New York state lawmakers propose an “AI dividend” to address layoffs, with Goldman Sachs estimating a monthly loss of 16k jobs

New York state legislator and congressional candidate Alex Bores announced on Sunday an “AI dividend” plan, aiming to make direct payments to U.S. citizens when artificial intelligence significantly replaces American workers. The announcement comes after a Goldman report found that AI adoption has already led to the loss of about 16k jobs per month in the United States; tech giants including Amazon, Meta, Intel, and Microsoft have all announced large-scale layoffs in succession.

Design mechanisms of the AI dividend plan: trigger conditions and how the funds are used

(Source: Alex Bores)

The AI dividend plan is not a fixed universal basic income (UBI). Instead, it sets trigger conditions—only when AI “significantly replaces American workers” will it be activated. In addition to making direct dividend payments to U.S. citizens, the funds will be used in three directions: investing in “workforce transition, training, and education”; building AI oversight and safety infrastructure; and incentivizing employers to choose hiring humans rather than AI.

The funding-raising mechanism includes: taxing the use of AI, holding equity in leading AI companies, and reforming the tax treatment of labor and capital. Bores is currently positioning this policy as a key platform for his congressional campaign, and whether it can be implemented depends on whether his campaign is successful.

Divergence between the two institutions: how severe is the AI unemployment impact, really?

A Goldman report shows that AI adoption has led to the loss of about 16k jobs per month in the United States, and the large-scale layoffs by Amazon, Meta, Intel, and Microsoft are considered to be directly related to AI efficiency-driven substitution.

However, a more cautious assessment was provided in a report published by Morgan Stanley on April 14: so far, AI’s impact on the labor market is “relatively mild,” and there is no sufficient evidence indicating that widespread unemployment is already occurring. Morgan Stanley cites historical patterns showing that waves of new technology long-term have typically also promoted job growth—while at the same time acknowledging that artificial intelligence may break this historical rule.

Policy backdrop: political responses amid the tech giants’ layoff wave

The proposal of the AI dividend plan reflects the U.S. political establishment’s growing attention to how AI is affecting the job market. How to allocate the productivity gains brought by AI is becoming a campaign issue for more and more political figures. From conception to implementation, the plan still faces several major challenges, including quantifying the trigger conditions, the legality of an AI usage tax, the enforcement mechanisms for holding equity in AI companies, and how to avoid negative impacts on AI innovation.

Frequently asked questions

What are the trigger conditions of the AI dividend plan, and does it amount to universal basic income?

The AI dividend is not a universal basic income (UBI). Its key difference lies in the setting of trigger conditions—only when AI “significantly replaces American workers” will it be activated. The plan is positioned as an “insurance mechanism,” not a fixed baseline income. The specific quantitative trigger criteria (such as an unemployment-rate threshold) have not been explained in detail in public statements.

Why do Goldman and Morgan Stanley assess the AI unemployment impact differently?

Goldman focuses on presenting substitution effects that have already occurred (16k job losses per month), while Morgan Stanley evaluates from a longer historical perspective, concluding that the impact is “mild” for now, and citing historical precedents that after technological substitution, job growth typically follows. At the same time, it also acknowledges that AI’s disruptive potential may differ from past technology revolutions.

Is this plan legislatively feasible?

The plan is currently still at the campaign-proposal stage. The premise for implementation is that Bores successfully wins a seat in Congress and secures sufficient political support in Congress. The AI usage tax and mandatory shareholding mechanisms involved in the plan may face strong resistance from the tech industry and capital markets.