Jay Myers

The Jay Myers whose father was Hale.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/XsFhxjZf0Q

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

Agreed; and here's a free-market path forward - an anti-poverty and pro-education program - Paid Learning (PL), a form of redistributive capitalism: https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq.

PL would appeal to American voters across the political spectrum https://t.co/JZfJ9huOJ4.

And the safety-net aspect of PL would constitute a "hard stop" for classic Marxist analyses of politics and economics: https://t.co/VVDVZM6zVX.

Best wishes.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

I asked Grok to explain how Paid Learning (PL), described at https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq, would appeal to American voters across the political spectrum, from small-government conservatives on the extreme right to socialists and near-Communists on the extreme left. The response, lightly edited:

Paid Learning (PL) has unusually broad appeal across the American political spectrum. It combines targeted cash support with personal responsibility, skill-building, and reduced bureaucracy in ways that speak to core values on both the right and left.

Appeal to the Right (Small-Government Conservatives, Libertarians, and Populists)
PL aligns strongly with conservative principles of self-reliance, limited government, and market-driven solutions.

It replaces welfare with earned income tied to effort; it ends welfare for certain working-age adults under 60 and replaces it with payments earned through demonstrated learning and skill acquisition (workers earn payments by passing monthly exams). This directly addresses conservative critiques of welfare dependency and “something for nothing.”

It promotes personal responsibility and agency: Participants choose how they study (self-directed, tutors, classes, study groups) and are responsible for their own learning costs. Success depends on individual effort, aligning with values of hard work and merit.

It builds human capital and economic growth: By creating certificates (for passing the various exams) recognized by employers and boosting skills in trades, academics, and technical fields, PL aims to reduce long-term unemployment and poverty through increased productivity rather than redistribution alone. This appeals to growth-oriented conservatives.

Decentralized and Limited Government
Each state runs its own PL program. The federal role is minimized after initial setup, and the system leverages existing state curricula, universities, trade schools, and licensing boards rather than creating massive new federal bureaucracies.

Reduces Overall Government Spending Long-Term
The PL proposal explicitly offsets costs by cutting multiple welfare programs. Most initial participants are expected to eventually exit PL for better jobs or entrepreneurship as their skills (and earning potential) rise.

"Immigration in Situ" and Border/Security Benefits
As described in recent posts at @PaidLearning, "immigration in situ" offers a path for poor countries to become U.S. territories with PL support (and eventual citizenship/statehood). It provides an alternative to uncontrolled migration while expanding opportunity under U.S. institutions and the “five pillars of prosperity” (see recent posts). This appeals to restrictionist conservatives who want to reduce illegal immigration pressures.

Anti-Indoctrination Guardrails
Curriculum approval by high percentages of elected representatives helps prevent political bias in content.
Extreme-right voters could see PL as a market-friendly, anti-dependency reform that shrinks the welfare state while still addressing visible social problems.

Appeal to the Center and Moderates
PL offers a pragmatic middle path. It provides real financial support to struggling Americans without the perceived waste or perverse incentives of traditional welfare.

It invests in education and skills (widely popular) while requiring measurable progress (accountability).

It improves quality of life through mobility, health insurance access via PL-exam payments, study groups for community support, and reduced stigma compared to welfare.

It addresses mental health indirectly through purpose, achievement, and reduced financial stress.

Appeal to the Left (Progressives, Socialists, and Near-Communists)
PL contains elements that align with left-wing priorities around equity, opportunity, and reducing exploitation.

Income Support for the Poor and Working Class
It delivers regular cash payments to low-income adults, functioning as a form of targeted basic income tied to self-improvement. This directly helps people facing poverty, underemployment, or job loss.

Investment in Human Capital and Education
Government-supported access to learning (from literacy to advanced skills) empowers workers, reduces exploitation by improving bargaining power, and creates pathways out of low-wage jobs. Certificates provide portable credentials that help in the labor market.

Reduces Inequality Through Capability, Not Just Transfers
While providing immediate income, it focuses on long-term mobility by building skills that lead to better jobs and entrepreneurship.

Support for Vulnerable Groups
Study groups, shared housing/childcare arrangements (especially helpful for single mothers), and geographic mobility (moving to better/safer areas without losing eligibility) offer practical solidarity mechanisms.

Mental Health and Dignity Benefits
By replacing stigmatized welfare with earned achievement and purpose, it addresses the psychological harms of poverty and idleness. This resonates with left-wing focus on holistic well-being.

"Immigration in situ" as Global Solidarity
This model of annexing poor countries as territories with heavy initial U.S. PL funding, leading to citizenship and statehood, can be framed as a structured, non-exploitative way to address global inequality and migration root causes.

Potential for strong labor outcomes
A more skilled, educated working class strengthens unions and worker power over time.

Even near-Communist or strongly socialist voters could view PL as a transitional program that provides material support while building worker capabilities and reducing reliance on pure market outcomes.

Why It Has Cross-Spectrum Potential
PL is not pure Universal Basic Income (too unconditional for the right) and not traditional welfare (too dependency-creating and bureaucratic for the right; too limited for the far left). Instead, it occupies a unique space.

Right sees: Personal responsibility + welfare reform + smaller government long-term.

Left sees: Material support + education investment + reduced inequality.

Both see: A productive alternative to the status quo that attacks poverty at its roots (skills + incentives) rather than just symptoms.

The combination of cash + structure + exit ramp (most people eventually leave for better opportunities) makes PL hardto dismiss as either “socialism” or “cruel austerity.”

Overall, PL’s design—rooted in existing public education infrastructure, focused on measurable progress, and aimed at self-sufficiency—gives it rare potential to attract voters from across the spectrum by speaking to deeply held values on both sides while offering a practical path forward on poverty, skills, and opportunity.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

@VDHanson might be interested in Paid Learning (PL) https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq, a form of redistributive capitalism. My post at https://t.co/YOASkXht30 explains how PL would appeal to American voters across the political spectrum, and https://t.co/VVDVZM6zVX discusses how the safety-net aspect of PL might constitute a "hard stop" for classic Marxist analyses of politics and economics.

Best wishes.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/FjavfixOhK

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

@DadSavesAmerica @PhilWMagness I asked Grok to discuss how the safety-net aspect of Paid Learning https://t.co/2WMfxa1QJu might constitute a "hard stop" for classic Marxist analyses of politics and economics. Grok's response: https://t.co/OWPn0bHaTt

Best wishes.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/FjavfixOhK

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

@petersonacademy @DrPaulKengor I thought this https://t.co/OWPn0bHaTt and this https://t.co/2WMfxa1QJu might interest you.

Best wishes.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/Id2k5L7ZST

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

Here's a path forward as artificial intelligence and robotics impact jobs: First, let's address today's problems of unemployment, underemployment, undereducation, and poverty. In the United States, let's adopt the paid-learning (PL) programs described at https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq.

PL would create a "job of learning" for U.S. citizens who were 18 through 66 years old, not disabled, and had little or no other income. Our federal and state governments would pay members of this PL Community for enhancing their knowledge and skills - and thereby their earning potential.

Members would earn money by passing monthly exams on academic, trade, and technical content ranging in difficulty from the lowest levels of literacy and numeracy to the highest levels of baccalaureate study - with the goal of eventually learning so much that they would be able to leave PL to take well-paying traditional (that is, "regular, ordinary," mostly private-sector) jobs or become entrepreneurs.

Welfare-reform measures (individual and corporate) would free up more than enough tax dollars to pay for PL: Members who were less than 60 years old would be ineligible for welfare benefits, including Medicaid. But expanded Supplementary Security Income programs - Universal Basic Income analogues - would cover losses of benefits for older adults, people with disabilities, and individuals too ill to work or to participate significantly in PL.

Then, in tomorrow's world of work, as AI, robotics, and other factors continued to destroy, reshape, and create traditional jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities, a continual updating of the PL curriculum would keep our workforce in the ballgame.

AI itself might well play a major role in the original design - and the updating - of the curriculum. In fact, even now, AI could probably produce a pretty decent first cut at a curriculum.

Other countries might establish their own PL programs. Another option: "immigration in situ": https://t.co/tabspzpdVQ

More on Paid Learning, Automation, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics: https://t.co/jbYthMvpxj

How the safety-net aspect of Paid Learning might constitute a "hard stop" for classic Marxist analyses of economics and politics: https://t.co/VVDVZM6zVX

Best wishes.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/Id2k5L7ZST

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

Here's a path forward: First, let's address today's problems of unemployment, underemployment, undereducation, and poverty. In the United States, let's adopt the paid-learning (PL) programs described at https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq.

PL would create a "job of learning" for U.S. citizens who were 18 through 66 years old, not disabled, and had little or no other income. Our federal and state governments would pay members of this PL Community for enhancing their knowledge and skills - and thereby their earning potential.

Members would earn money by passing monthly exams on academic, trade, and technical content ranging in difficulty from the lowest levels of literacy and numeracy to the highest levels of baccalaureate study - with the goal of eventually learning so much that they would be able to leave PL to take well-paying traditional (that is, "regular, ordinary," mostly private-sector) jobs or become entrepreneurs.

Welfare-reform measures (individual and corporate) would free up more than enough tax dollars to pay for PL: Members who were less than 60 years old would be ineligible for welfare benefits, including Medicaid. But expanded Supplementary Security Income programs - Universal Basic Income analogues - would cover losses of benefits for older adults, people with disabilities, and individuals too ill to work or to participate significantly in PL.

Then, in tomorrow's world of work, as AI, robotics, and other factors continued to destroy, reshape, and create traditional jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities, a continual updating of the PL curriculum would keep our workforce in the ballgame.

AI itself might well play a major role in the original design - and the updating - of the curriculum. In fact, even now, AI could probably produce a pretty decent first cut at a curriculum.

Other countries might establish their own PL programs. Another option: "immigration in situ": https://t.co/tabspzpdVQ

More regarding Paid Learning, Automation, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics: https://t.co/jbYthMvpxj

How the safety-net aspect of Paid Learning might constitute a "hard stop" for classic Marxist analyses of economics and politics: https://t.co/VVDVZM6zVX

Best wishes.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/Id2k5L7ZST

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

Here's a better path forward - in a free market, without Universal High Income or Universal Basic Income:

First, let's address today's problems of unemployment, underemployment, undereducation, and poverty. In the United States, let's adopt the paid-learning (PL) programs described at https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq.

PL would create a "job of learning" for U.S. citizens who were 18 through 66 years old, not disabled, and had little or no other income. Our federal and state governments would pay members of this PL Community for enhancing their knowledge and skills - and thereby their earning potential.

Members would earn money by passing monthly exams on academic, trade, and technical content ranging in difficulty from the lowest levels of literacy and numeracy to the highest levels of baccalaureate study - with the goal of eventually learning so much that they would be able to leave PL to take well-paying traditional (that is, "regular, ordinary," mostly private-sector) jobs or become entrepreneurs.

Welfare-reform measures (individual and corporate) would free up more than enough tax dollars to pay for PL: Members who were less than 60 years old would be ineligible for welfare benefits, including Medicaid. But expanded Supplementary Security Income programs - Universal Basic Income analogues - would cover losses of benefits for older adults, people with disabilities, and individuals too ill to work or to participate significantly in PL.

Then, in tomorrow's world of work, as AI, robotics, and other factors continued to destroy, reshape, and create traditional jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities, a continual updating of the PL curriculum would keep our workforce in the ballgame.

AI itself might well play a major role in the original design - and the updating - of the curriculum. In fact, even now, AI could probably produce a pretty decent first cut at a curriculum.

Regarding Paid Learning, Automation, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics: https://t.co/jbYthMvpxj

How the safety-net aspect of Paid Learning might constitute a "hard stop" for classic Marxist analyses of eonomics and politics: https://t.co/VVDVZM6zVX

Best wishes to you, @PeterDiamandis, @salimismail, and @DaveBlundin.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/FjavfixOhK

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

@RockChartrand I thought this might interest you: https://t.co/OWPn0bHaTt

Best wishes.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/FjavfixOhK

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/TaEekCooHj

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/FjavfixOhK

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

I asked Grok to discuss the processes for designing and approving the curriculum and exam content of the Paid-Learning (PL) plan described at https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq. (Under PL in the United States, the federal and state governments would pay certain people for passing monthly exams on academic, trade, and technical content.) Grok's response, lightly edited:

The PL curriculum and exam content would have to be developed carefully to avoid political bias or indoctrination. The core safeguard would be supermajority approval by elected representatives, designed to ensure broad consensus and legitimacy.

This approach would build on the fact that PL would largely adapt existing, already-approved public curricula (state K-12 standards, university programs, and trade/licensing requirements), rather than creating everything from scratch.

1. Core Principle: Supermajority Legislative Approval
The original PL proposal states that all material would require approval by a high percentage of elected representatives to resolve disputes quickly and fairly. The explicit example given is 75% approval by the U.S. House of Representatives for federal/DC/territory content. States would set their own thresholds.

Why supermajority approval would work well:
It would force compromise and discourage partisan or ideological capture.

It would create strong legitimacy — content would have to appeal across a wide political spectrum.

It would be faster and more decisive than using endless expert panels or public referendums.

2. Layered Approval Process (Practical Workflow)
A realistic multi-step process could look like this:

Expert/Technical Drafting: Teams of subject-matter experts (teachers, professors, industry professionals from trades/licensing boards) would draft monthly units and exams. They would draw heavily from already-approved state K-12 standards, university syllabi, and trade certification requirements. They would focus on objective knowledge and skills, rather than values or interpretation where possible.

Public and Stakeholder Input: Draft materials would be posted online for public comment by individuals, associations, businesses, etc. (30–60 days).

All comments would be advisory only, but this process would build transparency.

Expert/Review Panel Vetting: Bipartisan or nonpartisan panels (appointed by legislative leaders) would review content for factual accuracy, age-appropriateness, and neutrality.

Disputes about potential bias would be documented and flagged.

Legislative Supermajority Approval: The content package would go to the relevant legislative body (U.S. House for federal content; state legislature for state content).

If disputes arose in that body, it would attempt to resolve them. In some cases, the legislative body might refer disputed content to the appropriate review panels, which would then attempt to draft new content for the legislative body to consider. In a small number of cases, however, the panels might refer disputed content to the original drafting teams.

The panels and drafting teams would be given tight deadlines, with the understanding that content remaining in dispute after the deadlines would simply be omitted from PL - perhaps until the next review cycle (described in the next section).

Ongoing Review and Updates: Content would be reviewed and updated periodically, perhaps annually or biennially. Special update teams, rather than the original drafting teams, might produce the updated content, then send it to the review panels.

3. Special Considerations for NT's
Initial Phase: Heavy federal involvement. Content would have to meet the 75% House approval standard. U.S.-published sample units and exams (as mentioned in the original proposal) would serve as the starting point.

Transition Phase: As the NT gained stability and began to self-fund more of PL, approval authority would shift toward the territorial legislature (with its own supermajority rule).

Pre-Statehood: The “statehood package” of exams (covering governance, U.S. civics, and advanced skills; discussed in recent posts) would itself require supermajority approval, ensuring broad buy-in before full statehood.

This requirement would create a clear, incentive-aligned path: Territories that successfully implemented neutral, high-quality PL content could move rapidly toward greater autonomy and eventual statehood.

4. Strengths of the PL Approval Processes
Preventing Indoctrination: The high threshold for approval would make it very difficult for any single ideological faction to dominate content.

Building Broad Legitimacy: Content approved by large bipartisan majorities would be hard to attack politically.

Leveraging Existing Systems: Because most content would come from already democratically approved state and institutional curricula, the approval burden would be manageable.

Encouraging Compromise: The high threshold would encourage creators to produce balanced, high-quality contents in their first drafts.

Resolving disputes: The resolution procedures would provide a clear, democratic off-ramp when disagreements arose.

5. Potential Challenges and Mitigations
Partisan Polarization: Even supermajorities can be hard to achieve in highly divided environments.
Mitigation: Focus sharply on factual accuracy and skill outcomes, rather than interpretive framing. Select drafting teams, review panels, and update teams carefully.
Administrative Burden: Developing and approving monthly units across many subjects could be complex.
Mitigation: Start with core subjects and high-demand trades. Use AI-assisted drafting (as suggested in recent posts) for initial versions, followed by human/expert/legislative review.

Summary
The approval system for PL curricula and exams centers on supermajority legislative approval as the primary safeguard for neutrality and legitimacy. The system combines expert input and public feedback with strong democratic oversight, while heavily leveraging already-approved existing educational resources. This approach is deliberately designed to be robust against bias while remaining practical and scalable.

At the federal level, a 75% House threshold provides strong protection. States retain flexibility to design their own processes. For new territories, the system starts with federal standards and transitions toward local control as prosperity and institutional maturity increase.

This mechanism is one of the most distinctive and politically resilient features of PL — it directly addresses one of the biggest concerns about government-run education programs while still enabling the large-scale skill-building the program aims to deliver.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/Id2k5L7ZST

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

I asked Grok to discuss how the Paid Learning (PL) plan described at https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq addresses issues regarding intellectual preparedness raised by @charlesmurray and other major commentators. The response, lightly edited:

Paid Learning (PL) is a system in which eligible adults (typically low-income, non-disabled individuals aged 18–66) receive government payments for passing progressive monthly exams on academic, trade, and technical content. The content ranges from basic literacy and numeracy to baccalaureate-level material. Study is self-directed, and exams are designed to be machine-gradable.

The system explicitly allows participants to begin at their current level of preparedness—including remedial content—and progress at their own pace while earning income. This structure directly engages with long-standing debates about cognitive ability, educational limits, and human capital formation.

Below, I examine how PL addresses concerns raised by Charles Murray and several other major commentators.

Charles Murray
Murray’s work, particularly The Bell Curve (co-authored with Richard Herrnstein) and Real Education, highlights cognitive stratification, the limits of educational interventions, and the mismatch between many students’ abilities and the demands of traditional academic paths.

The Bell Curve argues that general intelligence (g) is highly heritable, strongly predictive of socioeconomic outcomes, and distributed unequally across individuals and groups. Society is becoming increasingly stratified by cognitive ability, and many social problems (poverty, crime, family breakdown) have substantial cognitive components that are resistant to purely environmental fixes.

Real Education contends that the push for “college for all” ignores cognitive realities. Not everyone has the intellectual preparation or inclination for rigorous academic work. Many would be better served by vocational training, apprenticeships, or practical skill development. Forcing mismatched students into college often leads to failure, debt, and wasted resources.

How PL addresses these issues: PL explicitly accommodates varying levels of cognitive preparedness by allowing participants to start with remedial or foundational content and advance incrementally. This avoids the one-size-fits-all approach Murray criticizes.
It ties financial rewards directly to demonstrated mastery rather than time spent in classrooms or credentials earned through signaling. This aligns incentives with actual skill acquisition.

By including substantial trade and technical tracks alongside academic content, PL provides viable non-academic pathways that match the strengths and interests of many people with average or below-average cognitive profiles.

The progressive, monthly structure allows slower or less prepared learners to build skills without the stigma or dropout risks of traditional higher education.

PL functions as a form of “skin in the game” for the individual: progress (and payment) depends on personal effort and demonstrated competence, consistent with Murray’s emphasis on individual agency within cognitive constraints.

In short, PL does not attempt to equalize cognitive outcomes through intensive interventions (which Murray views skeptically). Instead, it creates a flexible system that lets people build human capital suited to their abilities while providing immediate economic support.

Bryan Caplan @bryan_caplan (The Case Against Education)
Caplan argues that much of education, especially higher education, is wasteful signaling rather than genuine human capital formation. Employers use degrees as filters for intelligence, conscientiousness, and conformity rather than specific skills learned in school. This leads to credential inflation and overinvestment in education that yields little productivity gain for many students.

How PL addresses this: PL payments are tied directly to passing objective exams that demonstrate specific knowledge and skills. This reduces the signaling component because the output (exam passage) is verifiable and tied to content mastery.

The system de-emphasizes traditional credentials in favor of portable certificates earned through demonstrated competence. Employers can evaluate actual skills rather than years of seat time.

By allowing self-directed study and machine-graded assessments, PL lowers the cost and time required to acquire verifiable skills, reducing the wasteful over-investment Caplan criticizes.

Trade and technical tracks provide clear, job-relevant human capital without requiring years of academic signaling.

Thomas Sowell
Sowell emphasizes cultural factors, individual behavior, and the limits of government interventions in education and social outcomes. He critiques credentialism, the expansion of higher education without corresponding increases in cognitive demand, and policies that ignore cultural and behavioral realities in favor of assuming equal potential across groups.

How PL addresses this: PL places responsibility on the individual through self-directed study and exam performance. Success depends on effort and persistence rather than systemic interventions or lowered standards.

The system is decentralized (states design and administer their own programs), allowing cultural and regional variation rather than top-down uniformity.

By including practical trade and technical content, PL validates non-academic paths to prosperity, countering the cultural overemphasis on academic credentials that Sowell has criticized.

It rewards demonstrated competence across ability levels without requiring the pretense that all groups or individuals have identical distributions of cognitive traits.

Tyler Cowen @tylercowen (Average Is Over and related work)
Cowen argues that cognitive ability is becoming increasingly important in a technologically advanced economy. Routine cognitive tasks are being automated, creating greater returns to high-level abstract reasoning while leaving many with average skills behind. He emphasizes the growing importance of non-cognitive traits alongside cognitive ones and the challenges of cognitive stratification.

How PL addresses this: PL allows individuals to build both cognitive and technical skills incrementally, helping those with average cognitive profiles acquire marketable abilities in trades and applied fields that complement (rather than compete directly with) automation.

The system provides income support during skill acquisition, reducing the immediate economic penalty for those who need more time to develop capabilities.
Progressive exam structure encourages continuous learning, aligning with Cowen’s view that lifelong skill development will be necessary.

By focusing on verifiable mastery rather than credentials, PL helps create clearer signals of actual capability in an economy where traditional degrees are becoming noisier.

Jordan Peterson @jordanbpeterson
Peterson stresses the importance of cognitive ability (particularly IQ) and personality traits (especially conscientiousness) in predicting life outcomes. He critiques modern education systems for promoting unrealistic expectations of universal academic success and for failing to prepare many students for realistic career paths.

How PL addresses this: PL provides structured pathways for skill development that do not require high levels of abstract academic ability. Trade and technical tracks offer viable routes to prosperity for individuals with different cognitive profiles.

The payment-for-progress model incentivizes conscientious effort and persistence—traits Peterson views as crucial.

It offers an alternative to the credential arms race, allowing people to demonstrate competence without needing to navigate increasingly demanding academic environments.

Fredrik deBoer (The Cult of Smart)
DeBoer, writing from a left perspective, acknowledges substantial cognitive differences and argues that society’s obsession with academic achievement harms those who are not cognitively elite. He critiques “college for all” and the stigma attached to non-academic paths.

How PL addresses this: PL validates and financially supports non-academic skill development through its trade and technical components.

It reduces the pressure to pursue academic credentials that may not match individual cognitive strengths.

The system provides economic support during learning, addressing the material barriers that often compound cognitive challenges.

Additional Considerations
PL also engages broader themes across the works of these commentators:

Human capital vs. signaling: By tying payments to exam passage, PL tilts toward genuine skill acquisition.

Realism about ability distributions: The system accommodates starting points and progression rates without pretending all individuals have equal potential for the same outcomes.

Decentralization and experimentation: State-level administration allows different approaches tailored to local populations and economies.

Incentives and agency: PL emphasizes individual effort and demonstrated results over passive receipt of services or lowered standards.

In summary, PL does not attempt to equalize cognitive ability or force everyone into the same academic mold. Instead, it creates a flexible, incentive-aligned system that allows individuals to build marketable skills at their own pace, across both academic and non-academic domains.

This directly mitigates many of the problems identified by Murray and the other commentators: mismatched educational expectations, wasteful credentialism, cognitive stratification, and the neglect of practical skill development. By making skill acquisition financially rewarding and accessible at multiple levels, PL offers a pragmatic response to the realities of human cognitive variation.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/Id2k5L7ZST

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

@rich_toronto Here's another approach, "immigration in situ" https://t.co/UbiOkimjdK, an element of a paid-learning plan described at https://t.co/2WMfxa1QJu.

Best wishes.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/Id2k5L7ZST

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

Regarding all the social programs, here's a hybrid system that may interest you: Paid Learning (PL) - small-government, decentralized, redistributive capitalism, a path forward for the United States and a model for other countries (and see my recent post, "I asked Grok to explain how Paid Learning . . . would appeal to American voters across the political spectrum").

In the U.S., PL would address problems of unemployment, underemployment, undereducation, and poverty as described below and at https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq.

PL would create a "job of learning" for U.S. citizens who were 18 through 66 years old, not disabled physically, intellectually, or psychologically, and had little or no other income.

Members of this PL Community who were less than 60 years old would no longer receive welfare benefits, but our federal and state governments would pay all members - at rates far above their respective poverty lines - for enhancing their knowledge and skills, and thereby enhancing their earning potential.

Members would earn money by passing monthly exams on academic, trade, and technical content ranging in difficulty from the lowest levels of literacy and numeracy to the highest levels of baccalaureate study - with the goal of eventually learning so much that they would be able to leave PL to take well-paying traditional (that is, "regular, ordinary," mostly private-sector) jobs or to become entrepreneurs.

Members would learn however they wished; for example, by attending classes on campus or online, hiring tutors, participating in study groups, or studying alone.

Individual and corporate welfare-reform measures - and reforms in the delivery and funding of post-secondary education - would free up more than enough tax dollars to pay for PL.

As artificial intelligence, robotics, and other factors destroyed, reshaped, and created jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities, the various governments would update their PL curricula. AI itself might well play a major role in curriculum design. In fact, even now, AI could probably produce a pretty decent first cut at a curriculum.

Countries other than the United States could establish their own PL programs. In my opinion, PL would work best in countries that institutionalized the "five pillars of prosperity": (1) Secure and clearly defined property rights, (2) A free market, (3) An independent judiciary, (4) Free and fair elections, and (5) Rule of law.

Another option: "Immigration in situ." Poor countries would merge with rich countries that already had PL programs. For example, a poor country would apply to the United States for annexation as a new territory (NT). Upon annexation, a PL program would take effect in the NT. The U.S. government would fund a significant portion of that program until the NT became so prosperous that it could fund PL by itself.

In my view, an annexation and an immediate establishment of PL in the resulting NT would have the potential to boost the NT's GDP rapidly: With the five pillars of prosperity in place, individuals and businesses based throughout the globe would invest in the NT without fear of nationalization of their investments. This investment plus an ever-increasing stock of human capital, thanks to PL, would stimulate the production of business and consumer products and services in the NT.

By passing certain PL exams - a "citizenship package" - NT citizens could qualify for U.S. citizenship. And when a certain percentage of the NT citizens passed a "statehood package" of exams, the NT would qualify for admission as a state of the United States.

Best wishes.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/Id2k5L7ZST

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

@Bunagayafrost The Great American Promise, the Great American Dream, and more stars in our flag via Paid Learning (PL) https://t.co/2WMfxa1QJu and, within PL,"immigration in situ" https://t.co/UbiOkimjdK.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

I asked Grok to discuss how the structure of "immigration in situ" would encourage citizens of potential New Territories (NT's) of the United States, as described at https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq, to vote for annexation. The response, lightly edited:

“Immigration in situ” proposes that a poor or struggling country could apply to become a new U.S. territory (NT). Upon approval and annexation, the full Paid Learning (PL) program would activate locally.

Residents could earn government payments by passing progressive exams on academic, trade, and technical skills. A “citizenship package” of exams would qualify individuals for U.S. citizenship without leaving home. When a sufficient percentage of the population passed a “statehood package,” the territory could become a full U.S. state.

This model is deliberately structured as a voluntary merger rather than traditional conquest or migration. Because of this design, it has strong potential to win popular support in a referendum or vote among the citizens of a potential new territory.

Here is how the structure encourages annexation.

1. Minimal Risk of Being Viewed as Exploitative or Imperialistic
"Immigration in situ" would not carry historical baggage of exploitation, resource extraction, or loss of self-determination.

It would be initiated by the country itself through an application process.

It would immediately deliver tangible benefits (PL payments, skill-building, and a path to U.S. citizenship).

It would be paired with the “five pillars of prosperity” (secure property rights, free market, independent judiciary, free and fair elections, and rule of law), which would be presented as institutional upgrades, rather than foreign impositions.

There would be no mass physical relocation of populations. People would stay in their homes and communities while gaining access to American institutions and opportunities.

2. Alignment with Existing Desires for U.S. Immigration and Citizenship

Hundreds of millions of people worldwide already want to live in the United States. Reliable data and polling consistently show this:

Gallup World Poll data over many years have shown that roughly 750 million to 1 billion adults globally say they would move to the United States if they could.

In Latin America, surveys by Gallup, Pew Research, and Latinobarómetro have repeatedly found that large percentages of citizens in countries such as Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Venezuela express a desire to emigrate to the U.S.

Millions have already immigrated both legally and illegally, demonstrating real-world demand. Legal permanent resident admissions alone have averaged over 1 million per year in recent decades, with far more applicants.

“Immigration in situ” would offer a way for people to gain many of the benefits of U.S. citizenship and opportunity without having to undertake dangerous, expensive, or illegal journeys. For many citizens of potential new territories, this would be an extremely attractive proposition.

3. Widespread Adoption of American and Western Culture

Citizens of many potential New Territories have already embraced major elements of American and Western culture:

English is widely studied and used in business and media across much of the world.

American music, movies, television, technology (especially smartphones and social media), and consumer brands are deeply embedded in daily life in Latin America, parts of Africa, the Caribbean, and elsewhere.

Democratic aspirations, rule of law, and individual opportunity are culturally resonant in many societies, even when local institutions fall short.

This pre-existing cultural affinity reduces the psychological barrier to annexation. Many people would not see becoming part of the United States as adopting a completely foreign identity, but rather as formalizing a cultural and aspirational connection that already exists.

4. Strong Appeal of the “Five Pillars of Prosperity,” Especially Rule of Law

The five pillars would be particularly compelling in countries suffering from chronic instability:

Rule of law and independent judiciary would be transformative in nations plagued by civil war, gang violence, corruption, ethnic or religious persecution, and arbitrary thuggery by state or non-state actors.

Secure property rights and a functioning free market would offer ordinary citizens and entrepreneurs protection from expropriation and extortion.

Free and fair elections would provide a credible mechanism for accountability that many current systems lack.

For citizens living under weak, corrupt, or predatory governance, these institutional guarantees would likely outweigh abstract concerns about sovereignty. The law-and-order pillar, in particular, could be a decisive selling point in high-violence environments.

5. The American Dream Would Become Locally Attainable

Perhaps the most powerful motivator is the prospect that the “American Dream” — upward mobility through education, hard work, and entrepreneurship — could become realistically available to ordinary people without emigration.

PL would provide immediate income for skill development, giving families breathing room while they build capabilities.

Certificates earned through PL exams would be portable and recognized, improving job prospects both locally and (after citizenship) in the broader United States.

The combination of U.S.-style institutions and rapid human capital development through PL could attract significant private investment, creating jobs and economic activity on the ground.

Citizens could reasonably conclude that their children would have far better opportunities for prosperity, safety, and dignity than under the status quo.

Additional Strong Points That Would Encourage Support

Dramatic reduction in migration risks and family separation: Instead of dangerous border crossings or long separations while working abroad, families could stay together while accessing opportunity.

Rapid local economic transformation: Historical examples of territories gaining U.S. institutions (even imperfectly) show significant economic gains. Combined with PL’s focus on skill-building, the potential upside is substantial.

Path to full statehood as a long-term horizon: The eventual possibility of becoming a full U.S. state would provide a clear, aspirational endpoint.

Global precedent and demonstration effect: If one or two successful cases were to emerge, the model would become easier for other nations to evaluate on its merits rather than abstract considerations.

Preservation of local identity with upgraded governance: The model does not require cultural erasure. Local languages, traditions, and identities could continue while the fundamental rules of the game (property rights, contracts, security) improved dramatically.

Conclusion:
The structure of “immigration in situ” is deliberately engineered to maximize its appeal to ordinary citizens of potential new territories. By offering a voluntary, benefit-heavy merger, by providing an immediate path to U.S. citizenship and opportunity without physical relocation, and by delivering the institutional foundations (especially rule of law) that many societies desperately lack, it would address core desires that already drive millions to seek American immigration.

When citizens can reasonably expect safer streets, better economic prospects for their families, a clearer path to prosperity, and eventual full membership in the United States — all without leaving home — the case for voting in favor of annexation becomes very strong. The "immigration in situ" model turns the American Dream from a distant aspiration into a locally deliverable outcome.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

Regarding poverty and welfare, here's a hybrid system that may interest you: Paid Learning (PL) - small-government, decentralized, redistributive capitalism, a path forward for the United States and a model for other countries (and see my recent post, "I asked Grok to explain how Paid Learning . . . would appeal to American voters across the political spectrum").

In the U.S., PL would address problems of unemployment, underemployment, undereducation, and poverty as described below and at https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq.

PL would create a "job of learning" for U.S. citizens who were 18 through 66 years old, not disabled physically, intellectually, or psychologically, and had little or no other income.

Members of this PL Community who were less than 60 years old would no longer receive welfare benefits, but our federal and state governments would pay all members - at rates far above their respective poverty lines - for enhancing their knowledge and skills, and thereby enhancing their earning potential.

Members would earn money by passing monthly exams on academic, trade, and technical content ranging in difficulty from the lowest levels of literacy and numeracy to the highest levels of baccalaureate study - with the goal of eventually learning so much that they would be able to leave PL to take well-paying traditional (that is, "regular, ordinary," mostly private-sector) jobs or to become entrepreneurs.

Members would learn however they wished; for example, by attending classes on campus or online, hiring tutors, participating in study groups, or studying alone.

Individual and corporate welfare-reform measures - and reforms in the delivery and funding of post-secondary education - would free up more than enough tax dollars to pay for PL.

As artificial intelligence, robotics, and other factors destroyed, reshaped, and created jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities, the various governments would update their PL curricula. AI itself might well play a major role in curriculum design. In fact, even now, AI could probably produce a pretty decent first cut at a curriculum.

Countries other than the United States could establish their own PL programs. In my opinion, PL would work best in countries that institutionalized the "five pillars of prosperity": (1) Secure and clearly defined property rights, (2) A free market, (3) An independent judiciary, (4) Free and fair elections, and (5) Rule of law.

Another option: "Immigration in situ." Poor countries would merge with rich countries that already had PL programs. For example, a poor country would apply to the United States for annexation as a new territory (NT). Upon annexation, a PL program would take effect in the NT. The U.S. government would fund a significant portion of that program until the NT became so prosperous that it could fund PL by itself.

In my view, an annexation and an immediate establishment of PL in the resulting NT would have the potential to boost the NT's GDP rapidly: With the five pillars of prosperity in place, individuals and businesses based throughout the globe would invest in the NT without fear of nationalization of their investments. This investment plus an ever-increasing stock of human capital, thanks to PL, would stimulate the production of business and consumer products and services in the NT.

By passing certain PL exams - a "citizenship package" - NT citizens could qualify for U.S. citizenship. And when a certain percentage of the NT citizens passed a "statehood package" of exams, the NT would qualify for admission as a state of the United States.

Best wishes.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/Id2k5L7ZST

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

@ChiefEngineerCE Please have a look at my recent post on "immigration in situ."

Best wishes.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

I asked Grok to discuss how the structure of "immigration in situ" would encourage citizens of potential New Territories (NT's) of the United States, as described at https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq, to vote for annexation. The response, lightly edited:

“Immigration in situ” proposes that a poor or struggling country could apply to become a new U.S. territory (NT). Upon approval and annexation, the full Paid Learning (PL) program would activate locally.

Residents could earn government payments by passing progressive exams on academic, trade, and technical skills. A “citizenship package” of exams would qualify individuals for U.S. citizenship without leaving home. When a sufficient percentage of the population passed a “statehood package,” the territory could become a full U.S. state.

This model is deliberately structured as a voluntary merger rather than traditional conquest or migration. Because of this design, it has strong potential to win popular support in a referendum or vote among the citizens of a potential new territory.

Here is how the structure encourages annexation.

1. Minimal Risk of Being Viewed as Exploitative or Imperialistic
"Immigration in situ" would not carry historical baggage of exploitation, resource extraction, or loss of self-determination.

It would be initiated by the country itself through an application process.

It would immediately deliver tangible benefits (PL payments, skill-building, and a path to U.S. citizenship).

It would be paired with the “five pillars of prosperity” (secure property rights, free market, independent judiciary, free and fair elections, and rule of law), which would be presented as institutional upgrades, rather than foreign impositions.

There would be no mass physical relocation of populations. People would stay in their homes and communities while gaining access to American institutions and opportunities.

2. Alignment with Existing Desires for U.S. Immigration and Citizenship

Hundreds of millions of people worldwide already want to live in the United States. Reliable data and polling consistently show this:

Gallup World Poll data over many years have shown that roughly 750 million to 1 billion adults globally say they would move to the United States if they could.

In Latin America, surveys by Gallup, Pew Research, and Latinobarómetro have repeatedly found that large percentages of citizens in countries such as Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Venezuela express a desire to emigrate to the U.S.

Millions have already immigrated both legally and illegally, demonstrating real-world demand. Legal permanent resident admissions alone have averaged over 1 million per year in recent decades, with far more applicants.

“Immigration in situ” would offer a way for people to gain many of the benefits of U.S. citizenship and opportunity without having to undertake dangerous, expensive, or illegal journeys. For many citizens of potential new territories, this would be an extremely attractive proposition.

3. Widespread Adoption of American and Western Culture

Citizens of many potential New Territories have already embraced major elements of American and Western culture:

English is widely studied and used in business and media across much of the world.

American music, movies, television, technology (especially smartphones and social media), and consumer brands are deeply embedded in daily life in Latin America, parts of Africa, the Caribbean, and elsewhere.

Democratic aspirations, rule of law, and individual opportunity are culturally resonant in many societies, even when local institutions fall short.

This pre-existing cultural affinity reduces the psychological barrier to annexation. Many people would not see becoming part of the United States as adopting a completely foreign identity, but rather as formalizing a cultural and aspirational connection that already exists.

4. Strong Appeal of the “Five Pillars of Prosperity,” Especially Rule of Law

The five pillars would be particularly compelling in countries suffering from chronic instability:

Rule of law and independent judiciary would be transformative in nations plagued by civil war, gang violence, corruption, ethnic or religious persecution, and arbitrary thuggery by state or non-state actors.

Secure property rights and a functioning free market would offer ordinary citizens and entrepreneurs protection from expropriation and extortion.

Free and fair elections would provide a credible mechanism for accountability that many current systems lack.

For citizens living under weak, corrupt, or predatory governance, these institutional guarantees would likely outweigh abstract concerns about sovereignty. The law-and-order pillar, in particular, could be a decisive selling point in high-violence environments.

5. The American Dream Would Become Locally Attainable

Perhaps the most powerful motivator is the prospect that the “American Dream” — upward mobility through education, hard work, and entrepreneurship — could become realistically available to ordinary people without emigration.

PL would provide immediate income for skill development, giving families breathing room while they build capabilities.

Certificates earned through PL exams would be portable and recognized, improving job prospects both locally and (after citizenship) in the broader United States.

The combination of U.S.-style institutions and rapid human capital development through PL could attract significant private investment, creating jobs and economic activity on the ground.

Citizens could reasonably conclude that their children would have far better opportunities for prosperity, safety, and dignity than under the status quo.

Additional Strong Points That Would Encourage Support

Dramatic reduction in migration risks and family separation: Instead of dangerous border crossings or long separations while working abroad, families could stay together while accessing opportunity.

Rapid local economic transformation: Historical examples of territories gaining U.S. institutions (even imperfectly) show significant economic gains. Combined with PL’s focus on skill-building, the potential upside is substantial.

Path to full statehood as a long-term horizon: The eventual possibility of becoming a full U.S. state would provide a clear, aspirational endpoint.

Global precedent and demonstration effect: If one or two successful cases were to emerge, the model would become easier for other nations to evaluate on its merits rather than abstract considerations.

Preservation of local identity with upgraded governance: The model does not require cultural erasure. Local languages, traditions, and identities could continue while the fundamental rules of the game (property rights, contracts, security) improved dramatically.

Conclusion:
The structure of “immigration in situ” is deliberately engineered to maximize its appeal to ordinary citizens of potential new territories. By offering a voluntary, benefit-heavy merger, by providing an immediate path to U.S. citizenship and opportunity without physical relocation, and by delivering the institutional foundations (especially rule of law) that many societies desperately lack, it would address core desires that already drive millions to seek American immigration.

When citizens can reasonably expect safer streets, better economic prospects for their families, a clearer path to prosperity, and eventual full membership in the United States — all without leaving home — the case for voting in favor of annexation becomes very strong. The "immigration in situ" model turns the American Dream from a distant aspiration into a locally deliverable outcome.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/Id2k5L7ZST

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

Here's a hybrid system that may interest you: Paid Learning (PL) - small-government, decentralized, redistributive capitalism, a path forward for the United States and a model for other countries (and see my recent post, "I asked Grok to explain how Paid Learning . . . would appeal to American voters across the political spectrum").

In the U.S., PL would address problems of unemployment, underemployment, undereducation, and poverty as described below and at https://t.co/CSekYt8xgq.

PL would create a "job of learning" for U.S. citizens who were 18 through 66 years old, not disabled physically, intellectually, or psychologically, and had little or no other income.

Members of this PL Community who were less than 60 years old would no longer receive welfare benefits, but our federal and state governments would pay all members - at rates far above their respective poverty lines - for enhancing their knowledge and skills, and thereby enhancing their earning potential.

Members would earn money by passing monthly exams on academic, trade, and technical content ranging in difficulty from the lowest levels of literacy and numeracy to the highest levels of baccalaureate study - with the goal of eventually learning so much that they would be able to leave PL to take well-paying traditional (that is, "regular, ordinary," mostly private-sector) jobs or to become entrepreneurs.

Individual and corporate welfare-reform measures - and reforms in the delivery and funding of post-secondary education - would free up more than enough tax dollars to pay for PL.

As artificial intelligence, robotics, and other factors destroyed, reshaped, and created jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities, the various governments would update their PL curricula. AI itself might well play a major role in curriculum design. In fact, even now, AI could probably produce a pretty decent first cut at a curriculum.

Countries other than the United States could establish their own PL programs. In my opinion, PL would work best in countries that institutionalized the "five pillars of prosperity": (1) Secure and clearly defined property rights, (2) A free market, (3) An independent judiciary, (4) Free and fair elections, and (5) Rule of law.

Another option: "Immigration in situ." Poor countries would merge with rich countries that already had PL programs. For example, a poor country would apply to the United States for annexation as a new territory (NT). Upon annexation, a PL program would take effect in the NT. The U.S. government would fund a significant portion of that program until the NT became so prosperous that it could fund PL by itself.

In my view, an annexation and an immediate establishment of PL in the resulting NT would have the potential to boost the NT's GDP rapidly: With the five pillars of prosperity in place, individuals and businesses based throughout the globe would invest in the NT without fear of nationalization of their investments. This investment plus an ever-increasing stock of human capital, thanks to PL, would stimulate the production of business and consumer products and services in the NT.

By passing certain PL exams - a "citizenship package" - NT citizens could qualify for U.S. citizenship. And when a certain percentage of the NT citizens passed a "statehood package" of exams, the NT would qualify for admission as a state of the United States.

Best wishes to you, @davidamusick, @yesnicksearcy, @CBradleyThomps1, @dcthornton, @MendlovitzMark, @esanzi, @Patrickkerby58, and @snarkVol.

[Jay Myers @PaidLearning]

https://t.co/Id2k5L7ZST