• 110 days Will The ECB Continue To Hike Rates?
  • 111 days Forbes: Aramco Remains Largest Company In The Middle East
  • 112 days Caltech Scientists Succesfully Beam Back Solar Power From Space
  • 512 days Could Crypto Overtake Traditional Investment?
  • 517 days Americans Still Quitting Jobs At Record Pace
  • 519 days FinTech Startups Tapping VC Money for ‘Immigrant Banking’
  • 522 days Is The Dollar Too Strong?
  • 522 days Big Tech Disappoints Investors on Earnings Calls
  • 523 days Fear And Celebration On Twitter as Musk Takes The Reins
  • 525 days China Is Quietly Trying To Distance Itself From Russia
  • 525 days Tech and Internet Giants’ Earnings In Focus After Netflix’s Stinker
  • 529 days Crypto Investors Won Big In 2021
  • 529 days The ‘Metaverse’ Economy Could be Worth $13 Trillion By 2030
  • 530 days Food Prices Are Skyrocketing As Putin’s War Persists
  • 532 days Pentagon Resignations Illustrate Our ‘Commercial’ Defense Dilemma
  • 533 days US Banks Shrug off Nearly $15 Billion In Russian Write-Offs
  • 536 days Cannabis Stocks in Holding Pattern Despite Positive Momentum
  • 537 days Is Musk A Bastion Of Free Speech Or Will His Absolutist Stance Backfire?
  • 537 days Two ETFs That Could Hedge Against Extreme Market Volatility
  • 539 days Are NFTs About To Take Over Gaming?
Is A Recession Looming?

Is A Recession Looming?

There are three key indicators…

Another Strong Jobs Report, But Is It Enough?

Another Strong Jobs Report, But Is It Enough?

Just released, the February jobs…

  1. Home
  2. Markets
  3. Economy

Why Universal Basic Income Won't Work

Universal Basic Income

The universal basic income (UBI) is gaining popularity as an alternative to the current welfare system. The idea is to give each citizen the same amount of money, no matter if he or she works or not. Therefore, unlike traditional welfare systems, the UBI has no means test, nor willingness-to-work test. Nobody would be then left without a livelihood even if there is no work for him. Doesn’t that sound great?

The problem is that the program must be financed somehow. Let us assume for simplicity that there are 250 million adult Americans and that each of them would receive $1,000 monthly (as presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposes). So we get a total cost of $250 billion monthly and $3 trillion annually. It would amount to about 14 percent of US GDP, or 42 percent of total government spending, or 73 percent of the federal outlays. For comparison, this is more than the total expenditure on health care, defense, and education. And yet we are talking about “just” $12,000 annually (or 19 percent of the median household salary, or 36 percent of the median personal income). Good luck with such an expensive program!

This is why the UBI is a utopian idea. Its introduction would require either a departure from universality (e.g., providing benefits only for young people), or a departure from unconditionality (e.g., the introduction of an income criterion), or reducing payment to small symbolic amounts. Other options include a radical increase in taxes, or implementing "modern monetary theory" and launching the printing press.

The first two options would distort the idea of ??the program, transforming it into another traditional welfare program. The third scenario would not fulfill the program goals, as it would neither eradicate poverty nor significantly increase social security. And the last two options would have negative overall economic consequences that could lead to the results contrary to the intentions of the program, (e.g., an increase in the unemployment rate as a result of additional tax burden on wages), or a reduction in the amount of real benefits as a result of increased inflation. It means that the implementation of the UBI at a substantial level without incurring significant economic costs is a myth.

This is confirmed by a recent article “Basic income or a single tapering rule? Incentives, inclusiveness and affordability compared for the case of Finland” published by OECD economists on the occasion of an experiment with UBI in Finland (which was not a government program). They estimated that the replacement of the current social benefits system by the UBI in Finland would either be too expensive or would mean insufficient benefits for the most deprived and, consequently, an increase in the share of people below the poverty line from 11.5 to 14.3 percent!

The second economic problem with UBI is the negative impact on the labor supply. Economic analysis clearly suggests that an increase in non-wage income shifts the budget constraint line up and increases the reservation wage, which leads to a reduction in working time. And this is what the previous experiments with negative income tax, a concept similar to the UBI, showed — especially in case of women and youth, which were less attached to the labor market. The results are not surprising given the fact that giving people money for nothing reduces the opportunity cost of not working.

There are ethical issues as well. Supporters of the UBI criticize the welfare state because it allegedly is not good for beneficiaries — this is because one has to sacrifice time and mental resources to receive the benefit. Such an approach turns the matter upside down, or it reflects the ingratitude Thomas Woods talked about in 2018. Helping people temporarily or permanently unable to work is characterized by the UBI supporters as something negative — as something that stigmatizes and constitutes a psychological burden. Yet welfare payments are, in fact, a privilege that the government (through society’s money) provides to needy individuals. (To be clear, I do not praise the government and I’m not a supporter of the welfare state, I’m just pointing out that welfare beneficiaries, well, benefit from welfare.)

Such a perverse perspective is, however, a consequence of the view that UBI should be a right, not a privilege. That is, supporters believe that everyone should have the right to taxpayer-provided income, regardless of their contribution and the possibility of earning on the market. The problem is that someone would have to finance this program, so UBI would still be the privilege of some people at the expense of others. One person’s right to a basic income means that someone else has to pay for it.

The idea of the UBI boils down to breaking the link between income and work, i.e., freeing people from the unpleasant necessity to earn. And here we come across several problems. First thing: who will do the needed, albeit low-paid jobs, since everyone will be emancipated from the yoke of work? Is it possible to eliminate the unpleasantness of work at all or is it just the reality of the temporal world? Will robots take care of our grandmothers? A likely outcome is a significant decline in the overall output of the economy — meaning impoverishment across the board.

Finally, supporters of the UBI claim it increases individual independence. We are told the UBI promises socioeconomic independence by freeing individuals from the tyranny of bureaucrats, bosses, husbands, and the capricious markets (one can see here an echo of utopian socialists). With money in your pocket, work becomes an option. 

But there is a paradox that comes with the promise of socioeconomic independence: someone still must pay the UBI. So the dependence would not disappear — only people would become more dependent on Leviathan. Robert Nisbet writes in The Quest for Community that the desire for a sense of belonging does not disappear — if it cannot be realized within the family, neighborhoods, and regional communities, then the gap will be filled by the nation and centralized state. Are you sure this is what we want? Maybe the UBI is thus not merely a utopia we can’t afford, but it’s actually a dystopia?

By Zerohedge.com

More Top Reads From Safehaven.com:

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Herk on October 17 2019 said:
    I actually do not have a problem with UBI as long as it really is UNIVERSAL! Yang's proposal though is not and worse it is cruel, it specifically carves out the disabled and cuts them out of the scheme. One of the problems with UBI is that it WILL trigger inflation, so a $1000 per month benefit is only going to net most recipients a couple of few hundred dollars per month after inflation. If you are already near (or in) poverty because you are disabled you are going to have to deal with the inflation with no help from the government. Harris's UBI is not even a UBI, it only plans to assist WORKING people up to $50k and so the poorest workers would be paid that much, so would the guy who has worked his way up the ladder for 20 years only to find when he gets there he is cut out of this plan and the teenager hired last week makes as much as he does. It is a WAGE SUPPORT not a UBI, it also cuts out the disabled.

    I like better than a UBI a one time $250,000 grant to each American adult no matter what their circumstances, but with the proviso that it has to be used first to pay down debt, student loans, mortgages, car loans, even people in prison would get this and their share would go to paying any restitution if applicable. If you have been a thrifty person who has avoided debt you just get the cash and can use it any way you like, from my point of view that would be good bottom up stimulus and no more expensive than the current corporate welfare we now give, just to the top 1-10%. Some call it a jubilee, and I am okay with that. Some people would not see a dime, but only because they are saturated with debt now, and they would still benefit because they would have a quarter million less debt when it is done.

    It really is nothing more than a devaluation of the dollar and that is fine, we are already devaluing the dollar to the benefit of the rich, it is good to have an occasional recognition that it is labor, people, who provide this country's prosperity every couple hundred years or so, if you like call it a national dividend so it sound less socialist and more capitalist, just do it or watch this nation fail from wealth inequality.
  • Jim Brooks on October 17 2019 said:
    //We are told the UBI promises socioeconomic independence by freeing individuals from the tyranny of bureaucrats, bosses, husbands, and the capricious markets (one can see here an echo of utopian socialists).//

    So it doesn't free individuals from the tyranny of wives? Too bad.
  • Prole on October 24 2019 said:
    UBI would just add to the benefits of us imperialism thus stagnating the political consciousness of the middle and lower class brackets further.

Leave a comment