UBI and Automation: From Fringe Idea to Mainstream Consensus

In 2019, when Andrew Yang launched his presidential campaign with the promise of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) of $1,000 per month, the idea was met with skepticism and labeled utopian. Today, figures like Sam Altman (OpenAI), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), and Bernie Sanders advocate for versions of the same concept. What has changed? The answer lies in the convergence of three forces: the unstoppable advance of generative artificial intelligence, the worsening of economic inequality, and a shift in political discourse that has moved UBI from the fringe to the center of debate.

The catalyst: generative AI

The launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 acted as a turning point. Not only for its media impact, but because it demonstrated that AI could automate complex cognitive tasks that were previously considered safe. Studies by Goldman Sachs (March 2023) estimated that up to 300 million full-time jobs could be affected by automation, with 18% of global work exposed to AI. McKinsey, meanwhile, projected that by 2030, up to 375 million workers (14% of the global workforce) would need to change occupational categories due to automation. The speed of change has made proposals once considered radical now seem necessary. In 2023, the World Economic Forum reported that 44% of workers' skills would be disrupted by 2027, accelerating the need for safety nets like UBI.

From Yang's campaign to the mainstream

Andrew Yang, in a recent interview with TechCrunch, noted that he no longer waits for politics to catch up with technology. His new company, Noble Mobile, aims to build a mobile phone network that funds a UBI through its revenue, a model he calls 'UBI-as-a-service.' Meanwhile, Sam Altman has been conducting one of the world's largest UBI experiments through OpenResearch, providing $1,000 monthly to 1,000 low-income participants in Texas and Illinois for three years. Preliminary results, published in July 2024, showed an increase in well-being and mental health, though without a significant impact on employment. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, has repeatedly warned about the concentration of wealth that AI could generate and has advocated for a 'basic income funded by taxes on AI profits.' Even Bernie Sanders has incorporated UBI into his platform, proposing a 'social dividend' funded by a tax on financial transactions. This unexpected bipartisan support—from libertarians like Yang to progressives like Sanders—reflects how UBI has transcended traditional ideological lines.

“Automation will not create enough new jobs to replace those it destroys. UBI is not a luxury; it is a necessary buffer.” — Andrew Yang in TechCrunch

Why now? Three key factors

• Speed of automation: Generative AI is eliminating not only manual jobs but also cognitive tasks (translation, programming, design). An OECD report from 2024 indicated that 27% of jobs in member countries are at high risk of automation, and generative AI could accelerate this trend by an additional 10% by 2030.
• Growing inequality: The gap between owners of tech capital and the rest is widening. According to Oxfam, the world's five richest men doubled their fortunes between 2020 and 2024, while the poorest 60% lost wealth. UBI is presented as a redistributive mechanism that could offset the concentration of automation gains.
• Unexpected bipartisan support: Both progressives and libertarians see in UBI a way to simplify the welfare state or empower individuals against corporations. In the United States, a Pew Research survey from 2023 found that 54% of adults support the idea of UBI, up from 48% in 2020. Among young voters (18-29), support reaches 67%.

Consequences for businesses and workers

For businesses, a UBI could mean a workforce more willing to take risks and start ventures, having a guaranteed income. A Stanford University study on the UBI experiment in Stockton, California, showed that recipients increased their full-time work by 10% and reduced job instability. For workers, it would be a cushion allowing them to retrain or reject precarious jobs. However, critics warn about the fiscal cost: a UBI of $1,000 per month for all American adults would cost around $3.8 trillion annually, more than the current federal budget. Countries like Finland (2017-2018) and Kenya (since 2017) have piloted UBI with mixed results: improved well-being and mental health, but no significant impact on employment. In Finland, recipients reported higher life satisfaction, but there were no changes in employment compared to the control group. In Kenya, a long-term experiment by GiveDirectly found that recipients increased their income by 20% and subjective well-being, although a reduction in hours worked was also observed in some cases.

What readers should know

UBI is no longer a fringe idea. It is being seriously discussed in tech, political, and academic circles. However, there is no consensus on its implementation: universal vs. targeted amount? Funded by taxes on automation, AI profits, or data revenue? The European Union has launched a UBI pilot project in several countries, and in California, bills for a state UBI have been introduced. What is clear is that the debate is here to stay, driven by technological acceleration and the urgency to address inequality. As Andrew Yang warns, 'It's not a question of whether we will have UBI, but when and how we will implement it.'