Why Basic Income works right now, Let’s make it Universal!

Two of Andrew Yang’s key policy positions resonate deeply with me: Universal Basic Income (UBI) and his warning about the impending Robot Apocalypse. As automation continues to transform industries and displace millions of jobs, it is clear that we are entering a new age that, without proper intervention, could exacerbate economic inequality and social unrest. This is not just a hypothetical future—it’s a reality already in motion.

During his 2020 presidential campaign, Yang brought the dark side of automation into the national conversation. With millions of jobs at risk, particularly those held by working-class Americans, we face an urgent question: How do we transition into an automated economy without leaving a vast majority of Americans behind? Yang’s answer was clear: UBI, which he coined the Freedom Dividend, a monthly stipend aimed at mitigating the financial shocks of automation while offering individuals more freedom and security.

However, since the inception of my interest in UBI, I’ve come to learn even more through experts like Scott Santens, who offers fresh perspectives on how UBI can reshape not just our economy but our society as a whole. With these insights, let’s take a deeper look at the role of UBI in today’s world.

Automation: The Real Catalyst of Job Losses

Yang was one of the first major political figures to highlight that robots, not immigrants, are the real cause of economic dislocation for millions of American workers. He pointed out that many of the most common jobs in America—administrative and clerical work, retail, food service, truck driving, and manufacturing—are under immediate threat of automation.

Consider the case of truck drivers. There are approximately 3.5 million truck drivers on the road today, and autonomous trucks are expected to be widespread within the next 3-5 years. The potential savings from replacing human drivers with robots are significant—an estimated $168 billion per year—as robot trucks can operate 24/7 without the need for rest. Similar trends are unfolding in call centers, where artificial intelligence is already replacing thousands of jobs.

Yet, despite the urgency of these changes, there remains a vast divide in our nation. Many still hold to outdated narratives, blaming immigrants or other external forces for the economic losses caused by automation. Andrew Yang and Scott Santens argue that we need to change the conversation to focus on the actual drivers of these economic shifts—and UBI is the most practical solution.

UBI as More Than a Reaction to Automation

While Yang’s focus on the Robot Apocalypse has been a powerful wake-up call, Scott Santens offers a broader vision. Automation doesn’t have to be feared as a doomsday scenario. Instead, Santens suggests that UBI is a tool to ensure that everyone benefits from technological progress.

Rather than viewing UBI as a reactive policy meant to catch people falling through the cracks, Santens advocates for it as a proactive measure to grant individuals more freedom, time, and choice. By decoupling income from employment, we allow people to pursue education, entrepreneurship, creativity, and personal growth without being solely reliant on increasingly precarious jobs.

New industries and technologies are meant to elevate society, not displace it. UBI ensures that everyone has access to the resources they need to thrive in this evolving economy, giving people the financial freedom to engage with these changes on their terms rather than being victimized by them.

Economic Efficiency: UBI as an Investment, Not Welfare

One of the primary criticisms of UBI is that it resembles a welfare program—simply handing out money without requiring work in return. However, Scott Santens consistently reframes this argument by emphasizing UBI as an investment in economic efficiency, not a giveaway.

Santens points out that the bureaucratic complexities of targeted welfare programs are far more costly in the long run than a simple, universal income. Under our current welfare systems, countless resources are spent determining eligibility, managing paperwork, and addressing the many gaps in coverage that arise. In contrast, UBI is an elegant solution that benefits everyone equally, cutting red tape and putting money directly into the hands of people who will immediately inject it back into the economy.

It’s important to remember that most Americans living paycheck to paycheck would spend their UBI on essentials—car repairs, healthcare, groceries—all of which stimulate local economies. This results in increased revenue for both states and the federal government. What we often fail to realize is that giving people money isn’t a drain on resources; it’s a way to fuel economic growth and innovation.

Corporate Welfare vs. Social Dividends

In your original article, you correctly pointed out the hypocrisy of corporate welfare. Each year, companies that benefit most from automation pay little to no taxes, despite their immense profits. So why not ask these same companies to contribute back to society by helping to fund a universal income?

Santens takes this idea a step further, proposing that automation companies—who stand to profit enormously by replacing human workers—should contribute to a social dividend. Through higher corporate taxes or shared ownership models, we can ensure that the profits from automation benefit all of society, not just the shareholders of large corporations. UBI, in this sense, becomes a right rather than a handout, reflecting the collective contribution of society to technological progress.

This social dividend would act as a safeguard, protecting those who lose jobs to automation while ensuring that the immense wealth created by these technologies is more fairly distributed.

UBI: A Bridge Across Political Divides

One of the most powerful aspects of UBI, as both Yang and Santens have noted, is its ability to unite people across political divides. UBI appeals to progressives because it reduces poverty and inequality. At the same time, it appeals to libertarians and fiscal conservatives because it minimizes government intervention in people’s lives, replacing complex welfare programs with a simple cash transfer that allows individuals to decide how best to spend their money.

UBI has the potential to transform the way we think about economic security, shifting the narrative from one of scarcity and division to one of abundance and shared prosperity. It offers a way to manage the transition into an automated economy that ensures no one is left behind.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

We are living in a time of extraordinary technological advancement, but also extraordinary uncertainty. The looming reality of widespread automation threatens to displace millions of jobs, potentially deepening the economic divisions in our society. Yet, we have a choice. We can either cling to outdated economic models or embrace Universal Basic Income as a way to empower individuals, strengthen communities, and prepare for the future.

Andrew Yang initiated this conversation in the mainstream, but it is thinkers like Scott Santens who have expanded it into a truly transformative idea—one that could reshape our economy for the better. UBI is more than a response to automation; it’s an investment in people. It’s time to take action, adopt practical solutions, and build a future where everyone can benefit from progress.