(Andrew Yang at the DNC meeting in San Francisco, 8/23/19, Credit: JOSH EDELSON/AFP/Getty Images)
Based on this Article: “Stockton Experiments With Universal Basic Income — and Idea Backed by Pres. Candidate Andrew Yang”
According to Madison, the protection of individual liberty inherently involves the “protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property,“ and “the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.” How does a nation protect individualism while also ensuring that everyone gets a fair share in its resources? To answer this first requires a new perspective. Unequal distribution does not only come from unequal faculties. There are many culprits to point to, ranging from centuries-long cycles of oppression to the simple fact that complete equality is an impossible ideal. However, whatever the causes of unequal distribution, the fact remains that a great many people in this nation do not have enough to survive, while others have more than they could use in multiple lifetimes.
One proposal is to give everyone a baseline income of $500 a month. For people on or below the poverty line, it acts as a buffer in the event of a job loss or a medical emergency or other issues impossible to plan for. It’s one of Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang’s main talking points. This system was introduced in Stockton, a Central California city, last February.
There are two main “schools of thought” when it comes to Universal Basic Income. The first and more conservative one is this: giving people “handouts” will discourage them from being productive. The more progressive line is that having a basic income will give people the economic independence to not only hold down a job but also be consumers. The moral argument here is every human being is entitled to a tolerable standard of living that at present can only be achieved at a certain income.
The system in Stockton seems to be working; no one has quit their jobs to raise a family on $500 a month. The article linked provides specific interviews of people benefiting under this system, but there is one thing that made its implementation smoother: It’s funded by private donors, not taxpayers. Any system on the federal level would have to be funded by taxpayers, which brings in the stickier situation of people not wanting to pay more taxes, and other people not wanting to take money from other social welfare programs. A plan like this would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. So everyone has to ask themselves a simple question.
What do we prioritize?
8 comments:
As much as I would like to believe that the $500 a month benefitting the would work, I am still skeptical towards the idea. Stockton is just one city, and the fact that nobody thought they could live on a free $500 a month there is not necessarily representative of the mindset of the entire country. In areas like the Midwest, where the average cost of living is much less than Stockton, where $500 a month may not be enough to raise a family on. In addition, the tax dollars required to support the Universal Basic Income idea seem like they would not be given willingly. On the other hand, America under the Trump Administration has seen many tax cuts with few long term benefits, so Americans may be more willing to pay. One idea that I think is more plausible is to incentivize the program by allowing citizens to make tax-deductible "donations" towards the program. Since the Stockton system was successfully funded by private donations, but taxes would be necessary to scale up, the final solution can be a combination of both sources of income.
As Nicholas stated Stockton being a small city. When people are given a guaranteed income from the government, then there will be business leaders who will attempt to argue that this money should be considered part of the worker’s income. They would advocate for lower wages because the government would offer them a check. UBI disadvantages one of the primary ideas of capitalism is that money is something that you earn. When a universal basic income is present in society, then currency also becomes something that the government gives you. Critics suggest that providing people with money without any strings attached would create a society where there could be reduced levels of innovation. A compromise between the two extremes of this debate would be to have people work in community service programs or volunteer opportunities to qualify for their monthly income checks from the government.
In an effort to diversify the assumptions made within this comment thread, I think claiming that UBI is not only valid but could be a substantial benefit to the future American society, isn’t a completely baseless assumption. One reason this solution could be so valuable in the future is the rise of automation. In the wake of this digitizing age, it is clear that certain jobs will no longer be viable for humans to hold. This can be seen in grocery stores and car manufacturers, where self-checkouts and robots are removing the need for employees. By having a UBI, this would reduce the number of unemployed who have zero financial means. With that being said, this plan promoted by Andrew Yang will certainly be hard to pass. I could see his 10% VAT on US goods and services possibly hurting our domestic companies (although if unemployment sees an exponential incline in an age of robots, will this matter if people have no money in the first place?).
I think that everyone definitely deserves the equal opportunity to succeed in the United States, and really, anywhere in the world. But as you said, this kind of equality in reality cannot be achieved.
In regards to Carlos's comment, I think that while automation has potential to take over certain jobs, there will still be enough jobs for people to hold. The rise in automation isn't something completely new. Some old industries, like the ice cutting industries were destroyed by the introduction of refrigeration. Even though that industry is now dead, people are still able to hold jobs in other fields.
Giving $500 a month as income is not a viable solution. Expanding the job market and offering more opportunities at higher education would help people the most.
Maybe I’m being too idealistic, but as Carlos said, UBI seems like it could be largely beneficial to the United States. While $500 might not seem like much, it could serve as a jumping off point for many who have nothing. At the end of the day, however, I think this concept will lack support in the long run. Right now, using Stockton as the only case study doesn’t lend a lot of credibility toward UBI, and with widespread polarization, it will be difficult to rack up enough votes to enact this policy, especially because this money would be coming from the pockets of Americans. I can definitely see why people would criticize UBI as a handout and undercutting the idea that you have to work hard to succeed, however some people simply aren’t given the same opportunities to succeed. I think more people would be open to the idea if UBI could act both as a push to get into the job market and as a loan to incentivize employment. However, this could act as a double edged sword if people are unable to secure a job. Poverty is a complicated and intricate issue, and while this may not be the most plausible solution, we need to keep striving to find ways to help those most in need.
I believe that rather than spending billions or trillions of dollars on UBI, candidates should focus on implementing different job opportunities that follow the trend of the future. As Many students highlighted earlier, machines are replacing human workers. I think these technological innovations are beneficial, for they maximize productivity; nevertheless, these workers who relied on manual labor jobs such as car manufacturing are entitled by the government to alternate opportunities in order to make a living wage. However, solutions must be lasting. It is evident that climate change is a serious issue that will greatly affect us in our lifetime as well as the lifetimes of future generations. The United State's is currently behind many countries such as China regarding climate change innovations. There is an enormous market in clean and renewable energy. Rather than supply a short term solution with UBI, a societal change is necessary in order to prevent the pattern of middle america feeling abandoned by their government. The change towards clean and renewable energy must be gradual, for the 50 or 60 year olds searching for jobs are not able to be retrained, but change is necessary nevertheless to secure the well being of future generations.
The UBI seems like an amazing, idealistic idea. However it does not seem very realistic as said by many previous students because it will encourage higher tax rates than people already pay causing financial issues even for those that seem to be doing well. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to security due to unemployment or other issues out that are not in their hands. This document was written by United Nations after World War 2 and it was created to ensure that no individual should be subjected to mistreatment and unfair cruelty. It gave all individuals basic human rights that cannot be given or taken away. Creating a UBI would actually hold up this document as it would ensure people's rights as given by the universal document. However this would not run in the long term as mentioned due to high tax rates and lack of motivation to be productive and actually get a job. I would agree with Will saying that we should have more educational opportunities. College is extremely expensive but in this day and age it is more important than ever to get a higher education to open up new opportunities. I would suggest rather than creating a UBI, we put this money towards decreasing the cost of college especially towards families who have financial issues to alleviate some of their stress and so they can be educated and more likely to find better options.
Post a Comment