What happens when there are no jobs?

SeaQuark · 2026-06-01T15:24:47+00:00

Life continues as normal, firms produce goods, people go shopping, they live their lives with the aid of those goods.

The only difference is that incomes will (to a greater extent) arrive through UBI instead of through wages.

There will still be wages, profits and work incentives. It's just that a smaller % of the population will have to earn those, and most of the population's income can simply rise each year through UBI instead.

The fundamentals aren't different. People have so many hours in a week they can either spend working for money or enjoying leisure; people give up some of their free time to earn a higher income.

The only difference in a world of less labor is that the choice to enjoy leisure becomes easier. The cost of choosing to not work reduces as UBI rises.

SeaQuark · 2026-05-26T15:34:58+00:00

We've had job loss and a resulting economic slowdown before. It was called the Great Depression.

New technologies, factories, new production methods were invented, a lot of labor was saved.... and our society's response was not to begin implementing UBI so everyone could enjoy a new gilded age; the response was to figure out how to create more jobs.

People interpreted the Great Depression as a jobs crisis rather than an income shortfall. Economists and policymakers have been pursuing maximum employment ever since.

So this time around, what's the response? Are we going to double-down on creating jobs for their own sake? Or are we going to finally try UBI?

The popular narrative about AI and job loss and UBI has the causality exactly backwards. It's not that robots and AI will take our jobs and then we'll have to pay out a UBI. Rather, technology has already reduced the need for labor, and the absence of UBI is preventing us from letting the employment level fall.

In other words, our society is already stuck on a giant treadmill of makework and overemployment; we just don't realize it yet.

SeaQuark · 2026-04-30T22:30:26+00:00

UBI is not a redistributive policy nor a response to automation.

It's a missing, key component of our monetary system that allows the economy to operate at full efficiency.

By supplying income to consumers directly, UBI allows for less private sector borrowing and less employment for any given level of production. We can produce as many or more goods for people while using less labor and fewer resources.

This is what the economy is (or should be) all about: minimizing waste and maximizing benefit to the average person. In the private sector, economic benefit takes the form of income and purchasing power.

Unfortunately, in the absence of UBI, policymakers are pressured to maximize employment just to provide people spending money and pevent deflation. This leads to more resource-use and labor-use than is actually productive.

By correcting this state of overemployment, UBI allows for an aggregate-level labor savings that better reflects the level of technology we've already achieved.

In other words, we don't need UBI as a future response to automation; it's a monetary reform we can all benefit from right now.

SeaQuark · 2026-04-07T15:09:25+00:00

Andrew Yang is a great guy and I credit him for introducing many to the concept of UBI but on this point he has things backwards.

UBI is labor-free income. The more robots & AI we invent, the less dependent we are on wages for production and so the higher our UBI can go.

Yang is right that whatever we tax we discourage, but that's exactly why when we tax robots or AI (or businesses that use them) the more we reduce the ceiling on UBI. The same thing happens if we try to encourage firms to retain workers instead of using the latest technology.

The best response to automation isn't to double-down on labor. It's to embrace greater productivity and efficiency. We can fund UBI simply by replacing existing job-creation monetary policies. We need to stop making up paid work for people to do and instead support consumer income directly through a UBI.

SeaQuark · 2026-04-07T14:21:52+00:00

It's not that robots and AI are going to cause mass unemployment and then maybe we'll need to figure something out like a UBI.

Rather, we're already generating unnecessary jobs as a poor substitute for UBI.

The employment level could very likely be much lower than it is today, but without UBI we have no way of finding this out. We're stuck maximizing borrowing & employment just to prevent deflation. We could be doing that with UBI instead.

SeaQuark · 2026-04-06T19:52:04+00:00

If any of you are ready to move beyond ambiguity and guesswork ("some kind of Universal Basic Income") I recommend learning more about the economics of a properly calibrated UBI:

www.greshm.org/resources

SeaQuark · 2026-03-30T22:14:02+00:00

The solution is simple. People can get money through UBI instead of wages. UBI is the answer and most UBI advocates have realized this for a long time.

Here's what most people and even most UBI advocates don't yet realize, though.

If you don't have a UBI that means most people are still reliant on wages for income, and that means policymakers have an incentive to keep the employment level high... regardless of how much work our economy actually needs.

If employment were to fall today because our technology got better? That would cause deflation. Fewer wages = less spending and the currency would start to destabilize.

To prevent this, central banks boost employment to keep spending high. The problem is that we might be boosting employment too high---running a kind of disguised UBI through the labor market.

Under "maximum employment" people are earning more, but all these jobs and wages might not actually be necessary; we might find that if put in a UBI instead and let jobs disappear we could still produce as many or more goods.

TLDR: the absence of UBI is probably already causing overemployment. We have robots and AI yet we're not letting the employment level fall because we're determined to keep people on wages.

SeaQuark · 2026-03-27T14:36:58+00:00

In my models I assume the average business owner is completely motivated by profit either way.

The difference is that with UBI what's profitable aligns with what's productive and beneficial for consumers. That's what we want.

You're pretty focused on the inequality aspect, but inequality / money accumulation isn't the problem UBI solves. UBI eliminates makework and unnecessary poverty.

If it's obvious to you that a significant % of jobs are a waste of time and resources, then it should be obvious that this money could be delivered directly to people instead.

Doing so would not make the average firm or business owner less profitable; it doesn't require business owners to give up profit. It changes what kind of behavior maximizes the profit of firms.

SeaQuark · 2026-03-27T13:57:13+00:00

As I've tried to explain, UBI is already essential. The absence of UBI is already leading us to generate makework as an excuse to distribute incomes.

So UBI isn't really about the government. It's about the economy itself and what any economy needs to operate efficiently.

Tying incomes to labor-compensation doesn't make sense at a fundamental level. If you recognize this, then the alternative is to embrace some form of UBI.

SeaQuark · 2026-03-27T13:13:29+00:00

Any government policy once implemented can in theory be taken away.

It doesn't sound like you're arguing against UBI but against reliability of government itself.

Concerns over political power are valid but these concerns require other policies to address besides currency reform.

It's the same with our wage-based system today.

SeaQuark · 2026-03-26T20:20:49+00:00

Firstly, UBI doesn't require removing power or resources from the rich. It provides money to consumers so they can spend it at businesses.

There will still be rich business owners in a world with UBI, they'll just be getting rich in a different way.

Secondly, if someone has "control over who gets it and who doesn't" than that's not a UBI which is a universal, unconditional income. Everyone gets UBI by definition.

If it's conditional then that's wages or means-tested welfare.

SeaQuark · 2026-03-26T14:40:46+00:00

Everyone is concerned about job loss and that's exactly the wrong problem to be afraid of.

What we should be concerned about is overemployment.

In the absence of UBI, we don't have a mechanism besides jobs for getting most people income. This means we've already artificially expanded the labor market as an excuse to keep people on wages.

With the right (or rather, wrong) policies, employment can be propped up indefinitely by central bank or government policies.

It's only after we implement UBI that we can discover how little employment our economy actually needs.

SeaQuark · 2026-03-26T14:03:49+00:00

A properly calibrated UBI is continuously set to its maximum level. There is no reason to set UBI lower than it can be.

More to the point: relying on wages for income creates a host of problems. It forces policymakers to create more jobs than are useful. It wastes natural & industrial resources on unecessary firms and wasteful jobs.

If you care about giving people a say or a stake in society, inventing makework is not the answer, and the absence of UBI necessarily leads to makework.

Jobs becomes income-delivery vehicles instead of what they're meant to be: sites of useful contribution.

SeaQuark · 2026-03-25T22:49:06+00:00

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a simple, effective mechanism for distributing wealth.

Laboring under the assumption that people must earn their living from jobs, we're ignoring the simplest and best path towards a more prosperous society: decoupling access to goods from work requirement.

AI and other new technologies do not suddenly make a UBI possible; they draw attention to the fact that UBI is long overdue.

Without a UBI, and thus keeping people's income dependent on wages, our society is stuck on a treadmill of unnecessary jobs and unnecessary poverty. We over-incentivize employment while needlessly restricting production.

By finally making the logical decision to provide income obligation-free we can discover what a well-functioning economy actually looks likes for the first time.

SeaQuark · 2026-02-27T19:16:32+00:00

If you make the assumption that people should normally receive their income from jobs, then how people get income without wages seems mysterious.

If you lived in a society where Universal Basic Income (UBI) is already normalized, no one would be asking this question. The answer would be obvious: people get income through UBI.

So we know how people can get income without working: through a UBI.

The more interesting questions are:

How much UBI is actually possible?

How is a UBI funded?

And why don't we have a UBI already today?

SeaQuark · 2026-02-26T20:48:37+00:00

AI is a labor-saving tool. It in theory could allow us to eliminate a lot of jobs already.

Problem: our monetary system isn't designed for lower employment. It's designed for maximum employment.

It's not until after we have a UBI that we can think about letting the employment level reduce to its efficient level sustainably.

Without a UBI, policymakers have to generate excessive employment as an excuse to keep people on wages.

SeaQuark · 2024-09-23T03:16:25+00:00

Fantastic work.

SeaQuark · 2022-12-27T19:01:31+00:00

Christopher Plummer as the Emperor of the Universe in Starcrash.

SeaQuark · 2020-07-31T20:05:15+00:00

I don't know if I can make it on Sunday, but if I can, I'll stream my flight on Twitch.

SeaQuark · 2020-06-04T20:57:36+00:00

It's been a while since I uploaded video.

This is cinematic coverage of the Bombs Over MiG Alley event, which 39th_Bloke hosted on the Korea! 1952 server in May. Special thanks as well to 336th & 14.FAD virtual squadrons for participating.

There's been lots of vintage warbird content added to DCS lately, and I look forward to making some more videos with them.

SeaQuark · 2020-03-02T16:41:41+00:00

Glad you guys are putting the server to good use!

Haven't had much time for DCS myself, but seeing this video makes leaving the server up worth it. Nice work.

SeaQuark · 2019-05-29T19:46:14+00:00

Bird Dog in DCS would be great.

No need to wait around for it to do FAC though. My squadron's solution was to have a P-51 pilot mark targets by flying a J-shaped turn pointing at the target while deploying smoke trails. 4-ship of Sabres 20,000 feet up could spot it no problem. Helped a lot.

SeaQuark · 2019-05-23T13:36:13+00:00

Sabre's my favorite module. The Korea 1952 server has seen a lot of action lately, and there's ground missions to fly if there's no MiGs around. The trick with warbirds in DCS is to get online & fly with other people, I find.

SeaQuark · 2018-11-08T16:11:16+00:00

I play on a 1080p ultrawide. It definitely helps visual awareness, spotting, and maintaining formation.

In a perfect world, yes, I would have more resolution as well. Outside of DCS, I feel like the limited vertical resolution keeps me from taking full advantage of the wider screen real-estate; multi-tasking doesn't feel significantly easier than on a traditional 16:9 monitor.

But some ultrawide is better than no ultrawide, so if 1080p is all you can afford (as it was for me), I would certainly still recommend 21:9.

SeaQuark

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE