Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Artificial Intelligence Series, Part 3: Productivity and Transformation

Artificial Intelligence Series, Part 3: Productivity and Transformation
Getty Images

Leland R. Beaumont is an independent wisdom researcher who is seeking real good. He is currently developing the Applied Wisdom curriculum on Wikiversity.

The idea of a productivity dividend fund became popular with other business owners as productivity increases in their business sectors also allowed them to produce more with fewer workers. Gradually, the funds from various industries merged and unified. As time went on workers originally displaced from one business found other work and later may have been displaced from other sectors. Productivity dividends from many businesses are collected and shared among many displaced workers. The system looked like this:


Productivity dividends from many businesses are collected and shared among many displaced workers.

Eventually, productivity dividend funds became mainstream. It became increasingly difficult to keep track of each individual’s employment history and it became difficult to determine what qualified any individual as having been employed. The system became simplified, and the funds were equally distributed to all adults. The people shared in the overall productivity increases. We learned to share the abundance.

Efficiencies emerged in unexpected places. The productivity dividend turned Parkinson’s law —the observation that work expands to fill the time available—upside down. Because people now share in productivity increases, many suggestions and innovations for simplifying and streamlining work were adopted.

The people now share in productivity increases.

It was not long before some form of universal basic income became a typical feature of every good government. People’s needs are met, the people flourish, and we focus on what matters most. Poverty and crime rates decreased as social justice improved. We recognize that machines should work so that people can live. Rather than fearing unemployment, we are happy to have fewer chores and we welcome the opportunity to spend our time on creative endeavors. Hans taught us to welcome productivity increases unequivocally.

The people now own the productivity dividend, and it is good.

This is the third and final part in a three-part series exploring the future of productivity.

Read part two of this series here.


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less