precisely what every government will try first. But agentic AI has introduced a problem that no retraining programme in history has ever faced: the destination jobs are disappearing faster than the retraining can be completed.
By the time a displaced telemarketer finishes a 12-month project management certification, agentic AI is already performing that role better than any newly trained human. The same is true across accounting, legal assistance, data analysis, HR, and dozens of other occupations people are retraining into right now — simultaneously. Retraining remains valuable, but it cannot be the only answer when the goalposts move mid-sprint.
This is why retraining alone will ultimately fail →The COAD calculator lets you adjust every assumption — displaced workers, payment levels, all three funding pillars — and see the fiscal outcome in real time.