The chance that AI may induce unemployment is enough to start exploring likely labor options, aside from the widely suggested Universal Basic Income [UBI], as a living wage to displaced workers.
What should the future of work look like if AI thoroughly permeates productivity? It is safe to assume that no matter the outcome, the United States would do all right, along with other industrialized nations. The ricochet, however, from elsewhere may devolve into serious migration or worse.
There are a few options:
a. Tier almost every role. This means that most job openings should not be seeking one person to fill a role. They should look for at least three people, with each one on different tiers from expert to intermediate to beginner. The purpose is to make employment spread and remuneration shared. Everyone on each tier would work within capped hours. Those in beginner would only work for a maximum of two hours, per stretch. This would make it possible to pay people below the minimum wage. It would also help them to learn, so that they can move to the intermediate stage on the job, or another. The intermediate stage would pay a bit more, with maximum working hours of four, since they can combine a bit of beginner and expertise. The expert stage would pay the most, with a maximum of three working hours, since some of the responsibilities may require supervision and quality.
Minimum wage is the law. However, with the risk of having nothing to do at all, cuts to it, if working hours are capped, is plausible. There are efforts to return manufacturing to the United States. There is the CHIPS Act to make semiconductors. There is intense work in new energy that may sometimes be affected by skill shortages and labor costs. Tier may provide an option, which can be supervised by the Departments of Labor and Commerce. It may also be done by the private sector. This might make it easier to change careers, acquiring new skills in another sector. Risks like company secrets, juggling multiple locations and others can be sorted by having certain tiers with limited access and insuring against others.
b.Non-monetary wages. The fraught economics of currency circulation sometimes contributes to unemployment, making employers unable to hire workers, even if there are products and services tasks for them. If there is an option where wage is not money, it is possible to have more people working, across different roles and tiers. Money is indicative of value. Value is consistently exchanged as commerce. Why not make a value-to-value system in some cases, keeping out some need for money, especially if AI really kicks in. An initial step could be taxation that is non-monetary, where parts of the taxes that businesses pay are in products and services. This then becomes a reservoir for different levels of governments to be able to mechanize this. There is also the waste problem, where industrial surpluses become bad for the environment.
People need things that others do not need. Some have things that they cannot find who wants them. In a system like this, many people may have something to offer, so long there is no money [or economically restricted] denominator. There would be a needs list. There will also be a have list. Then, the government or private sector managers may provide, from the reserves, some of what might be missing while keeping others. Simply, people work and get paid by some of what they need. If where they work, say, a small business does not have it, the small business can offer some of what it has, so that what the worker’s need can be provided from the reserves. The goal is to create a parallel economy, with the rules of capitalism without an inflationary sledge. There are some businesses that this may not apply to and this is also expected to be a fraction of the economy. It can also be used to fight budget and trade deficits, by having some things, not just money gone or always needs from elsewhere. It can also be used to prevent some recessions, while increasing the labor participation rate. There are excess products that may be exported. There are also ways that exchanges may be provided in bilateral agreements. The purpose is just to make people get some of the things they need without the rigidity of pay commonality, if automation dominates.
c. There are several things in society that are supposed to be done but never get done because no one would pay for it. It is possible that another way to provide work for many people will be to identify things in the environment that they can do, why it is necessary, and what kind of credit they want. Though there will be caution against having people fight for doing the nicer things. This will be a non-paying system, but with needs [sorted] also. It will allow people to be engaged, to do stuff that should be done, and verified, to make society better. There are several things people complain are neglected. There are others, even online, where human monitoring may have been necessary to prevent harm and much more that no one does because no one would pay. This will expand the labor force as well as get things done around. There will be doing-credits, to be used at some point, if needs are not met. It organizes volunteering into the labor pool if AI becomes strong.
d.Libraries are an option for something to do or where to go if AI replaces workers. Flipping books from assigned shelves could engage many, with some becoming new ways to find solutions to problems in society towards prosperity. There can also be a spending map, where, how to spend certain amounts per month are displayed, on food, commute, and bills. The purpose will be to make people see more value in the amount at hand, find options and make manufacturers produce more affordable stuff.
These, in doing something or at least offering value, would be more feasible than UBI, if AI extremely advances.
There is a recent feature on Harvard Business Review, AI Is Making Economists Rethink the Story of Automation, stating that, “Is artificial intelligence about to put vast numbers of people out of a job? Most economists would argue the answer is no: If technology permanently puts people out of work then why, after centuries of new technologies, are there still so many jobs left? But as new AI models and tools are released almost weekly, that consensus is cracking. In their view, whether technology works out well for workers depends on whether society invents new things for them to excel at — like piloting remote vehicles. If the economy is rapidly adding new occupations that utilize human skill, then it can absorb some number of displaced workers.”
There is a recent paper on National Bureau of Economic Research, The Simple Macroeconomics of AI, stating that, “In sum, it should be clear that forecasting AI’s effects on the macroeconomy is extremely difficult and will have to be based on a number of speculative assumptions.”
This is an advertisement
