We’ve had more writing on what I have long considered one of
the few possible comprehensive solutions to the jobs crisis, and what thinkers
back to at least Thomas Paine have proposed for centuries before that.
The first piece is from April 25th in Business Insider, “Canada is launching
an experiment that will give 4,000 people free money until 2020.” In the first paragraph, author Chris Weller
said “a regular monthly allowance” was “a system known as basic income,” and
soon thereafter named the soon-to-begin Ontario Basic Income Pilot as an
example of that. This program would get
4,000 Ontario residents “additional income based on their current salary,”
which would be reduced by half of any additional earnings. Maybe this is a good idea, but it’s not a
guaranteed income. It’s welfare. It’s akin to some American situations, in
which jobless people lose benefits once they find work. Using that name for this sort of program is
destructive to the idea of a true basic income, and will feed into
conservatives’ concern that it excessively discourages people from
working.
The same author reported in the same publication on July 5th
that “Hawaii just became the first US state to pass a bill supporting basic
income.” Hawaii’s government, though, is
not planning to implement it, or even to determine if it would be justified,
but to collect preliminary data which could result in another study. It was not clear if Weller’s view on what
guaranteed income is had changed over the intervening two-months-plus, but here
he said that the person spearheading the effort, state representative Chris
Lee, “had become intrigued by the idea of paying people a salary just for being
alive.”
On August 1 we went back to the definition problem. “Universal Basic Income Experiment in Finland
Not Looking Good,” in CNS News, combined
author and Cato Institute economist Daniel Mitchell’s undeveloped and almost
reflexive stance against it with Finland’s upcoming effort, which, as it will
only consist of giving benefits to out-of-work people, does not match the
title. Perhaps in Finland it would be a
bad thing, as Mitchell said, to cut the number of surplus workers, but I doubt
it, and that would not be a problem in the United States, where at last count
we could easily fill 17.6 million additional jobs. In any event, Finland’s plan is only a test
of generous unemployment benefits, and its success or failure will be
irrelevant to the merits of guaranteed income.
After the last piece, I was refreshed to see one which
showed better understanding. In “Top
Economists Endorse Universal Basic Income” (Forbes,
August 31), contributor Frances Coppola shared proceedings from two economics
conferences. At one in Mainau, two
panelists hit the right notes. Sir Chris
Pissarides spoke positively of globalization and automation, while
acknowledging their job-reducing effects, and suggested a “universal basic
income” as a way “you can trust people to decide for themselves how to spend
their money” by letting the market provide social services. Daniel McFadden “advocated unconditional
income transfers.” Coppola’s conclusion
that “universal basic income is a radical policy that requires a radical
funding solution” is, also, a point that must be made.
While likewise positive, and mentioning the unconditional
nature of such a program executed properly, Ben Schiller’s “A Universal Basic
Income Would Do Wonders For The U.S. Economy” (Fast Company, September 13) showed weaknesses around the
edges. Schiller named “a huge jolt” as
one of its justification, or at least mitigating factors, citing research
showing that a $1,000 monthly stipend for all adults would expand the economy
more than 12% over eight years. That’s
not very much, and the article also suffers from references to “benefits not
conditional to having a job” and “you don’t have to work… to get a UBI,” when
more worrisome is, as above, others’ views that such money should only be
distributed to people not working. I was glad to see, though, a glimpse of why
the technical community, which will probably be a necessary constituency in
getting one implemented, is increasingly supporting guaranteed income.
Last week we saw an understandably but discouragingly
political stance by a major possible 2020 presidential candidate. In “Joe Biden Is Against a Universal Basic
Income – and He’s Right” (The Daily Beast,
September 26), the uncredited author heralded the candidate’s September 19th
remarks, such as “our children and grandchildren deserve… the skills to get
ahead, the chance to earn a paycheck, and a steady job that rewards hard work,”
and “a job is… about your dignity… self-respect… your place in your community.” The writer considered whether “Biden’s
comments put him on the wrong side of history,” but soon afterward,
unfortunately, disposed of that idea. It
may be a good move for Biden to go after Donald Trump’s base by talking as if
he were giving a 1980 small-town stump speech, but we know nothing about he
would create anything like 17.6 million new jobs, and the author’s comments
that guaranteed income “would just be one more government handout” and would
result in “millions of aimless Americans playing video games in their basements”
make it clear that he or she, along with Biden, is also out of touch with the
issue.
The best article in this batch, “Let’s not give up on a
guaranteed basic income before we’ve tried,” by Chris Hughes, was published on
September 21 in The Hill. Without even needing to show that most
proposals and pilot efforts under that and similar names have not been
guaranteed basic income, Hughes made all
of the right points – naming and generally refuting Biden’s speech above,
proposing $1,000 per month (“for every American,” not only those without jobs) as
a possible level, acknowledging that employment opportunities are not yet
“disappearing wholesale” and that one who “believes in the dignity of work”
need not oppose it, and proposing non-income-tax money sources such as a
financial transaction levy. He clearly
understands the major considerations, along with what such a program should and
should not be.
This is not the first time we have heard from Hughes, a
Facebook co-founder, and given his current position, co-chair of basic income
advocacy group The Economic Security Project, it won’t be the last. Although I do not support immediate
guaranteed income implementation, as an ending I can’t do better than his: “Let’s
not give up before we have even tried.”