{"id":9035,"date":"2025-05-28T22:13:30","date_gmt":"2025-05-28T21:13:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.markwilson.co.uk\/blog\/?p=9035"},"modified":"2025-05-29T11:30:12","modified_gmt":"2025-05-29T10:30:12","slug":"who-gets-paid-when-the-machines-take-over","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.markwilson.co.uk\/blog\/2025\/05\/who-gets-paid-when-the-machines-take-over.htm","title":{"rendered":"Who gets paid when the machines take over?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Yesterday evening, I was at the Bletchley AI User Group<\/a> in Milton Keynes. One of the talks was from Stephanie Stasey (\/in\/missai<\/a>) (aka Miss AI<\/a>), titled “Gen AI vs. white collar workers and trad wives \u2013 building a robot to make my bed”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was delivered as a monologue \u2013 which sounds negative, but really isn\u2019t. In fact, it was engaging, sharp, and packed with food for thought. Stephanie brought a fresh perspective to a topic we\u2019re all thinking about: how AI is reshaping both the world of work and the way we live at home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The labour that goes unnoticed (but not undone)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One part of the talk touched on \u201ctrad wives\u201d \u2013 not a term I was especially familiar with, but the theme resonated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you\u2019d asked my wife and I in our 20s about how we\u2019d divide up household tasks, we might have offered up a fair and balanced plan. But real life doesn\u2019t always match the theory. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These days, we both work part-time \u2013 partly because unpaid labour (childcare, cooking, washing, cleaning, all the life admin) still needs doing. And there don’t seem to be enough hours when the laptop is closed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The system isn\u2019t broken \u2013 it\u2019s working exactly as designed<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The point I\u2019ve been turning over for a while is this: it feels like we\u2019re on the edge of something big.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We could<\/em> be on the brink of a fundamental shift in how we think about work \u2013 if those in power wanted to make radical changes. I’ll avoid a full political detour, though I\u2019m disheartened by the rise of the right and how often “ordinary people” are reminded of their place. (My youngest son calls me a champagne socialist \u2013 perhaps not entirely unfairly.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, AI presents us with a rare opportunity to do things differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But instead of rethinking how work and value are distributed, we\u2019re told to brace for disruption. The current narrative is that AI is coming for our jobs. Or a variation on that theme: \u201cDon\u2019t worry,\u201d we\u2019re told, \u201cit won\u2019t take your<\/em> job \u2013 but someone using AI might\u201d. That line\u2019s often repeated. It\u2019s catchy. But it’s also glib \u2013 and not always true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m close enough to retirement that the disruption shouldn’t hit me too hard. But for my children\u2019s generation? The impact could be massive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What if we taxed the agents?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

So here\u2019s a thought: what if we taxed<\/em> the AI agents?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If a business creates an agent to do the work a person would normally do \u2013 or could reasonably do \u2013 then that agent is taxed, like a human worker would be. It\u2019s still efficient, still scalable, but the benefits are shared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, how would we live, if the jobs go away? That\u2019s where Universal Basic Income (UBI)<\/a> comes in (funded by taxes on agents, as well as on human effort).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Put simply, UBI provides everyone with enough to cover their basic<\/em> needs \u2013 no strings attached. People can still work (and many will). For extra income. For purpose. For contribution. It just doesn\u2019t have<\/em> to be 9-to-5, five days a week. It could be four. Or two. The work would evolve, but people wouldn\u2019t be left behind. It also means that the current, complex, and often unjust benefits system could be removed (perhaps with some exceptions, but certainly for the majority).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What could possibly go right?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

So yes, the conversation around AI is full of what could go wrong. But what if we focused on what could go right<\/em>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019ve got a window here \u2013 a rare one \u2013 to rethink work, contribution, and value. But we need imagination. And leadership. And a willingness to ask who benefits when the machines clock in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further reading on UBI<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

If you\u2019re interested in UBI and how it might work in practice, here are some useful resources:<\/p>\n\n\n\n