How do we fix job-stealing robots? We don’t.
Bjorn Broby Glavind

There is an alternative to Basic Income: Gamification.

Gamification applied to an automated economy would link your income to your education level, and what you are able to produce that cannot be produced by a machine.

Go through basic schooling (kindergarten through high school), or get your GED, and you get a basic monthly income that is enough to live comfortably on.

Go to college and graduate with a bachelors, and you get an increase. Get a PhD, and you get get another, larger increase to your monthly income. It links your wealth to intellectual pursuits, even if those pursuits do not necessarily generate wealth in either today’s economy, or in a gamification-based one.

Ironically, compared to today, this would mean that artists and philosophers would be the highest paid individuals in a gamification economy, since it will be most difficult to replace them with an automated worker, and they would be generating some of the more unique ideas and products.

But as with every alternative economy, the trick is making it self sustaining and supporting. In the case of gamification, it will probably require a corporate tax rate that hasn’t been seen in decades (probably north of 80%). The good news is, with a much smaller work force that produces an even greater and higher quality supply of products, nearly every company should still be able to turn a profit. In fact, those still working for a corporation would be doing work that cannot be done by a machine and will right up there with the philosophers and artists in terms of income (they may even be philosophers and artists, for all intents and purposes).

No matter what economic system comes next, I think we’ll see a net increase in quality of life — regardless of whether net job count increases, decreases, or stays the same.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.