How We Can Leverage AI to Create a “Jobless” society: Part 1

Introduction:

Political pundits and other so-called experts are all taking sides on the advantages and disadvantages that AI poses for humanity.  Many are fixated on the large number of jobs that will be rendered obsolete by AI.  They seem to forget that throughout history, new jobs replaced old jobs when technology changed.  From sails to steamships, horse and buggies to cars, history is one vast unfolding of technology changing the way societies do work and are structured.

For the sake of compromise, I will assume the worse.  Let me speculate that in fifty years, AI will eliminate 95 percent of all jobs on the earth.  There are two ways that such a situation could be viewed.  First, as an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions as people lose their jobs and ability to support themselves.  Or as an opportunity of epic proportions based on an abundance of leisure time.  An opportunity that enables people to use this leisure time to pursue more rewarding and creative activities.  AI could eliminate the drudge of 9-to-5 work.  However, we are still going to need an economic system.  I believe such a system would be vastly different that any system that we have ever had either today or in the past.  The world stands at the threshold of a post-labor era.  Machines now do the work that once defined our lives, yet the rewards of that labor remain unevenly shared.  We need a new economic philosophy — one that aligns technological abundance with human fairness.

How could we structure an economic system in which people did not work but could still have access to health care, education, food, shelter and clothes?  Would this be possible?  We see Sci-Fi movies with civilizations on other worlds or in the future who live in a Utopia where robots and AI take of all the basic needs.  But how would a new economic system distribute the goods and services that are basic to humanity?  This is a lightning rod activity since many people are quick to oppose any efforts wherein someone seems to get something for nothing.  Witness, the ongoing criticism of social services such as welfare, unemployment and even social security.  A new economic system is going to call for new thinking.  As Albert Einstein famously said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking we used when we created them.”

To think about what such a system might look like, I want to bring up an analogy that portrays a very different way of looking at life.  The people that we call Indians who were indigenous to this country before Europeans arrived had a way of distributing food and shelter that was quite admirable.  They believed that the land, water, resources belonged to everyone.  No one could own the land, lakes or seas.  If a buffalo hunt took place, the resultant meat was shared among all the tribal members.  No one said “I killed that buffalo, so the meat belongs to me.  But I will sell you some if you want any.”

Equalitarianism:

I want to propose that we cannot have a new economy based on selfish individualistic thinking that ignores any kind of social obligations.  If AI and automation do 95% of the work, we’ll need an economic system that (1) guarantees the basics, (2) steers scarce resources wisely, and (3) keeps meaning, dignity, and innovation alive.  I will call this new economy “Equalitarianism” as opposed to capitalism, socialism, communism or any other economic system that you have heard of. “Equalitarianism” is a democratic economic philosophy grounded in fairness, shared ownership, and universal well-being.  It envisions a society in which the fruits of automation and intelligence—both human and artificial—are distributed to ensure dignity, opportunity, and balance for all.

Core Principles of Equalitarianism:

  • Shared Prosperity: Wealth produced by automated systems and AI is treated as a collective inheritance, not private privilege.
  • Universal Security: Every person is guaranteed access to health, education, housing, food, and connectivity as rights of citizenship.
  • Democratic Ownership: Data, infrastructure, and automation are managed for the public good through civic and cooperative institutions.
  • Ecological Balance: Progress is measured not by growth alone but by sustainability and planetary stewardship.
  • Purpose Beyond Profit: Humans pursue creativity, service, and learning as the highest expressions of freedom in a post-labor world.
  • Transparency and Trust: Economic algorithms and institutions operate openly, accountable to citizens, not corporations.
  • Responsibility and Contribution: Freedom is balanced with duty—to community, environment, and future generations.
  • Cultural Flourishing: Arts, education, and civic engagement become the new engines of meaning.
  • Global Solidarity: Equalitarianism recognizes that abundance must be shared across borders to preserve peace and human dignity.
  • The Equilibrium Principle: Every policy seeks harmony between technological power and human values.

Building an Economy When Work Disappears:

Imagine it’s the year 2075.  Ninety-five percent of all jobs once done by humans are now performed by artificial intelligences and robots.   Factories hum without workers, crops harvest themselves, and algorithms handle every clerical task once requiring a cubicle.  Humanity’s most ancient concern—how to earn a living—has been replaced by a new question: “How to live meaningfully when earning is no longer required?”

For centuries, economies balanced two core elements: labor and capital.  Labor created value; wages distributed it.  The Twentieth Century saw “information” added to the two core elements. Productivity once dependent on land and labor has become increasingly dependent on information and data.  Humans cannot compete with AI when it comes to producing and managing such data.   When increased automation and AI can provide nearly all productive labor, the former equilibrium collapses.  Yet people will still need food, housing, healthcare, education, and belonging.  We will also need purpose.  The challenge is no longer how to produce, but how to share.  Here are some ideas on how resources could be managed in an Equalitarian economy:

A Universal Basic Bundle:

Instead of handing out only cash, the new economy could guarantee a Universal Basic Bundle (UBB)—a set of public services as reliable as electricity.  Healthcare would be universal, food credits digital, housing guaranteed, education lifelong, and connectivity and mobility free.  This bundle would ensure dignity without removing freedom; citizens choose providers and can upgrade privately.

An Automated Productivity Dividend:

While the UBB guarantees basics, citizens also receive an Automated Productivity Dividend (APD)—a monthly stipend reflecting humanity’s collective ownership of the machines that now do the work.  The APD would draw from public wealth funds, resource rents, and automation taxes.  It grows as automation grows—return on shared capital, not charity.

Ownership in an Age of Algorithms:

Without shared ownership, AI profits concentrate into a few hands.  Society must broaden who owns the means of computation through sovereign and municipal wealth funds, data trusts, and cooperative platforms.  This mosaic of ownership spreads wealth and gives every citizen a stake in the future.

Managing Scarcity in an Age of Plenty:

Even a post-labor world will face scarcities—prime land, rare minerals, medical specialists, and peak energy hours.  Instead of rationing by privilege, we can ration by fairness: dynamic pricing for peak resources, lotteries for non-market goods, and caps and dividends for carbon and material use.  Money remains, but it serves coordination rather than domination.

Purpose Beyond the Paycheck:

While work may vanish, meaning and purpose must not.  Society can elevate civic, creative, and ecological missions as the new currency of status—with prizes, recognition systems, open laboratories, and local media supported by public dividends.  In place of employment, people pursue engagement; work shifts from income to contribution.  In the early 1950’s, the Japanese created a prize for quality based on the ideas of Dr. Deming and named it the Deming Prize.  This effort greatly helped to catapult Japan to a world leadership in product quality and reliability.  The old saying that “Two heads are better than one” can now be changed to “Two heads with AI are better than only two heads.”  Together we can think our way to a better world.

Bottom Line for Humanity:

A society freed from compulsory labor can become either a gilded palace for the few or a renaissance of the many.  It can become a world of haves and have nots.  A world with a few super rich and billions of poor people with no jobs and no skills.  If we share the fruits of intelligence—both human and artificial—we can fulfill the dream that every prophet and philosopher has always embraced: a world where work is a choice, not a chain.  Where labor from 9 to 5 is replaced by time for family, friends and creativity.

How We Can Leverage AI to Create a “Jobless” society:  Part 2

In my next blog, I will dive deeper into some of the concepts and ideas that I presented in this blog.  I want to describe how many of the economic elements that I noted could actually work and discuss the pro’s and con’s of some of them.  We will discuss the feasibility of the scenario that I am advocating.

The Old Woman Who Wanted to Be a Pilot

Little girl dreaming of becoming a pilot

I would like to tell you a story that led me to a principle that I have used over and over again in my life.  The story begins in 1979.  I had just received my M.S. degree in Counseling from the University of Wisconsin – Stout.  I began applying for jobs where I could use my degree.  I also took the Wisconsin test for state employment. 

I did well on the state employment test and after an interview process, I was hired by what was then the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR) as a Manpower Counselor 2.  I was officially a counselor in the Work Incentive Program (WIN).  I would be in charge of the WIN Program as well as a number of other programs including, Labor Education Advancement Program (LEAP), Indochinese Refugee Assistance Program (IRAP) and the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA).  I would have offices in two counties.  One office was in Ellsworth, Wisconsin in Pierce County.  The other office was in Hudson, Wisconsin in St. Croix County.  I was then living in River Falls, Wisconsin which was almost dead center between my two offices. 

2111

Each day my job consisted of basically trying to help people find employment.  Depending on their ages, genders, skill levels and aptitudes, I had a variety of resources to help them find a job.  Some of my resources included, employer incentives, apprenticeship training, on-the-job-training, education benefits and a variety of tools to help my clients gain the needed skills to find and seek employment.  I also had a large data base of employment openings that were furnished daily by the head office in Madison, Wisconsin.   

My counseling program at Stout was led by a grand educator named Evelyn Rimel.  She was dedicated to the counseling program and would do anything she could to help her students learn the skills they needed to become good counselors.  Dr. Rimel was born in September 1911 and died in August 2009 one month shy of her 98th birthday.  She was a remarkable woman.  The following poem which she wrote expresses her ideas and goals in life.  She was 42 years old when she wrote this poem and numerous people will vouch for her devotion to this vision.

aac54f3a-b1b5-11de-9fb3-001cc4c03286.imageI’d like to think when life is done,

That I had filled a needed post;

That here and there I’d paid my fare,

With more than idle talk or boast;

 That I had taken gifts divine,

The breath of life and womanhood mine,

And tried to use them, then and now,

In service to my fellow man.

Evelyn received many awards during her lifetime.  When she died she was the oldest living and longest-serving member of the American Association of University Women, a national organization to which she belonged for more than 75 years.

Evelyn was the prime mover in the counseling program at Stout and no one who was accepted into the program could ignore her influence on what they would learn.  For instance, employment and school counselors are taught to use many tests such as the GATB, SATB, Kuder Richardson and Strong Campbell to help profile job applicants and identify their strengths and weaknesses.  Dr. Rimel would hear nothing about weaknesses.  She told us that these tests were only pointers and not conclusive evidence of what someone could or could not do.  I still remember what Evelyn said but at the time it seemed very theoretical.  I would not learn the real meaning of her message until I met this client who came into my life a year or so later.

employment-counseling-2-638

The year was 1980 and I was in my office in Hudson when an older woman came in to see me.  She asked if I could help her find a job.  I was 34 years old at the time and it was early in the year 1980.  The economy was not doing so well, and it was difficult to find decent paying employment in our area.  I asked her to take a seat and how could I help her?  She told me that her name was Margaret and that her husband had recently passed away.  They had raised four children and she had been a stay-at-home mom.  She had no schooling or formal training beyond high school.  She was 68 years old and did not have enough money to live on.  She needed to find a job to supplement her social security income. 

FYC.adviser.0020-16x9-1-1024x576I asked her if she had any idea what she could do.  She replied that she did not.  I suggested that she take an employment aptitude test to see what kinds of work she might find interesting.  It was all very theoretical to me, but I could not imagine what kind of work I could find for her in the local area that would pay enough for her to live on.  She did not have any current job experience and no goals for a career.  The aptitude test was simply an effort to do something even though I did not believe that I could help her much.

She agreed to take the test which I then administered.  When she had finished the test, I told her that I would need to have the test scored.  We setup an appointment for the following week to meet again.  I sent the test in to be scored and the results came back before our next appointment.  When I reviewed the results, I was incredibly surprised.  I even laughed at the findings of the test.  The test showed Margaret’s highest aptitude to be that of an airline pilot.  I laughed because in 1980 there were few women finding employment in the commercial airline industry as a pilot and even fewer who were 68 years of age.  Not to mention, a woman with no prior flight experience or military experience.  Back in the 80’s, many commercial airline pilots came from the ranks of retired or former military pilots. 

I chalked Margaret’s results up to a curious irregularity in the testing results or an anomaly that could probably not be explained.  I was not willing to put any credence into the test and totally ignored Evelyn’s caveat about using employment tests as pointers and not as conclusive evidence.  When Margaret arrived at my office for her appointment we sat down to discuss her results and what our next steps might be.  I started the conversation off by a dismissal of the test findings.   “Margaret, these tests are frequently not accurate.  This test showed your number one aptitude to be that of an airline pilot.”  She looked down at the floor and then up at me.  Speaking directly into my face, she solemnly said, “When I was a little girl, I wanted to be an airline pilot, but my parents and teachers all told me it was impossible.  Girls could never be commercial airline pilots.”    

maxresdefault

I don’t really remember the rest of the conversation that day or whether or not I ever found a good job for Margaret.  What I do remember and will never forgot was my narrow mindedness and smugness.  I had totally written off the possibility that Margaret could ever be an airline pilot. 

c2d1d8ecded27a0c66583ebd41628dab

I mentioned at the start of this story that I gained a principle from this episode that I have used the rest of my life.  The principle was this:  I would never ever tell anyone, client, student, relative or friend that they could not do something or be something.  From Margaret, I realized that one of the things that holds us back are other people who tell us what we can or cannot do.  I have previously told the story of my spouse Karen who was advised by her high school guidance counselor that she could never be a nurse because of her low science aptitude scores.  Karen ignored this “helpful” advice and spent over 55 years in the medical field as a registered nurse and nurse manager. 

 “Love what you do and do what you love. Don’t listen to anyone else who tells you not to do it.  You do what you want, what you love.  Imagination should be the center of your life.”  —Ray Bradbury.