Gaining Ground

This blog post is the US prize-winning essay, by Joshua Z. Miller, in the North American Basic Income Guarantee High School Essay Contest for 2021. Joshua is a high school junior and an intern at the UBI Center. The cash prize was presented at the opening plenary session of the 2021 North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress, along with the prize for the best entry from Canada, by Miranda Reid, on the role of UBI in the Fight Against Climate Change, which is posted on the Basic Income Canada Network website.

Joshua Z. Miller 

May 27th, 2021 

The ultimate economic question of our time, and indeed in all other times, is the question of how may we best raise standards of living given our available resources. This was the question raised by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan, no matter how their answers differed. In general, the method has been a growth. History has proven (Clark 2007) that it is the accumulation of capital (Mankiw, Romer, and Weil 1992), innovation of beneficial ideas (Lucas 1988), and the forging of inclusive institutions (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012) that has uplifted most of the world from poverty (Roser and Ortiz-Ospina 2013). As a rule, the relation between output growth and poverty reduction has been strong for the United States as well as most other developed nations. Yet, in recent years, real output growth has slowed, and poverty reduction has stagnated (Fox 2020). Instead, inequality has increased (Piketty 2014) as growth is carried on the cutting edge. It is clear we have reached a new paradigm, one where growth may not be the answer to poverty reduction. 

If growth may not carry poverty reduction forward for the United States, what may? I believe the answer lies in a universal basic income. The reasoning is simple: if the gains from growth are close to exhausted for most people, if cutting edge growth leads to inequality, and if the best way to eliminate poverty is to raise income, then a basic income is the best way to reduce poverty in the United States. 

America is no longer the open frontier it once was. No longer are there the boundless gains and an exploding population that made the American Dream (Cowen 2011). Instead, we see a productivity slowdown, a real wage stagnation, and a land suffering years of hysteresis. Labor income share is down, as capital holds the gains from modern economic growth (Piketty 2014). This means that easy opportunities to escape poverty are scarce, whilst income inequality skyrockets. The solution to this, however, must not be regression to lower growth, but a reimagining of the way we address wealth and poverty in America. Populistic policies may preserve jobs and redistribute wealth in the short term, but they would crush long-term growth. Attempts to limit trade and immigration, as favored by the right, or reduce corporate investment and business profit, as on the left, would destroy the innovation that keeps America thriving while throwing back the poor in the long term (Strain 2020). Protectionism and degrowth, though attractive on aesthetical grounds, cannot form the basis for the way we address our distributional issues. 

Basic income policies, on the other hand, can reduce both poverty and inequality without cutting growth (Smith 2021). A deep study of cash transfers in Kenya (Egger et al. 2019) found a sizeable increase in personal incomes resulting from the programs, with a further corresponding increase in business profits. Multiple other studies have found this poverty reduction effect from basic incomes in other countries. This holds in the United States (Widerquist 2017; Hartley and Garfinkel 2020; Golden 2020). Even at moderate levels of spending, a basic income cuts poverty dramatically. This result is confirmed time and time again whenever the government does cash transfers. In fact, the most recent large reduction in poverty in the USA came from income transfers (Ghenis 2021). What is essentially happening is the emulsion of the cream of society, the excess income of the upper class, throughout all its citizens to create more delicious milk. 

Many more-utopian universal basic income advocates hope that universal basic income will lead to a post-work future. I am no such believer. In fact, I embrace the notion that universal basic income has little employment effect. Multiple studies into the effects of a universal basic income in America suggest there is little labor loss (Hoynes and Rothstein 2019; Jones and Marinescu 2018). This means that we can have both the fruits of labor and the fruits of transfer; our pie will be larger and last for years to come. 

This also entails a further benefit of universal basic income: it would repair our welfare system. There’s a reason why Milton Friedman proposed a guaranteed income as a policy: it would remove structural incentives to unemployment and allow greater personal freedom for the recipient while still alleviating poverty (Friedman 1962, 191-194). My case here is fundamentally liberal (in the classical sense): a universal basic income will provide the means to all citizens to more fully enjoy a free existence whilst still preserving the emergent order that has resulted in previous growth. It is a case Friedrich Hayek established (Hayek 1979, 54; Zwolinski 2019): to provide the basic poverty alleviation that suits a free and prosperous society. To tie back, the minimum income would be the complement, not the antithesis, to the modern economic system. 

Universal basic income isn’t utopian, it’s practical. It’s built for a world where humans respond to incentives, taxes are distortionary, and labor productivity isn’t exponential. It’s built for a war on poverty, not work (Mieszkowski, Pechman, and Tobin 1967). It’s a plan by economists, not dreamers (Mankiw 2019). America should have a basic income, not because basic income will unmake society, but because it will greater accomplish the goals we set out as a society. It is even a goal deeply connected to the ideals of the Founding Fathers (Paine 1797). It is not “cultural backsliding”, as Oren Cass would claim. It is not an attempt to create a post-work America. It is a plan to create a post-poverty America. 

If we are really committed to eradicating policy here and now and forever to come, we must take seriously the idea that direct gains from growth won’t cut it. We must appreciate that cash transfers are the best way for our society to at once preserve the prosperity of innovation and bring prosperity to the poor. We must be clear about what universal basic income can and cannot accomplish, and the economic realities of our time, and yet still wholeheartedly tout it as a serious solution to poverty and inequality in America. To echo William Lloyd Garrison: be in earnest, do not equivocate, do not excuse, do not retreat a single inch, and be heard! 

References 

Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. 2012. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. 1st. Currency. 

Clark, Gregory. 2007. “The Sixteen-Page Economic History of the World.” In A Farewell to Alms, 1–16. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400827817-003. 

Cowen, Tyler. 2011. The Great Stagnation. 1st. Dutton Adult. 

Egger, Dennis, Johannes Haushofer, Edward Miguel, Paul Niehaus, and Michael W Walker. 2019. General Equilibrium Effects of Cash Transfers: Experimental Evidence from Kenya. Working Paper, Working Paper Series 26600. National Bureau of Economic Research, December. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26600. 

Fox, Liana. 2020. The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2019. Current Population Reports, P60 272. U.S. Census Bureau, September. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/ Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-272.pdf. 

Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Fortieth Anniversary Edition. The Uni versity of Chicago Press. 

Ghenis, Max. 2021. “The American Rescue Plan was a Step Toward Universal Basic Income.” Research assisted by Joshua Miller, The Hill (May 7, 2021). Accessed May 27, 2021. https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/552333- the-american- rescue- plan-was-a- step toward-universal-basic-income?rl=1. 

Golden, Nate. 2020. “How Much UBI Spending Should Go to Children?,” January. Accessed May 27, 2021. https://www.ubicenter.org/child-ubi-share. 

Hartley, Robert Paul, and Irwin Garfinkel. 2020. Income Guarantee Benefits and Financing: Poverty and Distributional Impacts. Poverty and Social Policy Brief, vol. 4 no. 1. Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University, February. https://static1.square space.com/static/5743308460b5e922a25a6dc7/t/5e45d43ea05f243d8fb42551/15816346 33133/Income-Guarantee-Poverty-Impact-CPSP-2020.pdf. 

Hayek, F. A. 1979. Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 3: The Political Order of a Free People. The University of Chicago Press. 

Hoynes, Hilary, and Jesse Rothstein. 2019. “Universal Basic Income in the United States and Advanced Countries.” Annual Review of Economics 11 (1): 929–958. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030237. Reprint: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev economics-080218-030237. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030237. 

Jones, Damon, and Ioana Elena Marinescu. 2018. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3118343. Social Science Research Network, February. Accessed May 27, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/ abstract=3118343. 

Lucas, Robert E. 1988. “On the Mechanics of Economic Development.” Journal of Monetary Economics 22 (1): 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7. 

Mankiw, N. Gregory. 2019. “How to Increase Taxes on the Rich (If You Must).” In Combating Inequality, edited by Olivier Blanchard and Dani Rodrik. October 8, 2019. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mankiw/files/how to increase taxes on the rich amended feb2020.pdf. 

Mankiw, N. Gregory, David Romer, and David N. Weil. 1992. “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107, no. 2 (May): 407–437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118477. 

Mieszkowski, Peter M, Joseph A. Pechman, and James Tobin. 1967. “Is a Negative Income Tax Practical?” The Yale Law Journal 77, no. 1 (November). https://digitalcommons. law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5878&context=ylj. 

Paine, Thomas. 1797. Agrarian Justice. https://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html. 

Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. 1st. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Harvard University Press. 

Roser, Max, and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina. 2013. “Global Extreme Poverty.” Our World in Data, https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty. 

Smith, Noah. 2021. “Cash Is Turning Out to Be the Most Effective Welfare.” Bloomberg Opinion, March 9, 2021. https: / / www . bloomberg . com / opinion / articles / 2021 – 03 – 09/covid-relief-cash-may-be-the-welfare-of-the-future. 

Strain, Michael R. 2020. The American Dream Is Not Dead (But Populism Could Kill It). 1st. Templeton Press. 

Widerquist, Karl. 2017. “The Cost of Basic Income: Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations.” Basic Income Studies, http://works.bepress.com/widerquist/75/. 

Zwolinski, Matt. 2019. “A Hayekian Case for Free Markets and a Basic Income.” In The Future of Work, Technology, and Basic Income, edited by Michael Cholbi and Michael Weber. June 14, 2019. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=3396791.