‘Voters in Hamburg have rejected universal basic income. Many economists would agree with them’
Headline quote from academic website ‘The Conversation’, 11th November 2025
Last week we focused on the need to replace universal welfare in the UK in favour of a targeted system. However, there's another even more insidious form of welfare which is lurking in the shadows: Universal Basic Income. In contrast to the position of state-run welfare services, this introduces a concept of welfare subservience as a potential answer to the loss of employment opportunities in the face of automation and artificial intelligence taking over workplace activities.
There’s a surprising amount of investigation and experimentation underway — including 136 pilot schemes in the United States — for this concept, which is little more than a form of compensated slavery in return for inactivity. It's therefore not a surprise that voters in Hamburg have robustly rejected the idea.
The reason for all this debate and experimentation is that many politicians and economists can see the looming challenge of automation, and the huge numbers of young people who are now experiencing significant obstacles in the way of starting their careers. However, as yet no-one has put forward a working alternative to UBI. That may change over the next 1-2 years but, for the time being and with UBI attracting so much attention, it's worth considering why it is not the answer.
There are two key reasons why UBI won't work. The first is psychological; it is a fundamental human characteristic to pursue achievement and progress. If this is denied to all but the rich and powerful, it will result in widespread despair and depression. One of my favourite Tom Paxton tracks is called ‘A Job of Work’ — although it was recorded over sixty years ago, it still describes graphically how unemployment can get people down.
There are also strong economic reasons not to follow the siren calls of Universal Basic Income. The first is: where does the money come from to fund it? Western democracies are already saddled with such huge public debts that we are close to a global bond market meltdown, as we warned on 1st September.
Meanwhile, even if there was a concerted push to extract the necessary funding from the businesses whose activities are removing the prospects of employment, how would we link the capacity to generate funds with the populations that need to be in its receipt? It's hard enough to get international consensus for global challenges such as climate change without trying to secure trans-national funding for other countries’ publicly-funded UBI schemes.
We therefore need to be more creative in our efforts to bring about a more equitable world, but it is right to stay focused on the automation revolution which is responsible for the massive progress in wealth creation, and to remain focused on its responsibility for removing so many employment opportunities. This has, of course, accelerated hugely over the past decade: but it was also recognised sixty years ago in another of Tom Paxton's songs from his ‘Ramblin Boy’ album, ‘Standing on the Edge of Town’.
‘Stock for Data’ is one of the two major initiatives being undertaken by Share Alliance. Its Phase 1 research report was prepared by Dr. Heloïse Greeff, and we are now about to undertake a major economic modelling exercise before undertaking simulation research jointly with King’s College Cambridge to demonstrate its effectiveness.
When the Phase 1 report was prepared, Artificial Intelligence was in its infancy — now, just over one year later, we can see how it is invading almost every walk of life. Only last week I heard how university students were given just 45 minutes to digest a 500-page report and summarise its conclusions; a task which would be impossible without access to AI.
Artificial Intelligence works on data and creativity in a radically open manner; whereas previously it was thought that you could connect data input with its commercial benefits on a relatively algorithmic basis. However, data and creativity are now literally dissolved, so that links can no longer be followed in this way.
It's therefore necessary to apply that challenging word ‘universal’ to our proposed distribution of tech giant stock in return for these businesses harvesting our data and creativity, so that eligibility for stock receipt can be considered on a much broader basis. This will use age thresholds, length of minimum holding periods and international access based on custodial administration, similar to that used for global employee share ownership.
The big difference between funding Universal Basic Income and facilitating Stock for Data & Creativity is that central governments will not be arranging the latter. International regulation will establish the structure but, once these logistics are in place, there will be a direct connection between stock recipients and the giant tech companies.
The key result of Stock for Data & Creativity is that it will enable individual people to participate directly in their wealth creation (both capital growth and income), and in the corporate governance of the tech giants. It is firmly grounded in the vital link between individual ownership and individual responsibility so that, just as we commented a couple of weeks ago in ‘Data Exploitation and Denial’, people will be able to join with the wealth creation revolution which is being made possible by automation: they will no longer need to feel threatened by subservience schemes such as Universal Basic Income.
Participation for all is at the heart of our quest for more egalitarian form of capitalism, and Share Alliance is determined to demonstrate how it can be done.
Gavin Oldham OBE
Share Radio