AI-Driven Job Loss Is Coming, But Universal Basic Income Is Not the Solution

Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant threat to the American workforce. It’s here, evolving rapidly and expanding its reach into industries that once seemed immune to automation. And Americans are taking notice.

A by The Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports found that 72 percent of voters are concerned about the impact of artificial intelligence, including 31 percent who are “very concerned.”

This concern cuts across the political spectrum: Roughly three-quarters of Republicans and Democrats expressed the same unease. In today’s hyper-polarized political climate, this is a rare case of consensus.

Though the relevant question did not mention job loss specifically, voters’ anxiety is clearly tied to economic disruption, especially in the labor market. That fear is increasingly justified by real-world trends.

Major U.S. companies are already cutting or restructuring jobs due to AI. For instance, recently announced 6,000 layoffs as it further incorporates AI. is shedding more than 12,000 jobs as part of an “AI pivot.”

in 2023 that it would pause hiring for roles it believed AI could handle, affecting approximately 7,800 jobs. that A.I could reduce 10 percent of the bank’s operations and account services staff.

 amid a broader effort to integrate AI.

Wendy’s is expanding its use of AI chatbots to take drive-through orders, with  by the end of 2025. Similar AI-driven workforce reductions are being made by , , , and many .

These are not isolated incidents. They are early indicators of a broader tectonic shift. And while the public’s anxiety is well-founded, some of the proposed policy responses are far more troubling.

The same Heartland/Rasmussen survey found that 62 percent of voters support a government policy that would tax technology companies to provide a universal basic income for every American, regardless of whether that American has been affected by job loss.

Unlike the more general question asking whether American voters fear the advent of AI, this one explicitly framed UBI as a policy response to job loss.

UBI has typically been proposed by many on the progressive left as a cure for a wide variety of societal problems. This poll was different. A full 60 percent of self-identified conservatives expressed support for a UBI, with only 16 percent of conservatives being “strongly opposed.”

That level of support should alarm anyone who values limited government and market-based solutions to social and economic problems.

A UBI is not a neutral policy tweak. Rather, it is a sweeping redistribution plan that removes the link between effort and reward and expands centralized control over income.

Taxing a single sector to fund universal handouts may sound simple, but it’s a dangerous form of collectivism.

Supporters of a UBI in response to AI-driven job loss, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, claim it would offer stability in an age of disruption. The idea would be to  from highly productive AI systems to provide every citizen a meaningful monthly stipend.

Altman, in fact, has backed this vision with funding, personally contributing $14 million to a It’s a clean idea — on paper.

In practice, however, such a program runs headlong into the same problems that plague most redistribution schemes.

It disconnects compensation from contribution, discouraging work, retraining, and adaptation.

It unfairly targets tech firms, potentially slowing innovation, driving jobs offshore, and placing U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage relative to foreign companies, as well as adversaries, such as China.

And UBI normalizes dependency instead of preparing people for a changing economy.

Most of all, UBI contradicts the fundamental values of a free society. It is a socialistic government-managed income program funded by targeted taxation and enforced through centralized redistribution — an abandonment of principles like personal responsibility, earned success, and limited government.

That’s not to say government has no role. There is room for better policy that aligns more strongly with those fundamental values.

Reforming our education and training systems, expanding access to apprenticeships, removing licensing barriers, and supporting small business formation are all constructive responses to AI’s rise.

In contrast to a UBI, some actual and proposed models offer more targeted, work-compatible support.

Milton Friedman’s idea of a negative income tax, for example, could supplement income for low earners without disincentivizing work.

Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend, meanwhile, is a real-world example of a modest, resource-based distribution that avoids means testing or bureaucratic sprawl.

These approaches may not be perfect, but they are fundamentally different from a UBI: They are limited in scope, preserve work incentives, and don’t entrench long-term dependency on the state.

Beyond economics, work provides structure, purpose, and dignity. These are things that no government check can replicate. Preserving meaningful employment is as much a cultural imperative as it is an economic one.

Artificial intelligence may be redefining the workplace, but it should not redefine the principles that have made this country strong. Americans are right to be wary, but we must respond with policies that reinforce freedom and productivity, not surrender them.

Jack McPherrin () is a research fellow for the Emerging Issues Center at The Heartland Institute. Donald Kendal () is the director of Heartland’s Emerging Issues Center.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either d or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.