If technology displaces workers or widens inequality, what should a society do? There is no shortage of proposals, and each has serious defenders and serious critics. This level sets out the main options, what the evidence says so far, and the values behind each.

Retraining

The most popular answer across political lines is retraining: teach displaced workers new skills for growing fields. The United States has run Trade Adjustment Assistance, which pays for training and income support for workers who lose jobs to imports, since 1962. Evaluations have been mixed. A large government-funded study in 2012 found that participants earned less than similar workers four years later, partly because they spent time in training instead of working, while a later study by Benjamin Hyman found sizable gains that faded over time. Training aimed at no particular job often disappoints. Sectoral training programs built with employers have some of the strongest evidence of raising earnings: randomized trials of programs such as Year Up and Project QUEST, which train people for specific in-demand jobs and help place them, found large and lasting earnings gains. Critics note these programs are selective and costly, and that older workers often prefer not to start over.

Wage insurance

Many displaced workers find new jobs that pay less. Wage insurance pays displaced workers part of the gap between their old wage and a lower new one, for a limited time. In the United States, a small version for workers aged 50 and over pays half the difference, up to 10,000 dollars over two years. Supporters say it rewards quick re-employment and avoids the scarring of long joblessness. Critics say it subsidizes low-wage employers and does little for those who find no job at all.

Basic income

A bolder idea is a universal basic income. A universal basic income is a regular cash payment to every individual, with no means test and no work requirement. The idea is old. In 1797 Thomas Paine proposed that every person receive a lump sum at age 21 and a yearly payment from age 50, funded from land, and insisted: "it is not charity but a right, that I am pleading for." Supporters today argue that basic income would give people security as work changes, free them to retrain, care for family or take risks, and remove the stigma of welfare. Critics argue that a payment large enough to live on would be extremely expensive, could reduce work effort, and would send money to people who do not need it.

Experiments have tested parts of the idea, though none has been truly universal and permanent. Finland's 2017 to 2018 basic income trial found better wellbeing with little change in employment; it paid 2,000 unemployed people 560 euros a month with no conditions. A US study funded by OpenResearch gave 1,000 low-income people 1,000 dollars a month for three years. Results published in 2024 showed that recipients in the OpenResearch study worked slightly less, a little over an hour a week, and spent more time on leisure, with little measurable gain in health or skills. Alaska has paid every resident a yearly oil dividend since 1982, typically from a few hundred to about 2,000 dollars. A 2018 study by Damon Jones and Ioana Marinescu found Alaska's dividend did not reduce overall employment, though part-time work rose a little.

Unions and bargaining

Another answer is to give workers more say in how technology is used. Union membership in the United States has fallen to about 10 percent of wage and salary workers. In 2023 the Writers Guild of America struck for nearly five months, partly over AI. The 2023 Writers Guild contract barred studios from using AI to write or rewrite scripts in place of writers, and allowed writers to choose whether to use AI tools themselves. Union membership is far higher in Denmark, Sweden and Finland, in part because of the Ghent system. Under the Ghent system, unemployment insurance is run by union-linked funds, which gives workers a practical reason to join. Critics of strong unions argue that they can slow useful innovation and protect insiders at the expense of outsiders.

Denmark combines this with "flexicurity." Flexicurity pairs easy hiring and firing with generous benefits and active help finding work. Employers can adjust quickly, while workers are protected as people rather than in particular jobs. It is expensive and depends on high trust and high taxes, which may not transfer to other countries.

Worked example: a warehouse town

A county's largest employer, a distribution center with 1,200 workers, announces that robots will cut its staff by half over three years. The county council has a modest budget. Apply the options. Retraining works best if tied to real local openings, perhaps robot maintenance at the same warehouse or nursing at the hospital, built with those employers. Wage insurance could help workers who take lower-paid jobs right away, especially older ones. A local basic income is beyond the county's means, but a smaller cash bridge for the hardest-hit families is possible. Bargaining could seek advance notice and first claim on the new technician jobs. Each choice reflects values: how much to rely on markets, how much to protect jobs versus people, and who should pay.