	Underneath the topic of Employment and Workplace from Section II of Stanfords 100 Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI), it is asserted that 
AI would have a profound effect on human employment. Notably, it claims that by replacing tasks and creating new jobs, AI would eventually reduce human 
labor and thereby decrease the cost of goods and services. In doing so, it would cause losses in the human labor job market while lending focus towards 
intellectual fields. The report states that a political action is required to put safety nets in place to protect from changes in the human labor market, 
as opposed to purely economic actions. I challenge this point that seemingly places emphasis on a social safety net for the long run, as I feel that in 
addition to a guaranteed income being a viable solution, solely implementing a social safety net would not take into consideration all of the problems 
that may come with the issue.
	The report states that as AI becomes increasingly prevalent in labor, the economical value of labor for most people may not be enough to sustain 
an acceptable standard of living. To protect people from such economic shifts, the report suggests evolving the social safety net to ensure higher quality 
social services for everyone in the long term, such as better healthcare, education, or guaranteed incomes.
	The report suggests that with AI taking some of the human-operated jobs, newer occupations would open  though the form of such new openings remains 
unclear. However, as AI has been, and is being, developed to a point where it becomes the standard for labor, it is not unreasonable to assume that AI would 
eventually take up other jobs, including the new occupations that would supposedly come up. Thus, in the long term, it is fair to assert that there would not 
be much merit in investing in higher education for the purpose of training people into occupations. Instead, it might be more effective to incorporate 
guaranteed incomes for all populations, and encourage people to instead pursue their dreams or human qualities. Naturally, this would presume that technology 
is readily available to most, if not all, of the human population, and that AI is near the point where they can readily substitute human employees.
	Even when just assuming AI progresses as far as labor, increasing healthcare or education would not necessarily provide jobs for the workers who lose 
their jobs, but rather as a preventive measure for future employment. Considering that their skills lied in physical work, it would be fair to claim that such 
people would have difficulty finding employment in a field encompassed by intellectual capital  even if positions were available  or that their skills would 
align with the supposedly new jobs that spring up  given that it would be unlikely for these to overlap with the AIs workload. There would also be some 
problems concerning taxes and aid funding. Therefore, while implementing a social safety net may certainly be solid solution in the long term, implementing 
economical solutions first may be necessary to make the implementation of such a net accepted by a wide populace. Additionally, technology would have to first 
reach a level of cost and resource consumption that allows for equal and ready consumption across the global human population. Human labor would remain a viable 
option in developing areas that have not yet implemented technology in their infrastructure.
	In short, in addition to implementing a socially-minded solution, it would also be beneficial to also consider the solution from an economic perspective 
as well as the problems that would result from the issue.
