1\section{Introduction}2\label{sec:intro}34\citet{Restrepo2025} describes an economy in which artificial general intelligence has arrived: every type of5work that people do can also be done by computers, at a cost in compute that is finite and known, and the stock6of compute grows without bound. His conclusions are stark and, within his premises, exact. All work that is7essential for growth is eventually done by compute; output becomes linear in compute; wages converge to the8value of the compute that a worker saves; and the share of labor in income converges to zero while labor's9income does not fall. ``The economy keeps growing; we stay in place.'' The chapter is deliberately silent about10the other side of the national accounts. Compute is an endowment that nobody buys, depreciates or finances;11nothing is said about what the income that leaves labor is worth as an asset, who owns the claims to it, or12how that ownership evolves. This paper is about that other side.1314We ask three questions. First, does the income that leaves labor go to the owners of compute, as the source15concludes, or to the owners of what compute cannot reproduce --- structures, land, energy sites? Second, what is16that income worth: does ``all income accrues to compute'' mean that the value of compute capital, or of wealth17in general, explodes? Third, how does the ownership of wealth evolve across households, and what do the policies18that the source mentions in passing --- universal dividends, treating compute ``as a public or semi-public19resource, akin to land'' --- do in general equilibrium?2021To answer them we keep the source's task block intact and change one thing in production: compute is a22reproducible capital good with a price that falls over time, a depreciation rate, an energy requirement, and23complements --- structures, land and energy --- that it cannot replace and that enter output with an elasticity of24substitution that may be above or below one. Everything on the household side is new: a two-class economy whose25capitalists' Euler equation prices every claim, and a heterogeneous-agent economy in which households with26different skills, discount factors and productivity histories hold the claims through a fund. We solve the model27in three layers of increasing size: the exact replication of the source (Section~\ref{sec:benchmark}); a28limit economy with one complement in which eight propositions are proved (Section~\ref{sec:theory}); and a29quantitative economy with four capital stocks, energy and housing, calibrated to the United States in 2026 and30solved along perfect-foresight paths to 2300 under a catalogue of conditional scenarios31(Sections~\ref{sec:calibration}--\ref{sec:robustness}).3233\paragraph{Findings.} The labor-share result of the source is more robust than its author claims, and its wage34result is less. The labor share goes to zero under any constant-returns production structure, with or without35complements, with compute as an endowment or as a priced capital good, because the only thing it needs is that36labor and compute be perfect substitutes within tasks (Proposition~\ref{prop:laborshare}). The level of wages, by37contrast, depends on compute remaining scarce. If the task composite and the physical complements are gross38complements ($\sigma<1$) and compute becomes cheap, the price of compute goes to zero and so do wages --- in level,39not only as a share --- and the income that labor loses goes to the owners of the scarcest complement40(Propositions~\ref{prop:regimes}--\ref{prop:moore}). With a floor on the compute price, wages converge to the41user cost of the compute that replaces the worker, $w_s=(r+\delta_Q)\bar p\,\CEUt(s)$: ``the rental price of42your replacement'' (Proposition~\ref{prop:bgp}). An energy bottleneck keeps the labor share positive43(Proposition~\ref{prop:energy}).4445On valuation, the income share and the market value of a claim are different objects. On a balanced path46the wealth-to-income ratio is $\sum_ks_k/[(1+r)(1+\pi_k)-(1-\delta_k)]+s_T/(r-g)$: a claim that depreciates at4725\% a year and cheapens at 15\% a year --- compute --- is capitalized at a price--earnings ratio of about two,48against eight for structures and fifty for land (Proposition~\ref{prop:wealth}). Capital's share can rise while49wealth-to-income falls. And a growth boom raises the real rate through the marginal investor's Euler equation,50so that valuation ratios of long-duration claims \emph{fall} during the boom when the elasticity of intertemporal51substitution is below one (Proposition~\ref{prop:discount}).5253Quantitatively, in the baseline scenario --- capability improving at 10\% a year, compute prices falling at 15\%54a year to one hundredth of today's level, energy efficiency gains with a floor --- the routine task is automated55by \AutoYearOne{} and the expert task by \AutoYearFour. The labor share falls from 0.56 to \LSTwoZeroFiveZero{}56in 2050 and below one in a thousand after 2075. The lower skill's wage falls in steps as the source's57compute-binding transition predicts; the higher skill's wage rises to \wHTwoZeroFiveZero{} times its 2026 level58while its expert task is the last one that compute cannot do cheaply, then collapses --- the source's59technology-binding transition. Output rises \GDPTwoZeroFiveZero-fold by 2050 and \GDPTwoOneZeroZero-fold by 2100,60after which growth returns to its trend because land binds. The real return on wealth rises to \rPeak\% in61\rPeakYear{} and the wealth-to-income ratio \emph{falls} from \WoverGDPbase{} to \WYmin{} in \WYminYear{} while the62capital share rises; it then climbs to \WYTwoOneZeroZero{} by 2100 as land, which cannot be produced, captures63\LandShareTwoOneZeroZero{} of income. The market value of compute never exceeds one fifth of GDP. The decomposition64of 2026 valuations into cash-flow and discount-rate news shows the two channels to be of the same order, with65opposite signs. In the heterogeneous economy the wealth Gini rises from \GiniBase{} to \GiniTwoOneZeroZero{} by 2100;66a citizen fund holding one fifth of all claims keeps workers' consumption share bounded away from zero; a compute67tax raises wages one-for-one with the tax-inclusive user cost at a cost in output; a land tax redistributes68without changing allocations; an AI monopoly protects wages the way a compute tax does, with the difference that69the rents go to the monopolist.7071\paragraph{What this paper is not.} It is not a forecast. Every scenario input --- the rate of capability72progress, the compute price floor, the energy-efficiency floor, the terminal compute requirement of each task ---73is documented as such, and the level of wages after 2060 is proportional to the product of two of them. It is not74a model of the arrival of AGI under uncertainty: the paths are perfect-foresight equilibria, there are no risk75premia, and the stochastic-arrival exercise of Section~\ref{sec:robustness} is a labelled approximation. And it76does not model endogenous innovation, the creation of new human tasks beyond one reinstatement scenario, or77nonhomothetic preferences; Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} lists what those would change.7879\paragraph{Organization.} Section~\ref{sec:literature} places the paper in the literature.80Section~\ref{sec:benchmark} reproduces and audits the source. Sections~\ref{sec:model}--\ref{sec:assetpricing}81present the quantitative model, its households and its asset prices. Section~\ref{sec:theory} states and82discusses the propositions, with proofs in Appendix~\ref{app:proofs}. Section~\ref{sec:calibration} calibrates;83Section~\ref{sec:results} presents the baseline; Section~\ref{sec:robustness} the scenarios, the heterogeneous84economy, policy and welfare; Section~\ref{sec:empirical} the empirical discipline and a falsifiable short-run85design; Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes. The replication package reproduces every number with one command.86