IEET > Rights > Economic > Basic Income > Vision > Advisory Board > Nicole Sallak Anderson > Technoprogressivism
Basic Income Guarantee: Is it Feasible? Who Supports It?

I have found that most of the big supporters of UBI are millennials and younger. This isn’t surprising, as they have the most to lose if we do nothing about the rising costs of being alive in the US, and the least to lose if we do change our economic policies from scarcity to abundance.  Millennials have come of age in a terrible job market combined with huge student debt. Many of them live at home, because they lack the basic income needed to launch an adult life.  Their earnings-to-debt ratios define them as a group.

They will also be the ones to watch the job market automate completely—more than 40% of them will be replaced by robots before the age of retirement. Our future depends on this group of individuals, yet they need more than a lucky break if they’re going to enter their mid-life as secure adults. It’s no wonder that they support UBI, regardless of political background. From conservatives to liberals, our twenty-somethings are searching for new ways to build the world they’ll inherit. Universal Basic Income, combined with technology, is not simply appealing, but necessary.

Egalitarianism

Yet how feasible is UBI? Readers on Reddit pointed out that my suggested $30K per US adult would be twice our current budget! Yes, they’re correct. I purposefully did NOT look at the current economic system when coming up with that number. Instead, I looked at how much a person would need to afford shelter, food and health care, in the majority of market spaces in the US. Why would I do this? Because we can never evolve out of our situation if we remain focused on CAN’T. We must use our imaginations and find a way to overcome it. So I started with what we need, and from there we shall create a world where our needs are met.

The US Government poverty guideline for a single household for 2015 is $11,770. This guideline is used for determining whether or not you qualify for SNAP, welfare, Head Start and a host of other programs. The point of UBI is to rid ourselves of having to qualify or prove that we lack our basic needs. Instead, our needs are covered and we can turn our efforts towards bettering our lives beyond that, if we so choose.

Some recommended a UBI of $12K, with an increase of $4K a year per child, but that means you still need government help to get that roof over your head and see the doctor, and eat, as well as leaving us in the strange situation where having a ton of kids in order to increase your income is desirable. Yes, $30K is twice that, but actually it turns out I wasn’t far off. Numbeo.com puts the minimum monthly income to survive in the US at $2,642.30, or $31704, after taxes.  (this actually includes clothing, utilities, transportation, etc.)

Thus, if this is what’s needed, then the next step is to see how to implement it. It’s obvious that currently we don’t collect enough money to redistribute it in this way.  In order for us to truly take care of one another, we need a new story about money. The entire economic system may need an overhaul, and this is what scares most people.

It’s not just the 1% who fear the overhaul. It’s anyone who owns a home, pension plan or 401K. If we’re going to make UBI possible, it will require rethinking housing, land ownership, and money.

Approximately 30% of our income each month goes towards paying for housing. Land ownership has made this the most volatile of costs, for as the housing market rises and falls, so do rents and the cost of living, making it very difficult for wages to keep up. While health care http://www.wsj.com/news/interactive/IVCostsprint and food costs do vary from state to state, it’s housing that really drives the cost of living in any area. For example, the minimum hourly wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment in California is $26.02, but in Illinois the amount is $16.78. The reasons for the inflation are many, however most people find that they can’t make enough, even in Illinois, to afford shelter. UBI would help close this gap and make housing a given, rather than the most stressful part of paying the bills.

Tiny House, in Portland (Oregon)

In lieu of UBI, there are movements to create affordable housing in the US. Tiny Home projects, like the Emerald Village, aim to help get low income folks into a home. This idea really isn’t new, the housing projects of the 70’s and 80’s attempted to do just this. Yet many low income housing projects turned into high-crime high-rises, rather than clean, safe housing. There are many reasons for this, but at its heart is the land ownership issue—how can the government create affordable housing for the struggling yet still guarantee that the housing market doesn’t tank? UBI helps in that the government stays out of the housing market and supply and demand take over. Tiny, affordable houses can be purchased by those who desire them, and McMansions can still spring up right next door.

The Venus Project also tries to overcome these issues by combining technology with the idea of inexpensive, affordable, sustainable communities in order to grant shelter, food and health care to all.  Once again, the story of money must change in order for these ideas to be liberated.

Liberation from the story of money is what we really seek. Since land ownership began, humanity has fallen into to classes—land lords and serfs. We’ve used our brilliant minds to create a system where some thrive while most barely get by. It surprises me that we haven’t moved on yet, that still so many suffer. What is the point of consciousness, if not to figure out the puzzle of abundance? Why chain ourselves to scarcity, when it just isn’t necessary?

In their book, Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think, authors Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler focus the bottom billion people—our brothers and sisters in the Third World who live on less than $2 a day. Ironically, with advances is technology, these bottom billion are now considered the rising billion. They aren’t mired in the world of Wall Street finance, minimum wage wars and debt, like the working poor of America. Instead, they barely get by at all. Yet in this huge poverty vacuum, there is space for 3D printed houses, solar powered electricity, waterless toilets, Lab-On-A-Chip medical technology and cheap smartphones. Combined with microfinance and technophilanthropy, the bottom billion might just have a fighting chance.

Thus it seems that the technical advancement of the Third World will eventually grant them a guaranteed basic income. The two really do go hand-in-hand.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if America becomes the nation left behind?




COMMENTS

The Numbeo reference [1] refers to average income from a sample pool of ~80K, not a pre-taxed basic income. From a ~$12K pre-taxed basic income, deduct ~$650 for housing[2]. That leaves a sufficient $550 for electricity, groceries, the necessaries for sustenance. Medicaid, CHIPS is available for the desperate. The economically productive community subsidizing $4k/child pro-creation will not lead to a sustainable population, sustainable economy, better family planning or responsible parenting. A couple will think twice before having kids they can’t afford to support if the economically productive community only provides care to the ~0.4mn orphans[3]. A couple with 2 children, representing zero growth in population, would have about 2 X $12K = $24K income which turns out to be around the 4-member household Federal Poverty Level [4].

To offer economic encouragement for a tax-free, garnish-free, citizen’s pre-taxed basic income (within a balanced budget), a new study[5] by the IMF reveals that fiscal stimulus at the bottom of the economic pyramid reduces inequality and increases GDP. However, their solution is for more social engineering that plans people’s lives for them and more unequal taxing. A pre-taxed basic income lends itself both to methodological individualism and spontaneous order, as opposed to central planning. That translates into more freedom for every individual.

Any solution needs to be backed up by a sound economic plan, otherwise we may all land up in an overcrowded poor house. Our current fiscal and monetary policies are heading us in that direction by overspending on national defense and the general welfare of the public.  As for technological economic disruptions, they are not a new phenomenon. The market adapts over time.

[1] Average Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax) 2,659.50 $
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=United+States
[2] Estimating the Price of Rents in Regional Price Parities | BEA
https://bea.gov/papers/pdf/Estimating_Price_Rents_Regional_Price_Parities.pdf
[3] Facts and Statistics | CCAI
http://ccainstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=25&layout=blog&Itemid=43
[4] 2015 Poverty Guidelines | HHS
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm
[5] Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality | IMF
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42986.0

I disagree that $550 is enough for utilities and food. Following a proper diet full of fruits and veggies is very expensive if even possible for many people who live in low income areas that are either unsupported or undersupported with these products.

The poor can find processed crap in any store, but good healthy goods are rare in certain areas of the nation and when available can be quite expensive. Utilities are also very expensive in some areas of the nation as well.

Car ownership, a must in many areas of the nation is also expensive with fuel costs averaging $100 a month.

We would be better off with the Numbeo numbers and a drastic reduction in other social services.

YOUR COMMENT Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: A Call to Proactively Support Women in Science

Previous entry: Computer Training Center installed in Masaka, Uganda - technoprogress in Africa