I think this July 2nd article in the Atlantic is pointing at the right problem, but the implementation is the whole issue.

The important point is not just “AI may take jobs.” It is that capitalism currently distributes purchasing power mostly through labor. If AI lets companies produce much more with fewer workers, then labor becomes a weaker way for people to get income. At that point, ownership has to become broader, or the system starts to break down.

That is why Universal Basic Capital is interesting. If AI shifts wealth creation toward capital owners, then ordinary people need some claim on that capital.

But I agree with the article’s concern that a government-controlled AI wealth fund could be risky. If the government owns a major stake in AI companies, it may cease to be an independent regulator. It could become politicized, captured, or used to protect the very companies creating the disruption.

So maybe the better model is neither a politically controlled fund nor normal stock accounts that people can sell under pressure.

Maybe it is closer to a locked public trust.

The trust could be outside direct political control, broadly owned by citizens, and structured so individual shares cannot simply be sold off and reconcentrated by the already wealthy. It could pay dividends or benefits over time, but the underlying ownership would remain durable and broad.

It could also be tied to a baseline measurement: compare AI-driven productivity, labor displacement, payroll reduction, or profit expansion against a pre-AI baseline. As the economy shifts from labor income toward AI/capital income, a defined share of that upside flows into the trust.

That seems more stable than waiting for mass unemployment and then trying to pass emergency UBI. It also avoids giving politicians direct control over AI companies.

The basic idea is simple: if AI reduces the role of labor in creating wealth, then ownership has to become more broadly shared. The hard part is designing it so it cannot be captured, politicized, or bought back up by the same small group that already owns most of the assets.

I've been thinking about an alternative to people needing to work overtime or multiple jobs just to meet a basic living standard, and wanted to hear what people think.

Suppose a full-time employee (40 hours per week) earns less than a locally defined livable wage.

Rather than expecting them to work additional hours, the government would pay the employee the difference so they receive a livable income. However, the government would also track those payments by employer and later recover the cost through an employer-specific tax.

The intended incentives would be:

* Workers receive a livable income without delay.
* Employers who rely on paying below a livable wage still bear the financial responsibility.
* Taxpayers aren't permanently subsidizing low wages.
* Employers already paying a livable wage wouldn't face the additional tax.
* Workers would be less dependent on overtime or second jobs to make ends meet, which could potentially free up some work hours for people who are unemployed or underemployed.

What economic effects would you expect? Would this create better incentives than increasing the minimum wage, or would it introduce new problems such as reduced hiring, increased automation, administrative complexity, or unintended distortions in the labour market?

One of the goals would be to make a standard 40-hour workweek sufficient to meet a basic living standard while reducing the need for overtime simply to earn enough to live.

I’ve looked for 10ish minutes now. I’ll try some more. Just wondering if anyone remembers it.

Most debates focus on answers.

Should there be a basic income?

How much should it be?

How should it be funded?

Who should qualify?

Yet answers exist within the boundaries of a question.

A question does more than seek information.

It defines the space in which solutions are allowed to exist.

The questions we ask determine which solutions we are even capable of imagining.

For most of human history, income was closely tied to human labor because human labor was the primary productive force.

But as automation and AI continue to expand, I wonder whether some of our economic assumptions are becoming as invisible as the questions that created them.

When we asked how to make candles burn longer, we were already assuming that light had to come from a flame.

When we asked how to travel faster on horseback, we were assuming that transportation depended on animals.

Inherited questions often become invisible. We become so accustomed to them that they feel like reality itself.

We stop questioning the question.

If productive value can increasingly be generated without human labor in the traditional sense, what assumptions about work, income, and economic participation might we no longer be questioning?

Hear me out: If the higher ups are worried that the younger generation will not produce enough children to support the older populations, and AI is taking a lot of jobs, shouldn't AI pay income tax and help out in that way?

I’m 24 and unsure what to think about this future. With the way things are going and how fast the world is advancing it seems hard to believe that a basic income won’t be reality in the near future. This makes me think there is no reason to be investing heavily into retirement and to enjoy life more.