For centuries, the notion of a guaranteed income for all has been circulating; however, its perception is evolving amidst recent events. While still considered radical by many, advocates of universal basic income (UBI) now see it as a potential solution to key challenges faced by today’s workforce, such as wage disparities, job insecurity, and the looming threat of job displacement due to AI advancements.
At the recent Bletchley Park summit, Elon Musk expressed his belief that “no employment is needed” in light of AI progress, suggesting that “personal fulfillment” can be achieved through avenues other than traditional work. In contrast, Karl Widerquist, a political theorist and academic at Georgetown University in Qatar, presents a different viewpoint.
Widerquist argues that even if AI renders jobs obsolete, individuals need not remain unemployed indefinitely. Instead, with the decline of the job market, there is a shift towards oversaturation in low-paying sectors.
Anticipating a scenario where AI pushes white-collar workers towards precarious gig economy roles, Widerquist highlights concerns about worsening wage levels and growing inequality in the workplace.
According to Widerquist, implementing a UBI policy in response to AI and automation could rectify the failure of businesses to equitably distribute the benefits of technological progress.
Some proponents go a step further, viewing UBI as a form of compensation for individuals’ contributions to developing and disseminating knowledge utilized in training AI models like ChatGPT. Scott Santens, the editor of Basic Income Today, questions why only a few companies should profit from the collective intellectual efforts of society.
Loek Groot, an economics professor at Utrecht University, suggests that UBI could offer a viable solution if workers face redundancy due to automation and struggle to secure new roles.
Research conducted by Groot and colleagues in the Netherlands between 2017 and 2019 revealed that providing basic income to individuals previously reliant on social support led to increased engagement in the labor market. This shift was attributed not only to the financial support of UBI but also to the removal of traditional job-seeking requirements and associated penalties.
Contrary to the precarious work environment highlighted by Widerquist, participants relieved from job search obligations demonstrated a higher likelihood of securing stable employment contracts.
While UBI trials generally do not indicate a mass exodus from the labor force, some individuals have opted to reduce their working hours in response to increased financial security. Groot argues that this choice should be viewed positively, especially in a scenario where job opportunities are limited.
The opportunity for skill development or education emerges as a favorable alternative under UBI. Moreover, the perception of work could be reshaped to include traditionally unpaid roles like caregiving, potentially benefiting caregivers, particularly women.
Since 2017, Kenya has been conducting its largest UBI initiative, providing nearly 5,000 individuals with a daily payment equivalent to about 75 cents. The program, facilitated by GiveDirectly and funded through donations, spans 12 years. Tavneet Suri, an applied economics professor at MIT involved in the study, observed unexpected outcomes, including individuals transitioning from low-wage jobs to entrepreneurship, leading to economic growth and increased wages.
Suri emphasizes the positive impact on local markets due to enhanced purchasing power, dispelling concerns about workforce depletion. However, she underscores the need to ensure that a government-backed UBI program is truly beneficial before widespread implementation, particularly in regions where poverty outweighs the immediate threat of automation.
Rosanna Merola, a macroeconomist at the International Labour Organization, proposes a unique approach for nations grappling with technological disruptions. She suggests taxing businesses that replace human workers with robots to fund a UBI, although the practical implementation of such a strategy remains complex.
Joe Chrisp, a researcher at the University of Bath’s Universal Income Beacon, acknowledges the potential benefits of UBI for workers but remains cautious about its design and feasibility. While recognizing the positive impact a UBI could have on employees, Chrisp raises concerns about the need for substantial tax increases to support such programs.
In conclusion, the discussion around UBI and its implications for the workforce reflects a complex interplay of economic, social, and technological factors. While UBI offers a promising solution to address the challenges posed by automation and job displacement, careful consideration of its design, implementation, and long-term effects is essential to ensure positive outcomes for all stakeholders.
