If you are under 60, I have some bad news

There are very few jobs, like REALLY a few - maybe 1% of current jobs that will not be able to be done by AI. Really, from surgeons, to plumbers to baristas to sales reps. AI can do it all. And the jobs that remain viable for human pursuit are not temperamentally suited to the vast majority of people anyway.

The split between the have and have nots follow an 80/20 rule. Even then, there is an argument that real control rests with the 1% – and that is not as radical as you may think. In the future this will become 0.1% or maybe less.

The chances of YOU being in that group is too small to calculate - even if you are currently a CEO or a big shot.

The chances of any one government ‘legislating’ against this change is unrealistic, because everything will naturally flow to the point of lowest production cost. You may think you are doing yourself a favour by not smoking, but if you are stuck in a closed room with a dozen smokers, you might as well be a smoker.

The only way to avoid riots by the populace, will be to placate them with a Universal Basic Income (UBI).

UBI has always been a pipedream that was unscalable - and most experiments were social security in disguise, and I have never paid much serious attention to the idea. But things have changed.

Ironically, the exponential advances by AI makes UBI a possibility, for SOME countries.

I am assuming a UBI of $2,000/ m per adult will be sufficient in today’s values.

Question 1: What % of GDP must be produced by AI, assuming it can do it at 10% of the cost, in order to make UBI viable?

Globally, for adults only, the required contribution is 141.1%, still exceeding 100%, confirming that the current global GDP cannot support this UBI level.

For the US, AI must contribute at least 32.64% of GDP to fund a UBI of $2000 per month for all residents.

To fund a Universal Basic Income of $2,000 per month for adults of Australia (approximately 27 million people in 2025), with a GDP of $1.74 trillion, AI would need to contribute at least 29.3% of Australia’s GDP. (And 37% if paid to all people.)

The question is therefore whether we believe AI can produce A THIRD of our GDP, and I think that is easily feasible for developed countries.

Question 2: What does this mean in practice and as far as Government policy guidelines?

The global population growth is stagnant and declining and this has been seen as a problem by most people, because they assume productivity growth is driven by humans. That assumption is no longer valid.

• Adjust any policy that relies on continuous population growth (housing, healthcare etc) for a decrease and actively encourage this from a policy perspective.
  

• Stop Immigration. The fewer people, the easier it is to solve for UBI. And a heterogeneous, non-integrated society will be a future powder-keg that adversity will explode in our faces. (ANY and ALL – this is not about a particular race or religion, it is about human nature.)
  

• Jump the curve: Trump’s re-industrialization initiative is in principle a sound idea being pursued by a few countries, but unfortunately the jobs he will be onshoring will be gone again in a year or two. What he - and any advanced economy - should be pursuing is a strategic decoupling from China, but they should Jump the Curve and go straight to AI/robotics solutions.
  

• And finally, the big one: ENERGY. Throughout history, the countries with the most advanced and CHEAPEST energy supply WON!. Countries with the most advanced and cheapest energy supply "win" are largely supported by history. England’s coal-powered Industrial Revolution in the 19th century set the stage for its 20th-century dominance, while China’s multi-energy strategy has driven its 21st-century rise. Historical examples like the U.S., Germany, and Japan further reinforce this pattern.

• 
  

The biggest cost for AI technology is going to be energy. When AI bots make other AI bots, from design to materials to manufacturing, all other costs will decline rapidly as labour costs are sucked out of the system.

Solving for energy is the biggest and most important issue.ALL OF THESE policy areas are the ones that are MOST at risk of being hijacked by fringe groups and lunatics.

Cheap energy is literally, unequivocally the difference between being able to survive or even thrive in the near future. WHATEVER strategy is required to bring down the cost of energy in the SHORT term is what needs to be done.

In the long run, climate is important, but it is much, much less important now. Worrying about climate change is like worrying about your diet when your car is stalled on a railway crossing. Of course your diet will kill you in the long run, but getting out of harm’s way is more important.

While cheap energy is a powerful catalyst for national success, it’s only a necessary component, but not sufficient. It needs to be managed well - not like Venezuela or Russia who squanders huge opportunities.

IN CONCLUSION

Your job won’t be the same in 5 years time. It will change gradually over time and then disappear one day. If you are 60 you may make it to retirement, if you are any younger, you are in for a world of pain. And if not you, your kids. And if not your kids, almost everyone in the community where you wanted to live peacefully.

This change is inevitable.

The only way to maintain a peaceful society in a post-agentic world, is to appease humans with UBI. To make that viable, we need to embrace population reduction, quick technological adaptation and cheap energy.

And start thinking about what you are going to do with all that time on your hands in a world where you can’t get meaning and purpose from your job.