President Trump recently addressed a group of media and political officials in the White House Rose Garden to unveil his new plan to reform the US immigration system. Many ambitious changes will be made to a system that hasn’t seen much reform in the past few decades. The President wishes to create a Border Security Fund that will be supported by fees from trade on the US-Mexico border. With this fund, the President wishes to develop new technology that will scan “100% of everything” crossing the border. He went on to announce that over 400 miles of border wall should be finished by the end of 2020. President Trump also rolled out his plan to change the asylum and immigration systems.
By TJ Roberts | United States
The concept of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) comes up as a potential alternative to the modern welfare state. What people don’t consider, however, are the consequences of such a system. A UBI is a system in which the state provides a certain income for all people within the polity. Also known as a Negative Income Tax, a UBI requires a heavily progressive form of taxation. All adults within a polity receive this payment regardless of their wealth and their employment status.
Many proponents see UBI as a means of securing people’s basic needs. In addition, they see this as far more efficient than the current system. This, according to a UBI proponent, alters the incentives toward a more productive incentive structure in the economy. Finally, advocates of a UBI claim that it allows for people to survive after automation eliminates the job market. While on the face level, these arguments all seem to have a point, but some basic economic analysis can show that UBI is fundamentally flawed. This article will first outline the arguments one may find in favor of a UBI. It will then refute the arguments. In addition, it will offer some other problems to a UBI.
Why People Support UBI
People support UBI for many reasons. The most frequent reason that people cite is that it guarantees people a certain quality of life. To these advocates, not all individuals are capable of finding employment, so society must provide for these individuals. In addition to the unemployed, a UBI is claimed to help the underemployed. In essence, a UBI is a living wage for everyone.
Another case that some fiscal conservatives and libertarians make in favor of a UBI is that it is more efficient than the current welfare state. With a UBI, there is no massive bureaucracy to determine who needs what. You receive the same living income as every other person. This drastically lowers administrative costs.
Another case that fiscal conservatives and libertarians make is that a UBI readjusts the incentive structures of society. Since everyone is guaranteed this money with no strings attached, says the UBI advocate, there is no poverty trap that encourages people to work less so that they do not lose their payments. This means that the UBI would replace all currently existing social welfare programs and would allow for commodities such as health insurance to be handled entirely by the private market.
Finally, advocates of a UBI claim that it is the only logical means of continuing human existence in the age of automation. People fear that AI and new technology will make low-level employment obsolete, and will, therefore, knock so many people out of work that they will not be able to afford to live without a UBI.
Why the UBI is Wrong
These arguments, however, all fall when one considers economic theory and empirical reality. To start, a UBI would not adequately guarantee that everyone receives an adequate quality of life. This is because a UBI would lead to overwhelming price inflation. If everyone is guaranteed a living income, then more people will be able to consume products. Because more people can afford more goods and services, businesses will be inclined to increase prices whereas this surge in the number of willing customers is an external stimulus to the economy caused by outside intervention.
If a landlord knows that their clients are now receiving a monthly check, the landlord then has an incentive to increase rent to take advantage of the new wealth. As prices rise, people become less capable of providing for themselves, so they spend less. When people spend less, businesses will decrease production, which leads to businesses having to lay off workers. These newly unemployed workers then lose the ability to spend as much as they did when they had a job. This leads to an endless cycle of increasing prices and decreasing employment.
To add insult to injury, since the money supply is increasing, the money becomes less capable of holding value. The value of the dollar would tank under this system. This inflationary trap would compound, ending in a society in which most people are jobless, most businesses can’t afford to produce, and those who are employed have a money that is so worthless that they cannot afford anything. Such an inflationary policy overturns all the progress the market has achieved for this world.
Right now, the needs of more people are being met than ever before around the world, and no UBI caused this. Rather, it is decreasing prices that has allowed for the cost of living to drop in such a way that extreme poverty is disappearing from this world. Our World in Data illustrates this point beautifully in this slideshow. Declining prices are benefiting the worst off especially; the countries with the highest poverty rates are currently experiencing the fastest growth rates. A UBI and the inevitable price increases that follow would only harm this progress. We need more production, not redistribution.
We Cannot Afford a UBI
In terms of efficiency, while a UBI admittedly leads to cheaper administrative costs, the nominal costs make a UBI far more expensive than the status quo. Suppose the US implemented a plan that guarantees a living salary to all adults based on the cost of living in their area. According to MIT, the average living wage in the United States is $15.12 per hour. According to the US Census Bureau, there are 247,813,910 adults living in the United States. If one does the math, the cost of providing this basic income to every adult in the United States is $7,793,648,343,936 per year (this does not account for inflation and administrative costs). This is nearly $8 trillion. Given that the US spent $4.094 trillion dollars in Fiscal Year 2018, The United States would have to end every government program and more than double taxes in order to pay for this program alone.
UBI Perpetuates Poverty
While UBI may seem to eliminate the poverty trap, this is not the case. First, consider the inflationary effects of a UBI. If prices increase so dramatically that goods become unaffordable, then poverty increases. Also, the UBI does eliminate the incentive not to work that some means-tested welfare programs do have, but it also has negative incentives of its own. UBI gives businesses an incentive to slash wages.
If everyone working for a business is guaranteed a living salary, then businesses feel empowered to slash wages and keep the profits. UBI is just another form of corporate welfare. It allows for businesses to outsource the cost of having employees to the taxpayers. This makes it more likely for people to be content with what they are receiving from their guaranteed income and not pursue work at all.
In Defense of Automation
Automation is happening. But this is a good thing. Automation does not cause unemployment. Rather, it frees people to pursue other forms of work that individuals are more passionate about. The entire purpose of work is to satisfy humanity’s endless wants and needs. Since people are still poor in this world, it is clear that there are inefficiencies in the status quo. Automation allows for labor to become far more efficient. In the same way that the strides in efficiency that humanity accomplished in the industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries did not eliminate the ability of regular people to find work, so too the automation revolution of the 21st century will not eliminate the need for work. Rather, it provides even more opportunities.
This is not to say that everyone will keep the jobs that they have right now. Some people will lose their jobs as automation makes the labor more efficient. But let’s consider what happens to people who lose their jobs due to automation. First of all, no one starved to death as a result of the milkman becoming obsolete in the late 20th century. People that worked as a milkman simply found other means of employment. They adapted to their times. They moved to new jobs that met consumer demand and often made these workers more prosperous
Automation Creates Jobs
But let us consider why someone would lose their job to automation. Resources are finite, but human desires are virtually unlimited. While at the face level, someone might lose their job in one area, that is because the consumer demand is being met more easily through automated processes that decrease prices and the cost of production. Automation brings prices down. This is why the cost of living has dropped so significantly that most Americans can afford something as complex as a smartphone. If people can produce more for less, prices go down.
When prices go down, consumers spend less on what they buy. When consumers spend less, they have more money. This allows for consumers to buy even more products. Since consumers can buy more, businesses have to produce more. This means that businesses need to hire more people in order to produce. Automation does not directly cause unemployment. Rather, it makes it easier for displaced workers to find new work.
Automation Creates Entrepreneurship
Another benefit of automation is that as prices go down and people become capable of affording more, people have more resources which allows them to engage in entrepreneurship. As people develop new industries (some of these industries will come directly from automation), new employees will be needed. As technology grows, the ability to acquire the means of learning new skills that improve your standing on the job market (take Skill Share as an example of this).
Automation enriches the labor force, allows for workers to find new and better jobs, allows workers to learn how to boost their resume, and brings new innovation that will create more prosperity at a lower price which especially benefits the poor. Automation does not justify a UBI. Rather, it shows why we need to avoid a UBI by any means necessary: the price increases caused by a UBI will offset the gains in human prosperity automation is causing.
How a UBI Takes Your Power Away
The greatest harm that a UBI causes is that it rips power away from the common person in the market. In a system with a UBI, people are capable of ignoring the law of supply and demand and pursue their own interests without regard for its marketability and at the detriment of those pursuing profitable work. Once again, someone has to pay for the UBI. If person X chooses to create products that they are passionate about but no one else is willing to buy, they still get the UBI and other people are forced into subsidizing their illegitimate industry.
In a truly unhampered market, person X would realize that their entrepreneurial effort is yielding no fruit and would therefore adjust their strategy to meet consumer demand. Under a UBI, the incentive to do this greatly diminishes. This is another proof that UBI is another form of corporate welfare. There is no sense in propping up industries that consumers do not want. Doing so only encourages behavior that sucks resources away from those who have an eye for what people desire. This is theft from the market and from all of us.
The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions
On the surface level, Universal Basic Income comes across as an alternative to the welfare state that would make the world a more productive and prosperous place. But when one considers basic economic theory, UBI collapses under its own weight. UBI increases prices, decreases wages, and decreases productivity. This system undos the progress we have made in eliminating world poverty and causes runaway inflation that would make the current living standard unaffordable.
This article was originally published in LIFE.
71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!
By Joshua D. Glawson | United States
“Autonomous” vehicles, also known as “self-driving,” “driverless,” and “robotic” vehicles, are the future of every means of vehicular transportation. Self-driving cars for your daily commute, robotic trucks carrying shipments cross-country, driverless taxi services, autopilot commercial jets, and beyond, will be the normative in the not-so-distant future. The biggest hurdle between the current human driven vehicles and the autonomous vehicles of tomorrow is an overbearing government and general people of society scared of progress. Ronald Bailey, the author of Reason Magazine’s article “Will Politicians Block Our Driverless Future,” demonstrates that within the United States of America (US) fear, politicians, and bureaucratic agencies slow down progress of technology while the free market would push us into a world of great technological advancements. I happen to agree with Ronald Bailey’s assessment, and I share his passion for a self-driving vehicle future of less accidents, economic salvation, trafficless roads, and a leap into an automated world of tomorrow.
In March 2016, Senator Ben Nelson of Florida addressed the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation with his then recent experience of testing a self-driving Tesla. He was not trusting enough to allow the car to take a turn on its own, so he took over the steering wheel. Nelson pontificated, “In the federal government we have a critical role to make sure that the regulatory environment and legal environment in which American business does business is able to develop and manufacture these vehicles. And also it means that we’re going to have to- in our case- exercise responsible oversight,” ensuring that the government would also be metaphorically grabbing the wheel of the future of autonomous vehicles (Bailey. Page 20). Many politicians like Nelson ignore that Article 1 — Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not entitle congress to regulate the market in such a way (Constitution).
Similarly, California’s Department of Motor Vehicles in Sacramento is already planning to regulate and limit driverless vehicles in that they have drafted various regulations stipulating that even autonomous vehicles must have steering wheels, pedals, and a specially trained driver in the driver’s seat (Bailey. Page 20). This is normal practice for a big brother government made up of politicians that want to appear as though they are doing something important, when, in fact, they are slowing down human progress. The cellular phone, for instance, was restricted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by declining cellular licenses from 1970 all the way until 1983 (Bailey. Page 25). This means that cellphones could have been sold in the free market nearly a decade prior if it were not for a meddling government and, in turn, this demonstrates that progress is fearfully decelerated by constant legislatorial interfering.
Leading minds amongst the growing field of autonomous vehicle pioneers such as Brad Templeton, of Electronic Frontier Foundation, UCLA’s (University of California, Los Angeles) urban planner Donald Shoup, Columbia University’s mobility specialist Lawrence Burns, and Chris Urmson, Google’s self-driving car chief, all agree that government regulations need to cease in regards to robotic vehicles. Chris Urmson is quoted on a public blog in response to California’s mandate proposals as saying, “Instead of putting a ceiling on the potential of self-driving cars, let’s have the courage to imagine what California would be like if wasted hours, and restricted mobility for those who want the independence that the automobile has always represented,” (Bailey. Page 20).
According to the global financial services firm Morgan Stanley in an analysis given in 2013, driverless vehicles would save the US as much as $488 billion in accident avoidance, $507 billion in productivity gains, $158 billion in fuel savings, $138 billion in productivity gains from congestion avoidance, $11 billion in fuel savings from congestion avoidance, and $168 billion in long haul freight trucking annually (Bailey. Pages 23–24). Additionally, driverless cars would allow the elderly, disabled, and the intoxicated to safely move about. California state officials would be seriously hurting not only their state technological advancements, but also the economic stability that the autonomous car would bring them.
The author of “Will Politicians Block our Driverless Future,” Ronald Bailey goes through every objection Senator Ben Nelson and many people in public share (Nelson). He addresses the fear, politicians, government controls, economy, and even hacking. Understandably, there are still a lot of what-ifs, but that is no different than the what-ifs that currently plague and stagnate our society with the technology that we already have. Such burlesquing inquiries only expose the insecurities in people rather than the possibilities of progress. According to Berkley’s transportation security researcher, Steven Shladover, in response to hacking on the highways, “Vulnerabilities in autonomous vehicles are not a whole lot different from the sort of cyber-attacks that can be unleashed on modern vehicles that are not automated today,” (Bailey. Page 24). Ergo, hacking and other technological problems could be an issue today, but as they are not it, too, should not be a limiting factor for autonomous vehicles of tomorrow.
I am in accord with Ronald Bailey’s assessment of government getting in the way of technological advancement, especially with this scenario of the autonomous vehicle. Fear of the unknown cannot be a reason to allow control and limitations of human progress. If fear were a reason to demand control over ourselves by others, we would still be in caves and hiding in forests among only our closest of kin. We would have never had a car, never had an airplane, never had a cellphone, or just about anything else around you now.
As shown when the FCC did not allow companies to sell cellular phones from the 1970s until 1983, bureaucracy is currently on the same track of mindless repetition in prevention and unnecessary red tape in regards to the driverless vehicle. While also comparing the autonomous vehicle to commercial airliners it is momentous to point out that airplanes are vastly automated already. Thus, fear should not be a part of the minds of people or bureaucrats demanding regulations. In the New York Times article “Planes Without Pilots” by John Markoff, pilots of Boeing 777s are noted to spend around seven minutes, or less, actually controlling the plane each flight, and pilots flying Airbus planes spend nearly half that time (Markoff. ¶7). In a Vanity Fair piece entitled “The Human Factor,” author William Langewiesche details the tragic 2009 Boeing 727 plane crash of Air France Flight 447. Throughout his article, captioning the actual cockpit conversations and situations as gathered from the plane’s recovered black-box, it was human error that eventually led to the fateful end for the 228 lives aboard and not the automation (Langewiesche).
As of 2014, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) declared 32,675 people died in vehicle accidents within the US (NHTSA 1. Page 2) and around 94% of those were due to human error rather than mechanical or electronic errors (NHTSA 2. Page 1). With automated vehicles operating at full capacity without limitations, the number of accidents and resulting deaths would tremendously plummet towards zero. Brad Templeton of Electronic Frontier Foundation stated, “Developers don’t need to prove the safety of the vehicles to the government, but first to their board of directors and customers,” (Bailey. Page 24). Viz., with less regulations, preferably little-to-none, customers could be more easily acquired and that capital would help finance further research for autonomous vehicles and their respective safety, simultaneously launching the nation and world into a future of driverless vehicles.
Restipulating the facts, the technology for self-driving vehicles is already here. We just need less government regulations limiting the market of free and voluntary exchange in order to produce the necessary capital to fund the release and testing of autonomous vehicles and their technology. There is not a need for a coercive monopoly, i.e. government, to be the tester and bureaucratic red tape between companies manufacturing autonomous technology that helps everyone and the people that benefit from it or those that just simply want it. Fear cannot be a factor that limits us as a progressive specie. Autonomous vehicles are safer, more efficient, and more cost-effective than human drivers. This autopia is possible only if legislators and the fearful would get out of the road to successful technological progress with autonomous vehicles.
Bailey, Ronald. “Will Politicians Block Our Driverless Future?” Reason July 2016: 18–25. Print.
Markoff, John. “Planes Without Pilots.” New York Times 6 Apr. 2015. Web. 1 August 2016.
Nelson, Senator Bill. Sen. Bill Nelson on ride in self-driving car: “I’m glad I grabbed the wheel.” MRCTV,
15 Mar. 2016. Web. 1 August 2016. http://www.mrctv.org/videos/sen-bill-nelson-ride-self-driving-car-im-glad-i-grabbed-wheel
NHTSA 1. 2014 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview. Mar. 2016. Web. 1 August 2016.
NHTSA 2. Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey.
Feb. 2015. Web. 1 August 2016. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812115.pdf
U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8.