Scott Santens has long been one of the most compelling voices in the push for Universal Basic Income (UBI). As AI and automation accelerate, his work—once seen as speculative—feels more prescient than ever. We sat down with Scott to explore the economic transformations ahead, the risks of inaction, and why UBI may be the most powerful idea for the 21st century economy.

This is Part 1 of a two-part series.

From Curiosity to Advocacy: Scott's Path to UBI

Scott Santens didn't set out to become a leading policy voice. But in the early 2010s, a convergence of economic research, firsthand observations, and technological breakthroughs pushed him toward a singular idea: we need a new foundation for economic security.

"I got into this back in 2013, and the route that I took was through technology and automation," Santens recalls. "At the time, no one was really talking about the impacts of automation."

A conversation on Reddit about advancing technology sparked his interest, leading him to read "Manna" by Marshall Brain—a science fiction novella that presents two possible futures: one where we continue our current trajectory, and another where technology benefits everyone.

This exploration led Santens to discover the rich history of basic income, from Thomas Paine's writings shortly after America's founding to Nixon's Family Assistance Plan, which passed the House twice in the late 1970s but never cleared the Senate.

"I was fascinated to learn about the pilots that had gone on back then, both in the US and Canada, and then the pilots more recently all over the world," he explains. "They all pointed in the same direction—this is a good idea, it works."

What began as an interest in technology's potential impacts evolved into a comprehensive understanding that basic income isn't just a future necessity—it's something "we actually should have done decades ago, if not centuries ago."

AI’s Economic Disruption & the Case for UBI

AI Isn't Just Another Industrial Shift

We've seen automation reshape economies before—from mechanized agriculture to digital tools. But according to Santens, AI-driven automation is fundamentally different.

"This time, we're not just automating physical labor or repetitive tasks—we're automating cognitive labor, decision-making, and even creativity."

That shift, he argues, breaks the traditional cycle where technology destroys some jobs but creates new ones. With models like DeepSeek drastically lowering the cost of AI, Santens sees automation spreading faster and further than before.

The release of ChatGPT in November 2022 was a pivotal moment for Santens. "I've been talking about this for a decade now, and it feels like it's arrived. This moment has arrived, and we're going to start seeing AI advance quickly, and we're going to start seeing economic displacement as a result."

In response, he founded the Income to Support All Foundation to accelerate projects addressing these technological changes. The rapid advancement of AI models like DeepSeek demonstrates how quickly capabilities are evolving, making it increasingly difficult to slow development.

"We're ramping up one after the other after the other, and it makes it that much harder for any voice that's saying to slow things down to actually achieve that," Santens warns. "There will not be any slowing of this down."

Productivity Without Prosperity

In his viral article "The Real Story of Automation," Santens highlights a critical disconnect: economic productivity has soared, but the rewards haven't reached most people.

"In general, I think people have a bad picture of the impacts of automation," he explains. "A key moment in US history was when productivity decoupled from wage growth. Prior to 1973, productivity grew with wages—they were linked together pretty well. Then in 1973, that stopped being true."

Productivity continued to rise through computerization, but wages stagnated in comparison. The result has been massive inequality growth.

"A study done in 2018 determined that because of inequality growth, $50 trillion that would have flowed to the bottom 90% as wages flowed mostly to the top 1%. They updated that analysis earlier this year, and now it went from $50 to $79 trillion," Santens notes. "In 2018, the annual 'loss' was 2.3 trillion, and now per year it's 3.9 trillion."

Santens argues that the real, existing impact of automation isn't mass unemployment but rather this staggering inequality. "That's what I want people to understand—don't only be looking for increases in unemployment rates. Look for increases in inequality and continued wage stagnation."

Why Universal Basic Income?

To Santens, UBI isn't just a policy idea—it's a necessary adaptation to our evolving economic reality. He describes UBI through a powerful framework: "It's the power to say no and the freedom to say yes."

The "power to say no" provides bargaining power—the ability to refuse exploitative or degrading work because basic survival isn't at stake. This changes the fundamental nature of employment.

"Work isn't really fully voluntary if we say, 'If you don't work, you deserve to starve.' It is voluntary if you have enough to survive and exist. Then employers actually pay you money to attract you to do the job," Santens explains.

The "freedom to say yes" enables people to pursue meaningful work that might not pay well, volunteer in their communities, or develop creative talents. "Right now, when you look at jobs that are more meaningful or volunteer opportunities, you have to be able to afford to do them," he notes.

Santens identifies three primary pathways through which UBI functions: reducing poverty, reducing insecurity, and reducing inequality.

For poverty reduction, Santens argues that UBI is more effective than means-tested programs because it reaches everyone. "The best welfare program that we have is SNAP, otherwise known as food stamps, and that goes to about two out of three people in poverty," he says. Other programs reach even fewer eligible recipients—TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) reaches only one in five people in poverty.

UBI also eliminates the high marginal tax rates that many welfare programs impose. "Imagine if someone was getting $1,000 per month, and they were offered a $1,000 per month job, and they took the job and they lose their original thousand dollars per month," Santens illustrates. "That's effectively a 100% tax rate. They're not earning any additional income."

With UBI, people never lose their basic income when they earn more, which means "it always makes sense to earn that extra additional dollar."

For economic insecurity, UBI creates a floor below which no one can fall. "If you got a $15,000 UBI floor and you're earning $25,000 a year, then now you're at $40,000 before taxes, and that's a much better place to be," Santens explains. "You also know that if you do lose your $25,000 job, you will only ever fall to 15,000. You will not fall to zero."

This security reduces chronic stress, improving mental and physical health, and even cognitive capacity. Studies have shown that relieving financial stress can improve cognitive performance by the equivalent of 13 IQ points.

For inequality, UBI paired with progressive taxation can reverse the decades-long flow of wealth to the top 1%. "If you lift everyone up, you're providing more to the middle class too. You're not only boosting the bottom, you're boosting the middle, and you're pressing down on the top thanks to higher taxes," Santens says.

Read Part 2 here.