The Conservative Case for Post-Labor Economics

Some on the right have called this "Marxist, feminist nonsense" but I beg to differ

I was shocked when the Heritage Foundation quoted me by name. In that article, they made simplest argument that AI increases productivity, which increases wages, which invalidates the need for UBI.

That’s a wonderful theory, except that people like Jeff Bezos are investing $100B to automate entire factories. Of course, the default conservative viewpoint is that work is good, government handouts are bad, and anything resembling socialism or a welfare state is anathema to the entire conservative way of life.

Some of the disagreement comes down to misunderstanding. I recently wrote a “12 Commandments of Post-Labor Economics” to try and clarify what PLE stands for as clearly as possible. Hopefully, with time those misunderstands will clear up. In the meantime, I wanted to appeal directly to conservative sensibilities on the merits of PLE.

First, PLE in a nutshell

The most salient concept of PLE is that we must broaden capital participation. It’s pretty simple:

Wages are going away. There are three buckets of household income: wages, transfers, and capital. Since transfers (government) are anathema to conservatives, then by process of elimination we land on capital. Capital must be the cornerstone of the solution.

Consider this: businesses don’t intrinsically need employees. They do, however, absolutely require paying customers. That’s market orthodoxy. For a free market to exist, you need supply (goods and services) and demand (paying customers).

The “obvious” solution to many is to just cut checks from the Treasury. That is UBI, Guaranteed Income, Social Security, and so on. Entitlement spending. But that’s suboptimal for a number of reasons, some of which we’ll unpack.

The second most important aspect of PLE is that this is not a “rob from the rich and give to the poor” scheme. We’re not going to expropriate wealth from households or businesses. We’re going to capitalize endowment funds over time the way that Norway, Alaska, and New Mexico have. Some of that capitalization may come from taxes, but that’s up to individual states to figure out.

Now let’s get into the reasons why I believe PLE maps onto conservative values.

#1—PLE creates the ultimate ownership society

Thomas Jefferson’s notion of “40 acres and a mule” no longer applies literally today. But the principle of the matter, that a family ought to own their own means of production, is the bedrock value of classical conservatives. Post-Labor Economics advocates for broad distribution of productive assets. While some people advocate for more simple Georgism, land is no longer the most value or productive asset class.

The underlying theory remains the same. At the time of Jefferson and Henry George, land was the most valuable and productive asset, therefore ensuring its equitable distribution among the people was a bold, and somewhat controversial take. But it was also nothing new. In the days of the Roman republic, the ideal Roman man was a soldier-farmer. Work the land and defend it.

The industrial revolutions changed the most valuable asset classes from land to factories, and then from factories to technology. So the universal concept of “the people should own an individual stake in the most valuable assets” remains applicable. Under Post-Labor Economics, that ownership could take many forms, from direct ownership of stocks and businesses, to fractional control via government programs and sovereign dividend schemes.

While PLE does advocate for transfers, those are mostly a stopgap until household income can be moved over to capital from wages.

#2—PLE is fundamentally pro-business and protects corporate growth

The greatest threat that AI, robotics, and automation poses to businesses is that it removes the workers whose wages allow them to patronize the business. This goes back to Henry Ford and Fordism. Pay workers enough wages that they can buy your product. Of course, Ford had first-mover’s advantage in the automotive scaling business at the time, so it may not really apply anymore.

But the undergirding idea—people must be able to afford your firm’s goods and services—remains applicable. Capitalists do not need employees. Firms do not need employees. Millionaires and billionaires do not need employees. Not when machines are better, faster, cheaper, and safer than the human alternative.

They all, however, require paying customers. The demand side of the equation cannot be ignored. In fact, economists since Keynes have argued that growth is actually demand-constrained. Meaning that our ability to produce goods and services is not the binding constraint on growth, our ability to pay for them is the bottleneck.

Post-Labor Economics removes this bottleneck by ensuring that household income is tied more directly with the overall health of the economy. Capital-based income means that households are always flush with cash. Furthermore, a portfolio of multiple income streams for households, ranging from sovereign dividends to municipal wealth funds, and transfers from federal and state governments, ensures hat households never face precarity. Households with secure income streams are more generous with their consumption and spending.

And that is good for business.

#3—PLE saves free markets from mechanical failures

Labor’s share of income has been dropping for decades. Wages have been decoupling from output as well. These two secular trends, when combined with the trends of AI, automation, and robotics, means that eventually we will be facing a deflationary death spiral. It goes like this:

1. Companies are forced to automate due to free market competition. That means laying off workers.

2. Laid off workers spend less, default on mortgages, and stop paying taxes.

3. Companies have less revenue, and are forced to slow down production even further.

4. Stocks tank, we enter into a Recession or Depression, and the government becomes insolvent.

And all of this is because, right now, the vast majority of household spending (and therefore the vast majority of GDP) is entirely dependent upon wages. Remember the three buckets household income: wages, transfers, and capital. Capital presently makes up the smallest percentage of median household income, and therefore the smallest driver of aggregate demand.

We don’t want to rely on UBI or similar programs, not entirely, because they are market-distorting and create financial dependence. Instead, if we embark on a national mission to magnify capital-based household income, the free market will continue chugging along. In point of fact, PLE advocates for creating more capital onramps for households. Trump’s recent “Baby Bonds” program is a prime example.

Some people call this UBC (Universal Basic Capital). The label doesn’t matter as much as the principle and the effect.

#4—PLE starves the welfare state

While some level of transfers are likely inevitable and permanent, PLE allows us to divert the trajectory to a different path. Instead of the welfare state needing to expand indefinitely as automation encroaches upon wages, we create an offramp towards more capital and market-based solutions. In fact, market-friendly solutions were one of the central design considerations when I was working on the Post-Labor framework.

PLE treats transfers as a necessary stopgap and, at most, a permanent economic floor. UBI should never be the entire package. Every measurement, every program, and every tax policy should be geared towards encouraging the accumulation of household wealth. While young people may receive their “Baby Bonds” upon reaching adulthood, as well as a potentially generous negative income tax (NIT), or guaranteed income program, such programs should taper as they accumulate more wealth.

One critique some conservatives may have is that even sovereign wealth funds and dividends paid out by government endowments are still checks coming from the government, consider that Alaska’s Permanent Fund was created by a Republican governor. These types of funds and endowments become self-sustaining, reduce tax burdens, and encourage fiscal responsibility. In fact, such funds can be administered by third parties. The Santiago Principles, an international set of best practices for running sovereign wealth funds, includes separation of administration, government, and oversight. Transparency is key, which cuts down on waste and corruption.

The long term goal of PLE is to aggressively phase out financial dependence and welfare programs as much as possible. Moving households over to capital is the way to do this.

#5—PLE uses fiscally conservative instruments

At the highest level, national and state wealth funds are intrinsically conservative tools. While PLE maintains room for individual private property, and indeed encourages the state to shape incentives accordingly, the notion of monetizing common goods to capitalize revenue-generating assets is originally a conservative innovation. These funds invest globally and pay dividends without requiring deficit spending or endless tax hikes.

Beyond yielding dividends that can pay households directly, these wealth funds track the market, grow with the economy, and are therefore automatically hedged against inflation. As the market grows, so do these endowments. Furthermore, these funds can be capitalized through market-friendly mechanisms, such as auctioning spectrum rights or leasing citizen data, rather than through punitive wealth or corporate taxes that stifle growth.

#6—PLE preserves economic autonomy and freedom

A government welfare check is a leash that bureaucrats can means-test, condition, or revoke, whereas a capital ownership stake guarantees genuine freedom. By giving individuals their own assets (like baby bonds, ESOPs, or wealth fund shares), PLE maximizes individual agency. Citizens decide entirely for themselves how to invest, allocate, or spend their returns, conferring dignity and keeping the administrative state out of their bank accounts.

This prevents citizens from being held hostage by activist judges, rogue politicians, and government shutdowns. By focusing on amplifying capital-based income, rooted in free market economics, it relegates the government to its proper role as mediator or referee, rather than the owner, manager, and key stakeholder all in one. Furthermore, by creating more capital onramps, such as DAOs, ESOPs, EOTs, trusts, and cooperatives, Post-Labor Economics creates more options for households to build wealth, beyond the conventional “stocks, bonds, and real estate.”

In a world of increasing automation, these additional onramps are critical for giving households access to invest, and therefore acquire returns, from the most transformative technology we’ve seen since electricity.

#7—PLE is an antidote against Socialism

Socialism abolishes private property and centralizes control; PLE does the exact opposite by universalizing private property and distributing it to everyone. historically, mass unemployment and economic desperation are the most reliable catalysts for socialist revolutions. By making every single citizen a capitalist with skin in the game, PLE actively eliminates the desperate constituency that Marxist populism relies on to seize power.

Remember, creating buy-in is the best way to encourage people to defend the system. This is why, generally speaking, the older people become, the more interested they are in preserving the status quo. They stand to lose more through upset. However, if we create inroads early (and often) then younger people will see that they have a viable path to wealth and a comfortable life—which is fiscal responsibility and discipline—by being wise with the sovereign dividends and capital allocations they receive, and finding viable investments for their surplus time and income.

In short, PLE gives everyone a chance to fully buy into capitalism, irrespective of their ability to contribute labor.

We need to specify here: PLE is not socialism. Yes, PLE advocates strongly for state-run wealth funds and endowment programs, but those only serve as the economic foundation. A launchpad for the generation of more wealth. PLE does not advocate for nationalizing anything. Monetize the commons, capture rents, and invest them. That is a stark difference from simply “seizing the means of production.”

#8—PLE strengthens national security and prevent tyranny

Conservatives champion the Second Amendment because distributed power prevents tyranny; PLE applies this exact logic to economic power. If a small elite controls all automated production and autonomous military capacity, it creates the preconditions for authoritarianism. Broad capital ownership acts as a structural bulwark against this concentration of power. Furthermore, adopting PLE ensures the immense domestic economic output and stability required for the United States to beat geopolitical rivals like China in the AI arms race.

Popular resistance to AI, skepticism of safety, and worries about job loss will be one of the primary sources of friction, especially during election cycles. Left wing politicians are already calling for moratoria on data centers, and demanding that tech leaders like Jeff Bezos explain how and why they want to replace workers with robots.

Instead of butting heads, I see this as an opportunity for a major win-win. Instead of arguing over AI gains and concentration of power, PLE offers an olive branch to both sides. The owners of capital get their wish; automate away the need for human labor. Meanwhile, voters get their wish; freedom from precarity. Everyone wins, and everyone’s incentives are now aligned: More automation, more energy, more industrialization, means more household income for everyone, which means more business investment.

PLE creates a virtuous cycle rather than a vicious one. And we do this by aligning the incentives of voters and capitalists. Yes, there is a visceral reaction against the notion of eradicating the need for human labor. But consider this: even the need for human labor inputs is a constraint on national security. Demographic decline, aging populations, and lack of qualified or fit workforce and soldiers are themselves a national security risk.

#9—PLE is pro-family and rebuilds civil society

The current wage-labor economy brutalizes traditional families by forcing two-income households, which outsources child-rearing and erodes community networks. By providing household income through a capital portfolio, PLE eliminates the two-income trap. It allows parents to return home, raise their children, and invest time in their churches and local communities without any government bureaucracy dictating their family structure.

It is no secret that affluent households, flush with capital-based income, tend to produce more children. Financial security, low precarity, and high stability increase fertility. Furthermore, this time sovereignty allows parents to educate their children in a manner they see fit, be it public schools, private schools, charter schools, or even homeschooling. Even better, by decoupling a household’s livelihood from a specific geographic location, it allows families to live in communities that better match their values and lifestyles.

By creating viable offramps from wage dependence, it allows families to settle into more natural rhythms of life without worrying about income. By pivoting the economy to focus on capital-based income, which can be actively nurtured and passively enjoyed, it removes the opportunity cost of starting a family and raising children. Neither parent must make sacrifices to either “get ahead” or “have babies.” These choices will no longer be at odds.

Conclusion

For 250 years, the entire political spectrum has been arguing about how to divide the proceeds of human labor. The right says let markets distribute wages and keep taxes low. The left says redistribute through transfers and strengthen unions. The far left says seize the means of production. They all assume the same thing: that human labor is the engine, and the only question is who gets what share of the output.

PLE doesn’t pick a side in that fight. It dissolves it. Once machines supply all goods and services, the fight over wages becomes as obsolete as the fight over who gets to work the lord’s field. The question stops being “how do we divide labor’s output?” and becomes “who owns the machines?”

And that question has one answer that every ideology actually wants, for completely different reasons. Conservatives want it because ownership is liberty. Progressives want it because ownership is equality. Socialists want it because ownership is collective power. They’ve been screaming past each other for a century and a half because the only available mechanisms—wages, taxes, seizure—forced tradeoffs between those values. Universal capital ownership doesn’t.

The limitations of technology forced labor and capital into an increasingly acrimonious marriage, and both sides are more than ready for a divorce. What we need is a viable settlement agreement. PLE is the negotiation of alimony and division of assets in a way that creates a win-win scenario for all parties.