Every few generations, the United States hits a breaking point that forces it to rebuild its economy, politics, and culture from the ground up. Today, artificial intelligence is colliding with that long arc of history, turning a familiar pattern of upheaval into something sharper and faster. The question is not whether the country is entering another period of systemic stress, but whether AI will become the engine that drives the next American reset.
Analysts who study long cycles argue that the nation tends to reinvent itself roughly every 80 years, as new technologies, economic models, and social movements converge. I see AI as the latest catalyst in that pattern, arriving just as public trust in institutions frays and the global order shifts, and the stakes of this convergence are already visible in the labor market, financial system, and geopolitical competition.
America’s 80‑year reinvention pattern meets the AI shock
The idea that the United States periodically remakes itself is not a loose metaphor, it is a structured theory of recurring national overhauls. One influential analyst argues that America’s big resets are driven by three forces arriving together: transformative technologies, the looming potential for vast economic growth, and a society ready to reorganize around both. In that view, the country had such a convergence in the industrial revolution, again in the mid‑20th century, and now faces a similar alignment as artificial intelligence, new energy systems, and demographic change stack on top of each other, with all three drivers present right now.
In that framework, AI is not just another tech trend, it is the emblem of a new transformative wave that could reorder work, wealth, and power. The same analysis ties earlier reinvention cycles to railroads and electrification, then to mass production and computing, each time unlocking a post‑crisis boom. If that pattern holds, the current AI surge could be the front edge of a similar restructuring, with the risk that the transition phase feels chaotic before any broad gains arrive.
The Fourth Turning theory and a new crisis era
The 80‑year rhythm has a parallel in the Strauss–Howe generational theory, which describes a recurring cycle of four “turnings” that culminate in a period of crisis. In that model, the United States moves through phases of institutional build‑up, cultural awakening, unraveling, and finally a Fourth Turning, when existing systems break under accumulated strain and a new order is forged. The architects of this framework, Written by William Strauss and Neil Howe, cast it as a kind of civic seasonality, more like historical pattern recognition than hard science.
Supporters of the theory argue that the United States is now deep into that crisis phase, with political polarization, economic inequality, and global instability all pointing to a system under stress. A detailed overview of The Strauss and Howe Generational Theory notes that the turnings are likened to seasons, with the crisis period associated with the breakdown of institutional order and the eventual dominance of a rebuilt system. In that context, AI arrives not in a vacuum but in the middle of a predicted storm, amplifying both the risks and the potential for renewal.
From 2020 unrest to a predicted climax window
For believers in these cycles, the upheavals of 2020 were not random shocks but early tremors of a larger structural shift. A widely discussed book from the 1990s argued that America would hit a great crisis climaxing around 2020, with mass protests, institutional failures, and a global emergency setting the stage for a new order. That forecast has been cited to explain how the protests and pandemic crises of that year fit into a pattern in which America sees a “turning” roughly every generation.
Online discussions of the same theory have pushed the timeline further, arguing that the current crisis phase is still unfolding and could reach its peak later this decade. One detailed breakdown notes that, As of 2025, the United States is considered to be in the Fourth Turning, with a potential resolution window anytime between 2028 and 2033, and it sketches out scenarios that range from a Global War involving NATO, China, Iran, and North Korea to a Cultural or Political Revolution at home. That same analysis highlights the Principal endowments for the Artist generation, including pluralism, expertise, and due process, suggesting that younger cohorts may be wired to navigate complexity and institutional redesign As of this phase.
How AI fits into a psychohistorical crisis model
Within the Strauss–Howe framework, each crisis is triggered by a different mix of forces, from war to economic collapse. In the current cycle, AI is emerging as a central variable, reshaping labor markets, information flows, and national security all at once. The core of The Strauss and Howe theory is that generations respond to these shocks in patterned ways, with younger cohorts often driving technological adoption while older institutions struggle to adapt, a dynamic that maps neatly onto the current AI wave.
That psychohistorical lens does not claim that AI itself was predicted decades ago, but it does suggest that some kind of disruptive technology was likely to surface as the crisis catalyst. The fact that AI now touches everything from military planning to TikTok feeds reinforces the idea that this is the system‑wide stressor of the moment. Whether one sees the theory as rigorous history or, as some critics put it, more like science fiction than science, its emphasis on cyclical breakdown and renewal helps explain why AI feels less like a standalone innovation and more like the organizing force of a new turning.
Jobs, work, and the scale of AI disruption
Nowhere is the collision between AI and the crisis narrative more concrete than in the labor market. One of the most aggressive forecasts comes from Silicon Valley investor Vinod Khosla, who argues that AI will replace 80% of jobs by 2030 and take much of the Fortune 500 with it, a prediction that frames the technology not as a marginal productivity tool but as a wholesale restructuring of corporate power and employment. In his view, the same wave that creates new winners in sectors like healthcare and climate tech could wipe out incumbents that fail to adapt, with the 80% and 500 figures underscoring the sheer scale of the bet Silicon Valley is making.
Others focus less on corporate churn and more on the human toll. Now, Andrew Yang says AI may wipe out 40 m jobs over the next decade, arguing that the automation crisis he warned about with self‑driving trucks and warehouse robots is no longer hypothetical once large language models and generative tools move into white‑collar work. That 40 m figure, tied to roles from call center agents to paralegals, turns the abstract fear of disruption into a concrete employment shock that could deepen the very social and political fractures the crisis theories describe Now that AI is moving into offices as well as factories.
“Crazy and frenetic”: the new tech cycle and corporate risk
Inside the tech industry, even optimists concede that the current AI build‑out is unusually intense. A separate interview with Khosla describes the present as an Era of unprecedented disruption, with a “crazy and frenetic” technology cycle in which new AI models and applications are released so quickly that existing companies struggle to keep up. In that framing, the incumbents that dominate search, social media, and cloud computing today may not be the ones that define the AI era, because, as Khosla puts it, somebody new will reinvent this and displace existing companies Era of rapid reinvention.
For corporate America, that means AI is both a defensive necessity and a speculative gamble. Boards feel pressure to pour money into model training, data centers, and AI‑native products just to avoid being left behind, even as the path to profit remains uncertain. That dynamic fits neatly into the crisis‑cycle narrative, where old business models erode faster than new ones mature, leaving a volatile middle period in which capital floods into unproven bets and the line between strategic investment and bubble behavior blurs.
Is AI already an economic bubble?
Warnings about that bubble line are getting louder. Analysts have flagged that AI valuations and spending commitments are starting to resemble past manias, with one report noting that CNBC reported on Friday that Goldman Sachs SEO David Solomon told an audience at the Italian Tech Week conference that he expected a correction in AI ventures after such a rapid run‑up. The same analysis described a “red flag” environment in which vast sums have been deployed into AI startups and infrastructure in a short time, raising the risk that a pullback could ripple through banks, venture funds, and public markets CNBC watchers are now openly debating.
At the same time, there are signs that the AI build‑out is not purely speculative. A detailed look at Big Tech’s spending notes that companies have already committed a $3 trillion‑scale gamble on AI infrastructure and applications, while Also pointing out that businesses and consumers are beginning to adopt real‑world uses of AI in the workplace and in daily life. That same reporting highlights the physical footprint of the boom, from data centers that consume enormous amounts of electricity and water to new chip fabrication plants, underscoring that even if valuations correct, the sunk costs and structural shifts will remain baked into the economy Also reshaping local communities.
Geopolitics, AI, and the risk of value destruction
The AI shock is not confined to Silicon Valley balance sheets, it is colliding with geopolitics in ways that could erase vast amounts of corporate value. A recent report on the tech services sector argues that artificial intelligence is the most consequential source of disruption facing the industry, but it stresses that economic volatility, geopolitical tension, and the energy transition are also forcing structural shifts. The authors warn that AI and geopolitics together could erase 50% of tech services enterprise value, a figure that captures how exposed outsourcing firms and cloud providers are to both automation and cross‑border risk The report frames as a structural threat, not a passing scare.
In a Fourth Turning context, that kind of value destruction is not an anomaly but a feature of systemic realignment. If half the enterprise value in a major services sector is at risk, the knock‑on effects for employment, tax bases, and national competitiveness are enormous. It also raises the stakes of AI policy, from export controls on advanced chips to rules on cross‑border data flows, because missteps could accelerate the erosion of existing players without guaranteeing that new domestic champions emerge to replace them.
Generations, institutions, and the AI test
Generational theory suggests that each cohort brings different strengths to a crisis, and those differences are already visible in how Americans approach AI. The same online analysis that situates the United States in a Fourth Turning emphasizes that the Artist generation’s Principal endowments include pluralism, expertise, and due process, traits that could be crucial for building AI governance frameworks that are both technically informed and broadly legitimate. Younger workers, raised on smartphones and social media, are often more comfortable experimenting with AI tools, while older leaders control the institutions that will decide how those tools are regulated and deployed.
That tension mirrors earlier turning points, when new technologies like radio or television scrambled information ecosystems faster than laws and norms could adjust. The difference now is speed and scale: AI systems can generate synthetic media, optimize political messaging, and automate decision‑making in ways that test the resilience of democratic processes. Whether the United States navigates this phase as a managed reinvention or a chaotic breakdown will depend in part on whether those generational endowments are harnessed to rebuild trust in institutions or squandered in zero‑sum fights over who benefits from the AI dividend.
AI as the engine of the next American reset
Viewed through the 80‑year lens, AI looks less like a standalone revolution and more like the central mechanism of the next American reset. The pattern that analysts describe, in which transformative technologies, the potential for vast economic growth, and a readiness to reorganize society arrive together, appears to be repeating, with AI at the center of each pillar. The technology promises new productivity in fields from drug discovery to logistics, but it also threatens to displace tens of millions of workers, strain energy grids, and destabilize financial markets, all while geopolitical rivals race to harness the same tools.
Whether that reset leaves the country more cohesive or more fractured will depend on choices that are still in play: how aggressively to cushion workers from displacement, how to police speculative excess without choking off innovation, and how to embed democratic values into AI systems that increasingly mediate public life. The crisis‑cycle theories do not guarantee an outcome, they simply argue that a reckoning is due. AI has arrived right on schedule to supply the shock; what comes next will determine whether this turning ends in renewal or in a deeper loss of faith in the American project itself.
More from MorningOverview