Over the last decade or so, I have
supported some type of Universal Basic Income. In the early days
before I was introduced to Modern Monetary Theory, I would think
about ways to fund such a program, how the tax code could be worked,
how the increase in spending, and all the other factors that played
into funding this type of program would work.
The truth of it is, something like a
UBI is a tough sell, even for many of the more progressive people.
Really, tell people your grand idea to limit poverty, homelessness,
stress, problems with the minimum wage is to have the federal
government give every citizen $3,000 a month if their income is under
$250,000 and everyone goes insane. Over time, I figured that for the
initial roll out, a specific amount of funds could be removed from
the stipend. If you owed back taxes, student loans, child support
and alimony, or had legal judgments against you, a portion of that
fund would be withheld until you were entirely caught up. After
that, child support and alimony would continue to be removed from the
stipend, the same with student loans. Of course, taxes would likely
still come out of this stipend, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security
would still be offered (as the majority of us have already started
paying into it).
Really it would just be a Social
Security for All program. If you weren't content with the $27,000
(estimated at a 25% tax rate), you could find yourself a job and earn
more money. In essence it would be the ultimate Social Safety Net.
Nearly every person in the United States would be removed from
poverty within the first few years. Now, I say the first few years,
because honestly there is a lot of private debt. Mortgages, car
loans, student loans, credit card debts, hospital bills, you name it,
there is a debt for it and someone in the US probably has at least
one of it, and its going to take a year or so to clear it out of our
collective systems.
Think about this for a moment. If
suddenly, next month you had an addition $2250 in income, what could
you do? If you are renting, would you suddenly start looking for a
new place to rent? Maybe you would trade in your older car for a
newer one? If you didn't have to worry about how you were going to
pay your bills, maybe you would sleep a little easier. You might
even decide that since you hate your job, you'd quit and find
something that you didn't hate, or you'd go back to school. If you
wanted to be a stay at home parent, you could afford it. It opens
the door for many options most of us don't currently have. Or at the
very least, you would have the ability to ensure all bills are paid
and food on the table.
But there would be other benefits, for
all people. Once the debt problems got under control, people would
spend money. They'd buy that new television, they'd spend more money
than they do now. Rather than rarely going out, people might elect
to eat out more, waiters and waitresses would certainly benefit from
this in terms of more tips due to having more customers. Companies
would make more money, given more people are spending. Now you might
say that this will cause prices to increase, and yes that is a very
real possibility at the start. Supply and demand, the more demand,
the less supply, the higher the price. However, think about your
computer, or your smart phone. I remember back in the mid-90s when I
got my first computer, it was a large chunk of money to buy that
thing, something like $2000 at that point. Today, you can buy five
times the computer for $400. Why is that? Because more people
started buying them, the developmental prices decreased because
companies had to be more innovative and cheaper than their
competitors. Ultimately, we have computers selling for next to
nothing when compared to cell phones and televisions (which would
also benefit from this same effect). Also remember that companies
are also trying to recover their research and development costs, and
with more sales, they recover their funds faster.
Also keep in mind that as demand rises,
more people are going to be needed to work the machines, load and
unload the trucks, stock the shelves, be able to repair the products.
The only way supply cannot keep up with demand is if everyone
decides they are done working, and guess what, not everyone is going
to get off their job. Some people would continue to work, as shown
when Canada performed a basic income experiment several decades ago.
People would buy a home, certainly everyone could have insurance
(especially if we go into a Single Payer System), cars would get
sold, and do all the things some don't do now. And this money would
be passed back into the economy, because others would spend more.
See, while being a “job creator” is
cool and all, its not the thing that ultimately drives and economy.
Its the people who go to a NASCAR race, its the people who eat out
every week, go to the theaters, travel to Disney, remodel their
homes, buy cars and video game consoles. When people spend the
economy grows. When we don't spend, it contracts. When people are
doing as many are, it grows stagnant. Hey, imagine if everyone could
afford to go out and buy a newer more fuel efficient vehicle? I'm
not saying a Prius in every driveway, but cars that get double the
mileage of their current car, look at the benefits to the
environment. The manufacturers would make a killing yes, but you'd
have the bonus of not using as much oil based fuels, which helps the
environment. We'd become more fossil fuel independent, and less
affected by market whims when it comes to oil prices. We would
improve the quality of life for all people.
That is the thing, the most important
thing if you think about it. Having a job is great, having multiple
jobs are not. Being able to afford the basics, while paying your
bills does a great many things for the mind and body. I'd bet that
there would be a massive change in various aspects of our lives.
Less stress, less financial problems, fewer divorces, oh and likely
fewer abortions. Hey, I know people who get pregnant just to try and
save their marriage.
Say what you will about this idea, good
or bad. But there are some other things we need to start looking at.
Last year some companies started testing out self driving
semi-trucks and trailers. We already have cars (think Tesla) that
can drive themselves. And yes, while you still have to pay attention
when the car is driving itself, the fact is, its only a matter of
time when the programming will be able to completely drive itself
without any need for human intervention or interaction. We are doing
this with cars and trucks. People are developing machines to make
your Big Mac, while other places have fully fleshed out automated
ordering systems (Here's looking at you Sheetz and Wawa). Many of
the cars we drive today are nearly fully automated in their
construction (usually a few people oversee everything), self
checkouts are a real thing and are growing. Even our enforcement of
traffic laws is becoming more automated. Those sensors above the
traffic lights in your home town, they double as cameras to catch
people running red lights. Where I live we have signs that tell you
how quickly you are driving, and guess what, if you are speeding, it
takes a picture of your tag and you, mails you a speeding ticket.
Cameras on police vehicles take pictures of your tag, run it against
a data base, and if your tags are dead, even if the cop doesn't stop
you, you could get a ticket.
In rapid progression our lives are
becoming automated, and I won't say its a bad thing. The problem is,
our economy doesn't match the coming lifestyle. Our lifestyle is
quickly becoming one where work isn't required, its becoming optional
in many aspects. But our economy still dictates that we must work
for the things we need and want. With the looming creation of true
Artificial Intelligence, where computers can do anything needed,
something has to change. We also need to get out in front of this.
We cannot wait until a quarter of the jobs we currently have are
fully automated. At that point we would have millions of people out
of work, possibly out on the streets. We need to be in a position
where when this happens, it will not affect our economy. Where
people can still survive without absolutely having to have full time
employment. Now, I know some of you might be thinking, when the car
came along, became affordable, it didn't put carriage drivers out of
work, they became taxi drivers. That is true, but only the title
changed, the job was essentially the same. But what happens when the
taxi becomes fully automated, and does not require any real
oversight, what does the taxi driver do then? He finds another job,
maybe as a mechanic on the same taxi he previously drove. But what
happens when someone figures out how to take this “thingamajig”
can do 90% of the maintenance for half the cost, and three times
faster with fewer errors? That previous driver turned mechanic is
going to need to find work elsewhere. Remember, that as production
gets going, and the demand increases, the prices are going to
decrease. Also remember that everything technological doubles in
speed and ability every eighteen to twenty four months, while the
price and size decreases. There was a time that a computer, a
regular computer was the size of a room in a house. Even my first
computer in the mid-90's was a big thing, nearly the size of a small
modern microwave, today, I am typing this out on a laptop that could
fit into a small modern microwave. Just look at cell phones, which
back in the 80's were the size of War and Peace, in the 90's to early
two thousands were the size of a deck of playing cars, and while they
are becoming larger today, its only the screen size that is changing.
Technically, the phones are thinner, but taller, and they can act as
a small computer (this applies to smart phones). The regular
old-fashioned “dumb phones” haven't changed much over the last
fifteen years. Yeah, there are people who say Moore's Law cannot
continue at the pace it is, but that is not true. Several times in
the last few decades people have said that the sluggish pace of
technology growth signaled the death of the law. Yet, that is only
because we hit the limit of technology, for that period, then someone
comes along and figures something else out, and the race is back on.
Okay, look, I am not railing against
technology. Technology is our friend, it is making our lives easier
everyday. That is a good thing. Our computers, and our phones
really help make the days easier. If you are looking for work,
potential jobs are just a few keystrokes away. I say potential
because even if you fill out the application, you may or may not get
hired. We can communicate ideals, get the latest news, and do
research in a split second. If we have trouble, we can get help
nearly instantly, or at the very least send out that we need help,
and as technology grows, these abilities will grow. The land-line is
nearly dead, replaced by cellular technology. We are quickly
approaching the means to delete AIDS, birth defects and cancer from
DNA. And in time, we might even be able to fix anything and
everything that ails us physically and emotionally. What I am saying
here is, we are very quickly approaching a time when people are going
to need food, shelter, and the other necessities of life and there
won't be adequate work to provide it for a large number of them.
This is not an alarmist point of view, its a real word view of
needing to bring our social and economic lives in line with the
technological life we are leading. And for the record, I am not
advocating against technology, I am advocating for altering
everything in such a way that we continue to drive technology further
ahead, while maintaining good lives for all of us. Because lets face
it, technology is coming, like it or not, its time we start planning
ahead for the eventual outcomes, before we have too many people
suffering for it. Don't resent technology, it was created to make
life better for all of us, but we have to plan ahead for the
consequences of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment