The fast-paced evolution of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sphere has catalyzed a monumental transformation in global transactions. Using devices and technology to meet human needs without intervention, automation has converted simple operational tasks into complex cognitive functions that can learn, adapt, and make decisions that often surpass human efficiency and accuracy. The emergence of tools like ChatGPT, Dall-E, and other AI-driven business applications creates decisive algorithms and systems that transform how humans interact with data and solve complex, multitudinous problems. This pivotal shift is not merely a continuation of past industrial progress but a glimpse into the not-so-distant future, where the capabilities and boundaries of machines are constantly being redefined and improved. However, the implications of this shift, while bringing innovation, extend beyond business efficiency; the new AI/automation-based technological revolution challenges the traditional employment landscape, “[raising] the specter of mass displacement in labor markets” (Lee, 2023). The intersection of such advancements with new economic and social possibilities rises as a critical focus, laying the groundwork for compelling solutions like Universal Basic Income (UBI) to tackle challenges associated with the automation-dominant era. Designed as a regular payment to all citizens from the government, UBI functions on the premise of being a form of unconditional financial assistance, having the potential to “replace all existing governmental assistance programs…as a wider safety net” (Heller 2018). With this premise, UBI has the potential not only to mitigate the trials and tribulations put by technological unemployment but also to inspire a wide-ranging socio-economic renaissance in addressing inequality, foster healthy innovation and creativity for individuals excluded from the workforce, and ultimately facilitate a more equitable distribution of wealth associated with technological progress.
The rapid rise of automation and AI in the public domain has irrevocably altered critical components of the socio-political climate globally, but this is not a new byproduct of the machine-oriented age. Technological unemployment was broadly referred to as a “new disease” by economist John Maynard Keynes, labeling it as a direct result of “[humans] discovery of means of economising [sic] the use of labour [sic] outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labour [sic].” (Keynes 1930). Even dating back to the nineteenth century, the Luddite movement of English textile laborers gained considerable traction for their rebellion against machinery in replacing their skilled labor and reducing their wages. This fear was not necessarily towards the technology itself per-se, but to the detrimental socio-economic implications of technological progress that entirely disregard human value. Their concerns did not heavily materialize for much of the twentieth century, but it has found a new existence in today’s AI-driven era.
UBI presents itself as a monetary safety net for all citizens. The notion that UBI can “protect the income of workers, without making them less productive” (Cabrales et al., 2023), is significant to its public appeal. Regular, unconditional financial assistance could aid individuals in sustaining themselves during critical periods without the succinct pressure of financial instability. Furthermore, Pasquale (2020) asserts that a redistribution of income, like UBI, is necessary, as “it would substitute machines to do dangerous or degrading work while ensuring those presently doing that work are fairly compensated for their labor and offered a transition to other social roles” (Pasquale 2020). However, this approach dually asserts a point of view that mistakenly categorizes laborers' work as “subpar” and degrading. The critical issue with this perspective is that it conforms to a falsified moralistic resolution of what work is considered “low-value” or skill. UBI should not just be seen as a compensation tool for those whose occupations involve supposedly menial work; moreover, it should be recognized as a medium for empowering all individuals, regardless of social class. By passing on any judgment of the value of different types of labor, UBI can offer a more altruistic approach to securing economic justice. For UBI to fulfill its intended purpose, it must recognize and value all forms of work. Through this, UBI can solve the immediate challenges of technological layoffs and contribute to a long-lasting socio-economic revival, encouraging a shift in viewing specific jobs as less desirable to the insight that all individual forms of work have an intrinsic value. This reformed approach is vital to ensuring that the benefits of AI and automation in the workplace are fairly distributed across the public for the start of a more inclusive and sustainable economic future.
The repercussions of unemployment are not solely economic but concomitantly tend to have psychological and social consequences. While driven by technological disruption, unemployment threatens to undermine the social and economic fabric of the public severely. A significant knock-on effect remains here in that both human and physical capital gradually decrease, “further [depressing] the first-period wages of subsequent young generations” (Sachs & Kotlikoff, 2012). This gradual decrease in consumer spending can harm the national economy, causing periods of economic downturns and recessions. Businesses may witness a dip in demand for their services, leading to greater firings and a perpetually repetitive cycle of instability.
In the removal of low-wage/skilled workers from the labor market, the rise of workplace automation continuously “[discriminates] the most vulnerable social groups presenting gendered, raced [sic], and classes biases” (Huskyes 2020). Examining the effects of automated decision-making (ADM) processes, specifically in consideration of US public services, algorithms tend to perpetuate existing disparities in welfare and homelessness, among other systemic issues. This discrimination reflects and augments existing social biases, widening the distance between social groups and reinforcing the financial and social opportunities divide. Technology is heavily determined by socio-organizational trends, particularly its impending force of inevitability. Many factors must be considered, including the nature of the given task and the price of labor–with degrees of unionization inputted. Aside from replacing human workers with robots, the degradation of work starts with outsourcing decision-making to the machines themselves. To this point, McGaughey (2021) argues that technology accelerates human development the most when individuals “internalize the gains” (McGaughey 2021). The rise of occupation-based automation is inevitable; at the same time, low-wage workers are stuck in a paradigmatic situation of being unable to improve their efficiency, as technological change is not precisely Pareto-improving. Autor (2015) describes it best as workers are likelier to reap the benefits of automation if their occupational tasks are equally supplemented by it, but not if they “primarily supply tasks that are substituted” (Autor 2015).
Rigid supplemental infrastructure is imperative to automation, fostering technological innovation and amplifying individual productivity. Aaron James’s emphasis on the heavy importance of “[taking] macroprudential steps…in order to prevent or at least mitigate a crisis” (James 2012), resonates profoundly in this context. This line of action considers the social and economic structures augmented by technological progress–not just the software or hardware itself. For it to truly benefit the greater good, it is necessary to have initiatives set in stone that ensure the gains of modern technological breakthroughs are shared amongst a population rather than a concentration of a few influential individuals. UBI plays a critical role in an equitable allocation of industrial gains and a newly developed paradigm of social stratification, specifically in reevaluating the relationship between occupation and income. A general basic income presents itself as a viable solution to the psychological and social externalities of work due to its guarantee of universal basic social security, “breaking the link between social rights and waged employment, protecting the person…beyond traditional employment” (Allegri & Foschi, 2021). In the context where AI outperforms humans and daily life becomes increasingly automated, UBI achieves this goal, separating survival from employment. Marx (1939) originated the idea of an individual’s social and personal fulfillment depending on the “economization of time,” contending that the economy of time [is what] all the economy reduces itself [to]” (Marx 1939). Conversely, time and efficiency can shift from being labor-centric to focusing on personal and social creativity in an automated landscape; as a market-based solution, UBI achieves this objective and absolves individuals from employment solely for survival.
Evidence from previous welfare-implementation studies highlights the enormous scope of individualized flexibility, security, and sense of personal agency within a well-designed and implemented UBI system. A common misconception among critics is that implementing any form of basic income or consistent wealth brings about self-destructive behavior in individuals. Many researchers must consider that initiatives like UBI are not merely financially oriented but are heavily intertwined with the passage of social capital. The latter, in turn, increases societal participation and civic engagement through a positive feedback loop that democratizes creativity and innovation. From a research standpoint, innate satisfaction is not only influenced by individual competencies but also by the “ambient demands, obstacles, and affordances in their sociocultural contexts” (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This understanding acknowledges that the actual value of such an initiative surpasses beyond any monetary allocation. It addresses heavier disparities, combating the effusive threat of socio-economic deprivation arising from an inequitable distribution of automation-related financial security. Traditionally, the undertaking of creative endeavors has been a limited privilege available to those with a job and financial security; now, with the introduction of UBI, individuals exiled from the workforce due to automation can still partake in creative and socially beneficial activities. It facilitates a more inclusive environment where individuals of different backgrounds can explore and immerse themselves in a broader range of skills, perspectives, and ideas without any impending financial burden. It ensures that the pursuit of creativity and innovation is no longer exclusive to those financially well-off but an opportunity accessible to everyone, encompassing a more equitable and diverse societal fabric.
Despite its psycho-social benefits, UBI still receives much flak for its supposedly detrimental macroeconomic implications. A central point of critique, often raised by labor economists and researchers, revolves around the effect of UBI on the labor market and broader economic viability. Critics, particularly amongst the “fiscally conservative” bunch, argue that supplying a universal basic income could disincentivize work, effectively reducing labor force participation and stalling economic progress. Highlighting the previous point of separating work from survival, they contend that a mandatory income—without the necessity of work—may reduce employee productivity and motivation, specifically among blue-collar workers. However, this narrative is challenged by empirical research. Banerjee’s (2020) comprehensive study found no rigid evidence suggesting that implementing basic income programs, even within underrepresented and disenfranchised regions, would necessarily discourage employment or reduce work ethic (Banerjee et al., 2015). It was additionally found that work hours increased amongst recipients of UBI in many underdeveloped countries by as much as 64% (Blattman & Neihaus, 2014). Ironically enough, one of the first advocates of a nationwide program for supplying a universal stipend was President Nixon. He vehemently argued for creating a UBI, describing it as “the perfect marriage of liberal and conservative politics” (Bregman 2016). The bipartisan potential of this policy suggests that UBI transcends contemporary political ideologies and can address underlying socioeconomic problems in a balanced and non-discriminatory manner. UBI’s universal approach uniquely bridges long-standing socioeconomic inequalities, proliferating in a united objective of combating the challenges of automation and technological unemployment.
Technological change is inevitable, particularly with the rise of automation. However, there needs to be a solution to let it go forward that properly accounts for and addresses any potential ramifications. With this premise, UBI emerges as a proactive solution to mitigate conflict in an evolving landscape. It is more than a financial safety net; it is a critical tool for empowering individuals in a technologically-altering environment. It is imperative to craft policies and precedents that not only embrace technological unemployment but also defend against the risks of widespread unemployment and economic stagnation. Standing as a force of progression and practicality, UBI offers a way to utilize the power of automation for the greater good, ensuring that change does not come at the expense of economic and social safety. The adoption of UBI poses the ability to usher in a new transformative era—where technology is utilized for the collective good and economic security becomes an accessible reality for everyone.
Cited Sources: