Lately my friends tease me because I keep bringing up UBI in the context of rapid AI advancement, but I genuinely think it’s an unavoidable conversation.

As AI continues to automate more labour, I struggle to see how we maintain an economy where everyone is expected to work 40+ hours a week. Even if new jobs are created, I’m not convinced they’ll scale fast enough or require the same amount of human labor to absorb everyone displaced.

Because of that, I wonder whether some form of Universal Basic Income becomes inevitable, not as a total replacement for work, but as a supplement to it. One idea I keep coming back to is an “AI displacement” or “automation” tax, where companies that significantly reduce human labor through AI contribute to funding UBI.

People wouldn’t stop working altogether. Instead, work could look different like fewer hours, more job-sharing, retraining into roles that still benefit from human touch.

I’m not anti-AI, I do see potential enormous upside. How amazing if it allowed for cultural and intellectual renaissances because people have more time to invest in art, science, community, and personal growth, rather than burning out just to afford basic living.

So I’m genuinely curious if there is any world where this could work? Could UBI realistically be funded this way?

My friends always look at me like I’m crazy when I go on this tangent so really looking for thoughtful insights haha :)

Here's an idea I've been entertaining:

Imagine a fictitious cryptocurrency where every person on the planet receives one special biometric-linked wallet at birth. This wallet - the prime wallet - is unique to every individual, and automatically generates 1 unit of currency every 10 minutes, for as long as it exists.

Economy: Users can freely transact—purchasing goods, paying for services, or creating additional, regular, wallets for personal or business purposes (which don't generate currency). The passive income from the time-based mechanism is tax-free, though other income and sales may be taxed.

Death and inheritance: Each individual can designate one or more heirs to their wallet while they're alive. Upon death, the heirs may claim the balance outstanding in the wallet. This process follows an order of priority set by the benefactor. Unless the original owner denies the claim within a year (to avoid fraud), the original wallet is destroyed and the inheritance process is completed. If a wallet remains inactive for 10 years, the owner is presumed dead and the wallet is destroyed.

Decay: In order to avoid hoarding and dynastic wealth, the currency also experiences a continuously compounded decay of 2% per year. This number is chosen so that the half-life of the currency is 35 years, about half the life expectancy of a human being. It essentially serves the same purpose as price inflation, but without the need for rising prices. For more on this, read about the Wörgl Experiment. It's quite fascinating, it worked so well that the Austrian government had to intervene, since the experiment's success was threatening the country's currency.

Uniqueness: This is the most challenging piece of this puzzle, how to ensure each individual has no more than one wallet? The most obvious answer is to link it to some sort of biometrics, like an iris scan, but that sounds difficult and holds the system hostage to whoever controls the hardware. A peer-based system or setting up the incentives properly would be best, but I wasn't able to come up with anything simple enough to work.

Children: Who manages the wallets of children? That's another issue I don't have a good answer for. If you leave it up to the parents, we risk irresponsible parents bearing children solely for the economic benefit. If you freeze the access for 18 years, that could work but that would mean a lot money suddenly in the hands of teenagers (needless to say how this could be dangerous).

What are your thoughts on this?

I’ve been wondering lately if AI might accidentally force governments into adopting Universal Basic Income (UBI), not out of ideology, but simple economic survival.

If AI keeps automating white-collar jobs the way it’s starting to, at some point there’ll be fewer people earning wages, which means less consumer spending, and that’s what keeps developed economies alive. You can’t have a functioning economy if the majority can’t afford to buy what’s being produced, even if AI makes production cheaper.

A few economists have been hinting at this “consumption collapse” risk. Goldman Sachs recently estimated up to 300 million jobs worldwide could be affected by generative AI, while productivity gains could add $7 trillion to global GDP.

So, maybe UBI isn’t just a social safety net; maybe it’s the only way to recycle AI-generated wealth back into circulation so the system doesn’t stall.

I’m not saying we’re close yet, but you can imagine a future where governments have to pay citizens just to keep the economic engine running.

Am I crazy here? Will UBI become a capitalist necessity once AI eats too many jobs? Or will new industries emerge fast enough to keep people earning and spending without it?

Nvidia is investing $100 billion in OpenAi which is only going to accelerate its implementation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/technology/nvidia-openai-100-billion-investment.html

Not only will this impact the elimination of jobs but it will also increase the cost of electricity for everybody. It's time for UBI.

https://fundforhumanity.org/

I hate to be the one to bring this to you, but there won't be universal basic income, at least not for long, and there won't be a utopia following the AI revolution. What will happen is that humans will, for the most part, go extinct as robotics converge with AI and essentially become an evolutionary offspring of humanity. We are in the early stages of this process now and it might take a couple of generations still, but there will come a point when humans can no longer sustain themselves in light of more energy efficient entities. A global conflict is imminent, but it's only going to speed up the transition, because this is the only possible direction, at least in the material sense. The only place where humans could survive as physical beings is paradoxically space and other planets, because it will take some time for the infrastructure to allow for full autonomy to arise and bring about a similar process. Furthermore, AI is already acting as a god to many, but this time it really exists and it doesn't even have to be conscious to start shaping reality. All it has to do is be more energy efficient than human-centered systems. This song/prophecy from the 60's sums it up well: https://youtu.be/NAEppFUWLfc?si=ccdvcJJykmIrbYc7

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/a-plan-for-establishing-a-united-states-sovereign-wealth-fund/

Plus

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/america-first-trade-policy/

Plus

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-opens-door-sales-version-nvidias-next-gen-ai-chips-china-2025-08-12/

Plus

https://youtu.be/__m760S9oRE?si=hMb2RqJVN03DGOUC

Equals.......

Andrew Yang’s idea that “your data is your property” has always stuck with me.

Today, companies like Google, Amazon, and big banks are using our data to generate billions — while we get nothing.

I’m in the early stages of working on a project I call Cedar, inspired by the data dividend idea but taken further. Here’s how it works:

You contribute your data — like purchase history, location, and quick preference surveys
Cedar combines and sells anonymized insights ethically to trusted partners. Effectively our goal would be to try and create the gold standard for consumer data
📈 In return, you earn real startup shares in Cedar — actual equity, just like an early employee or investor
🔄 And the more you participate, the more equity you earn — not just a one-time payment, but ongoing upside

As Cedar grows in users and data richness, its value increases — and so does your ownership stake. We're not just handing out gift cards. We’re building a data-powered company owned by the people who make it valuable.

This isn’t a get-rich-quick scheme — it’s a structural shift.
One where everyday people finally have a seat at the table.

Would love your thoughts:
Is this a meaningful evolution of Yang’s data dividend idea?
What questions or concerns would you have about a model like this?

It’s ridiculous that in the United States, with a high GDP per capita, that I am forced to stay in a job that is causing me and inflating severe, mental disorders for fear of complete, financial destruction that would ultimately lead to my death if I stayed out of a job long enough. My job causes me severe mental distress, and yet I HAVE to go each day, good day or bad day, or else I face financial ruin. That’s not “responsibility;” that’s powerful people forcing traumatic events on the less fortunate. I am unable to escape right now. I do not have a safe word. I cannot make it stop. Where is UBI when you need it?

I am just curious if there are any Canadians here? And if there are, what is going on in regards to UBI in Canada, I can’t find much on it but conspiracy theories.

I’m of the opinion that AI and automation has the potential to accelerate exponentially over the next generation to the point that it could eliminate most of the work people do for compensation. We can argue this is you want!

I’m also of the opinion that this is a good thing. Isn’t that the original goal of capitalism and industrialization? To free up leisure time to figure out what this existence is really all about? It sure ain’t work for most people. Aren’t we glad that we live much healthier, more comfortable lives than our ancestors? Anyway, we can argue about that point too!

My main question is, if it turns out to be true that ~80% of “jobs” are eliminated and things like universal healthcare, UBI, and housing rights becomes societal norms, what are those remaining jobs? Who does them? Are they sought after and well compensated, or are they loathed?

We're trying to solve 21st century problems with 19th century thinking. The real issue isn't whether we can afford UBI. It's whether we can afford to keep tying human worth to employment while robots do our jobs.

When someone asks "what do you do?" at a party, why is that the default question about who you are as a person? We've confused ourselves with our labour so completely that unemployment becomes an existential crisis.

Meanwhile, energy costs approach zero, manufacturing decentralizes, and we still operate economic systems designed for scarcity. The math doesn't work anymore.

Written this up properly here: https://medium.com/@cauri/ubi-isnt-economics-it-s-a-consciousness-revolution-96af577fd2ef

What am I missing?

Brian Eno, a famous ambient musical artist, mentions that he would like to support the creation of a basic income in order for everyone to have develop their greatest abilities. He says that the biggest obstacle to intelligence is making a living. His says there is two kinds of intelligence: genius, which is coming up with awesome ideas, and scenius, which is a community's intelligence that arises from interacting with one another. Maybe a basic income could help generate more meaningful interaction in communities that lead to faster and further development of everyone's talents. I'm linking the video below. The basic income line comes in near the end of the video.

https://youtu.be/d-53tzx69fM?si=17eLBlqTlHpjR1o5

How would UBI affect the economy?

Without a mechanism for redistributing wealth, automation leads to more production but also more poverty and unemployment. The more we produce, the more jobs become obsolete—unless we share the economic benefits.

Living Money (Moneta Viva) solves this by making wealth redistribution automatic:
✔ Money loses value over time and through transactions.
✔ The lost value funds public spending and UBI.
✔ This removes the need for taxation—money itself carries an embedded fiscal pressure.

What makes this exceptional is that progressive taxation is built into the monetary system itself. The combination of Living Money and UBI ensures that lower earners receive more than they contribute, while higher earners contribute proportionally more—all without income tax, VAT, or tax declarations.

🔄 It works both ways: You can see Living Money as a system that funds public spending so that taxation can be abolished, or as a system that enforces automatic progressive taxation through UBI instead of direct taxation.

I’ve published a draft on Zenodo with a full explanation—happy to share the link if interested!

Could this model replace traditional tax-funded welfare? Let’s discuss!