Reviewing "In Our Hands" by Charles Murray

 So, I finally did it. I read "In Our Hands" by Charles Murray, a conservative thinker with the American Enterprise Institute who advocates for UBI in his book. Most of his book is about his proposals for America, which he vaguely refers to "the plan", and while I don't necessarily agree with the guy, the book is interesting to say the least, and I do think his plan is at least viable financially....

So what is "the plan"? Well, long story short, he wants to give everyone a UBI. He advocates for $10,000, and was vague on it keeping up with inflation, seemingly preferring to kick the can down the road. Given this was in 2005, this was a decent amount. I mean, it would roughly equal $15,000 today, which is about right. My own UBI plan is $14,400, and by the time I do my yearly refresh, because we need yearly refreshes with all of this inflation going around, I anticipate a jump to $15,600. So $15k is about right. 

The downside is he wants to remove EVERYTHING else. Social security, medicare, medicaid, and ALL welfare. Basically he's the conservative strawman of UBI the leftists argue about and claim Yang is trying to emulate. But Yang isn't that, and neither am I, and this plan would...quite frankly, be disastrous to many seniors, who make much more on social security than this UBI would offer. But...Murray is a conservative, and his plan is to abolish the welfare state. As he sees it, this is a win. After all, he's pushing the idea that instead of social security people could invest a small part of their grant in the stock market, a weird idea conservatives had pre 2008, but was shown how dumb it was by people losing their life savings in the great recession. He did make a good point of UBI being more generous than the low end of the social security payout range though. With healthcare, he assumed there would be an insurance mandate system in which people used $3000 of their UBI check to pay for insurance. Which seemed ridiculous to me. I considered the idea of reducing my UBI payments by about a third to accomodate single payer but later opposed the idea, believing actually having a poverty line level grant is important, and while healthcare needs to be handled separately, id rather support a cheaper universal public option than compromise my UBI. Murray's plan is the worst of both worlds. Honestly, I don't like the idea of eliminating ALL welfare for a UBI. I considered it in the past and do believe we can fund a grant that way, but I think it would be a worse deal for many on the current system. We can remove some stuff, sure, but at the very least, social security and healthcare should be kept public in some form too. We can modify them around UBI as we please, but full on abolishment, so. 

As for his tax plan for it, it's pretty progressive. He would make it where you dont pay into it until you hit $25,000 a year, and after that you would pay a 20% surtax. This means you would pay back of the original grant at $50,000, and the whole thing by $75,000. Again, keep in mind that to make the numbers work today, add 50% to all of those numbers roughly. That's more progressive than my idea. Although likely more complicated. Still, he insists on this for work incentive purposes. He actually has a lot of weird quirks to incentivize work. He also wants to make the grant apply to 21 year olds and older, not 18 and older, with no additional income for children. He thinks this will give people three years between being an adult and getting the grant to instill work ethic in them and get them incentivized into the system. One good aspect of the book is he seems to have realistic ideas of work ethic, realizing UBI wouldn't get rid of the incentive to get more money, and that it would remove the perverse incentives of the welfare system. 

But then on other stuff, he seems kind of weird, and goes into these bizarre conservative directions talking about how UBI would introduce personal responsibility to jobless men who mooch off of their girlfriends and have tons of kids they can't afford and stuff. Lots of weird stereotypes and obsessions there. And it doesn't make much sense to me. Yes, having an income might mean that whomever you live with expects you to contribute with your UBI...so what? THats how HOUSEHOLDS work. But for some reason he thinks it will encourage more people to go out and get a job rather than mooching or whatever. He also is bold to assume that jobless males can even get girlfriends, I mean, has he ever ran into any male outside of the workforce? Women avoid them like the plague because they have no money. And because they have no money, they dont contribute, so are drains on them, so a lot of them end up "forever alone", if not becoming full on incels. Like, really. Some aspects of this book dont match reality. Still, someone who does generally fit the description of a male who isn't in the workforce (and no im not an "incel" given the obvious implications of that, but I am "forever alone" it seems), I see UBI differently.  Like for me, he sees how UBI would mean that poor people could no longer claim to be poor to freeload, and would be held responsible and forced to work for money, but honestly? I always saw UBI from the perspective of freedom. Like, everyone talks about jobs having dignity, but as someone who isn't employed and thinks work equals wage slavery, for me it really is about the paycheck. Having a reliable money stream gives you access to so much in society. You actually CAN date and pull your own weight in doing so if you do. You CAN contribute to household finances. And you can leave whatever situation doesnt work for you. Murray sees UBI as pressuring people not in the system as into the system, while I see it as giving people the dignity that people claim a job actually provides people, without the job. Work doesnt mean dignity in my worldview, having an income and paying your own way does. And UBI allows people to do that. I see UBI as empowering people, he sees it as imposing responsibility on people. 

On the subject of jobless males and girlfriends and having kids, I really have to ask, if everyone has a UBI...why even have child support in the first place? He seems to want it to once again impose personal responsibility onto them, while I alternatively view it as getting rid of the need for it. In the age of "her body her choice", women CHOOSE to have kids by not getting abortions, with males having no choice in the matter. Not saying men should have control over womens' reproduction decisions, but I really wonder what's the point in even holding men responsible for that which they have no control over. What if a man gets a woman pregnant, doesnt want the kid, and but the woman gives birth to it anyway, should the man really be forced to have child support? Im gonna be honest, child support seems this weird patriarchical hold over from when men were expected to be the providers, and women were expected to stay home and raise kids and have no income of their own. Child support is based in this model. But, the sexual revolution made child support a weird patriarchical holdover that feminists often dont wanna get rid of because many of them dont care about male issues AT ALL and are massive hypocrites when the shoe is on the other foot (yeah, Im going there), and UBI really gets rid of the need to have it at all, as children will be taken care of. Of course my UBI is actually based on progressive principles whereas Murray's is weirdly conservative and insistent on continuing to fight the last generations' weird sexual hangups. It just seems unnecessary.

Murray then pushed for UBI on the basis of encouraging people to get jobs, get married, and be part of the community, once again obsessed with imposing conservative principles on people. On the jobs thing, he did refreshingly mention that vocations or life purposes arent jobs and that UBi would allow people to pursue their purposes outside of the job market, but he still had this weird protestant work ethic thinking about needing a job and needing a purpose. I found this both annoying and refreshing at the same time. He also bashed social democratic states for pushing people into jobs and then having tons of vacation time and how the right to a job made the labor market flexible and hard to fire people. I agree with SOME of this. I don't like the idea of right to a job or forcing people to work who dont wanna work only for them to be inefficient but you cant fire them because hey they need a paycheck right? just give them the money and let them screw off. Seriously. I do like generous vacation time though, he seemed to hate it because your job should be your purpose and you should wanna be there or something. Again, this weird mix of my ideals and the freedom involved with his weird conservative work fetish came off as weird and offputting. 

Marriage he seemed to think that it would encourage people to get married, going into weird scenarios that may or may not hold true. I guess it depends somewhat on whether HIS weird conservative ideals are held in society. I mean, reagan era conservatives have this weird obsession with marriage and the nuclear family and all. And how UBI would allow people to get married more, especially if marriage is valued. But heres the thing, it only applies that way...if people want to. Like...I will admit my generation has a problem with settling down. And it's not that many of us dont want to settle down, it's that we cant afford to settle down. So a lot of people are getting married much later, often well into their 30s, and not having kids until then. It's the economy stupid. I mean, people cant afford to live, with insane housing, medical, and student loan costs, but then working full time pays $12 an hour. And both parties need to do it to survive, and blah blah blah. There are barriers stopping people from getting married and having kids. ANd I would support removing them if thats what they want. But if it isnt what they want, well i dont wanna MAKE them. Again, this dude has this weird fetish with what other people do with their bodies and how other people live. Like many religious conservatives of this era. It's really weird. Like...as a millennial who is fairly liberal-tarian on social issues....I dont care who you screw. I dont care if you get married. I dont care if you dont get married. I dont care if you raise kids alone. I dont care if you raise kids as a family. I dont care if the woman works or not. I dont care if the man does or doesnt either. These are all personal choices, and they're all yours to make, individually, with no judgment from me about how you live your life. And I even wanna give you money so you can pursue whatever dreams you have. That's why I support UBI. It goes with that ideology. Its the perfect way to provide for people, while preserving their independence. And while this guy comes off as a weird closest authoritarian with some outward libertarian leanings, I just want people to live as they want.

Finally, Murray sees this as returning the role of "community" back to the people. He believes that welfare has usurped and replaced the role of charity organizations, and that this is bad. He seems to romanticize a version of America where people do charity to help the poor, and sees nothing with these organizations policing poor peoples' behavior to force them to fit his idea of personal responsibility. While I don't like the idea of the government telling people what to do with welfare, for me, UBI is intended to protect people from private interference from "the community" and private organizations, now allow people to impose their will. Murray's conservatism baffles me, and it's weird to see the dichotomy of Reagan era conservatism as plain as day. While they go on and on about the tyranny of government, they seem perfectly fine with imposing conformity on people through informal means like jobs, the labor market, households, and community organizations. While people should be free to abide by any conservative rules they themselves like, I oppose these groups from imposing their beliefs on individuals and see such attempts as unlibertarian and against my ideology. To be fair, I do think that a UBI would have a more libertarian result than a conservative one, but I am just irked by this guy's arguments. 

Ultimately, Murray concludes that while his ideas might not be popular now, support for them will become inevitable. This is mostly based on the fact that as the economy grows, and more and more stuff abounds, we will begin to realize that people are still poor for systemic reasons and that current approaches don't work. This is....surprisingly true. I will say I do think as the economy expands and cost of living goes up, the feasibility of UBI as a percentage of GDP in the economy remains steady, but I do think the 2008 recession really got me, at least, thinking about these issues in a different way than most, where I'm susceptible to his ideas. And given this guy's conservatism, he thinks that the ballooning costs of the current welfare programs will expand to apocalyptic levels in the future, forcing a change. While the current cost of programs like medicare and social security exceeds even his wildest dreams, I think the economy has kept up with being able to afford them at reasonable rates, so I don't see this as as big of a problem as he imagines. Still, given the expanse of the current welfare state, he could easily fund the vast majority of a projected $3.6 trillion UBI (rough cost of all adults in US) just from cutting current programs alone. I mean, social security is $1.1 trillion, healthcare is $1.6 trillion, and then looking at welfare, unemployment, etc., you could probably just abolish the entire welfare state and be able to fund a UBI just from that. Not that I would support doing that, but he does make an argument if you wanted to.

As for the plan itself, how does it stack up via my UBI metrics?

Is it really a UBI? - Eh, yes, but it does have certain limitations to eligibility, and does not include children or even adults under 21. Still, it is otherwise a bona fide UBI in terms of its distribution mechanisms. 16/20

The Amount- On paper hits the poverty line and is roughly as generous as my UBI. But given he expects people to pay for their own medical insurance and excludes certain groups, it doesnt go anywhere near far enough and is again, a partial UBI. 10/20

Is it progressive?- On paper, yes, the actual tax plan seems even more progressive than mine given the tax structure to pay it back. BUT, and this is the but, the loss of the welfare state in general including social security and healthcare makes it go into negative territory for many people, leaving them worse off than the status quo. As such, A few points for effort but otherwise I'm nuking his rating into the ground. 5/20

Do the numbers work? Yes, he does a good job funding it and I definitely see it as doable given he slashes trillions from the existing welfare state and then has a fairly progressive tax scheme. 20/20

Does it give people the ability to say no?- Not really. The amount is too small given the obligations and there are too many holes. The guy seems to want it this way, apparently. He seems to believe it will coerce people into the system through obligations and responsibilities and the fact that it isn't really enough to be free of the coercive elements that this involves. Still, it could, in theory, give people a little freedom. 8/20

Overall- 59/100 (F)

It's a conservative UBI plan. While it is a true UBI plan in form, in the details it seems more intent of being a conservative wet dream of claiming to give people freedom, while forcing tons of responsibilities on them through the amount being too low to secure any semblance of real freedom. The costs to the existing welfare state make its benefits questionable, and this is literally the kind of UBI plan that the left freaks out about when they claim UBI is a right wing trap. This plan literally IS a right wing trap, and let me call it out as it is.

As such, due to its low rating, I cannot rubber stamp and support this plan. It's an interesting idea, but again, too much conservatism in the implementation and details. 

And that's how I feel about this book too. It just goes to show that while I support UBI, I won't support a fully right wing implementation of the idea. For this to get my seal of approval, the amount needs to be higher, OR, you can have the amount but have healthcare and some retirement stipend on top of it. Also, loosen eligiblity to make it a right of citizenship for everyone 18 and older, with smaller grants for children.

Also, stop this weird conservative fixation on how people live their lives. The right likes to act libertarian like they're getting government out of peoples' lives, but they seem to be really insistent on forcing people to go along with what their idea of what life should be. I know that the liberal welfare state has flaws and perverse incentives. I get it. And UBI fixes these. But it fixes these by removing barriers stopping people from living as they want. it shouldnt be intentionally handicapped in order to promote the right's vision of everyone getting a job and getting married and personal responsibility and blah blah blah.  

I mean one thing I will say though, I think Murray is wrong about a lot of his right wing ideas about how he thinks people will act. I mean, on work incentive he actually cited the 1970s NIT studies, an astute move, but other than that it's like he's pulling these ideas for how people will act out of you know where. Oh well, if this convinces any conservatives to be pro UBI, perhaps it's a good thing, as he does work with their value system in ways that I cannot. But yeah, a lot of his ideas dont seem supported by social science and seem bizarrely conservative. Of course, part of it depends on implementation as well. As I said his plan is somewhat handicapped to promote conservative behavior and assumes conservatives win last generation's culture war (and I assure you, they did not). 

All in all though, this book is okay. It's an interesting UBI proposal from a conservative republican, and kind of refreshing to see these kinds of people support UBI...but...plans like this are also why UBI has such a bad name and is rejected by many leftists. The idea of abolishing all social programs that exist just to give people a barely above poverty level stipend might have some winners, but it also has a lot of losers. A left wing implementation of UBI would take a scalpel to the safety net, cutting away the parts that are no longer needed while keeping much of it in place. This guy just takes a hacksaw to the whole thing and doesn't seem to care about the consequences. After all, according to him, we can just invest our grants in the stock market and be rich by the time we retire or something. An extremely unrealistic proposition given the cost of living. While better than the whole lot of nothing most conservatives support with welfare in general, his ideas have flaws and should be opposed by anyone remotely left wing and who actually cares about the livability of UBI.