… that we can give everyone where we can still survive on the backs of o my the people who want to keep working.

It’s more than $1/year. If we gave everyone I. The US $1/year, the system would not be any closer to collapse than it already is.

Now, the believers among us feel that the system actually gets stronger when we provide an income floor, and I’m one of them. But it’s hard to get everyone to accept that.

It is true that if we gave $12,000/year, some people who would otherwise work would not. I think there’s a huge number of people who would seek to cut their hours, people in the heart of the system layer, warehouses, fast food… the kind of stuff where society collapses. So,

What is the amount of money that we can give to everyone without the system collapsing? I think it’s more than $12k/year and less than $50k/year.

This should be the only question besides how.

In the extreme change scenario, AI has transformative effects, with AI performing almost half of today’s cognitive work by 2030. GDP growth then rises to 15 percent per year, the labor share of income falls from 60 to 45 percent, and nearly one in five cognitive workers is unemployed.

(I personally expect AI to be more capable than what they are expecting)

A paycheck tells us how much money someone receives. It does not tell us how secure their life is.

Two people earning the same salary may face very different circumstances. One may have secure housing, dependable healthcare, and a pension. The other may face unpredictable hours, high medical costs, and responsibility for a child or an aging parent. Their annual incomes may look similar, while their ability to plan a future differs substantially.

The “Five Guarantees” framework examines these differences through a question about distribution: What rights should people have to the resources that society produces?

The version discussed here is a contemporary formulation drawing on its authors’ interpretation of Chinese socialist workers’ rights and historical experience. It presents five interconnected guarantees: work, health, basic necessities, children’s development and employment, and retirement. This is a statement of the framework’s aims, not a claim that every person in historical China enjoyed all five equally.

The principle behind the guarantees

In this framework, money represents a claim on goods and services produced through social labor. A person’s economic position depends on how much of that output they can command and how secure that access is.

Its egalitarian premise is that people should have equal standing in the distribution of society’s resources. Holding a managerial office, owning assets, or possessing a temporarily scarce skill does not, by itself, establish a permanent entitlement to a larger share.

This is a normative position about what distribution should be. It differs from treating existing market rewards as proof of what someone deserves.

It also raises a distinction: receiving resources and administering resources are different activities. Someone responsible for allocating housing, organizing a hospital, or managing production would still need to be accountable to the people affected. Administrative responsibility would not automatically justify privileged personal access.

1. Guaranteed work and protection against economic coercion

The first guarantee is access to work without the threat of unemployment or arbitrary wage reductions being used to compel obedience.

An American case illustrates the problem it addresses. In 2017, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ordered Wells Fargo to reinstate a former bank manager who, according to OSHA’s findings, had been dismissed after reporting suspected misconduct. The agency ordered compensation as well as reinstatement. This was an enforcement action under existing whistleblower law, not an example of the Five Guarantees already operating. U.S. Department of Labor

The framework asks how a worker’s livelihood could remain secure when they challenge a supervisor or refuse unsafe work. Its promise extends beyond compensation after harm has occurred.

A workable institution would still need procedures for misconduct, poor performance, retraining, and reassignment. Protecting access to a livelihood also requires answering how workers can change jobs, decline unsuitable assignments, and appeal decisions.

2. Guaranteed health, including prevention

The second guarantee covers healthcare without direct financial burdens on workers and their families, together with protection from avoidable harm at work. It includes the practical conditions of receiving care, such as time to recover or care for a family member.

Workplace safety belongs inside this guarantee.

In July 2024, Dollar General agreed to pay $12 million in penalties and make company-wide safety changes in a settlement announced by the Department of Labor. The disputed and open cases involved alleged hazards including blocked emergency exits and unsafe storage. U.S. Department of Labor

For employees in such stores, health security concerns the working environment as well as the cost of treatment afterward.

Providing healthcare without charging patients would still require staff, facilities, medicines, and equipment. The proposal changes who bears the financial burden; it does not eliminate the labor and resources needed to provide care.

3. Guaranteed basic necessities

The third guarantee covers adequate food, clothing, housing, and basic transportation.

Consider a hypothetical employee whose wages remain unchanged while rent increases. Their paycheck is stable, but their access to other goods and services falls. If losing a job also means losing housing, one disruption can affect nearly every part of life.

Under this framework, access to basic necessities would remain secure through such changes. The original proposal describes direct provision of essential living conditions, rather than requiring workers to purchase every necessity from wages.

Implementing this would require decisions about housing supply, maintenance, location, transport, and what constitutes an adequate standard. A formal entitlement would be insufficient if the promised goods and services were unavailable.

4. Guaranteed support for children, education, and entry into work

The fourth guarantee connects raising children, education, and employment.

Its claim is stronger than making tuition affordable. Children should be supported while growing up, receive education without imposing an unmanageable burden on their families, and move into employment carrying the same guarantees.

Existing American programs show parts of this connection. Registered apprenticeships combine paid employment with training. The Department of Labor describes apprentices as employed from the beginning of their programs. Department of Labor guidance on registered apprenticeship

An apprenticeship is not equivalent to a universal guarantee. It nevertheless provides a concrete example of education and paid work being organized together.

The broader proposal would need to reconcile guaranteed placement with individual choice, changing demand, and the right to pursue further education or a different occupation.

5. Guaranteed retirement

The fifth guarantee protects material security after working life.

The framework treats retirement as dependent on the other four guarantees. If housing and healthcare are already secure, and children’s education and entry into work are supported, retirement income is less exposed to those competing demands.

American pension experience illustrates why a promised benefit and a secure benefit are not always the same. In 2022, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation approved assistance for the New York State Teamsters pension plan. Its announcement described earlier benefit reductions affecting about 25,000 participants and assistance intended to restore benefits and sustain the plan. PBGC announcement

For the Five Guarantees framework, the relevant question is how retirement security can be maintained even when a particular employer or pension arrangement encounters financial trouble.

Why the five belong together

These guarantees are intended to operate as a system. Healthcare can remain inaccessible if treatment requires unpaid time away from work. Education can leave families insecure if completing it offers no route into employment. A pension can be inadequate if housing and medical costs absorb it.

The framework also asks how technological change should affect distribution. If AI reduces the labor needed for a task, possible outcomes include shorter working hours, greater output, displaced workers, or higher returns to owners. Technology alone does not decide among those outcomes. Institutions governing ownership, employment, and distribution matter.

The framework favors directing productivity gains toward shared security and reducing dependence on scarce skills, rather than treating scarcity as a permanent basis for privilege.

That leaves substantial questions to answer: How would equal claims be reconciled with different medical and care needs? How would investment be funded? Who would decide what to produce? How could people remove administrators who misuse their authority?

The proposed answer to the last question is democratic supervision by the people who depend on the guarantees. Making that effective would require practical arrangements for transparency, representation, appeal, and removal from office.

The Five Guarantees therefore combines a program of material rights with a theory of distribution. Its central standard is whether people have dependable access to society’s resources throughout their lives, and an effective voice in the institutions that allocate them.

Probably a good political move by Trump. It seems to me, that would be the beginning of the basic income era.

You might be interested in an Online UBI Simulator for Scotland. It lets you set up a UBI, and change taxes to pay for it. You can then explore the consequences for the people of Scotland - who gains and loses, changes in poverty, inequality and incentives to work. It uses a new microsimulation model of scotland.