Universal Basic Income? Problems Would Still Persist Universally.
Andrew Yang and My Initial Introduction to UBI
I first heard of the concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI) when Andrew Yang ran for president in 2020. He competed in the primaries but eventually dropped out and endorsed Joe Biden. I have always been interested in government and politics (one of my majors is political science, after all), so I have paid attention to elections for most of the last decade. Andrew Yang ran on the concept of UBI, and I thought it was a great idea at the time. I didn’t engage in critical research, but I did like the concept of people being given money to do with whatever they please. That freedom to choose was appealing, but now I see that it could be a major hindrance to any UBI-type policy being passed in this country. My mom thought so too. I tend to discuss politics with my mom because most of the time we engage in good conversation. We had many conversations about UBI, but she was not won over. She, like many others, wondered what was preventing people from wasting their money. Additionally, she thought that those who didn’t need the UBI checks (e.g. the very wealthy) receiving the checks was a waste of money. Between the lack of control over how UBI could be spent, and the seeming waste of money already paid to uber-wealthy individuals, my mom was not won over, and I now have many concerns myself.
The Case From No One: Why I Think Ideologies Presented Would Not Support This Proposal
One thing I appreciated about the lecture was that the case of UBI (or Dividend in this case) was not presented from one point of view. The lecturer, Dr. Steve Trost, attempted to explain that libertarians, conservatives, progressives, and communists would all support his plan for UBI. While Trost’s specific UBI plan aims to address key points of each ideology, I argue that the proposal contains elements that would essentially make it a non-starter for all ideologies listed. Now this is not to say that these ideologies would not support a version of UBI or that UBI completely misaligns with these ideologies, but I find it rather difficult to appease all ideologies listed with one proposal.
While libertarians likely would support the nature of being able to spend the UBI with choice, this proposal does not eliminate the ability for states and local governments to take control, even if the federal government is limited. Libertarians want to limit all government from my understanding. So, this specific plan would likely placate federalists as opposed to libertarians at large.
Conservatives would likely take great issue with the ability for individuals to spend their UBI on whatever they choose. Most conservatives in America are just as much social as they are economic, and many conservatives would likely not support a plan that allowed for free spending of money that could go to better causes, like a decreased tax rate in the first place so people can keep more of the money they already earn. While social conservatives are certainly not the defenders of the welfare state, I suppose in their eyes money used specifically for SNAP benefits would be more beneficial than money that could be spent on illicit substances. Even that possibility, albeit probably rare, would render this proposal a non-starter for conservatives.
Communists would likely argue this UBI plan that extracts wealth from workers within a capitalist system, only to redistribute it back to them, would reinforce the cycle of wealth extraction and exploitation in the free market, something they would not support. While it is a form of wealth redistribution, classes still exist, and this being the communist’s largest qualm, this plan does nothing to appease the ideology.
Universal Basic Income Does Not Address Needs Universally and Need Will Still Exist: $9,000 is Simply Not Enough
Now addressing the progressive case, but more in depth. Progressives, as stated in the lecture, seek to support ordinary people through government actions. I think at face value this plan of UBI would be supported by progressives, but with the caveat that all other social assistance be abolished, progressives, in my view, would be least likely out of all ideologies to support this plan for UBI.
First, $9,000 is not enough for a single person to live on, and if all social safety nets are to be abolished with UBI, then the UBI should be a livable income and wage. Even a simple estimate of $500 for rent and $200 for food per month for a year requires $8,400, and that includes no emergency spending or savings. I worked at a homeless nonprofit last summer, and someone was considered “cost burdened” if they paid more than 30% of their income on rent. At this percentage, someone living on UBI would need to be able to rent for $225 or less per month. This is impossible.
Now, there is the argument that UBI is not supposed to sustain someone who is not working. A progressive would likely even agree with this, and a conservative certainly would. But what a progressive would not agree with is getting rid of the minimum wage requirement while accepting a UBI less than a livable income. A progressive would not agree with the abolition of all social programs. Dr. Trost said in the lecture that “With no minimum wage, new businesses and job opportunities will open up for extremely low-skilled individuals”. I doubt any ideology, and certainly not a progressive, would agree that it is necessarily advantageous for a society to not set any minimum wage standards, essentially allowing for someone to work for as low as dollars a day. A progressive would likely argue that no minimum wage is almost certainly going to lead to worker exploitation, and this would most certainly not be seen as a “business opportunity” in their eyes.
Problems would persist under this UBI plan because of a lack of consumer, worker, and citizen protection. $9,000 for every citizen is not enough (financially and procedurally) to solve every social issue we experience. Housing will still be too expensive, and we will still have homeless people. Drugs will still exist, and addiction will still be a problem. While the ability to tax and regulate may be seen as a bad thing by some, this is the power that allows the federal government to attempt to basically be sovereign: with these powers, the government can decrease smoking, discourage pollution, and encourage behaviors deemed good by the electorate and their vote. A democratic government allows for the people to set taxes and dictate how the government acts, and while the states and local governments could still tax, removing the power to tax from the federal government I think would decrease the strength of the United States and its democracy. Additionally, I would expect that states and localities would increase taxes to address these persistent issues, which will only shift the tax and financial burden elsewhere.
For UBI to work, I think it needs to be an additional policy, not a reductive one that destroys social programs and public entities and removes consumer and worker protections.
While I have explored various perspectives in this essay, it is important to note that I do not necessarily ascribe to any argument made here 100%. This is a writing exercise, and I sought to explore various perspectives after watching the lecture, as per the assignment instructions.