The Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a concept that has been around since the 1970s at least. Without fleshing it out, Milton Friedman proposed the idea as a means to make his free market capitalist ideas (Chicago School) work. The problem he was having was that, if his ideas worked, the people at the bottom would continue to get poorer and eventually either (a) starve to death, or (b) get out the pitchforks and go all French Revolution on the upper class. As time goes on, the upper class shrinks and wealth becomes more concentrated and the lower classes grow. Sound familiar? Friedman offered up the UBI as a free market way of keeping the lower classes fed.
Andrew Yang has proposed the UBI as a counterbalance to job losses from automation. The same solution to a different problem. This solution has the potential to solve the economic problems of job loss. As many economists and social thinkers have pointed out (Joe Stiglitz to name one), humans define much of their self worth in their jobs and UBI does nothing for that. I don’t know what to do about that except to propose a paradigm shift away from work.
Closely related to Friedman’s original theory is wealth inequality. So, let’s talk for a minute about slavery — the granddaddy of all inequality. It ended here in 1865 and ushered in the ear of sharecroppers, carpetbaggers (yes, democrats), the Klan, and Jim Crow. Not because of what ended 150 years ago, but because of what has been going on for the past 150 years, income inequality has been a major and growing problem. Because of the past 150 years, there is absolutely no doubt that African-Americans have been blocked out of opportunities to participate fully in the largest economy in the world. With the facts of this case, in African-Americans vs. United States of America, African-Americans would surely prevail.
So, the UBI potentially solves the problems of wealth inequality, job loss due to automation and reparations. As a libertarian solution, it has to do more that provide a paltry $1000/mo that some rich guy pulled out of his ass. For the idea to work and meet all of these goals, it effectively becomes the libertarian social safety net. Meaning, it must be an amount large enough to provide basic sustenance: food, housing and healthcare purchased on the free market at a minimum. You simply must provide these basics in order for the free market to truly function. You should also through in something to compensate the inactivity of those job losses — perhaps free college (think of it as wintering in Iceland) or gym memberships. Once you’ve covered these things, the free market can go crazy. People can still work, if they can find jobs (and they will, UBI is an enormous economic stimulant), they will just have their basic needs met. Whatever they earn above the UBI is gravy. There will still be CEOs earning millions and people showing up for work everyday to do whatever it is that they do, but maybe the work week will be shorter, maybe people will take longer vacations, maybe people will live longer, less stressful lives.
So, how much should a UBI pay and how will it be paid for? Well, some of the pay fors come from elimination of other social programs including unemployment insurance, medicare, medicaid, the VA, social security, Section 8, SNAP, TANF, S-CHIPS to name a few. Once that’s done, levy taxes. You can choose — I am always partial to a graduated income tax, but wealth tax and value added also work.
So, how much? A lot. Add up the cost of these things and adjust for geographic variation and tie it to inflation. My guess is 2 to 4 times what Yang suggested. Afterall, Yang’s proposal is just a wolf in sheep’s clothing — a small payment to everyone in exchange for taking away assistance to the needy. If you read the fine print, that’s what he’s proposing.