Nearly six decades before tech leaders like Sam Altman and Elon Musk began advocating for basic income as a solution to AI-driven job displacement, Martin Luther King Jr. proposed a remarkably similar concept. In his 1967 book “Where Do We Go From Here?”, King argued that a guaranteed annual income could create “widespread economic security” and address fundamental social issues.
King’s vision distinguished between universal basic income (UBI)—recurring payments to all citizens regardless of status—and guaranteed basic income (GBI)—targeted payments to specific socioeconomic groups for set periods. His proposal came three years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, during a time of significant social upheaval when he sought solutions to poverty and inequality.
The civil rights leader recognized that economic shifts and discrimination could push people toward “constant or frequent unemployment against their will.” He argued that society must either create employment opportunities or provide income to enable active consumer participation. King even suggested unemployed citizens could take jobs focused on social good, writing: “If our nation can spend thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight an unjust, evil war in Vietnam, and twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God’s children on their own two feet right here on earth.”
Today, AI industry leaders including Musk, Altman, and Bill Gates believe basic income will become necessary when artificial intelligence becomes capable of performing most jobs. A group of lawmakers proposed a nationwide GBI pilot program in 2023 covering 10,000 Americans over three years, explicitly citing “increasing automation and advancing AI” as justification. The proposal warned that “the concentration of control of those technologies into the hands of a few billionaires may mean the eventual loss of the livelihoods of millions of Americans.”
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang championed UBI during his 2020 presidential campaign, promising $1,000 monthly checks to all adult Americans, though he dropped out early. Despite political resistance—particularly from conservatives who argue basic income discourages work and amounts to socialism—numerous US cities and counties have launched pilot programs. New York City recently introduced a GBI program for young residents experiencing homelessness in December 2024.
Research consistently shows that basic income recipients don’t work less and often use funds for education and skills development. King’s prescient observation that “the dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands” resonates strongly with contemporary discussions about AI’s workforce impact.
Key Quotes
Increasing automation and advancing AI have the potential to expand human flourishing. However, the concentration of control of those technologies into the hands of a few billionaires may mean the eventual loss of the livelihoods of millions of Americans
This statement from lawmakers proposing a 2023 nationwide guaranteed basic income pilot program directly connects AI advancement to workforce displacement concerns, echoing King’s 1967 warnings about economic inequality.
Personal conflicts between husband, wife, and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on a scale of dollars is eliminated
Martin Luther King Jr. wrote this in his 1967 book, arguing that guaranteed income could address not just economic security but fundamental social and family stability—a perspective that resonates with current AI-era discussions about work’s role in human dignity.
The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands, when he has the assurance that his income is stable and certain, and when he knows that he has the means to seek self-improvement
King’s vision of economic security enabling personal agency directly parallels modern arguments from AI leaders that basic income could free people to pursue education, creativity, and meaningful work as AI handles routine tasks.
Is money a birthright now? Do we just get born and get money from the government? Because I think the Founding Fathers would say that is very contrary to our capitalist system and encouraging people to work
Republican Rep. John Gillette’s opposition illustrates the persistent political resistance to basic income programs, even as AI-driven automation makes the concept increasingly relevant to tech industry leaders and researchers.
Our Take
The parallel between King’s 1967 vision and today’s AI leaders reveals how technological disruption repeatedly forces society to reconsider fundamental economic structures. What’s striking is that AI executives now advocate for policies once considered radical social justice proposals—not from altruism alone, but from recognition that AI-driven automation could destabilize consumer economies if workers lack purchasing power.
This convergence suggests basic income may transition from ideological debate to practical necessity as AI capabilities expand. However, King’s framework offers crucial nuance: he emphasized not just cash transfers but dignity, agency, and opportunities for meaningful contribution. Modern AI policy discussions often focus narrowly on economic compensation while overlooking these deeper questions about human purpose in an automated world. The challenge isn’t simply funding basic income—it’s ensuring AI’s benefits genuinely expand human flourishing rather than merely subsidizing technological unemployment.
Why This Matters
This historical perspective reveals that concerns about technology-driven unemployment and potential solutions predate the current AI revolution by decades. As artificial intelligence rapidly advances toward capabilities that could automate millions of jobs, the tech industry’s embrace of basic income as a remedy isn’t novel—it echoes King’s 1967 social justice framework.
The convergence of AI development and basic income advocacy highlights a critical tension: while AI promises unprecedented productivity gains, the benefits may concentrate among technology owners rather than displaced workers. King’s warning about measuring human worth “on a scale of dollars” becomes increasingly relevant as AI systems potentially devalue human labor.
The growing number of pilot programs across US cities demonstrates practical momentum despite political opposition. As AI capabilities expand—with leaders like Altman and Musk predicting AI could eventually perform most jobs—the question shifts from whether basic income is necessary to how it should be implemented. King’s distinction between universal and guaranteed income offers a framework for contemporary policymakers navigating AI’s workforce disruption while addressing existing inequalities.