Hawaii proves solvency.

In the United States, Hawaii recently approved a state house resolution that will establish a committee to explore and research potentially implementing UBI within the state. 35 The resolution states that a "paradigm shift in policy" will be necessary as automation, innovation, and disruption begin to rapidly worsen economic inequality by displacing significant numbers of jobs in Hawaii's transportation, food service, tourism, retail, medical, legal, and insurance sectors.3 6 Hawaii's unemployment rate is currently lower than the national average. 37 However, State Representative Chris Lee, who introduced the resolution, claims that the unemployment rate does "not capture the real life experience of families working part time jobs without benefits, or seeing stagnating wages bust a rising cost of living."' 38 The "inevitable and accelerating" forces of automation and innovation will not create many new jobs, he argues, and "[t]raditional forms of government assistance are ill equipped" to address such forces. 39

According to Lee, UBI is necessary "to be sure that everybody will benefit from the technological revolution that we're seeing to make sure no one's left behind."4 ° Lee believes that rather than serving as "a support system for welfare recipients," UBI will act as an "empowering tool," which will give everyone new opportunity.4 People may use the aid to go back to school for better education, Lee argues, or pursue work they are passionate about, instead of leaving the workforce.4 2

These examples show that certain lawmakers in the developed world view UBI as a viable option for the future. Ontario's program is more universal than Finland's program, because it does not distribute aid for the purpose of getting people employed. By giving unconditional aid to those in precarious low-paying jobs and those already on public assistance, Ontario's program appears to be closer to the paradigm shift called for in Hawaii's resolution, than Finland's program, which is substantively closer to current safety net programs. In addition to having twice as many recipients, Ontario's program also gives recipients far more aid than Finland's program. Ontario's program has the potential to impact recipients' lives as significantly as the aid program in Kenya. While Hawaii is in the beginning stages of exploring and researching UBI, implementing a pilot program there could serve as example for other states. Representative Lee believes that a state-by-state implementation could be effective, because individual state programs "could target specific characteristics of different regions and resources." 4 3