If AI leads to mass job displacement, providing citizens with a sense of purpose is more crucial than providing a universal basic income. Societal unrest is driven more by a lack of meaning and a hero's journey than a lack of money.

Assuming AI's productivity gains create an economic safety net for displaced workers, the true challenge becomes existential. The most difficult problem to solve is how society helps individuals derive meaning and purpose when their traditional roles are automated.

Superabundance from AI should free people from GDP-driven work to discover their unique gifts and contribute to society out of passion, not necessity. This fosters stronger families and communities, where human-made goods hold premium value.

As AI automates tasks, it erodes the implicit deal where society provides education and people work hard in exchange for stability and opportunity. This raises profound questions about fairness, retraining responsibilities, and whether a job should remain the primary source of security and status.

Proposals like Universal Basic Income (UBI) misunderstand the fundamental impact of AI-driven job displacement. The primary challenge isn't replacing lost income but replacing the sense of meaning and purpose that work provides. Simply giving people money won't solve this existential problem and may even exacerbate feelings of uselessness.

Instead of cash handouts (UBI), democratizing ownership of AI companies gives people a stake in the means of production. This aligns incentives and allows the public to benefit from wealth creation, not just receive subsidies, as AI transforms the economy.

While Universal Basic Income (UBI) might solve the economic fallout from AI-induced job loss, Ariel Poler is more concerned with the resulting existential crisis. For most people, jobs provide identity, structure, and meaning. The challenge isn't just funding people's lives, but finding productive ways for them to spend their free time.

The consensus in Congress is not to regulate AI to prevent job loss, which is seen as implausible. Instead, the focus is on proactive investments to manage the transition and ensure people have financial stability, with ideas like universal healthcare emerging as alternatives to UBI.

Offering UBI confirms the public's fear that their labor has no future value. This reinforces a power dynamic of tech leaders as "moral agents" and the public as passive "moral patients," stripping people of dignity and provoking resentment rather than gratitude.