I am fascinated by the idea of a universal basic income (UBI), an unconditional cash transfer given to everyone. I have a lot of questions about how we could make it work in practice, but the concept serves as a basis for deeply satisfying thought experiments. Considering it as an alternative to our existing social welfare programs exposes the assumptions that underlay the existing system. For example, many people immediately recoil from the idea of a UBI because undeserving people would benefit from it or because poor people would squander it. What does it mean to "deserve" benefits? Would poor people really squander their cash?
Give People Money promised to be "the best study yet of the world's experiences with UBI." However, it is remarkably light on details about the various experiments that have been tried around the world (aside from some unexpected technical glitches in India). Each chapter talks about a social/economic issue that we face today -- technological unemployment, misdirected charity, the unfair distribution of paid and unpaid work, systemic racism -- and asks us to consider how a UBI could "disrupt" the issue. I appreciated the book for looking at the possibilities of a UBI from angles I hadn't considered before, but Lowrey is much better at presenting the issues than at making a convincing case for how UBI might solve it. Lowrey also notes that the idea is attractive to people across the political spectrum from libertarians to socialists, but she almost exclusively presents the liberal arguments.
The argument for a UBI that came through clearest to me is how equitable it would be. Our current means-tested programs attempt to assess what a population needs and the situations in which they deserve help, and they inevitably miss the mark about the needs and discriminate in unfair ways. Giving people money, rather than food stamps or housing vouchers, enables them to spend it in a way that works for their specific situation.
I don't expect the United States to ever implement a UBI. But I think the idea can be a valuable tool when designing social safety net programs. How and why is the proposed program better than just giving people money?
Give People Money promised to be "the best study yet of the world's experiences with UBI." However, it is remarkably light on details about the various experiments that have been tried around the world (aside from some unexpected technical glitches in India). Each chapter talks about a social/economic issue that we face today -- technological unemployment, misdirected charity, the unfair distribution of paid and unpaid work, systemic racism -- and asks us to consider how a UBI could "disrupt" the issue. I appreciated the book for looking at the possibilities of a UBI from angles I hadn't considered before, but Lowrey is much better at presenting the issues than at making a convincing case for how UBI might solve it. Lowrey also notes that the idea is attractive to people across the political spectrum from libertarians to socialists, but she almost exclusively presents the liberal arguments.
The argument for a UBI that came through clearest to me is how equitable it would be. Our current means-tested programs attempt to assess what a population needs and the situations in which they deserve help, and they inevitably miss the mark about the needs and discriminate in unfair ways. Giving people money, rather than food stamps or housing vouchers, enables them to spend it in a way that works for their specific situation.
I don't expect the United States to ever implement a UBI. But I think the idea can be a valuable tool when designing social safety net programs. How and why is the proposed program better than just giving people money?
No comments:
Post a Comment