A New Freedom: What Happens When Jobs Disappear?

In the near future, the forces of capitalism will eliminate jobs by the millions, leaving millions without the means to earn a living. But the forces of capitalism will also provide the solution, and ultimately lead to a new American freedom…the freedom from work.

America has the opportunity to lead the way into a new, better-than-ever world…or we can cling to false beliefs and outdated cultural norms, and make everything worse. Eventually the driving forces will compel us to do the right things, but if we hold our present course, our path will be long and painful, rather than glorious and inspiring.

The bleak scenario isn’t inevitable. If we can follow the true principles that undergird our economy, rather than the myths and outdated beliefs that guide us today, we’ll be able to figure out how to move forward into a world with more freedom, more prosperity, and more harmony than ever before. And through it all, we can retain our most cherished institutions…our constitutional/democratic form of governance, free-market capitalism, and unbridled freedom for personal initiative and entrepreneurship.

Capitalism is destroying jobs.

The essence of capitalism is one of history’s most important equations. It’s simple arithmetic, but it’s as important to humanity as Einstein’s E = MC². You already know it:

Income — Costs = Profit

How does that simple equation eliminate jobs? Like this: The more you reduce costs, the greater the profit. A very large portion of costs is work, and work is done either by human labor (jobs) or technology. The cost of human work is increasing inexorably over time, and the cost of work done by technology is decreasing inexorably over time. So it makes sense (and more profit) for human work to be replaced by non-human work—to replace jobs with technology. And that’s what’s happening.

Conventional wisdom—based on history—tells us that there will always be more jobs created to replace those lost to technology. But history is being turned on its ear because technology isn’t behaving like it used to. It’s changing faster than anyone could have imagined. We’ve already passed a tipping point at which technology is eliminating jobs at an accelerating rate, and guess what? Artificial intelligence is propelling us to another tipping point, and it’ll be orders of magnitude more disruptive than the amazing technological leaps we’ve become accustomed to over the past three or four decades. When machines can drive cars, create products, write books, practice medicine, and invent other machines, the rate of technological acceleration will surpass geometric (amazing) and go exponential (dumbfounding). It’s analogous to the difference between breaking the sound barrier, and going to warp speed.

Increasingly large swaths of our working-age population will be unable to find jobs of any kind because those jobs won’t exist. And they won’t come back because we won’t want them to. They’re too costly. Capitalism and market forces won’t have it any other way—and in the long run that’s a virtue, not a curse.

The loss of jobs will bring about the freedom from work.

What will happen to those growing millions of people who will be unable to work? We’ll have to take care of them, and we will.

Some things we mistakenly associate with socialism will be necessary, but not wealth redistribution, and not the totalitarian/authoritarian aspects of governance. The American people won’t allow either of those, nor should we. But the humane and compassionate aspects, the aspects that gave us Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance will—must—increase. Eventually, there will be, available to everyone whether they work or not, a sustaining level of support sufficient to enable a reasonably comfortable quality of life—shelter, food, clothing, basic medical care, basic transportation, education, and the like. It will probably come in the form of a stipend, financed by the federal government. And, as I’ll explain, it won’t bankrupt us.

I think of this sustaining payment as a “Freedom Stipend” because, for the first time in our history, it will provide the American people with a choice we’ve never had before…live a life of dignity and simplicity, or exercise our ambitions and talents to earn a more robust life, enabled by our capitalist economic system, and supported by our American system of governance. Choice is freedom, and the choice to work or not to work represents a new freedom for us. The American Dream, at long last, can become accessible to everyone.

Today we misname our safety net programs “socialism” or “welfare society,” or “redistribution of wealth,” and fear that they will lead America to become a socialist state. We abhor the socialism idea, and we should, because history demonstrates that it’s unworkable and unjust. But when we come to understand that some things commonly, and mistakenly, thought of as “socialist” are actually a basic and normal function of civilized governance, and have been for as long as humans have banded together and created governing structures…not socialism at all, but rather the natural result of living in a compassionate, productive, democratic, and capitalistic economy—an economy driven by market forces, not centralized control. We should be comforted, rather than distressed, because we can preserve the essence of our republic and our Constitution, and we can hold true to the beliefs and intentions of our Founding Fathers, while, at the same time, providing even greater freedom and well being to all of our people. The Freedom Stipend is decidedly not socialism, and I’ll say more about that below.

Back to the question: How will the loss of jobs bring about the freedom from work? The simple answer is two words: necessity and productivity.

Necessity defines the problem. The loss of jobs will mean that millions won’t be able to sustain themselves no matter how much they are willing and able. When that happens, we’ll have to do something. We can’t leave those millions to suffer—we can’t and we won’t. The government will have to step in and do something, and as the problem gets worse (more and more jobs disappear), the government will have to do more and more to support our population. There won’t be a choice because abandoning our distressed millions simply isn’t something the American people will endure or tolerate. So necessity will motivate us, and compassion will show us what’s needed—a way to sustain our people.

Productivity provides the solution. The same technology that’s eliminating our jobs will also be our savior because it’s bringing about the greatest surge of productivity that history has ever seen. Have you wondered why the stock market continues to thrive, even as jobs disappear and our nation endures other troubles? It’s because productivity is thriving, and it’s driven by technology. Technology gives us the ability to produce all that our society needs and wants…and more.

As early as the 1970s, Buckminster Fuller (then a world-renowned forward thinker) said, “We have the wherewithal, the know-it-all to feed everybody, clothe everybody, and give every human on Earth a chance.” It’s even more true today because the American economy is far more productive. We have the resources…why aren’t we clever enough to eliminate poverty?

We’re clever enough, but our culture won’t let it happen. Our values and our political beliefs block us. Our economic misunderstandings make us think it’s impossible. We don’t think we can eliminate poverty and still hold on to the blessings of our American way of life, which were created mainly by our constitution and our free market form of capitalism. We think it can only happen if we become socialists, and we believe we’ll break the bank if we do that—we’ll impoverish the nation, and destroy our unique American spirit. Our values line up against it: we simply don’t like the idea of millions of parasites feeding off the rest of us, while not taking responsibility for themselves and earning their keep.

We’re wrong to think that way. We actually can reduce—maybe eliminate—poverty, yet still hold to our way of life, all without messing up our constitution, and continuing to rely on our free market form of capitalism to sustain and increase the quality of life that we enjoy in this great nation of ours. It’s a matter of attitudes and beliefs, not resources.

Buckminster Fuller would be astounded at our progress if he were alive today. But he would be deeply dismayed that, with all our productive might, we’re not willing to “…feed everybody, clothe everybody, and give every human on Earth a chance.”

Why not? What’s holding us back?

We don’t have the vision or the motivation, and we don’t yet understand the mechanism for making it happen, but soon we will. What I think will happen is that, instead of people supporting the economy by earning wages and paying taxes, the economy will support the people through productivity, the benefits of entrepreneurship, and the monetary functions of a sovereign government.

Productivity will make it possible, but for decades, our societal norms will resist, and we’ll complain about it. But when we let go of our traditional paradigms (“Work for a living.” “Your job defines you as a human being.” “A ‘welfare state’ is evil.” “Deficit spending will bankrupt our economy.” And others), we’ll come to see a new reality. For the first time in human history, we’ll have the choice to work or not to work—to live decently on the Freedom Stipend, or to to compete for the jobs that are available and earn a better living. Choice is freedom, in this case the freedom from work.

How Will It Unfold?

I wish we could suddenly become universally rational, and intentionally manage the inevitable future so that we avoid disruption and get to the good stuff quickly and painlessly. But we’re not like that. We react to necessity rather than foresight. We muddle through. A few of us—those with foresight—will want to leap into the future. But most of us will cling to outdated habits and values, resisting change even when it’s good for us. We’ll be ping-ponged by our leaders from one idea to another. We’ll be confused and emotional, and fearful of moving backward or forward. That creates conflict, misunderstandings, and turmoil. So the road ahead will probably be difficult…unnecessarily so, but difficult nonetheless.

How could we avoid the difficulty? We’d have to start from scratch and rethink the way we look at ourselves as a nation. We wouldn’t have to give up any of our beliefs about our constitution and our free market economy, but we would have to be willing to follow a new line of thinking and allow for possibilities that might seem wrong until you understand them. We don’t have to believe these possibilities at first, just consider them…try them on for size, then accept or reject them based on reason rather than the knee-jerk reactions of our culture and old habits of thinking.

Try this: Suspend your judgment for a little while and consider the mental experiments I present below. Follow the logic without shutting it down before it’s complete, then you can decide if it’s right, or wrong, or maybe worth a closer look.

We Need to Look at the American Economy a Different Way

Here’s the first mental experiment: Back away from the details of your day-to-day life, and look at our nation as one enormous enterprise that produces all the goods and services needed by our 340 million people. Then think of those 340 million souls as the consumers of all our output of products and services. It’s a symbiotic loop of producers and consumers, each dependent upon the others for survival. The producers are the same people as the consumers—each person contributes (to a greater or lesser degree) something to this gigantic loop, and each person (to a greater or lesser degree) benefits from it.

Think of this as the “American Enterprise.”

The American Enterprise both produces and uses everything we need. The question then becomes, how do we distribute all those goods and services, do it fairly, and still hold on to our American way of life?

It’s a distribution problem isn’t it? How do we distribute economic quality of life? We do it the way we’ve always done it—with money. We distribute money by means of the supply and demand system of free market capitalism. Goods and services go to those who purchase them, or to those who are given them by others who purchase them. It all adds up to a system of, from each according to his ability and willingness, to each according to his purchasing power. That’s enormously different from the communist dictum, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The former is, for the most part, free, the latter is coerced and grossly unfair, and, as history has shown, is doomed from the start.

What if we re-engineer the American Enterprise a different way, with fairness and continued freedom as our main objectives, while also remaining true to our Constitution and continuing to rely on capitalism as our driving force? We want to continue to reward those who work hard, take risks, and are ambitious. That’s fair. But what do we do with those who were born with less talent, and who suffer the disabilities and misfortunes that life inflicts on some of us. Do they get a fair shake now? Probably not. And, in our present culture, by and large we don’t care about those who are lazy, dishonest, and addicted because…well, it’s their own fault.

Let’s continue our thought experiment

We’ll Have to Look at People a Different Way, Too

People are people. Human nature is human nature. Economically speaking, people are worth what they earn. How can there be a different perspective?

Well, there is another perspective, and we’re all familiar with it. We just don’t see it as part of our economic paradigm.

Some things we don’t have to earn. We get them simply because we exist as citizens in this land of ours. Things like the right to vote, like equality under the law, and like the ability to travel anywhere in the country. We’re all entitled to a free education (through high school), not because it’s a basic human entitlement, but because it’s good for the nation. We call these things “rights.”

No matter our race, gender, ethnicity, location, education, political bias, or any of the uncounted and uncountable ways that we find to discriminate amongst ourselves, each of us has these basic rights once we become adults. And we get them regardless of our buying power. We get them because we have fundamental value as human beings.

Don’t think me naive. I know that money and power enhance our freedoms, and poverty and powerlessness diminish them. But the underlying philosophy behind our freedoms applies to all, even though the rich and powerful find ways to get more than the fundamental entitlements our form of government grants them. The idea of fundamental human value applies even though it is warped by human nature and practical realities. It’s still threaded throughout our laws and our culture, and over time it’s becoming more and more inclusive. It’s a fundamental aspect of being American.

Except for the impoverished.

Why isn’t that basic human value reflected in our economic system? Why isn’t it a basic principle, a foundational principle, as it is in our governance? Why are you given your rights, but have to earn your living conditions? The reasons are deeply rooted in our history, so deeply that they almost seem like laws of nature, not to be challenged, or even examined.

Economically speaking, our society tends to look at people as production devices. The more productive they are, the more valuable they are to society, and the more money they are able to generate for themselves. Unproductive people don’t get much money because they don’t earn it. The Protestant work ethic we all learned in school and from or parents is our fundamental economic principle, and by means of jobs, we see it as the primary cause of the productivity of the nation. It’s a false linkage—that the economy depends on jobs, as does the earning power of the people. The economy depends on the productivity of the American Enterprise—what we can produce for our people—and productivity will continue to increase, but because of technology, not human labor…not jobs.

But what happens when jobs disappear, when work gets done by technology rather than human labor?

My suggestion is that we, as a nation, treat the economic reality of our people in the same way we treat their citizenship. We need to recognize that all people start with a fundamental economic value for the same reason they have fundamental political value, merely because of their existence on the face of the earth, their basic humanity, and their participation, however meagre, in the economy. Let’s give it a name. Let’s call it what it is, and, because it’s so foundational and important, let’s capitalize it: “Basic Human Value.”

Everybody has Basic Human Value, and it can’t be taken away—it’s inalienable. But we can give it away by voluntarily doing things—crimes—that negate our value to society. Criminals destroy, or at least diminish, their Basic Human Value, and they do it to themselves by voluntarily committing crimes.

The unemployed, the lazy, the disadvantaged (mentally or physically), and the ideological outliers (their beliefs keep them apart from the mainstream) have Basic Human Value, and don’t lose it merely because their attitudes are undesirable or their situations are unfortunate. It’s analogous to the right to vote and freedom of speech: All citizens, merely by virtue of their existence (and their age), have the right to vote and enjoy freedom of speech. Those with greater wealth or earning power have no more votes than those mired in poverty. Their value to society is the mere fact that they exist as a part of it. To the extent that they have resources, they are consumers, and as consumers they contribute to the American Enterprise, even if only a little bit. Their basic humanity, plus their contributions, however minimal, justify a basic level of respect and dignity…again, Basic Human Value.

In sum, everyone has Basic Human Value, and for that reason alone, deserves to share in the benefits of the American Enterprise…they deserve to receive the Freedom Stipend. Some give it up by their actions (crimes) but they can regain it by serving their punishments. Some add to their Basic Human Value by holding jobs, serving the society in charitable ways, pursuing entrepreneurial visions, contributing through the arts, assuming governmental responsibilities, and supporting the spiritual needs of society. They’re all productive citizens, and they have Basic Human Value just like everyone else, but, by their useful, productive acts—their work—they can earn higher levels of economic value, above and beyond the basic level.

It’s a meritocracy, but a meritocracy in which people don’t start from zero. They start from the assumption that they have basic value that is greater than zero, and that basic value is recognized economically by the Freedom Stipend. They also start with the assumption that they can increase or decrease their basic value through their deeds…the more (or less) valuable their deeds, the greater (or lesser) are their monetary rewards.

Hold that thought while we look at what we have been taught is the basic building block of an economy…jobs.

Let’s build on our thought experiment.

We’ll also Have to Look at Jobs Differently

By definition, a job is work done by a person. But not all work is done by people. Over the course of history, innovation in the form of technology has shifted work from people to devices and clever processes. Technology is taking over more and more of the work necessary to feed, clothe, and shelter us, take care of our personal needs, and increase our quality of life. The sobering truth is that the nation’s productivity—the output of the American Enterprise—depends on work, not jobs, and more and more of that work is being done by technology, leaving more and more people without jobs, and therefore unable to support themselves, notwithstanding their basic value to the nation. Now, more than ever, the notion that the nation’s well being depends on jobs is a false belief. Work, yes. Jobs, no.

The obsolete belief—that there will always be new jobs to replace those lost to technology—is a false belief. We’re beginning to see it now, especially with the introduction of artificial intelligence into the nation’s productive resources. AI promises to be the tipping point at which jobs can no longer be the foundation of economic prosperity. More and more, new and old jobs will be replaced by technology, leaving hundreds of thousands, and soon millions, of people with no opportunity to earn a living.

A new economic model—the best of the past, and a dose of reality for the future.

Let’s translate these ideas into the beginnings of a modified economic model. What if we figured out a basic subsistence level for our citizens? Not a “poverty line” but a “basic subsistence line,” which aligns with the basic value of a person—not their earning power, but the value of their existence to the overall society. Then, what if we calculate the dollar amount needed to live at that basic subsistence level? That dollar amount would be the Freedom Stipend. All this leads to the following economic principle:

Every citizen is a member of and a contributor to the American Enterprise, therefore all citizens should be entitled to a basic share in that enterprise in the form of a monetary stipend. In addition to the basic stipend, everyone has the opportunity to compete in the free market by investment, entrepreneurship, and by being productive citizens. Those who are destructive to the American Enterprise (criminals), forfeit their basic shares until their behavior justifies reinstatement.

In short, everyone, except criminals, gets a Basic Human Value payment (the Freedom Stipend) from the federal government. Everyone, including the jobless, can live a simple wholesome existence. In addition, everyone also has the opportunity—as they do now and always have—to engage in productive activities and earn as little or as much as they are able above the stipend, and pay appropriate taxes on their earned income.

So that’s the basic idea.

Hang in there with me. Don’t automatically reject this thinking until you hear it all. I know it sounds like socialism, but it’s not. It truly does preserve capitalism and our constitutional way of life. And it won’t break the bank if you understand what the bank actually is.

How Will We Pay for Everybody’s “Free Lunch”?

Conventional economic thinking tells us that the fatal flaw in all this speculation about a future free from work, with a basic standard of living provided to all, and all of it for “free,” is…deficits. Deficits will pile up and up and up, until the nation goes broke and everything collapses.

But conventional economic thinking is wrong. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) tells us that monetary deficits, at the federal level, aren’t really deficits at all. The truth, MMT tells us, is that our federal spending is limited not by unsustainable fiscal deficits (which are an illusion) but by inflation, which sets a higher limit to spending—much higher than conventional budgetary thinking allows, and that limitation increases as productivity increases.

If that’s true, and it is, we actually do have the ability to pay for a sustainable, basic quality of life for our entire population, but we have to discard hundreds of years of false beliefs about how to manage our money; we have to open our eyes to the reality of our financial situation.

Let’s look at Modern Monetary Theory more closely because it’s key to our emerging future, although it’s also a radical departure from what most of us have believed about macroeconomics.

The best description of MMT that I’ve seen is presented by Stephanie Kelton, in her book, The Deficit Myth. Kelton and others assert that it’s fallacious to think of federal spending in terms similar to family or business budgeting, meaning that, if your spending exceeds your income, you go into debt, and, if you continue deficit spending, ultimately you go bankrupt.

That’s true for every person, every family, and every organization in the world with one exception—sovereign nations. A sovereign nation like the USA, which issues its own currency and conducts its spending in that currency, can create money literally from nothing, merely by making accounting entries…basically by writing checks. Sovereign nations are not limited by fiscal deficits because fiscal deficits reflect the false understanding that the nation’s federal government can only spend what it receives in revenue, mostly from taxes. That’s wrong… factually wrong. The government actually does have the ability to create money, yes, quite literally from nothing.

That doesn’t give the government license to spend without limits. Budget deficits as we know them don’t matter, but there is a limitation; it’s another kind of deficit and it exerts a very real discipline on spending.

The deficits that matter are productivity deficits, not fiscal deficits.

Productivity deficits occur when a nation’s money supply exceeds the total value of the nation’s production of goods and services, and/or when the total demand for goods and services significantly exceeds the total supply. Yes, supply and demand still drive our economy even when we increase the demand by paying our citizens a Freedom Stipend. When there is far more money available than there are goods and services, or when people demand more goods and services than are available, then prices increase, and we get inflation. As we all know, inflation, if unchecked, erodes the quality of life of the population. It harms the low end of the economic spectrum more than the high end, but it harms everyone.

MMT advocates make one mistake. They believe that the goal for a nation’s economy is full employment, which, as we now know, is becoming increasingly impossible as human work/jobs disappear. The true goal of a nation’s economy should be full productivity, not full employment. In other words, the ability of our productive capacity to meet demand. Thus the true economic reality at the federal level is that spending can increase until the money supply equals, or maybe slightly exceeds the total value of the nation’s productive capacity, and productive capacity is sufficient to satisfy demand. The “slightly exceeds” part recognizes that small amounts of inflation are okay, maybe even good because they signal demand that is greater than current production, which provides capitalistic motivation for increasing production (more profits) and clear indications about what kinds of productive capacity should be increased.

Here’s the healthy dynamic—what social engineers call a “virtuous cycle”—that is set up by this approach:

The federal government pays Freedom Stipends to the population without regard to fiscal deficits, but keeps a close eye on productive capacity, because, if payments are excessive, the money supply gets bloated, and inflation results.
People use their stipend to buy what they want and need, and thus stimulate demand for goods and services in precise proportion to their needs. Yes, there will be unwise spending (cigarettes, booze, drugs, unhealthy food, etc.) as there is now, but by and large the money will be spent on useful goods and services.
The productive capacity of the country responds (driven by the imperatives of capitalism and entrepreneurship) by adjusting production to meet demand, and that production is built in proportion to the specific goods and services demanded. There may be a time delay to create new production capacity because it takes time to build factories and distribution networks.
Quality of life improves dramatically for the impoverished, in fact the “poverty sector” will largely cease to exist, because, with the Freedom Stipend, the formerly impoverished are upgraded to a basic subsistence level.
A virtuous cycle is established in which federal money (limited by inflation constraints, not the false constraints of budgetary deficits) is paid into the economy, thus creating demand for more goods and services, which in turn, because of capitalistic imperatives, builds more productive capacity, and so on.
There will still be a budgeting process, after all, budgeting is merely financial planning, but now planning will be based on productive capacity and inflation constraints, not merely the availability of taxes and other revenues. A new definition of “deficit” will emerge, and it will reflect the balance of supply (productive capacity) and demand, not a revenue shortfall.

It all hinges on and supports healthy capitalism, in which market forces—supply and demand—operate freely. Yes, jobs disappear, and “full employment” goes the way of the dodo bird, but affordable (and non inflationary) government spending supports those who don’t work, and ironically, stimulates and reinforces the principles of capitalism.

With all that said, the federal government—and only the federal government—can spend in excess of its revenue with no ill effects. In fact, it can spend up to the total productive capacity of the nation. Seen this way, money becomes less important as a medium for transferring value, and more important as a medium for equitable sharing of the nation’s goods and services, with market forces as the primary regulator. The poverty sector all but disappears because everyone has enough money to obtain at least a minimally satisfactory quality of life.

What about taxes? Taxes will function exactly as they do now, as a revenue source for the government, as a tool for managing part of the money supply, and as a way to influence corporate and personal behavior.

If MMT is correct, as it seems to be, then “Who pays for it?” is no longer a problem…we no longer have to rob from the rich and the middle class to pay for the poor because poverty, by and large, ceases to exist.

But that doesn’t end the problems that occur when jobs disappear. We’ll have enormous social disruptions, important economic disruptions, and global repercussions. We’ll also have some silver linings, such as tax simplification, health care reforms, educational reforms, and maybe others.

Why Is this Not Socialism?

When I mention this view of the future to friends and others, their immediate reaction (most of them interrupt before I can finish describing the new freedom scenario) is, “That’ll never work…it’s socialism.” I can see them tuning out, eyes glazed, listening (without really listening) out of politeness.

It’s not socialism…not even close. We can see that by looking at the three main functions of socialism.

a. Redistribution of wealth among the population.

In the emerging system, the government will distribute only a basic stipend, and every household gets it. It’s not redistribution (taking from those who have, and giving it to those who don’t) it’s equitable sharing of the nation’s resources. Above and beyond that, and operating independently from excessive government control, it’s a pure market/capitalist economy, in which everything is self-governed by the supply and demand mechanisms of capitalism and overseen by democratic governance, as it is now. People earn additional money if they are motivated to do so and if they can successfully compete for the available jobs, and/or through entrepreneurial efforts, exactly as is done currently. By the way, many welfare programs will simply disappear—Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, food stamps, housing subsidies, and others will be replaced by the Freedom Stipend.

This is not wealth redistribution because the government does not take from the wealthy and give to the poor…it creates money that it distributes to everyone, equitably. There is a basic and equitable distribution—a sharing—of wealth (not redistribution), which provides a basic quality of life for all, but after that, it’s capitalism’s normal free-for-all meritocracy in which people are motivated to compete for jobs and wealth, and to pursue their interests freely.

Government control of society.

Government calculates the amount of the stipend, which is paid to all citizens, who spend that money any way they wish. The amount is calculated so that the total money supply does not exceed the value of total productivity, to prevent inflation. As productivity increases (through technology and capitalism) the money supply can increase in proportion, and the Freedom Stipend can increase, thus increasing the standard of living of the nation. Over time, at a pace established by productivity increases (market forces), the nation’s standard of living continues to improve. The “natural laws” of capitalism and free-market economics prevail. Supply and demand is the regulator, not government.

Public ownership of land and the means of production.

Public ownership of land and production do not change. It may (or may not) happen that health care and education come to be thought of as “infrastructure.” If so, we could expect greater federal ownership in those areas.

The word “socialism” and the widespread, but mistaken beliefs about it, may be the single greatest barrier to the progress that will become more and more necessary as jobs disappear. That’s a shame because we could be doing things now that would avoid decades of turmoil and unnecessary difficulty, not to mention suffering.

The common denominator of this new framework is choice, and choice is what good old American freedom is all about. People will be able to settle in at the minimum standard of living provided by the Freedom Stipend, or take on whatever level of work and ambition their abilities can sustain in a competitive environment.

We will still have a vibrant economy, fueled by the productivity that technology creates, and powered by the continuation of unabated capitalism. Our productivity will enable us to provide for those who don’t want to work or can’t compete successfully for the available jobs, and give them what they need in order to live satisfying although basic lives, all without “taking from the rich and giving to the poor” or yielding to the evils of totalitarianism.

We’ll still have all the elements of the system our founding fathers envisioned, including a society governed by our Constitution and powered by our people, but offering more choices and a higher standard of living, even to the poorest and most disadvantaged among us.

It won’t be utopia…not even close. We’ll still have to contend with human nature, greed, class struggles, crime, disease, and all that comes with living together as a society. But we’ll be better off than ever before.

And it won’t be socialism.

It Will Probably Evolve in Four Stages

I think we’ll evolve in stages, irregularly, in fits and starts, with new ideas diffusing slowly through our society and old ideas fading just as slowly, as new generations are born, and as differing parts of our population come to understand what’s happening and what to do about it.

No one can predict the future with any precision, but I can imagine four overlapping stages. Cut me some slack here—the real world has a penchant for evolving in its own way, and it may take some surprising directions. Still and all, the driving forces shaping our future should move us through something like the following scenario.

Stage One: Massive unemployment and confusion.

As of this writing, in the year 2025, we’re not there yet, but we’re knocking on the door to Stage One, and artificial intelligence is becoming a battering ram against that door.

Unemployment will increase, and the quality of work and hours available for human work will diminish. Part-time workers and overqualified employees will proliferate, and pay scales for mid- and lower-level jobs will erode as supply (too few jobs) and demand (too many workers) exert their influence. The trend will be disguised by temporary progress now and then, and occasional illusions of recovery, but jobs will inexorably disappear in one-step-forward-two-steps-back fashion.

Experts will cling to old paradigms, mistakenly believing that the trend will be righted soon because capitalism will create more than enough new jobs, as it always has. Government will, as it always does, throw money at the problem in the form of government jobs and emergency relief programs. The president and the dominant political party will be blamed, and many elections will be lost because voters will blame our leaders, when, in fact, leadership is not the cause of the problem. Ultimately, however, leadership will be the solution. The continuing, and accelerating, loss of jobs will be denied by our leaders, but lived by our people, until the long-term trend becomes undeniable to even the most reluctant among us.

Stage Two: Recognition, but Resistance.

It may take a while, but ultimately, our leadership and our people will understand that jobs are going, going, gone, and won’t be back. They’ll still insist on old solutions…government intervention and massive spending for emergency support to the needy…and there will be enormous numbers of needy people. Everyone will be receptive to creative solutions—even drastic ones—but we’ll want solutions that fit obsolete economic theories and cherished, but outdated values. We’ll want solutions that create jobs, solutions that allow us to earn our own living, solutions that give us opportunities for career status and the old ego satisfactions.

Values don’t change quickly. Usually, they’re generational, and slow to adapt to changing conditions. Three core values (probably more) will persist until people are forced to see that they no longer suit the emerging economic and social realities:

The work ethic. The old Protestant work ethic will die, very slowly and with great resistance, but it will die. People will want to, but won’t be able to work for a living. A new norm will emerge, that nobody has to work for a living, but everybody has the opportunity to seek whatever jobs are available. Those who want and are able to compete for the available jobs will be able to earn their way into a standard of living that exceeds the basic entitlement…the more they work, and the better the job, the more their standard of living will improve, and successful entrepreneurs will be at the top of that heap, just as they are now.

Self-esteem and status. We will all learn—slowly—to accept the fact that it’s okay to rely on the state for our basic subsistence needs because we contribute to the state and have an “ownership” stake in it. It’s okay to participate in the benefits of living in a highly productive society, a society created by our ancestors and bequeathed to us. We’ll come to see it as an inheritance, not a handout; our forebears worked on our behalf, and we inherit the benefits of their work and sacrifice. We’ll actually be relying on the enormous productivity of the American economy, and we’ll realize that we all contribute to that economy and all deserve to benefit from our participation. We may not be receptive to that reality in the early going because it will “feel” to us like welfare. We’ll gradually learn that it’s not welfare, but the productivity built by the generations who came before us, that’s giving us a decent quality of life.

Eventually, as distasteful as it may seem from our present-day point of view, government support will come to be seen as a birthright, earned by our forebears…not charity, but our fair share of the American Enterprise.

When millions upon millions of us cannot work for a living because there’s no work to do, we’ll have to look in other directions for our self-respect…and we will. In the long run, people really are adaptable. We will find ways, in addition to jobs, to create our self-esteem, and there will be many opportunities to do so…the arts, physical pursuits, charitable work, volunteerism, politics, to name a few. The subcultures organized around drugs, sex, and crime will persist, of course, but in about the same proportions of the population that we see now, probably less due to the elimination of crime as a survival option.

The proper role of government. We in America have an explicit value that “He who governs least governs best.” It’s one of those unrecognized hypocrisies that is belied by reality—the role of our government has always expanded, never contracted. As a society, we’ll come to accept an ever-expanding role of our government in the area of social well-being. But accept it we will, because that same government will also preserve and enhance capitalism, our democratic processes, and the liberty and justice we cherish. The truth is that government—American government—was designed to be the guardian and servant of the people, not their boss.

It’s not clear at this vantage point in our history if the expanded role of government will also bring greater control over personal matters. That will depend on our reaction as a society. Will we accept—even demand—greater control of our personal lives, or will our American spirit of personal freedom resist, and keep government within the kinds of boundaries our founding fathers intended? It’s a vitally important question, and it’s not clear to me how it will play out.

Stage Three: Acceptance and Solutions

It will slowly dawn on us, some sooner than others, that the situation is irreversible, and jobs are disappearing because human work is disappearing. It will also become clear that the old solutions don’t work, and the values that make us cling to those solutions are obsolete. We’ll come to accept the fact that we all participate in the American Enterprise—we all contribute a piece of it by the mere fact of our human existence and our (greater or lesser) consumption of its productivity, and we should all benefit from that. At that point—when the majority of our population reaches this level of acceptance and drives our politicians to the same conclusion—that new solutions, driven by new values, can be created, with some hope of success. We’ll have the usual mix of doomsayers and optimists, but the central thrust of our efforts will be openness to new possibilities.

The idea that loss of jobs doesn’t have to be a disaster, and may contain some silver linings, will become more widespread. The realization will take hold that many of our old values are merely customs—habits—not laws of nature, and that new customs can replace them. Forward-thinking, innovative leaders, as they always have, will experiment with new ways, and a sense of hope will gain traction for America.

Stage Four: A New Freedom

The population will slowly settle into three economic tiers, and there will be great mobility between the tiers. People will be free to pursue their ambitions, including competing for whatever jobs are available, entrepreneurship, and a rich variety of pursuits in the arts, volunteerism, sports, politics, spiritual callings, and social/community benefit activities.

Non-Working Tier. Everyone will be entitled to a basic standard of living, funded through the federal government in the form of the Freedom Stipend. Those who choose not to work, or are unsuccessful at competing for the limited number of available jobs, will live at the basic/subsistence level supported by the stipend. This group will initially be small, yet significant, but as capitalism and technology have their way over the decades, it will grow and could even become the dominant sector in the American economy.

Working Tier. Those who want a higher standard of living, or whose personal values compel them to do more, will compete for the available jobs, or create other work-for-pay activities. These people will be job-holders (part-time or full-time), some of them in supervisory and management positions. They’ll get the Freedom Stipend, like everyone else, but also, depending on their abilities and motivations, they’ll be able to earn their way to a higher standard of living, each in proportion to his/her ambition and talent. Some will only work enough to earn a small increment above the basic entitlement, others with greater ambition and ability, will have the opportunity to become quite wealthy.

Leadership Tier. Entrepreneurs and leaders of many kinds will rise to the top, as they always do. Capitalism will continue to thrive, and entrepreneurial opportunities will abound. Also, leaders in all fields will emerge and rise into the upper tier, sometimes compiling great wealth as they do so, but sometimes rising to leadership and prominence while depending on the Freedom Stipend.

These economic “tiers” are not the same thing as “classes.” People will continue to perceive themselves in association with others they see as similar to themselves, or to discriminate against others whom they see as different. Class struggles will exist in and around the new economic realities of the nation, just as they do now. That aspect of human nature will continue, and will generate the kinds of class frictions we have always seen in societies everywhere. The difference is that the emerging economic tiers will add complexity in ways that I cannot foresee, and may give rise to new forms of class envy and new ways to discriminate.

One more thing—infrastructure. The concept of infrastructure will expand to include health care and education for all (who want them), which will be accepted as a federal mandate. We already see, and have throughout our history, pressures for the federal government to take more control and to provide for more resources. And that’s appropriate because, in addition to roads, power, water, air quality, etc., health care and education elevate the well-being of the entire population, not just the individuals who receive them. There is a collective benefit that is created when the population is smarter and healthier. It’s a true instance of “a rising tide lifts all boats.”

– – – – –

The sad part of this story is that we could implement this system today if we were wise enough…but we’re not. We humans tend to do things the hard way, no matter the cost in human suffering. We’re stuck in our ways, many of our leaders are more preoccupied with their petty competitions than with real solutions, and our vision as a nation is so limited that there’s no hope of even considering something as radical as a universal Freedom Stipend until it’s forced upon us by the massive loss of jobs. So we’ll continue to muddle through, and suffer the consequences of that muddling, while the underlying driving forces gather strength, and eventually push us into new thinking and dramatic action.

But, what if…? What if we could anticipate and understand the disruptions lying ahead, and what if we could have a sense of the enormous benefits awaiting us on the other side of those disruptions? If that happened, wouldn’t we be able to actively and intentionally manage the birth of this new world? Wouldn’t we be able to avoid some of the downside, and get to the “good stuff” sooner rather than later? That’s my hope.

I certainly don’t have all the answers, and I doubt that I have foreseen all the problems and consequences. Yet there are signs all around that point to some likely possibilities. I have tried to identify some of the driving forces shaping our future, to provide some rough sketches of what is likely to emerge from those forces, and to suggest some ways we can think about it all.

I don’t know about you, but I am eager to see the new freedom—freedom from work—become part of the human story.

________________________________________________________________________

Alex Alexander is a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Business School, a decorated veteran of the Viet Nam war, a survivor of a fifty-year business career (banking, management consulting, and teaching leadership and business strategy at two respected colleges). He is the author of numerous articles on business subjects, and is a features columnist for a local newspaper. His latest book, The Goldfish Effect: Upgrade Your Mind, is available at Amazon.com.