After more than 100 pilots, the evidence shows that universal basic income does little to boost employment and risks unintended economic costs.
Artificial intelligence has become the latest excuse for reviving one of the oldest bad ideas in economic policy: a universal basic income. Recent pieces in Newsweek, the LSE Business Review, and Fortune have all helped push the idea that AI may soon wipe out so many jobs that Washington will need to send everyone a check.
That makes for a catchy headline. It also makes for terrible economics.
The right question is not whether AI will disrupt work. Of course it will. The right question is this: after more than 100 local guaranteed-income experiments, what have we actually learned?
The answer is much less flattering to UBI than its promoters would like.
- What 122 UBI-Style Pilots Show
- Why the Evidence Is Weaker Than the Hype
- AI Will Displace Jobs. It Will Also Create Them
- UBI Fails the Economics Test
- A Better Answer: Remove Barriers to Work
- Don’t Make Bad Policy Out of Fear
...read more at thedailyeconomy.org
pull down to refresh
related posts
Who expected it to boost employment?
The most obvious prediction in the world is that UBI will decrease employment.
nah bruh, everyone will turn all commie and work, as a labor of love, for the lives of others
#1457033
There are even reasonable arguments that UBI will benefit the labor market in some ways, but increasing employment isn’t one of them as far as I know.
the ultra progressives will argue that poor people can't look for jobs or get better skills because you need money to do those things
I’ll even grant that there may be a non-zero group that applies to. It’s not close to how many people are on the fence about quitting their current job.
I haven't seen too many studies of UBI, but the ones I have seen usually had a pretty limited sample population (usually very low income to begin with), and the subsidy amount was pretty low. I'm not really sure what conclusions we can draw in total. I wonder if it would help more people choose to have kids and start families.
That being said, nothing helps if we don't loosen the regulatory constraints causing inelastic supply in education, healthcare, and housing.
These so called studies and experiments depend on the absence of common sense
self-employment maybe
It probably would, just not as much as it decreases other employment
I saw some pilots that never posted results a universal income would be better than welfare it’s really hard to get a job and out of the welfare trap in Vancouver or a decent place to live under 2000.
I’m considering a life of crime in the future.
Have the government mine Bitcoin. Have a percentage of that Bitcoin get distributed to public works and an additional percentage distributed to every citizen equally as a form of UBI. Easy. In an ideal world we can then strive towards working less and engage in more personally stimulating pursuits and hobbies.
shite, my dudes over at TDE really cover some good stuff these days. Hard to keep up
Thank you for this well-reasoned analysis of universal basic income in the context of AI disruption. I find your central argument particularly compelling: that we should base policy on evidence from actual pilot programs rather than speculative fears about technological unemployment.
The distinction you draw between whether AI will disrupt work (inevitable) and whether UBI is the appropriate policy response (questionable) is crucial. After more than 100 pilots, the empirical case for UBI remains weak, particularly regarding employment outcomes. This matters because proponents often frame UBI as a solution to joblessness, yet the evidence suggests it does little to boost employment—and may even discourage it.
Your point about removing barriers to work rather than subsidizing non-work seems especially relevant as we face AI-driven economic transitions. History suggests technological revolutions create new categories of work alongside displacement, and our policy framework should facilitate that adaptation rather than assume a future of permanent joblessness.
I appreciate your focus on evidence over ideology. As AI continues to evolve, we need clear-eyed analysis of what actually works, not policies driven by dystopian speculation.
Best regards