Great article, but I do have an issue with the name (obviously the most important aspect). Bridge Benefits brings to mind opponents gleefully arguing the government has a "bridge" to sell the public, another costly scam from DC. Keep up the good work!
Great insights (as usual) and creative thinking about what could — and should — be done. However, I didn’t see anything to address the health care coverage a family might miss in those periods between employment. It seems like we also need to address our reliance on employer provided health insurance if we’re really going to make this work.
What if there was a tax penalty for large corporations who replace more that 10% of their workforce with AI? Block inc just cut 40% of its workforce and expressly stated it was due to AI. There should be some disincentive for companies otherwise the rate of unemployment will far outpace the ability for the government to build a long term solution for what’s coming. I also think a baseline change will need to be strengthening labor protections to coincide with any UI or UBI programs. Corporations have been able to skirt responsibility for decades and the result is more instability for the working class.
I didn't see any account for the separation packages and buyout packages.
One side benefit you didn't mention is that there should be less threat of sexual assault. Employers have less power over covering up and coercing.
On the minus side, people seem so worried someone is getting a free ride. Some do, but many do make good use of the incentive. Worrying about 100% efficiency, I think makes things overall less effective.
I love this! Thanks for taking the time to focus on the criticisms on both sides too. We will never find something that'll make everybody happy but we should be addressing these issues and starting from somewhere. There is absolutely nowhere to go but up.
Great article, but I do have an issue with the name (obviously the most important aspect). Bridge Benefits brings to mind opponents gleefully arguing the government has a "bridge" to sell the public, another costly scam from DC. Keep up the good work!
Great insights (as usual) and creative thinking about what could — and should — be done. However, I didn’t see anything to address the health care coverage a family might miss in those periods between employment. It seems like we also need to address our reliance on employer provided health insurance if we’re really going to make this work.
What if there was a tax penalty for large corporations who replace more that 10% of their workforce with AI? Block inc just cut 40% of its workforce and expressly stated it was due to AI. There should be some disincentive for companies otherwise the rate of unemployment will far outpace the ability for the government to build a long term solution for what’s coming. I also think a baseline change will need to be strengthening labor protections to coincide with any UI or UBI programs. Corporations have been able to skirt responsibility for decades and the result is more instability for the working class.
I didn't see any account for the separation packages and buyout packages.
One side benefit you didn't mention is that there should be less threat of sexual assault. Employers have less power over covering up and coercing.
On the minus side, people seem so worried someone is getting a free ride. Some do, but many do make good use of the incentive. Worrying about 100% efficiency, I think makes things overall less effective.
I love this! Thanks for taking the time to focus on the criticisms on both sides too. We will never find something that'll make everybody happy but we should be addressing these issues and starting from somewhere. There is absolutely nowhere to go but up.
Thanks for the attention to UI! A couple of things I am working through in this space
1) what should states pay and what should feds pay for. The latter is the best space for an AI tax
2) Pros and cons of a nexus between AI as the agent of loss and the "bridge" program.
Stay tuned