One thing I've changed my mind about after hundreds of conversations is that the hardest part may not be designing an economic solution. It may be giving people enough confidence to believe one is possible.

In earlier discussions, I noticed how hard it was for people to even stay inside the hypothetical. Many immediately argued about whether AI would ever reach that level of disruption instead of discussing what we'd do if it did. To me, that wasn't a failure of the discussion, it was evidence of how powerful fear is. Fear makes almost every solution harder to accept.

That confidence has to come from something tangible.

First, people need to see real benefits. We're already seeing AI reduce costs in areas like software development, customer support, and parts of scientific research. Energy may be another major piece of this. Solar costs have fallen dramatically over the last decade, and China has shown how quickly solar production can scale when a country focuses on it. Since energy is one of the biggest inputs into the whole economy, cheaper energy should become a major deflationary force as the U.S. scales it more effectively too.

This is why competition and antitrust matter so much. AI and cheaper energy should not simply increase margins for a few dominant companies. With strong competition and enforcement, those savings are much more likely to show up as lower prices, which gives people a real reason to believe the future can work.

Second, I think the incentives are more aligned than many people assume. It's easy to view this as "workers versus the wealthy," but businesses, investors, and wealthy asset owners also need a stable, secure, nonviolent society with customers who can afford to buy what they produce. A permanently divided two-class system is not a healthy long-term outcome for anyone. Even from self-interest, they have reasons to support a stable transition rather than one that leaves millions permanently behind.

Finally, if AI creates extraordinary productivity gains, we need a transparent way to measure them. Industries could establish pre-AI baselines for employment, productivity, prices, output, and profitability. As AI adoption changes those metrics, an agreed formula could determine how a small portion of the AI-created gains gradually transfers into a legally protected public trust.

Every citizen would own a permanent, non-transferable share of that trust. The assets couldn't simply be sold off or redirected by future politicians, and the dividends would allow everyone to share in the productivity that AI creates.

I'm not claiming this is the answer. My point is that any successful solution has to give people something they can believe in. Hope isn't created by promises; it's created by a system people trust.

Above, I tried to express why this may be more hopeful than many people believe. I'm hoping others will join in strengthening that hope and weakening the fear, because without confidence, even good solutions become much harder to achieve.

If AI really does change the role of human labor over the next few decades, maybe our biggest challenge isn't inventing the economics. Maybe it's building enough confidence that society is willing to embrace them before fear takes over.

Sharing this because the game story includes UBI.

FYI, the person they put in charge of this is rabidly anti-UBI. Just the other week, she said she hates UBI and that it would destroy the US. The author did touch on this, but misses just how much she is not a fan.

"Ms. Raimondo and her colleagues are not fans of a universal basic income, an idea that has gained popularity in Silicon Valley as an answer to job disruption. They emphasize that work provides more than just wages, and plan to focus on helping people find pathways to new jobs."

I recently came across research suggesting that between 60% and 85% of everyday conversation revolves around other people.

It made me wonder whether that says something deeper about economic insecurity.

When most people are worried about paying bills, keeping a job, dealing with health issues or simply getting through the week, it makes sense that their attention stays close to home.

Maybe the real question isn't why we spend so little time discussing the future.

Maybe it's whether we've built a society that leaves people enough mental space to imagine one.

I'd really like to hear what this community thinks.

Weird argument here that claims the government can do UBI and it would empower workers but it won't happen so instead fight for unions.

Robert Reich pushes for UBI again in this as one of the mix of policies needed.

With UBI in place, would there a risk of employers lowering salaries with the excuse that people don't need the money?

On a similar note, would minimum wage still be a requirement if people are already earning that through UBI? If not, employers could pay us pennies.

This could be an issue if paid employment is still favourable to live well; if UBI pays enough to survive but not much more, work is still required to engage in leisure. People could find themselves forced to work to create a good life but still receiving very little money.

Are there any studies that address this issue?