Geoffrey Hinton, the godfather of artificial intelligence, when asked how to fairly distribute the profits of the AI economy, answers with just one word: “Socialism.” Sam altmanCEO OpenAI, he is more cautious but the substance does not change: universal basic income, money for everyone, no questions asked. Elon Musk goes further: “We will have no choice.”
The problem is that the numbers tell a different story. The AI economy promises trillions of dollars of growth, but in the meantime it's already displacing thousands of workers. And unemployment could explode before those trillions materialize. It's a bit like promising dessert to someone who's already starving.
AI Economy: The Numbers That Don't Add Up
Let's be clear: the forecasts for the AI economy are all optimistic. Goldman Sachs estimates global GDP growth of 7%, approximately 7 trillion dollars over ten years. PwC is even more optimistic: up to 15% growth by 2035 if all goes well. IDC talks about 19,9 trillion dollars of cumulative economic impact by 2030. Numbers that would make the industrial revolution pale in comparison.
But there is a detail that complicates the picture. Daron Acemoglu, economist of the MIT and Nobel Prize winner 2024, has been more cautious. According to his analysis, Only 5% of work tasks could be profitably automated in the next ten years. The result? US GDP growth of just 1,1% over the same period. No miracles, in short. Modest growth, not revolutionary.
The real problem, rather, isn't the conflicting estimates. It's the timing. Artificial intelligence could eliminate millions of jobs before generating the wealth needed to replace them. The International Monetary Fund calculates that 40% of global employment is exposed to the AI economy. In advanced countries, the percentage rises to 60%. In emerging markets, it drops to 40%, and in low-income countries, it drops further to 26%.
Universal basic income: solution or illusion?
Faced with this scenario, the universal basic income It seems like the only way out. The idea is simple: give everyone a fixed monthly sum, with no strings attached. No bureaucracy, no job blackmail. In theory, the AI economy generates enough wealth to afford it. In practice, the math is more complex.
In the United States, for example, a basic income of 10 thousand dollars a year (a trifle: a cashier at McDonald's earns 25 thousand) would cost 3 trillion, about three-quarters of the federal budget. Elon Musk envisions something more ambitious: "There will be a universal high income, not just a basic income. Everyone will have the best healthcare, food, housing, transportation." Sustainable abundance, he calls it. The problem is figuring out how to finance it.
The classic proposal is to tax the profits generated by the AI economy. Does this make senseIf capital does the work that humans once did, capital should be taxed more. But this presupposes two things. First: that politicians agree to raise corporate taxes just as artificial intelligence promises growth. Second: that AI generates enough profits before unemployment explodes.
The largest basic income experiment was conducted between 2020 and 2023 by OpenResearch, an organization founded by Sam Altman. A thousand low-income families received $1.000 a month without strings attached. The results? People used the money primarily for basic needs, improving their financial stability and independence. But the overall effects were limitedNo significant improvement in physical health or academic achievement. Money helps, but it doesn't solve everything.
White-collar workers: the first to fall into the AI economy
There's another complication. AI isn't hitting where we expected it to. Goldman Sachs predicts that 6-7% of the workforce will be replaced by AI. This will bring unemployment to around 12%, higher than during the Great Recession of 2008. But it's not manual jobs that will disappear first. It's white-collar jobs.
Programmers, legal assistants, accountants, financial analysts: Professions that until yesterday seemed safe are collapsing. Dario Amodei of Anthropic estimates that half of all white-collar entry-level jobs could disappear in the next five years. Microsoft has laid off 6,000 workers, 3% of its workforce. Thirty percent of the company's code is already written by artificial intelligence. IBM has cut 8,000 human resources positions, replaced by AskHR, a chatbot that handles 11,5 million interactions per year.
The paradox is that these workers are crucial to the AI economy. In the United States, The top 10% of income earners account for nearly half of total consumer spending. If you hit this segment, the impact on the overall economy is enormous. A basic income of $10 doesn't even begin to replace the $100 salaries these professionals earned.
Europe and Asia: The AI economy has no safety net
While the debate on basic income is heated in the United States, the situation is even more complex in Europe and Asia. Istat predicts Italy expects GDP growth of 0,6% in 2025 and 0,8% in 2026. These modest numbers will be driven almost entirely by domestic demand. The AI economy could provide a boost, but the country is starting from a fragile foundation.
In Italy, according to the Politecnico di MilanoThere will be 3,7 million remote workers by the end of 2025. The integration of artificial intelligence and remote working could improve productivity and well-being. But it requires digital infrastructure, training, and investment. All of which take time and money.
In Asia the situation is still different. The International Monetary Fund Note that many emerging countries lack the infrastructure or skilled workforce to exploit the benefits of the AI economy. They risk being left behind, widening the gap with advanced nations. Artificial intelligence could worsen inequality between countries, not just within them.
The paradox of growth without workers
Martin Ford, futurist and author of The domain of robots, has a theory that sounds popular. For the AI economy to work, purchasing power must be put in the hands of consumers. It doesn't matter if the products are made by machines. People must have money to buy them. Otherwise, who do you sell to?
The risk is a downward spiral. Artificial intelligence replaces workers, workers lose income, consumption collapses, the economy slows. And this hampers investment in AI, preventing us from achieving the superintelligence that should generate abundance for all. A vicious cycle where no one wins.
Some economists, such as the aforementioned Daron Acemoglu, are skeptical of universal basic income. They argue that taxing income discourages work and investment. And that providing transfers to the same people from whom you collect taxes is inefficient. They favor targeted policies: support for those losing their jobs, training, and incentives for new jobs.
But there's a counterargument. The AI economy may be moving too fast for targeted policies. When tens of millions of people lose their jobs in just a few years, a rapid and universal response is needed. Basic income has one advantage: it's simple. No bureaucracy, no exclusions. It works immediately. So what do we do?
Beyond Money: The Problem of Meaning
Elon Musk raises a question that goes beyond the AI economy. In a benign scenario, he says, none of us would likely have a job. There would be abundance, no scarcity of goods and services. But the question becomes: if computers and robots can do everything better than you, does your life have any meaning?
It's a philosophical question, but one with practical implications. Work isn't just a source of income. It's identity, purpose, and social structure. Take it away from billions of people, and what's left? Basic income solves the material problem, but not the existential one.
Some research suggests that artificial intelligence will create new jobs for humans. David Author, economist of the MIT, note that 60% of current occupations did not exist in 1940. 85% of job growth over the last 80 years is explained by technology creating new positions.
Maybe it will happen again. Or maybe not. The AI economy is different from previous technological revolutions. It doesn't automate repetitive physical tasks. It automates thinking, creativity, and judgment. If artificial intelligence can do what makes us human better than us, what new jobs will remain?
The window is closing
The debate over universal basic income in the AI economy isn't academic. It's urgent. The World Trade Organization estimates that artificial intelligence could increase global trade by 40% by 2040. But to get there, we must navigate the transition without destroying the social fabric.
Basic income isn't a perfect solution. It costs too much, it might not be enough, and it doesn't address the question of its meaning. But it could be the only solution fast and universal enough to prevent millions of people from falling into poverty while we wait for the AI economy to generate abundance.
The real question isn't whether universal basic income will work. It's whether we have the political courage to try it before it's too late. Because the alternative, says Martin Ford, It could be a recession triggered by mass unemployment. And that recession would hamper the very development of artificial intelligence that is supposed to save us.
The AI economy promises a future of abundance. But between here and there lies a desert to cross. And so far, no one has brought enough water.
