A Post-Labor Economics Manifesto

Neoliberalism has quite a few policies and heuristics that have been in play for more than 40 years. We need a new manifesto, a new framework. Here's my current proposal. Here's my (current) proposal!

TLDR

If you want to cut to the chase, here are the policies, heuristics, and principles I’m recommending:

1. Push all decisions to the lowest effective level (subsidiarity): Local entities must control their economic destiny unless demonstrably necessary to elevate to a higher level.

2. Require radical transparency by default: Organizations wielding significant economic power must operate transparently with increasing disclosure requirements as their influence grows.

3. End the socialization of private risk: Entities pursuing private gain must internalize their risks rather than offloading consequences onto society.

4. Information asymmetry is market failure: Hidden information enables exploitation and must be treated as a form of market manipulation.

5. Local ownership maximizes efficiency: Economic activity should be owned by those directly involved and affected unless scale advantages are clearly proven.

6. Minimize intermediaries between value creation and capture: Every layer between value creators and beneficiaries enables rent extraction and should be eliminated where possible.

7. Economic power must remain competitive: No entity should grow large enough to escape market forces or shape its own regulatory environment.

8. Align incentives with outcomes: Those making economic decisions must directly experience their consequences rather than externalizing them.

9. Decentralize power by default: Power naturally concentrates unless actively prevented, so systems must be designed to maintain distribution of power.

10. Prioritize automation of human labor: Human labor performed from necessity rather than choice represents a failure of technology that must be systematically eliminated.

11. Build decentralization infrastructure: The technological foundation for distributed economic power must be actively developed and protected through legal frameworks and public investment.

This is the solarpunk future I want. Here’s how I think we can get there.

Introduction

For the sake of brevity, I’m going to assume that you understand what neoliberalism as well as its history. If you’re not, please just ask your favorite chatbot: “Please give me a brief history and overview of the implementation of neoliberalism as well as its protocols and policies.” You’ll get caught up pretty quick.

Now, to outline the problem moving forward, the TLDR is this:

The social contract that emerged from the New Deal and post-war era was built on a careful balance between business, labor, and government—each acting as a check on the others’ power. But neoliberalism systematically dismantled this balance by recasting government as business’s ally rather than its regulator, while simultaneously weakening labor’s ability to serve as a counterweight. Through policies like union-busting, deregulation, and corporate-friendly tax reform, neoliberalism transformed what was meant to be a three-way negotiation into a two-way partnership between business and government that extracts value from labor. The results are clear: while productivity has soared, wages have stagnated; while corporate profits break records, workers lose benefits; while the stock market hits new highs, economic mobility hits new lows. This isn’t a bug in the system—it’s exactly what neoliberal policies were designed to achieve. When government and business align against labor, the social contract breaks down and democracy itself begins to fail, as we’re seeing in rising populism and declining trust in institutions.

Okay, so how do we make a new social contract? We went from trust-busting Roosevelt to union-busting Reagan, so in the last century, we’ve had two major economic paradigm shifts. How about we go for a hattrick? This is what I call Post-Labor Economics.

I’ve written about Economic Agency plenty of times, in fact, it was one of the first articles I ported over to Substack:

Now, rather than read the entire antiquated article, here’s an updated framework for understanding Economic Agency:

Economic Agency in a Nutshell

Here are the top six principles of economic agency:

• Time Sovereignty: Time sovereignty is having control over one's schedule and enough discretionary time to pursue wellbeing and opportunity. A single parent working multiple jobs with unpredictable schedules has virtually no time sovereignty, severely limiting their ability to pursue education, start a business, or participate in community. Time sovereignty can be measured by tracking discretionary hours after meeting basic needs and schedule predictability. Policies like mandatory overtime pay, predictive scheduling laws, and universal basic services directly impact time sovereignty. Neoliberalism has decimated time sovereignty by normalizing unpaid overtime, gig work, and "hustle culture." The collapse of time sovereignty particularly impacts women and minorities, creating a feedback loop of reduced economic mobility.

• Financial Authority: Financial authority is the power to make meaningful choices about saving, spending, and investing without external coercion or exploitation. Someone with high financial authority can choose where to live, change jobs without fear, and invest in their future. It can be measured by tracking discretionary income after essential expenses and debt obligations. Policies around minimum wage, housing costs, and predatory lending directly impact financial authority. Neoliberalism has undermined financial authority through wage suppression, financialization of basic needs, and predatory debt. The erosion of financial authority drives increasing wealth concentration and declining social mobility.

• Knowledge Access: Knowledge access is having the information and understanding needed to make informed economic decisions. A person with strong knowledge access understands their rights, opportunities, and the consequences of financial choices. It can be measured by tracking financial literacy, access to accurate information, and understanding of economic options. Educational policy, transparency requirements, and information rights directly impact knowledge access. Neoliberalism has created deliberate information asymmetries that enable exploitation. Declining knowledge access particularly impacts vulnerable populations, perpetuating cycles of economic disadvantage.

• Community Power: Community power is the collective ability of local populations to shape their economic environment. Strong community power means residents can influence development, prevent exploitation, and retain local wealth. It can be measured by tracking local ownership rates, community decision-making authority, and wealth retention. Zoning laws, local banking policies, and community right-of-first-refusal rules directly impact community power. Neoliberalism has systematically stripped communities of economic self-determination through corporate consolidation and centralized control. Weakened community power correlates with declining social trust and political polarization.

• Mobility Freedom: Mobility freedom is the ability to improve one's economic position through effort and choice. True mobility freedom means paths to advancement are accessible and predictable. It can be measured by tracking intergenerational mobility rates and barriers to advancement. Education access, job training programs, and anti-discrimination laws directly impact mobility freedom. Neoliberalism has created an illusion of mobility while raising actual barriers through debt traps and opportunity hoarding. Declining mobility freedom drives political instability and social unrest.

• Bargaining Power: Bargaining power is the ability to negotiate fair compensation and conditions for one’s labor or contributions. Strong bargaining power means workers can refuse exploitative conditions and demand fair treatment. It can be measured by tracking wage growth, benefit levels, and worker leverage in negotiations. Labor laws, union rights, and full employment policies directly impact bargaining power. Neoliberalism has systematically destroyed worker bargaining power through union-busting and labor market monopsony. Weakened bargaining power drives inequality and economic insecurity. It also includes your ability to influence economic policy via voting and other interventions.

Okay, cool.

I hope this has set the stage for you. Now, the question becomes “how do we fix this?” In order to fix this, we first need to better understand the heuristics and principles that got us here in the first place. Democrats and Republicans have been playing Whack-a-Mole for the last couple of decades addressing the symptoms of neoliberalism rather than the root causes. This is because neoliberalism is the official doctrine of the Establishment: From the World Bank and the IMF down, neoliberalism is the official global economic theory. So the US, UK, EU, and most other nations are just playing by the rulebook they have been given, and it is treated as a foregone conclusion that this current economic theory is “correct.”

Principles of Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism comes with a series of policy prescriptions, heuristics, and principles to abide by. These recommendations shape the economic policies of both Democrats and Republicans.

One important thing to note is that neoliberalism was a powerful reaction to union power and “embedded liberalism.” A series of major strikes in the 70’s and early 80’s galvanized the UK and US to fully adopt neoliberalism. People were sick and tired of unions holding the rest of the nation hostage.

We just saw the same thing happen again with the longshoreman strike, whereby a few thousand doc workers wanted to hold the entire nation’s economy hostage to demand ludicrous wages and block automation. I personally am anti-union for these reasons, as it’s just another form of concentration of power.

• If it exists outside the market, bring it into the market: The theory here is that markets are more efficient ways to price goods and allocate services due to price signals, therefore we should maximize use of markets.

• Deregulate everything that constrains capital flows: The theory is that capital will naturally flow to its most productive use if unimpeded, creating optimal allocation of resources.

• Privatize public goods and services: The theory is that private ownership creates better incentives for efficiency and innovation than public management. This is why diehard conservatives are constantly trying to even get the government to stop building roads (and why roads in Texas are awful).

• Reduce all barriers to trade and capital movement: The theory is that free movement of capital and goods maximizes comparative advantage and economic efficiency.

• Minimize labor power through union-busting and “right to work”: The theory is that labor unions create market distortions that reduce economic efficiency and competitiveness.

• Create markets for everything: The theory is that market mechanisms can solve any allocation or coordination problem better than other methods. If it’s not for sale, it should be! This is why we have unfettered access to porn and such. OnlyFans is a prime example of this. Everything is for sale and nothing is sacred.

• Shift risk from institutions to individuals: The theory is that individual responsibility for risk creates better incentives and more efficient behavior.

• Transform citizens into consumers: The theory is that consumer choice in markets is a more effective form of power than collective political action.

• Protect property rights above all other rights: The theory is that strong property rights are the foundation of all economic growth and innovation. This is why you see predatory IP laws protecting corporate interests above all else.

• Ensure “price discovery” through market competition: The theory is that unimpeded market competition reveals true values better than any other mechanism.

• Reduce taxes, especially on capital and corporations: The theory is that capital must be freed from taxation to maximize investment and growth. Corporate socialism and corporate welfare. Plain and simple.

• Prioritize inflation control over employment: The theory is that stable prices are more important for long-term growth than full employment. Furthermore, folks like Alan Greenspan have said that full employment is actually a bad thing, that people should be afraid of joblessness.

• Remove capital controls between nations: The theory is that global capital markets allocate resources more efficiently than national ones. This directly paves the way for multinational conglomerates and perhaps directly contributes to corporate hegemony the most.

• Replace public services with market-based alternatives: The theory is that market competition delivers services more efficiently than public provision. This is why conservatives are trying to replace public school systems with vouchers and charter schools.

• Maintain “flexible” labor markets: The theory is that minimal worker protections maximize employment and economic dynamism. More broadly, “labor mobility” is seen as a good sign, allowing economies to move workers to where they are maximally productive. This is why you should change jobs every two years.

Now, all of these principles make sense as an evolution of liberalism, and if GDP and stock market prices are anything to go by, it has been a resounding success.

Productivity increases while wages, standard of living, and economic agency of individuals does not.

Okay, so we learned how to maximize the economy, but it has come at the expense of human dignity, and people are sick of it.

You can see when neoliberalism was implemented

The Challenge of Change

I don’t want to go backwards. I’m not going to say “roll back neoliberalism and bring back union power.” That’s Luddite thinking. I don’t want to work at all. I want AI and robots to take my job. Better, faster, cheaper, safer, baby!

At the same time, how do we ensure that the benefits of AI and automation are fairly distributed to society? It sure as hell ain’t going to be Sam Altman’s WorldCoin. Though technology will certainly play a role, we also need governmental policy change.

Here are some chief success criteria to this challenge:

1. It must increase GDP more than neoliberalism: For any new economic policy or doctrine to be adopted by the Establishment, it must boost GDP more than neoliberalism. Anything that does not meet this criteria will be shot down a the state, federal, and international level. No nation is going to willfully and consciously adopt sub-optimal economic policies. It would be geopolitical suicide.

2. Establishment elites must still be able to benefit from it: Don’t hate the player, hate the game. Or better yet, master the rules. Anything that doesn’t make Elon Musk richer will be resisted by Elon Musk. You must work with power rather than against it. That is, unless you get to the point of civil war and break out Madame Guillotine (that was a French Revolution joke, not a call to arms).

3. It must be measurable and incremental: Radical, drastic changes like communism, socialism, and other “Phoenix narratives” (burn it all down and rise from the ashes) are just politically not going to happen. First, no one is going to vote for it. Second, whenever nations attempt rapid restructuring, lots of people die.

4. The economic agency of citizens must increase over time: This is, perhaps, the linchpin. If the Democrats want to win an election ever again, they’re going to need to square with this. GDP is not the economy that voters care about, and neither is the stock market. Voters care about their personal economic agency, not Disney’s economic agency. Fuck Disney. No one gives a shit about Disney. Disney is fine.

These are the general success criteria I set for my proposed framework. While I’d love to see a solarpunk future without corporations, I just don’t see a path to it. If that policy would create less economic productivity, it’s DOA.

Just as neoliberalism came with a litany of policy recommendations, so too must its replacement, Post-Labor Economics or PLE, come with its own manifesto.

A Post Labor Economics Manifesto

Voilà

1. Push all decisions to the lowest effective level (subsidiarity): Economic and political decisions should be made at the most local level capable of handling them effectively. This prevents power concentration by ensuring those most affected by decisions have the most say in making them. The Swiss canton system and American federalism demonstrate how distributed decision-making creates stability and innovation. A modern example is the success of city-level climate initiatives compared to national policies. Success can be measured by tracking decision speed, implementation effectiveness, and community satisfaction. Implementation requires clear jurisdictional boundaries and “prove-it-needs-to-be-higher” standards for centralization.

2. Require radical transparency by default: All organizational decisions affecting public interests must become increasingly transparent over time unless explicitly justified otherwise. Transparency decentralizes power by eliminating the information asymmetries that enable exploitation. The open source software movement proves how transparency can create more value than secrecy. Nordic countries’ tax transparency laws demonstrate practical implementation. Success is measured by tracking public data accessibility, corruption indices, and market efficiency. Implementation requires standardized disclosure frameworks and regular audits.

3. End the socialization of private risk: Organizations must internalize their risks rather than pushing consequences onto the public. This prevents powerful entities from extracting value while avoiding responsibility for their actions. The savings and loan crisis and 2008 financial crash demonstrate the catastrophic effects of socialized risk. Iceland’s post-2008 banking reforms show how to implement this principle. Success is measured by tracking bailout frequency, risk distribution, and market stability. Implementation requires strong bankruptcy laws and the elimination of "too big to fail" protections.

4. Information asymmetry is market failure: Markets require all participants to have access to relevant information to function efficiently. Hidden information enables rent extraction and power concentration, making “trade secrets” and “proprietary information” often anti-competitive rather than protective. The success of financial disclosure requirements in reducing fraud demonstrates this principle’s importance. The SEC’s mandatory reporting framework provides a template for broader implementation. Success is measured by market efficiency indicators, price discovery speed, and competition levels. Implementation requires standardized disclosure frameworks and penalties for information hoarding.

5. Local ownership maximizes efficiency: Economic activity should be owned by those closest to its operations and impacts. Local ownership prevents value extraction by distant entities while ensuring decisions reflect community needs. The Mondragon Corporation and community banking systems prove local ownership can operate at scale. German Mittelstand companies demonstrate how local ownership creates resilient economic networks. Success is measured by tracking local wealth retention, business longevity, and community economic health. Implementation requires legal frameworks favoring local ownership and investment.

6. Minimize intermediaries between value creation and capture: Value should flow as directly as possible from creators to beneficiaries. Each intermediary step creates opportunities for rent extraction and power concentration. Traditional agricultural cooperatives and modern platform cooperatives demonstrate this principle’s effectiveness. Creative Commons licensing shows how to implement direct value flows at scale. Success is measured by tracking value chain efficiency and creator compensation rates. Implementation requires new organizational structures and reformed intellectual property laws.

7. Economic power must remain competitive: No entity should be able to insulate itself from market forces through scale or political influence. Competition is necessary for innovation and efficiency, making anti-monopoly enforcement a core economic function. The breakup of Standard Oil and AT&T shows how enforcing competition benefits innovation and consumers. Modern antitrust enforcement in the EU provides a template for implementation. Success is measured by market concentration ratios and new business formation rates. Implementation requires strong antitrust laws and limits on political influence.

8. Align incentives with outcomes: Decision-makers must directly experience the consequences of their choices. Separating decision rights from consequences enables exploitation and moral hazard. Partnership-model professional firms demonstrate how aligned incentives improve decision-making. Worker ownership and profit-sharing systems show practical implementation paths. Success is measured by tracking decision quality and stakeholder outcomes. Implementation requires reformed corporate governance and compensation structures.

9. Decentralize power by default: Every form of power—economic, financial, political, informational, technological—naturally tends toward concentration unless actively prevented. Decentralization creates resilience and innovation while preventing exploitation and capture. The Internet’s original decentralized architecture demonstrates how distributed systems can outperform centralized ones. The rise and fall of tech monopolies shows why active maintenance of decentralization is essential. Success is measured by tracking power distribution across multiple domains, market concentration, and innovation rates. Implementation requires systematic preference for distributed solutions over centralized ones, with concentration permitted only when benefits are clearly demonstrated and regularly re-validated.

10. Prioritize automation of human labor: Every job humans do from necessity rather than choice represents a failure of automation and a constraint on human potential. Automating human labor through AI and robotics creates both economic abundance and human liberation. The historical transition from agricultural to industrial labor shows how creative destruction ultimately expands human possibilities. The rapid advancement of AI and automation technologies demonstrates the feasibility of widespread labor substitution. Success is measured by tracking labor hours eliminated, time sovereignty gained, and distribution of automation benefits. Implementation requires supporting automation research, reforming education for post-labor economy, and ensuring automation gains are widely shared.

11. Build decentralization infrastructure: The technological foundation for distributed economic power must be actively developed and protected. Blockchain, cryptocurrencies, DAOs, and open source systems create new possibilities for transparent, permissionless economic activity. The success of open source software and early blockchain experiments shows the potential of decentralized systems. Estonia’s digital governance provides a template for transparent public systems. Success is measured by tracking adoption of decentralized technologies, transparency improvements, and reduction in intermediary costs. Implementation requires legal frameworks supporting decentralized ownership, regulatory clarity for new technologies, and public investment in open infrastructure.

First, PLE (Post-Labor Economics) will increase GDP more than neoliberalism by unlocking massive trapped value in the economy. Local decision-making dramatically reduces costly mismatches between policies and needs, while enabling rapid adaptation to changing conditions. Radical transparency slashes transaction costs and increases market efficiency by reducing the friction of information asymmetry. Distributed ownership encourages more entrepreneurship and innovation by giving more people skin in the game. When people have real economic agency, they create more value, as demonstrated by how open source software ecosystems often outperform closed systems. Perhaps most importantly, reducing rent-seeking and intermediary extraction means more economic activity goes to actual value creation rather than value capture.

Second, PLE ensures establishment elites can still prosper by creating more opportunities for wealth creation while reducing resistance to change. More innovation and local dynamism creates more opportunities for investment returns, not fewer. Transparent markets actually enable sophisticated players to deploy capital more efficiently and profitably. The expansion of local ownership creates a broader landscape of investment opportunities. Truly competitive markets create more unicorns and breakthrough companies. Elites who adapt early to this new paradigm gain significant first-mover advantages in the new landscape.

Third, PLE is measurable and incremental, providing clear implementation paths without requiring systemic shock. Each principle can be implemented gradually with clear metrics for success. Existing examples like the Mondragon Corporation and German Mittelstand companies prove these approaches can work at scale. Changes can be tested at local levels first, then scaled based on results. Measurement frameworks already exist for most components, allowing progress to be tracked and adjusted in real-time.

Finally, PLE directly increases citizen economic agency through mutually reinforcing mechanisms. Subsidiarity gives people real power over their local economic conditions. Transparency reduces exploitation by eliminating information asymmetries. Local ownership keeps wealth circulating in communities rather than being extracted. Competitive markets prevent monopoly exploitation. Aligned incentives ensure benefits flow to value creators rather than rent-seekers.

The finesse of PLE is that it creates positive-sum gains by reducing waste, rent-seeking, and friction in the economy. It generates more total value than neoliberalism while distributing it better—not by taking from the rich, but by eliminating the inefficiencies that concentration creates. This makes it politically feasible while remaining transformative in its effects.

Conclusion

Neoliberalism wasn’t wrong—it was simply incomplete. Its focus on markets and GDP growth created unprecedented wealth, but at the cost of human dignity and long-term stability. The solution isn't to abandon markets, but to recognize that markets are tools for human flourishing, not ends in themselves.

As we enter the age of AI and automation, the question of human economic agency becomes even more crucial. We don’t need to roll back neoliberalism; we need to evolve beyond it. Post-Labor Economics recognizes that while markets are powerful tools for coordination and value creation, concentration of power—whether in corporations, governments, or algorithms—inevitably leads to instability and decline.

History teaches this lesson repeatedly. From Roman latifundia to modern Big Tech monopolies, the concentration of power has consistently undermined the very systems that enabled it. The rise and fall of empires, the boom and bust of economies, the decay of institutions—all share this common thread of concentrated power leading to systemic failure.

PLE builds on neoliberalism’s insights about market efficiency while adding a crucial second principle: power must remain distributed to remain productive. Markets work best when power is decentralized. Innovation flourishes when agency is widespread. Stability comes from distributed resilience, not centralized control.

The path forward isn’t a revolution but an evolution: maintaining the coordination power of markets while ensuring they serve human agency rather than undermining it. This isn’t just better economics—it’s the only sustainable path through the technological transitions ahead of us.

In short:

• Neoliberalism = market primacy

• PLE = decentralization primacy