The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) may necessitate a fundamental reassessment of economic systems. As AI evolves, it holds the potential to create unprecedented material abundance. Yet, the question remains: how will this wealth be distributed? Current disparities, such as those seen in Australia’s food economy, highlight the challenges ahead. According to the Australian government, approximately 7.6 million tonnes of food are wasted each year—equivalent to 312 kilograms per person—while one in eight Australians face food insecurity due to insufficient income.
Understanding the implications of AI involves examining the very nature of economics as described by economist Lionel Robbins. He defined economics as the study of the relationship between ends, or desires, and scarce means, which are resources that have alternative uses. Traditional market dynamics depend on this scarcity to set prices, prompting individuals to work in order to earn money and meet their needs. The promise of AI, with its potential to solve complex problems, directly conflicts with this model, raising concerns about the future of work and income distribution.
The relationship between technological advancement and employment is not solely a product of AI. Market economies inherently produce inequality, enabling mass unemployment or low wages amidst apparent abundance. The economic downturn experienced in Australia during the pandemic was not a result of market failure, but rather a public health crisis. This situation revealed that adjustments to government benefits, such as increased payments and relaxed means-testing, significantly reduced poverty and food insecurity, even as economic productivity declined.
This experience has fueled discussions around the implementation of a universal basic income (UBI). The Australian Basic Income Lab, a collaboration among Macquarie University, the University of Sydney, and the Australian National University, is actively researching this concept. If a guaranteed income could cover basic necessities, it might facilitate a smoother transition as society adjusts to technological advancements.
The notion of UBI warrants careful consideration regarding its structure. Some proposals could still perpetuate significant wealth disparities. Colleagues of Ben Spies-Butcher, including Elise Klein and James Ferguson, advocate for a UBI that is regarded not merely as welfare but as a “rightful share” of the wealth generated by technological progress. They argue that just as a nation’s natural resources are deemed collective property, so too should the wealth created through technological advancements be shared equitably.
The historical context of UBI discussions dates back to the early 20th century during industrialization in Britain, when technology threatened job security despite economic growth. Previous movements, such as the Luddites, resisted the introduction of machines that undermined wages. While market competition incentivizes innovation, it also spreads the risks and rewards of technological change unevenly.
An alternative perspective is offered by author Aaron Bastani, who envisions a model of “fully automated luxury communism.” He argues that advancements should enable greater leisure time and improved living standards. Unlike UBI, Bastani promotes the idea of universal basic services, which would directly provide essentials such as healthcare, education, and energy rather than giving individuals money to procure these services.
Despite the optimism surrounding AI, it is crucial to recognize that technology alone cannot guarantee a utopian future. As outlined by Peter Frase, the intersection of technological progress and ecological challenges can yield diverse outcomes regarding production capabilities and the political frameworks determining distribution. The substantial influence of technology companies, often led by billionaires, raises concerns about a shift towards what Yanis Varoufakis describes as “technofeudalism,” where technology and online platforms supplant markets and democratic processes with authoritarian control.
The potential of AI is significant, but it is essential to address the existing inequalities that persist in society. We already possess the knowledge to eliminate poverty and ensure adequate food for all. As Ben Spies-Butcher notes, we do not need AI to reveal these solutions. The ongoing discourse surrounding economic models in the AI era will shape the future of work, wealth distribution, and societal well-being.
