I’ve heard about universal basic income, and I fully agree that we’re going to need something like that. I’ve developed this concept of “automation compensation,” which I believe more accurately describes what will become necessary. It represents compensation for the rapid increase in competition for tasks that robots will excel at performing—tasks that humans simply won’t be able to compete against. Humans will need to be compensated for losing the opportunity to do these jobs, earn income, and use that money for essentials like rent and food.
Many people are fundamentally opposed to the idea of universal basic income because it evokes concepts like communism or socialism, which are alarming buzzwords to many United States citizens. Realistically, though, we’ll soon reach a point where competition becomes so intense that the average person simply cannot compete, creating a race to the bottom where people fight for scraps. We cannot allow this to happen, or what do we become as a species? How can we justify not taking care of our own people while simultaneously employing robots to perform these tasks? Eventually, if nobody earns money while robots do all the work, who will have money to purchase anything? The economy would cease to function.
We need to have this discussion publicly and clearly among all who understand what will unfold over the next few years. We absolutely must implement something like automation compensation to ensure that workers who are displaced by robots, who have diminishing opportunities, who are being paid pennies on the dollar for jobs that once paid $20-30 an hour, are fairly compensated. We need to transition to a system where we take care of people who have lost opportunities because their jobs are now performed by robots, or whose potential future opportunities have been taken over by automated systems.
As automation and AI advance to perform cognitive tasks more efficiently and at lower costs, we face a societal transition that demands new economic models. Automation compensation provides a monthly stipend to all citizens, acknowledging the widespread impact of technological displacement on employment opportunities.
When this compensation becomes universal, it won’t lead to mass workforce exodus as some might fear. Instead, people would continue working to supplement this baseline income, now with reduced financial pressure. This approach recognizes both the direct job losses and indirect opportunity reductions caused by technological advancement.
This economic safety net would likely improve productivity and well-being. Research on financial security programs shows that when basic needs are guaranteed, people experience less stress and can make better long-term decisions. Several pilot programs in Finland and Canada have demonstrated that recipients of basic income don’t generally withdraw from the workforce but often pursue education, entrepreneurship, or more meaningful employment.
Eventually, this could transform our relationship with work—shifting motivation from purely financial necessity toward intrinsic satisfaction and community contribution. The economy might evolve toward more direct relationships between labor and benefit.
Consider construction workers receiving housing in buildings they help create or having input in how infrastructure serves their community, similar to cooperative housing models already functioning in parts of Europe. Or imagine healthcare providers with stakes in community wellness centers rather than working solely for corporate hospital chains.
Implementing such changes would require significant policy adjustments and funding mechanisms—perhaps through technology taxes or redistributed productivity gains. The transition period would present challenges as traditional employment models adapt.
This framework suggests a future where people engage in meaningful work driven by purpose and direct community impact rather than traditional corporate compensation structures—a fundamental re-imagining of work that honors human dignity while harnessing technological advancement.
Leave a Reply