That is why the biggest question raised by AI is not just how many jobs it will destroy. It is what happens to a country built around work when work is no longer the primary source of identity, dignity, and belonging, and whether we can build what comes next.

For more than a century, American life has been organized around one central assumption: that most adults will earn their place through work. That belief runs deep. 

It draws on older currents in the American story. One is the Puritan work ethic: the belief that hard work, discipline, frugality, and devotion to one’s calling were not just economic habits but moral obligations. Another is Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of the yeoman farmer: the vision of independent citizens whose labor, property, and self-sufficiency made them fit for freedom. Together, those traditions helped turn work into something more than a paycheck. Work became proof of character and a claim to belonging.

That assumption shaped everything. School was preparation for work. Adulthood meant getting a job. Economic health meant job creation. Dignity, status, and identity were all tied to occupation. We built our institutions around the idea that human labor was the core engine of value. Even now, when people meet, we’ve trained ourselves to lead with: “What do you do?” 

That simple question reflects something bigger. Across farms, factories, offices, and professions, work did not just organize the economy. It became one of the main ways Americans organized meaning.

The biggest question raised by AI is not just what happens to jobs. In the near term, that question is urgent. Large-scale disruption, displacement, and social unrest are real risks, and they deserve serious attention. Most people assume we will eventually move through that period and that new forms of work will emerge, productivity will rise, and some version of broader abundance will take hold.

But even if that’s true, it leads to a deeper question: what happens to a society when work is no longer the main way people organize identity, purpose, and belonging? We still talk about this transformation too narrowly. We debate how many jobs AI will create or destroy and how to reskill people for what comes next. Those things matter. But they miss a larger shift already underway. Work may no longer be able to carry all the meaning we have placed on it. And if that’s the case, what happens when it is no longer the primary way people earn money, structure their lives, and understand their worth?

This question matters because Americans do not treat work as just a paycheck. We load it with moral weight. Derek Thompson has called this “workism,” the belief that work is not only necessary for economic production but also the centerpiece of identity and life purpose. Pew has found that 39 percent of workers say their job or career is extremely or very important to their overall identity, and another 34 percent say it is somewhat important.

But beneath the cultural story of workism lies something more universal and more biological. Work, at its best, provided a cycle humans are wired to seek: an invitation to participate, the chance to contribute something that mattered, and the validation of being recognized as necessary. That loop, invitation, contribution, validation, is not merely a Puritan inheritance. It is a feature of social life.

In other words, this is not only a labor-market problem. It is a meaning problem. For generations, paid work did more than support life. It helped define a life. A job told you where you stood. It gave you a rhythm. It connected you to institutions larger than yourself. It gave you colleagues, expectations, and milestones. It offered a socially recognized way to contribute. That arrangement was never perfect. Many jobs were draining, precarious, or dehumanizing. Many people found purpose outside work all along. But even so, work remained the main structure around which adulthood was built. And now with the coming of the AI era, that structure is starting to weaken.

What our research is showing

At Ferrazzi Greenlight, and through the Greenlight Research Institute, the research has focused for years on how transformation succeeds inside organizations. Most recently, that work has centered on how the rise of agentic AI is transforming not just what people do at work, but what work is. Across research into human-agent collaboration, organizations continue to measure people by outputs that software can now generate faster and cheaper, while leaving much of the most critical human contribution unmeasured.

This creates a structural problem. The systems used to measure contribution were built for a world where human labor was the primary source of output. As that changes, those systems lag behind. And when the way contribution is measured falls out of sync with how value is actually created, the consequences extend beyond the workplace.

From a work economy to a contribution economy

These are not abstract questions. A society cannot stay healthy if large numbers of people feel economically unnecessary, socially unrecognized, or unsure where they fit. And it cannot solve that problem by talking only about retraining or labor-market efficiency. What is needed is a redefinition of contribution itself, and a system that recognizes and rewards it whether it happens inside a company or outside of one.

This is what this argument calls the Contribution Economy. It is not a utopian concept. It is a practical framework for what comes after workism: a society in which dignity comes less from occupation and more from usefulness to others. Less from title and more from impact. Less from being employed by an institution and more from being embedded in a community.

The Contribution Economy is deliberately distinct from adjacent ideas that have circulated in this space. It is not universal basic income, although new economic floor-setting may be part of how it gets built. It is not the gig economy, which still defines value through transactional output. The Contribution Economy is broader: it holds that any act of genuine usefulness, to a family, a neighborhood, a civic institution, or a creative community, constitutes a real and recognizable contribution to society, worthy of recognition, support, and in some cases, compensation.

That could come to life in various ways. It could mean caregiving is treated with more respect. It could mean community leadership counts for more. It could mean mentorship, volunteering, civic participation, and neighborhood involvement become more central to how people define a meaningful life. It could also mean new systems that formally recognize and even compensate these contributions through community-based work, service networks, or new economic models that tie baseline security to meaningful participation rather than traditional employment.

But here a hard design challenge must be confronted. A Contribution Economy will need credible ways to recognize contribution, or it risks becoming morally attractive but too vague to sustain. Money has never been only compensation. It has also served as acknowledgment at scale: quantifiable, transferable, visible, and accumulating over time. It gave society a rough but functional answer to whether others valued what someone did. Systems that weakened visible, differential recognition of contribution without replacing it with something equally legible have historically struggled to motivate and cohere. Building a Contribution Economy means solving that problem deliberately: not just expanding the categories of what counts, but creating the felt, social experience that contribution has been seen and confirmed.

This will not happen automatically

If work can no longer hold the same central place in society, this is not something individuals can solve on their own. Our institutions will have to catch up to a bigger definition of purpose, contribution, and worth. Schools need to prepare people not just for careers, but for lives of ongoing adaptation and contribution. Communities need to become thicker and more participatory. Civic life needs to offer more real avenues for responsibility and recognition.

The shift from a work economy to a Contribution Economy will not happen automatically. It will require redesign of incentives, institutions, and how value is measured. The task now is not simply to protect the old arrangement for as long as possible. It is to imagine a society where people still feel useful, respected, connected, and needed even when work is no longer the main institution organizing those things.

Work will remain, but it cannot carry all of this alone

None of this is a romantic case against work. Work will remain important. Many jobs will still be essential. Some people will always want demanding careers and derive purpose from them. The point is simply that work will no longer be able to carry all the weight we have placed on it. And yet that is exactly what our society still expects it to do.

That model may have made sense in a world where human labor was the irreplaceable core of production. It makes less sense in a world where software agents can absorb more and more of what educated workers used to do. The biggest mistake now would be to treat this as a normal cycle of disruption and recovery. 

What is coming looks larger: a shift in the basic logic of how society assigns value, distributes security, and defines a useful life.

There is one more possibility worth naming. The technology destabilizing the old meaning system may also be, for the first time in history, capable of helping build new relational infrastructure at comparable scale. AI could help people find communities where their particular contributions are genuinely needed. It could help match complementary capabilities across differences. It could, if designed deliberately, help people experience the invitation, contribution, and validation cycle that work once hosted outside the formal economy and across a broader range of human gifts. The danger is AI substituting for relationship. The opportunity is AI helping rebuild some of the relational scaffolding the modern world has stripped away.

The transformation of work is a crisis, but it is also a rare opportunity: to see clearly what the old system did for us, what it never did, and what now has to be built deliberately. If work can no longer serve as the primary container for identity, contribution, and belonging, then the task ahead is not simply to preserve jobs or redistribute security. It is to build a society designed around what human beings need in order to become what they are at their finest: needed by others, invited into purpose, witnessed in their contribution, and made better by one another.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.