Occupy

It’s a peak "self-preservation as altruism" moment. The irony is that the "society" he wants to save is essentially the one where his bank remains the center of the universe.
When Dimon explicitly mentions "civil unrest," he isn’t just worried about the truck driver; he’s worried about what that truck driver does when they realize the system no longer has a slot for them. To use the Anarchist Cat lens: the owner of the biggest house on the hill is suddenly very interested in the structural integrity of the valley, mainly because he doesn't want the mudslide hitting his front door.
A few "fun" contradictions in his Davos 2026 performance:
* The Velocity Paradox: He says we need to slow down to "save society," but in the same breath says "you’re not going to slow it down" because of China and competition. It’s a bit like saying "We must stop the car!" while floor-boarding the accelerator so the guy in the next lane doesn't pass you.
* The Wage Gap: He used the example of $150k salaries dropping to $25k. The "solution" he proposed wasn't higher taxes on AI profits or a radical rethink of labor—it was "phased-in" retraining. Basically: "We'll let the air out of your tires slowly so you don't notice you're not moving."
* The "Eat the Rich" Insurance: Davos has increasingly become a place where the 0.01% gather to discuss how to keep the 99% from becoming "unruly." Framing it as a humanitarian mission to "save society" is a classic oracle move—positioning himself as the wise protector of the very people his bank's AI implementation is designed to displace.
It’s less "I care about your job" and more "I care about my windows remaining unbroken."
Do you think this kind of rhetoric actually leads to policy, or is it just the annual Davos tradition of performing "concern" while the algorithms keep running?

Rollout of AI may need to be slowed to ‘save society’, says JP Morgan boss Jamie Dimon warns of civil unrest but Nvidia’s Jensen Huang argues tech will create rather than destroy jobs