Source: Self produced
A universal basic dividend is in theory our best chance at achieving any semblance of utopia. Dr. Trost lays out an exceptionally compelling plan that remedies many of the downfalls of a plan for universal basic income, while still resolving many of the same issues. Many of the components of Dr. Trosts plan are sound and logical, such as ensuring that the federal government can not alter the proposed UBD by instating it through a constitutional amendment. However, I feel that many of the potential negatives of instating a universal basic dividend are ignored or explained away by idealistic potential scenarios.
To begin with, the implementation of the universal basic dividend is perhaps the most important part of the plan. As Dr. Trost describes, by implementing the universal basic dividend through a constitutional amendment, it would be immune to further change barring another constitutional amendment. One of the primary downfalls of many proposed plans for a universal basic income is that the government remains in control of the distribution of wealth in all facets. The government controlling the wealth of the people has been proven time and time again to lead to decreased freedom of the people. Without an amendment, government officials could abuse universal basic income to use the system as a carrot to dangle in front of the American people. Also, doing away with all the other welfare programs in theory helps to prevent a large number of people from trying to sustain themselves on money provided by the government alone.
There are undeniable potential benefits to instating a universal safety net of government provided funds. The proposed plan for a universal basic dividend would allow for greater freedoms to the less privileged citizens within the United States. Monetary freedom is directly related to overall freedom, so providing a basic level of monetary freedom to all citizens in turn helps to ensure a great level of basic freedom. In this case, not geographically adjusting the distribution also helps to allow areas with historically low incomes and relatively high populations such as Detroit or Baltimore to recover, as those who cannot afford to live there would have the freedom to leave for places with lower costs of living. Additionally, as Dr. Trost covers in his lecture, there would be a decrease in government intervention in the economy. This promotes a greater level of incentive for businesses to be as efficient and profitable as possible, because they are not protected from competition as they are now. This could also in turn help to prevent the prevalence of insider trading within the United States Congress, which is currently a rampant issue. Decreased economic intervention means that there are less scenarios where a member of congress could be privy to an upcoming change in an industry or company, and therefore be unable to engage in insider trading.
It is human nature to strive for leisure and to engage in the least amount of labor possible. There are of course exceptions, but speaking in broad terms, people ultimately want to spend the most time possible doing what they enjoy doing rather than working to sustain themselves and their preferred activities of leisure. Even with the removal of minimum wage and other welfare, living on 16% of the United States economic powerhouse GDP would not prove to be so challenging as to disincentivize individuals from living on the funds provided to them by the GDP. Barring severe economic inflation, living on 9,000 dollars a year in any of the states with low costs of living would not be exceptionally hard provided you were able to find cheap housing through roommates or cheap rent controlled living. It is true that the majority of people would desire more than the minimum, but I feel that the question of the nanny state is dismissed too readily. This is especially true when you consider the fact that Dr. Trost also plans to remove minimum wage. For example, if someone were to make a dollar an hour doing some form of extremely unskilled labor, they would make 2080 dollars a year on a 40 hour work week. Further, after the proposed 25% tax, this comes out to only 1560 dollars a year. Can low skill workers be expected to devote 40 hours a week to labor in return for an extra 1560 dollars when they could instead devote the entirety of their time to leisure? Speaking for myself, if I possessed no skills to generate a significant wage and was only making an additional 1560 dollars for going to work 40 hours a week in addition to 9000 dollars, I receive for doing absolutely nothing at all, I would not work.