According to Business Insider, former presidential candidate Andrew Yang is warning that AI-driven automation could eliminate 30 to 40 million US jobs in the next decade. He bases this on his estimate that 44% of American jobs are vulnerable, a figure backed by recent studies like MIT’s Iceberg Index, which found current AI can perform skills tied to 11.7% of the US labor market, representing $1.2 trillion in wages. Companies like Amazon reportedly believe automation could let them avoid hiring over 600,000 workers, while Salesforce, Walmart, HP, IBM, and Fiverr have all cited AI in recent layoffs. In a recent CNN interview, Yang called this potential displacement “devastating” and “catastrophic,” reviving his signature policy proposal: a universal basic income of $1,000 per month for every American adult.
Yang Versus The Doomsday Clock
Here’s the thing: Yang’s 44% vulnerability number isn’t fringe. It’s actually in the ballpark of mainstream analyses. The IMF says 60% of jobs in advanced economies will be affected. McKinsey says over half of US work hours could be automated. So Yang isn’t the loudest voice in the room. He’s pushing back against people like AI safety researcher Roman Yampolskiy, who predicted 99% unemployment in five years. Yang thinks that’s overblown. “It’s going to get bad. I certainly don’t think 99% bad,” he said. His projection of 30-40 million jobs is basically taking half of that vulnerable 44% and churning through it over ten years. It’s a staggering number, but it’s also a slower, more grinding crisis than some fear.
The AI Tax And The UBI Play
So what’s his solution? The old Freedom Dividend idea is back, but with a new funding mechanism. Yang now says the firms driving the AI boom should pay for the societal disruption. He’s pointing to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s idea of a “token tax” or “compute tax” on AI companies. The argument is simple: these tech giants are generating hundreds of billions in value, partly using public data, so they should foot the bill for the transition. $12,000 a year per person seems like a lot, but Yang notes it’s modest compared to the $85,000 in GDP per person the US produces. It’s a clever political framing. The people profiting most from the disruption are the ones who pay to cushion the blow.
Beyond The Paycheck
But let’s be real. A monthly check isn’t a magic fix. Yang admits this. People need purpose, structure, and community. Without that, even with financial stability, you get a different kind of crisis—one of meaning and social cohesion. His deeper warning is about radicalization. Millions of people, suddenly economically obsolete and adrift, are a powder keg. “We could be doing much, much more,” he says. And he’s right. The policy conversation is still lagging way behind the technological reality. We’re busy marveling at the latest AI demo while the groundwork for massive labor market earthquakes is being laid by companies optimizing for efficiency, not societal stability. The real question isn’t if jobs will be displaced, but whether we have the political will to build a new social contract before things get truly ugly.
