Universal basic income

Universal basic income (UBI) is the idea “all citizens of a given population regularly receive a legally stipulated and equal financial grant paid by the government without a means test.” The Alaska Permanent Fund is an example. I believe Kuwait also has one. In these two cases, the point is to let all citizens get some of the advantage of the region’s natural resources, which seems fair. Why should the oil companies get all the profit from a resource they didn’t create?

More broadly speaking, most modern societies establish a floor below which they won’t let people fall. The society provides some level of assistance to people who can’t make it.

While such programs are often attacked as being socialist, I don’t believe that’s fair. You can have a market-based economy with a strong safety net. That’s not socialism.

In my mind, the question is all about administration. Where do you set the floor? How much do you pay, and under what circumstances? Do you treat people who could work but won’t the same way you treat people who can’t work? Etc.

Automation and artificial intelligence are making more and more people look to UBI as a possible solution.

Critics will say this is unnecessary. Labor-saving technologies do put some people out of work, but they cause the economy to grow and create new jobs. That’s what happened when electric lights replaced whale oil and when tractors replaced the horse and plow.

That has certainly been true in the past, but that doesn’t mean it will always be true. Trend lines don’t continue forever.

As an example, imagine what would happen if somebody developed self-driving 18 wheelers and put 3.5 million men out of work? The increased efficiency might create new opportunities, but will it create 3.5 million new jobs — for these people? I don’t think so. (Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson had an interesting discussion on precisely that question, and what the government should do.)

UBI is supposed to solve this by ensuring that every American gets enough to get by, so even if they lose their jobs, they won’t starve. They’ll have enough to live on, and maybe they’ll find something more fulfilling to do — like an art, or a craft.

I get the appeal, and I would love to get paid to sit around and write books, but I think the idea is naïve. You could say that the pandemic has shown us what happens when you pay people not to work, but … that’s not quite fair, since they were not only paid not to work, but required to stay home and avoid others. It wasn’t a fair test. You can hardly start your second career as a mandolin player when there are no concerts. (And, by the way, was there a sudden surge of people learning musical instruments, or new languages, or new arts and crafts, during the pandemic? I don’t think so.)

Mrs. Crowhill pointed out the most likely scenario. UBI will create a permanent class of protestors.

Think about it. A job isn’t just a way to make money. We get some sense of meaning and purpose from working. Without work, large numbers of people will turn to drugs, or they’ll turn to something else that makes them feel important. Like protesting, or joining some radical political or religious sect, or rioting.

Paying people to do nothing will probably create an unruly mob. Even if it works economically (and I doubt it does), it doesn’t work socially.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t answer the underlying question. What do we do when automation puts millions of people out of work?

I don’t know, but I reject the notion that we have to do something. Doing nothing is often better than doing something stupid. But I am quite open to new thinking and creative ideas.