Universal Basic Income gives people Control over their Lives
A universal basic income, or unconditional basic income, has been an economic idea in question since the 16th century. Most politicians viewed it as a fantasy that could never be implemented, yet it’s been getting more light in the recent years as a wealthy few continue to control a free market, while many, many others end up suffering. What makes a universal basic income unique, unlike other strategies to reduce wealth inequality, is that it’s simply a sum of money that is distributed to ALL citizens, with no strings attached. Unlike other programs that require eligibility and have terms and conditions for the use of the money, a UBI places money into the pockets of every person in a country for them to use at their disposal. While some say that the best way to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor is by investing it into education, health care, and safety-net programs, I believe a universal basic income is better than these targeted programs because it gives the disadvantaged the freedom to use this money how they see fit, which allows them to navigate their life in their best interest.
Income inequality has always been an issue, but this unequal distribution of wealth has increased dramatically during the modern globalization era because the new world market spurs increased competition which benefits the rich more than it does the poor. With the majority of countries joining the World Trade Organization since the 1990s, individual markets have become more and more interconnected, widening the impact production and import from one country can have on another. With each company trying to increase its market share in this survival of the fittest, economic competition has never been this high. As a result, as noted by senior writer in economics Andrew Soergel, “Rising import competition has adversely affected manufacturing employment, led firms to upgrade their production and caused labor earnings to fall” (Soergel). In other words, every company is trying their hardest to produce with minimal costs to boost their efficiency in this tough economic climate produced by globalization, and one of the ways they do this is by reducing the cost of individual labor. Globalization creates a condition where there is no job stability because of these pitiable wages, causing the majority of people to struggle to put a meal on their plate, a roof over their heads, or acquire any other basic human need. I agree that this divide between rich and poor is growing stronger than ever, so something must be done to halt these changes, and this something needs to be dramatic enough to make a difference. I believe that the best way to combat the precarious labor set up by globalization is to give people a better minimum standard of living with a universal basic income.
A universal basic income is what we should dedicate our resources to in order to fight against the growing rate of poverty and income inequality because it gives people a minimum standard of living. Put simply, a UBI gives people a cushion so that they aren’t fully dependent on working numerous jobs at an abysmal wage, all to live another day. UBI gives more power to employees so that they can wager their utility over employers; this ensures they will not get taken advantage of for an unsustainable minimum wage like the one that exists today. To illustrate with an example, in a study conducted by Pew Research Center, 64% of Americans in the retail and service industry “report feeling their job is just a way to get by” (Pew Research Center). Employers have so much power in the contemporary world that most employees are left without options and forced into unfavorable jobs because they need it for their survival. I view this as a pending issue because workers will have to tolerate unfair working conditions, low wages, and poor treatment since the current system does not do enough to provide for them. They find the only way to provide for them and/or their families is to work the jobs no one else wants to, which is why a UBI is necessary to alleviate this pressure and transfer power from the employer to the employee. As workers gain more freedom to navigate jobs they want to work, companies will increase their working conditions and salaries to attract more people and provide a better standard of living. But how does a UBI provide a better standard of living than allocating our resources towards targeted programs like food-stamps?
A UBI is best because it does something that safety-net programs can’t do: it lets people use the money how they see fit. An unconditional basic income allows people to decide where to allocate the resources collected so that they can truly benefit from the money no matter their circumstances. Some may argue that the money raised for a UBI could be better spent elsewhere, like building hospitals or enforcing other targeted programs for people. However, these programs do not place the money collected from taxes directly into the hands of the people who need it most. Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang argued that, “One benefit of universality… is that giving everyone money is simple and easy to administer — unlike welfare programs that typically have long application, means tests, and other criteria and require ongoing monitoring” (Collier). While targeted programs to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, this money is not unconditional, and even then many Americans are left ineligible because they do not have the required documents or fulfill the right standards.Sure they can utilize these resources and it definitely helps them place themselves into better situations, but there are still strings attached, and it doesn’t give them the freedom and flexibility to spend the money how they like, whether they need to pay off their rent, another semester of their education, or the medicine their child needs. My claim then is that a universal basic income promotes the stimulation of poorer populations without the tests and trials that are typical of the current welfare system in place.
Pilot programs in place have demonstrated the positive effects of a UBI. People with a UBI are generally happier and healthier because they have less economic stress. This also leaves them with more flexibility in their work and able to pursue a higher education. According to Sigal Samuel, senior reporter for Vox, between the years 1974 and 1979 in Dauphin, Canada, families were given a basic income which resulted in an increase in their mental and physical health: “there was a decline in doctor visits and an 8.5 percent reduction in the rate of hospitalization” (Samuel). Additionally, a UBI pilot program held in Finland also made participants feel “happier and less stressed” (Samuel). As evidenced, a UBI has countless health benefits associated with its implementation. Not to mention, the evidence from the pilot programs also refute the argument that a UBI would decentivize work in some populations. These all support the notion that a UBI can truly benefit disadvantaged populations, but we need to be able to apply this on a larger scale instead of these pilot programs of small groups of individuals.
We can get money from taxing the rich and implementing new taxes that will benefit us. For instance, we can place much higher taxes on large corporations, especially those who emit large amounts of pollution and carbon dioxide. This tax serves a dual purpose as it helps pay for the UBI while also forcing corporations to identify new ways to carry out their processes in a more environmentally friendly way. Furthermore, we can tax the rich with more significant taxes and accumulate more money for the UBI. The $1,000 that returns to them will not compare to the amount they pay out of pocket for the UBI, so the poor would really be benefiting. We also wouldn’t need to worry about selecting individuals who are not eligible for the UBI since they would be paying money for it either way. It may seem unfair, but the real injustice lies in the countless people who cannot afford a home to live in or proper human needs while others get to live lavishly with more than enough money to get by.
But what’s preventing people from spending money on things like drugs, alcohol, and other addictive goods? I argue that crime and the misuse of money is correlated with poverty, and providing people with a sustainable living will actually reduce this. A pilot program held in North Carolina demonstrated that a universal basic income would actually deter crime as opposed to promoting it. In the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Casino Dividend in North Carolina, tribal members were given between $4,000 to $6,000 per year, and this led to “improved education and mental health, and decreased addiction and crime” (Samuel). Put succinctly, providing disadvantaged populations with income that is truly disposable provides them with an opportunity to truly make a living for themselves, and this reduces the risk of resorting to more drastic approaches like crime and addiction. I believe we should at least give these people the chance to use the money how they like so that they can begin to dig themselves out of a hole they may be stuck in, or face future trials and tribulations with confidence and security.
As the world continues to become more and more interconnected, income inequality will inevitably become more of a pressing issue. More countries will join organizations like the World Trade Organization, the world market will become more globalized, and competition will continue to increase, all resulting in workers carrying the burden for cut costs. As responsible citizens, we need to start placing ourselves in the shoes of those who are less fortunate in order to make decisions that not only benefit ourselves, but our neighbors as well. One of the best ways to spur this change is by casting our vote. Supporting presidential candidates like Andrew Yang who are proponents of a UBI can help instill this change and finally provide everyone with a better chance. A universal basic income can no longer remain a fallacy like it has been in the past; we need to start implementing this change to help our people, and this process starts with your vote.
