They\u2019re\u00a0everywhere \u2014 proposals for a Universal Basic Income, that is.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s a proposal for a \u201cbasic income\u201d in Latvia<\/a>. \u00a0Here\u2019s one for Finland<\/a>, which seems to be moving forward (though The Guardian says,<\/a> without further details, that it\u2019s much more limited that various news reports claim). \u00a0The Swiss will vote on this in June<\/a>, though it\u2019s not expected to pass.<\/p>\n My initial reaction is simply, \u201cthere\u2019s no way we, as a country, can afford this\u201d \u2013 but such a program would effectively be clawed back as income grows, either directly, or indirectly through tax rate increases.<\/p>\n And a UBI would solve two challenges with our social welfare system:<\/p>\n First, in the existing system, there are, to greater or lesser degrees, penalties built in for welfare recipients moving into the workforce. \u00a0Not in every program \u2014 programs like food stamps are intended to meet the needs of the working poor by tapering off gradually as income grows. \u00a0A basic income, with a simple clawback only after the recipient is well out of poverty, would eliminate this.<\/p>\n And, second, advocates of high mimimum wages expect that this alone will serve the function of getting everyone out of poverty \u2014 even though it\u2019s blind to the circumstances of a person\u2019s life, and, especially, family status. \u00a0The wage necessary to keep a single person out of poverty is much lower than the wage necessary for a single mother with multiple kids, and it simply isn\u2019t possible to raise the minimum wage high enough to cover the latter case.<\/p>\n But at the same time, here\u2019s one fundamental\u00a0difference \u00a0between a UBI\u00a0and existing social welfare programs: \u00a0the UBI is conceived of as, simply, cash handed out, per person, rather than our existing system of vouchers and allowances for food, housing, heating, phone service, mass transit, child care, healthcare, etc., with actual cash benefits going to a small number of TANF recipients. \u00a0What happens when the money is lost at the casino the first week, and there\u2019s not enough left to cover the rest of the month? \u00a0Sure, everyone says, \u201ctough luck,\u201d but will we really be that hard-hearted? \u00a0Will soup kitchens and homeless shelters still exist for the population that cannot make their UBI last all month? \u00a0If so, the promise of \u201cone and done\u201d welfare won\u2019t come to pass. \u00a0And even if we\u2019re willing to shrug off the adults, we won\u2019t be able to ignore the needs of kids.<\/p>\n Besides which, there seem to be two types of Basic Income supporters. \u00a0The futurists imagine that robots will eventually do all our work for us, and work will more or less disappear, so that the bulk of the population will live off their Basic Income. \u00a0These supporters expect that the Basic Income will be sufficient to provide a middle-class standard of living, and envision that some recipients will work, and others will be great artists, or authors, or do other socially productive things. \u00a0But this is really more fantasy than anything, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n The alternate approach comes out of welfare reform plans. \u00a0Provide a basic sum of money, enough to provide the necessities of life. \u00a0No, a single recipient won\u2019t be able to afford an apartment, complete with cable and internet and an Xbox One. \u00a0That person\u2019d have to get roommates, or find an SRO (which, in my view<\/a>, ought to be easier to do than it is \u2014 though the funds should be enough to enable something better than Hong Kong-style cage homes<\/a>). \u00a0And restaurant meals would be out of the question \u2014 a crock pot and plenty of bean and rice recipes would have to be good enough. \u00a0(Should the basic income be higher in high-cost areas? \u00a0Probably not \u2013 they\u2019ll just have to move.)<\/p>\n The assumption is that this would be paired with a very low minimum wage (or even none at all). \u00a0Educated, middle-class workers wouldn\u2019t even question the need to continue to work, and the unskilled and uneducated would also work, to supplement their basic income, even if their productivity, and their wages, are low, just because the living standard would be so low otherwise. \u00a0Would it work? \u00a0Would it be possible to strike that balance \u2014 a basic income low enough to motivate its recipients to work to supplement it, but not so low as to produce human suffering for those who can\u2019t find jobs at any wage, or are unable to work? \u00a0This is the core difficulty, and I think not possible\u00a0to resolve and the key reason that UBI isn\u2019t implementable. \u00a0As soon as the UBI is high enough to meet the necessities as we would define them, so that a jobless person doesn\u2019t genuinely suffer, there will be far more people than we, as a society, would like, content to live off it, jobless, like the \u201cwelfare queens\u201d of old, or as is the case in European countries with generous supports for the long-term unemployed\/nonworking population. \u00a0Add to that the fact that a fixed UBI can\u2019t be one-size-fits-all because people aren\u2019t one-size-fits-all, in ways as simple as regional cost of housing or having a paid-for house or a stable roommate pairing, to the complexities of kids of different ages and spending\u00a0needs (is your three year old still in diapers, or not?).<\/p>\n (Of course, there\u2019s a third variant, another sort of fantasy that imagines that a basic income would be paired with a high minimum wage. \u00a0The basic income would be, in this scenario, a fallback so that people who are no longer able to find work, are taken care of.)<\/p>\n The bottom line is that a UBI is great in theory, but not in practice, which means that it\u2019s not so great in theory, either.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" They\u2019re\u00a0everywhere \u2014 proposals for a Universal Basic Income, that is. Here\u2019s a proposal for a \u201cbasic income\u201d in Latvia. \u00a0Here\u2019s one for Finland, which seems to be moving forward (though The Guardian says, without further details, that it\u2019s much more limited that various news reports claim). \u00a0The Swiss will vote on this in June, though […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[364,299,298],"class_list":["post-4215","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-basic-income","tag-welfare","tag-working-poor"],"yoast_head":"\n