An Augusta-Justin exchange stood out; it placed infrequently afforded focus on something inconvenient that resides in a place too infrequently visited.
Re: Economic challenges of the working poor in the U.S. vs. (the rest of) Earth.
The income & wealth inequality inexorably linked to capitalism and, well... wealth creation are increasingly divisive, corrosive forces in the U.S.. Zoom out and magnify: Consider the chasm between the U.S. (4.2% of global population, 35% of global personal & liquid private wealth), and a good number of the other 8 billion people.
An annual income of:
▶ $15,9602 places a Single Adult in the U.S. among the bottom 15% in the U.S., but among the top 26% globally; 33.2 times less than the top 1% in the U.S., but only 7.4 times less than the global top 1%.
-- HHS: Federal Poverty Program Eligibility Guidelines
▶ $16,749 places a Single Adult in the U.S. among the bottom 16% in the U.S., among the top 24% globally; 31.7 times less than the Top 1% in the U.S., 7.1 times less than the global top 1%.
-- Census Bureau: Poverty Threshold for a Single Adult in the U.S.
▶ $85,0003 places a Family of Four in the U.S. among the bottom 21% in the U.S., among the top 19% globally; 24.9 times less than the top 1% in the U.S., 5.6 times less than the global top 1%.
▶ $200,0004 places a Single Adult in the U.S. among the top 7% in the U.S., among the top 1% globally; 2.7 times less than the Top 1% in the U.S., 33.4 times more than the global bottom 50%.
-- Edelman Financial Engines Survey: How much 50% of U.S. Adults think they need to reach the 'Stress-Free' threshold (can stop worrying about daily expenses).
The nonprofit GiveDirectly partnered with cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase to run a basic income pilot program in New York City. The pilot provided $12,000 in USDC to 160 low-income young adults. It was structured as a hybrid payout: a large lump sum of $8,000 followed by five monthly payments of $800. The study aims to measure how unconditional digital cash impacts poverty, especially for unbanked or underbanked residents. Organizers noted that using stablecoins allowed them to distribute funds for a mere 26 cents per transaction, far cheaper than issuing traditional prepaid debit cards
The New York City Basic Income Pilot (known as the Future First program) concluded its distribution phase in February 2026, revealing clear insights regarding poverty alleviation, fund design, and tracking:the data shows it effectively helped recipients secure housing and basic stability, largely because of a unique "lump sum" payout design. By distributing the bulk of the money at once, low-income young adults were uniquely equipped to make major, life-changing financial moves—such as paying hefty NYC apartment security deposits, paying upfront college tuition, or escaping housing insecurity. This mirrored successful international models proving that upfront lump-sums trigger far better long-term income growth than slow, incremental aid
The study recommends that future welfare initiatives adopt hybrid funding models by delivering a large upfront lump sum followed by smaller monthly installments to help recipients escape poverty traps. Additionally, organizations should utilize regulated, USD-backed stablecoins to minimize administrative fees, while coupling these digital payouts with robust financial literacy and local off-ramp infrastructure.
"The AI companies wrote a few lines of code. The rest of us created all the world’s knowledge that those models consumed. They never paid for it, because they “forgot” to ask. On this view, UBI isn’t redistribution at all. It’s payment for an essential input."-Platypus Economics substack Sep 21, 2026
We could institute a royalty paid by the AI companies who continue to make use of our intellectual property, creative work and publications, with every compute cycle. We could actually monitor those compute cycles, memory retrievals, model runs, etc, and develop royalties or taxations off of them. If our hands had built widgets that an AI company is using and didn't pay for, that would be a problem. Well, we built bytes (and networks of ideas) that the companies are not yet paying for.
When the printing press was developed, we slowly developed rules for who makes money off of what gets printed. (In fact, we developed a whole industry out of writers, artists, agents, publishers, bookstores, libraries and readers.) We can develop rules for how AI models get to pay for their use of what was printed by us, which currently enables the AI models to exist and improve.
The economics of AI is a gnarly question. Who pays and who gets paid and what is the price, or the ongoing royalty, licensing or subscription fees? Many of the AI companies spent gobs of time and money on election and political influence, and the Triangle Shirtwaistcoat factory owners spent money on door locks and window bars. It took decades of turmoil, struggle, and Frances Perkins to unlock the workers from the economic and employment deal the factory owners had written for their workers. Will it take decades of the same for us to unlock ourselves from the deal the AI companies have written for us? Only a rough analogy, of course, but in our present course many of our workers do seem to be locked inside a burning building, or a crumbling one, at least.
Please explain the extent to which UBI would or would not have eligibility thresholds. If not, the zero point would just be shifted. If so, it has the same problem as other poverty interventions: loss of resources upon obtaining additional income. Perhaps, it should take the form of vouchers for delimited purchases.
The way you framed UBI as a payment for the knowledge AI has stolen (my word) from us is perfect. I think there have been a few places that have tried UBI and they seem to have had positive results. I think we should try it. (But, then, I think "efficiency" is overrated and I don't believe billionaires should exist at all.) I believe a universal basic income would make radical positive changes in the world---but I do think we're running out of time. (Sorry, that's a lot of "I thinks" and "I believes.")
So apparently healthcare, insurance, and transportation are nonessentials?
excellent question
My first visit. Please be gentle.
An Augusta-Justin exchange stood out; it placed infrequently afforded focus on something inconvenient that resides in a place too infrequently visited.
Re: Economic challenges of the working poor in the U.S. vs. (the rest of) Earth.
The income & wealth inequality inexorably linked to capitalism and, well... wealth creation are increasingly divisive, corrosive forces in the U.S.. Zoom out and magnify: Consider the chasm between the U.S. (4.2% of global population, 35% of global personal & liquid private wealth), and a good number of the other 8 billion people.
An annual income of:
▶ $15,9602 places a Single Adult in the U.S. among the bottom 15% in the U.S., but among the top 26% globally; 33.2 times less than the top 1% in the U.S., but only 7.4 times less than the global top 1%.
-- HHS: Federal Poverty Program Eligibility Guidelines
▶ $16,749 places a Single Adult in the U.S. among the bottom 16% in the U.S., among the top 24% globally; 31.7 times less than the Top 1% in the U.S., 7.1 times less than the global top 1%.
-- Census Bureau: Poverty Threshold for a Single Adult in the U.S.
▶ $85,0003 places a Family of Four in the U.S. among the bottom 21% in the U.S., among the top 19% globally; 24.9 times less than the top 1% in the U.S., 5.6 times less than the global top 1%.
-- Perception: How much Americans say a Family in the U.S. needs to earn to “get by.” news.gallup.com/poll/506405/americans-say-families-need-000.aspx
▶ $200,0004 places a Single Adult in the U.S. among the top 7% in the U.S., among the top 1% globally; 2.7 times less than the Top 1% in the U.S., 33.4 times more than the global bottom 50%.
-- Edelman Financial Engines Survey: How much 50% of U.S. Adults think they need to reach the 'Stress-Free' threshold (can stop worrying about daily expenses).
https://www.edelmanfinancialengines.com/wealth-in-america/2024/
If USAID is the least we can do. Then we should. Do. That. Or more gold for the ballroom / bunker clamored for by exactly no one.
The nonprofit GiveDirectly partnered with cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase to run a basic income pilot program in New York City. The pilot provided $12,000 in USDC to 160 low-income young adults. It was structured as a hybrid payout: a large lump sum of $8,000 followed by five monthly payments of $800. The study aims to measure how unconditional digital cash impacts poverty, especially for unbanked or underbanked residents. Organizers noted that using stablecoins allowed them to distribute funds for a mere 26 cents per transaction, far cheaper than issuing traditional prepaid debit cards
The New York City Basic Income Pilot (known as the Future First program) concluded its distribution phase in February 2026, revealing clear insights regarding poverty alleviation, fund design, and tracking:the data shows it effectively helped recipients secure housing and basic stability, largely because of a unique "lump sum" payout design. By distributing the bulk of the money at once, low-income young adults were uniquely equipped to make major, life-changing financial moves—such as paying hefty NYC apartment security deposits, paying upfront college tuition, or escaping housing insecurity. This mirrored successful international models proving that upfront lump-sums trigger far better long-term income growth than slow, incremental aid
The study recommends that future welfare initiatives adopt hybrid funding models by delivering a large upfront lump sum followed by smaller monthly installments to help recipients escape poverty traps. Additionally, organizations should utilize regulated, USD-backed stablecoins to minimize administrative fees, while coupling these digital payouts with robust financial literacy and local off-ramp infrastructure.
It sounds like the 25th percentile would be a good proxy. It would be computed by region and by household size. It's quick and dirty.
"The AI companies wrote a few lines of code. The rest of us created all the world’s knowledge that those models consumed. They never paid for it, because they “forgot” to ask. On this view, UBI isn’t redistribution at all. It’s payment for an essential input."-Platypus Economics substack Sep 21, 2026
We could institute a royalty paid by the AI companies who continue to make use of our intellectual property, creative work and publications, with every compute cycle. We could actually monitor those compute cycles, memory retrievals, model runs, etc, and develop royalties or taxations off of them. If our hands had built widgets that an AI company is using and didn't pay for, that would be a problem. Well, we built bytes (and networks of ideas) that the companies are not yet paying for.
When the printing press was developed, we slowly developed rules for who makes money off of what gets printed. (In fact, we developed a whole industry out of writers, artists, agents, publishers, bookstores, libraries and readers.) We can develop rules for how AI models get to pay for their use of what was printed by us, which currently enables the AI models to exist and improve.
The economics of AI is a gnarly question. Who pays and who gets paid and what is the price, or the ongoing royalty, licensing or subscription fees? Many of the AI companies spent gobs of time and money on election and political influence, and the Triangle Shirtwaistcoat factory owners spent money on door locks and window bars. It took decades of turmoil, struggle, and Frances Perkins to unlock the workers from the economic and employment deal the factory owners had written for their workers. Will it take decades of the same for us to unlock ourselves from the deal the AI companies have written for us? Only a rough analogy, of course, but in our present course many of our workers do seem to be locked inside a burning building, or a crumbling one, at least.
Please explain the extent to which UBI would or would not have eligibility thresholds. If not, the zero point would just be shifted. If so, it has the same problem as other poverty interventions: loss of resources upon obtaining additional income. Perhaps, it should take the form of vouchers for delimited purchases.
The way you framed UBI as a payment for the knowledge AI has stolen (my word) from us is perfect. I think there have been a few places that have tried UBI and they seem to have had positive results. I think we should try it. (But, then, I think "efficiency" is overrated and I don't believe billionaires should exist at all.) I believe a universal basic income would make radical positive changes in the world---but I do think we're running out of time. (Sorry, that's a lot of "I thinks" and "I believes.")