“Today, the demands on business and workers are different. Firms must meet world-class standards, and so must workers. Employers seek adaptability and the ability to learn and work in teams.”

Sound familiar?

It’s the sort of guidance you’ll find on X, in studies issued by nonprofits, and, as I recently dug up, a report by the Department of Labor published in 1991. The familiarity is striking—and not accidental. Periods of economic transition tend to produce the same anxieties, framed in remarkably similar language.

The labor secretary spun up a commission to study “the demands of the workplace and whether young people were meeting those demands.” This was an important question at that moment for a couple of reasons. First, the economic prospects of the next generation of Americans did not look bright. Unemployment among young adults stood at 9.6 percent at the start of 1991; it climbed to north of 10% within a few months.

Second, there was a concern that the economy was transforming at a faster rate than educational curriculums. “(M)ore than half of our young people leave school without the knowledge or foundation required to find and hold a good job,” observed the Secretary. Against that backdrop, the gap between schooling and work felt urgent rather than abstract. The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) was thus formed and mandated to talk with educators, private sector stakeholders, and government officials to identify a path forward.

We find ourselves in a similar place today. Young adults have an 8.2% unemployment rate as of December of 2025. Pundits, researchers, and politicians fear our educational and vocational infrastructure is ill-suited for the labor market shifts being driven by AI. The technology may be new, but the underlying worry—that institutions are lagging behind economic reality—is not.

So far, our response seems to have been the same, too.

Then, there was a lot of talking, information gathering, and stakeholder engagement. These are all practical steps, in moderation, and they often feel like progress. “We have talked to (employers) in their stores, shops, government offices, and manufacturing facilities,” explained the Secretary. “Their message to us was the same across the country and in every kind of job: good jobs depend on people who can put knowledge to work.”

That groundwork was followed by something else that will also feel familiar to modern readers: a flood of broad statements about the skills Americans would need to thrive in a new technological era.

Take it from the secretary:

New workers must be creative and responsible problem solvers and have the skills and attitudes on which employers can build. Traditional jobs are changing and new jobs are created everyday. High paying but unskilled jobs are disappearing. Employers and employees share the belief that all workplaces must ‘work smarter.’

From there, the conversation moved quickly from diagnosis to prescription—though not always with much specificity.

Then, there were a lot of generic policy recommendations.

The secretary summarized the three takeaways from the SCANS report:

(1) “All American high school students must develop a new set of competencies and foundation skills if they are to enjoy a productive, full, and satisfying life.” This recommendation even called for equipping students with more “know-how.” Apparently, only one-half of young people had such “know-how.” Of course, a similar shortage of “know-how” is drawing headlines and shaping congressional debates today.

(2) “The qualities of high performance that today characterize our most competitive companies must become the standard for the vast majority of our companies, large and small, local and global.” Specifically, workers must become “comfortable with technology and complex systems, skilled as members of teams, and (passionate) for continuous learning.”

(3) “The nation’s schools must be transformed into high-performance organizations in their own right.” Notably, efforts at transformation were already underway but “a decade of reform efforts” had amounted to “little improvement.”

What there wasn’t a lot of was political prioritization and commitment—I’m talking about a decades-long focus on “transforming the nation’s schools into high-performance organizations.” The secretary's report did not lead to a sustained overhaul of the nation’s educational infrastructure. School as of 1991 looks more or less like school as of 2026. Ambition, it turns out, is easy to articulate and hard to finance, defend, and sustain. Transformation of just about anything—let alone something with as much resistance to change as our educational system—requires incredible amounts of political and financial resources to be expedited over several years.

That’s a lesson we must heed today. Just about every actor in our political system is incentivized to think on two-year time horizons (if that). These conditions are not conducive to initiating and sticking with transformational projects. Such changes are only possible if the public champions these efforts, providing political cover to those who are willing to incur short-term losses for long-term gains.

So, will we update our educational and vocational infrastructure for the Age of AI?

It depends. Specifically, it depends on whether we can collectively muster the focus and persistence that’s inherent to successful political projects—and whether we are willing to treat this challenge as more than another familiar talking point in a long line of reports that warned us, correctly, and were then quietly shelved.

____

Kevin Frazier is a Senior Fellow at the Abundance Institute, directs the AI Innovation and Law Program at the University of Texas School of Law, and is an Affiliated Research Fellow at the Cato Institute.

_____

©2026 The Fulcrum. Visit at thefulcrum.us. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.