So, I'm reading into Philippe van Parijs' "real freedom", and I have to be honest, I'm not super into this theory vs Widerquist's indepentarianism. It's a very vague theory. Whereas Karl Widerquist seems to have a very pointed goal, a basic income of at least the poverty level to give people access to resources needed to survive so they are not subjected to the labor force, Van Parijs' goals seem a bit more...vague. He supports the "highest sustainable" basic income to grant people the most possible freedom. Okay, cool, I can see an argument for that. I tend to believe something similar in terms of if we cannot fully implement Widerquist's goal. Implement a partial UBI so at least we can move in that direction. And as we enter "post scarcity" and work becomes less essential, the UBI should be higher. But generally, I aim for a poverty line level UBI as a rule roughly to secure independence in the form of a minimalistic lifestyle, with work incentives for more. It's what can be realistically accomplished at this time, and it would work seamlessly with the existing market economic system powered by wage labor.
But Van Parijs really goes in a weird direction with the whole idea of UBI being set at the maximum sustainable level to give people the most freedom, and this comes in the form of "undominated diversity". Van Parijs asks questions about whether everyone deserves the same UBI. Should someone who is less talented entitled to more money? Is someone who prefers expensiive tastes get more money? How are goods and services to be distributed in a way that's fair to everyone, to ensure everyone gets what they deserve? He even goes so far to undermine the concept of a sustainable UBI for all if needed to pursue these wierd theories of justice. That said, I want to focus on how I think UBI should work, and why I think most people should get the same amount.
Look, UBI is inevitably going to be implemented in a market economy along side an already existing wage labor system with lots of inequalities. And the goal to me is to ensure everyone is entitled to a basic standard of living, but nothing more. You're kind of forced to make your own decisions from there. If everyone demands the same piece of land by the beach, well, that's a supply and demand problem isnt it? There's no unfairness there in the highest bidder getting it. That's how capitalism works. If there's a lack of supply and high demand, prices go up. People who live purely on UBI are not going to be living on the best beaches, or the most luxurious city areas. They're going to be making do in low cost of living areas that are relatively undesireable. Some might make out better by living with others, or with wage earners, but UBI alone, at least insofar as a modern economy goes, is not going to guarantee a luxurious life. It's the minimum floor. If you want to live on the beach front property everyone else wants, get job and earn it. We can discuss more of these detailed ideas about fairness in a post scarcity economy if everyone earns the same amount of money and there is no inequality at all, but honestly, I am obviously not thinking that far ahead.
I'm not saying this to be blunt, jobist, or conservative. It's just that we have a system to figure out these issues already, and it's called the market. As demand goes up, price goes up. People on basic income alone will not get first dibs on prime location spots and the like. Relatively affluent people with higher purchasing power will. Basic income is intended to give people money for a basic existence, but until post scarcity or the case of mass automation causing mass unemployment, it's not going to be the default way of life. Most people will still work, inequality will still exist, and peoples' purchasing power will not be equal. I want everyone on UBI to live a dignified life. But that dignity does not necessarily entail owning beach front property in Malibu. Everyone gets the same amount of money. You do with it what you will. As the economy becomes more productive, and more money is given to people, that amount goes up. But people will be making different choices with the same limited resources. That's just economics. Supply and demand. I'm not interested in giving everyone a different UBI amount based on their tastes, preferences, and capabilities. People are to pursue their own happiness with the same opportunities. That, to me, is what freedom is.
Now, to be fair, there are two groups of people who arguably are entitled to more money. The elderly and the disabled. These people cannot work for more money, and as such, we could argue that they should get more than just the UBI. However, we have sytems for this in the social security system, and my UBI does not abolish social security. I do believe such programs will need to be reformmed long term if they exist alongside a UBI, but ultimately, they should exist in some form, to ensure the truly disabled and the elderly can get a form of income above the UBI to ensure not just a bare minimum subsistence level of living, but a higher standard of living akin to the "living wage" discussed. Basic income, as it stands, amounts to $6.75 an hour for one person if they worked full time. Slightly below minimum wage. But, it scales in households. A family of four might end up earning closer to $18 an hour for example. Well, someone on UBI and social security might instead have the earning power of $12-15 an hour individually, roughly double what the UBI offers by itself. That's fine and fair. THese people can't work, and being retired or disabled, should be given a higher standard of living to compensate for that. After all the existing safety nets for these people are more generous than UBI itself and it would be unjust to strip them away.
But other than that, I don't believe we should be in the business of ensuring everyone gets differing amounts of money through misguided utopian theories of justice that cannot work. We just can't make a perfect life for everyone. Not everyone is going to always live their perfect ideal life on basic income alone. But, if we can guarantee people have access to the basics without being forced to work, well, that's a huge step in my opinion. That said, I stand firm on the idea that everyone gets the same amount, and how they spend it is up to them. Let supply and demand take it from there. If we run into problems with markets in certain industries, such as healthcare, well, we can address those separately, but I'm not particularly interested in catering to everyone's individual tastes and carving out specific levels of UBI based on their preferences, talents, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment