Discussion about this post

User's avatar
J.K. Lund's avatar

The more I think about UBI, the more I have to shrug my shoulders. Here’s why: It depends.

First, we must understand that what we call “economic growth” is the accumulation of knowledge over time. That’s all. The problem we face this century is falling populations (fewer humans to solve problems) and the innovation Red Queens Race: https://www.lianeon.org/p/the-innovation-red-queens-race. In other words, economic growth is poised to slow dramatically, and soon.

Knowing this, in a normal economy with slowing growth rates, the cost/benefit of a true UBI doesn’t appear to make much sense, though some cheaper and more targeted variants might.

But as some believe (new essay coming on this soon too) AI could replace human cognitive labor and could learn and improve faster than we can, it can generate these ideas for us and kickstart…dare I say…accelerate economic growth to unimaginable levels, perhaps 10 times faster.

While historically human labor has always been able to move to “something new” when automation arrives. AI could be different because in order for such growth rates to be achieved it must replace human cognitive/physical labor. In such a scenario, it’s hard to imagine there being many jobs left for humans to do but there will be tremendous wealth and abundance to draw from. The benefit/reward of UBI suddenly begins making sense.

In other words, until we know the trajectory of growth, we probably cannot answer any questions on the merits of UBI. As is stands currently, the math is questionable, but in 10-15 years…it may not be.

Expand full comment

No posts