Universal Basic Income

The Case for Universal Basic Income

Why it already exists and why the conversation needs to change.

Sep 09, 2026

I was recently asked by the HR Life Podcast to join Tony Benjamin in debating the concept of UBI. The idea came about a few months ago when I first debuted on their podcast to discuss fear around AI layoffs in Corporate America.

The conversation around UBI is incredibly complex and let me be clear: I am not an economist. People who are far more qualified than me should be discussing this but the conversation remains mostly silent while headlines around AI layoffs are coming out every day.

So why are our policy makers so quiet about the topic? I think for many politicians and policy makers, the conversation feels too polarizing to get involved. Like a puddle mixed of tears and crap that they’d rather jump over than step in.

But the truth is that it’s incredibly important we talk about it.

Tony and I felt like it we could have a political conversation without being political. So we did. The episode will be out within the next few weeks. I’ll post on my LI.

HR has spent the good portion of the last 20 years attempting to eliminate any controversial conversations from our workplaces. Well intended, it may be. In an effort to create inclusion, we stopped having tough conversations. The problem is that we’ve lost our ability to have tough conversations through this process. Which is why I believe is why we’ve turned to outrage instead of conversation.

So here’s my theory and the conversation I want to have.

UBI already exists. It just isn’t called UBI. It’s a patchwork of welfare systems that we’ve created over the years that do a poor job of what they’re designed to do. It’s social security, retirement programs, government welfare programs, and unemployment insurance.

Most of the debate around UBI is typically centered on whether or not workers should be paid wages for not working. People on the right traditionally see these systems as wasteful and fraught with potential for fraud and abuse. People on the left tend to favor the programs, with hopeful (sometimes naive) optimism the programs support those who need support. I believe it was Bernie Sanders who once said, “Because it’s hard to pull yourself up by the bootstraps when you have no boots.”

Too much conversation has been given around what could happen, but now we find ourselves at the precipice of what is happening.

If you spend any time on Linkedin or Reddit then you’ve had a front row seat to the outrage and frustration from people losing their jobs due to “AI Efficiency Layoffs.” With each day, new articles announce the layoffs, then the feeds fill up with people who have been impacted. Most posts are sentimental and tearful goodbyes; thanking coworkers, offering support, and requesting support in locating new employment.

While I’m not entirely convinced that AI Layoffs are truly happening due to efficiencies in every case, the reality is that people are losing their jobs.

It’s strange that most policy makers don’t seem to have major concerns over worker displacement. It may be that, since 2022, layoffs have become such a norm (specifically in the tech space) that no one bats an eye at the announcements. And the unemployment data would support the notion that everything is operating as normal.

Since Covid, the unemployment rate has been fairly consistent. By comparison, at the peak of covid it was 14.7%. Pre-covid, 3.5% and in 2021, coming out, it was 5.3%. In 2022 and 2023 the annual average remained at 3.6%, with an increase to 4% in 2024. As of August 2026, the rate sat at 4.1% which represents about 7 million Americans as unemployed.

But red flags around a struggling economy are starting to waive. Here’s where the report becomes controversial: the report only accounts for those were employed and are now actively searching for new work while they utilize government subsidized income.

The major concern many critics bring up, is that labor force participation is decreasing. The employment to population ratio was 59.1% in August, 2026. That is the lowest ratio that has existed within the American economy since 1960. The ratio peaked in the year 2000 when it was 64.4%.

When you look further at the data, and segment participation by age, what you’ll see is a slower growth in labor force participation in younger workers compared to older workers. Think, people under age 35 are taking less jobs than they used to. It tracks with current sentiment online: “I just graduated and can’t find a job. “

While the market seems to absorb some worker displacement, LinkedIn is starting to fill up with pleas from qualified workers who have been unempoyed 12+ months. People are asking for charitable contributions so they can feed their families, pay their rent, and survive.

Conversations around UBI or Universal Basic Income have re-emerged with controversial figures like Elon Musk and Gavin Newsome weighing in. Often there is a public outcry of frustration and rage from those opposing the idea.

While I’m not advocating for the concept of mailing a $2,000 check to every American each month, I do believe it is time we look at a wage floor. You can call it UBI, a Wage Floor, Longterm Unemployment. I don’t care. It’s all the same. And we’re not that far off from it already. Here’s why:

A wage floor already exists but it’s clunky and fragmented.

I’m not advocating for one Federal Fund. I’m advocating for consolidation of State Operated programs that would function like a long-term unemployment scenario that creates a wage floor for individuals.

Before you come at me about “welfare queens” and “why should I pay for someone to sit home?” the answer is that you already do. Programs already exist to provide long-term support to individuals who either can’t work or can’t find work. It comes in the form of SNAP benefits, government subsidized housing, and other similar programs. And in any public program, there’s a risk for abuse and fraud. What I’m simply asking is “Would there be less abuse and fraud if the programs were consolidated?” Would it be easier to track and prevent abuse if we centralized the administration on a State level?

When it comes to Unemployment, the infrastructure already exists. Social Security and Disability is already happening.

Each State already administers to a Federal Fund as well a State Operated Fund. It’s currently funded through payroll taxes. You and your employer contribute to Social Security jointly, and your employer pays Federal and State Unemployment tax.

Now you’re asking, well if we already have it- why bother making any changes?

America is uniquely fragile when it comes to mass worker displacement.

If AI displaces workers at the rate some project, we do not have the infrastructure to manage through it. And the question is not whether AI will displace workers, because it’s already happening.

The question is, do we have the infrastructure within the U.S. to manage the displacement? Because the way we manage employment in the U.S. is different than any other country in the world. Specifically in two ways:

Health insurance is tied to employment. In every other country, including many places you would argue are not are less desireable to live within, this is not the case. And right now, there is a growing movement toward Medicare for all. People are chanting it in the streets. I’m not an advocate for this. I believe that choice within the market drives competition.

The problem is that we’ve allowed our insurance companies to eliminate choice in the market. Back in 2008 when we were debating whether or not universal healthcare was right for America, one of the strongest arguments against it was the idea of choice.

Fast forward 16 years later, and we’ve allowed the insurance companies to eliminate that choice because they own the entire value chain within our healthcare systems. A captive market exists where insurance companies own the clinics, the hospitals, the pharmacy benefit managers, the pharmacies, and the networks. But that conversation is for another day.

Workers who are displaced by AI need access to health insurance and they cannot afford a $2,000 monthly premium while they are unemployed via COBRA.

Your Employment is At Will

America is the only country that at-will employment exists. In every other developed country, employment is a contract. I hear all the time “Utah is an At-will State.” Guess what legal genius: all U.S. states recognize at-will employment doctrine.

It means that, outside of what your state or the Federal Government deem to be discrimination, you or the employer can end employment at any time, without notice or reason. Meaning (outside of unionized environments) employment is not contractual.

Outside the U.S. it’s different. When an employer or an employee chooses to end that contract they are required to provide notice or pay in leiu of notice. It’s common for there to be some base amount such as four weeks and then an additional week for every year of seniority. So a severance or notice is baked into every employment relationship.

While HR teams advocate for severance during lay-offs- it’s not a guarantee for every worker. And now that HR teams are being dismantled, no one will be advocating for your continued employment or your severance pay. When severance policies and employment decisions are made through a only a financial lense, they dwindle.

Can employers afford increased unemployment taxes or severance mandates? If we put too much regulation on job creators, won’t they stop creating jobs? For everyone asking this question, here’s my question to you. If don’t do something, can we afford the mass displacement?

The problem with the current unemployment system.

The current unemployment system was pressure tested during covid and temporary adjustments to the system were necessary to keep it afloat. It’s no where near where it would need to be to manage through mass job displacement. Here are the major issues with the current system:

1. Current benefit amounts usually cap around $17-$18 per hour. So, if you were making $120,000 per year at your full-time job, only a small portion of your income is replaced through the current system. And that amount is nowhere near living wage in most states to keep up with a mortage, food, and your now hugely inflated COBRA bill to keep your family afloat.

2. Job seekers are reporting longer and longer periods of unemployment. It’s taking longer to find work than it used to and the benefits are capped to 26 weeks in most cases. Once you hit the cap, the money is gone.

3. Lastly, and most importantly: the current system is designed to keep people employed within the current jobs available in the market, not to create new value or jobs within the market.
   
   Here’s what I mean by that: In an economy that sees mass displacement due to new technology workers have two choices:

   1. Leave the workforce temporarily and become retrained in a new skills that are more valued in the market or,

   2. Start a new business based on their current skills, ideally generating new market demand for workers.

   
   Currently, you cannot access unemployment benefits if you are a full-time student or starting a business. To be eligible for the UI benefit, you must be seeking full-time work. So in both cases, right now you’re SOL for UI benefits.

And here’s the more concerning part, we need those displaced workers to keep spending.

The Economic Multiplier Effect.

Protecting consumer spending is probably one of the most important components of ensuring that our economy continues admit AI disruption.

That’s because every dollar spent by consumers has a multiplier effect. An economy cannot indefinitely automate the production of goods and services while simultaneously eliminating the income consumers need to purchase them. Someone has to buy the goods to fuel the production.

AI will increase the capacity to produce, but consumer spending remains necessary to create demand. Protecting consumer purchasing power, whether through UBI or long-term unemployment is an essential mechanism for sustaining economic demand.

I get it. A full overhaul of these programs and state centralized systems would take serious time and political cooperation that we may not have.

Here are things we could do NOW.

Public Transparency around Layoffs. We could create transparency for workers around employers who produce stable employment. States already have the data that could be made publicly available. They know the number of employees, they know annual revenues, and number of employees who claim unemployment. This could be made available to the public.

Yes, law requires WARN notices which are public, but WARN notices do not cover most layoff scenarios unless the employer is shutting down their facility or a large portion of their workforce.

Earlier Retirement or Partial Retirement Opportunities for Caregivers.

We have one of the oldest retirement ages in the world. By comparison, women in China can access retirement pensions as young as 55 and men at 60. In many South American, women can access at age 60 and men at 65. Workers in the U.S. must be 65 to access Medicare and 62 to access social security. 401K accounts cannot be accessed without penalty until age 59 and a half.

What if we allowed people over the age of 55 to access up to a certain dollar amount of retirement (tax sheltered, no penalties) if they are partially retiring to help provide care to elderly family members or day care to working parents?

So if your mom or dad, could access up to 50-70K per year of their 401K, without penalty, and help provide you with daycare. This would be one tool to help solve the daycare crisis for some (not all) and gets some of the population of the workforce, to make room for younger people trying to enter into the workforce.

To accomplish this, you would need to provide 1) earlier access to Medicare to allow for health insurance and 2) eliminate early access tax penalties for caregivers.

The Gist of It.

I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t pretend to know exactly what Universal Basic Income or Long-Term Unemployment should look like in America but I think that’s the point.

We need to start talking about this, now. Because the conversation about AI and employment shouldn’t begin after the crisis. It should begin before it becomes a crisis.

It’s time to stop arguing about whether a safety net is morally acceptable. We already have a safety net. It’s time to start asking whether the one we’ve built is capable of catching us.

Over and out. And as always, remember HR people are people too.

Brit

Looking for fractional HR Consulting for your small business? Next Level HR provides fractional work in addition to PEO Transition specialization.

Are you wondering whether or not it’s time to take the next step for your org, Schedule a free consultation.

#cancelyourpeo #nextlevelhr #outgrowyourPEO #fractionalHR