Michael Munger, PhD Economist of Duke, was on EconTalk to propose a transition toward a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG). Basically, the government provides a minimum income to all citizens. He argues in favor for two reasons. First, some people - through no fault of their own - will find themselves displaced. For example, if self-driving cars take over, lots of truck drives and cabbies will find themselves without jobs. Second, we already have a very inefficient BIG program that is distributed through multiple programs (e.g. CHIP, TANF, SNAP, WIC, Public Housing, etc.) which could be streamlined into a BIG. I am unclear on whether Social Security and Medicare are likewise to be streamlined; I would think so. Of course, many of the programs that would be abolished are means tested while the BIG would be universal. Munger proposed a $15,000 a year BIG which would be conferred along the lines of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
This idea has been around for a while but this is the most in depth discussion I have encountered so far. Generally, it looks like a bad idea. A guaranteed income will be a disincentive to work. People on the dole tend to have lower self-esteem and little purpose in their lives. However, Munger thinks jobs might become scarce with the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), thus his example of self-driving cars. It is likely that many would work 'off the books' to get extra income while still benefiting from the full BIG. That currently happens, so maybe that isn't really a mark against it. It reminds me of the Roman Bread and Circuses, where Rome provided food and entertainment to the masses. As Rome's affluence grew, the civic-mindedness of the people at the empire's core rotted away. The Emperors kept them fat and happy, which also made them useless.
However, the AI argument does sound convincing. Of course, we have had such waves of creative destruction before. Think of the thousands of telephone operators who lost there jobs thanks to technology. No mass unemployment. What of the farmers who were replaced by tractors? What of the 'computers' like those in Hidden Figures who were replaced by calculators and computers? There has long been the belief that technology will eventually make humans obsolete but it has repeatedly not come to pass. Is AI the silver bullet that will really dramatically reduce the need for human labor? If so, the BIG may become a necessity.
Here is the transcript and there is a link to the podcast available too.
This idea has been around for a while but this is the most in depth discussion I have encountered so far. Generally, it looks like a bad idea. A guaranteed income will be a disincentive to work. People on the dole tend to have lower self-esteem and little purpose in their lives. However, Munger thinks jobs might become scarce with the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), thus his example of self-driving cars. It is likely that many would work 'off the books' to get extra income while still benefiting from the full BIG. That currently happens, so maybe that isn't really a mark against it. It reminds me of the Roman Bread and Circuses, where Rome provided food and entertainment to the masses. As Rome's affluence grew, the civic-mindedness of the people at the empire's core rotted away. The Emperors kept them fat and happy, which also made them useless.
However, the AI argument does sound convincing. Of course, we have had such waves of creative destruction before. Think of the thousands of telephone operators who lost there jobs thanks to technology. No mass unemployment. What of the farmers who were replaced by tractors? What of the 'computers' like those in Hidden Figures who were replaced by calculators and computers? There has long been the belief that technology will eventually make humans obsolete but it has repeatedly not come to pass. Is AI the silver bullet that will really dramatically reduce the need for human labor? If so, the BIG may become a necessity.
Here is the transcript and there is a link to the podcast available too.
No comments:
Post a Comment