If you’re interested in coming up to speed on a topic that’s likely to be the subject of considerable discussion in the United States in coming years, you might want to take a look at this article at FiveThirtyEight on the universal basic income:
From Switzerland to the Netherlands to Kenya to Silicon Valley, a mixture of insecurity and curiosity are driving interest in basic income, but its dominant ideology — and appeal — is utopian. The core existential struggle lurking in the debates over basic income centers on what meaning work holds in our lives. Straub, the Swiss referendum organizer, remembers his great-grandfather working 10 hours per day, six days per week. That kind of toil is no longer necessary, nor desirable. The dream of a world where we produce more than we need has come true.
Back when he was gathering signatures in 2012, he would joke about the supposedly impending Mayan apocalypse as a way to engage listeners on the core questions of basic income, questions he thinks still resonate: “Well, if the world really was going to end, how would you live this year? Why don’t you live your life like that?
“The market economy is great, but we want to substitute it with another system — take it to the next level,†he said. The big picture is about changing how we live. “This is a paradigm shift, and we want a referendum on that paradigm shift.â€
Fifty years ago conservatives in the U. S. supported a universal basic income (their ideas survive in the Earned Income Tax Credit). Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax.
From a practical standpoint in the United States any universal basic income is a non-starter unless we close our borders. You can have a UBI, equality, or open borders but you can’t have all three.
I may talk about other aspects of what’s being called “pre-distribution” in future posts.
Have a feeling the pundit class will turn to this whenever stuck for a topic.
While the idea of sending checks instead of stacks of regs and flocks of bureaucrats is good, political realities (who pays, loss of power and patronage, etc) will make it difficult if not impossible.
Umm, howzabout permitting immigrants to participate once they earn citizenship. Citizens can’t be bothered cleaning toilets, they got morlocks for that.
You can impose an immigration moratorium on countries not legislating an equivalent basic income, similar to approach for a jobs guarantee.
“Fifty years ago conservatives in the U. S. supported a universal basic income (their ideas survive in the Earned Income Tax Credit). Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax.”
Absolute nonsense. Please do not confuse “Rockefeller Republicans”, particularly of the East Coast establishment of 50 years ago, with “Conservatives”. Nor for that matter was Friedman a POLITICAL Conservative: he was an advocate of freer markets, and advocacy prompted by what he saw as a technocrat in the the New Deal.
As to whether a country should or should not ensure each citizen have the minimum living conditions is one question, and what those conditions would be is a second. Milton Friedman’s sin was that he bought into the “free silver” argument when he knew it was wrong.
Today, the vast majority of conservatives complain of the government giving away “free stuff”, but they will fight tooth and nail to keep their money supply valueless. In other words – free.
NEWSFLASH: President Obama was correct, but not how he meant. “You didn’t build it.” Without the worthless currency provided by the government, few of you would have had the means to build anything. The progressive welfare state is the evil twin of your credit backed monetary system. It’s your world – stop bitching.
William F. Buckley was a Rockefeller Republican? He supported a negative income tax. Also free food for all Americans. Friedrich Hayek (cited in the link above) also supported a guaranteed minimum income.