The arguments for a Universal Basic Income as presented by Dr. Trost are that the government will lose some power to expand beyond a certain budget, the people will have increased mobility, and competition will be increased among states which will increase the quality of life across the board. In my opinion, these ideas are wonderful to shoot for, but I worry that the Universal Basic Income plan, as proposed, would not be entirely successful. While I agree with many parts of the plan proposed, the places I believe more discussion needs to occur before moving forward with such a plan are the discrepancy between the cost of living and the Universal Basic Income and the possibility of either inflation or wage decreases that render the Universal Basic Income meaningless in terms of its goals for individuals.
Universal Basic Income Constitutional Amendment
Dr. Trost argues that a Universal Basic Income must be a Constitutional amendment, and would likely need to be passed by the states through a Constitutional Convention. I completely agree with his analysis and conclusion in this respect. As Dr. Trost points out, his plan for Universal Basic Income drastically limits the power of the federal government, and they would therefore be unlikely to pass a Constitutional Amendment themselves. On the other hand, if this is passed as simple legislation by Congress, the federal government would be free to change the parameters and continue the complicated system of overspending on welfare to largely ineffective ends even with a Universal Basic Income. Only through a Constitutional Amendment can Universal Basic Income be effectively implemented while simultaneously limiting the power of the federal government. I additionally very much agree with the idea that the government overspends compared to the US GDP. Particularly, the amount spent of military and education caught my eye because the amount spent on military annually appeared to be similar or greater to the amount on military during wartime in the past during America’s greatest conflicts. Certainly, it is okay for the amount spent on military to have increased as technology increased, but not to the extent that military spending has increased, especially when considering that the US’s GDP has also increased over the past century. A significant amount spent on education was also concerning because Constitutionally, states are supposed to be the ones spending on and running education systems. From my perspective, it seems that as the federal government has pushed more education initiatives, education has only decreased in quality.
Is There A Real Economic Benefit to the Individual?
The first problem I encounter with the Universal Basic Income plan is that the $9000 per year is nowhere near the cost of living in even the states with the lost cost of living, as these amounts appear to be consistently over $20,000. As such, the Universal Basic Income does not, on its own, provide mobility to US citizens. This $20,000 does not even factor a simple instrument of mobility like a vehicle or the most basic luxuries like dining at a restaurant. I struggle to understand how a Universal Basic Income would allow people more mobility than they currently have, and certainly sitting on a beach all day instead of working would never be an option. Instead, people would still need to get a job, which I think is okay on it’s own, but with the proposed plan leads me to my second problem: the response of corporations. Unskilled laborers will still need to make up the $11000 minimum difference between the Universal Basic Income and the cost of living in even the poorest areas of the United States, and with no minimum wage this is certainly not a guarantee. I think it is likely that salaries and wages across the board decrease by about $9000/year, if not much more, because that is the amount that the government is essentially subsidizing in wages for companies. Even if this doesn’t happen, the increased money in the hands of Americans would inevitably lead to rampant inflation every year, leading to little increase in the purchasing power of the average American anyway. For these reasons, I have a tough time understanding how the outcomes of increased mobility and a better quality of life for individuals come to fruition. To me, the only person this benefits is corporations because they are no longer required to spend as much of their money on wages or benefits for their employees, leading to a rapidly increasing wealth gap in the United States.
Non-Citizen Residents and People with a Higher Cost Living
The additional points of discussion I think are important before pursuing this plan are more minor, but certainly worth mentioning. First, the United States benefits greatly from skilled laborers leaving their countries and obtaining a work Visa in the United States until they have the ability to gain citizenship. With either inflation or decreased wages in the United States, this may no longer be feasible without those non-citizen residents receiving the Universal Basic Income to supplement their wage. I think this problem is very minor because I believe those that are coming from other countries likely will be making well above the amount that this would be detrimental to their ability to live in America, but still certainly worth mentioning. If we are making an additional $9000 a staple to most of those living in America, it is important to consider those that are living here but are ineligible for this amount to be granted to them. The second minor point, I believe, is more pertinent. Some people have naturally higher costs of living due to medical conditions, and some of these people are even unable to work due to their condition. Under the Universal Basic Income plan proposed, the welfare that may currently be helping this demographic would be stripped away and they would be forced to rely on just $9000 for all of their medical and other needs. We certainly do not currently have a perfect system for dealing with the medical and other needs of our population equitably, but I believe this example very well highlights the downside to everyone having the same amount given to them. While this system may be equal for all, it certainly isn’t equitable. The parents who are unskilled laborers making less than the current minimum wage and have a premature baby that requires intensive care will have to immediately throw the baby’s $9000 and certainly more towards that baby’s survival, while the well-off family that barely noticed the $9000 hit their bank account and had a healthy baby would have no such problems. While I understand that giving everyone $9000 makes the system fair from a numerical standpoint, I think it is more fair for the government to put more money towards those that actively need it. I believe the biggest American socio-economic issue is a lack of economic mobility, and I certainly don’t see a Universal Basic Income giving people more economic mobility.
Trost, S. (2021, November 1). The Libertarian, Conservative, Progressive, Communist, (Not Socialist) Case for A Universal Basic Dividend. Inside OSU Productions. https://channels.insideosu.com/media/1_klaiau39