6 Minutes
AI as the defining technology—and the distribution problem it exposes
Artificial intelligence is widely recognised as the defining technology of this era. Advances in machine learning, large language models, automation and data-driven systems promise breakthroughs across healthcare, engineering, logistics and creative industries. But beyond technical capability lies a political and economic question: if AI delivers unprecedented abundance, how will that wealth be shared?
The tension is already visible at a national level. Take Australia as a case study: official estimates put annual food waste at roughly 7.6 million tonnes—about 312 kilograms per person—while nearly one in eight Australians experience food insecurity because they lack the money to buy what they need. This paradox—plenty alongside persistent poverty—illustrates the distributional limits of today’s market-based economic model in the face of technological abundance.
Why AI challenges the traditional economic model
Classic economic theory, as framed by Lionel Robbins and others, treats economics as the allocation of scarce means to satisfy competing wants. Markets allocate scarce resources through prices; people work to earn income so they can purchase necessities. But if AI and automation dramatically reduce the marginal cost of producing goods and services—or replace large swathes of paid labour—the scarcity logic that underpins prices and wage-dependent livelihoods starts to fray.
That raises two central questions: can market mechanisms continue to function when labour becomes less necessary? And if not, what policy and institutional changes will ensure technological gains are shared rather than concentrated?
Lessons from the pandemic: cash transfers, basic income and practical experiments
The global COVID-19 response offers a pragmatic experiment in redistributing resources when normal economic channels break down. Governments in more than 200 countries introduced direct cash payments, and many increased welfare benefits or relaxed eligibility checks. In several places—including Australia—these measures significantly reduced poverty and food insecurity even as economic activity contracted.
That experience has reignited interest in Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a policy lever to manage the transition to an AI-rich economy. Research initiatives such as the Australian Basic Income Lab (a collaboration among Macquarie University, the University of Sydney and the Australian National University) are exploring how guaranteed income schemes might function in practice.
Product features: What a modern UBI system could look like
- Predictable monthly payment to every resident, set above a poverty threshold.
- Automatic indexing to inflation and regional cost-of-living metrics.
- Seamless digital delivery via secure payment rails and identity verification (e.g., digital ID, open banking APIs).
- Integration with targeted social services for housing, healthcare and retraining.
- Transparent governance through open data dashboards and outcome-based audits.
Welfare or a rightful share? Framing matters
Not all UBI proposals are equal. Some risk functioning as a minimal safety net that leaves underlying wealth inequalities intact. Others—advocated by scholars like Elise Klein and James Ferguson—rebrand UBI as a "rightful share": a public claim on the wealth generated collectively by technology, natural resources and social cooperation.
This framing reframes digital innovation and AI not merely as private intellectual property, but as a social product that justifies broad-based redistribution—similar to how many societies treat common natural resources as public goods.
Universal Basic Services: an alternative to cash
Another policy path is universal basic services. UK commentator Aaron Bastani’s idea of "fully automated luxury communism" is provocative, but the practical variant focuses on socialising key services: free healthcare, education, public transport, energy and eldercare. Instead of giving people cash to buy services in a market, governments directly provide those services—potentially more efficient in addressing basic needs when markets fail to deliver.
Comparison: UBI vs Universal Basic Services (UBS)
| Feature | UBI | Universal Basic Services |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery | Direct cash payments | Publicly funded services |
| Flexibility | High—recipients choose spending | Lower—services are predefined |
| Administrative complexity | Moderate—requires digital pay systems | High—requires service infrastructure |
| Impact on markets | Supports private markets | Partially displaces market providers |
Advantages, use cases and market relevance
Advantages of UBI or UBS in an AI-driven economy include poverty reduction, smoothing of consumption shocks, and enabling people to retrain for new digital jobs. For businesses, predictable income streams and strengthened consumer demand can stabilise markets, while universal services can reduce labour turnover and healthcare costs.
Use cases:
- Regions facing rapid automation of manufacturing or transport could pilot hybrid models (partial UBI + targeted re-skilling vouchers).
- Healthcare systems augmented by AI diagnostics could be made universally accessible to reduce long-term costs.
- Public-sector AI platforms for transport planning and energy optimisation can deliver collective benefits when open and democratically governed.
Risks: technofeudalism, concentration of power and ecological limits
Optimism about abundance must be balanced with political realities. Concentrated corporate power—dominant cloud platforms, proprietary AI stacks and data monopolies—could lead to a form of "technofeudalism" where a few firms control essential digital infrastructure and extract rent from users. Additionally, ecological constraints mean that production is not limitless; sustainability must be central to policy design.
Policy toolkit for a fair AI-enabled future
Policymakers and tech leaders should consider a mix of instruments: guaranteed incomes, universal services, progressive taxation on automation rents, data dividend mechanisms, and public investment in open-source AI and digital infrastructure. Equally crucial is governance: democratic oversight, transparency requirements for AI systems, and worker-centred transition programs.
Conclusion: abundance requires active social design
AI and machine learning are capable of delivering extraordinary productivity gains and new products. But technology alone will not guarantee shared prosperity. The distributional outcome—whether abundance benefits a few or everyone—will hinge on deliberate public choices about money, welfare and ownership of AI-enabled value.
We already have the knowledge and resources to end many forms of poverty; integrating digital innovation with smart public policy could make that possible at scale. The question for technology professionals, policymakers and citizens is not only "what can AI do?" but "who will receive the gains—and under what rules?"
Comments