The Future And Affordability: Why We Need A Human Movement

My whole career has been about empowering people to create more human workplaces, and helping companies find the best talent. With the deep belief that people are an organization’s greatest resource, I study the policies and trends that are shaping the labor force. Between rapid developments in AI, shifting government policies, and global unrest, I think it’s important to deeply examine how we got to where we are today, and then put action steps in place to create sustainability for business and the workforce at large.

That’s why I’ll be diving into the workforce, business, and economic trends that are shaping how people work and how they support themselves and their families here on Substack. First I’ll focus on affordability. America won’t remain a world superpower if a majority of our citizens are worried about paying for food and rent. Affordability may be the fiscal buzzword for 2026, being a top concern for Americans with a record 55% of people saying their finances are getting worse, according to a recent Gallup poll. High costs of living—including rising costs for energy, housing, and healthcare were listed as the top issues facing Americans. One big factor is that wage growth is not keeping up with inflation.

Worries about not being able to pay for essentials such as rent, food, and gas may be impacting Americans’ long-term life decisions, such as whether or not to go to college or have kids or to retire. With birth rates reaching a record low and widening wealth inequality (the richest 1% of households in the U.S. racked up almost 1,000 times more wealth than the poorest 20% over the last three and a half decades, finds a report by Oxfam).

It’s time for innovative fiscal policies that don’t so heavily rely on tax funding paid by our increasingly cash-strapped citizens. We must find ways to reduce costs, generate new revenue streams, and create more abundance for everyone, not just the rich. Here are some ideas on how to do that.

Right now there is a money transfer happening from the young to the old, driven largely by economic policies such as mortgage tax deductions that tend to benefit older people and government policies such as Social Security that transfers money from younger workers to retired people. Scott Galloway talks a lot about this, and how if we want to protect our future, we need to reverse the direction of the wealth transfer. This means we can’t just give tax cuts at the top to those who worked the last 30 years and not set up the next generation to be able to take care of themselves financially. Motivation and innovation starts with economic opportunity. That’s why fair capitalism—not crony capitalism—always trumps socialism.

Part of the tax policy should be incentivizing people to pass money to their adult children earlier in life. For example, if I transfer 30% of my wealth before my children turn 50 years old instead of waiting until I die, I get a bigger tax break. So parents have the ability to help their kids earlier when they are building their financial future and the wealth transfer starts to reverse.

We need to be able to replace our population so we have enough workers (a.k.a. tax payers) to help support aging populations. Currently, the birth rate is dropping below replacement levels.

If we want to have a competitive economy, we need to incentivize people to have kids by making it affordable. Doing so is also good for business. America is the only developed country without a federal paid family leave policy. Childcare is largely unaffordable for many, or isn’t available at all due to childcare deserts. Fertility treatments aren’t mandated to be covered by insurance in many states.

Some places to start are to finally pass federal paid family leave for both men and women. Only about 27% of workers have access to paid family leave through their employers, according to Forbes. Similar to how Nordic countries enforce a “use it or lose it” policy, America should enforce that people actually use their leave so that women aren’t penalized for taking leave if men do not. This will keep more people in the workforce while also encouraging higher birth rates.

Another way to incentivize people to have babies and return to the workforce is to move toward universal childcare care, such as offering universal pre-k. Places to watch: This year New Mexico became the first state to offer free universal childcare care without income limits. San Francisco and New York are now offering free universal childcare to help retain their residents and make having children more affordable in these cities.

Family planning and fertility costs should be made more affordable, too. Currently at least a dozen states have mandates requiring private insurance coverage for fertility care such as IVF, but it varies by state. Requiring this nationally could open access for more people struggling with infertility to seek care.

Finally, if we want more people to have babies to increase the population, we also have to care for those children until they’re 18 so they can become productive members of society. As I wrote in a previous LinkedIn article, if one truly cares about increasing the birth rate, then we should put the infrastructure in place to support those babies that are being born. We have to be about making sure the child is provided for throughout their childhood (healthcare, food, housing, affordable childcare, education, and love) to reduce the risk of mental health issues, and increase the chance that the child becomes a contributing adult in society, etc. This is how we will build a procreation economy.

Social security is currently not working for us to be able to rely on it, because social security is a bet on the future but people aren’t procreating.

At the same time, AI advancements may mean that our economic models may drastically change, as I noted in another article here on Substack. There is all this talk about abundance and Universal Basic Income (UBI). Andrew Yang, 2020 presidential candidate, was one of the first to introduce the idea of UBI as a solution to the belief that AI is going to replace jobs by offering every American a monthly stipend, regardless of employment status. It would work by taxing the companies who are creating the tech that is replacing humans’ jobs. It’s a smart idea, but taxes are never a popular idea.

It’s time to create what I call “the human movement,” where people can choose to allow companies to track their data or movements as much or as little as they want. In return, they are then compensated for sharing their data that benefits the tech companies. Think about it: Tech companies already make a lot of money from us by tracking our data, and we don’t really have a choice in this matter. (Sure, you may “agree” to a software update on your iPhone, but is it really a choice if not agreeing to the terms means you can’t use your cell?)

The time should be over for companies to monetize your data without offering you a real choice. Rather than extract our data for free in perpetuity, the idea behind the “human movement” is that big tech companies such as Meta, Anthropic, and Google will need to pay you for your data.

I say expand this idea of UBI where if you take UBI, you’re also committing to a certain tax rate. For all the companies who are making a lot of money off our data, those same companies need us to be solvent to sell us products and services. UBI is inflationary, which makes things more expensive. This isn’t about UBI, it’s about spending power. This isn’t about the dollar you get; it’s about how much that dollar can buy you. So UBI would reduce that. So the ‘free money’ is not so free. Think about it, this is not about charity. If we say that every human life has value, this is a way for individuals to capture their own value and be productive members of society.

We already do this today in some areas. For example, if I want to perform clinical trials, I will pay people to participate so I can collect statistics and data from those participants. We don’t just perform clinical trials on people without allowing them to opt in and compensating them for their participation. Why do we let tech companies extract from us for free?

Innovation happens when there is an opportunity to make money, but the humans who are helping companies innovate deserve to get a cut of the pie. If we want to solve more human issues, we have to pay people so we innovate faster.

I’d love to hear your thoughts: What are your ideas on how we can make the future more affordable and the economy stronger in the longer term, not just the short term?