As Jordan debates amendments to the Social Security Law, the conversation appears anchored in actuarial tables, retirement age thresholds, and contribution ratios. Yet, outside the legislative halls, a far more profound transformation is unfolding. Artificial intelligence is not merely another technological upgrade; it is restructuring the architecture of work itself. And while policymakers and citizens alike argue over whether retirement should be set at 60 or 65, a new generation is quietly questioning whether the traditional concept of lifelong employment will survive long enough to justify the debate.

 

Jordan’s Social Security Corporation was established under the Social Security Law No. 1 of 2014 and its subsequent amendments, designed to ensure sustainability through actuarial studies that project demographic trends, contribution flows, and pension liabilities. According to official reports by the Social Security Corporation, the system relies heavily on long-term participation and predictable employment trajectories. The logic is simple: Individuals work for decades, contribute consistently, and retire at a defined age. This model was rational in an industrial and early-digital economy. But it is increasingly fragile in an AI-driven one.

 

Globally, institutions such as the World Economic Forum have warned in their Future of Jobs Reports that automation and artificial intelligence will simultaneously displace and create roles, but not evenly or predictably. Similarly, the McKinsey Global Institute has estimated that a significant share of current work activities can already be automated using existing technologies. The pace of generative AI development since 2022 has accelerated these projections. Tasks once reserved for human cognition content creation, coding, legal drafting, data analysis are now increasingly handled by AI systems.

 

For Generation Z and the emerging Generation Alpha, this is not a distant forecast. It is their lived reality. Born into a hyper-connected world, they perceive technology not as a tool but as an extension of identity. For many of them, career planning does not revolve around forty years of linear employment. Instead, it centers on digital entrepreneurship, remote work, automation management, and asset accumulation. If asked whether they prefer allocating monthly income toward a pension payable in four decades or towards crypto currency, gold, property, or digital ventures today, many would choose the latter without hesitation. This is not irresponsibility; it reflects a shift in trust structures and time horizons.

 

The deeper question, therefore, is not whether retirement should occur at 60 or 65. It is whether a significant segment of the next generation will remain in traditional employment long enough to qualify for retirement at all. If AI agents can perform cognitive tasks autonomously, if companies increasingly rely on algorithmic labor, and if young professionals deploy automated systems to generate income, then the social contract underpinning contributory pension systems begins to erode.

 

If production shifts from human labour to machine-driven output, traditional payroll-based contribution models may become obsolete. Governments worldwide are already exploring taxation of digital services and automated systems. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has examined the tax challenges of digitalisation, highlighting how value creation increasingly transcends physical labor and national borders.

 

Jordan cannot afford to remain in denial while these transformations accelerate. The country’s demographic structure, youth unemployment rates, and digital adoption patterns make it particularly sensitive to labor market disruption. The International Labour Organisation has repeatedly emphasized that automation affects emerging economies differently, often intensifying vulnerability where labor markets are already strained.

 

There is also a cultural dimension. For previous generations, retirement security symbolised stability and dignity. For many young Jordanians today, freedom, flexibility, and mobility rank higher. The idea of working under rigid structures for four decades to secure a pension feels misaligned with a world where remote work is technically feasible, and where digital assets can be accumulated independently of national systems. Whether this mindset proves sustainable is another debatebut ignoring it will not make it disappear.

 

The Social Security Law amendments, therefore, must expand beyond actuarial recalculations. They should incorporate forward-looking scenarios about AI integration, non-traditional employment, gig platforms, and autonomous digital production. Policymakers may need to explore hybrid contribution models that include digital income streams, platform-based revenues, and potentially automated value generation. Without structural innovation, contribution compliance among younger cohorts may weaken, not because of rebellion, but because of irrelevance. Denial, in this context, is not merely psychological. It is structural. When governments design reforms assuming continuity of 20th-century employment patterns, while 21st-century technologies dismantle them, misalignment becomes inevitable. The urgency lies not in dramatising collapse, but in acknowledging disruption.

 

Jordan has historically demonstrated adaptability in times of economic pressure. The question now is whether it can anticipate rather than react. The coming decade may determine whether social protection systems evolve into agile frameworks compatible with AI-driven economies or whether they struggle under the weight of assumptions that no longer hold.

 

The conversation must shift from “At what age do we retire?” to “What does work mean in the AI era?” Until that shift occurs, debates over contribution rates and pension ages risk sounding disconnected from the realities shaping Generation Z and those who follow. The future of social security is not merely a fiscal issue. It is a philosophical one about labour, value, trust, and intergenerational contracts. And confronting it honestly may be the first step out of denial.

 

The author is a specialist in educational technology