"Universal Basic Income" and AI: cushioning the fall or cutting the safety rope?

A poorly designed universal basic income may ease short-term poverty from automation, yet quietly undercut the very norms of effort, responsibility and belonging that hold societies together.

Article link: https://open.substack.com/pub/johanosteyn/p/universal-basic-income-and-ai-cushioning?r=73gqa&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Audio summary: https://youtu.be/JMJ8SYpO2Y4

Follow me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johanosteyn/

I write about various issues of interest to me that I want to bring to the reader’s attention. While my main work is in Artificial Intelligence and technology, I also cover areas around politics, education, and the future of our children.

As artificial intelligence and automation advance, one idea keeps resurfacing: a universal basic income (UBI). If the robots take our jobs, the argument goes, the state should send everyone a regular payment, no questions asked. It sounds humane and modern. But I worry that a world where large numbers of people live indefinitely on income detached from work will create deeper problems than it solves. Humans are wired for purpose, structure and contribution.

When we reduce our role in society to “being paid not to fall apart”, we are playing with the psychology of whole communities. The real challenge is not just how to fund a universal basic income in an AI-driven economy, but what happens to dignity, responsibility and social cohesion if we normalise life without work.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

Universal basic income is not a new concept. Economists, philosophers and policymakers have debated versions of it for decades. Recent pilots and cash transfer experiments have shown that regular, predictable income can reduce poverty, improve well-being and even support entrepreneurship in some contexts. At the same time, serious studies highlight the fiscal mountain involved: truly universal, meaningful payments at a national scale are extremely expensive, especially in countries with small formal tax bases and high inequality. You do not escape the arithmetic simply by saying “AI will pay for it”.

What has changed is the speed and visibility of technological disruption. Large language models and automation tools are already reshaping white-collar work, just as robotics and software have long affected factories and routine services. It is understandable that people fear “technological unemployment” and look for simple, universal answers. Some technologists now promote universal basic income almost as part of the AI sales pitch: let the machines do the work, we will pay everyone a stipend and call it progress. The reality is messier. Tax systems still rely heavily on labour income. Political will for serious wealth or capital taxation is weak. And societies are much more fragile than many futurists admit.

INSIGHT AND ANALYSIS

The strongest argument for a universal basic income in the age of AI is clear: we cannot leave people with no income at all if whole categories of work become obsolete. But the strongest argument against it is equally clear: people need more than money. Work, in the broadest sense, provides rhythm to the day, connection to others, a sense of competence and a story about who we are. When large groups lose that, we do not get a peaceful, creative leisure society. We get rising anxiety, anger, addiction and a search for meaning in more dangerous places.

There is also a political and moral risk. If universal basic income becomes the primary answer to AI-driven job losses, we may be tempted to stop asking harder questions about power and ownership. Who owns the platforms, the data, the algorithms and the robots? Who captures the vast productivity gains? A modest payment from the state can easily become a way of “paying people to stay quiet” while the value created by automation flows upwards. That is not a new social contract; it is a sedative.

On the financing side, the story is often told backwards. Advocates sometimes assume that AI-driven growth, robot taxes or digital levies will effortlessly fund a generous universal basic income. In practice, measuring “the robots”, preventing avoidance and maintaining investment are all complex political battles. In countries like South Africa, where a small group of taxpayers already carries the state, it is difficult to see how you fund a large universal payment without either punishing the same group further or cutting other essential services. You might be able to design a more modest income guarantee, but the idea of a rich monthly stipend for everyone, forever, looks less like policy and more like wishful thinking.

IMPLICATIONS

So what follows from this? First, we should take seriously the idea that humans are made to work, in the sense of contributing. AI policy should start with a commitment to meaningful activity for as many people as possible, not with a resignation to permanent mass idleness. That means investing in sectors where human presence is irreplaceable: care, education, mental health, community safety, cultural work and environmental restoration. It means experimenting with shorter working weeks, job-sharing and new forms of employment, rather than simply accepting a shrinking pool of “lucky workers” and a growing pool of permanent recipients.

Second, we do need stronger, more predictable income floors in an AI-disrupted world. But they may be better designed as targeted or graduated guarantees, linked to active participation in learning, caregiving, community projects or transitional work, rather than completely unconditional payments that stretch into decades. Cash support can be powerful, but it should be paired with serious investment in capabilities: education, connectivity, health and opportunities to build skills that remain valuable alongside machines.

For governments, the temptation to promise a universal basic income as a simple answer will grow as anxiety about AI increases. The responsible response is harder: honest conversations about what can realistically be financed, and a broader set of tools that includes fairer taxation, social insurance, active labour market policies and shared ownership of key assets. Universal basic income might have a place as one instrument in that toolbox, especially during severe shocks, but making it the centrepiece of our response to AI would be a mistake.

CLOSING TAKEAWAY

AI and automation will transform labour markets. Some jobs will disappear, many will change, and whole new categories will emerge. We cannot pretend this disruption will be painless. But we also cannot afford to build a future in which millions are permanently paid to do nothing while a small minority owns and operates the machines.

That is not the world I want for my child, or for the next generation of African workers. A humane response to AI must protect people from destitution without cutting the rope that connects income, effort and contribution. We should design policies that keep people in the story as active participants, not spectators on a stipend. Money matters, but meaning matters more.

Author Bio: Johan Steyn is a prominent AI thought leader, speaker, and author with a deep understanding of artificial intelligence’s impact on business and society. He is passionate about ethical AI development and its role in shaping a better future. Find out more about Johan’s work at https://www.aiforbusiness.net