The Deep and Enduring History of Universal Basic Income
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
Of course it's popular, when you make a survey and ask:
"How would you love to have $1000 per month transferred into your account?"
And then they translate that into "UBI is popular."
You ask a different set of questions:
How would you like your either your taxes to increase to help everyone with UBI, OR we can do it without raising taxes, but every year the price of cheese will rise by $1 per ounce?
What does seem worthy of attempting, however, would be to build prison-like facilities where people could apply to live for free, the only real difference is no locks on the doors. Social areas, dining hall, a bed, labor opportunities... that's a Basic lifestyle, with far less opportunity for fraud, that might actually engender social interaction and provide experiences that enable people to find better jobs going forward. Call it Universal Basic Living.
The majority of controlled experiments with UBI in OECD countries have shown reduction in poverty. What would be the "fraud" aspect of universal BI? Everyone would get it.
Your (likely sarcastic) suggestion has been explored in "The Dispossed". Its working title was "An Ambiguous Utopia"
If you look at some of the “fraud prevention” criteria some states implement you find they often (true: not always) end up costing more than the fraud they are supposedly preventing. Meanwhile they provide hoops legitimately qualifying people find hard to jump through, which defeats the point of having the program in the first place. Sometimes I think that’s the actual goal of these programs.
Your argument is flawed, for many reasons.
You see? If "for many reasons" works for you why shouldn't it work for me too?
Handing out money causes inflation
Checks may go to people who don't qualify, or are dead.
People are free to spend the money in ways that weren't intended.
The amount of money sent is unlikely to provide sustainability (food, rent, clothes, utilities).
It is not the best interests of a nation to have individuals who live their entire adult life from 18-80+ without any intention of ever joining the labor force.
I've witnessed "helicopter-dropping money" in action, in Brazil [1].
It didn't have the flaws you invented out of your imagination. That "helicopter-dropping" worked so well that the right-wing government that succeeded the leftist that implemented it tried to do their version of it.
Mindboggling? Seems pretty close to what most countries experienced.
1.Claim: Handing Out Money Causes Inflation.
1.Response: Inflation occurs when newly created money is not used productively. The bank-centric approach of money creation is through loans that distribute more dollars than that bank holds in deposits, thus requiring the creation of new money. The argument is that those who present a business plan and pass the sniff test, are likely to use that money productively, such that the inflationary effect of increased demand is offset by the increase in productivity. Money creation through fiscal spending of the Federal government in excess of taxation is inflationary, but when used productively for public works, the inflationary effect is offset by growth in the ability to be productive by the whole economy. This in a nutshell is the fiscal conservative vs fiscal liberal perspectives: A disagreement on the what is the most productive way to use new money: private sector loans or public works fiscal spending. Now back to UBI: The question is whether helicopter drops / basic income is a productive way to use new money or would it be better used elsewhere in the productivity vs inflation battle. The answer to this is debated, with opinions all over the place. Some people think the money will be spent wastefully, only increasing aggregate demand. Others respond that a basic income can keep people from falling off financial cliffs, and thus more likely to remain working (being productive), remain housed and providing a stable home for their children (i.e. ensure future generations more likely to be productive). Personally, I buy this latter argument. When people lose their jobs and home, start living on the street, they are more likely to turn to drugs and alcohol to cope (empirical fact). The important things is to set it at the right amount so that its neither too meager or too excessive to fulfill that role.
2.Claim: Checks may go to people who don't qualify, or are dead.
2.Response I abhor means testing. The number of times I've seen the cost benefit analysis of getting a job while losing foodstamp benefits goes like this for the poor: Spend all your time working, lose your foodstamp benefits, have to pay for childcare, starting at minimum wage, net: only a few more dollars, and a lot less freedom. Means testing also adds tons of paperwork, making programs expensive, and burdensome. Helicopter drops are burdensome. As far as dead people. C'mon. Surely we can keep track of who is living and who is dead in this modern age.
3.Claim People are free to spend the money in ways that weren't intended.
3.Response Poor people often know how to spend their money most effectively. It might not look the same as how someone with more money would spend it. The poor person might not fill up their gas tank, nor buy in bulk, which ends up being more expensive but it also keeps their resources fungible. Having a full tank of larder won't get you to work today if your tires are blown. Having a full tank of gas, won't feed the kids if you run low on money. Also, why should we be obsessed with how they spend it? What is this obsession for control that so many have? Sure some people will spend it in ways we don't agree with, but do we want to live in a world where everyone is micromanaged in their daily living? Moreover, we shouldn't assume that we can enumerate all the ways it can be best spent, when we know that life is filled with opportunities of many kinds, and productive use of that money requires flexibility in its use.
4.Claim: The amount of money sent is unlikely to provide sustainability (food, rent, clothes, utilities).
4.Response. First, the amount of money shouldn't be at the level that it disincentivizes productive use of time (i.e. work), but a floor so that even in really bad times, something is coming in AND with creative usage, can lever people out of poverty. Housing, however, is the big one. There is no solution to this but to build enough housing so that it becomes affordable...else UBI would just go to apartment owners. This IS a serious issue, and it needs to be solved, not just for UBI to work, but our current economy to work.
^- the phrasing of this amuses me for so many reasons. How much of the concept of prison remains if the doors are left unlocked? Not much, I'd wager.
It's been a long dream of mine to build 1-3 small houses on our rural land and let people with a personal project spend +/- a year working on it rent free. Been building water/electrical infra with it in mind. It'll be a cool experiment to run if I ever get there.
Maybe the SRO rooms at the YMCA weren't too far off from this concept historically. I don't even know if that still exists, or just stories from a bygone era.
Certain behavioral restrictions apply, but the concept of externalizing all of the lower-level Maslow's Hierarchy needs has been thoroughly worked.
It is also the case that a hitch in the military inoculates many against these sorts of authoritarian experiences. Sure, "three hots and a cot" are nice enough, but humans, as a general matter, do not flourish well under these kinds of captivity.
The best argument in support of UBI is that poor people spend it locally.
Rich people tend to spend most of their money on luxury goods that most of the time come from other places. They generate wealth elsewhere.
Poor people tend to spend on basic needs mostly supplied locally: food, shelter, transportation, sanitation, etc. Because of that UBI's multiplying effect on generating more income is powerful.
Conservatives like to say that low taxes for the rich benefit everyone because they generate progress, it is called supply-side economics. I wouldn't advocate high taxes "per se" as in taxes to give money to the government. However, it is possible that high taxes can have a much more powerful impact on development if the money is spent wisely. However, I accept that politicians spending public money is a rare exception, not the rule.
It has resulted in an alarming number of cities where more than half of the population does not work. There are people who have been living on benefits for more than a decade. They would be unable to get a job now, even if they wanted to, because they’ve been out of the job market for so long. The result is a large amount of people who are forever dependent on the State to live.