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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
61 comments
[ 10.9 ms ] story [ 28.7 ms ] threadThe 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).
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
Details aren't as sexy as the headline would lead one to believe.
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...
In all the discussion I remember, "universal basic income" == "universal total basic income" but perhaps I was not paying too much attention.
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...
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...
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.
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.
I can't justify more debt spending because we already waste money on stuff I disagree with.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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).
Certainly, they're after all just stupid truckers and not supremely intelligent hackers. I mean, do they even know how to sudo their Kubernetes!?
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.
Can’t wait to retire and do all the things I enjoy doing.
The freeloader problem will devour this when some fanatic tries with a substantial population.