Universal Basic Income

Nayebi derives the first closed-form mathematical condition for when AI capital profits could sustainably finance UBI without new taxation or job creation. Using a Solow-Zeira task-automation economy model, he finds that AI systems would only need to reach 5-7 times today's automation productivity to fund an 11%-of-GDP UBI (approximately $12,000 annually per U.S. adult in 2025 dollars). His analysis also suggests that raising public revenue share of AI capital from 15% to 33% halves the required AI capability threshold. He projects that depending on AI capability growth rates, this threshold could be reached between the early 2030s and mid-21st century, suggesting UBI funded by AI rents is economically feasible within foreseeable technological progress rather than requiring "science-fiction-level breakthroughs."

Several authors in The Digitalist Papers suggest moving beyond the traditional concept of UBI, viewing it as  insufficient or potentially flawed baseline. Alvin W. Graylin proposes Universal Basic Infrastructure and Income (UBII). This model extends UBI to guarantee access to essential high-tech services, including high-speed internet, healthcare, education, and AI compute resources. He frames this not as "paying people to do nothing," but as providing a "safety net and a springboard" that empowers people to participate in the new economy.

Elsewhere in the volume, Nicolas Berggruen and Nathan Gardels argue for moving beyond the UBI debate toward UBC. They contend that UBI merely redistributes income after the fact, potentially replicating inequality and leaving unresolved questions of purpose and social cohesion, whereas UBC creates a durable structure of shared ownership. David Autor and Neil Thompson similarly caution against moving directly to UBI, instead advocating wage insurance to support workers transitioning to new industries while remaining attached to the labor market.

The largest U.S. guaranteed income experiment randomized 3,000 low-income individuals across Texas and Illinois: 1,000 received $1,000/month unconditionally for three years, 2,000 received $50/month as a control. The transfer reduced labor participation by 4.1 percentage points and work hours by 1-2 hours per week, with partners reducing hours by a comparable amount. Total individual income excluding transfers fell by roughly $1,800/year. The authors found no impact on employment quality, and their confidence intervals rule out even small improvements. Subjective wellbeing increased in year one but reverted to control levels thereafter. The greatest increase in time use was leisure. The authors conclude the results show a moderate labor supply reduction not offset by other productive activities.