Latest news with #UniversalBasicIncome
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Will the Age of AI Politically Shift People to the Left?
Ever since I first used ChatGPT over two years ago, I've been drifting politically from the center to the left. I've noticed a similar occurrence happening to my friends. I'm not alone in this realization. As artificial intelligence (AI) transforms the landscape of global work, economics, and social organization, its political consequences are becoming more apparent. Frankly, this could be good news for struggling leftists who are currently wondering how the right has come into power in every branch of the U.S. government. While AI is not inherently political, the challenges and opportunities it presents are likely to drive popular demand for the kinds of collective solutions historically advocated by the left. Clearly, one of the most immediate effects of AI is its impact on the labor market. Automation and machine learning are displacing jobs in almost every field. An Apple iPhone screen with AI icons is pictured. An Apple iPhone screen with AI icons is pictured. Getty Images As more people find their jobs eliminated by automation, traditional models of employment-based identity and security begin to fall apart. The capitalist assumption that individuals should earn their livelihood through labor doesn't work anymore when machines outperform humans at both speed and cost. This disruption naturally prompts questions: If machines are creating immense value, who owns that value? If fewer people can earn a stable income through work, how should society distribute resources? These questions often lead toward left-wing solutions—most notably, the concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI), a policy I support. UBI and similar redistributive policies challenge the conservative ethos of meritocracy, advocating instead for a social safety net that ensures basic human needs are met regardless of employment status. What happens as the connection between labor and survival decouples is the case for a type of universal welfare becomes stronger, nudging public opinion to the left. AI also will likely worsen economic inequality. The benefits of AI development accrue primarily to those who own the data, compute power, and intellectual property behind these systems—typically large tech corporations and a small class of wealthy investors. This concentration of wealth and power in just a few hands raises plenty of alarm among citizens and policymakers alike. It creates political instability and fuels populist resentment. This makes people turn to progressive platforms that promise to break up monopolies, tax the ultra-wealthy, and reinvest in public goods. Let's face it: this redistributionist impulse is inherently leftist. The political left has long advocated for equitable wealth distribution, corporate regulation, and social investment in education, health care, and infrastructure. These policies look to gain more mainstream appeal in the AI age—not out of ideological conviction but out of necessity. Even moderate or centrist voters may find themselves supporting wealth taxes or antitrust regulations as they witness the disproportionate gains accruing to tech elites. AI also raises ethical and regulatory issues that require collective decision-making and public oversight—typical ideas of left-wing governance. AI systems can reinforce or even amplify societal biases if trained on flawed data. They can be used for mass surveillance, predictive policing, and manipulation of public opinion, raising many civil liberty dilemmas. Left-leaning political traditions emphasize the role of the state in protecting individual rights and promoting equality. In contrast, right-libertarian approaches prioritize deregulation and market freedom, which may be ill-suited to address labor challenges in the AI age. When widespread automation begins to make life-altering decisions—such as who gets a loan, a job, or a prison sentence—there is a growing demand for oversight, accountability, and ethical rules. This demand aligns with progressive calls for democratic control over technology—a political environment in which state institutions play a more active role in shaping the direction of AI development. Such governance will likely include public data trusts, ethical review boards, and inclusive policy-making processes—all of which emphasize collective rather than individualistic solutions. Perhaps most significantly, AI doesn't just reshape the economy; it also transforms how people see themselves and their relationship to society. In a world where traditional work is no longer central to personal identity, people may begin to value care, creativity, and education as more valuable. These ideas support a broader cultural shift that aligns with leftist values such as solidarity, equality, and community. I'm not suggesting the age of AI will determine political outcomes with certainty, but it will surely influence the structures and systems that shape political life. By disrupting labor markets, concentrating wealth, and raising ethical questions, AI challenges the assumptions of capitalism and individual self-sufficiency. In doing so, it creates fertile ground for left-wing political ideas centered on redistribution and collective governance. As societies grapple with the implications of this technological revolution, I believe a leftward political shift will likely emerge. It won't come about because of ideological fervor, but from the pragmatic need to build a fair and functional future in an AI-driven world. Zoltan Istvan writes and speaks on transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and the future. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Mint
4 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Behind the job cuts: Is AI the real reason?
At present, the outlook is mixed. The World Economic Forum (WEF)'s Future of Jobs 2025 report predicts 170 million new jobs this decade, but 92 million will be lost. One in four jobs globally is exposed to generative AI (GenAI), says a May 20 study by the International Labour Organization and Poland's National Research Institute. Google has laid off 12,000 workers since 2023, including 200 in May. Microsoft, Amazon, and Duolingo are also downsizing, while Meta cut 5% of its workforce in February—even as Mark Zuckerberg has offered $100 million sign-on bonuses to lure top AI talents. Also read | Mint Primer | Family offices total 300 now. What's driving them? Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warns AI could halve entry-level white-collar jobs and push unemployment to 20% in five years. Geoffrey Hinton echoes the risk of mass white-collar job losses. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella links layoffs to AI-focused restructuring, while Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai cites a push for efficiency. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy says AI agents will reduce some roles. InMobi CEO Naveen Tewari predicts 80% of coding will be automated by 2025. OpenAI's Kevin Weil and Zerodha CTO Kailash Nadh believe junior developers face the greatest risk. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang believes AI will shift, not erase, jobs. Also read | Mint primer | Air India crash: How is the Indian probe going? Tech layoffs began after the pandemic-era overhiring. Post-lockdown, many reevaluated and downsized. By end-2022, 263,000 global tech workers were laid off, with another 167,600 in Q1 2023, per Statista. While AI's impact on future layoffs remains unclear, automation is expected to replace many manual, rule-based tasks, potentially leading to more layoffs in tech. Also read | Hormuz heat rises: Can India weather an oil shock? Frontline jobs like farmworkers, delivery drivers, and care workers are set to see the highest volume growth, while tech roles in AI, fintech, and big data will grow fastest by rate, according to WEF. Clerical roles—cashiers, bank tellers, and data entry clerks—will face sharp declines. By 2030, 39% of workers' skills will be outdated, demanding constant upskilling. In-demand skills will include AI, big data, cybersecurity, and tech literacy, alongside soft skills like creative thinking, resilience and a commitment to lifelong learning. Also read | What global central banks are signalling about the road ahead WEF says 59% of workers will need upskilling by 2030. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon warns AI-driven job losses, especially in entry-level roles, will become a key political issue by 2028. Karnataka says it will study AI's workforce impact to guide policy. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei proposes a 'token tax" on AI profits for redistribution, while some experts push for Universal Basic Income. Meanwhile, companies may need to rethink fully outsourcing tasks to AI agents that still blur fact and fiction. Also read | Can bike taxis survive India's regulatory crackdown?
Independent Singapore
20-06-2025
- General
- Independent Singapore
'Do Singaporeans think that giving money to the poor makes them lazy?' Redditor asks
Photo: Reddit screengrab/u/michuang74 SINGAPORE: When a local Reddit user asked if Singaporeans disapprove of giving money to the poor as it sends the wrong message, it sparked a lively discussion, with many commenters bringing up important points for and against such a scheme. In a post on r/askSingapore on Thursday (June 19), u/AjaxCooperwater wrote, ' Generally, do Singaporeans think it is a bad idea to give money to the poor because it encourages laziness and de-incentivises job hunting?' They added that they personally do not believe that giving money to the poor 'encourages any form of stereotype behaviour,' but genuinely wanted to know the reason behind such perspectives, asking also if anyone has personally seen such a case occurring. The post was somewhat similar to another one from u/AjaxCooperwater earlier this week, when they asked how Singaporeans feel about Universal Basic Income . 'If you see a very old lady or an old man who is handicapped with one leg or one arm, do you think that even if they try hard looking for a job, any boss would want them? So, try to give them some money whenever you come across them. Sometimes, due to dignity, they refuse to accept your money without you taking something from them, such as a packet of tissues or a lottery ticket. Just take it, and say thank you,' one wrote. 'Just help if you want and in a position of being able to afford to.. most importantly, from the heart. Even one word of kindness is a type of charity,' commented another. A Reddit user outlined the reasons why a person may be hesitant to give money to the poor, which have nothing to do with being encouraged to be lazy. People are afraid of getting scammed, or are concerned that the money they give will end up in the pockets of crime syndicates. Another reason is that people from neighbouring countries might end up coming to Singapore to beg. This is why they prefer for social workers to reach out to people in need instead. 'Meritocracy can drive us to be unkind and elitist. When we work hard and land a good education and job, we believe it's our hard work that led us to be successful, and those who are poor are poor because they did not work as hard as us. But reality is never as simple as that. Success requires connections, hard work, and luck. If you're born well off, it's easier to focus on your studies, easier to build good connections,' another observed. /TISG Read also: 'JB businesses will be happy' — Singaporeans debate pros and cons of Universal Basic Income
Spectator
18-06-2025
- Business
- Spectator
The ridiculous fantasy of a Scottish universal basic income
One of the first casualties of the Covid pandemic was the millennial left's defining project of a Universal Basic Income. Once it became clear just how expensive it is for the state to pay people not to work, as in Rishi Sunak's lockdown income guarantee, this quasi-socialist project died a well-deserved death. But not everyone is prepared to let it lie. I'm afraid this betrays the fundamental problem with SNP economics The former Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, had been a supporter of UBI and commissioned an 'expert' group in 2021 to revive it under a new name: the Minimum Income Guarantee, or MIG. That group was largely composed of charities and academics. Unsurprisingly, their report today calls for a MIG that is marginally less barking than UBI. These experts advocate a minimum income for all of £11,500 for a single person, rising to £28,000 for a couple or single parent with one child. This would not, of course, remove entitlement to other welfare payments, including child benefit, disability benefit, or housing benefit. 'A Minimum Income Guarantee could be transformative,' said the expert group chair, Russell Gunson, of the Robertson Trust charity, 'putting in place a universal guarantee that's there for everyone in Scotland.' There's just one problem with this noble endeavour: it is almost laughably unaffordable. The Scottish government's own assessment put the cost at nearly £6 billion a year. The Scottish government is already committed to spending £2 billion more on welfare annually than under the welfare arrangements applying to the rest of the UK. This is in large part a result of the £27 per week Scottish Child Payment. Repeated reports from the Scottish Fiscal Commission and Audit Scotland have been warning that Scottish finances are already 'unsustainable'. Yet the Scottish government is also committed to restoring most of the Winter Fuel Payment and scrapping the two-child benefit cap, which will add even more to the Caledonian welfare bill. Introducing the Minimum Income Guarantee as proposed by the expert group would mean increasing income tax to levels that would horrify even the most radical Scandinavian finance minister. Scotland's 2.5 million income taxpayers would be liable to pay an extra £2,400 each per year. Since income tax is progressive, it would mean jacking up higher-rate taxpayers by a multiple of that figure. Scottish taxpayers on £50,000 a year already pay £1,500 a year extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. Asking them to pay another £3,000 or more would be politically inconceivable. And there is every reason to suspect that the cost could be greater than £6 billion. The independent Fraser of Allander Institute estimated the cost of an £11,500 Basic income at £58 billion a year. And while the wealthy would not receive a MIG, it is still an open-ended liability which no Scottish government could responsibly incur. So why has this 'expert' group proposed something so patently ridiculous? And why has the Social Security Secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville, 'welcomed' a report that should clearly have been filed under bin the moment it crossed her desk? If you ask anti-poverty campaigners how they would pay for it, they invariably say, 'tax the rich'. But Humza Yousaf tried that with the new Scottish £75,000 tax bands. The Scottish Fiscal Commission expected this to raise only around £82 million a year – about 0.01 per cent of the MIG. In fact it yielded much less. I'm afraid this betrays the fundamental problem with SNP economics. It is based on a belief that there is some vast treasury of untaxed wealth that can be tapped if only there is the will to do so. Poverty campaigners talk fancifully of wealth taxes which, even if the Scottish government had the legislative power to levy them, would simply lead to an exodus of businesses and higher-rate taxpayers, as has been the case with Chancellor Rachel Reeves's attempts to tax non-doms. Any credible wealth tax, like the Scottish Green party's idea of a 1 per cent annual tax on the top 10 per cent of wealth holders, would mean confiscatory levies on pension funds and the notional asset values of houses. This is political madness. These delusions are born of the student union debating chambers where most Scottish politicians cut their intellectual teeth. They never grew up. Their fiscal infantilism is underpinned by the fact that most Scottish spending comes automatically in the form of subsidies from the relatively generous Barnett Formula. Perhaps SNP politicians should be given what they apparently wish for: fiscal autonomy. Make the Scottish government raise every penny it spends. Ministers might then set up an expert group on how to live within your means.
Independent Singapore
18-06-2025
- Business
- Independent Singapore
‘JB businesses will be happy' — Singaporeans debate pros and cons of Universal Basic Income
SINGAPORE: When a local Redditor asked what Singaporeans think of Universal Basic Income, a commenter took somewhat of a left turn and said it would certainly make business owners in Johor happy. In a June 17 (Wednesday) post on r/askSingapore, u/AjaxCooperwater wrote, 'With people getting retrenched and AI replacing jobs, what do Singaporeans think of Universal Basic Income (UBI)? Can it be implemented in Singapore?' They further explained that UBI 'is a regular, unconditional cash payment given by the government to all citizens, regardless of their income or employment status, to cover basic living costs.' Certain countries around the world have used or launched a trial of one form or another of basic income, such as Brazil, Kenya, and South Korea. The advantages and disadvantages of such a scheme have been widely discussed. On the one hand, UBI would significantly reduce poverty. On the other hand, it may be too expensive for countries to sustain. As for u/AjaxCooperwater's post, many commenters had a lot to say. The top comment, however, was this: 'If you give cash as UBI, the business owners in JB will be very happy.' A Reddit user replied that this illustrates the biggest problem with the scheme. 'For an economy like Singapore, a lot of such money will flow out. Be it foreign investments or overseas trips/shopping. We will be essentially paying taxes to stimulate other countries' economies. I would very much prefer CDC vouchers. At least we keep the money within the country,' they wrote. Another seemed to agree, writing, 'I'm starting to think of things like CDC and NS Home credits as extremely limited forms of UBI, with the limitation that we need to use it in the local economy. Yes, they're not universal, but if I'm not wrong, it's actual usable currency, which is very different from tax rebates, etc. Plus, receiving these is very hard to game, and at the very least it's NOT disproportionately putting money in the hands of the rich, which is a very common complaint for how governments redistribute wealth.' Others also said that they believe Singapore already has a form of UBI. 'Your CDC vouchers, GST credits, and the slew of new fanciful vouchers are UBI dressed in different names. The government won't suddenly announce that everyone will get $x unconditionally because they don't like sudden shifts. They like to give a bit, look-see monitor, then shift a bit more, etc. Evolution, not revolution. Who's gonna pay for it? We are. That's why they had raised GST ahead of time,' one wrote. A commenter, however, was blunt in declaring that they are not in favour of UBI at all. 'Money is not free; you are just taxing more on those who are productive and not in a good way. Prefer for the government to actually invest more in education, financial literacy, and support schemes to help uplift those who are in need. At least these have very clear ROI and impact. Also with the mindset that some SG people have, confirm will have some that will exploit it/be damn entitled kpkb too little, want these and that. Very hard to determine a good threshold and will breed complacency. Our only resource is people and hard work, take away the motivation and SG is gonna lose competitive edge.' /TISG Read also: Universal basic income: is it really what today's youth need?
