Dan Katz

AI has reignited an old fear—that technology will eliminate work. In a new F&D piece, I argue that the outcomes will depend more on the policies that govern the adjustment than on AI as a technology (thread) imf.org/en/publication…

Many economists forget that the first-order problem of an aging society, one with high life expectancy and low fertility, is how to redistribute income from workers to retirees. How fast output grows is, surprisingly enough, the lesser question. If you have roughly as many retirees as workers, what each worker produces must be split in two, one part for the worker, one part for the retiree. At a basic level, it does not matter whether we do it through taxes, as in a pay-as-you-go social security system, or through capital income, as in a fully funded one. Workers will not be happy to see half of their income taken away, whatever the absolute level of that income. This redistribution will poison the political system and lead, with high probability, to dysfunctional policies. We are already seeing it across Europe in the fights over retirement benefits. And much of the American unhappiness about the profits of large corporations, largely owned by the old, is the same conflict, only in the fetishized form of equity ownership. Claims of the form “technological progress (e.g., advances in AI) will fix the problems brought by aging” miss the political economy of the situation. Aging is about politics, not TFP.

Fascinating paper that underscores that the measurement of growth, prices and living standards is significantly impacted by methodological choices that are subject to judgment.

Congrats to my friend @OleksiiSobolev - he will do a great job!

Jobs are bundles of tasks. AI and other technologies may eliminate or modify some of many of these tasks, but rarely all of them. Very interesting reporting from the @FT about how AI is changing rather than eliminating entry-level jobs. ft.com/content/6cb957…

Great chatting with @KoretskyiUA - congratulations on his appointment and look forward to our continued collaboration with Ukraine. -Den (Dan) Katz

I held my first international call with @IMFNews First Deputy Managing Director Den Katz. We discussed preparations for the IMF Executive Board meeting on the first review of Ukraine’s Extended Fund Facility (EFF), which, as confirmed by the Fund, will take place on July 20. The approval of the 1st review by the IMF Executive Board should bring to Ukraine the next tranche of US$690 million of international aid. I thanked the IMF for its consistent support for Ukraine. The Fund continues to play a key role in coordinating international financial assistance for our country. We also agreed to coordinate further steps to ensure financing for Ukraine’s 2027 state budget.

Amid global economic shocks, how resilient has the global economy been? Join IMF economists Petya Koeva Brooks and Deniz Igan for the July 2026 World Economic Outlook Update on Wednesday, July 8 at 9:00 AM ET. imf.org/en/publication…

The 2026 Annual Meetings of the IMF and World Bank will open in Bangkok, Thailand, on October 12, 2026. It’s a return to the country that hosted the Meetings 35 years ago. The countdown starts today. #IMFMeetings

@jameselbaor Restrictions on adopting AI or layoff protections in “AI-exposed” industries. If the government makes it more expensive to employ or fire people, the result will be that companies will pay less or not create jobs at all.

@DanKatzIMF What policy(s) immediately come to mind that are realistic and would threaten positive AI outcomes. I would think there are at least one or two that framed your thinking here.

AI has reignited an old fear—that technology will eliminate work. In a new F&D piece, I argue that the outcomes will depend more on the policies that govern the adjustment than on AI as a technology (thread) imf.org/en/publication…

We do not know what the future of work will look like. But it will be heavily shaped by the policies and institutions that govern how economies adapt to technological change.

The goal of policy should not be to protect specific jobs, companies, or industries. It should be to incentivize employees and businesses to adapt and to unlock the productivity gains from AI. This requires flexibility, dynamism and sound structural policies—not stasis.