Would that UBI (as is often said) replace all forms of welfare, unemployment benefits, special subsidies, etc?
Short-term unemployment insurance would still exist, as would special, largely in-kind support for children in poor families (free lunches in school, protective services etc.) Much of the rest could be replaced.
It doesn’t look like it will end poverty
It makes sure that the very poor aren’t altogether dependent on the labor market for their survival. This is a meaningful improvement in their condition—perhaps the only possible one, given that poverty in the U.S. is in fact quite materially luxurious compared to, say, middle-class life in Namibia.
Essentially it’s the per-capita expenses of running a concentration-camp in the tropics when you don’t care much about life-expectancy, never mind quality
Of course, and I said as much, but the interesting question is what you need to add to that in order to really satisfy people’s ‘basic needs’ in a reasonably objective sense—and in a way that’s sustainable in the long term. Many people in poor and undeveloped countries manage to adjust to remarkably low living standards, and are nonetheless quite satisfied with their lives. So material deprivation is clearly not an issue for them at least.
And here is John Cochrane discussing Murray’s proposal
He raises some good points, but I think he overestimates the political unfeasibility of the whole thing. Market-based policy reforms have worked quite well in the past, and they might work here too, especially with ‘bi-partisan’ support. He also wants to make people go through a purposefully uncomfortable process in order to keep qualifying for the “benefit”, which is a terrible idea. High-income people will be offsetting the UBI with their taxes anyway; they’re not the problem as Cochrane implies.
It makes sure that the very poor aren’t altogether dependent on the labor market for their survival.
But they are not, right now. The problem of starving people dying in the ditches by the side of the road has been solved without the UBI.
Of course, and I said as much
I agreed with you :-)
the interesting question is what you need to add to that in order to really satisfy people’s ‘basic needs’ in a reasonably objective sense
I am not sure what “reasonably objective sense” could mean. As you point out there are very poor communities (and historically, almost all communities were very poor by contemporary standards) but their members do not spend all their time in deep depression caused by the horribleness of their lives. From the point of “enough calories to not starve and enough warmth to not freeze” you have a continuous scale going up and I don’t know on which basis will you decide that some point on this scale is “reasonably objective”.
I think he overestimates the political unfeasibility of the whole thing
I am not so sure about this either. The US is rapidly progressing towards sclerosis and ossification—it is losing the capability to just get things done (since we’ve mentioned Cochrane, see this). A UBI represents a massive new social contract which will upset a lot of people who gain something from the status quo.
an aspect of American sclerosis — a gaggle of regulators and veto players, each with the power to block or to delay, and each with their own parochial concerns. All the actors … are reasonable in their own terms, but the final result is wildly unreasonable.
But they are not, right now. The problem of starving people dying in the ditches by the side of the road has been solved without the UBI.
These problems have been ‘solved’ via a combination of welfare benefits (broadly understood; including food stamps, subsidized housing etc.) and heavy-handed labor market regulation which in practice leaves the most vulnerable unable to get a job at all, and in danger of losing their very freedom as they turn to crime in response. In other words, this is so costly a ‘solution’ to the issue that it’s barely a solution at all. UBI would be radically simpler and more effective.
From the point of “enough calories to not starve and enough warmth to not freeze” you have a continuous scale going up and I don’t know on which basis will you decide that some point on this scale is “reasonably objective”.
True. I think the closest thing an ‘objective’ answer is that it’s not just about calories/food and shelter, but the ability to form something like a community, and pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps from that point. (The Amish, Memnonites etc are another interesting example here.) Living in a concentration camp won’t cut it, true, but you don’t need that much more.
Short-term unemployment insurance would still exist, as would special, largely in-kind support for children in poor families (free lunches in school, protective services etc.) Much of the rest could be replaced.
It makes sure that the very poor aren’t altogether dependent on the labor market for their survival. This is a meaningful improvement in their condition—perhaps the only possible one, given that poverty in the U.S. is in fact quite materially luxurious compared to, say, middle-class life in Namibia.
Of course, and I said as much, but the interesting question is what you need to add to that in order to really satisfy people’s ‘basic needs’ in a reasonably objective sense—and in a way that’s sustainable in the long term. Many people in poor and undeveloped countries manage to adjust to remarkably low living standards, and are nonetheless quite satisfied with their lives. So material deprivation is clearly not an issue for them at least.
He raises some good points, but I think he overestimates the political unfeasibility of the whole thing. Market-based policy reforms have worked quite well in the past, and they might work here too, especially with ‘bi-partisan’ support. He also wants to make people go through a purposefully uncomfortable process in order to keep qualifying for the “benefit”, which is a terrible idea. High-income people will be offsetting the UBI with their taxes anyway; they’re not the problem as Cochrane implies.
But they are not, right now. The problem of starving people dying in the ditches by the side of the road has been solved without the UBI.
I agreed with you :-)
I am not sure what “reasonably objective sense” could mean. As you point out there are very poor communities (and historically, almost all communities were very poor by contemporary standards) but their members do not spend all their time in deep depression caused by the horribleness of their lives. From the point of “enough calories to not starve and enough warmth to not freeze” you have a continuous scale going up and I don’t know on which basis will you decide that some point on this scale is “reasonably objective”.
I am not so sure about this either. The US is rapidly progressing towards sclerosis and ossification—it is losing the capability to just get things done (since we’ve mentioned Cochrane, see this). A UBI represents a massive new social contract which will upset a lot of people who gain something from the status quo.
A relevant quote from Larry Summers:
These problems have been ‘solved’ via a combination of welfare benefits (broadly understood; including food stamps, subsidized housing etc.) and heavy-handed labor market regulation which in practice leaves the most vulnerable unable to get a job at all, and in danger of losing their very freedom as they turn to crime in response. In other words, this is so costly a ‘solution’ to the issue that it’s barely a solution at all. UBI would be radically simpler and more effective.
True. I think the closest thing an ‘objective’ answer is that it’s not just about calories/food and shelter, but the ability to form something like a community, and pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps from that point. (The Amish, Memnonites etc are another interesting example here.) Living in a concentration camp won’t cut it, true, but you don’t need that much more.
Radically simpler—yes. More effective—I’ll wait for implementation details :-/
Look at Obamacare for an example of how a simple idea (“people should be able to buy health insurance”) got implemented.