Income – Luke Lindsley

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a concept that proposes to provide every individual with a regular and unconditional cash payment regardless of their income, employment status, or wealth. UBI has been gaining momentum in recent years, with advocates claiming that it could help eradicate poverty, reduce income inequality, and provide financial security to people. However, there are also concerns that UBI could be economically unsustainable and discourage people from working, leading to increased dependency on the state.

One of the primary advantages of UBI is that it could significantly reduce poverty and inequality. By providing a guaranteed minimum income, people who are struggling to make ends meet would have more financial stability, enabling them to meet their basic needs such as food, shelter, and healthcare. UBI could also reduce the stigma associated with traditional welfare programs, which often have complex eligibility criteria and come with social stigmatization. This includes a transfer of wealth to care takers who are currently uncompensated for their labor.

Another advantage of UBI is that it could stimulate entrepreneurship and innovation. With a guaranteed income, people would have the financial security to take risks and pursue their passions without fear of financial ruin. This could lead to a surge in small businesses and startups, leading to increased economic growth and job creation.

However, there are also several concerns with UBI. One of the main criticisms is that it would be economically unsustainable. The cost of providing a universal basic income to every individual would be enormous, and it is unclear where the funding would come from. This could lead to increased taxes, inflation, or government debt, which could have negative consequences for the economy.

Another concern is that UBI could discourage people from working, leading to increased dependency on the state. If people receive a guaranteed income regardless of their employment status, some may choose not to work, leading to decreased productivity and economic growth. Furthermore, UBI could lead to a reduction in social welfare programs, which could negatively impact vulnerable groups such as the elderly, disabled, and those with low incomes.

In conclusion, UBI has both pros and cons, and its implementation would require careful consideration and planning. While it could provide financial stability to those in need, stimulate entrepreneurship and innovation, and reduce poverty and inequality, it could also be economically unsustainable and discourage people from working. As such, any decision to implement UBI should be based on a comprehensive analysis of its potential benefits and drawbacks, as well as its economic and social impact in our future world.

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt

I have been reading David Parfit’s book Reasons and Persons the past couple of months and I must say, it’s been a wild ride. I recommend it to anyone that subscribes to utilitarian ethics and having their world views pushed to the limit. It may seem farfetched to some, but I suspect Parfit will go down as one of the greats in the history of philosophy.

The book covers a variety of loosely related topics, but I want to focus on the type of utilitarianism he concludes from his arguments: Prioritarianism. Prioritarianism holds that the goodness of an outcome is a function of overall well being (Utilitarianism) with extra weight given to worse off individuals. Let’s look at an example to sharpen the distinction between the two.

Imagine a two-person society: its only members are Jim and Pam. Jim has an extremely high level of well-being, is rich, and lives a blissful life. Pam, by contrast, has an extremely low level of well-being, is in extreme poverty, and lives a hellish life.

Now imagine that we have some free resources ($10,000 for example) that we may distribute to the members of this society as we see fit. Under normal utilitarian circumstances, the $10,000 will generate more well-being for Pam than it will for Jim. Thus giving the money to Pam would be the morally correct choice. However, let’s imagine slightly different circumstances.

Jim, for whatever reason, even though he is already filthy rich and very well-off, would gain just as much well-being by receiving the $10,000 as Pam would. Suddenly utilitarians don’t have a preference on who gets the money because both Jim and Pam’s well-being would increase the same. Prioritarianism on the other hand would give the money to Pam, because she is worse off than Jim.

Furthermore, prioritarianism doesn’t act just as a tie breaker for well-being, sometimes it favors priority over a small amount of well-being in order to emphasize compassion. So if Jim were to somehow gain more well-being from the money than Pam, Prioritarianism still wouldn’t necessarily favor him. It is important to note that the amount of well-being traded for priority is arbitrary, but in most cases we can rely on common sense. But why is that?

Well there is a good reason: There are diminishing returns on the value of goods and money. Would Jim be able to tell the difference between having 1 billion dollars and 1.00001 billion dollars? No, he wouldn’t have a clue. In fact there have even been studies, including a prominent one by Princeton University Researchers, that money doesn’t buy happiness after one earns $75000 a year.

It is estimated that it is around this point where money is no longer a primary concern in ones life. People can focus on health, relationships and leisure’s without the stress of paying the bills at the end of the month, which is a real fear for millions of Americans.

If you subscribe to prioritarianism ethics, a certain amount of wealth redistribution becomes fundamental to a healthy and moral society. In a society where Walmart’s Walton family (one of many examples) owns more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined, millions of which are living in poverty and struggling to survive, can a rational person really argue that this disparity in wealth is ethical?

Welfare state capitalism may currently be the best economic model, but its inability to redistribute wealth fairly will continue to raise questions on how it can be improved. Economic justice isn’t about equality. It’s about removing the gross excess at the top to help prevent suffering for those at the bottom.

Pros and Cons of Universal Basic Income

Ethics and Economic Justice