Text size

[Editor's note: Doug Clinton, for nine years an analyst with Piper Jaffray, recently departed the firm to help found Loup Ventures, a venture capital outfit focusing on technologies such as virtual and augmented reality and artificial intelligence, along with his colleague Gene Munster. Today he offers up a viewpoint on a "universal basic income," a topic that, as Gabe Alpert wrote in Barron's Next last week, has been a focus of Facebook's (FB) Mark Zuckerberg.]

Over the next several decades, human labor will be augmented then replaced by robots.

We already have robots that can see and hear. They can roughly process those inputs to define and “understand” what they see and hear. We have robots that can learn. Not in the same exact way as a human, but potentially in a far more scalable way for specific domains. We have robots that can manipulate objects in the real world, some already with speed and strength greater than any human.

Given our progress in robotics, which should increase exponentially through advances in machine learning, it’s logical to assume that in the future, robots will be significantly more capable than they are today. We may not reach artificial general intelligence (robotic intelligence on par with a human) in the next few decades, but we don’t need to. Through specialization to a single task, robots will be capable of performing that task better than a human. They’ll also perform it cheaper than a human given that robots need only electricity to function, can work 24/7, don’t get distracted, don’t need health insurance, etc. And, as with most technology, the cost of robots will decrease over time.

If we agree on the above as our current and future state of automation, then we agree that robots will eventually be the most competitive option for the majority of what we call “work”. In a free market, that means robots should perform as much of the available work as possible, otherwise market resources will not be allocated with maximum efficiency. In other words, humans should not perform work that robots are capable of because it’s an inefficient use of resources. Therefore, detractors of long-term automation are detractors of free market capitalism. If you want the automated future to include human labor because you think humans need to work even if a robot can do it more efficiently, that’s socialism.

How will humans survive without income from jobs? Robots will create income for us. Money is just a store of value that can be traded for goods and services. Today, humans create value through work and receive money for their efforts which they then trade for survival and recreation. If robots are creating value through work in the future, and they don’t need money for survival or recreation (other than energy, maintenance, and replacement), then the incremental value they create after those costs can be transferred to society through a universal basic income. This is the most efficient way to transfer the benefits of automation to society while advancing the capitalist ideal. By providing no-strings-attached income to a society that no longer has traditional jobs, you allow individuals to choose how to spend their income, encouraging continued competition and innovation in the free market.

What do humans do in the future, if not work? How do we find purpose? We will focus on what separates us from robots: creativity, empathy, and community. In fact, the greatest human legacies are built on those pillars. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Leonardo Da Vinci, Shakespeare, the Dalai Lama. Can you name many people that spent their lives working at jobs that are more revered than names like those just listed? That have done more for society? Maybe Steve Jobs comes to mind, but he built a business on creativity first. Apple products are modern works of art at scale. Jobs was the artist behind it. Maybe Elon Musk comes to mind, but his guiding light is to save humanity — the ultimate act of empathy. Whether reducing carbon footprint, flying to Mars, or augmenting humans to compete with AI, his businesses are groups of people trying to save our species. Not everyone needs to find purpose on such a grand scale, but everyone will have the ability to in the future if they don’t need to worry about survival.

“Work” is much more than any job. It’s the value you create for yourself and others. For most of us, that means being a good parent, a good friend, a good neighbor. You won’t be remembered for that report you wrote or that deal you closed or that car you fixed. In the Automation Age, people will have more time to be creative, foster empathy, and build community — the things that have a truly lasting impact on society. Humans will still work in the automated future, but they won’t have jobs.

Addendum: I asked Doug a follow-up question about his thesis. One knock against a UBI is that it would dampen competitive juices, or perhaps survival impulses, that make people strive in the absence of a guaranteed income. The classic accusation that people "on the dole" don't work. Clinton has this to say in response:

As with any social/economic policy, I think there's somewhat of a tradeoff, in this case between discouraging work from those that don't want to do it and encouraging entrepreneurship. If we did have a system today where people were guaranteed an income, there would definitely be people who opt out of the employment pool and there may be a shortage of jobs. This could either force employers to pay higher wages to attract people to do unfit jobs, or in our vision of the future, robots handle those jobs. On the other side of the coin, a UBI today would potentially free people to take more entrepreneurial risks and spur new business creation by people who are passionate about whatever they're creating. Philosophically we think this is a net positive trade off where people who don't want to work or don't like their work don't have to do it (they probably aren't doing it very efficiently anyway) and people who want to create new businesses have less barriers to do so. We're maximizing the competitive juices so to say of those that want to be competitive.