Could UBI Make Things Worse? | Josh Allan Dykstra, Author of Work Will Kill Us All

What we talked about.

In this interview, host Sunny Ray talks with Josh Allan Dykstra, author of Work Will Kill Us All, about whether universal basic income could make things worse. Dykstra, who spent about 20 years trying to make work not suck, explains how the failure of his own SaaS company pushed him to ask why companies will not prioritize better work. He argues that leaders should treat systems rather than symptoms, and that higher productivity does not automatically bring shared prosperity because ownership tends to concentrate with each technology wave. Sunny pushes back, citing his own gains from AI tools, the risks founders take, and the role of individual choice and agency. Dykstra acknowledges both the individual and the system, and warns of a macroeconomic loop breaking if AI replaces workers who also act as customers. He proposes a parallel economy called the commons, where essentials like healthcare are community owned while the market continues to serve wants. The conversation ends early with more questions left for a return visit.

Could AI abundance leave most people behind? Josh Allan Dykstra argues ownership, not productivity, decides who prospers, and proposes a commons.

The questions, and the answers.

What is the central problem your work tries to solve, and how did you become a futurist?

For about 20 years I have worked on making work not suck. Lately I have focused on the future of work. I am a social constructivist, so I believe our actions today create tomorrow. Trend spotting can distract us from doing different things now, which is what actually shapes the future.

After nearly 20 years of trying to make work better, why did you write Work Will Kill Us All?

I believed that if we showed companies that better work was doable and profitable, they would do it. We showed that, yet employee engagement is the same as 25 years ago. After my SaaS company closed and I filed for bankruptcy, I wrote the book to answer why companies will not support it.

When did you realize the problem we see isn't the real problem?

We often diagnose issues as people problems and try to train or fix individuals. I learned we are treating symptoms when we should treat systems. In grad school, a professor taught me every problem has two sides, me and we. We usually focus on the individual instead of the upstream system.

Why doesn't greater productivity automatically translate into greater prosperity, and what role does ownership play?

Productivity is not the same as sharing the prosperity it creates. When agriculture and factories arrived, only some people became owners. Ownership concentrates until it gets so top heavy that people rebel and demand redistribution. We are watching it again with AI, where a small number of owners are poised to capture huge gains.

AI has made me far more productive for about 20 dollars a month. What am I missing?

We are in the middle period, enjoying introductory benefits, but it is not profitable yet and runs on investor money. You are right that I am far more productive too. The question is how we ensure the benefits spread to everybody. If AI is broadly shared, it can lift everyone.

If AI and robots do more work with less human labor, what happens to an economy built on selling labor to survive?

If AI delivers on the promise of doing anything a human can do, we have a big problem. If robots replace people, people lack income to buy what the robots make. Money moves in a loop, and when it stops circulating we get macroeconomic trouble. That is why distribution matters so much.

Are you proposing a post-scarcity world, and what is your alternative?

I love post-scarcity and I am a huge Star Trek fan, but I do not think we can jump straight to a world without money. I propose a parallel economy called the commons. The market keeps serving wants like socks and gadgets, while we remove the profit layer from things we need to live.

Would your commons model be voluntary or enforced from the top down?

Probably a combination. We likely need some governance support to create the rules, but it is really driven by communities. Think of a community owned hospital where everyone owns part of it. When you are invested locally, you care differently, for example when your mom needs services there.