Are we the baddies?

> If you open a government S&P 500 account for everyone with $1,000 at birth that’ll pay their social security cause it like…goes up…wait who’s creating this value again?

This is a good point. Some VCs were major proponents of this (and tons of other business people I'm sure), but this is of course just a guaranteed inflow into the largest companies and the companies that think they will be large some day. Yet another way to reallocate public cash to private companies.

Another similar example is UBI -- its proof of an economy that is not dynamic. It's a tacit approval and recognition of the fact that "no, you probably won't be able to find a job with dignity that can support you and your family, so the government will pay to make you comfortable while you exist".

> make you comfortable while you exist

I don't think there are many proponents of that type of ubi.

The way, at least I, see ubi is absolute subsistence - with a right to earn above that without affecting your subsistence.

IMHO something along UBI is needed for a democratized market economy - and I think the Scandinavian countries are the support for this claim.

During the depression this was done with a job guarantee. Instead of paying people to sit on their ass they paid people to build stuff like the Lincoln tunnel, which was preferable for them (and even for us, we still use that stuff).

UBI is more like the grain dole which Roman Emperors used to temper mass unrest and "prove" their benevolence.

It seems to be in vogue among tech moguls who cant distinguish between abject dependence on the Chinese industrial system/systematic underinvestment in infrastructure and all jobs being automated thanks to their glorious genius.

This would sound like a good solution.

The main difference from then, however, is that it is difficult to give each man a showel to dig and each woman a kid to care for this time.

People need qualifications to operate heavy machinery, know regulations, etc. - we are not in 1934 anymore.

As such we also don't need 30% og the population in the farming sector.

In 1934 people were trained on the job. This was as true in the WPA as it was outside.

What changed is not the newfound impossibility of doing that, just the reluctance of employers to pay for it and the willingness of the government to indulge their insatiable demand for cheap, pretrained labor.

I find it difficult to believe that the price of training has not gone up.

I am not as convinced as you. When training is 7 year degree to achieve some specialization it simply is not for everyone.

Also, ubi is not anti work - it is merely the acknowledgement that not everyone have salary worthy things to do.

The alternative it havy financialization as in you receive a tip when you bring down you neighbors garbage.

there are many reasons to be against a job guarantee but the presumption that every potential job nowadays requires a 7 year degree is a particularly bad one.

That is not the presumption - I trust that you are enough of a non-LLM to properly understand the message behind the words.

This is what you wrote:

>When training is 7 year degree to achieve some specialization

>properly understand the message behind the words

You should probably say what you mean if you want people to hear what you mean. I dont have the patience to listen to metaphors.