how do we we get local, state and federal governments involved to setup the necessary investments, UBI and regulations/deregulations necessary? None of this is going to matter if congress doesn't buy into it. I can easily see the ultra wealthy just selling services and goods to each other with their armies of robots taking care of all their needs (while millions starve.) how do we get the common people at seat at the table, poltiically?
Dave says AI is coming for all jobs. It Is! What am I going to do then? Fortunately, the same thing I am doing now. I retired on January 31, 2022, and instantly became a member of a very large group of people. I have absolutely no regrets and am enjoying life greatly, however, I still worry about funding my and my family’s future. I agree with Dave’s ideas and hope some really important people are listening to him and will help implement those ideas. I wanted to throw my idea into the mix as well!
I think trust is my biggest obstacle when it comes to finances. I know nothing is guaranteed, but at age 70, I can't afford to take chances. There are probably millions of people just like me. Combined, we are probably sitting on billions or more likely trillions of dollars earning an average of less than 5%.
While Social Security should not be your only source of income, we have contributed for our lifetime into the program assuming or hoping it would be there. Now we are being told it will be insolvent (due to so many reasons that should not have happened) in 10 years, hence my lack of trust.
Imagine if those billions or trillions of dollars could be pooled and used to seed a program, let's call it FBI (Family Basic Income - pun not intended), that would provide income for each of our families in perpetuity. If UBI becomes reality, this FBI program would supplement UBI. If there was some form of guarantee, I am sure many of us would be willing to participate. We need a way to help support ourselves and our families in the future.
I am not suggesting socialism, this program would be tied to each founding family and their future generations, not a pool for another government program. It might be similar to an annuity run like the retirement I receive from a previous employer. I worked 13 years, didn’t pay a penny into the fund and started receiving $708.86 a month starting on my 65th birthday. That income will continue until both my wife, and I die. At least that is what it is supposed to do!
If they can manage that with me not putting any money of my own into the program, imagine how it could work if the program was initially funded with 250 trillion dollars? That would be 1 million families contributing $250,000 each. With an APR of 5%, each family could receive about $1065 per month. You may want to check my math, but I think there are better ways that could earn more than 5%.
As an example, let’s assume that robots will be ready for prime time soon. How many robots could be purchased with $250 trillion dollars? If we assume they can get the price down to $25,000 per robot, that would be 10 million robots. What kind of income could 10 million robots produce? I know there are many more factors to consider but this is just a theoretical discussion of one idea.
What are your ideas? Would you invest if you had a valid guarantee?
"Just a checking account at a credit union and a default setting of 'reinvest everything.”
I don't see an 18-year-old doing this. Most of us are not financially literate enough or disciplined enough to manage our finances effectively. Even though I started living with my grandparents when I was six, because my mom had died, their Depression era frugality didn't rub off on me. Instead, my example was from my Dad and Stepmom, after moving in with them at ten years old. They were professionals with a substantial income, but they spent it all. We lived on the edge until I went to high school, when they shifted gears and started saving, or perhaps they stopped spending everything they earned.
My wife came from a home that lacked financial literacy as well. So, as a young couple, we struggled. Then, of course, we had children, which are expensive. It wasn't until we were about 30 that we figured it out, but we still struggled some until after they graduated from college.
Of course, school taught us nothing about finances, and most of us learn as we go, as evidenced by the popularity of shows like Dave Ramsey and others. Adults well into their 30s, 40s, and older are calling in with problems that seem to have obvious solutions. (Obvious to me, because they aren't my problems, if they were, I probably would be calling too.)
These are great ideas, though, and I would love a very public discussion from our country's leadership. Here's to hoping.
One idea I've had, but not fully thought out, is a replacement tax. Let's say the average auto worker earns $ 70,000 per year, plus benefits. For each worker replaced a certain percentage of their total compensation per year is paid by the company that replaces them. Would 50% be too much? If a humanoid robot replaces two workers, which even allowing for charging or maintenance, is probably in the ballpark, then $70,000 plus, a year would go into the pool of whatever we will call it.
Hi Robert—thanks for the thoughtful push-back. Three quick clarifications:
1. No 18-year-old portfolio juggling required.
The whole point of these property streams is that most of them are non-transferable and residency-locked, just like Alaska’s Permanent Fund. Once an 18-year-old opens a qualifying credit-union or bank account, the dividends land automatically and default to “reinvest.” They can’t day-trade them, can’t cash them out early, and don’t need to pick stocks—exactly because, as you note, few teenagers (or adults) have the discipline or knowledge to do that.
2. Why the bank (or credit union) is the hub.
Banks already handle all the unglamorous plumbing—KYC, ledgers, tax reporting, estate transfer, fraud monitoring, etc.—and everybody already has one. By clearing every dividend, rebate, or royalty through that same account, we avoid the four-app shuffle and the education gap you’re worried about. Think of it as “direct deposit for ownership.”
3. Compounding happens without touching a button.
Each credit lands, gets auto-swept into more ownership units, and the cycle repeats. That disciplined reinvestment—hard-wired at the bank level—is how a few hundred dollars a month in patronage dividends or carbon royalties snowballs into real capital over 10–20 years, even for someone who never once “manages” their money.
On your robot-replacement tax idea: it can happily sit beside these property conduits. The key is routing any such levy back to citizens as equity- or royalty-style flows rather than one-off transfers, so it plugs into the same compounding flywheel.
Bottom line: no spreadsheets, no stock picks, just a checking account that quietly does the heavy lifting—because we both agree most people have better things to do than play portfolio manager.
David, thank you for the article! It made me think a lot!
You suggest a redistribution of wealth from corporations, resource holders, and the state to citizens, but all of human history shows that capital doesn't flow that way. Corporations don't share profits with citizens – on the contrary, we see them aggressively optimizing taxes and skirting the law to maximize profits right now.
If your 'enlightened self-interest' model of stimulating demand by sharing worked, they'd already be massively giving away money or significant vouchers for their products, because it would increase their sales and boost production – but that's not happening.
And as for the argument of state-enforced regulations: isn't that wishful thinking in a system where corporate lobbying is legal and wields enormous influence? We know the largest companies spend billions on lobbying, and many congressmen have their corporate sponsors. What are the real chances they'd introduce laws so drastically changing the rules of the game to the detriment of their main donors, especially since, unlike corporations, citizens aren't spending millions of dollars on lobbying?
Neverthless, keep up the good work! You're the main hope for the system change that I know and count on :)
Take the current paradigm to conclusion: consumers will have no money. It's in corporate self interest to ensure that customers have money. It's that simple.
Wow, this is stellar leadership in this space that gives breath to a room full of vacuum around this topic. I know it's not true, but it's like you read my post yesterday and answered it the very next day, David. LOL
I was positing this question and you (and whomever else you are collaborating with) blew me away with not only ideas, but practical and plausible solutions.
Here's where I get wrapped around the axle...
Change takes a catalyst, and human nature is predisposed to maintenance of status quo without significant risk to survivability. Your points offer tangible means to explore immediate policy adjustments to affect positive change. Yet I am confronted with 2 bookends:
1) Humans are resistant to change unless faced with significant adversity.
2) Those in power wish to maintain power.
Like Michael Herres asks, I wonder what the catalyst must be. For now, I suspect your self-evident logic that the economic structure must change will seem far-fetched to those in power when they can't even agree if climate change is a thing or not. Perhaps, a retort would be that this is far more immediate and likely we'll see this in a generation or two.
But I'm not sure I see any evidence of grit or even interest in taking this on. The current US administration just fired the US Copyright Office's director likely due perceptions of resistance to accelerating AI adoption. I would caution that acceleration without opportunity for equal increments of resistance often leads destructive outcomes once the accelerated force finally meets an immovable object.
Back to my points and questions... I applaud this work. It is stellar because it is tangible! What is the catalyzing interest? Is it grassroots? Is it top down?
continued... Back to my points and questions... I applaud this work. It is stellar because it is tangible! What is the catalyzing interest? Is it grassroots? Is it top down?
You might ask, "Why would anyone voluntarily give up their property? Why would corporations, landowners, or platforms agree to broaden ownership?" That answer is just as simple: without aggregate demand, there is no economy. If consumers are broke, they stop spending. If they stop spending, you stop earning. You can’t sell Teslas or cloud APIs to a nation of bankrupts. The system collapses under the weight of its own asymmetry.
Sound logic. I’d like to see this become reality; and it’ll happen through us talking to as many people as possible about solutions like what you’ve proposed. I think like this daily.
Wages must transform into streams of property income, sooner rather than later.
Holy crap, this is great. So many ideas going through my head….
One thing I wonder though. Does there need to be a certain inflection point met around things like the cost of food, housing, energy for this to really take off? Not that it has to wait, but if the cost to live goes way down (maybe healthcare goes in that bucket) does that not give this much better chance of working? I love how this article gets to practical application. Just throwing out there what I think about on this front…. Getting food production down to close to $0, etc.
I wonder if there is a role to play by folks in position to play it. If someone has the money to use and/or the ability/desire to execute (not everyone is going to want to build a solar community vertical farm), what are strategies on how to plan out the next few decades?
No, all of these can start being implemented today. We don't need to wait for costs to go up or down, or even for AI and robots to take off. The sooner, the better.
I worry for folks living paycheck to paycheck. They won’t have much flexibility to start to participate if all other things are equal. Feels like wage labor is going to disappear at a rate faster than property based income can replace it.
Maybe this is how UBI plays an early seeding role? But I still feel like there are some core fundamental cost of living reductions needed for this to be accessible to the broadest base.
how do we we get local, state and federal governments involved to setup the necessary investments, UBI and regulations/deregulations necessary? None of this is going to matter if congress doesn't buy into it. I can easily see the ultra wealthy just selling services and goods to each other with their armies of robots taking care of all their needs (while millions starve.) how do we get the common people at seat at the table, poltiically?
*random*
I've been heavily in the "AI is not dangerous, and most problems will be self-correcting, since other people will also have AI" camp.
And then, I o3 myself to a legitimately dangerous innovation, that isn't hard to execute...
😄
Of course, there was nothing about it that really needed "AI". Just, decently knowledgeable people bouncing ideas off of each other.
Except that you rarely have intelligent people on hand for intelligent and deep conversations.
Most intelligent humans even, do not enjoy brainstorming.
What about the rest of the world? Would robots be really cheaper than forced labor / slave children?
One problem at a time.
Interesting! I asked Manus to conduct a critical review of the EAI: https://zdkrnfso.manus.space/. Then I asked Manus to improve the EAI, accounting for distributional inequality:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aBLK2wGpPDO2p3roVA_g7XgvoFjyLfEwjc56RvtWRKg/edit?usp=sharing
Dave says AI is coming for all jobs. It Is! What am I going to do then? Fortunately, the same thing I am doing now. I retired on January 31, 2022, and instantly became a member of a very large group of people. I have absolutely no regrets and am enjoying life greatly, however, I still worry about funding my and my family’s future. I agree with Dave’s ideas and hope some really important people are listening to him and will help implement those ideas. I wanted to throw my idea into the mix as well!
I think trust is my biggest obstacle when it comes to finances. I know nothing is guaranteed, but at age 70, I can't afford to take chances. There are probably millions of people just like me. Combined, we are probably sitting on billions or more likely trillions of dollars earning an average of less than 5%.
While Social Security should not be your only source of income, we have contributed for our lifetime into the program assuming or hoping it would be there. Now we are being told it will be insolvent (due to so many reasons that should not have happened) in 10 years, hence my lack of trust.
Imagine if those billions or trillions of dollars could be pooled and used to seed a program, let's call it FBI (Family Basic Income - pun not intended), that would provide income for each of our families in perpetuity. If UBI becomes reality, this FBI program would supplement UBI. If there was some form of guarantee, I am sure many of us would be willing to participate. We need a way to help support ourselves and our families in the future.
I am not suggesting socialism, this program would be tied to each founding family and their future generations, not a pool for another government program. It might be similar to an annuity run like the retirement I receive from a previous employer. I worked 13 years, didn’t pay a penny into the fund and started receiving $708.86 a month starting on my 65th birthday. That income will continue until both my wife, and I die. At least that is what it is supposed to do!
If they can manage that with me not putting any money of my own into the program, imagine how it could work if the program was initially funded with 250 trillion dollars? That would be 1 million families contributing $250,000 each. With an APR of 5%, each family could receive about $1065 per month. You may want to check my math, but I think there are better ways that could earn more than 5%.
As an example, let’s assume that robots will be ready for prime time soon. How many robots could be purchased with $250 trillion dollars? If we assume they can get the price down to $25,000 per robot, that would be 10 million robots. What kind of income could 10 million robots produce? I know there are many more factors to consider but this is just a theoretical discussion of one idea.
What are your ideas? Would you invest if you had a valid guarantee?
Keep up the great work Dave!
"Just a checking account at a credit union and a default setting of 'reinvest everything.”
I don't see an 18-year-old doing this. Most of us are not financially literate enough or disciplined enough to manage our finances effectively. Even though I started living with my grandparents when I was six, because my mom had died, their Depression era frugality didn't rub off on me. Instead, my example was from my Dad and Stepmom, after moving in with them at ten years old. They were professionals with a substantial income, but they spent it all. We lived on the edge until I went to high school, when they shifted gears and started saving, or perhaps they stopped spending everything they earned.
My wife came from a home that lacked financial literacy as well. So, as a young couple, we struggled. Then, of course, we had children, which are expensive. It wasn't until we were about 30 that we figured it out, but we still struggled some until after they graduated from college.
Of course, school taught us nothing about finances, and most of us learn as we go, as evidenced by the popularity of shows like Dave Ramsey and others. Adults well into their 30s, 40s, and older are calling in with problems that seem to have obvious solutions. (Obvious to me, because they aren't my problems, if they were, I probably would be calling too.)
These are great ideas, though, and I would love a very public discussion from our country's leadership. Here's to hoping.
One idea I've had, but not fully thought out, is a replacement tax. Let's say the average auto worker earns $ 70,000 per year, plus benefits. For each worker replaced a certain percentage of their total compensation per year is paid by the company that replaces them. Would 50% be too much? If a humanoid robot replaces two workers, which even allowing for charging or maintenance, is probably in the ballpark, then $70,000 plus, a year would go into the pool of whatever we will call it.
This is just a rough idea.
Hi Robert—thanks for the thoughtful push-back. Three quick clarifications:
1. No 18-year-old portfolio juggling required.
The whole point of these property streams is that most of them are non-transferable and residency-locked, just like Alaska’s Permanent Fund. Once an 18-year-old opens a qualifying credit-union or bank account, the dividends land automatically and default to “reinvest.” They can’t day-trade them, can’t cash them out early, and don’t need to pick stocks—exactly because, as you note, few teenagers (or adults) have the discipline or knowledge to do that.
2. Why the bank (or credit union) is the hub.
Banks already handle all the unglamorous plumbing—KYC, ledgers, tax reporting, estate transfer, fraud monitoring, etc.—and everybody already has one. By clearing every dividend, rebate, or royalty through that same account, we avoid the four-app shuffle and the education gap you’re worried about. Think of it as “direct deposit for ownership.”
3. Compounding happens without touching a button.
Each credit lands, gets auto-swept into more ownership units, and the cycle repeats. That disciplined reinvestment—hard-wired at the bank level—is how a few hundred dollars a month in patronage dividends or carbon royalties snowballs into real capital over 10–20 years, even for someone who never once “manages” their money.
On your robot-replacement tax idea: it can happily sit beside these property conduits. The key is routing any such levy back to citizens as equity- or royalty-style flows rather than one-off transfers, so it plugs into the same compounding flywheel.
Bottom line: no spreadsheets, no stock picks, just a checking account that quietly does the heavy lifting—because we both agree most people have better things to do than play portfolio manager.
—David
David, thank you for the article! It made me think a lot!
You suggest a redistribution of wealth from corporations, resource holders, and the state to citizens, but all of human history shows that capital doesn't flow that way. Corporations don't share profits with citizens – on the contrary, we see them aggressively optimizing taxes and skirting the law to maximize profits right now.
If your 'enlightened self-interest' model of stimulating demand by sharing worked, they'd already be massively giving away money or significant vouchers for their products, because it would increase their sales and boost production – but that's not happening.
And as for the argument of state-enforced regulations: isn't that wishful thinking in a system where corporate lobbying is legal and wields enormous influence? We know the largest companies spend billions on lobbying, and many congressmen have their corporate sponsors. What are the real chances they'd introduce laws so drastically changing the rules of the game to the detriment of their main donors, especially since, unlike corporations, citizens aren't spending millions of dollars on lobbying?
Neverthless, keep up the good work! You're the main hope for the system change that I know and count on :)
Take the current paradigm to conclusion: consumers will have no money. It's in corporate self interest to ensure that customers have money. It's that simple.
"[W]orker insecurity is in American society by design." -- David Shapiro
Actually, it was Alan Greenspan, but yes
Wow, this is stellar leadership in this space that gives breath to a room full of vacuum around this topic. I know it's not true, but it's like you read my post yesterday and answered it the very next day, David. LOL
https://changeforge.com/if-ai-is-killing-jobs-whos-left-to-buy/
I was positing this question and you (and whomever else you are collaborating with) blew me away with not only ideas, but practical and plausible solutions.
Here's where I get wrapped around the axle...
Change takes a catalyst, and human nature is predisposed to maintenance of status quo without significant risk to survivability. Your points offer tangible means to explore immediate policy adjustments to affect positive change. Yet I am confronted with 2 bookends:
1) Humans are resistant to change unless faced with significant adversity.
2) Those in power wish to maintain power.
Like Michael Herres asks, I wonder what the catalyst must be. For now, I suspect your self-evident logic that the economic structure must change will seem far-fetched to those in power when they can't even agree if climate change is a thing or not. Perhaps, a retort would be that this is far more immediate and likely we'll see this in a generation or two.
But I'm not sure I see any evidence of grit or even interest in taking this on. The current US administration just fired the US Copyright Office's director likely due perceptions of resistance to accelerating AI adoption. I would caution that acceleration without opportunity for equal increments of resistance often leads destructive outcomes once the accelerated force finally meets an immovable object.
Back to my points and questions... I applaud this work. It is stellar because it is tangible! What is the catalyzing interest? Is it grassroots? Is it top down?
Semper Fidelis,
K
continued... Back to my points and questions... I applaud this work. It is stellar because it is tangible! What is the catalyzing interest? Is it grassroots? Is it top down?
You might ask, "Why would anyone voluntarily give up their property? Why would corporations, landowners, or platforms agree to broaden ownership?" That answer is just as simple: without aggregate demand, there is no economy. If consumers are broke, they stop spending. If they stop spending, you stop earning. You can’t sell Teslas or cloud APIs to a nation of bankrupts. The system collapses under the weight of its own asymmetry.
Sound logic. I’d like to see this become reality; and it’ll happen through us talking to as many people as possible about solutions like what you’ve proposed. I think like this daily.
Wages must transform into streams of property income, sooner rather than later.
Holy crap, this is great. So many ideas going through my head….
One thing I wonder though. Does there need to be a certain inflection point met around things like the cost of food, housing, energy for this to really take off? Not that it has to wait, but if the cost to live goes way down (maybe healthcare goes in that bucket) does that not give this much better chance of working? I love how this article gets to practical application. Just throwing out there what I think about on this front…. Getting food production down to close to $0, etc.
I wonder if there is a role to play by folks in position to play it. If someone has the money to use and/or the ability/desire to execute (not everyone is going to want to build a solar community vertical farm), what are strategies on how to plan out the next few decades?
So many thoughts from this! Thank you!!
No, all of these can start being implemented today. We don't need to wait for costs to go up or down, or even for AI and robots to take off. The sooner, the better.
As far as deployment, we're working on that!
I worry for folks living paycheck to paycheck. They won’t have much flexibility to start to participate if all other things are equal. Feels like wage labor is going to disappear at a rate faster than property based income can replace it.
Maybe this is how UBI plays an early seeding role? But I still feel like there are some core fundamental cost of living reductions needed for this to be accessible to the broadest base.