Why should we support the idea of ​​unconditional basic income?

What would you do?

That's what you would do if you were guaranteed a $ 1,000 a month payment for the rest of your life? And yes, it is most likely that this amount will be paid - at least here, in the USA. Imagine this for a minute, not thinking about what others would do - think what you personally would do. Perhaps you would do more what you like? What exactly?

But haven't they tried it in Russia already?

If you compare this idea with communism, let's think about it. Let's look at what they really did in the USSR and what they were not going to do. What actually was there was the transfer of the means of production from those who run affairs based on market forces into the hands of bureaucrats who made decisions based on politics and cronyism. This is a terrible idea. But why?

The market works because it can understand what people need, how much it needs it, and it has the ability to deliver it to people. Consider, for example, bread. In the USSR, it was believed that everyone needed bread. This decision was made by the authorities, they tried to put it into practice - in fact, this bread was necessary for everyone and everyone, or not. It didn't work very well, and sometimes there was a shortage. In addition, people with connections received more, while others did not receive anything. An attempt to give bread to everyone, even if noble, failed.
')

The magic of the markets

How does this happen in the USA? Some people make bread and sell it to stores so that other people with money can buy bread. If it is not bought, less bread is produced. If they buy up the whole, more bread is produced. Bread producers make decisions about bread production not in a directive order - they listen to market forces that influence bottom-up decision making. It turns out that just the right amount of bread is made at the right price. Perfect? Not. Why, and how to improve it?

Now only those who can pay for it can buy bread. We have the expression "vote with the dollar." Are the results of these daily choices fair? Does everyone have a voice to buy bread? Not. There are people without votes, i.e. without dollars. The only way to bring the market to maximum efficiency and determine exactly how many goods need to be produced and how to distribute it is to make sure that everyone has the necessary minimum of votes in order to “vote” for this product. If people have money, but they don’t buy bread, they don’t need to do it. If you buy bread, then it is necessary. So how do you improve capitalist markets?

With the help of unconditional basic income (UBI).

It is necessary to ensure that everyone will have the required minimum number of votes for “voting” in the market for basic goods and services. Then we can ensure that basic living needs, such as food and shelter, are created and distributed more efficiently. It makes no sense to try to give 100% of all people the same amount of bread. Some will want it more, some less. It makes no sense to make bread for 70% of the population, under the impression that this is true demand, if 80% of the population actually wants it, but 10% simply cannot buy it. And so, bakers would gladly make more bread, and buyers would buy.

Here you have the basic income - this is a winning situation for everyone. This is a way to improve capitalism and even democracy - everyone should have the necessary minimum of votes.

Is it really possible to improve capitalism in this way, or is it just a theory?

If you need proof - look at the test project that took place in Namibia .

Village schools report an increase in attendance, that pupils eat better and learn better. Crime decreased by 36.5%. Poverty has decreased from 86% to 68% (from 97% to 43%, taking into account migration). Unemployment fell from 60% to 45%, the average income increased by 29% excluding basic income. The results suggest that basic income not only reduces poverty, but also can bring the poor out of their condition, help them find a job or start a business, and also go to school.

It turns out that crime has decreased, and people with basic income have created jobs themselves and earned more money.

And how do you like this psychological experiment , showing an increase in productivity?

Participants who were offered a choice between two or three tasks spent 5 minutes to solve the problem. Other participants were offered the option of not solving problems at all - and those who chose problem solving spent an average of 7 minutes on the task. A deliberate choice in favor of the cause, rather than inaction, increased the time spent at work.

It turns out that if we let people choose between work and not working at all, then those who choose work will be more active in it. Because it becomes a conscious choice, not a necessity. Choice is a good motivator.

By the way, science claims that money is a bad motivator. The greater the reward, the worse the person works .

This is one of the most well-established discoveries in sociology, and one of the most ignored. For the last couple of years I have been working on motivation issues, in particular, on external and internal motivators. And I am ready to say that their action differs drastically. There is a big gap between what science knows and what business does. For many professions of the 20th century, such motivation was normal, but in the 21st century, such a mechanical approach of “carrots and sticks” simply does not work, and sometimes even causes harm.
- Dan Pink

In the 21st century, along with the impending automation of 50% of the various types of work in the next 20 years, the least complex technically and more physically difficult, we need the ability to do something more creative and complex. Often the best we achieve comes in our free time. Wikipedia, open source projects, care for children and the elderly. The main income is a way to reward this unpaid work now and allow it to continue.

How about the economic multiplier as evidence of this idea:

Dollars spent by low-paid workers have a serious effect on the economy. Every extra dollar that falls into the pocket of a low-paying specialist turns into an additional $ 1.21 for GDP. Every extra dollar that falls into the pockets of high-income people adds only 39 cents to GDP.

That is, a lot of money accumulates at the top, which does nothing there, and flows there from the bottom up. If you recycle this money back down and in the middle , it will actually expand the entire economy, make it more sustainable. So the body works, so the engines work, so all the systems work.

A system cannot exist if the flows in it go in one direction. Thomas Piketty, in his beautiful book, Capital of the 21st Century , showed that our system is one-way. And we need to create a real circulation in our capitalist engine. Without circulation of money, the system as a whole is inhibited. If you believe Piqueti, then the attitude to the redistribution of capital as a “theft” can be compared with the fact that the heart would refuse to pump blood to other parts of the body, except the brain.

Capitalism 2.0 is awesome. Can we afford it?

Unconditional income is quite possible - given the existing mindlessly expensive systems, full of unnecessary bureaucracy, from which you can get rid of. It all depends on the choice of plan. If you choose $ 12,000 for each resident over 18, and $ 4,000 for every US resident under 18, we will need $ 2.98 trillion. If you eliminate all other programs of assistance to the poor and take into account their cost, you will need to add only $ 1.28 trillion. But where to get them?

• Land tax can bring $ 1.7 trillion
• The introduction of a single tax of 40% will also be sufficient. According to estimates, it will actually lead to a reduction in the tax burden for a person by 80%
• 10% VAT could bring to the treasury $ 750 billion . If you increase it a little, you get the necessary $ 1.3 trillion.
• On Earth, there is already a place where an unconditional income is paid, one for children and adults. This is Alaska. The Alaska model can be applied in other places.
• You can be creative and think for example about the fact that companies owning patents spend a lot of money on lobbying - and meanwhile they have to pay for the right to renew their patents and copyrights not to politicians who prevent them from getting into the public domain - but to us, people.

In short, there are many different options that may even be able to finance an increased amount of basic income.

Well, well, let's say it is possible. But will people stop working?

In the 1970s, such experiments were already conducted in the USA in the light of the Nixon administration’s ideas about "guaranteed annual income." Experiments in Seattle and Denver found that almost no one stopped working, but most often people reduced the number of working hours - and then, by about 8%. In Canada, similar results were achieved in the framework of the Mincome experiment, with a decrease in working hours of just 1%.

Today we all work too much . Every third person works more than 50 hours a week, and many more than 60 hours. And what are the results?

Studies show that increasing the duration of work very rarely leads to improved results. Now workers are working more than in the past, but all this is due to health, happiness and productivity. You can look favorably in the team, coming before everyone and leaving later than everyone else - but the 60-hour work week brings more problems. In order to improve the productivity and efficiency of workers, business is advised to return the 40-hour work week.

We want to work less. Productivity should increase. Sometimes it is generally better not to work - for example, if you are sick.

According to studies, the cost of access to the work of sick employees in the United States costs $ 150- $ 250 billion annually, and these figures are only growing in the face of deteriorating economies.

Now people will work even when they do not need to do this, and this negatively affects the entire economy and the health of the nation. Those who are ill should stay at home and not need to work because they have to earn money, or because they are afraid of losing their job.

Interestingly, we worry that with unconditional income, people will start working less - and now people work too much, which only leads to losses? And if we consider that on average there are 3 candidates for one job , then the obvious solution would be to give people the opportunity to work less and make room for those who are now thrown out of the labor market.

But what about those who still stop working completely?

Well, then it just happens that people who stop working will receive less money than those who work for additional income. This will reduce unemployment, increase work efficiency, and at the same time correct the current situation in which the unemployed can receive benefits for a greater amount than some of them earn.

In addition, the lack of a vital need for work will greatly reduce opportunities for employers to put pressure on workers who may now underpay their employees or arrange unacceptable working conditions. Being able to give up work will virtually eliminate the need for trade unions.

Work will pay off.

But does (insert the name of the politician you dislike) agree to this?

All parties in the United States , from the right to the left, call for a basic income. The rightists are glad that this will reduce the size of the government and eliminate the need for minimum incomes, and the leftists that it will reduce inequalities in society and eliminate poverty. Unconditional income is not moving left or right - it is moving forward .

So why do you need to support unconditional basic income? Why would you support the abolition of slavery in the 19th century? Why would you support the right to vote for everyone? Why would you support spaceflight or landing on the moon? Why would you support the end of the Vietnam War, or the beginning of the war against poverty of Lyndon Johnson [the 36th President of the United States; One of Johnson's first initiatives was the creation of a “Great Society” in which there would be no poverty. Congress has allocated about a billion dollars for this purpose.]

Because you want our world to become better.