I never thought about the UBI in those terms but I think the article makes a convincing case. I am always unnerved by the very common perception that those who benefit from government services somehow give up some of their liberties. Such policies include drug testing welfare recipients, and regressive taxes on sugar and cigarettes. A UBI would certainly change the scope of meddling by politicians.
I also think it's naive to assume that all the other government welfare agencies would step aside quietly. The patch-work of programs wasn't an accident and a UBI will likely by another patch in an ever-growing bureaucracy.
The crux of the article: "Under a basic income, citizens could potentially be prevented from spending their state earnings on fatty or sugary food"
I'm not aware of any basic income proposal that includes such measures; the point of basic income is exactly the opposite: to let people spend their money however they choose. Some governments (California and New York come to mind) are already regulating unhealthy food, but I don't see any connection to basic income.
The article also points out that people who currently receive "nothing" from the government (other than the aqueduct, and sanitation, and roads...) would probably become dependent on their basic income to some extent and thus could be influenced by the threat of taking that income away. Governments already have so many ways to reward/punish people (e.g. tax policy) that I have no idea whether this would be better or worse than the current status quo.
> I'm not aware of any basic income proposal that includes such measures
YET. You've actually summarized the actual text, not the important subtext. The subtext is that under a UIB, the government can effectively tell you how to behave and almost directly, control your choices from a new orthogonal legal standpoint. Hey, the US isn't barring Pepsi from a free and open marketplace, but if you buy a Pepsi produce we'll revoke your UIB. Who? That birthed organization that's a cross between the TSA and the IRS to administrate the UIB which is necessary "to prevent abuse". Fraud will run rampant in the first attempts. I find these behaviors, embarassingly commonplace, in US programs.
It still seems to me that the government could already do this and thus it is an argument against any and all new government regulations, but whatever.
Simple example today in the US is welfare. The government prevents people from buying alcohol or cigarettes with their welfare money. Of course there are numerous work-arounds, but the point is that it happens today. Now extend that to the whole population, and the issue is considerable.
A very big point of UBI is to eliminate exactly the type of regulation because both of personal liberty reasons and, perhaps more importantly, it is a source of administrative inefficiency in the programs.
The development of the political consensus necessary to pass a UBI would be, exactly, a political rejection of the idea that such restrictions are desirable.
Trying to scaremonger against UBI with this as the supposed threat is nonsense, because it is, in effect, defending the status quo in which these kinds of restrictions are already imposed on people against a change which would remove them on the idea that somehow, in the distant future, those type of restrictions might be reimposed.
How exactly would the government control our purchases? If they expanded the food stamp program (I'm from the US) to include everyone then that wouldn't be a basic income because you couldn't use the money to pay rent or utilities or for a car. Basic income is about removing barriers to assistance. I feel this article is FUD directed a libertarians to scare them away from supporting basic income.
Interesting article, I hadn't considered the potential impact of health policy on UBI, there may be some merit in that line of reasoning.
That said, I don't agree with the whole article, especially the part about government enabling companies to cut wages. If people can survive without a job, companies are going to have to make it worthwhile to take up a job with them. So long as people keep their financial commitments low they'll be better placed to negotiate a better starting salary.
Slippery slope argument, but I think its pretty convincing. I'd argue that we wouldn't see it surface directly in any UBI bill, but rather we might start seeing UBI being used as an argument to get other restrictive bills passed.
Like: present case study which says that low-income individuals are at the greatest risk for tobacco dependence -> low-income families benefit the most from UBI -> anti-tobacco politician can now make the case that the government is subsidizing their tobacco usage -> argument from guilt that tobacco sales should be further restricted universally, not just with basic income.
Prisons are very expensive. Each prisoner costs far more than a basic income for a free man would.
Additionally, prisoners get very little money, and very little freedom to choose how to spend it. Their accommodations, utilities, food, clothing, etc, are provided by the state directly.
Conversely, a basic income doesn't involve the cost of incarcerating, monitoring, and controlling its recipients. Recipients receive enough income to buy the essentials themselves, with free choice from the vendors in an open market.
So, no, I'd say the economics of prisons aren't very much like basic income programs.
So, hold on, everyone already has the government involved in their financial lives. It's called the Tax department. They already can meddle in our lives by playing with these taxes. So, no real difference other than they are giving out money. It's important with UBI that U = Unconditional. It's not that BI is dangerous, it's just we have to setup the correct legal frameworks when implementing it. Seems way less dangerous than Tax to me where government gets to take whatever share it feels fit from what you earn :)
The whole point of a basic income is that it is a rejection of the idea that social welfare programs should direct spending.habits or lifestyle: in fact, it's sold as a replacement for existing programs that do that precisely to remove that feature. The article is literally ignoring existing programs that do exactly what it tries to scaremonger about which UBI is opposed to and designed to replace to try to paint UBI as dangerous because it might someday become what the programs it is designed to displace already are. It's FUD designed to prey on ignorance.
The article made me realize an argument I've never thought of before against the UBI as a replacement for current welfare system : it's a Procrustean bed.
Is it? Why? In myth, Procrustes either stretched or amputated people's legs to make them fit on his bed. Basic income forces a minimum wage, but not a maximum, so I don't think the comparison is apposite.
Since it's supposed to replace current welfare, chances are there are people who would get less money with the UBI than what they currently get. In that case for them that will indeed feel like a cut (pun intended)
And if everybody gets as much or more than what they currently get, then it's fiscally irresponsible.
The article implies that basic income necessarily leads to food stamps. But basic income is orthogonal to that. If the UK government wanted to introduce a food stamp system it could have done it already, and it'd be much easier to do without a basic income.
If everyone receives food stamps, the administrative overhead for the government, businesses, and the people would be huge. With basic income it's quite likely that people currently at, or just above, minimum wage - some 30% of the population - would find almost all of their income replaced with 'food stamps'.
The article also observes that the state will be subsidising more businesses. True as it may be, not everyone considers subsidies to be automatically bad, and the article makes no case for why we should think that this would be a problem.
Then the article goes on to suggest that basic income would mean businesses would increase their profit margins because they wouldn't have to pay as much in wages. Possibly true for some businesses - things are a bit more complicated than that: costs would increase because the basic income has to be funded somehow - but it's rather at odds with the Independent's usual editorial line to paint this as a bad thing.
Is it worth considering a halfway point with something like the Civilian Conservation Corps, giving people enough work to feel purposeful and provide labour for the state (15-20 hours/week), and enough income or staples/services to live off?
I'm not sure CCC is really an alternative to basic income.
It doesn't seem like it would be an option for those incapable of work. And, it's unlikely that there's enough actually beneficial state work going around for everyone.
It's not really economically sensible for the state to make up busywork for people in CCC because there isn't enough real work. The cost of arranging such work would, I'm sure, outweigh the meagre benefits it would bring. You might as well pay the workers directly and not have them do the busywork, but that's essentially the same thing as basic income.
If the scheme didn't support everyone regardless of their ability to do work and the state's ability to provide work, then CCC would be "just another" benefits program, rather than something which could, in principle, replace virtually all current benefits programs.
Having said that, I'm not opposed to the idea that people who are long-term unemployed in a basic income system could be required to work for the state in some capacity, when legitimate work is available.
We had that before, pretty much. It was called "serfdom".
You provided the lord with a certain amount of labor (which varied considerably at different times and places), and the lord gave you a hovel and enough of the food you grew to survive.
I don't think we want to go back to that, really.
UBI, in my understanding of the term, is something else. If it requires service in exchange, it's not UBI.
In the UK, at least, the welfare system is already extremely controlling of people's lives. I don't see why a UBI scheme, by necessity, would regulate people's lives in this way. If applied universally with no caveats - literally a cash transfer to citizens - then the government loses this control.
There are plenty of horror stories from those trying to work within the current welfare regime in the UK and I can't see an a priori reason that this would be the same for a UBI scheme.
"With UBI, ever citizen will rely, at least in part, on his or her income being handed out by the state. Rather than there existing pockets of state dependency, all of us will become (albeit to differing degrees) dependent."
Who is enforcing intellectual property law? Who builds roads and subsidizes factories and offices? You get paid by a corporation, and that corporation is profoundly dependent on the exercise of state power. It spends a lot of money to lobby and influence that power. This author supposes that, right now, most of us are independent actors vis-a-vis the state. That's silly.
The UBI question isn't, "should the state be expanded," because the state is already expansive. The question is what nature of relationship is the least worst. As the author acknowledges, right now we intrusively monitor and examine the poor, ask them to fill out a ton of paperwork, and punish them with arbitrary cutoffs. The nature of that relationship is horrible. UBI could improve it.
But hey, if you're well-off and/or feel that the corporate-state fusion is furthering your interests already, then yeah you might feel "free" at present and fear any changes.
This seems a pretty weak argument which boils down to "The Evil State will intrude on everyone's lives, not just those pesky/useless unemployed/sick/disabled/old people".
As far as I can see giving everyone a no-strings-attached payment is actually far less intrusive than the current system where you have to qualify in some way for help.
And everyone is already dependent on the state, for healthcare , education, roads, etc, and more directly, when it comes to tax breaks and so on, which are often quite specific and prescriptive.
Although I fall on the conservative side of the spectrum, my greatest concern with UBI is that it might not work AND cost a lot of money. Would we just get the same effect we've observed with all the access to student loans and grants for those going to college? There the idea was that offering easy government subsidized loans and means tested money would make college more accessible to every American. What we actually got was vastly more expensive college. So my concern is that the market would just adjust to reflect the fact that everyone was now $3000 (for example) richer...which would mean that nothing in real terms would change. Philosophically, I hope it would have the effect of ensuring greater innovative behavior and drive. I.e., if you're not afraid of your ability to make ends meet (have enough food to eat and a roof over your head) then maybe you launch that start-up you've always dreamed of. Or maybe you follow more appealing work (which doesn't pay as much as your existing occupation). Or, perhaps you just decide to work a little less and spend more time on the things which really matter in life.
The risk is that we'll get sub-optimal outcomes. People may just decide not to work, and also not to live in a meaningful intentional way--but to just sit around drinking beer, watching Netflix, and wasting away Wall-E style.
I've also written about this fear before myself, and I suggest everyone look at Social Security and the Alaska Dividend for evidence. Do these programs make for more compliant citizens? No, the opposite is true.
Basic income has no conditions, and because everyone gets it, it will quickly be seen as a right of citizenship. Good luck as a politician touching that third rail. I'm sure seniors would have no problem whatsoever being told what they can or can't buy with their SS checks.
Mostly nonsense. Though I did find the point about lowering wages at least somewhat compelling. On the other hand, is this really true?
> Many economists observe that when it comes to wages, the floor price is often determined by the cost of the workers' ability to survive from day-to-day.
If that were the case why would we need the minimum wage?
31 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 67.7 ms ] threadI also think it's naive to assume that all the other government welfare agencies would step aside quietly. The patch-work of programs wasn't an accident and a UBI will likely by another patch in an ever-growing bureaucracy.
States periodically try that, and then give up after about a year or two because it costs far more than it recoups.
I'm not aware of any basic income proposal that includes such measures; the point of basic income is exactly the opposite: to let people spend their money however they choose. Some governments (California and New York come to mind) are already regulating unhealthy food, but I don't see any connection to basic income.
The article also points out that people who currently receive "nothing" from the government (other than the aqueduct, and sanitation, and roads...) would probably become dependent on their basic income to some extent and thus could be influenced by the threat of taking that income away. Governments already have so many ways to reward/punish people (e.g. tax policy) that I have no idea whether this would be better or worse than the current status quo.
YET. You've actually summarized the actual text, not the important subtext. The subtext is that under a UIB, the government can effectively tell you how to behave and almost directly, control your choices from a new orthogonal legal standpoint. Hey, the US isn't barring Pepsi from a free and open marketplace, but if you buy a Pepsi produce we'll revoke your UIB. Who? That birthed organization that's a cross between the TSA and the IRS to administrate the UIB which is necessary "to prevent abuse". Fraud will run rampant in the first attempts. I find these behaviors, embarassingly commonplace, in US programs.
The development of the political consensus necessary to pass a UBI would be, exactly, a political rejection of the idea that such restrictions are desirable.
Trying to scaremonger against UBI with this as the supposed threat is nonsense, because it is, in effect, defending the status quo in which these kinds of restrictions are already imposed on people against a change which would remove them on the idea that somehow, in the distant future, those type of restrictions might be reimposed.
That said, I don't agree with the whole article, especially the part about government enabling companies to cut wages. If people can survive without a job, companies are going to have to make it worthwhile to take up a job with them. So long as people keep their financial commitments low they'll be better placed to negotiate a better starting salary.
Like: present case study which says that low-income individuals are at the greatest risk for tobacco dependence -> low-income families benefit the most from UBI -> anti-tobacco politician can now make the case that the government is subsidizing their tobacco usage -> argument from guilt that tobacco sales should be further restricted universally, not just with basic income.
We've seen dumber things happen on capital hill.
Additionally, prisoners get very little money, and very little freedom to choose how to spend it. Their accommodations, utilities, food, clothing, etc, are provided by the state directly.
Conversely, a basic income doesn't involve the cost of incarcerating, monitoring, and controlling its recipients. Recipients receive enough income to buy the essentials themselves, with free choice from the vendors in an open market.
So, no, I'd say the economics of prisons aren't very much like basic income programs.
And if everybody gets as much or more than what they currently get, then it's fiscally irresponsible.
If everyone receives food stamps, the administrative overhead for the government, businesses, and the people would be huge. With basic income it's quite likely that people currently at, or just above, minimum wage - some 30% of the population - would find almost all of their income replaced with 'food stamps'.
The article also observes that the state will be subsidising more businesses. True as it may be, not everyone considers subsidies to be automatically bad, and the article makes no case for why we should think that this would be a problem.
Then the article goes on to suggest that basic income would mean businesses would increase their profit margins because they wouldn't have to pay as much in wages. Possibly true for some businesses - things are a bit more complicated than that: costs would increase because the basic income has to be funded somehow - but it's rather at odds with the Independent's usual editorial line to paint this as a bad thing.
It doesn't seem like it would be an option for those incapable of work. And, it's unlikely that there's enough actually beneficial state work going around for everyone.
It's not really economically sensible for the state to make up busywork for people in CCC because there isn't enough real work. The cost of arranging such work would, I'm sure, outweigh the meagre benefits it would bring. You might as well pay the workers directly and not have them do the busywork, but that's essentially the same thing as basic income.
If the scheme didn't support everyone regardless of their ability to do work and the state's ability to provide work, then CCC would be "just another" benefits program, rather than something which could, in principle, replace virtually all current benefits programs.
Having said that, I'm not opposed to the idea that people who are long-term unemployed in a basic income system could be required to work for the state in some capacity, when legitimate work is available.
You provided the lord with a certain amount of labor (which varied considerably at different times and places), and the lord gave you a hovel and enough of the food you grew to survive.
I don't think we want to go back to that, really.
UBI, in my understanding of the term, is something else. If it requires service in exchange, it's not UBI.
There are plenty of horror stories from those trying to work within the current welfare regime in the UK and I can't see an a priori reason that this would be the same for a UBI scheme.
"With UBI, ever citizen will rely, at least in part, on his or her income being handed out by the state. Rather than there existing pockets of state dependency, all of us will become (albeit to differing degrees) dependent."
Who is enforcing intellectual property law? Who builds roads and subsidizes factories and offices? You get paid by a corporation, and that corporation is profoundly dependent on the exercise of state power. It spends a lot of money to lobby and influence that power. This author supposes that, right now, most of us are independent actors vis-a-vis the state. That's silly.
The UBI question isn't, "should the state be expanded," because the state is already expansive. The question is what nature of relationship is the least worst. As the author acknowledges, right now we intrusively monitor and examine the poor, ask them to fill out a ton of paperwork, and punish them with arbitrary cutoffs. The nature of that relationship is horrible. UBI could improve it.
But hey, if you're well-off and/or feel that the corporate-state fusion is furthering your interests already, then yeah you might feel "free" at present and fear any changes.
As far as I can see giving everyone a no-strings-attached payment is actually far less intrusive than the current system where you have to qualify in some way for help.
And everyone is already dependent on the state, for healthcare , education, roads, etc, and more directly, when it comes to tax breaks and so on, which are often quite specific and prescriptive.
The risk is that we'll get sub-optimal outcomes. People may just decide not to work, and also not to live in a meaningful intentional way--but to just sit around drinking beer, watching Netflix, and wasting away Wall-E style.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
I've also written about this fear before myself, and I suggest everyone look at Social Security and the Alaska Dividend for evidence. Do these programs make for more compliant citizens? No, the opposite is true.
Basic income has no conditions, and because everyone gets it, it will quickly be seen as a right of citizenship. Good luck as a politician touching that third rail. I'm sure seniors would have no problem whatsoever being told what they can or can't buy with their SS checks.
> Many economists observe that when it comes to wages, the floor price is often determined by the cost of the workers' ability to survive from day-to-day.
If that were the case why would we need the minimum wage?