I'm UBI-curious, but surely inflation would be inevitable if everyone suddenly had $x more disposable income per year? Landlords and grocery stores and everyone else would raise prices because they know people can afford it. Obviously if you're living in poverty, anything is better than nothing, but would the average middle class person be better off? As far as I can tell no country has ever tested true UBI (unconditional and for all residents) so its all theoretical.
Musk's idea of a Universal High Income (where money is no longer necessary because robots and AI give us anything we want) sounds great too until you consider scarce resources like land. Who decides who gets to buy the best properties on Earth if money is no longer a factor? What if you want, say, a human hair stylist or therapist: who would do such a job if they don't have to? We would lose the human touch in our lives, and that sounds awful.
Is that what UBI has become these days? That everyone is supposed to get some extra money on top of whatever they already have?
~20 years ago, when UBI was a popular idea in my country, it was understood as a technical fix to the welfare and tax systems. It was supposed to simplify the systems and make them easier to understand. It was supposed to fix the perverse incentives people with low wages face, such as the extremely high (often >80%) effective marginal tax rates. It was supposed to automatically give people the benefits they are entitled to, without having to deal with the punitive bureaucracy. It was supposed to help people who fall between the categories in the existing welfare system. And so on.
And it was supposed to be funded by making it an accounting technicality, at least for the most part. Most basic welfare benefits, tax credits, and tax deductions would go away. Progressive taxation would go away. Standard deduction would either go away or become substantially smaller. And the highest income tax bracket would start at 0.
Everything you say is still the idea and I agree but where does the idea that progressive taxation would go away coming from? What does it have to do with UBI?
A UBI is a method of achieving the same effect as progressive taxation without the complexity and perverse incentives of tracking everyone's income and applying different marginal rates.
Suppose you have a tax system with progressive tax brackets and then a needs-based welfare system with benefits phase outs. It turns out, those two things (progressive rate structure and benefits phase outs) basically cancel each other out -- lower income people are supposed to pay lower marginal tax rates but if you're paying a 10% marginal tax rate and then have a 25% benefits phase out rate, that's the same as paying a 35% marginal tax rate. Worse, the benefits phase outs for different benefits often overlap, with the result that lower income people are often paying higher marginal tax rates than wealthy people, and there are some cases when their marginal rates even exceed 100% of marginal income.
So you have two unnecessarily complicated systems that mostly exist to cancel each other out, and to the extent that they don't they're doing something you don't actually want (excessively high marginal rates on poor people). It's better to just get rid of both -- no phase outs is the "universal" part of the UBI, and then you combine that with a uniform marginal tax rate for everyone.
You're basically getting rid of the progressive rate structure so you can lower the marginal tax rates on poor people to the ones being paid by rich people, and if that seems counterintuitive it's because the status quo is very stupid.
It turns out that a theoretically optimal non-linear taxation schedule features a UBI plus varying marginal tax rates (i.e. continuous tax brackets) that start out quite high (but sub-100%) in the UBI-clawback range (to manage the UBI break-even point while still offering a high subsidy to the very lowest earners) become very low for low-to-middle income earners and rise gradually for middle- and high-income earners. That's quite redistributive in intent, but the tax brackets themselves are neither "progressive" nor "regressive". Nevertheless, middle- and high-income earners do face moderately progressive rates.
You should repeat that claim with concrete numbers.
What is the effective marginal tax rate in the UBI-clawback range, including any housing / healthcare / childcare / whatever benefits lost due to income? And what is the minimum hourly net income that would encourage someone with guaranteed basic income to take a job instead of staying at home? With those two numbers, you can calculate an effective minimum wage, below which it would be practically impossible to hire anyone.
> And what is the minimum hourly net income that would encourage someone with guaranteed basic income to take a job instead of staying at home? With those two numbers, you can calculate an effective minimum wage, below which it would be practically impossible to hire anyone.
The answer to the first question varies from person to person, and from job to job since some of them are less desirable to do independent of what they pay, which means the threshold in the second question doesn't actually exist. There may be 100 people willing to work a specific job for $X/year but not 1000 people, etc.
They benefit from greatly lowered tax rates on their earned income (this is also a 'carrot' for the UBI net-receivers themselves, at least at the higher end), and high growth because you don't need to 'soak' higher-earning folks, who only pay moderately progressive rates. The alternative either has the lowest earning folks getting screwed out of receiving a meaningful subsidy (which is really bad) or pushes the break-even point way too high, which is not really what you want either and is the main criticism of UBI from a practical POV.
> They benefit from greatly lowered tax rates on their earned income
Lowered marginal tax rates. Raising the marginal rates on the lowest earners is raising the effective rates on the lower middle class. That they don't get anything is essentially the purpose of your proposal.
> and high growth because you don't need to 'soak' higher-earning folks, who only pay moderately progressive rates.
But did you actually have to do that? Having the lowest marginal rates be in the middle is pretty expensive because it's also lowering the effective rate on everyone above them, or at best is just balancing out having the highest rates at the bottom. It seems like you're trying to increase the amount of the UBI while making sure the extra money comes from the middle rather than the top. Having approximately the top half (50% of the population) pay so that the second quartile (25% of the population) can get ~half the UBI instead of none both doesn't seem like a bad thing and doesn't seem like it would cost them that much rate-wise because it's a 2:1 population ratio and they they have a higher per capita base to apply the rate to.
And having the highest rates at the bottom is pretty bad incentive-wise.
> or pushes the break-even point way too high
What's the problem with the break-even point being somewhere around the middle? The people only slightly below that aren't getting a large subsidy, they're just not getting literally zero.
Meanwhile the amount of "well I didn't make that much money because I had half of it paid to my kid" marginal rate arbitrage you're reintroducing is large.
Mathematically equivalent does not mean human psychologically equivalent. e.g., people prefer a discount, even if the actual final numbers are the same. The framing matters
UBI basically is an equalizer, instead of a standard deduction and graduated taxation, you get $N off the top and pay X% of whatever you earn. The progression comes in the money you get since it comes out of taxes from everyone, theoretically it is wealth redistribution especially if it becomes a significant part of most people’s income.
That's exactly what it's supposed to be, but then opponents (or just people who are confused) will often characterize it as something else which is easier to find fault with.
The current UBI frame is nothing like what you said. And I think this is the issue with UBI - the incentives are not aligned for it to be stable and reasonable over time, but rather to get much worse and misused over time.
It could start out like that while we gradually dial down the other systems it is suppose to replace.
> Progressive taxation would go away.
There should be very aggressive progressive taxation. When you've absorbed a lot we should encourage you to stop hoarding and get a life.
Maybe do a license for a fund for a specific purpose. Then you can continue playing the game but the fund may only be spend on [say] high speed rail.
It seems fun to leave all the money in the companies and require them to explain to a committee what they are going to do with it. If apple says they are going to make phones the size of the fund begs to question why they are not already spending it on making phones?
I tend to think a job guarantee would work better than UBI: have the government provide a job to anyone who can't find one somewhere else, something like what was done in the 1930's in the US. Come up with a list of things needed (can you think of anything that needs fixing?), and pay people a living wage and benefits to take care of those things. Call it 'Universal Basic Work.'
Beyond spending government money to take care of the country and beyond providing those hired with enough to take take of themselves, it'd force private employers to pay and provide benefits at least as well as the government UBW jobs if they want to hire employees.
I further imagine that a person making enough to get by would be less prone to being hopeless and frustrated, supporting social cohesion. And that there's a dignity in that both for the individual and the community they are a part of.
1. The idea behind UBI is that it is near-zero effort, the cost to operate UBI should be minimal. UBW cannot be low overhead I suppose.
2. What motivation do I have to do the work if I can’t get fired?
You have to work if you want to get paid. Otherwise you will get fired. The obligation of the state is to provide you with a guaranteed alternative job offer, not a guaranteed income.
It’s up to you if you take up the state’s offer or not.
The UBI removes the motivation to work and turns everything into volunteering. The result is a rise in the “reservation wage gap” - the amount the private sector has to pay to get people to work for them.
The reservation wage gap with a job guarantee is near zero - which is more economically efficient.
Additionally the job guarantee acts as a powerful spend side automatic stabiliser that is temporal and spatially efficient - which removes the need to manipulate the base interest rate allowing it to return to its natural rate of zero. This allows permanent cheaper mortgages and business loans.
The government already does this by subsidizing low income earners via the EITC. It just outsources the actual job provision to the private sector, which is an effective alternative to wasteful make-work.
Except that doesn’t work as there remains a systemic shortage of jobs on offer.
The societal deal with the private sector is that it employs everybody at a rate that allows an individual to live in return for the chance to make a profit. A job guarantee ensures that the private sector overall cannot shirk that responsibility.
If the private sector does its job, nobody will be employed on a job guarantee.
An income subsidy does the same thing at lesser cost. Whether that subsidy is a UBI or a wage supplement is to some extent a political choice: we got the EITC instead of a proper UBI (managed as a "negative" income tax bill for low-earning folks) largely due to political objections to the notion of getting money "for doing nothing".
Inflation isn't inevitable, especially in the long term. But of course it depends on implementation.
The goal of a UBI is to make sure people get their essentials to live. Right now, people get those essentials, one way or another (otherwise, they'd be dead; and to the extent people starve to death in the developed world, it's issues of distribution, not production or money). This makes the UBI an accounting trick: there's no actual goods not being produced that need to be produced, and it is just shifting costs from welfare, charity, family and friends, etc to the UBI program. This is not inflationary and frees up human effort to focus on higher needs than scraping together a basket of things merely to live.
A lot of the time, though, people also want some non-essential but still pretty important things covered, which is a bit trickier. In this case, there is the potential for more money to be chasing a fixed supply of goods. This will drive inflation in the short term. However, in the longer term, capital will be redeployed to capture that increased demand (while being deployed away from the desires of those taxed to fund the UBI).
This all assumes that the UBI is revenue neutral; if not, yeah, we will get a lot of inflation.
I find it hard to believe shifting spending from welfare to cash won’t result in inflation. It’s about accessibility and how liquid the assistance is. It’s also about how evenly that’s distributed.
To the parent comment’s point, if UBI is evenly distributed across everyone (“Universal”) and exists as liquid spending power (“Income”), there’s no way that doesn’t result in a rate of inflation that perfectly counteracts the existence of UBI.
Prices are only low when the seller wants to scale/reach more buyers. If low/no income buyers disappear, why would prices stay low? If there were an infinite number of high income buyers, cheap products wouldn’t even exist in a freely capitalistic system. Instead we have a limited number of buyers in a wide range of income levels, which drives a wide range of prices and sellers competing at every price point.
It feels like the laws of physics, once you cut off one side of the scale it will fling in the other direction. I also hate everything I just said, I would love to exist in a world that wasn’t subject to these forces. Just seems impossible in a freely capitalistic system.
The point is that, if limited to a level that just covers essential goods, it won't change their distribution, just their payer. If it did change the distribution of the good, then it wasn't essential (because it's the floor; without it, the consumer of the good would be dead; above it, and the vast majority of people immediately spend their income on luxury substitutes).
That is, to be clear, a much lower floor than what many people mean by "essential," which has undergone a kind of concept creep in modern discussion that, depending on the person, might be a cell phone, to an education at a private university, to owning a condo in San Francisco. My essential here means enough to afford enough caloric and nutrient intake to maintain a livable body mass; a couple sets of plain tee shirts and jeans; and a minimal shared living space in a low cost of living area. That's quite below what the US considers the current poverty line and a quite bleak existence (and most people would wonder what's even the point of it).
Income beyond that would drive inflation, at least in the short term.
Inflation is a common red herring that people arguing in bad faith throw at policies they don't like, because most people don't know enough to reject it.
The monetary side of the economy deals with money volumes orders of magnitude larger than the real side, and reacts to change also orders of magnitude faster. Because of that, inflation is almost always completely determined by monetary policy. A real shock that can out-impact monetary policy looks like the end of the world.
Oil is up due to shortages due to the war in Iran. RAM is up in price due to supply shortages due to AI. During COVID much of the early inflation was caused by supply shortages due to factories shutting down. Then house prices shot up in suburbs as people moved out of cities so the demand went up there. None of that is due to monetary policy.
Saying that the total money supply is the cause of inflation is a very simplified view. There are currently trillions of dollars in M2 doing nothing except sitting in wealthy people's bank accounts and investments as generational wealth. That does not raise the prices of anything until it is being spent.
> Inflation is a common red herring that people arguing in bad faith throw at policies they don't like, because most people don't know enough to reject it.
That's very dismissive. Since you know so much, why don't you try to reject it?
In places that consist of many people with subsidized incomes, like elderly housing complexes, why aren't local grocery stores and gas stations higher than elsewhere?
Also, aside from that question, prices will only rise if there's no competition. In a working market, if more people can afford a higher rent more apartments will be built.
Because the subsidies aren't on top of base income?
The subsidy isn't the problem per se, it's the net increase in income.
It is obviously self-evident everywhere that high incomes create high cost of living, which can be traced through higher costs all the way down to the land rents (the rent someone is willing to pay to have market access to the high local incomes).
I don't see why UBI would necessarily be an increase of income for everyone. It could be that, but it could also be a decrease in hours worked, or a more equal distribution of wealth, or any combination of these.
I don't want a higher income, I want to benefit from the productivity gains I and everyone else made happen by having more time to do things I like.
> Why don't you just do that now and work half the amount of hours you're currently working?
Show me the job like mine where this is an option, and I'll take it in a second. Hire another me and we'll split duties.
These sorts of "professional job that pays a professional hourly rate but is for 20 hours a week" are exceedingly rare. You'll usually be taking far less than 50% pay - far worse if you include benefits in the calculation.
I've been halfway keeping my eye open for such an opportunity so I could fund the basics of my life, plus have time to do personal projects with utterly no chance of monetary payback. Just stuff like paint the house, teach myself how to weld, work on backyard art, volunteer, etc.
I could certainly find a job that pays 50% of what I get now for working the same number of hours though. Perhaps moderately less stress and no "off hours" chance of being called in for an emergency. But that's not a great tradeoff since I'm looking to trade money for time.
This may not be the point you're making, but it really is sort of frustrating this isn't an option. I get why - I employ folks too and understand the overheads involved - but man it's the dream!
If we worked fewer hours for the same pay, our purchasing power would remain the same. I'm not saying there won't be any disruption at all, but we did it before with the five-day work week.
If "we" means everyone, yes. But the reality is there is a sufficient number of people willing to work more to earn more, and therefore they will raise prices of everything which destroys your purchasing power.
Your purchasing power is defined in a competitive equilibrium with your peers.
If you're assuming you can band everyone together to all decide to work fewer hours for the same pay, fine, but you just invented a union, not an improvement to UBI.
There are people working 80-hour weeks now. I don't think "some people want as much money as possible" is the basis of how we should think of labour. Plenty of middle-class workers will be happy to work fewer hours if they can maintain their current lifestyles.
> If you're assuming you can band everyone together to all decide to work fewer hours for the same pay, fine, but you just invented a union, not an improvement to UBI.
Why should this come solely via unions? I elect people to represent me, and I want those people to tax AI/tech companies and their beneficiaries, and return some of the wealth they've generated to the people it's been extracted from. The entire point of UBI is that it's universal, including in industries poorer and more vulnerable workers who can't self-organise work in.
The trick though is that you aren't really increasing net income. You are just adjusting the way you provide your safety net while increasing the volume of money and the "velocity" of that money.
A Universal Basic Income gives everyone a flat monthly or bi-weekly income. Whatever jobs you work on top of that also provide you income.
As a standard W-2 employee (in US terms) this UBI payment would be factored into your W-4 paperwork (income tax withholding). As your wage increases your withholding increases as well and at the end of the year ideally your return has a clean net 0 under/overpaid.
Below some income threshold your total income tax contribution would be less than the UBI payments and so you'd be receiving a prorated negative income tax throughout the year. You could also call it a prorated tax credit or fixed disbursement social welfare grant or whatever.
At that income threshold you are receiving an interest free loan from the government for the year with loan disbursment on a fixed schedule throughout the year. And of course you promise to pay back in full by the tax deadline (either via withholding and/or with a lump sum at the end of the tax year).
Above that income threshold you are still receiving that fixed disbursement schedule interest free loan from the government but you also start paying additional income taxes on top of that loan. This is of course all still handled via W-4 deductions during payroll and nobody touches your regular UBI disbursement that shows up in the bank as a direct deposit or as a check in the mail. It still shows up every 2 weeks or every month.
But importantly this system is resilient to sudden changes in income. If your income suddenly increases, you factor that in via your W-4 and nothing changes. But if you suddenly lose your job or you move to a much lower paying job, you keep receiving your UBI disbursements on that fixed interval and you aren't left with a tax burden for it at the end of the year.
And so UBI as a system is purely an implementation detail. If we took existing welfare systems. Housing subsidies, food security subsidies (SNAP, etc), insurance subsidies, etc. We factor their per person cost/payout and roll it all together into one fixed interval UBI check. We keep income tax rates the exact same as they are now but shifted to factor in this UBI income (i.e. start everyone at a negative income floor that slowly gets filled to 0 dollars once every UBI check for the tax year pays out). The taxes paid and the net incomes for everyone stays identical (more or less due to variations in thresholds for existing benefits programs).
So at the end of the day your income stays the exact same but there's more money moving around and more consistency for the tax payer/citizen/resident even when suddenly life events change their financial situation.
It depends. On its own, UBI puts a downward pressure on the value of money. Some other things (e.g. setting low interest rates) also put a downward pressure on the value of money. However, some things (e.g. taxes) put an upward pressure on the value of money. So it comes down to how all of those factors balance out.
If UBI is so high that people can afford paying extra without working for it then maybe, but I don't think that is the idea behind UBI. There still needs to be an incentive for people to work, they should just be in a place where they actually have a choice instead of living in survival mode every day.
I am considering legislation for the next fiscal year.
I have come to learn that 100% of private landlords have increased their rents by the full amount of the UBI we introduced last year.
I ban private rentals and/or private ownership of homes and/or introduce strict rent control policies (depending on precisely how progressive we're feeling this year).
I am a progressive government. The free market has failed to provide a necessary service. So now I pass a law that creates a not for profit contractor that builds houses. It’s not that complicated. We do it with fire departments, police, and many other services already. Free market might have been more efficient theoretically, but when it fails in practice we find another solution.
I kind of lost the UBI plot, to be fair. I don’t really understand what UBI actually had to do with this exercise fundamentally, the exact same thing happens with or without it, it’s just that the floor of what “affordable housing” is gets risen. Unless you think that an unfettered, UBI-less economy doesn’t produce expensive housing? Which, I think we have many real world case studies in almost every major city in rich countries to disprove that assertion.
I do see what you mean, I think, now that I’m rereading and contemplating. A monthly stipend probably does more to raise prices than anything useful, unless you also pair it with regulation to stop the wealthy and powerful from taking it all for themselves. And at that point you could have just done those regulations without UBI. Hmm.
Do you think a few lump sum payments over a citizens lifetime would have the same effect? Maybe some large sum paid when you reach age of majority and then again at retirement?
> A monthly stipend probably does more to raise prices than anything useful, unless you also pair it with regulation to stop the wealthy and powerful from taking it all for themselves. And at that point you could have just done those regulations without UBI.
Yes largely correct, but more specifically than "wealthy and powerful," I am referring directly to the landed class, wealthy or not. This type of infusion will ultimately be baked into the cost of land, which will propagate up to rent, then up to wages, then up to goods. The gains will accrue almost entirely to the landed class in the form of higher land rents with no symmetrical increase in costs because land itself does not incur costs.
> Do you think a few lump sum payments over a citizens lifetime would have the same effect? Maybe some large sum paid when you reach age of majority and then again at retirement?
It wouldn't have the same effect but it'd have an analogous effect in the localized markets in which those subsidies are applied. For example, you'd expect the price of land (and so rent → wages → goods) to increase where retiring people congregate. But it'd be less harmful to the exact degree that the subsidy itself is less broadly "helpful."
> And at that point you could have just done those regulations without UBI. Hmm.
Rent control is already a thing, and typically good short term but bad long term: renters don't move out because they can't get such low rent elsewhere, and landlords can't afford repairs so things are left broken. It's a great way to create slums over a few generations.
You might be interested to check out the Viennese model - Approximately 220,000 municipal flats and 200,000 subsidized dwellings form the backbone of Vienna's housing system, housing about 50% of the population.
Prices in Vienna are so much more affordable than in comparable European cities - Munich, Hamburg, Berlin to speak of Germany, not to say Madrid, Paris, Barcelone, Milano.
UBI is perfect tool to make citizens obey to state. You'll always vote for your breadwinners.
Why, instead of centralised planned economy that failed ans killed millions people many times in history, not just lowering taxes and let people to decide how spend their capital individually? Game theory applied on UBI sounds really like an ugly idea.
UBI is the opposite of centralized planning. Instead of the state deciding what resources people need, and who “deserves” help, it leaves it up to individuals to decide how best to divvy up resources, and everybody gets it.
As for tools that make citizens obey, the government already has the best one: a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Everything else is child’s play compared to that.
Are you implying that landlords are naturally incentivized to build homes? Because in most circumstances, the exact opposite is true. In the U.S., the government has a number of programs that offer landlords vouchers in order to encourage them to build out more homes.
The broader claim that you're making is that any increase in after-tax income benefits only the rent-seeking classes (since the same argument you've made for landlords would apply to all other rent seekers, including netflix, airlines and more).
I don't know enough about economics these days to know if anyone who knows a lot about thus stuff thinks this is true, but it seems on the face of it to be absurd, since it would mean that pay raises are substantially diminished by rents paid for anything where demand is not elastic. I mean, I'm not insisting that cannot possibly be true, but it seems unlikely ...
No, this argument does not apply to rent-seeking classes. I am describing land ownership specifically. Land is a totally n-of-one asset in that it is completely inelastic. It is not created nor destroyed by any human intervention whatsoever, and so its supply is not affected by prices whatsoever.
The relevance of this is amplified by the fact that land is a required input for all forms of production. People and machines must exist in space, and therefore demand land.
This does not apply to any other asset that we care about.
OK, so there are classes of activity that are fairly inelastic, but not as inelastic as those requiring use of land. Fair enough. But why would the cost of air travel not increase in response to UBI? It's not inelastic, but modest increases don't appear to reduce demand much at all. Or eggs (again, not inelastic, but not very elastic either)?
The housing:land demand ratio is also not fixed, due to multi-level dwellings (hence, for example, Singapore or Hong Kong), or increased density (e.g. ADUs or smaller lots).
I just don't see why you see UBI only affecting owners of a nearly-inelastic resource (land) rather than everything else too (even if to a lesser degree) ?
It would increase those prices! But that would then incentivize additional production, which would drive prices back down close to each good’s cost of production (modulo the suppliers’ dominance and ability to demand margin).
So same mechanism applies to land, except then there’s no way to spur additional production of land, so the price just goes up.
Re density etc: correct, which is why I’m not arguing this benefits homeowners or building owners, except to the degree they are also landowners. A building owner who does not own the land underneath his building would not benefit much, the person who he pays land rent to will capture nearly all of the upside.
In response to what is deemed to be unreasonable and/or undesirable landlord behavior ... such controls would not stop landlords from continuing to earn from their properties.
"Unreasonable behavior" is just "setting market prices."
Correct it wouldn't stop landlords from continuing to earn from their properties but it would destroy the incentive to produce additional housing, so nobody wins.
Landlords do not really set prices arbitrarily, especially not in HCOL areas where most of the cost is land rent. The rent is set by the market, and if there's a new UBI only a negligible fraction of it will go towards rent. Rents might even decrease since any given UBI amount will go a lot further in a lower-COL area, which incents people to move out (reversing gentrification dynamics) and creates future opportunities for job creation in these economically depressed areas where such opportunities are most clearly needed.
Rents are set by local wages (via mechanism of land rents)
> Rents might even decrease since any given UBI amount will go a lot further in a lower-COL area, which incents people to move out (reversing gentrification dynamics)
Can you identify any historical analogy to this claim?
History shows — across the board — people move toward higher COL areas as their ability to pay for COL grows.
Your concern can easily be addressed by having a 100% tax on the value of land and then distributing this tax money through a citizen's dividend.
But this isn't all that related to the productivity dividend. That's more natural by setting banks to have a full reserve requirement. At that point new innovations would yield deflation, which would be harmful. The Fed would then have to step up and be the creator and distributor of new money. That money would then be the UBI, distributed equally to all.
> Can you identify any historical analogy to this claim?
It's difficult because the main driver is clearly towards increased urbanization, driven by the high productivity of urban jobs. But if you're planning to live mostly on your UBI and work less if at all, you won't care as much about that. There were several "back to the land" movements in the history of modern developed countries, and the early stages of succesful gentrification - often involving comparatively marginalized folks and highly mobile groups, such as artists and youths - demonstrate a similar dynamic that can ultimately lead to the flourishing of new urban areas as the stages of gentrification progress.
Regulation is not what suppresses production, but the actual profit margins. It's extremely hard to make money building housing because the cost of land and labor are so high. These costs are high because we now live in an advanced economy where land can do much more valuable things than "be housing", and laborers can do much more productive things than "build housing."
Yup. Development companies contract when the housing market contracts. They aren't building houses for the fun of it, they are building them because they believe the 100 houses they build in a hot market will ultimately pay back the land purchase rights. They will never build so many houses as to decrease the cost of a home.
I actually got my home from a developer right after the housing bubble. They confided in me that they were giving away these homes pretty much at cost and that they had to fire a huge portion of their staff because the market was just crap at the time.
Really, the only way to actually achieve lower housing prices is through the state ownership and build out. The state could also spend a premium on building homes that it sells at a loss or rents at lower rates. But that will be pretty unpopular with the general public.
Yep — or aggressive subsidization of the inputs of housing production, or some other cost management of an input (such as a high LVT that discourages speculation and withholding of valuable land from use)
I disagree. Zoning, building permits, inflated utility hook-up charges, etc is what restricts me from buying a one-acre parcel and putting in 30 snug cabins.
You are confusing marginal price (or profit-equalization) theory with numerical limits on the level of housing unit production.
If people were allowed to build as they wished, they'd build a lot of housing, much of the housing crisis would subside and then the profitability of building house would equalize with the profitability of other uses. But stable point would give a lot more people housing.
It's like... Taxation or similar things can reduce X use of resource Y. Remove taxation and eventually X use isn't any more profitable than other uses but a tautology of markets/economics, not an argument the taxation isn't limit the production involved in X use.
Land might be scarce in the technical sense, but not in the practical sense. Housing is only expensive because people want to live in superstar cities, which in turn is because that's where all the jobs are. If UBI eliminates the imperative to live in superstar cities, that makes scarcity a non-issue.
I can work from anywhere, but I like to live in a superstar city because I find it boring living in the suburbs. I want to be near my friends, near the live events, near the buzzing restaurants and art galleries and clothing stores where I can walk around and touch things. There will always be a concentration of people in cities for these reasons.
>There will always be a concentration of people in cities for these reasons.
That's fine. Not everyone has to move. As long as the marginal city dweller would rather have cheaper housing than "buzzing restaurants and art galleries", there will be downward pressure on housing prices.
All this would do is raise prices in the marginally cheaper places to live, in order of desirability. Sure it might reduce some prices in the core "superstar" cities, but not by a whole lot - since by definition those receiving a net-benefit from UBI are going to make less than average. Especially for a HCoL city.
Sure a few folks will drop out of the highly competitive professional job market to go homestead somewhere. They will be a rounding error, since they have already expressed revealed preference that "bare minimum lifestyle" is not enough. Someone capable of holding down a $350k/yr white collar job is already qualified to go make $70k/yr remotely in some random city anywhere in the US they want to live but they choose not to.
As we've seen with COVID remote work, the desirable "cheap" places to live will very rapidly have price appreciation because they are starting from such a low floor to begin with.
A $300/mo increase in some 30,000 population city in the midwest is a lot more material to the market than a $300/mo decrease for a $3k/mo apartment in a top 10 city core.
It also ignores the folks who want to live in the superstar cities but cannot currently afford to. If UBI is high enough to really matter, there will simply be a reshuffling. I'd expect upper-end to perhaps go down (largely due to increased taxes and thus less disposable income for the high earning group), but the lower-end to be raised eating up basically all the UBI surplus.
Also this totally ignores the third and fourth (and more!) order effects. If people are less incentivized to work, and work carries a much higher tax load (as it must for UBI to be worth even considering) - pay for high-end jobs must increase since working is going to have less net-benefit for an individual who now has a choice to totally drop out of the workforce and have others pay for everything. Who knows? Maybe prices actually increase in those superstar cities as they become even more winner-take-all environments?
Because tenants are not scarce. If you cut your prices, you lose $200/mo forever. If you simply follow the maximum market price and wait, someone will fill your room eventually and you have them locked into a higher rate forever.
Competition doesn't work for necessities. Someone will rent your room at any price because it's necessary for survival. One of the major crises of our time is the fact that there are more people who need housing than there are rooms to rent to them.
Why don't landlords undercut one another? They literally don't have to. The only outcome is less profit. You'll find a tenant eventually, at any price. Getting tenants in rooms a few months earlier at the cost of lower rent means you make less money, and are less competitive as a business.
You're failing to explain what dictates the price the market will bear.
> Why don't landlords undercut one another? They literally don't have to. The only outcome is less profit. You'll find a tenant eventually, at any price.
is very obviously not true, otherwise prices right now would be effectively infinite. Why are prices for an apartment in SF only 3k/mo instead of 30k? Surely under your reasoning a landlord could just wait and get a tenant at any price they set?
The answer is always supply and demand. As long as the supply is constrained or demand goes up faster the price will rise. But UBI doesn't change that math at all. (I say this as someone not actually a fan of UBI)
> Why are prices for an apartment in SF only 3k/mo instead of 30k? Surely under your reasoning a landlord could just wait and get a tenant at any price they set?
No, because local wages cannot sustain those prices
If local wages could sustain those prices, then yes all rents would rise to that new higher local income level
That is (quite self-evidently) prices are so phenomenally high in ultra high-income areas like SF
Every single landlord is setting prices by the same metric: what can the people who would live here be able to afford? Competition between landlords is almost nil, which is why you find almost no "deals" anywhere. The market is totally efficient. Everyone agrees on how to set prices: by local wages.
In fact, collusion with the likes of yeildstar is the name of the game. Everyone is setting prices based on what the algorithm tells them to set prices and they all benefit from that uprise in prices because there's basically no competition decreasing the price.
There's also been a steady consolidation of ownership of rental units which also artificially increases prices.
There's a reason nowhere in the country at this point has affordable housing.
> You're failing to explain what dictates the price the market will bear.
Most people like to live in the nicest place they can afford. This is a force pulling prices upward when many people with excess cash are competing for a limited supply of homes. Its why you'll pay more for the same size property in a wealthy neighborhood.
> Why are prices for an apartment in SF only 3k/mo instead of 30k?
Because some people in SF can only afford 3K/month. But if you added 3k/month to literally everyone's income, that number would increase.
(In case you're wondering why the many people with more than 3k/month don't crowd those people out: the wealthy depend on those 3k/month people for labor. At least for now.)
This just isn't true across the time and space of human cultures and civilizations. There are plenty of places, even in the USA within the last 50 years, that have had a housing surplus.
The current problems have tended to arise when desirable work is geographically limited which then leads to a much larger housing shortage in those areas despite the presence of sufficient housing across a broader territory.
Defining "good" and "bad" in this context requires lots of other answers first.
When NYC had a housing surplus in the late 1970s, many people considered it to be a bad place. But even as they did so, a new generation of artists were moving into it. So was it a bad place at a bad time? Or a good place at a good time?
When Seattle had a housing surplus in the late 1970s ("Will the last person to leave Seattle please turn out the lights?" said the billboard in I5), many people considered it to be a bad place. But that was actually the beginning of a slow and steady population growth that now sees it as an incredibly desirable and expensive place to live.
Clearly, there are plenty of people for whom both cities were, at those times, "bad". But equally clearly, there are lots of other people for whom the very same places were, to some degree, just what they were looking for.
And these effects occur on even smaller scales. The neighborhood in London where I was born was basically a slumlords dream in the 1960s. Tons of empty housing, all very cheap (so cheap that my grandparents could afford a large home there). By the late 80s, it had become incredibly desirable and rather expensive. You can say "it was a bad place at a bad time in the 60s", but a bunch of people considered that an ideal place to be.
If we had completely equal distribution of financial resources, this sort of thing might be less of a factor. But as long as there are people looking for "value" and others looking for "luxury", the good/bad distinction doesn't really describe the world very usefully.
The empty places were by definition good for few people, typically people who couldn’t afford better places.
Artists don’t move into neighborhoods because they’re cool, they move in because they’re cheap. They’re cheap because, by definition, people don’t want to live there.
This - since you can live in a rural area with UBI - and you get more time in the day to manage your accommodations, the move to urban housing is not so critical.
Yes if you simply assert an upside down reality, this is a good solution.
However, people actually move toward higher COL areas as their income permits them to.
If more income meant people moved away from high COL areas, cities wouldn't exist. We'd have a flat distribution of people across approximately all land with ultra-low COL and ultra-low productivity everywhere.
How does land value tax help in particular here? Landlord pays land value tax, which is distributed via UBI, and then paid back to the landlord in higher rents (in the above scenaro).
This is a good resource on the question -- Land Value Tax is not passed on to tenants, the landlord eats it. This is pretty unique among taxes, which is why LVT is a particularly good way to fund UBI, otherwise you would expect the UBI to result in inflated rents.
The argument seems to be "that landlords are already charging the maximum that tenants are willing to pay for access to a given location and so cannot arbitrarily raise rents when a LVT is imposed."
But, if the tenants now have more money in the form of UBI, then that argument doesn't hold.
No the argument is that the landlord will raise rents, but they will not keep them. The gain generated by UBI, by virtue of raising the value of the land underneath the unit, would be recouped by the LVT at tax time.
UBI is passed from the tenants to the landlord in the form of higher prices, but is recouped by the LVT, which cannot be passed in reverse from the landlord back to the tenant.
It would not be inflationary if it's paid for with a tax on real value or income. Maybe somewhat inefficient, and prone to political meddling, but it's not introducing new money into the economy.
It would be in a sense, because that money is otherwise mostly hoarded by the wealthy, whose spending would look the same whether or not they are taxed. If money is saved and not spent, it is not really part of the economy in this sense.
But if the money is transferred to others and spent on additional goods & services that is when it increases demand and raises prices.
Ah yes, the old "we should actually be grateful to the ultra-rich, because by not spending all the financial resources they accumulate, they save us from inflation!"
> I'm UBI-curious, but surely inflation would be inevitable if everyone suddenly had $x more disposable income per year?
The money doesn't come from nowhere. It's a transfer payment. People who make a below average amount of money pay less in tax than they receive, people who make an above average amount still receive the UBI but then the UBI is less than the amount of taxes they pay.
The result is not that "everyone has $x more disposable income per year" -- it's $0 on average, because lower income people have a little more and higher income people have a little less.
Notice that the existing welfare system already does this, but in the process creates a bunch of perverse incentives and income cliffs (you lose your benefits if you take a job or work more hours), leading to de facto marginal tax rates that are often >50% on lower income people when you account for benefits phase outs and in some cases they're >100%, i.e. if you make more money you make less money.
> Landlords and grocery stores and everyone else would raise prices because they know people can afford it.
That isn't how competitive markets work. If people had more money and a grocery store tried to raise prices, people would go across the street to the other grocery store.
It only works like that for products with fixed supply, i.e. things you can't make more of if the demand for them increases, because then if people have more money they have to outbid each other instead of sellers just producing more of what people are buying. This is one of the reasons zoning density restrictions screw people so hard -- land has fixed supply but housing doesn't, because you can build more than one housing unit on a piece of land. Unless the government bans that and mandates one unit per plot. Then people have to outbid each other. But your problem then is that, not people having more money. Notice that the same thing happens there if people get more money for any reason, e.g. more people go to college or the economy improves. It's a major problem that needs to be fixed regardless of what you use for transfer payments or if you do them at all.
> Who decides who gets to buy the best properties on Earth if money is no longer a factor?
The premise of that has always been pretty ridiculous. You can reduce the scarcity of some resource by making it more abundant, and that's generally a good thing. Good luck removing all scarcity from all resources. That's not a real thing.
> What if you want, say, a human hair stylist or therapist: who would do such a job if they don't have to?
I have no faith in Musk's vision of an abundance utopia for many reasons, but I suspect a lot of people would still want to do the job of being a human therapist or hair stylist even if they technically didn't need to for money.
They may want to work less than 40 hours a week, but most people do have an inate need to feel like their life has some sort of productive value beyond just base level existing.
UBI is not luxury communism, or at least not any of the proposals I've seen. A guaranteed $1000 a month would help a lot of people, but $12000 a year is not a high income and many people will want to keep working to earn more money than that. Maybe they'd be able to retire sooner, though?
As for inflation, a lot depends on how gradually it's adopted. As we saw in the pandemic, supply chains need time to adjust and bad things happen after sudden changes.
> if everyone suddenly had $x more disposable income per year
You mean as opposed to very few people?
I'm told that if one is very curious about the topic one should not start by asking questions but read the 100+ years of the same questions being asked and answered again and again. I cant say I've followed the advice but it sounds very sensible.
This is kind of like social security, medicare or the 5 day work week, if everyone suddenly had $x more disposable income per year? Landlords and grocery stores and everyone else would raise prices because they know people can afford it.
The whole purpose of UBI is to increase the relative purchasing power on the left of the bell curve.
But inflation (sum total) is a moot point if total supply of dollars for total demand stays the same. Prices might temporarily increase for staples, such as shelter and food, but that should incentivize sellers in the economy to supply more staples, and fewer luxury goods.
The additional supply will eventually bring prices down, but end result is more people have more of the basics.
Just because supply of shelter in certain locales has not kept up with demand for that specific locale, and/or is affected by numerous legalities regarding things like eviction and zoning codes and fire codes and animals, does not mean invalid the theory of higher prices incentivizing sellers to increase supply.
1. The right-wing UBI is a tool to dismantle the social safety net. The idea of the likes of Milton Friedman is to replace all social safety programs with UBI. This doesn't make sense because, for example, being disabled in today's society makes everything more expensive; and
2. Left-wing UBI would seek to have everyone share in the wealth they create by supplementing social safety programs with UBI. UBI becomes a form of super-progressive taxation because it can be viewed as negative taxation.
As for your inflation comment, you have a point, to which I'll say: UBI alone isn't sufficient. You need economic reform and planning on top of that.
A good example is the US military. If you live off-base you get a housing allowance (ie BAH). Now around military bases, in the US and overseas, all the landlords know this so you'll find that weirdly all the houses to rent cost pretty much what BAH is.
So a more equitable economic system, including UBI, needs social housing. That is, the government needs to be a significant supplier of quality, affordable housing so landlords (private and insitutional) can't artificially drive up prices, as is the case now. A prime example is Vienna [1]. Housing simply can't be a speculative asset in a healthy economy.
If you wnat to see what an equitable planned economy looks like, look at China.
It's worth noting that Left-wing UBI can still be seen as a mechanism to replace social safety programs. It just requires that disability payments, etc be merged with the UBI system such that added disability needs can be treated like additional tax credits that get applied to the fixed-interval interest-free loan disbursement from the government based on your taxes that UBI effectively is.
In such a system you get your base UBI tax credit which pushes your tax burden into the negative. Additional UBI-elligible tax credits can push that tax burden even further negative. You can file the paperwork to adjust this at any point in the year and if it's for the current year the tax credit is prorated relative to the date of the next disbursement date (and the full amount for the next year).
Then your UBI disbursement updates and you get it. It works the same way as updating your W-4 tax withholding for a standard W-2 position.
At the end of the year of course your taxes all need to zero out still and if not you either get a bill or a refund.
And this also moves all of the social safety program fraud prevention together into the same system within your tax agency (IRS for the US, or state/local agency, or whatever else).
So instead of a bunch of different agencies and systems for avoiding and finding fraud it all rolls together into the responsibility of the IRS tax assessors, auditors, and the IRS Criminal Investigation unit. And while the rich hate the IRS and common media frames them as incompetent, the people at the IRS are in general extremely competent and more than willing to help and accommodate your average person (less so for the rich who get caught systematically trying to defraud the IRS).
A well moderated forum (like HN) is great. I don't have time for the signal-to-noise ratio of X.
IMHO Reddit would be better if it had AI moderators that strictly follow a sub's policies. Users could read the policies upfront before deciding whether to join. new subs could start with some neutral default policy, and users could then propose changes to the policy and democratically vote on those changes.
If the policies are public, there's a lot more transparency. eg my city of millions of people has a subreddit. The head mod bans people for criticizing a certain dog breed. This "policy" is pretty opaque, but if the AI enforced subreddit rules say "thou shalt not mention the dog's breed when commenting on articles about someone being mauled to death", more people would be familiar with the rule (and perhaps there would be more organized discussion).
I was on a subreddit for a while that voted on rules and had a rotating dictator to facilitate them. It worked decently well, although it never got to the point where the sub was brigaded. This was also pre-LLM so moderation was still a big time sink and the sub eventually fizzled out
You are lucky to get lo-bat. I get no-bat. Working perfectly one moment, not responding the next. Not so much as a popup telling me why my PC just got unresponsive.
I've developed a new fear of my 2025 desktop PC being damaged by a power surge or something, because it would cost at least $2K more to replace than I paid for it, assuming I can even find parts now. Compared to the rest of my adult life when I used to secretly pray for something to fail so I would have a reason to upgrade.
Commercial uses layered surge protectors (Type I, II, and III), which is also recommended for other users but rarely followed.
In surge prone areas, at a minimum I would have good quality whole-house surge protector (eg Siemens 140 or Eaton 108), and a good quality surge protector strip for any computer/TV/phone charger.
I also put surge protectors in front of expensive white goods like the fridge, washer/dryer, dishwasher, and garage door opener. Besides being costly to replace these can contain "sparky" motors and this provides protection in the other direction too. Over time smaller surges can degrade the main surge protector for your computer.
Nothing (reasonable) can protect against direct lightning strikes, but for anything less it should provide decent protection.
Are you in an area with a bad electrical grid or something? In 40+ years I've never had a single device get fried from a surge/storm. My "surge protector" power strips are from the 90s and probably don't even work.
This. Same timeframe and I've lived through both lots of lightning storms and in areas with lots of power failures. Some of them intermittent and essentially caused by transformers blowing up. Like earlier this winter, we had multiple storms where you'd hear a transformer blow up, in many cases even seeing the sky light up as well from it, power going out, couple seconds, power coming back, next transformer blowing out, rinse, repeat.
On the other hand I've read about plenty of stories of the "cheap" UPSs you'd usually buy as a consumer (not to name any brands coz I've never had any) actually causing such issues in the first place. Without any actual surges from the grid.
That said, being totally not superstitious (for real, but someone's gonna "kill me" if they find out I wrote this and something dies from a surge...), now I guess I need to knock on wood like seventeen times ...
I do use surge protectors when we're on generator power temporarily.
The things people often call "transformers blowing up" are usually not transformers blowing up.
Instead, it's usually just overhead wires that are too close or literally touching, often from influences like wind and ice. The electricity arcs between the wires, creating bright blue-white flashes that can be seen from far away, sometimes with instantaneous heat that makes hunks of metal wire evaporate explosively. It can be violent and loud, and repetitious as different parts of even a single run fail.
Transformers can certainly blow up, but that's less common. They're (generally) filled with oil for cooling purposes, and they're massive things that tend to take time to get hot. A failed transformer can produce arcing and blue-white light, but if things are that hot then the oil is also ready to burn.
And when the oil burns it isn't blue-white -- it burns with about the same yellow-orange color we saw the last time we accidentally flambéed dinner on the kitchen stove, or a Hollywood fireball.
A bright flash without a fire is probably not a transformer.
Haha, I hear you. But yes, it really is transformers blowing up sometimes. Sometimes it really is just branches blowing up the line, sure.
A branch hitting a wire, happenes all the time here too. Lots of trees in this community. The video of a transformer you shared: that's not the transformer I'm talking about. That's at a transformer station.
And yes, I know it's transformers and not just wires (but also wires do happen definitely) coz I do walk the neighborhood regularly and I can tell when a transformer is new vs. old up there. Ours is old. The ones a few streets over sometimes are very new and I see the Hydro trucks go by the next day(s) to make them new ;)
Again, like seventeen times knock on wood but the ones next to us have not actually blown up. But three streets over, seen the new ones. Literally last weekend, we had an ice storm come through and while no blowouts we could see or hear, the outage map showed plenty of failure.
It happens. The power company was very unhappy with my boss for destroying one of their transformers. The thing is while circuit breakers react very quickly to extreme overcurrent situations (shorts) they're much slower to react to loads which are only a bit over the limit, and if short enough won't react at all. Very common with heavy motors.
And that's exactly what the problem was--we had a whole bunch of really heavy motors. Getting ready to start for the day you flip on the switches and the big machines start to spin. The transformer on the pole was rated higher than the main breaker for the plant--but the transformer apparently was more sensitive to the temporary loads. Once the problem was identified it was resolved by staging it, instead of flipping them all on they were flipped on over 5 minutes.
Residental-scale transformers can and do explode. Shorts happen not-infrequently with freezing rain and ice storms especially causing issues - the internal oil gets displaced by the water, and the dirty water causes an internal short. It wipes out power to a few blocks here when it happens, but we get an outage due to it every year or two.
It's not just cheap UPSes, it's cheap surge protectors as well. They exist because the vendor can throw in a MOV costing a few cents and increase the price of the power strip by 50%, not because they're any good. MOVs are sacrificial components which have either degraded to uselessness by the time they're actually needed or, if they're still working, can explode or catch fire from the energy dissipated. Even if they don't, all they're doing is converting an x-kV spike on active into an around-x-kV spike on neutral or ground. If you want to do it properly, use a series tracking filter, not a "surge protector".
One scenario: there's a short circuit somewhere, say rats chewing through insulation. This can cause a very high current through the short. A non-inverter 4500 watt 120 volt generator might have 0.2 ohms coil resistance, so the short circuit current can hit 170 volts / 0.2 ohm = 850 amps. When the shorted branch's circuit breaker trips, the inductance in the generating windings wants to keep that 850 amps flowing for at least a few microseconds, and it gets distributed across everything else that's still connected. Depending on what else is connected (hopefully including some surge protectors) the peak voltage can get into many kilovolts.
The circuit is something like this:
voltage source -- parasitic inductor --+- circuit breaker -- short
|
+- circuit breaker -- your PC
Definitely use quality surge protectors on expensive equipment connected to generators.
PSA: UPSes and GFCI/GFI extension cords won't work properly when connected to a stand-alone generator with a bonded neutral. I've tried using enterprise UPSes on such generators, but they absolutely won't work. In such scenarios, debond the generator's ground from neutral, apply a very large warning label to it being debonded, and drive a massive ground rod electrode into the ground as close to the generator as possible and ground the neutral there. This does work and is much safer because there's a stable voltage reference source. It's more of a hassle but can be necessary for some off grid and temporary scenarios.
GFCI works correctly either way. Their operating mode doesn't care at all about ground: Whether bonded, not bonded, or not even present (look, ma! only two wires!), they still perform the same way.
They respond to an imbalance in current flow betwixt line and neutral. What goes out must return; if it doesn't, then switch off.
> In such scenarios, debond the generator's ground from neutral
eeeeep. Please for the love of all that is holy, CONTACT AN ELECTRICIAN before messing around with that - or before creating a ground bond where none should be (i.e. TT grid [1]). You may end up endangering yourself if you do not exactly know what you are doing - in the case of TT, you get ground potential difference current from other parts of the grid flowing to ground via your generator's bond. Best case you're getting problems with electrochemical corrosion (including in your foundation), worst case enough current flows to turn your bond wire into a thermal fuse.
Also, take great care if your grounding is provided via municipal water service, or if your original grounding rod has dried out to the point it's ineffective.
Let me repeat: LET ELECTRICIANS DEAL WITH GROUNDING AND SURGE PROTECTION. Floating grounds and improper ground connections CAN BE LETHAL OR POSE A SERIOUS FIRE RISK.
AND YES THAT INCLUDES "ISLAND" SCENARIOS OR EMERGENCY POWER INPUTS (e.g. via CEE plugs and transfer switches).
I'm not sure I'd leave something like this to an electrician. Or if so at least make that electrician be experienced in this field. I think you'd want an electrical engineer to be involved with the plan to some degree.
Electrical engineers don’t know code requirements and wiring guidelines for household electrical wiring. They’re absolutely not the correct default. Electricians with specialization in generator setups, sure, but an electrician engineer on average is likely going to be more uninformed on code requirements than an electrician.
Electrical engineers know the theory but lack the practical knowledge which grid form is used at your specific address (yes, here in Germany we have a few towns where one half side of a street runs TT and the other one is already migrated to TN-C or TN-C-S).
An electrician specializing in lightning protection, uninterruptible power installation or in radio installations can sort out all of that far better than an engineer can.
When I lived in Costa Rica, I lost three surge protectors in a year to power surges. During one such power surge, I didn't notice that the red light indicating surge protection was already out, and a power surge fried my (knockoff) Macbook power adapter, leaving me without a way to work for a day.
Not only should you get rid of them, but also they are a fire hazard.
Also, do not accidentally plug surge protectors into each other, metal oxide varistors can star fires _without_ meaningful surge conditions when you do so.
I prefer to buy products without MOVs entirely due to the risk, with the exception of one, Tripp Lite Isobars; but I prefer to use series mode protectors such as Brickwall or SurgeX.
> Not only should you get rid of them, but also they are a fire hazard.
Are they not a fire hazard even when new? MOVs do tend to degrade with use (especially after they've gone conductive to snuff one or more surges). But AFAICT we can't really know, without potentially-destructive testing, whether a given MOV is in good shape -- whether installed last week, last year, or 30 years ago.
> Also, do not accidentally plug surge protectors into each other, metal oxide varistors can star fires _without_ meaningful surge conditions when you do so.
What is the mechanism that increases risk for MOV-sourced fires in this arrangement?
I've also noticed that many of the power supplies I've taken apart (for very pedestrian consumer goods) have internal MOVs on their line input. Whatever the mechanism is that increases risk, isn't using one external surge protector already doing that in these instances?
> I prefer to buy products without MOVs entirely due to the risk, with the exception of one, Tripp Lite Isobars; but I prefer to use series mode protectors such as Brickwall or SurgeX.
I prefer to avoid MOVs, too. Broadly-speaking, diodes seem like a better way to do it. (Transtector is another reputable brand that uses diodes.)
---
That all said, I've noticed over the years that problems with dead (presumed-to-be-hit-by-a-power-surge) electronics tend to follow particular structures. And the reason for this seems related to grounding more than it is anything else.
So when I find someone (a friend, a client, maybe someone online that I'm trying to help) complaining about repeated damage, I often ask about grounding. Almost always, it turns out that they've got multiple grounding points for the electronics: The electric service has one ground rod, and the telephone/cable feet/satellite/whatever is connected to some other ground.
This might be a dedicated rod, maybe a metal pipe; whatever it is, it is distinct from the main service ground. It happens all the time. (It is worth noting that the NEC prohibits this kind of configuration unless extraordinary effort is put forth. See 800.100(d), for example.)
The way that MOVs -- and avalanche diodes alike -- behave combines with the fact that the earth is an imperfect conductor, such that having multiple ground points promotes dynamic ground loops that can provide quite large potential -through- the electronics that we seek to protect.
The problem appears suddenly, and repetitiously. Everything is fine, and then ZANG: The cable modem gets smoked along with the router it is connected to. So the modem goes back to Spectrum or wherever to get swapped, and the router gets replaced again, until the next time: ZANG.
TV connected to satellite receiver, with coax incorrectly grounded? ZANG. Over and over again.
I'd see it all the time when I was a kid back in the BBS days: The phone line was grounded improperly, and computer was the only thing that connected to both electricity and the telephone line. Some folks would go through several modems over the course of a summer, which was very expensive -- while most people had no problems at all. Next-door neighbors would have completely different failure rates.
Structures with correct grounding tend to do very well at avoiding these issues, and I've fixed these conditions in subsequent years more times than I can count.
(A coworker installed a phone system at a business once, wherein he made extensive use of Ditek surge suppressors -- on the incoming POTS lines, and on the power inputs. It blew up one day. So he called Ditek to try to get at least the cost of the phone system hardware covered. They asked him to draw up a map of how the building was grounded and send that over, so that's exactly what he did. When they saw his map, they very quickly identified a ground loop and denied the claim.)
"What is the mechanism that increases risk for MOV-sourced fires in this arrangement?"
I wondered the same thing, and failed to find a satisfying explanation.
I can find plenty of reports of MOV fires, especially in situations where there's a persistent over-voltage, e.g. a 120 V site actually having closer to 240 V due to a floating neutral. But I don't see how chained MOVs make that worse in general. This blog post has some nice photos:
No clue about the actual reliability of this[1] article but the mechanism mentioned (new pathways due to changes in crystalline structure due to uneven heating) sounds possible.
Heavy industry can also cause these kinds of power surges to happen.
Last year an aluminum smelter in Iceland had a transformer blow which caused a big power surge on parts of the very well developed national power grid. The surge caused damage to electronics in some households and companies near to the smelter.
I lost an audio mixer to a bad surge last year. I don't know whether it was additional load or just really bad fluctuations that damaged the device. Nothing else bit the dust, but the, digital board in this mixer got bricked.
Another perspective: we should install whole house surge protectors if we can afford them, not only for ourselves, but to help our neighbors - even if in reality the help is minimal and they need their own as well. In the best case scenario, if everybody in a neighborhood has them, each individual house will be more resistant to surges than if they were the only house with one (five houses with surge protectors nearby is a lot better than one) - everybody wins.
Why? If the voltage spikes on the grid (that's what I understand a power surge to mean), wouldn't even more of it end up in your house (that is: the grid voltage spike even higher) if the neighbors have equipment that doesn't let their devices consume some of that energy?
Edit: wait, maybe I figured it out: those devices must be consuming the excess rather than blocking it. Is that it?
Yes, energy dissipates. Although one still needs to look out for the distance from the neighbours as your ground can be different from your neighbours ground potential.
Yes, that puts it down perfectly. That’s why some don’t ever see the benefit of installing their surge protector whereas others install one way too small for their situation and find them useless anyway.
EE living in a rural location here: transient related failures do happen in my experience. Rare but they happen. And I've known of people who had everything in their house fried. For me it's just been a couple of Ethernet ports. Power strips don't provide much protection fwiw. Always worthwhile checking that your electrical service is properly grounded.
> Nothing (reasonable) can protect against direct lightning strikes
Belkin make a number of surge protectors which offer a connected equipment warranty in the UK. Admittedly: financial protection, not data protection, but I felt it was worthwhile for the peace of mind.
Have they ever paid out on one of those, or is it like CAs who offer liability protection for their certificates carefully set up in such a way that they never have to pay out.
The California bay area, at least all the sides of it I’ve lived on. We currently have a whole house battery, whole house surge protector, a second surge protector, and a UPS between the router/nas/etc and PG&E.
It’s not good enough. At least the power stays on once the grid stops bouncing (or once I manage to log into the rebooting battery gateway computer to have it flip the “off grid” breaker, or go outside and flip the manual one by the meter).
I've lived all over the peninsula, your experience is not normal.
I had far more power outages during my late teenage years in suburban Dallas than I've ever had in the bay. That was due to a bad transformer in the neighborhood which took years to replace, but once it was replaced everything was perfect. The moral of the story being: if your power is bad, it's probably because some piece of mains infrastructure near you is broken.
I had a string of annoying outages in 2023-2024, but it was all due to main service upgrades on my street, can't really complain about that.
Huh, interesting. I've lived in the bay area for 22 years (first 6 of them in various places from SJ up the peninsula, remainder in SF), and I've never experienced damage to anything due to a power surge.
Not saying you're lying, but I do wonder if your experience is typical.
Color me skeptical. I've lived in several different Bay Area cities for decades. There are usually a couple power outages per year but I've never experienced a surge strong enough to cause equipment damage.
Areas with lots of thunderstorms. Also more rural areas with long power lines with few taps off for customers — the long runs are both exposed to many nearby strikes and accept induction well, and the few customers are fewer power sinks to dissipate the spike. So, you're more likely to get hit, and hit harder.
In urban areas you probably can just have the whole-house surge protector and skip the rest, since that protects all costly electronics not just a single device. With just a surge strip on the PC I'd say you're a tad under-protected, yeah.
Incidentally whole-house surge protection is now required by code in new houses. Existing buildings aren't required to upgrade, but by my reasoning what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I would recommend a circuit surge protector in urban areas.
Lightning getting through some structure and hitting the electric lines happens. Even when they are buried. It's less of a problem when the ground absorbs a lot of the power before it even get into copper, but it's even less of a problem if there's some cheap device that will burn and protect you from it.
Not completely correct, nuanced, or comprehensive.
Direct lighting strikes cannot be defended against without extreme costs. This type of risk is generally extremely unlikely except for certain niche use-cases like equipment or facilities on tall peaks.
Transients from lightning (E2) nearby and distant nuclear detonations can be defended against, and often require additional protection of telco and internet entry points. Whole house type 1 SPD devices exist for residential applications. This is much more likely than direct lightning strikes, especially in certain areas and can be defended against for reasonable cost. The main issue of lacking it is the unseen, cumulative degradation of semiconductor components that lead to instantaneous or eventual failure, especially in high value devices like electrically-communicated motors in HVAC systems. There is no reasonable expectation of defense against a direct lightning strike even with type 1 SPD, and there are different types of lightning with vastly different amounts of energy. A positive strike direct hit will totally fry anything and everything.
What generally isn't defended against at all in any infrastructure or system except some military equipment is H/NEMP E1 (short duration impulses) or E3 (E3a or E3b; long duration surges larger than lightning) such as from unusual space weather events or nuclear blasts.
Lightning damage is mostly an issue if the last-mile power lines are above ground. In my experience, power surges in urban areas with a decent grid are so rare that people generally don't bother protecting their devices.
I have lived in the DC metro area inside the beltway or in Sillicon Valley my entire adult life and have only had above ground power wiring. Despite tree ordnances and wind storms and a grid so aged if we see lightning we lose power.
I've heard that before, that the US apparently loves above ground power lines. In NL it's only the long distance ones that are above ground. Even in most rural areas, I think everything is below ground.
Yes, we love them on account of our country having approximately 230 times the surface area and the Netherlands having approximately 13x the population density. We not only have vastly more line to run, but also many, many fewer people per square mile to absorb the costs. Underground line is expensive.
That explains rural areas but not urban areas. We've got above-ground in rural areas but pretty much all urban stuff is underground. We get maybe one power cut a year, usually for scheduled maintenance work, and no problems with surges and whatnot.
Honestly even in "developed countries" it's not worth blindly trusting that the power in your house/building is clean. It's cheap and easy enough to just put any expensive hardware on a UPS rather than speculating what's going on behind the walls.
I work on embedded systems. I can often see whether my A/C or other appliances are running on my oscilloscope signals. They often affect the output of USB power supplies.
Eh, if these surges are rare enough, then you are statistical better off just risking your 'expensive' hardware to a one in a trillion possibility rather than spending money on gear you don't need.
Do you live in a bunker to protect against artillery shells?
Do you still need a UPS if you have one of those household (Powerwall style) battery packs? Also Apple switched mode power supplies are pretty well built.
My understanding is that home batteries are not UPSes, they don't go through the battery. They have a switch between power company, solar, or battery. I think that means would be exposed to surge from power company.
You can install a whole house surge protector. Those go in the panel and would protect from different sources.
Yes. The power walls are like cheap UPS topology. You could still get whacked with a transient from the grid before the ATS decides to island the house.
Depends on how they are configured, I think in some regions (where power outages are very rare), they are wired to sync up with external network, and without external network they shut down as well.
I grew up in San Jose CA in the 80's and 90'd on a street with a perpetually bad transformer. We had UPSes on every computer and proper surge protectors on everything of value.
Anyone have a good take on how well Asahi linux keeps the power management working on mac hardware? The biggest killer feature for me of mac hardware is the battery/weight. I have found it hard to get a good laptop in the linux ecosystem mainly because of power consumption. If Asahi doesn't really impact the battery life then I would seriously consider going that route. Similar question about support for pytorch on linux/arm64 / Asahi.
I think it's improved from when I last tried it, but it still isn't great. You can get like 60% of the battery life compared to macOS.
Someone with more recent knowledge correct me on this, but I believe idling is the biggest power drain in Asahi. You will want to shutdown and/or hibernate whenever possible.
Bought a used MacBook Air M2 past summer to run Asahi linux exclusively on it, the installation went hassle-free. One charge lasts 9+ hours easily, sometimes up to 12 hours. Thunderbolt, DP Alt Mode and TouchID would be nice to haves, but I'm super happy how everything runs. Thank you everyone on the Asahi team!
I think the support for linux/arm64 is already very good in general, can't answer on pytorch though. The only app I'm really missing is Signal Desktop. The virtualization to run games is a noticeable performance hit and shows occasional glitches in the Steam overlay, but all my games run smoothly.
Crossover[1] is surprisingly good for this purpose if you game occasionally and don't need FPS-level responsiveness. You also need 3rd party software like LinearMouse and Mos to make a mouse usable.
No idea why you're down voted... I blissfully played cyberpunk 2077 for two years on GeforceNow. I still keep my membership even though I have a dedicated gaming pc now, for occasional laptop or living room pc use. It was beyond brilliant to play a hyper demanding game on a bare spec pc :-)
Mind you,I have gigabit internet. I don't know what the experience would be like on other types of internet / worldwide.
i would never recommend it to someone who otherwise has a capable computer, of course, but it really isnt that bad. i gave it a pretty thorough test out of curiosity, and when they sponsored a few streamers i watch, it was totally fine. with the caveat that you have a decent internet connection and its probably not good for twitchy games like counter strike.
and, as far as i know, there is limited support for modding and some unsupported workarounds.
I used Shadow PC for a long time. Never any issues over several years. Lots of reasons in preferred it over GeForce. I can expound on that later if needed
Is the computer in question really "more than capable" if it "can't play the games [you] want to play"?
I've used geforce now on my mac before and didn't have latency issues. I wasn't using it for any competitive games where you need ultrafast twitchy response, but I did use if for plenty of FPSes and never had any issues. And I don't have super fast internet, just the basic package from Spectrum. So I wouldn't say it's bad, though admittedly it might not be the best latency achievable in the gaming world.
I bought a Mac Mini in February and maxed out the ram and storage. Now, it seems like that was a prescient move, but honestly I really only bought it for photo editing and playing the new World of Warcraft expansion (don't judge me!).
Serious question: how does WoW still appeal to players except for habit social connections to keep them locked into the game? I used to spend nights and love the game, now, even with all these expansions it feels exactly like it was in 2006 but without what happened to the gaming world in the past 20 years.
It's still fun. The social connections are also hugely important to me. One of my characters is in the same active guild that I joined in 2006. It's hard to put into words how meaningful that is to me. The game has improved, the newly re-done Silvermoon City is beautiful and richly detailed, but you are right, in many ways it's the same game as 20+ years ago, except made more casual-friendly in a lot of ways. I like it and there really isn't anything else like it out there. ...and surprising to me, if you believe Blizzard, there are around 9 million people who still play.
Alright so I 100% understand you, and now I know I'm not totally crazy.
I think because I used to play on private servers, I don't have that long-standing connection to a group, which is probably what keeps many people still there. But yeah, I'd jump on a WoW 2 but the gameplay and quest system is so outdated that just doesn't give me good vibes anymore.
I don’t know. I still fire up FF14 every couple of weeks for a few dungeon runs. No more social interactions with the various channels, I barely talk to my party even.
I think it’s just familiarity and not wanting to learn a whole new system when I’m looking to shut my brain down for a couple hours.
As a side note, I absolutely cannot imagine being upset of having a machine lasting long.
Sure it's nice the shiny new thing but has capitalism infiltrated people's mind that much? All my previous laptops died on me several times and became frankestein's monsters before I let them rest for a final time (to be often repurposed to other family/friends' machines).
With intermittent use one may get a lot more life out of the SSD than other users, but eventually flash will run out of spare-sectors and start to fail.
Most M1 systems I saw use on-board BGA110 NAND flash, and thus maintenance/upgrades on the SSD are difficult. Most users don't have a hot air rework station or x-ray inspection machines to do this modification correctly.
The SSD don't last forever, after about 3 to 4 years of daily use the drive/system should be replaced. At >5 years, one could hit retention issues and corruption losses.
Good excuse to upgrade though, as a $1500 recovery bill would not be cool. Best regards =3
I removed my anecdote and flash wear explanation, because of cranky folks like yourself.
The corrosion inhibitors in petrol engine oil get fully depleted within about a year with most brands. One may certainly sell the machine before you see acidified lubricant related problems, but the motor will not reach its full operational lifespan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve .)
I do agree that anyone with a CVT style transmission likely won't have to worry, as that entire section will probably need replaced before you see significant hydrodynamic bearing damage.
The AMD395+ PCs have unified memory and since it's not tied to a garbage OS nor reasonably affected by future dram costs, it's a better choice for reasonable people, unless you're going for greater than 128GB
> South Korean memory giant SK hynix has since said it had diversified supplies for helium and secured sufficient inventory. Meanwhile, TSMC said that it doesn’t currently anticipate a notable impact following Ras Laffan going offline, but that it’s monitoring the situation.
I bought a PC in early 2021 IIRC. It was good for the time and a good deal for a high end PC. IIRC it was $2800 and had a 6900 XTX. Last year I accidentally killed it. The CPU temps were higher than I'd like (~85C). the thermal grease can become hard and ineffective over time so I figured I'd replace it. Instead, it had become like cement and by twisting the AIO off, I snapped the socket on the motherboard.
This was an expensive mistake as I both looked into buying a replacement motherboard and CPU but that quickly gets to the price of a new PC. Paying someone to rebuild my PC is expensive and I'm beyond the age of wanting to fully remove a motherboard and effectively rebuild my entire PC myself. So I didn't know what to do with it.
Anyway, I ended up buying various alternatives like a NUC with 32GB of RAM, a laptop (with a 4080) and a Mac Mini. But I also ended up buying a new 9800X3D PC with a 5070Ti. Like I said, it was an expensive mistake.
But I decided for no particular reason to upgrade the (already good) 32GB of DDR5-6000 to 64GB with a $200 kit of DDR5-6000. This was in July I think. I also upgraded my laptop to 64GB for no readily apparent reason.
I recently checked and that $200 64GB kit now costs $950. SSDs are through the roof too but through complete accident I'm surrounded by about 5 PCs and a bunch of spare RAM. I don't see myself upgrading anytime soon.
I will say that there are some good deals (relative to current pricing) for combos including CPU, motherboard and memory or even some pretty good prebuilts.
These devices are basically autotransformers. So they reduce the noise by providing inductive filtering. But they don't really protect against strong surges by themselves.
So Tripp Lite uses a regular varistor for that, just like any other surge protector. In Europe you'd be far better off buying a voltage relay and adding it to your electrical panel, but it's not usually possible with the non-modular US electrical panels.
The simple line-conditioners were surprisingly effective, and are a fraction of the cost of lab/medical grade galvanic isolation ferroresonant transformers. =3
Also got tinnitus here. Woke up with it about 5 years ago. I'd recently had COVID and was also on a strong medication. But I've been a lifelong insomniac so this article has me wondering.
I can only sleep when there's another noise in the room for frame of reference, otherwise the tinnitus feels like the loudest sound in the universe. My current solution is an air purifier on its audible middle setting (basically white noise with a use), and a humidifier in winter.
Hypothetically if we had a choice between sending in humans to war or sending in fully autonomous drones that make decisions on par with humans, the moral choice might well be the drones - because it doesn't put our service members at risk.
Obviously anyone who has used LLMs know they are not on par with humans. There also needs to be an accountability framework for when software makes the wrong decision. Who gets fired if an LLM hallucinates and kills people? Perhaps Anthropic's stance is to avoid liability if that were to happen.
> Fisher [...] suggested implanting the nuclear launch codes in a volunteer. If the President of the United States wanted to activate nuclear weapons, he would be required to kill the volunteer to retrieve the codes.
>> [...] The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. [...]
>> When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, "My God, that's terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President's judgment. He might never push the button."
> — Roger Fisher, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1981[10]
That's so idealistic. We should know by now the reality of power and what kind of people end up in power. Anyone who could climb all the way to the top would kill the volunteer without a second thought, and then go smile on TV.
You're confusing lazy cynicism with realism. Patrick Bateman is a fictional character. The vast, vast majority of people, including even most soldiers, and definitely pretty much all businesspeople, no matter how unscrupulous, do not have the capacity to violently murder a person they know and harbor no ill will towards with their own hands on short notice.
The whole damn point behind the idea is to achieve the exact opposite. Make it someone, through whatever criteria, whom the president will have a problem killing, so he'll only do it under the most extreme circumstances.
The danger is that we won't be sending these fully-autonomous drones to 'war', but anytime a person in power feels like assassinating a leader or taking out a dissident, without having to make a big deal out of it. The reality is that AI will be used, not merely as a weapon, but as an accountability sink.
Do you think a continuation of the firebombing campaign and an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have resulted in fewer deaths of civilians (particularly of the 'volunteer fighting corps')?
That's to say nothing of the deaths in a potential US/USSR conflict that goes hot without the Damocles Sword of MAD...
This is a false dichotomy. In the words of the post-war US strategic bombing survey:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
While this is all speculation, that was at the very least a defensible point of view held by a bunch of Americans shortly after the war.
Regarding firebombing: Hiroshima alone killed probably more civilians than the entire Tokyo firebombing campaign. A firestorm is a terrible thing, but you can still run from a fire even if your whole city burns down; you can't run from a nuke.
So if you measure collateral damage primarily in civilian deaths, firebombing still looks much better (a hypothetical firebombing campaign would have probably killed <40k civilians in Hiroshima instead of 100k, guesstimating from Tokyo numbers).
Edit: I don't think dropping the nuclear bombs was especially ethically questionable compared to the rest of the war, but I feel it is very important to not whitewash that event as valiant effort to save young American conscripts. Regarding it as a slightly selfish weapon demonstration feels much more accurate to me.
Did Americans know or believe that the Japanese were planning to surrender when the bombs were dropped, or only after the fact? That’s important because the Japanese didn’t even entertain the idea of surrender in July (Potsdam Declaration).
Because the Japanese were still fighting, the wartime economy was still trying to produce what it could, and the Japanese government was arming and instructing its civilians for fighting.
Post-surrender, it’s easy to say “we were planning to surrender”, especially to save face and pass the buck to the Americans for what the Japanese government brought on their people by continuing to prosecute the war effort.
I don't think regarding it as a "demonstration" is accurate either.
Nuclear bombs appear as uniquely horrifying and requiring special justification only in hindsight. Back then, it was just another type of bomb. The thought process behind dropping it was simply "let's hit them as hard as we can until they surrender".
> Nuclear bombs appear as uniquely horrifying and requiring special justification only in hindsight. Back then, it was just another type of bomb.
I disagree slightly with that take. Decisionmakers knew that those singular bombs were gonna glass an entire city each, and previously almost untouched targets were selected to better show and observe the effect.
If you're at a point where you can afford to slash the primary target (Kyoto) because of nostalgic value to your secretary of war then it becomes difficult to rationalize the whole thing as "normal genuine war effort" and makes the thing look somewhat of an optional choice.
But from my point of view much more questionable decisions were made than the atomic bombings, and hindsight is always 20/20.
> previously almost untouched targets were selected to better show and observe the effect.
I read that this was not the primary motivation; rather, those cities were basically on the top of the "list of industrial centers we didn't get around to bombing conventionally yet, but were going to do next".
> Do you think a continuation of the firebombing campaign and an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have resulted in fewer deaths of civilians (particularly of the 'volunteer fighting corps')?
I don't know, but there's a lot of evidence this wasn't a factor in the decision to drop the bombs on Japan. The planners for the invasion and the planners for the bombing weren't exactly talking to each other and coordinating the strategy.
They had the bomb and they were going to use it. Everything else was an a posteriori justification.
Now think what will happen with easily deployed AI-powered weapons.
> the moral choice might well be the drones - because it doesn't put our service members at risk.
Not so clear cut. Because now sending people to die in distant wars is likely to get a negative reaction at home, this creates some sort of impediment for waging war. Sometimes not enough, but it's not nothing. Sending your boys to die for fuck knows what.
If you're just sending AI powered drones, it reduces the threshold for war tremendously, which in my mind is not "the moral choice".
Isn't this the moral hazard of war as it becomes more of a distance sport? That powerful governments can order the razing of cities and assassinate leaders with ease?
We need to do it because our enemies are doing it, in any case.
I do not think that anyone but the US and Israel have assassinated leaders in the last 30 years. I also question their autonomous drone advancement. Russia and China did not have the means to help Venezuela and they do not have the means to help Iran.
I do believe there are major technical impediments; other than a modern attack sub reaching that far undetected I can't think of how they would do it. The US is the only nation that can effectively project power so far away from its borders, almost anywhere in the world.
Furthermore, you mentioned this in response to "helping Venezuela", but even damaging a carrier (something technically very, very difficult for Russia or China) would not have helped Venezuela one bit.
It'd be more technically feasible for them to help Iran than Venezuela, and even that is not particularly feasible now, other than very indirectly.
I think it would, meaning that right from that exact minute the US and Russia will be very busy and Venezuela left to it's own devices. Does not mean Venezuela would feel any better of course.
There's no effective way of Russia to militarily help Venezuela and strike any US carrier. Same with China. You haven't proposed any because there is no feasible way.
Even if they could, such action would have been followed by the US knocking Venezuela out and taking them out of the equation. A neighboring ally of an actively engaged hostile power wouldn't be "left to its own devices".
It came later than I anticipated, but it did come after all. There is a reason companies like 9mother are working like crazy on various way to mitigate those risks.
I think it's the opposite. The human cost of war is part of what keeps the USA from getting into wars more than it already is - no politician wants a second Vietnam.
If war is safe to wage, then it just means we'll do it more and kill more people around the globe.
Your post reads as if you would rather those aggressors who threaten America to not be disposed of. How is the world a better place with the aggressors than without?
None of the recently attacked countries posed an imminent threat to the US.
In what kind of deranged world are we living that people are fighting against the notion that waging war on another country should be a costly decision!?
Perhaps Trump shouldn't have ripped up the treaty Obama achieved with Iran. The one where we could pop in unannounced at any time to inspect facilities to make sure there's no nuclear bomb making capabilities.
Trump has already claimed that he has destroyed all nuclear capability of Iran at the previous attack done by USA against Iran.
Claiming now that this other attack has the same purpose makes certain that USA has lied either at the previous attack or at the current attack.
When the government of a country is a proven liar, no allegations about how dangerous another country is are credible.
Moreover, just before the attack, during the negotiations between USA and Iran it was said that Iran accepted most of the new American requests regarding their nuclear capabilities, which had the goal to prevent them from making any weapons, but their willingness to make concessions did not help them at all to avoid a surprise attack before the end of the negotiations.
That's cherry-picking. The Iranians said things, Trump said some other things, and your comment chooses to selectively believe some things the Iranians said (that their nuclear program wasn't entirely dismantled, in contradiction to Trump's claims) but not others (that they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons and the late Khamenei considered them immoral). It's now believed Israel was planning to kill Khamenei regardless of any nuclear talks, and forced the hand of the US.
I don't care what Trump says. I care what the Iranians say. Here is an Iranian, Persian language interview with Ali Motahari, deputy speaker of the Iranian parliament:
>از همان ابتدا که وارد فعالیت هسته ای شدیم هدفمان ساخت بمب و تقویت قوای بازدارنده بود، اما نتوانستیم محرمانه بودن این مساله را حفظ کنیم
In English:
> From the very beginning when we entered nuclear activity, our goal was to build a bomb and strengthen deterrence, but we were unable to maintain the secrecy of this issue
Like I said, you're cherry-picking. You believe some of what the Iranians say, and not the rest. You believe some of what Trump says, but not the rest.
And you do care what Trump says, since you're buying his bogus, self-contradicting justification for going to war with Iran.
Iran wasn't a threat to the US.
Edit: that 2022 interview you quoted from an Iranian not affiliated to any nuclear program or knowledgeable about it, and which later recanted/clarified it, has problems to say the least. Another example of cherry-picking. I'm not surprised it has since been amplified by Trump (a person whose opinion you don't care about) and by various Israeli news outlets.
Judging from what I've read, he claims that's not what he was saying, and that it was his personal opinion at the time since he wasn't involved in any nuclear program. You're latching to one person's words, since recanted/corrected, because it helps the narrative you like: cherry-picking.
More importantly, do you claim Trump was lying? (I do, to be clear, but do you?).
Let me repeat it because this is important: Iran posed no threat to the US.
I'm not an expert. Probably anti Western sentiment, anti any former allies of the deposed Shah, and pro Palestinian sentiment.
But in reality this doesn't matter, because you're now moving the goalposts: I didn't argue that Iran wasn't hostile to Israel.
I claimed that Iran's nuclear program was already destroyed for 10+ years (mission success, as claimed last year with total certainty by Trump), and that Iran didn't pose a threat to the US.
Now, if the US wants to fight Israel's wars, that's cool and dandy, but the majority of Americans don't support this. Remember "America First"?
If iranian politics would have allowed nuclear weapons they'd have them already. They could also have accepted gifts from some of their more friendly international relations.
Which it is well known that it hasn't been the case since the revolution, where the republic inherited the nuclear program the US pushed the king to pursue. The shia leaders consider such weapons immoral, and hence it seems like the main aim for the aggressors is to remove obstacles in Iran and rush them into getting nukes. It also has the side effect of increasing proliferation in Europe, with several states now moving towards extending or developing nuclear weapons.
This rhetoric about them getting nukes is a deception, it's for people who know little to nothing about Iran that are constrained to a rather racist world view. The animosity towards Iran mainly has to do with them having tried to move away from a monarchical type of government towards a more democratic, unlike US and israeli allies in the region, who are mostly kingdoms and extremely autocratic.
Do you not perceive a threat from a country with nuclear capability that chants "Death to America, Death to Israel" to be a threat to America? Venezuela I don't know about, but Iran was (is) most certainly a threat to America.
Iran has a strong nuclear weapon development program. Negotiations could not halt it - they stall negotiations and continue development. So if they continue development during negotiations, why shouldn't the US continue her own parallel military route?
As for delivery, Iran does have missiles capable of launching a nuclear weapon at American assets in the Middle East, or American allies. Or even to just float it over on a ship.
Negotiations did halt it. Then Trump went back on the deal.
There's reports Iran agreed to limit themselves to only medical grade centrifuges as recently as last week.
And no, Iran does not have weapons capability to reach the US, period.
They fundamentally did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. A threat to American strategic goals is not an imminent threat to the American people.
Negotiations halted Iran's nuclear program for, as per words of the treaty, "10 to 15 years". That was in 2016. If that treaty were not torn up, then Iran would be allowed to unveil their nuclear weapon in January 16, 2026. Yes, two months ago.
Is your claim that the deal was not preventing Iran from developing a nuke? Then why does the existence of the agreement matter either way?
Are you saying Iran would magically produce a nuke the very day the deal expired? Then why don't they have one today?
How does ending the agreement make it harder for Iran to get a nuke? How does "tearing it up" prevent anything that the agreement itself wasn't preventing?
If it's moral to strike at a country with nuclear capability that talks constantly about your country's destruction, then it's no less acceptable for Iran to strike the US than the other way around.
You can't condemn one and condone the other on that basis.
Iran has both reason and were developing capability to destroy a significant part of American national security. America absolutely must prevent that at any cost.
You could argue about how the rhetoric between the states got so bad that they each threatened each other's destruction. But the fact is that they got there.
I'm not familiar enough with Korean culture to know if suicide-for-ideology is culturally acceptable and expected. In Islamic ideology that is the highest honour.
No, my reasoning is culture. I do not live in the United States, I don't base my worldview on race.
There exists a culture for which it is an honour to kill Jews. Pretending that this culture does not exist is racism. Disregarding the differences in values of other cultures is the most disgusting form of racism - pretending that one's own culture is dominant or universal.
Treating culture as uniformly distributed and absolute is racism. Your racism is blinding you to truths, leading you to illogical conclusions like the idea that it's possible to make an accurate assessment of military threat based on "culture." Hence why I called it caveman logic - you're literally defining your level of fear of another group of humans based on how different you (erroneously) perceive them to be.
You seem quite concerned with the plight of the Palestinians so I'll use that as an example: Jewish people experienced the worst, most widescale crime against humans ever committed, and then a few decades later, a subset of Jewish people turned around and began doing the same (at a smaller, less industrialized scale). This demonstrates the perfect universality and programmability of a human, which includes "human culture."
Any human culture can be molded to justify any existent human action. To pretend otherwise is to engage in ethnocentrism - what you accused me off, the presumption that there's something special about your culture that prevents atrocities happening under it.
The second that makes your argument racist rather than logical (if you refuse to budge on the word "racist," swap in "prejudice" - the fallacies are the same either way) is the homogeneous angle you're applying. This should be an obviously fallacious statement: "Christianity is a violent culture that supports violence against Jewish people, discrimination against gay people, and school shootings." Why is it fallacious, though? I know lots of christians that have done all of the above, proudly tying it back to their religion. You see my point, right? You would, presumably, never walk into a room of white people and assume they all share identical values - do it in America, half probably are tearing their hair out in frustration at the values of the other half. Yet you do it to Islam / Arabs / Muslims, because, frankly, you are racist against Muslim people.
An argument that depends on making a blanket statement about a group of people fails for many reasons: categorization (how do you accurately and scientifically select who falls into this grouping and who doesn't?), resolution (how do you account for outliers within this grouping, and how do you determine who might be an outlier?), absolutism (how do you account for the fact that people change?), and due to above, how could you justify making any decisions based on a prejudiced framing?
Racist arguments are completely dependant on fallacy. With a rigid application of rational reasoning, they fall apart. They're illogical.
China threatens us, Russia threatens us, should we bombing them? Canada is threatened by us, demark, Spain, mexico, Cuba have all been threatened by us, should they be bombing us?
True, but this doesn't in any way undermine the point that making war easier is not a good thing. It should be a costly decision, lest leaders of even those cultures find it too appealing.
But the AI cat-for-war has left the box for both Iran and the US. Opposing US development of AI for warfare will not suppress US's adversaries from developing the technology.
> Hypothetically if we had a choice between sending in humans to war or sending in fully autonomous drones that make decisions on par with humans, the moral choice might well be the drones - because it doesn't put our service members.
I guess let the record state that I am deeply morally opposed to automated killing of any kind.
I am sick to my stomach when I really try to put myself in the shoes of the indigenous peoples of Africa who were the first victims of highly automatic weapons, “machine guns” or “Gatling guns”. The asymmetry was barbaric. I do hope that there is a hell, simply that those who made the decision to execute en masse those peoples have a place to rot in internal hellfire.
To even think of modernizing that scene of inhumane depravity with AI is despicable. No, I am deeply opposed to automated killing of any kind.
The “machine gun” has a more complicated history, and the first practical example may have been Gatling’s, or an earlier example used in Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun
Forgive me I got the detail wrong. If your point was to deny that my imagined scenario never happened, read this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun
Basically all types of weapons have been used in all sorts of conflicts; the British used aircraft in their mandates, and the Italians used chemical weapons in Ethiopia. That said, I am not aware of any weapon which was developed specifically for use against a less technologically advanced adversary, most novel weapons are developed for use against peer-adversaries.
> That said, I am not aware of any weapon which was developed specifically for use against a less technologically advanced adversary, most novel weapons are developed for use against peer-adversaries.
This is a strange take that I didn’t expect to hear. I suppose that the strongest defensive systems do require the most sophisticated offensive systems to defeat, in theory. But there exists asymmetry there as well ($50k drone destroys $1B radar).
My take on weapons development is that there were plenty of mass killing (or mass punishment) devices developed specifically for use by colonial powers against indigenous peoples. This happened alongside weapons development for weapons intended for, as you put them, peer-adversaries.
Revolts happened, and colonial powers needed effective ways to keep indigenous peoples enslaved.
Our drones will fight their drones, and then whichever side loses, will have their humans fighting the other side's drones, and if the humans somehow win, they will fight the other side's humans. War doesn't have an agreed ending condition.
War is not moral. It may be necessary, but it is never moral. The only best choice is to fight at every turn making war easy. Our adversaries will, or likely already have, gone the autonomous route. We should be doing everything we can to put major blockers on this similar to efforts to block chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The logical end of autonomous targeting and weapons is near instant mass killing decisions. So at a minimum we should think of autonomous weapons in a similar class as those since autonomy is a weapon of mass destruction. But we currently don't think that way and that is the problem.
Eventually, unfortunately, we will build these systems but it is weak to argue that the technology isn't ready right now and that is why we won't build them. No matter when these systems come on line there will be collateral damage so there will be no right time from a technology standpoint. Anthropic is making that weak argument and that is primarily what I am dismissive of. The argument that needs to be made is that we aren't ready as a society for these weapons. The US government hasn't done the work to prove they can handle them. The US people haven't proven we are ready to understand their ramifications. So, in my view, Anthropic shouldn't be arguing the technology isn't ready, no weapon of war is ever clean and your hands will be dirty no matter how well you craft the knife. Instead Anthropic should be arguing that we aren't ready as a society and that is why they aren't going to support them.
> War is not moral. It may be necessary, but it is never moral.
This is the right answer. When war becomes inevitable, we are forced to choose between morality and survival. I pass no judgement on those who choose survival.
The problem in modern wars is that those who start them claim that they do this for survival, but the claim is not based on any real action of the adversary or on any evidence that the adversary is dangerous, but on beliefs that the adversary might want to endanger the survival of the attacker some time in an indefinite future, and perhaps might even be able to do that.
Nobody who starts a war today acknowledges that they do this for other reasons than "survival", e.g. for stealing various kinds of resources from the attacked.
It has become difficult to distinguish those who truly fight for survival from those who only claim to do this.
Iran launched a 1-ton payload (e.g. nuclear capable) rocket with a 2000 km range two days ago. That rocket can threaten US assets and allies even into Europe. And, of course, and small ship or container ship even could carry a nuclear weapon into an American port.
>از همان ابتدا که وارد فعالیت هسته ای شدیم هدفمان ساخت بمب و تقویت قوای بازدارنده بود، اما نتوانستیم محرمانه بودن این مساله را حفظ کنیم
In English:
> From the very beginning when we entered nuclear activity, our goal was to build a bomb and strengthen deterrence, but we were unable to maintain the secrecy of this issue
Yes, agreed 100%. Some groups see it as their mission to dominate Eastern Europe, or the entire Middle East, or the entire southern Asian continent. The smaller states in the areas are under constant threat.
However in the case of Iran, who openly calls for the destruction of America and is blatantly developing technology that seriously threaten America and other Middle Eastern states, decisive military action to prevent the threat is important. Don't watch the bully themself and wait for him to confront you, when he is telling you the whole time his intention to destroy you.
> Some groups see it as their mission to dominate Eastern Europe, or the entire Middle East, or the entire southern Asian continent.
Agreed that some countries seek to dominate other regions by force or threat, but you and I are not thinking of the same "groups".
> However in the case of Iran, who openly calls for the destruction of America and is blatantly developing technology that seriously threaten America and other Middle Eastern states, decisive military action to prevent the threat is important. Don't watch the bully themself and wait for him to confront you, when he is telling you the whole time his intention to destroy you.
No, Iran poses no real threat to America, and according to Trump last year suffered a 10+ year setback in their nuclear ambitions. Do you think Trump was lying back then, now, or both?
The US is asserting dominance. Even Trump occasionally says so. Iran mostly poses a danger to their own citizens and, arguably, against Israel when conflict flares up in the region, but not to the US.
By the way, the current situation in Iran is heavily influenced by actions by the UK and the US in the region, back in the 50s. So maybe meddling is not the right course of action?
What do you mean, "hallucinates and kills people"? Killing people is the thing the military is using them for; it's not some accidental side effect. It's the "moral choice" the same way a cruise missile is — some person half a world away can lean back in their chair, take a sip of coffee, click a few buttons and end human lives, without ever fully appreciating or caring about what they've done.
I'm sure it was meant as "kills the wrong people."
People are always worried about getting rid of humans in decision-making. Not that humans are perfect, but because we worry that buggy software will be worse.
The people that actually target and launch these things do think about what they have done. It is the people ordering them to do it that don't. There is a difference, I hope.
But there's practically zero enforcement and everyone knows it. You have the few law abiding people doing 25 while others are doing 50 while stoned and texting.. on the same road.
Narrowing lanes creates new hazards because cars sold are only getting larger and can barely fit. There is too often no margin for error.
There are no roadworthiness inspections in these states. Many people are driving on worn tires and suspensions. Most people don't even know what types of tires they have or what the tire pressures are.
Don't even get me started on how easy it is to get a driver's license with no clue how to drive. If they wanted to reduce deaths they should start by raising the bar on license difficulty.
> Don't even get me started on how easy it is to get a driver's license with no clue how to drive. If they wanted to reduce deaths they should start by raising the bar on license difficulty.
Retesting is vital, too. Every 10 years. And if you have something like 3 moving violations you should have to do some community service, and retake the test.
I don't believe in fines on individuals: if the punishment for a crime is a fine, that law only applies to the poor. If you insist on endangering the lives of the people around you, then you get the same inconvenience as anyone else.
It has nothing to do with enforcement and everything to do with roads being interconnected and naturally load balancing thanks to modern gps routing.
You slow down a main through road it puts that traffic right onto residential roads that formerly weren't worth taking and so someone's kid who used to ride their bike in the street has to either stop or risk getting turned into paste.
I live in a state with stringent roadworthiness inspections BTW.
Because technology companies know more about their product's capabilities and limitations than a former Fox News host? And because they know there's a risk of mass civilian casualties if you put an LLM in control of the world's most expensive military equipment?
In theory you can export your data from ChatGPT under Settings > Data Controls. In practice, I tried this recently and the download link was broken. Convenient bug I must say.
Don't forget teenagers can be extremely skilled technically. Plus they have a lot of time!
But you're on the right track.
I think of a solution like:
1. Browser does one-time age verification through 3rd party service, without disclosing any details about which sites you'll access.
2. Browser stores your age, signed by that service.
3. When a site requests it the browser passes that signed age over. The site simply has to check if it has a valid signature by a trusted authority's public key.
The browser could even use Palantir in this example - but they would never get any data about what users are accessing.
It'd be best to create a standard for this using wallet apps. You can obtain an age certificate from any trusted provider (decentralized chain-of-trust similar to TLS CAs), which you can then load into any wallet app of your choice on any OS, and use it with any online service which supports the standard. This should use anonymous, unlinkable(!) proofs, with the only certified data being `is_over_age`.
Though I'd prefer the way proposed by Mark Camilleri Gambin (EU politician). Have parents enable Child Mode during device setup, then expose `isMinor = true` to all websites and apps, require a parental control PIN to disable. This is a much better and cleaner solution. Requiring age verification of all adults gets it backwards.
Wouldn't the age verification provider then be able to retain logs of what exact credentials it signed and for whom? And if the certificates are identical for every user, couldn't everyone change the presented certificate for the universal correct one?
Musk's idea of a Universal High Income (where money is no longer necessary because robots and AI give us anything we want) sounds great too until you consider scarce resources like land. Who decides who gets to buy the best properties on Earth if money is no longer a factor? What if you want, say, a human hair stylist or therapist: who would do such a job if they don't have to? We would lose the human touch in our lives, and that sounds awful.
reply