Study examines projected AI job losses per US State and Globally as well as estimates the tax revenue losses incurred by governments worldwide. The report further explores the implementation costs, both per person and for the system, of a Universal Income scheme aimed at supporting individuals unable to rejoin the workforce.
*Total Cost of Universal Income is only for those who lost their jobs due to AI, does not include others currently not working of that my stop working.
At ThePayStubs.com, we’ve been studying the impact of new Ai technology on our operations. As we’ve seen remarkable efficiency gains, it’s become evident that work processes are changing, with new technologies taking over millions of jobs. To understand the implications for our industry and society, we partnered with Researchers of Urbanity Impact to investigate how this trend will affect people’s paystubs.
According to Dany Moussa, CEO of FinancialDocs, the company behind ThePayStubs.com, while AI will generate new startups and jobs, it’s also expected to cause significant job losses that won’t be easily replaced. This calls for innovative approaches from governments as this digital revolution will fundamentally transforms industries and society.
Our study focuses on three main areas. Firstly, we estimate the number of jobs at risk in each country, considering the potential for companies to reduce workforces through AI-based technologies. Secondly, we examine the cost of implementing a Universal Income Scheme to support those unable to rejoin the workforce. Lastly, we analyze the tax revenue losses governments will face due to job losses and the necessary increase in corporate tax to compensate for the decreased tax income and fund the universal salary.
In estimating jobs at risk, we evaluate productivity gains from Ai technologies and their impact on core tasks for each occupation. Our analysis takes into account productivity increases, redundancy percentages, and occupation/industry matrices for each country.
Since the 2016 failed vote attempt in Switzerland, Universal Income is one of the leading options to deal with the rise of AI and automation and its effect on the Job market. The average cost of universal income per person is calculated based on the ILO’s recommendation of 50% of the median disposable income in rich countries.
Lastly, considering the future of taxation, we focus on the use of Ai advancements to reduce workforces and its impact on corporate tax revenues. We also present the required increase in corporate tax revenues in each country to cover the potential cost to the system. The estimated lost tax revenues due to unemployment per person reflect the annual value of tax revenues lost when a worker becomes redundant, assuming they don’t find new employment. This includes income taxes, payroll taxes, and compulsory social contributions.
The index is default ranked by the final column, ordered from highest to lowest. Each individual column can be filtered, and the full methodology explaining how each factor was evaluated can be found underneath the table.
| Potential cost to system | Future of taxation | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | State |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 1 | California | 39.0 million | 77,339 | 17,636 th. | 1,447.6 th. | $32,562 | $34,407 | $66,969 | $97.0 B | 10% | 79% |
| 2 | Texas | 30.0 million | 61,985 | 12,993 th. | 1,141.9 th. | $18,200 | $28,622 | $46,821 | $53.5 B | 11% | 147% |
| 3 | Florida | 22.3 million | 63,597 | 9,211 th. | 833.6 th. | $19,544 | $29,128 | $48,672 | $40.6 B | 11% | 208% |
| 4 | New York | 19.7 million | 78,089 | 9,109 th. | 780.6 th. | $33,715 | $34,384 | $68,099 | $53.2 B | 10% | 106% |
| 5 | Illinois | 12.6 million | 68,822 | 5,884 th. | 521.4 th. | $27,270 | $31,038 | $58,308 | $30.4 B | 11% | 89% |
| 6 | Pennsylvania | 13.0 million | 65,167 | 5,811 th. | 497.1 th. | $23,561 | $30,652 | $54,213 | $27.0 B | 12% | 128% |
| 7 | Ohio | 11.8 million | 57,880 | 5,376 th. | 476.6 th. | $27,517 | $27,301 | $54,818 | $26.1 B | 12% | 150% |
| 8 | Georgia | 10.9 million | 57,129 | 4,612 th. | 413.1 th. | $21,671 | $26,393 | $48,064 | $19.9 B | 12% | 105% |
| 9 | North Carolina | 10.7 million | 57,416 | 4,648 th. | 404.4 th. | $21,705 | $26,279 | $47,984 | $19.4 B | 12% | 144% |
| 10 | Michigan | 10.0 million | 56,813 | 4,247 th. | 392.2 th. | $20,585 | $27,220 | $47,805 | $18.8 B | 13% | 185% |
| 11 | New Jersey | 9.3 million | 78,700 | 4,109 th. | 361.8 th. | $33,360 | $35,306 | $68,666 | $24.8 B | 10% | 65% |
| 12 | Virginia | 8.7 million | 68,211 | 3,873 th. | 333.5 th. | $24,346 | $30,845 | $55,192 | $18.4 B | 12% | 114% |
| 13 | Massachusetts | 7.0 million | 84,945 | 3,566 th. | 296.6 th. | $37,989 | $37,978 | $75,967 | $22.5 B | 11% | 110% |
| 14 | Washington | 7.8 million | 75,698 | 3,405 th. | 286.4 th. | $28,380 | $34,683 | $63,063 | $18.1 B | 10% | 115% |
| 15 | Tennessee | 7.1 million | 58,279 | 3,122 th. | 283.5 th. | $21,070 | $27,362 | $48,431 | $13.7 B | 12% | 125% |
| 16 | Arizona | 7.4 million | 56,667 | 3,032 th. | 276.0 th. | $17,394 | $26,767 | $44,161 | $12.2 B | 13% | 194% |
| 17 | Indiana | 6.8 million | 57,930 | 3,090 th. | 270.4 th. | $22,242 | $26,652 | $48,894 | $13.2 B | 12% | 151% |
| 18 | Missouri | 6.2 million | 56,551 | 2,820 th. | 249.0 th. | $28,289 | $26,548 | $54,837 | $13.7 B | 12% | 212% |
| 19 | Minnesota | 5.7 million | 68,010 | 2,827 th. | 248.8 th. | $36,878 | $30,817 | $67,695 | $16.8 B | 11% | 87% |
| 20 | Wisconsin | 5.9 million | 61,210 | 2,818 th. | 247.9 th. | $20,336 | $28,254 | $48,590 | $12.1 B | 13% | 145% |
| 21 | Colorado | 5.8 million | 74,167 | 2,766 th. | 243.0 th. | $24,412 | $32,595 | $57,007 | $13.9 B | 13% | 153% |
| 22 | Maryland | 6.2 million | 70,730 | 2,640 th. | 224.4 th. | $25,859 | $32,248 | $58,107 | $13.0 B | 12% | 206% |
| 23 | South Carolina | 5.3 million | 53,320 | 2,152 th. | 193.9 th. | $14,155 | $25,071 | $39,225 | $7.6 B | 14% | 232% |
| 24 | Alabama | 5.1 million | 50,637 | 2,004 th. | 178.0 th. | $14,893 | $23,848 | $38,742 | $6.9 B | 13% | 203% |
| 25 | Kentucky | 4.5 million | 52,109 | 1,899 th. | 170.0 th. | $21,154 | $24,354 | $45,508 | $7.7 B | 12% | 145% |
| 26 | Oregon | 4.2 million | 62,767 | 1,897 th. | 165.2 th. | $21,550 | $28,366 | $49,916 | $8.3 B | 13% | 213% |
| 27 | Utah | 3.4 million | 57,925 | 1,627 th. | 152.4 th. | $19,155 | $26,301 | $45,456 | $6.9 B | 13% | 269% |
| 28 | Louisiana | 4.6 million | 54,622 | 1,848 th. | 151.7 th. | $22,923 | $26,383 | $49,306 | $7.5 B | 12% | 301% |
| 29 | Oklahoma | 4.0 million | 54,998 | 1,605 th. | 142.2 th. | $15,615 | $26,192 | $41,807 | $5.9 B | 11% | 96% |
| 30 | Connecticut | 3.6 million | 84,972 | 1,632 th. | 142.0 th. | $29,412 | $37,901 | $67,313 | $9.6 B | 10% | 66% |
| 31 | Iowa | 3.2 million | 58,905 | 1,520 th. | 130.3 th. | $19,454 | $27,273 | $46,728 | $6.1 B | 13% | 192% |
| 32 | Kansas | 2.9 million | 60,152 | 1,380 th. | 123.3 th. | $20,192 | $28,512 | $48,704 | $6.0 B | 13% | 167% |
| 33 | Nevada | 3.2 million | 61,282 | 1,412 th. | 114.6 th. | $11,765 | $28,402 | $40,167 | $4.6 B | 9% | 170% |
| 34 | Arkansas | 3.1 million | 51,787 | 1,231 th. | 102.8 th. | $25,068 | $24,376 | $49,445 | $5.1 B | 10% | 90% |
| 35 | Mississippi | 2.9 million | 46,248 | 1,132 th. | 94.2 th. | $10,941 | $22,383 | $33,323 | $3.1 B | 12% | 179% |
| 36 | Nebraska | 2.0 million | 63,321 | 971 th. | 83.0 th. | $21,511 | $29,363 | $50,874 | $4.2 B | 11% | 61% |
| 37 | New Mexico | 2.1 million | 51,500 | 819 th. | 71.3 th. | $11,225 | $24,342 | $35,567 | $2.5 B | 13% | 475% |
| 38 | Idaho | 1.9 million | 54,537 | 797 th. | 69.3 th. | $16,377 | $25,325 | $41,702 | $2.9 B | 12% | 151% |
| 39 | District of Columbia | 0.7 million | 96,728 | 690 th. | 61.7 th. | $44,047 | $43,020 | $87,067 | $5.4 B | 11% | 98% |
| 40 | New Hampshire | 1.4 million | 74,663 | 659 th. | 60.6 th. | $15,825 | $35,016 | $50,841 | $3.1 B | 15% | 188% |
| 41 | West Virginia | 1.8 million | 49,169 | 678 th. | 55.3 th. | $12,458 | $23,412 | $35,870 | $2.0 B | 13% | 276% |
| 42 | Maine | 1.4 million | 59,463 | 611 th. | 51.3 th. | $16,292 | $28,054 | $44,346 | $2.3 B | 13% | 199% |
| 43 | Hawaii | 1.4 million | 61,175 | 595 th. | 47.3 th. | $17,544 | $28,871 | $46,415 | $2.2 B | 10% | 233% |
| 44 | Rhode Island | 1.1 million | 65,377 | 479 th. | 41.8 th. | $31,817 | $30,290 | $62,107 | $2.6 B | 11% | 68% |
| 45 | Delaware | 1.0 million | 61,387 | 456 th. | 40.8 th. | $40,340 | $28,168 | $68,507 | $2.8 B | 8% | 64% |
| 46 | Montana | 1.1 million | 57,719 | 490 th. | 40.5 th. | $17,214 | $27,486 | $44,700 | $1.8 B | 12% | 304% |
| 47 | South Dakota | 0.9 million | 65,806 | 435 th. | 39.3 th. | $13,425 | $31,774 | $45,199 | $1.8 B | 11% | 387% |
| 48 | North Dakota | 0.8 million | 66,184 | 406 th. | 32.9 th. | $14,713 | $31,377 | $46,090 | $1.5 B | 11% | 217% |
| 49 | Alaska | 0.7 million | 68,919 | 306 th. | 25.5 th. | $14,491 | $32,758 | $47,249 | $1.2 B | 13% | 213% |
| 50 | Vermont | 0.7 million | 63,206 | 293 th. | 24.2 th. | $17,309 | $30,148 | $47,457 | $1.2 B | 11% | 267% |
| 51 | Wyoming | 0.6 million | 71,342 | 268 th. | 21.2 th. | $10,096 | $33,638 | $43,734 | $0.9 B | 9% | 431% |
| Jobs-at-risk, by sector (thousands of persons) | Potential cost to system | Future of taxation | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Country | | | |  |  |  | | | | | | | |
| 1 | United States | 333.3 million | 76,360 | 147,886 th. | 90.7 th. | 1,945.5 th. | 10,901.4 th. | 12,856.5 th. | $26,851 | $32,806 | $59,658 | $767.0 B | 11.1% | 127.5% |
| 2 | Japan | 125.5 million | 46,768 | 67,124 th. | 88.2 th. | 1,221.3 th. | 4,675.2 th. | 5,886.8 th. | $14,570 | $13,123 | $27,692 | $163.0 B | 9.9% | 76.6% |
| 3 | Mexico | 129.0 million | 20,931 | 55,166 th. | 286.4 th. | 1,112.6 th. | 3,699.2 th. | 5,010.0 th. | $1,459 | $1,485 | $2,944 | $14.8 B | 6.8% | 33.1% |
| 4 | Germany | 83.2 million | 64,146 | 41,500 th. | 22.3 th. | 883.6 th. | 3,192.3 th. | 4,066.3 th. | $26,160 | $13,952 | $40,112 | $163.1 B | 9.7% | 162.4% |
| 5 | United Kingdom | 67.4 million | 55,378 | 32,407 th. | 10.6 th. | 416.2 th. | 2,804.5 th. | 3,223.6 th. | $16,004 | $15,011 | $31,014 | $100.0 B | 9.3% | 118.0% |
| 6 | France | 67.7 million | 55,698 | 27,728 th. | 30.5 th. | 413.6 th. | 2,275.9 th. | 2,690.9 th. | $27,955 | $12,141 | $40,096 | $107.9 B | 8.1% | 143.5% |
| 7 | South Korea | 51.7 million | 50,897 | 27,273 th. | 64.4 th. | 524.8 th. | 2,061.4 th. | 2,632.5 th. | $8,147 | $8,745 | $16,892 | $44.5 B | 8.2% | 63.9% |
| 8 | Turkey | 84.1 million | 34,945 | 28,827 th. | 209.0 th. | 608.1 th. | 1,688.5 th. | 2,481.2 th. | $2,722 | $3,335 | $6,058 | $15.0 B | 8.0% | 74.5% |
| 9 | Italy | 59.1 million | 52,461 | 22,554 th. | 37.0 th. | 480.2 th. | 1,662.3 th. | 2,136.9 th. | $23,106 | $10,717 | $33,823 | $72.3 B | 7.9% | 178.7% |
| 10 | Colombia | 51.6 million | 20,134 | 20,392 th. | 136.2 th. | 337.4 th. | 1,498.3 th. | 1,930.9 th. | $551 | $3,379 | $3,930 | $7.6 B | 12.3% | 52.2% |
| 11 | Spain | 47.3 million | 46,748 | 19,774 th. | 32.7 th. | 314.0 th. | 1,606.4 th. | 1,923.9 th. | $16,205 | $9,200 | $25,405 | $48.9 B | 8.9% | 126.8% |
| 12 | Poland | 38.2 million | 43,606 | 16,656 th. | 58.1 th. | 394.9 th. | 1,074.7 th. | 1,506.5 th. | $7,748 | $5,597 | $13,346 | $20.1 B | 8.0% | 112.6% |
| 13 | Canada | 38.2 million | 57,008 | 18,865 th. | 2.5 th. | 229.9 th. | 1,468.4 th. | 1,471.2 th. | $18,666 | $15,367 | $34,034 | $50.1 B | 7.6% | 64.3% |
| 14 | Australia | 25.7 million | 68,701 | 13,065 th. | 12.7 th. | 184.9 th. | 1,132.2 th. | 1,329.8 th. | $14,964 | $17,915 | $32,879 | $43.7 B | 10.3% | 54.5% |
| 15 | Netherlands | 17.5 million | 70,966 | 9,282 th. | 7.6 th. | 100.9 th. | 826.9 th. | 931.0 th. | $23,807 | $13,409 | $37,216 | $34.6 B | 8.6% | 87.4% |
| 16 | Chile | 19.7 million | 30,266 | 8,303 th. | 23.6 th. | 146.8 th. | 645.0 th. | 801.3 th. | $1,366 | $4,967 | $6,332 | $5.1 B | 7.2% | 42.1% |
| 17 | Sweden | 10.4 million | 65,209 | 5,120 th. | 4.1 th. | 68.7 th. | 442.1 th. | 512.4 th. | $30,575 | $11,780 | $42,355 | $21.7 B | 8.0% | 113.2% |
| 18 | Belgium | 11.6 million | 65,818 | 4,854 th. | 1.9 th. | 73.4 th. | 408.9 th. | 479.9 th. | $29,856 | $13,612 | $43,468 | $20.9 B | 8.3% | 92.0% |
| 19 | Czech Republic | 10.5 million | 49,957 | 5,213 th. | 5.5 th. | 146.0 th. | 330.0 th. | 474.2 th. | $10,587 | $7,545 | $18,132 | $8.6 B | 9.0% | 94.2% |
| 20 | Portugal | 10.3 million | 42,339 | 4,812 th. | 5.7 th. | 92.8 th. | 366.8 th. | 458.9 th. | $9,176 | $8,183 | $17,359 | $8.0 B | 8.9% | 130.1% |
| 21 | Switzerland | 8.7 million | 82,390 | 4,684 th. | 4.6 th. | 72.5 th. | 379.5 th. | 453.0 th. | $26,736 | $34,529 | $61,265 | $27.8 B | 12.2% | 113.4% |
| 22 | Hungary | 9.7 million | 42,665 | 4,642 th. | 8.7 th. | 114.3 th. | 321.8 th. | 439.0 th. | $6,443 | $4,645 | $11,087 | $4.9 B | 7.8% | 231.0% |
| 23 | Austria | 9.0 million | 68,664 | 4,306 th. | 6.6 th. | 89.5 th. | 329.6 th. | 423.3 th. | $31,067 | $14,276 | $45,343 | $19.2 B | 9.2% | 144.9% |
| 24 | Greece | 10.7 million | 37,212 | 3,928 th. | 19.5 th. | 50.4 th. | 321.1 th. | 386.4 th. | $9,348 | $6,145 | $15,494 | $6.0 B | 7.1% | 259.4% |
| 25 | Israel | 9.4 million | 49,189 | 3,957 th. | 1.3 th. | 47.0 th. | 330.9 th. | 375.6 th. | $16,079 | $16,393 | $32,472 | $12.2 B | 7.7% | 69.5% |
| 26 | Denmark | 5.9 million | 74,962 | 2,900 th. | 2.7 th. | 43.6 th. | 240.6 th. | 285.1 th. | $34,189 | $14,152 | $48,341 | $13.8 B | 7.4% | 92.2% |
| 27 | Norway | 5.4 million | 95,027 | 2,798 th. | 2.6 th. | 40.1 th. | 224.5 th. | 265.2 th. | $35,368 | $14,709 | $50,077 | $13.3 B | 6.5% | 28.2% |
| 28 | Ireland | 5.0 million | 128,343 | 2,389 th. | 4.3 th. | 37.3 th. | 205.8 th. | 245.7 th. | $20,918 | $14,150 | $35,068 | $8.6 B | 8.1% | 47.4% |
| 29 | Finland | 5.5 million | 59,808 | 2,573 th. | 4.1 th. | 42.7 th. | 199.7 th. | 244.7 th. | $28,741 | $13,232 | $41,973 | $10.3 B | 8.0% | 127.9% |
| 30 | Slovakia | 5.4 million | 37,359 | 2,561 th. | 2.8 th. | 71.8 th. | 167.9 th. | 240.2 th. | $8,818 | $6,397 | $15,215 | $3.7 B | 8.9% | 104.0% |
| 31 | New Zealand | 5.1 million | 52,242 | 2,790 th. | 4.1 th. | 33.3 th. | 179.3 th. | 216.7 th. | $12,589 | $12,337 | $24,926 | $5.4 B | 6.3% | 0.4341 |
| 32 | Costa Rica | 5.2 million | 24,484 | 2,040 th. | 12.6 th. | 32.5 th. | 151.9 th. | 192.2 th. | $3,493 | $3,404 | $6,897 | $1.3 B | 8.5% | 82.6% |
| 33 | Lithuania | 2.8 million | 49,235 | 1,369 th. | 3.3 th. | 28.2 th. | 103.6 th. | 133.6 th. | $8,653 | $7,672 | $16,324 | $2.2 B | 10.1% | 155.2% |
| 34 | Slovenia | 2.1 million | 50,713 | 972 th. | 1.8 th. | 23.2 th. | 68.1 th. | 91.6 th. | $13,944 | $7,872 | $21,816 | $2.0 B | 8.6% | 165.9% |
| 35 | Latvia | 1.9 million | 40,685 | 870 th. | 2.5 th. | 16.3 th. | 65.6 th. | 83.6 th. | $7,271 | $6,022 | $13,293 | $1.1 B | 9.2% | 369.0% |
| 36 | Estonia | 1.3 million | 47,721 | 654 th. | 0.7 th. | 14.9 th. | 49.4 th. | 64.6 th. | $10,431 | $7,399 | $17,830 | $1.2 B | 9.2% | 191.4% |
Our study sets out to evaluate the prospective influence of Large Language Model (LLM) based chatbot technologies on labour markets in OECD nations, and the subsequent effects on taxation structures. This exploration is articulated through three key dimensions: Jobs-at-risk, the potential cost to the system, and the future of taxation.
By "Job-at-risk", we do not consider complete replacement of an occupation by an AI worker, but rather the opportunity for companies to trim workforces as a result of productivity increases resulting from the use of LLM-based chatbot technologies.
We consider productivity gains from LLM-based chatbot technologies with the following characteristics:
We do not consider the following developments that may be coming to the field:
The model is driven by an evaluation of productivity gains on the tasks core to each occupation, as defined by the occupation database ONET, given these assumptions. The productivity gains for the tasks were averaged for each occupation, weighted by the importance of the task per the ONET database, giving an aggregate productivity increase; and then converted to a redundancy percentage.
The final jobs at risk was estimated based on occupation/industry matrices for each country. These matrixes were estimated using the US occupation/industry mix as a model; ILO estimated breakdowns of employment by industry were multiplied with the equivalent US occupation by industry matrix achieving an estimated occupation/industry matrix for each OECD country. The final total number of employed persons per occupation per industry was multiplied by the redundancy percentage for each occupation.
To estimate the potential cost to the tax system as a result of redundancies, we combined both lost tax revenues due to loss of employment with the cost of supporting redundant workers.
As Universal Basic Income has been proposed as a solution to the existential threat of AI on labour markets, we took the approach of using the Universal Basic Income regime proposed by ILO to estimate the cost of supporting redundant workers.
In the scenario considered in this study is limited to the use of LLM advancements to trim workforces–it ignores the potential for higher quality services and new services and industries altogether–the benefit of LLM is solely concentrated to the bottom line of corporations. Therefore, we present the required increase in corporate tax revenues in each country should tax systems *only* seek to cover the potential cost to the system through corporate tax increases. This increase is compared to the increase in overall tax revenues should the potential cost to the system be carried by tax revenue increases across the board.
The 2022 population of the country, in millions of persons.
Source: OECD
The 2022 Gross domestic product per capita, in 2022 exchange rate US Dollars.
Source: OECD
The total number of employed persons (full-time or part-time) in the country in 2022, in thousands of persons.
Source: OECD
The total number of jobs at risk of being made redundant due to productivity increases due to LLM-based chatbot technologies, in thousands of persons. Estimates are provided on a sector basis, per the North American Industry Classification Standard.
Sources: ILO, ONET, ChatGPT (See methodology notes above)
The annual value of lost tax revenues for each worker due to redundancy, assuming new employment is not found. Includes income taxes, payroll taxes and compulsory social contributions.
Calculated as total tax 2022 tax revenues from income, payroll and social contributions divided by *Employed Persons*.
Sources: OECD
Per the ILO proposal of a minimum viable universal income, the base universal income in rich countries should be set to 50% of the median disposable income in the country. Using available OECD data, the universal income is calculated as 50% of the average disposable household income per capita.
Sources: OECD
The sum of *Estimated average cost of universal income, per person* and *Estimated lost tax revenues due to unemployment, per person*.
The product of the *Estimated total cost to system, per person* and total *Jobs-at-risk*, giving the total annual potential cost to the system under the assumption that:
The % increase in required total tax revenues in order to absorb *Total potential cost to system*, assuming:
Sources: OECD
The % increase in required total corporate revenues in order to absorb *Total potential cost to system*, assuming:
Sources: OECD