I wonder if UBI might be an admittedly dark and cynical way to facilitate a possible AI transition. If e.g. full self driving for trucks is perfected in the US within the next three years and more than six million truckers loose their job at once, there is realistically no way to retrain this cohort. Using taxes on AI revenue to facilitate (somewhat universal) BI for that group, together with very liberal drug policies might keep social peace. Granted, not a satisfying live, but preferable to the alternatives...
What could possibly by dark and cynical about that? This is the only way we can possibly deal with mass unemployment.
Also, 6 million people forced to spend their waking lives driving trucks is not a good thing. The thing that's good about that is the income they get from it. If we create enough wealth to give them the income without the truck driving... We won? That's the goal here. That's what the economy is _for_. Employment is the way the economy has always achieved that, but it doesn't meant employment is the goal, it's a means to an end.
how about retraining people to give them skills the world actually needs. education, healthcare, child and elderly care.
art and entertainment.
also science, research. as much as LLMs are able to do here, they can't do everything. and even with LLMs the more people we have doing research the faster we can progress technologically and also socially.
the real question is, who is going to make these investments?
Your point is optimistic and consistent, I won't criticize it.
But you should know that it's a fairly narrow, political, and controversial thing to say that the purpose of the economy is to support people during unemployment crises. In fact it's so axiomatic that I really think it's worth calling out as part of the assumed solution not an obvious and foundational truth.
I didn't mean its job is to mitigate employment crises I meant its job is to give people (everyone) income/wealth.
I accept a significant amount of conditionality here - it's cool that people can get rich and live materially better lives by doing stuff that creates more wealth overall. But this is completely subordinate to the goal of making everyone's life better, i.e. I accept it exactly to the extent that "a rising tide lifts all boats". It seems the rising tide of AI may not automatically lift all boats though.
Anyway yeah your point stands, I realise this is not something everyone automatically believes. I'm phrasing it like a statement of fact just because I believe it so strongly.
It’s not the purpose of the economy, it’s the purpose of civilization.
What makes us different than most types of animals is that we’re capable of supporting the less fortunate members of our species even through life-threatening situations.
I remember some archeologist saying that the first sign of civilization is not some tool or whatever but a healed fractured bone. That means the person that got hurt was cared for by other people who had enough resources to afford for one useless member of the group.
But don't assume it's without its own controversy. Maybe the point of civilization is to allow people to help eachother by providing safeguards against treachery.
Maybe they should be forced to help eachother under threat of violence. There's a massive spectrum of "solutions" between those two, and UBI could be considered pretty close to forcing, depending on how it's implemented.
It's not pedantry or technicalities, a lasting system needs to benefit people and support / build shared principles. Ideally it'd support the principles that enabled it in the first place.
The purpose of civilisation (or rather, why it exists in first place) is that “civilized” peoples managed to survive longer and reproduce more and produce better means to take over the land of those who didn’t adopt technology.
Now we are going to see if there is a limit or not. Or if AI changes the game (the dystopian end game is a small amount of people controlling all the production and getting rid of the rest by one way or another)
The optimistic "another" way is that anyone whose job is now obsolete finds a new job. Ideally within the same company.
(if you live in places with healthy worker protections, a company can't just fire someone, they need reasonable grounds; bar that, they need to first try and place them somewhere else in the company, and if that doesn't work, firing involves paying a severance fee. In an ideal and morally correct situation anyway, in practice they'll use dodgy corporate structures to bankrupt companies before paying or retraining anyone)
Assuming the company still gets some value from them. France has good worker protections but you can always just close shop. (And move elsewhere).
Another optimistic look is that there might just be more work, that otherwise would not be done.
For example we always complain about AAA games coming out riddled with bugs, now we have an opportunity to cut a significant portion of that if we also keep the workforce. Same with administrative tasks that take forever because it’s one person filing it for the whole country etc.
> If we create enough wealth to give them the income without the truck driving... We won? That's the goal here. That's what the economy is _for_.
Assuming such wealth is created by the autonomous trucks replacing said drivers, for the same number of trucks, that would mean we now have to pay for 1 autonomous truck + 1 idle driver. This is more expensive than a regular truck driven by someone.
So either the number of truck increase dramatically or the replaced truckers find another value-creating occupation (or both).
I only skimmed the article but this doesn’t seem to say that loving itself creates value. This value is based on the expected earnings someone will still have in their life because it assumes the person will work. If you have a person that will live off UBI from the rest of their life, that’s not the case.
On the contrary, since truckers also mostly all own guns, they have a lot of political leverage. Everyone knows this; in the US at least. Andrew Wang stated as much in a cnbc interview a few months ago.
If humans lost economic leverage (no jobs) but kept military leverage (usefulness as soldiers), that'd probably be utopia. We could all be a leisure class like the aristocrats of the past, and could defend that state of affairs.
Unfortunately we aren't in that world. AI+robots will deprive humans of both economic and military leverage. Most likely, powerful "blobs" of a few owner humans + a lot of automation will inherit the Earth and kick most humans to the curb.
>On the contrary, since truckers also mostly all own guns, they have a lot of political leverage. Everyone knows this; in the US at least.
What everyone knows is that American gun owners voted in the system that's eating them alive and that they don't care as long as that system doesn't touch their guns.
So they can just keep shooting watermelons in their backyards and being keyboard warriors on the internet, for as much as their "leverage" matters.
Some trucking is warehouse to warehouse, but a lot of trucking is warehouse to point or point to point where the points are building without a loading dock, or specialized equipment is required to load unload; fork lifts, conveyer systems etc. ok your truck can drive, if 50% of deliveries or pickup’s require a human, what is the gain? Surely there are workarounds like Uber for forklifts, but that’s “extra” capability that doesn’t exist yet.
> Using taxes on AI revenue to facilitate
This why Altman et al talk about taxing ai agents. Then they aren’t paying for it, but their customers are. We should all keep in mind that the oligarchs have never willing shared the benefit of decades of productivity gains. Why would they now?
It seems like truck drivers don’t do the unloading job you’re talking about. The receiving company does it.
That’s not always the case, I know that small trucks like plumbing supply houses, hardware stores, and sod companies will pull the pallet from the truck for you, but I would guess that isn’t typically for your average 18-wheeler.
Somewhere it doesn't occur to you that most people have other skills than doing exactly their day job at a basic level? And that skills can be transfered to other occupations?
Just like a programmer can switch between programming languages without having to re-learn all basic concepts of computing, so people with other occupations can transfer a large part of their knowledge to other sectors.
But that can be hard to grasp in a world where every person is either a supremely intelligent hacker or a trucker or "welder and pipe fitter and whatnot".
Please provide a few examples of what a knowledge worker can switch to and maintain even half of their income under the present scenario where all knowledge workers are (or soon will be) struggling to compete with LLMs?
I don't think many people consider working as a McD's cashier to be their career though - besides managers, do they employ anyone over 25? Do any cashiers stay in that role for more than a few years or do they get promoted?
I was thinking that everyone would suddenly become a "truck driver" overnight, just so they can sign up for the free money.
We need to keep in mind the scope and scale of the environments in which this UBI experiment is being tried in.
The temporary success or failure of the UBI experiment seems entirely dependent on whether the country is a major currency, a manufacturing base, a service oriented economy, etc, etc, etc. and it doesn't seem likely to work for everyone, or for any individual small nation for an indefinite period of time.
> there is realistically no way to retrain this cohort. [truck drivers]
I disagree. They had to attend class and pass a test to get a CDL. They were trained to drive a truck, they can be trained to perform another task. Truck drivers are not lobotomized.
> I was thinking that everyone would suddenly become a "truck driver" overnight, just so they can sign up for the free money.
The U in UBI stands for universal. That means that former truck drivers (aka the unemployed) get it but also everyone else to include CEOs making millions. The expectation is that those with other income will give back their UBI and then some via taxes.
This is better than policies that create stupid incentives like in your example.
I think these small scale experiments have value, and that its part of the process of adapting to our environment.
What I can say with absolute confidence is, the post Bretton-Woods financial system promoted by my government, the only one I know, has increased wealth inequality spectacularly, and I expect any changes to the system to continue this trend.
And thats why I want to grow onions. I can eat them. They keep vampires away.
I don't have a problem with UBI either, but my point was that if it's not universal, it's not UBI. It's targeted welfare. And imo this is a bad idea because:
1) it creates dumb incentives
2) it gives the govt more levers they can pull, which leads to more corruption and worse outcomes
> I disagree. They had to attend class and pass a test to get a CDL. They were trained to drive a truck, they can be trained to perform another task. Truck drivers are not lobotomized.
I don't think the difficulty is with the drivers, more with the logistics of retraining them all at once. As a cohort they came up through their class and training nicely spread out over, what, a 40 year period? Making sure there are that many training spaces for other trades over a much more condensed period is non-trivial.
> I don't think the difficulty is with the drivers, more with the logistics of retraining them all at once.
The only events that happen "all at once" are in our heads as hypotheticals.
In the real world, every change takes time to propagate.
It stands to reason, all of the "experts" of the world are going to be in less demand than they were before, because some percentage of people, will replace them with AI, for some percentage of tasks.
Stated another way, each of us will be consulting with AI more, and assigning some number of tasks to a non-expert, with the help of expertise from AI, and talking to human experts less frequently.
Interactions will decrease in frequency. In the commercial space, this means transactions will decrease in number and amount. This is "bad" for everyone, in the financial sense. Corporations lose revenues, governments lose revenues, employees get pay cuts, etc.
But downward trajectories on financial charts have been a problem for every fiat based economy we know of, long before AI came into the picture. The only thing people universally agree upon when sales, taxes, salaries, etc start going down, is that "confusion" is the first response, followed shortly by "panic", followed by "doing something to fix it" followed by "pretending it worked, even if it didn't."
Maybe AI will teach the world what to do when the charts turn down instead of up.
Infinite growth doesn't exist in a closed ecosystem, and we arent expanding into space yet.
For decades magazines and other media have promoted the idea that some day, technology will relieve us of the base burden of existence, and free us to do all those wonderful leisure activities we enjoy.
Now that AI seems to be able to deliver on the promise, the thing we seem to fear the most is the deflation of our own egos.
A conversation with an AI agent carries as little as $0.00 transactional cost, with a few cents in electricity expense, after the small fixed capital outlay for the computer.
A conversation with a consultant costs $200 an hour, and benefits taxing authorities, gas stations, phone companies, etc etc etc.
Again, it stands to reason, if we replace an expensive form of communication, with one that is almost free, that people are going to use it, and all those "expenses" they save on, were someone elses income.
The end game ... most of us will adapt, and some of us will self destruct during that process, and in 1 or 2 generations, everything will be "normal" again, and AI will be taken for granted, and we'll all be worrying about the new crisis.
Lets all remember, "the economy" as studied by economists, is the study of human behavior at its core, and its generally agreed that the human animals greatest natural defense is its intelligence and ability to adapt to its environment.
Keep calm. Carry on. This isn't a scarcity problem. It's an abundance problem.
They aren't, but if you look at retraining programs in coal country, you don't see a whole lot of success. So, while I'm sure mass retraining is theoretically possible, do we examples of where it's actually worked?
Related point - if the truck drivers aren't where the new jobs are located, that doesn't work. We should subsidize their move (via increased taxes on AI or corporations or whatever) but like WV, we probably won't. Assuming they even want to move.
People in "coal country" who can't get a job in a mine, do something other than mining. Hunger is a powerful motivator.
A $10 a month cell phone plan is all it takes to get 24/7 access to all the worlds information, and AI's intelligent queries into it.
And yes, you will have millions who never learn how to use said information to their own benefit, but we've known for awhile that poverty is a behaviorial problem as much as it is a resource problem.
Maybe the companies firing people or shutting down operations somewhere aren’t properly motivated to successfully retrain the people they are replacing? Lets lock up the CEO without food until they come up with an acceptable solution. I hear hunger is a powerful motivator.
> Maybe the companies firing people or shutting down operations somewhere aren’t properly motivated to successfully retrain the people they are replacing?
No, at least not in the US.
A corporation has a primary fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.
Every promise ever made by a corporation to an employee or customer was just "so much bullshit, subject to change" in order to fulfill their legal obligation to the shareholders.
It's always been this way, no matter how many employees or workers actually believed said promises.
People still think the grocery store sells food as well, when the reality is that the nutrients are removed and sold elsewhere, reducing satiety, increasing sales due to intentional malnutrition.
And your doctor isn't sending you down the road to wellness when he prescribes you GLP1 antagonists instead of a proper diet and exercise.
The CEOs and boards who operated this way survived.
The ones who didn't, didn't.
I don't know how you are going to change the dynamic.
Any change will have to be approved by the powerful survivors, who know exactly how their behaviors have benefited them.
You're asking the king(s) to step down as king(s).
Accomplishing it historically has required force and rarely ended as planned.
But overall I agree with you, that if we are going to make a systemic change, the change should benefit those with the least, at the expense of those with the most, because that is a path towards equilibrium, not away from it as we have been progressing since the mid 70's.
And, AI may actually reduce the status of the wealthy the most, given, the more the individual can do for his/her self, the less we need a "corporate brain trust" to make a widget for us.
Economically, AI could play out to be the force that reduced the oligarchs to the same status as the common man.
Sure, let's blame the economically displaced, not the billionaires who displaced them. Giving some serious "she wore a short skirt and had it coming" vibes.
Jobs are not a zero sum equation. Six million unemployed workers, means six million units of production looking for an outlet that was not previously feasible due to a shortage of available labor
Will we say the same thing about the 4 million software jobs? When we're doing landscaping work in our 40s for 1/10 our past salary is that improved economic efficiency at its finest?
Sorry, spatial intelligence and embodiment is coming for those jobs too. But if you are making “a 10x salary” today then it’s probably a good idea to prepare for an early retirement. An opportunity never afforded to the old folks currently doing those 1x salary jobs.
Entirely defensible. My only caveat is that 100% automation is a myth that ignores second order effects. Labor prices change in response to demand, just like raw materials. Some jobs will be cheaper for people to do, and much of the "economy" might end up friends and family cooperation.
As a software engineer who is working on retiring to a small farm somewhere, I have no problem with the prospect of living on 10% of my former income, assuming, the other 90% of my income used to be spent on obtaining resources that I now can obtain for myself or no longer need.
In other words, if I can do more for myself, I require less interaction with commercial and governmental institutions.
Since money is a form of communication, if I am conducting fewer financial transactions because I am solving problems on my own, my standard of living doesn't necessarily decline with reduced income.
30 years ago, if you needed a one off plastic part by tomorrow, you were most likely simply screwed.
20 years ago, if you needed a one off plastic part by tomorrow, you could probably get it at a fairly high cost.
10 years ago, if you needed a one off plastic part by tomorrow, $10 worth of gas across town and back and you had your part for an affordable price.
The world never ended, people just adapted to the new environment.
Today, if you need a one off plastic part by tomorrow, you ask AI to crank out a 3D file, its in your hand in a few hours, and you crank out 4 more parts in the remaining time.
If the individual is more productive on his/her own, he/she will naturally conduct fewer commercial transactions with his/her neighbor or neighboring tribe, and the forces of supply and demand do exactly what we know they do.
Some numbers get smaller, some numbers get larger, and we all wake up tomorrow and eat breakfast.
Having food you can eat is wealth.
Having 100% of your time at your own command is wealth.
AI is doing what every politician promised, and none could deliver.
It just made everyone (potentially) wealthy.
And it will only get more interesting in the Confucious sense as more people realize this.
Dare I say it .... world peace ? ( dependency on others as a source of fear and insecurity -> AI reducing dependency to minimal amounts -> every individual confident and secure -> ego death -> world peace ... the presumed potential path )
Long term, sure, but those newly-feasible jobs don't pop into existence in a day, or even a year. Short term, they flood the labor market and suppress wages.
This doesn't sound terribly different from eg Alaska's Permanent Fund payouts? The main difference seems to be that PF payments fluctuate a lot, while the Marshalls plan seems to be a fixed, predictable sum.
It is very similar but works differently. Also the two programs do not have the same intent.
The US has a Compact of Free Assocation (COFA) with the Marshall Islands, which provides a lot of the funds for this. Versus Alaska where it is paid for by natural resource extraction. All that said, it is the government of the Marshall Islands making the decision to pay it out this way.
From the US point of view, this is a good program because it incentivizes people from the Marshall Islands to stay put rather than emigrate to the US mainland (which they have a right to do under the COFA).
>From the US point of view, this is a good program because it incentivizes people from the Marshall Islands to stay put rather than emigrate to the US mainland
Why is this a good thing? Naively, as an American citizen, I would rather have someone emigrate and work in America where they can provide additional labor to the mainland economy
The US is competing with China in the Pacific. Keeping those islands healthily populated by USA-sympathizers helps maintains overall US influence in the region.
Are you proposing that the best solution for the island and its native population for them to all emigrate to mainland US and leave the island chain exclusively to the US military?
My point had nothing to do with what the native population does on the island or what they may do for work, only that we didn't claim the island chain for the labor resources of the population (as insinuated by the comment I replied to).
My original comment (which, incidentally, did not insinuate that we claimed the island for labor resources. I have no idea where that came from.) was a question asking why the US government would want to discourage Marshall Islanders from emigrating to the US, as a matter of policy. I still don’t see a direct relationship between US defense interests in the region and deterring emigration.
> I would rather have someone emigrate and work in America where they can provide additional labor to the mainland economy
This is what I responded to. Whether the initial intent or not, it makes the case that we would be better off with the native population emigrating to the mainland and providing the economy with economic value.
While what's good for a tiny island might not be good for the gander, I like the attached cost analysis of a negative income tax. The author points out that this might be a more practical way to deliver a basic income, and more amenable to both sides of the argument.
And at more or less no greater cost than the welfare system at time of writing. I wonder how the numbers would shake out now?
No, to have negative income tax you need to set a baseline relative to which income tax is negative. E.g. your income tax is what you earn above 30k, positive or negative. Then if you earn 0 then b>0
It can be called whatever someone wants and it can be delivered various ways, but its still functionally the same thing.
Headlines latch on to the term UBI, and people largely are parrots so they argue about UBI specifically as well, but at the end of the day the question is whether its a good and sustainable idea for the government to decide what our basic necessities are then pay us so we can buy them.
You just mean food stamps, right? We already have that in the US.
I often see people in my area chest that program. I know when food stamps were sent out or refilled because multiple people are at Walmart with a cart full of sodas. They buy as many as they can and sell it to friends or family to have the cash instead.
> because multiple people are at Walmart with a cart full of sodas. They buy as many as they can and sell it to friends or family to have the cash instead.
Some do that, yes - not everybody can (eg: small communities, limited travel, few people with cash that want to buy basics)
Are they doing that with federal subsidies? I'm not sure the point you're trying to make, and NY point wasn't even that we shouldn't have food stamps but that as the program already stands it can be abused.
I didn't say I was angry at anyone. A business can decide what to offer for sale and customers can decide what to buy. That's different from whether tax dollars funding it is the best solution.
If my tax dollars have to pay for war crimes and the Epstein memorial ballroom then I'd happily pay for people to be able to eat, drink and live. I sure as hell don't trust corporations and the "free market" to ensure the common welfare.
I believe that governments have an obligation to their citizens beyond simply taxation and violence, and that the social contract goes both ways. I understand that I'm in the minority of Americans in this belief.
The government should have an obligation to not waste our money. Let's start with balancing the budget, letting elected Congress again hold the purse stings and war responsibilities, then we can talk about more spending.
I can't justify more debt spending because we already waste money on stuff I disagree with.
The US has by far the lowest spending (fed + state + local) among the major advanced economies in the world. [1]
The US also has by far the lowest taxes (fed + state + local) among them too; in fact, the US could have raised taxes by more than 15% and still been lowest. [2]
Regardless, if someone does believe spending should be cut:
A) What specifically should be cut, and
B) What % of the 11.5T/y [3] gov spending does it add up to?
The US was literally founded over concerns related to large governments and governments gaining too much power. The idea we have some of the lowest spending as a percentage of GDP shouldn't be surprising, its originally by design.
I also don't really care how much other countries choose to spend, that's their choice and I shouldn't have a say in that.
I wouldn't begin to say I have the answers or prescriptions to what should be cut, there's plenty of data I don't even have access to. From my experience with both local and federal governments, though, there is plenty of waste in the US that could be handled without even impacting the end result our programs are intended to deliver.
1. You make strong definitive statements like "there is plenty of waste" that could be cut "without even impacting" programs' results, but then can't actually quantify it? How can you make strong definitive statements if you simultaneously say "I wouldn't begin to say I have the answers or prescriptions to what should be cut"?
2. Regardless, is there any national politician who has named and quantified the items that they would cut that you support? As this seems to be a large, long-running problem within the right ('news', politicians, etc.) where they will make significant claims about wanting to cut gov spending without ever actually naming the programs they want to end and what % of the ~11T/y spending it adds up to.
3. You pointed to how when the US was set up in the 1700s that the government had different goals, and that there were wildly different expectations of what government provided for its citizens. Do you think the expectations of what the government provided in the 1700s are still relevant for what US citizens expect (or demand) of government services in the 21st century?
4. Every program will have some waste and abuse, and organizations typically then spend money to combat the waste and abuse. Sometimes the cost of fighting the waste and abuse, and/or the increased bureaucracy and overhead to prevent the issues in the first place, even exceed the costs of the waste and abuse that is being combatted. But my point is that even if waste exists, the 'cure' might be worse than the 'disease' in terms of increased costs, increased bureaucracy/oversight, etc. I'm not even necessarily opposed to those increased costs, bureaucracy, etc. in order to combat the possibly-smaller-costing waste and abuse, but it's certainly not as simple as "___ exists, so we can spend less by just not doing that."
I known I don't have nearly enough information to know if that's feasible or advisable, I assume you don't either. Though yes, I would like it if we didn't need such a large military and I take issue with the concept of a standing military during peace time in general.
In practice every time someone goes to Washington to "clean house" the first things to get gutted are welfare and funding for science and research, because unfortunately a lot of Americans consider all of that to be waste. Never the military, never the police, never the pork.
All of those programs have to be on the table. We can only afford what we can afford, that means a combination of increasing revenues, clearing out wasted spending, and reducing expenses by cutting programs.
Somehow we can always afford a military several orders of magnitude beyond what's necessary for self defense, we can always afford a global surveillance infrastructure, we can always afford the infinite pit of black budget programs.
But for everything else - anything with the stink of "empathy" on it - every penny has to be justified. We cut USAID and destroyed a useful source of soft power and intelligence and killed hundreds of thousands of people because the program helped gay and transgender people in some way. We cut funding to HHS, welfare, science, education, infrastructure and the environment. And then we approved the biggest military budget in history. Netanyahu makes a phone call and we burn $3 billion dollars a month on a war with Iran without a second thought or an end in sight.
So I respectfully disagree. Under a fair and impartial system you would be correct, but American politics is neither. Every program isn't on the table. Every attempt to balance the books is nakedly partisan and punitive.
I'm not arguing that the federal government can't be required to balance the budget. I'm arguing that cutting social spending and science and research in order to balance the budget should not be allowed, and that social spending shouldn't be contingent on a balanced budget.
Hah, oh the way Trump manages to drive businesses into bankruptcy I'm not so sure. It might be cheaper to feed everyone forever than let him run the corporation.
One caveat I don't think they understand, especially within a tropical environment, is retirees. Anywhere resembling FL and handing UBI out will slowly become flooded with old couples and retirees. Florida 2.0 if you will.
Under the Compact of Free Association, US citizens are already free to move to the Marshalls. The reason they don't is that the Marshalls are a tiny, poor developing nation in the middle of nowhere, with the (lack of) healthcare this implies.
A friend of mine who works in shipping was once stuck there for a couple of weeks waiting for engine parts or something, and he was bored out of his skull.
I think they meant that retirees will move there to receive UBI. In that case, the bad thing is that suddenly the island has to pay for people that just went there to get free money.
I've always thought that universal basic income is actually just everyone owning shares in all companies and receiving dividends and profits from those companies.
It's just turning this entire system into something managed by law and government.
Whether the whole system can actually work probably still needs observation and social experiments.
Someone should survey our lands to find naturally-occuring billionaires to exploit. Billionaires are the next oil- green oil if you will! They practicially grow on trees.
If less people need to work while there is enough money to go around. What makes them freeloaders? Do you think children are freeloaders? What about retirees or veterans or disabled people?
Edit: LoganDark4 replied but I got an error when submitting my reply to them, so including here:
> Even the smallest crappiest studios in most areas exceed $800/mo. Then you also have utilities and food before you even approach comfortable living.
Multiple percent of the population in the small Pacific country we're discussing lives on <$3/day (<$90/mo).
> Universal basic income means something you can live on.… UBI means you don't need external support to sustain comfortable living. That's its entire purpose.
From the very first paragraph of the link you replied to: "If the level is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line), it is considered a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it is called a partial basic income."
This page https://wage.is/marshall-islands/ claims the average is US$168000 per year and the median US$9600 per year. [My guess is that the poverty line is close to US$5000 per year, probably higher.] This program adds US$800 per year. So it's a "universal partial basic income" instead of a "universal total basic income".
In all the discussion I remember, "universal basic income" == "universal total basic income" but perhaps I was not paying too much attention.
Your link is to the term universal. From the reporting, this payment goes to all citizens including children. Perhaps you could more clearly state your objection?
No, I don't know what you mean - is your objection that people who aren't from the Marshall Islands don't receive it? UBI going to citizens as opposed to others seems to be very common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income
And there is no need for insults.
No, I don't know what you mean - is your objection that people who aren't from the Marshall Islands don't receive it? UBI going to citizens as opposed to others seems to be very common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income
And there is no need for insults.
I wonder if UBI might be an admittedly dark and cynical way to facilitate a possible AI transition. If e.g. full self driving for trucks is perfected in the US within the next three years and more than six million truckers loose their job at once, there is realistically no way to retrain this cohort. Using taxes on AI revenue to facilitate (somewhat universal) BI for that group, together with very liberal drug policies might keep social peace. Granted, not a satisfying live, but preferable to the alternatives...
What could possibly by dark and cynical about that? This is the only way we can possibly deal with mass unemployment.
Also, 6 million people forced to spend their waking lives driving trucks is not a good thing. The thing that's good about that is the income they get from it. If we create enough wealth to give them the income without the truck driving... We won? That's the goal here. That's what the economy is _for_. Employment is the way the economy has always achieved that, but it doesn't meant employment is the goal, it's a means to an end.
"This is the only way we can possibly deal with mass unemployment."
That or something like the Public Works Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Works_Administration).
(And you get infrastructure out of it.)
how about retraining people to give them skills the world actually needs. education, healthcare, child and elderly care. art and entertainment.
also science, research. as much as LLMs are able to do here, they can't do everything. and even with LLMs the more people we have doing research the faster we can progress technologically and also socially.
the real question is, who is going to make these investments?
It’s probably not the same people, different skills.
If I'm unemployed, hungry—I'm pretty sure I'll be happy to swing a hammer, hang drywall…
Your point is optimistic and consistent, I won't criticize it.
But you should know that it's a fairly narrow, political, and controversial thing to say that the purpose of the economy is to support people during unemployment crises. In fact it's so axiomatic that I really think it's worth calling out as part of the assumed solution not an obvious and foundational truth.
I didn't mean its job is to mitigate employment crises I meant its job is to give people (everyone) income/wealth.
I accept a significant amount of conditionality here - it's cool that people can get rich and live materially better lives by doing stuff that creates more wealth overall. But this is completely subordinate to the goal of making everyone's life better, i.e. I accept it exactly to the extent that "a rising tide lifts all boats". It seems the rising tide of AI may not automatically lift all boats though.
Anyway yeah your point stands, I realise this is not something everyone automatically believes. I'm phrasing it like a statement of fact just because I believe it so strongly.
It’s not the purpose of the economy, it’s the purpose of civilization.
What makes us different than most types of animals is that we’re capable of supporting the less fortunate members of our species even through life-threatening situations.
I remember some archeologist saying that the first sign of civilization is not some tool or whatever but a healed fractured bone. That means the person that got hurt was cared for by other people who had enough resources to afford for one useless member of the group.
I can agree with that.
But don't assume it's without its own controversy. Maybe the point of civilization is to allow people to help eachother by providing safeguards against treachery.
Maybe they should be forced to help eachother under threat of violence. There's a massive spectrum of "solutions" between those two, and UBI could be considered pretty close to forcing, depending on how it's implemented.
It's not pedantry or technicalities, a lasting system needs to benefit people and support / build shared principles. Ideally it'd support the principles that enabled it in the first place.
The purpose of civilisation (or rather, why it exists in first place) is that “civilized” peoples managed to survive longer and reproduce more and produce better means to take over the land of those who didn’t adopt technology.
Now we are going to see if there is a limit or not. Or if AI changes the game (the dystopian end game is a small amount of people controlling all the production and getting rid of the rest by one way or another)
The optimistic "another" way is that anyone whose job is now obsolete finds a new job. Ideally within the same company.
(if you live in places with healthy worker protections, a company can't just fire someone, they need reasonable grounds; bar that, they need to first try and place them somewhere else in the company, and if that doesn't work, firing involves paying a severance fee. In an ideal and morally correct situation anyway, in practice they'll use dodgy corporate structures to bankrupt companies before paying or retraining anyone)
Assuming the company still gets some value from them. France has good worker protections but you can always just close shop. (And move elsewhere).
Another optimistic look is that there might just be more work, that otherwise would not be done.
For example we always complain about AAA games coming out riddled with bugs, now we have an opportunity to cut a significant portion of that if we also keep the workforce. Same with administrative tasks that take forever because it’s one person filing it for the whole country etc.
mankind has been created to carry forward an ever advancing civilization.
> If we create enough wealth to give them the income without the truck driving... We won? That's the goal here. That's what the economy is _for_.
Assuming such wealth is created by the autonomous trucks replacing said drivers, for the same number of trucks, that would mean we now have to pay for 1 autonomous truck + 1 idle driver. This is more expensive than a regular truck driven by someone.
So either the number of truck increase dramatically or the replaced truckers find another value-creating occupation (or both).
Let's not forget that in a functioning economy, living and consuming goods _is_ value-creating.
I don't understand. Could you elaborate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_a_statistical_life
I only skimmed the article but this doesn’t seem to say that loving itself creates value. This value is based on the expected earnings someone will still have in their life because it assumes the person will work. If you have a person that will live off UBI from the rest of their life, that’s not the case.
Thank you. I understand that we can put some monetary value on reducing the risk of dying.
How does that make "living and consuming goods" value-creating, exactly ?
Workers lose all political leverage in that situation. It's a short-term solution
On the contrary, since truckers also mostly all own guns, they have a lot of political leverage. Everyone knows this; in the US at least. Andrew Wang stated as much in a cnbc interview a few months ago.
If humans lost economic leverage (no jobs) but kept military leverage (usefulness as soldiers), that'd probably be utopia. We could all be a leisure class like the aristocrats of the past, and could defend that state of affairs.
Unfortunately we aren't in that world. AI+robots will deprive humans of both economic and military leverage. Most likely, powerful "blobs" of a few owner humans + a lot of automation will inherit the Earth and kick most humans to the curb.
>On the contrary, since truckers also mostly all own guns, they have a lot of political leverage. Everyone knows this; in the US at least.
What everyone knows is that American gun owners voted in the system that's eating them alive and that they don't care as long as that system doesn't touch their guns.
So they can just keep shooting watermelons in their backyards and being keyboard warriors on the internet, for as much as their "leverage" matters.
People keep saying that. But they can still vote.
> This is the only way we can possibly deal with mass unemployment.
No it's not, but look at other countries with high unemployment and no UBI to see what the result is. Ranging from protests to migration.
>> That's what the economy is _for_.
Isn't it to extract every penny from as many people as possible to make few people billionaires?
Upgrading 6 million trucks will take years. Trucks are used for millions of miles each.
More often a dark and cynical way to kill off: all government assistance, social security, Medicare, Medicaid…
It might be --- if we change the tax system.
So far mostly human work is taxed, then value-adding, a bit property, and a less bit capital.
If we want a system where there is some universal income, then we need to tax property and capital more and also tax some non-human work.
Yes this is a good idea. Taxing AI might also slightly slowdown the speed of this happening because it dampens the economic incentive a bit.
Some trucking is warehouse to warehouse, but a lot of trucking is warehouse to point or point to point where the points are building without a loading dock, or specialized equipment is required to load unload; fork lifts, conveyer systems etc. ok your truck can drive, if 50% of deliveries or pickup’s require a human, what is the gain? Surely there are workarounds like Uber for forklifts, but that’s “extra” capability that doesn’t exist yet.
> Using taxes on AI revenue to facilitate
This why Altman et al talk about taxing ai agents. Then they aren’t paying for it, but their customers are. We should all keep in mind that the oligarchs have never willing shared the benefit of decades of productivity gains. Why would they now?
It seems like truck drivers don’t do the unloading job you’re talking about. The receiving company does it.
That’s not always the case, I know that small trucks like plumbing supply houses, hardware stores, and sod companies will pull the pallet from the truck for you, but I would guess that isn’t typically for your average 18-wheeler.
AI truck drivers won’t even replace the trucker in the cab of a Coca-Cola truck, let alone a wide load.
What is “AI revenue” here?
> there is realistically no way to retrain this cohort
Certainly, they're after all just stupid truckers and not supremely intelligent hackers. I mean, do they even know how to sudo their Kubernetes!?
Well good luck turning them all into welders and pipe fitters and whatnot
I’m sure they’ll love starting from scratch as basically an apprentice making beans compared to their previous wage
Somewhere it doesn't occur to you that most people have other skills than doing exactly their day job at a basic level? And that skills can be transfered to other occupations?
Just like a programmer can switch between programming languages without having to re-learn all basic concepts of computing, so people with other occupations can transfer a large part of their knowledge to other sectors.
But that can be hard to grasp in a world where every person is either a supremely intelligent hacker or a trucker or "welder and pipe fitter and whatnot".
> Somewhere
Great plan, glad someone with your wisdom is thinking so hard about these kinds of problems.
We’ll take millions of displaced truckers and put them “somewhere” and they’ll do “something”.
Luckily picking up a new trade will be as easy as switching from JavaScript to Python for them.
They’re already overqualified for DoorDash and uber after all.
Please provide a few examples of what a knowledge worker can switch to and maintain even half of their income under the present scenario where all knowledge workers are (or soon will be) struggling to compete with LLMs?
That's just unrealistic. They'll strike and shut down all shipping before they just roll over
Striking in the face of automation often just accelerates the automation. Ask the McDonald's cashiers...
I don't think many people consider working as a McD's cashier to be their career though - besides managers, do they employ anyone over 25? Do any cashiers stay in that role for more than a few years or do they get promoted?
McDonalds isn't critical to the economy staying running like trucking is.
I was thinking that everyone would suddenly become a "truck driver" overnight, just so they can sign up for the free money.
We need to keep in mind the scope and scale of the environments in which this UBI experiment is being tried in.
The temporary success or failure of the UBI experiment seems entirely dependent on whether the country is a major currency, a manufacturing base, a service oriented economy, etc, etc, etc. and it doesn't seem likely to work for everyone, or for any individual small nation for an indefinite period of time.
> there is realistically no way to retrain this cohort. [truck drivers]
I disagree. They had to attend class and pass a test to get a CDL. They were trained to drive a truck, they can be trained to perform another task. Truck drivers are not lobotomized.
> I was thinking that everyone would suddenly become a "truck driver" overnight, just so they can sign up for the free money.
The U in UBI stands for universal. That means that former truck drivers (aka the unemployed) get it but also everyone else to include CEOs making millions. The expectation is that those with other income will give back their UBI and then some via taxes.
This is better than policies that create stupid incentives like in your example.
> This is better than policies that create stupid incentives like in your example.
I wasn't aware that I promoted a policy. Can you point it out for me ?
by suggesting hat everyone will sign up to be a truck driver you implied that only those whose jobs get displaced by LLMs should get basic income.
Personally, I'm neither for, nor against, UBI.
I think these small scale experiments have value, and that its part of the process of adapting to our environment.
What I can say with absolute confidence is, the post Bretton-Woods financial system promoted by my government, the only one I know, has increased wealth inequality spectacularly, and I expect any changes to the system to continue this trend.
And thats why I want to grow onions. I can eat them. They keep vampires away.
I don't have a problem with UBI either, but my point was that if it's not universal, it's not UBI. It's targeted welfare. And imo this is a bad idea because:
1) it creates dumb incentives
2) it gives the govt more levers they can pull, which leads to more corruption and worse outcomes
> I disagree. They had to attend class and pass a test to get a CDL. They were trained to drive a truck, they can be trained to perform another task. Truck drivers are not lobotomized.
I don't think the difficulty is with the drivers, more with the logistics of retraining them all at once. As a cohort they came up through their class and training nicely spread out over, what, a 40 year period? Making sure there are that many training spaces for other trades over a much more condensed period is non-trivial.
> I don't think the difficulty is with the drivers, more with the logistics of retraining them all at once.
The only events that happen "all at once" are in our heads as hypotheticals.
In the real world, every change takes time to propagate.
It stands to reason, all of the "experts" of the world are going to be in less demand than they were before, because some percentage of people, will replace them with AI, for some percentage of tasks.
Stated another way, each of us will be consulting with AI more, and assigning some number of tasks to a non-expert, with the help of expertise from AI, and talking to human experts less frequently.
Interactions will decrease in frequency. In the commercial space, this means transactions will decrease in number and amount. This is "bad" for everyone, in the financial sense. Corporations lose revenues, governments lose revenues, employees get pay cuts, etc.
But downward trajectories on financial charts have been a problem for every fiat based economy we know of, long before AI came into the picture. The only thing people universally agree upon when sales, taxes, salaries, etc start going down, is that "confusion" is the first response, followed shortly by "panic", followed by "doing something to fix it" followed by "pretending it worked, even if it didn't."
Maybe AI will teach the world what to do when the charts turn down instead of up.
Infinite growth doesn't exist in a closed ecosystem, and we arent expanding into space yet.
For decades magazines and other media have promoted the idea that some day, technology will relieve us of the base burden of existence, and free us to do all those wonderful leisure activities we enjoy.
Now that AI seems to be able to deliver on the promise, the thing we seem to fear the most is the deflation of our own egos.
A conversation with an AI agent carries as little as $0.00 transactional cost, with a few cents in electricity expense, after the small fixed capital outlay for the computer.
A conversation with a consultant costs $200 an hour, and benefits taxing authorities, gas stations, phone companies, etc etc etc.
Again, it stands to reason, if we replace an expensive form of communication, with one that is almost free, that people are going to use it, and all those "expenses" they save on, were someone elses income.
The end game ... most of us will adapt, and some of us will self destruct during that process, and in 1 or 2 generations, everything will be "normal" again, and AI will be taken for granted, and we'll all be worrying about the new crisis.
Lets all remember, "the economy" as studied by economists, is the study of human behavior at its core, and its generally agreed that the human animals greatest natural defense is its intelligence and ability to adapt to its environment.
Keep calm. Carry on. This isn't a scarcity problem. It's an abundance problem.
They aren't, but if you look at retraining programs in coal country, you don't see a whole lot of success. So, while I'm sure mass retraining is theoretically possible, do we examples of where it's actually worked?
Related point - if the truck drivers aren't where the new jobs are located, that doesn't work. We should subsidize their move (via increased taxes on AI or corporations or whatever) but like WV, we probably won't. Assuming they even want to move.
You don't need to do anything to retrain someone.
You let them retrain themselves.
People in "coal country" who can't get a job in a mine, do something other than mining. Hunger is a powerful motivator.
A $10 a month cell phone plan is all it takes to get 24/7 access to all the worlds information, and AI's intelligent queries into it.
And yes, you will have millions who never learn how to use said information to their own benefit, but we've known for awhile that poverty is a behaviorial problem as much as it is a resource problem.
Maybe the companies firing people or shutting down operations somewhere aren’t properly motivated to successfully retrain the people they are replacing? Lets lock up the CEO without food until they come up with an acceptable solution. I hear hunger is a powerful motivator.
> Maybe the companies firing people or shutting down operations somewhere aren’t properly motivated to successfully retrain the people they are replacing?
No, at least not in the US.
A corporation has a primary fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.
Every promise ever made by a corporation to an employee or customer was just "so much bullshit, subject to change" in order to fulfill their legal obligation to the shareholders.
It's always been this way, no matter how many employees or workers actually believed said promises.
People still think the grocery store sells food as well, when the reality is that the nutrients are removed and sold elsewhere, reducing satiety, increasing sales due to intentional malnutrition.
And your doctor isn't sending you down the road to wellness when he prescribes you GLP1 antagonists instead of a proper diet and exercise.
The cold hard truths of reality.
"Everybody Needs a Thneed"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE2uVuBUdp4
A corporation has a primary fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.
Only because Friedman told us so and we believed him. It's not some immutable natural law.
Well, in a sense, it is a natural law.
The CEOs and boards who operated this way survived.
The ones who didn't, didn't.
I don't know how you are going to change the dynamic.
Any change will have to be approved by the powerful survivors, who know exactly how their behaviors have benefited them.
You're asking the king(s) to step down as king(s).
Accomplishing it historically has required force and rarely ended as planned.
But overall I agree with you, that if we are going to make a systemic change, the change should benefit those with the least, at the expense of those with the most, because that is a path towards equilibrium, not away from it as we have been progressing since the mid 70's.
And, AI may actually reduce the status of the wealthy the most, given, the more the individual can do for his/her self, the less we need a "corporate brain trust" to make a widget for us.
Economically, AI could play out to be the force that reduced the oligarchs to the same status as the common man.
We all shall see.
> do something other than mining
Yep: meth. Source: extended family in coal country where everyone has massive substance abuse problems.
Terrible meal replacement plan that meth is.
Deer hunting and leather working is a better synergy than ammonia and used batteries.
If kids had more video game exposure they would know this. :|
Sure, let's blame the economically displaced, not the billionaires who displaced them. Giving some serious "she wore a short skirt and had it coming" vibes.
I don't see where I blamed anyone. Can you point it out ?
Did you mean the part where I said millions will never use AI to benefit themselves ?
We've had libraries for centuries. Millions chose not to use those as well, because they wanted a beer instead.
Its normal human behavior.
The proverb "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" exists for this reason.
>People in "coal country" who can't get a job in a mine, do something other than mining. Hunger is a powerful motivator.
No they don't, they vote for someone to open up the mines again and keep the immigrants out.
Well, perhaps AI will teach them that political promises are no match for economic reality.
Let's hope something does.
its not about their capabilities. It's that there just aren't six million vacant jobs...
Jobs are not a zero sum equation. Six million unemployed workers, means six million units of production looking for an outlet that was not previously feasible due to a shortage of available labor
The economic perspective vs the personal one.
Will we say the same thing about the 4 million software jobs? When we're doing landscaping work in our 40s for 1/10 our past salary is that improved economic efficiency at its finest?
Sorry, spatial intelligence and embodiment is coming for those jobs too. But if you are making “a 10x salary” today then it’s probably a good idea to prepare for an early retirement. An opportunity never afforded to the old folks currently doing those 1x salary jobs.
Entirely defensible. My only caveat is that 100% automation is a myth that ignores second order effects. Labor prices change in response to demand, just like raw materials. Some jobs will be cheaper for people to do, and much of the "economy" might end up friends and family cooperation.
As a software engineer who is working on retiring to a small farm somewhere, I have no problem with the prospect of living on 10% of my former income, assuming, the other 90% of my income used to be spent on obtaining resources that I now can obtain for myself or no longer need.
In other words, if I can do more for myself, I require less interaction with commercial and governmental institutions.
Since money is a form of communication, if I am conducting fewer financial transactions because I am solving problems on my own, my standard of living doesn't necessarily decline with reduced income.
30 years ago, if you needed a one off plastic part by tomorrow, you were most likely simply screwed.
20 years ago, if you needed a one off plastic part by tomorrow, you could probably get it at a fairly high cost.
10 years ago, if you needed a one off plastic part by tomorrow, $10 worth of gas across town and back and you had your part for an affordable price.
The world never ended, people just adapted to the new environment.
Today, if you need a one off plastic part by tomorrow, you ask AI to crank out a 3D file, its in your hand in a few hours, and you crank out 4 more parts in the remaining time.
If the individual is more productive on his/her own, he/she will naturally conduct fewer commercial transactions with his/her neighbor or neighboring tribe, and the forces of supply and demand do exactly what we know they do.
Some numbers get smaller, some numbers get larger, and we all wake up tomorrow and eat breakfast.
Having food you can eat is wealth.
Having 100% of your time at your own command is wealth.
AI is doing what every politician promised, and none could deliver.
It just made everyone (potentially) wealthy.
And it will only get more interesting in the Confucious sense as more people realize this.
Dare I say it .... world peace ? ( dependency on others as a source of fear and insecurity -> AI reducing dependency to minimal amounts -> every individual confident and secure -> ego death -> world peace ... the presumed potential path )
Long term, sure, but those newly-feasible jobs don't pop into existence in a day, or even a year. Short term, they flood the labor market and suppress wages.
This doesn't sound terribly different from eg Alaska's Permanent Fund payouts? The main difference seems to be that PF payments fluctuate a lot, while the Marshalls plan seems to be a fixed, predictable sum.
It is very similar but works differently. Also the two programs do not have the same intent.
The US has a Compact of Free Assocation (COFA) with the Marshall Islands, which provides a lot of the funds for this. Versus Alaska where it is paid for by natural resource extraction. All that said, it is the government of the Marshall Islands making the decision to pay it out this way.
From the US point of view, this is a good program because it incentivizes people from the Marshall Islands to stay put rather than emigrate to the US mainland (which they have a right to do under the COFA).
>From the US point of view, this is a good program because it incentivizes people from the Marshall Islands to stay put rather than emigrate to the US mainland
Why is this a good thing? Naively, as an American citizen, I would rather have someone emigrate and work in America where they can provide additional labor to the mainland economy
The US is competing with China in the Pacific. Keeping those islands healthily populated by USA-sympathizers helps maintains overall US influence in the region.
The Marshall Islands are of military importance, we don't squat in the island chain for economic gain.
This seems like a non sequitur? The US military can staff its own bases without relying upon native labor, as it does in places like Diego Garcia
As said above, you want the population (the ones that run the government right?) to stay there and happy, so that the bases are welcome and symbolic.
Are you proposing that the best solution for the island and its native population for them to all emigrate to mainland US and leave the island chain exclusively to the US military?
My point had nothing to do with what the native population does on the island or what they may do for work, only that we didn't claim the island chain for the labor resources of the population (as insinuated by the comment I replied to).
My original comment (which, incidentally, did not insinuate that we claimed the island for labor resources. I have no idea where that came from.) was a question asking why the US government would want to discourage Marshall Islanders from emigrating to the US, as a matter of policy. I still don’t see a direct relationship between US defense interests in the region and deterring emigration.
> I would rather have someone emigrate and work in America where they can provide additional labor to the mainland economy
This is what I responded to. Whether the initial intent or not, it makes the case that we would be better off with the native population emigrating to the mainland and providing the economy with economic value.
Presumably if AI reaches it's potential there might not be a need for immigrants labor.
I am very confident that this has not historically been, and is not today, a major or minor consideration in US foreign policymaking
I would think also, Native Americans (Indians) in the U.S.
While what's good for a tiny island might not be good for the gander, I like the attached cost analysis of a negative income tax. The author points out that this might be a more practical way to deliver a basic income, and more amenable to both sides of the argument.
And at more or less no greater cost than the welfare system at time of writing. I wonder how the numbers would shake out now?
https://martin-farley.medium.com/how-a-negative-income-tax-c...
> The author points out that this might be a more practical way to deliver a basic income, and more amenable to both sides of the argument.
We almost have that with the earned income tax credit. The catch is you have to work: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-in...
negative income tax and universal basic income are mathematically equivalent.
If you have a "pure" UBI that is paid out, and you create 0 taxable value, you receive 100% of UBI.
If you have negative income tax and you create 0 taxable value, how much do you receive?
The same amount you would on UBI. As I said, it's the same thing. Both are a linear function of your income. a*(income)+b
Doesn’t negative income tax without any qualifier imply that b is zero?
No, to have negative income tax you need to set a baseline relative to which income tax is negative. E.g. your income tax is what you earn above 30k, positive or negative. Then if you earn 0 then b>0
It can be called whatever someone wants and it can be delivered various ways, but its still functionally the same thing.
Headlines latch on to the term UBI, and people largely are parrots so they argue about UBI specifically as well, but at the end of the day the question is whether its a good and sustainable idea for the government to decide what our basic necessities are then pay us so we can buy them.
In practice it can be even more fine grained:
> then pay us so we can buy them.
If a government pays out money then people can buy whatever they chose, not just food, clothing, and shelter.
Some governments have implemented schemes that issue variations on constrained cards (not generic money) that can only be used to obtain "necessities"
You just mean food stamps, right? We already have that in the US.
I often see people in my area chest that program. I know when food stamps were sent out or refilled because multiple people are at Walmart with a cart full of sodas. They buy as many as they can and sell it to friends or family to have the cash instead.
> You just mean food stamps, right?
A variation of.
> We already have that in the US.
Dandy. It's different to cash.
> because multiple people are at Walmart with a cart full of sodas. They buy as many as they can and sell it to friends or family to have the cash instead.
Some do that, yes - not everybody can (eg: small communities, limited travel, few people with cash that want to buy basics)
I often see people in my area buy organic produce from local small businesses at the farmers market. So I suppose my anecdote balances out yours?
Are they doing that with federal subsidies? I'm not sure the point you're trying to make, and NY point wasn't even that we shouldn't have food stamps but that as the program already stands it can be abused.
Are you also angry that Walmart bought those things and is selling them on?
I didn't say I was angry at anyone. A business can decide what to offer for sale and customers can decide what to buy. That's different from whether tax dollars funding it is the best solution.
If my tax dollars have to pay for war crimes and the Epstein memorial ballroom then I'd happily pay for people to be able to eat, drink and live. I sure as hell don't trust corporations and the "free market" to ensure the common welfare.
I believe that governments have an obligation to their citizens beyond simply taxation and violence, and that the social contract goes both ways. I understand that I'm in the minority of Americans in this belief.
The government should have an obligation to not waste our money. Let's start with balancing the budget, letting elected Congress again hold the purse stings and war responsibilities, then we can talk about more spending.
I can't justify more debt spending because we already waste money on stuff I disagree with.
The US has by far the lowest spending (fed + state + local) among the major advanced economies in the world. [1]
The US also has by far the lowest taxes (fed + state + local) among them too; in fact, the US could have raised taxes by more than 15% and still been lowest. [2]
Regardless, if someone does believe spending should be cut:
A) What specifically should be cut, and
B) What % of the 11.5T/y [3] gov spending does it add up to?
[1] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2025/Ap...
[2] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2025/ap...
[3] https://www.bea.gov/data/government/receipts-and-expenditure...
The US was literally founded over concerns related to large governments and governments gaining too much power. The idea we have some of the lowest spending as a percentage of GDP shouldn't be surprising, its originally by design.
I also don't really care how much other countries choose to spend, that's their choice and I shouldn't have a say in that.
I wouldn't begin to say I have the answers or prescriptions to what should be cut, there's plenty of data I don't even have access to. From my experience with both local and federal governments, though, there is plenty of waste in the US that could be handled without even impacting the end result our programs are intended to deliver.
1. You make strong definitive statements like "there is plenty of waste" that could be cut "without even impacting" programs' results, but then can't actually quantify it? How can you make strong definitive statements if you simultaneously say "I wouldn't begin to say I have the answers or prescriptions to what should be cut"?
2. Regardless, is there any national politician who has named and quantified the items that they would cut that you support? As this seems to be a large, long-running problem within the right ('news', politicians, etc.) where they will make significant claims about wanting to cut gov spending without ever actually naming the programs they want to end and what % of the ~11T/y spending it adds up to.
3. You pointed to how when the US was set up in the 1700s that the government had different goals, and that there were wildly different expectations of what government provided for its citizens. Do you think the expectations of what the government provided in the 1700s are still relevant for what US citizens expect (or demand) of government services in the 21st century?
4. Every program will have some waste and abuse, and organizations typically then spend money to combat the waste and abuse. Sometimes the cost of fighting the waste and abuse, and/or the increased bureaucracy and overhead to prevent the issues in the first place, even exceed the costs of the waste and abuse that is being combatted. But my point is that even if waste exists, the 'cure' might be worse than the 'disease' in terms of increased costs, increased bureaucracy/oversight, etc. I'm not even necessarily opposed to those increased costs, bureaucracy, etc. in order to combat the possibly-smaller-costing waste and abuse, but it's certainly not as simple as "___ exists, so we can spend less by just not doing that."
Let’s start by cutting the military budget (including all the ways they indirectly fund the military) by at least half
I known I don't have nearly enough information to know if that's feasible or advisable, I assume you don't either. Though yes, I would like it if we didn't need such a large military and I take issue with the concept of a standing military during peace time in general.
In theory I agree with you.
In practice every time someone goes to Washington to "clean house" the first things to get gutted are welfare and funding for science and research, because unfortunately a lot of Americans consider all of that to be waste. Never the military, never the police, never the pork.
All of those programs have to be on the table. We can only afford what we can afford, that means a combination of increasing revenues, clearing out wasted spending, and reducing expenses by cutting programs.
Somehow we can always afford a military several orders of magnitude beyond what's necessary for self defense, we can always afford a global surveillance infrastructure, we can always afford the infinite pit of black budget programs.
But for everything else - anything with the stink of "empathy" on it - every penny has to be justified. We cut USAID and destroyed a useful source of soft power and intelligence and killed hundreds of thousands of people because the program helped gay and transgender people in some way. We cut funding to HHS, welfare, science, education, infrastructure and the environment. And then we approved the biggest military budget in history. Netanyahu makes a phone call and we burn $3 billion dollars a month on a war with Iran without a second thought or an end in sight.
So I respectfully disagree. Under a fair and impartial system you would be correct, but American politics is neither. Every program isn't on the table. Every attempt to balance the books is nakedly partisan and punitive.
If states can require balanced budgets, I see no reason why the federal government can't be required to as well
I'm not arguing that the federal government can't be required to balance the budget. I'm arguing that cutting social spending and science and research in order to balance the budget should not be allowed, and that social spending shouldn't be contingent on a balanced budget.
That’s not at all the point they raised?
Unfortunately an extravagant ballroom and war crimes are much cheaper than "feed everyone forever."
Hah, oh the way Trump manages to drive businesses into bankruptcy I'm not so sure. It might be cheaper to feed everyone forever than let him run the corporation.
I wrote about this when it started:
https://scottsantens.substack.com/p/marshall-islands-just-im...
FYI, so far it has barely impacted inflation there or to quote, "zero or very minimal."
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/sundayextra/universal...
One caveat I don't think they understand, especially within a tropical environment, is retirees. Anywhere resembling FL and handing UBI out will slowly become flooded with old couples and retirees. Florida 2.0 if you will.
Under the Compact of Free Association, US citizens are already free to move to the Marshalls. The reason they don't is that the Marshalls are a tiny, poor developing nation in the middle of nowhere, with the (lack of) healthcare this implies.
A friend of mine who works in shipping was once stuck there for a couple of weeks waiting for engine parts or something, and he was bored out of his skull.
I believe it only applies to resident citizens, which is an easy way to avoid freeloaders
Also known as people and leisure. Why is that so bad? Sounds pretty great to me.
Can’t wait to retire and do all the things I enjoy doing.
I think they meant that retirees will move there to receive UBI. In that case, the bad thing is that suddenly the island has to pay for people that just went there to get free money.
Yes, this. Why retire in FL when you can retire with UBI? Permanent tourists will overwhelm the country.
I've always thought that universal basic income is actually just everyone owning shares in all companies and receiving dividends and profits from those companies.
It's just turning this entire system into something managed by law and government.
Whether the whole system can actually work probably still needs observation and social experiments.
Paid for by the drug cartels ? UBI has to be paid for somehow, are there massive natural resources being sold off ?
There are plenty of billionaires barely taxed at the moment
Someone should survey our lands to find naturally-occuring billionaires to exploit. Billionaires are the next oil- green oil if you will! They practicially grow on trees.
I wish them well, but really, really hope that people don't lose sight of the non-scalability of this.
The freeloader problem will devour this when some fanatic tries with a substantial population.
If less people need to work while there is enough money to go around. What makes them freeloaders? Do you think children are freeloaders? What about retirees or veterans or disabled people?
Children are indeed load, and if they don't grow to be drivers, then the cratered society and withered demographics before you result.
Sorry.
[flagged]
> please put back the meaning of words
Which word(s)? From the reports I've seen, it's available to all citizens, and it's one of the 2 kinds of UBI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income
Edit: LoganDark4 replied but I got an error when submitting my reply to them, so including here:
> Even the smallest crappiest studios in most areas exceed $800/mo. Then you also have utilities and food before you even approach comfortable living.
Multiple percent of the population in the small Pacific country we're discussing lives on <$3/day (<$90/mo).
> Universal basic income means something you can live on.… UBI means you don't need external support to sustain comfortable living. That's its entire purpose.
From the very first paragraph of the link you replied to: "If the level is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line), it is considered a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it is called a partial basic income."
*Partial UBI with only $800/year
Details aren't as sexy as the headline would lead one to believe.
Multiple percent of the population lives on less than $3/day.
This UBI is 37% of the poverty line, and the % living in poverty has dropped from 7.2% to 1.3%. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/0997063042125181...
That would seem to imply that even those at the poverty line can already afford 3x the basic necessities.
This page https://wage.is/marshall-islands/ claims the average is US$168000 per year and the median US$9600 per year. [My guess is that the poverty line is close to US$5000 per year, probably higher.] This program adds US$800 per year. So it's a "universal partial basic income" instead of a "universal total basic income".
In all the discussion I remember, "universal basic income" == "universal total basic income" but perhaps I was not paying too much attention.
Multiple % of the population live on <$3/day.
This payment is 37% of the poverty line. Poverty has been reduced from 7.2% to 1.3%. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/0997063042125181...
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/universa...
Your link is to the term universal. From the reporting, this payment goes to all citizens including children. Perhaps you could more clearly state your objection?
Come on, read it again. You know what the word 'universal' means, so stop playing stupid.
No, I don't know what you mean - is your objection that people who aren't from the Marshall Islands don't receive it? UBI going to citizens as opposed to others seems to be very common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income And there is no need for insults.
[flagged]
No, I don't know what you mean - is your objection that people who aren't from the Marshall Islands don't receive it? UBI going to citizens as opposed to others seems to be very common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income And there is no need for insults.