By Matthew Continetti
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Universal basic income (UBI) made its national debut on
June 27, when businessman Andrew Yang appeared alongside nine other candidates
for the second night of the Democratic primary debate. Yang used his two
minutes and 50 seconds of speaking time to pitch this economic miracle cure.
To hear Yang tell it, his “Freedom Dividend” would heal
an ailing United States by granting an unconditional payment of $12,000 per
year to every adult American. The results would be astonishing. “We’d save
money on things like incarceration, homelessness services, emergency-room
health care,” he said, “and just the value gains of having a stronger,
healthier, mentally healthier population would increase GDP by $700 billion.”
Later, he added that a UBI would help combat climate change. He didn’t explain
how.
The idea of a guaranteed income has been around in some
form for a long time. Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax in his
1962 book Capitalism and Freedom.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan convinced Richard Nixon to call for a family-assistance
plan that would have established an income floor for poor families with
children, though it also would have established incentives to work. The plan
was defeated in Congress in 1970. Charles Murray outlined his own plan in his
2006 book In Our Hands. Libertarians
see a UBI as a substitute for the welfare state, while liberals see it as a
supplement.
Yang’s proposal is a mix. Unlike Friedman and Murray, he
wouldn’t replace all cash transfers and entitlements, including Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security. But he does say he’d pay for the UBI “by
consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value Added Tax (VAT) of
10%.” Current beneficiaries “would be given a choice between their current
benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally — most would prefer cash with no
restriction.” He might want to rethink that assumption: Average Social Security
and disability benefits are in each case greater than Yang’s Freedom Dividend.
Yang’s plans are ambitious. They’re also expensive: He
supports Medicare for All with a private-insurance option and, in addition to
the VAT, would tax capital gains and dividends at the same rates as earned
income. He’d also tax financial transactions. And charge a “carbon fee” of $40
per ton.
But the true cost of Yang’s proposals wouldn’t be
revealed in budget statements, statistical tables, and growth projections. The
problem with a UBI is that it would overturn the nature of the American welfare
state and attack the dignity of work.
The American safety net has been woven to cushion
individuals who cannot provide for themselves. It’s been understood since the
New Deal that able-bodied American adults, men in particular, ought to find a
job. But the federal government will assist, at least on a temporary basis, if
and when they cannot, and especially if children are present in the home.
“With the exception of programs to support the aged and
the disabled, assistance is tied to work or to the consumption of necessities
such as food, housing, or medical care,” writes Isabel Sawhill in The Forgotten Americans (2018). “Our two
largest antipoverty programs are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The first is earmarked for food
and the second is conditional on work.”
A UBI would remove these conditions. It would sever the
connection between looking for work and receiving financial assistance. Sure,
you could be among the working poor and receive a Freedom Dividend. But you
could also spend your days playing Fortnite in your parents’ basement. The
money arrives automatically. No strings attached.
Why would we want to disincentivize work when slightly
more than 10 million disabled workers and their dependents receive benefits and
the adult-male labor-force-participation rate has been stuck at around 69
percent for five years? Why would we gamble on an expensive social program that
could have harmful effects on the size and nature of the work force when America
is already suffering from the weakening of family, community, faith, and
vocation?
Yang denies that his program would have such negative
effects. His website links to a September 2016 study, conducted by economists
from MIT and Harvard, that found “no systematic evidence that cash transfer
programs discourage work.” But this paper studied controlled experiments in
developing countries. Its lessons for America are not clear. An experiment in
Stockton, Calif., where some residents receive $500 per month, won’t conclude
until August 2020. What we do know is that when benefits shrink and
requirements tighten, individuals are induced to join the labor force. This was
the case with the 1996 welfare-reform act, for example.
We know, too, that when the Social Security
administration began cracking down on abuse of the disability-insurance
program, enrollment plunged. Yang says a UBI would be a substitute for
disability without the disincentive to work. “A universal basic income would
provide similar support without the incentive to stay on disability,” he wrote
last January in The Hill. True. The
incentive to stay on disability wouldn’t be there. But the attraction of
remaining on the UBI would.
Yang says his UBI is too stingy to affect labor-force
participation. “In our plan, each adult would receive only $12,000 a year,” he
writes on his website. “This is barely enough to live on in many places and
certainly not enough to afford much in the way of experiences and advancement.
To get ahead meaningfully, people will still need to get out there and work.”
Perhaps. Or perhaps they will forgo meaningfulness in favor of the bare minimum
of security.
Depending on the size of your household, the Freedom
Dividend puts you at about the federal poverty line, before the additional
transfers Yang supports. One tenth of the population already lives at the
poverty line. If you lived in a rural or small community, or had some other
source of income such as a small inheritance, a UBI might make the difference,
allowing you not to work. In any case, as soon as a UBI became law, pressure
groups would call for expanded benefits.
Yang’s very language highlights the noneconomic benefits
of work. Even the most unskilled labor possesses dignity because of the human
being who performs it. Nor is employment just a means to a paycheck. Work
delivers “experiences.” It provides instruction, education, and “advancement.”
And it’s meaningful. Having a job gives you a reason to get out of bed in the
morning. It embeds you in a community. You learn skills, make connections, and
relate to others face to face.
Americans enjoy work. Arthur Brooks has noted that,
according to the General Social Survey, more than 80 percent of Americans are
very, completely, or fairly satisfied with their vocation. “This is not about
money,” Brooks writes. “The secret to happiness through work is earned success
— the belief you are creating value with your life in the lives of others.
Americans who feel successful in the workplace are twice as likely to say that they’re
happy overall.”
In an aging society where fewer people get married, more
people live alone, and religious attendance is falling, an office is more than
a place of business. It may be the only space Americans still share with their
fellow citizens. Don’t give them a reason to stay home.
No comments:
Post a Comment