Basic Income

Tyler Cowen on basic income ("guaranteed income", as he calls it):

Must a guaranteed income truly be unconditional?  Might there be circumstances when we would want to pay some individuals more than others?  Many critics for instance worry that a guaranteed income would excessively reduce the incentive to work.  

So it might be proposed that the payment be somewhat higher if low income individuals go get a job.  That also will make the system more financially sustainable.  But wait — that’s the Earned Income Tax Credit, albeit with modifications.

Might we also wish to pay more to some individuals with disabilities, perhaps say to help them afford expensive wheelchairs?  Maybe so.  But wait — that’s called disability insurance (modified, again) and it is run through the Social Security Administration.

As long as we are moving toward more cash transfers, why don’t we substitute cash transfers for some or all of Medicare and Medicaid health insurance coverage benefits, especially for lower-value ailments?  But then we are paying more cash to the sick individuals.  That doesn’t have to be a mistake, but it does mean that an initially simple, “dogmatic” payment scheme now has multiplied into a rather complex form of social welfare assistance, contingent on just about every relevant factor one might care to cite.

You can see the issue.  Whether on grounds of justice, practicality, or just public choice considerations (“you can keep your current welfare payments if you like them”), we should not expect everyone to be paid the same under a guaranteed annual income.  And with enough tweaks, this version of the guaranteed income suddenly starts resembling…the welfare state, albeit the welfare state plus.  Unemployment insurance benefits wouldn’t end.  More people could get on disability, and without those pesky judges asking so many questions.

He's right, as far as this goes.  The Basic Income idea is a bit like the Fair Tax idea:  both try to smuggle in reforms that would actually solve lots of problems, but only if we can assume that the "clean" proposal is implemented.  Fair Tax-ers assume that the Congress really, really will accept getting rid of the Income Tax.  (Implausible).  Basic Incomers assume that the Congress really, really will accept losing all discretion over who gets extra cash and benefits.  (Very Implausible).

But there are other advantages of consolidation and transparency.  If the system were equal, and unconditional, it would get rid of a lot of incentive problems.  Sure, Congress might not pass that, probably wouldn't.  That's a problem, but it's also a problem with the current system.  Any large-scale reform would at least break up the existing coalitional structure.  That's not bad.

guaranteed income vs. open borders

I thought I'd muscle in on Mungo's turf and post about a guaranteed income for all Americans.

In principle, I'm in favor. Shall we say $12,000 / year  for every American 18 and over?

But as always, the devil is in the details.

(1) Is this going to add to our current mish-mash of "safety net" programs or replace it?

Obviously, I'd like to see it replace the current set of arrangements. I would think many libertarians would love this. Reduce paternalism, shrink the size of the state, what's not to like? If we used it to replace the current system, it wouldn't even be all that expensive. If we also phased out social security, we could up the annual guaranteed number to maybe $16,000 or so?

(2) Can a guaranteed income be compatible with significantly increased immigration?

In other words, if we allow more immigration must we restrict the guaranteed income program only to citizens for fear that masses of people would show up just to collect the 12 large and sit on their butts?

But I think there is a fundamental unfairness of collecting taxes from people to pay for a "universal" program that excludes them.

And, even if we did limit it to citizens, would we still fear that masses of people would show up, wait to become citizens, and then collect the 12 dimes and sit on their butts?

We could only allow increased immigration for higher skilled immigrants for whom $12,000 would not be a magnet, but that really reduces the incredible poverty-fighting power of allowing increased numbers of low-skilled immigrants.

If a guaranteed income program was an addition to existing safety net programs and required choking off immigration, I am not sure it would be worthwhile, no matter how attractive it is to me in the abstract.

Guaranteed Income: Mungowitz is Called "Chopped Liver"

wow, Angus, that stings.

Your list of people who favor a guaranteed income (also called "basic income" or "negative income tax") includes "Herbert Simon, Freddy Hayek, Bob Solow AND Milton Friedman."

I would add at least two others:

Charles Murray.

Michael Munger.

I didn't make Angus' list, though. Chopped liver, am I.

The paper might interest readers. I go so far as to argue that basic income is a LIBERTARIAN solution, because it would be (a) cheaper and (b) more consistent with individual autonomy and freedom than the current dog-vomit-after-eating-a-crayon-box mish-mash of programs, transfers, and subsidies. The core of my argument is that such a "guaranteed income" program is NOT consistent with the "destination libertarians" who want zero government. But it is quite consistent with the "directional libertarians" who will accept Pareto improvements, provided those moves ALSO improve liberty.

Happy to send a PDF to anyone who wants to read more.... email me at munger AT duke DOT edu, and I'll be happy to send it out. You might be able to get to the original through other library connections, but I don't think BIS is on JSTOR.

Guaranteed Income Scheme By Morgan Warstler

Each of us can do our part to provide guaranteed income to the less fortunate.

Auction the unemployed.

Today I am not voting.

Of course I am a devotee of Gordon Tullock and have fully taken on the insight that in any conceivable election my vote is extremely unlikely to make a difference, but let's grab this elephant by the other end here this morning.

People, I am in favor of legalizing drugs, same sex marriage, LBGT rights, and a vastly smaller military. I am also in favor of increased immigration, increased trade, and drastically less regulation on economic activity. I favor increased funding for research into alternative energy, but I do not favor specific investments in specific companies. I favor abolishing the TSA, the BATF, and the Department of Agriculture. I am against the militarization of local police forces. I am ashamed of the size and racial makeup of our prison system. I despise constant government led erosion of our privacy. I would like to replace our weird, patchy safety net with a guaranteed basic income. I favor a single payer approach to providing universal health care. I would love to see substantial, revenue neutral, carbon tax.

Oh, and did I mention I live in Oklahoma?

Exactly who am I supposed to vote for?

More on manufacturing (don't forget the "e")

People, I give you Robert Reich vs. Laura Tyson.

First, here's Tyson arguing that manufacturing jobs should be prioritized:

"...on average manufacturing jobs are high-productivity, high value-added jobs with good pay and benefits. Even though the premium on manufacturing wages has been declining over time, it remains significant. Between 2005 and 2010, average weekly earnings in manufacturing were about 21 percent higher than average weekly private non-agricultural earnings. In 2009, the average manufacturing worker earned $74,447 in annual pay and benefits compared with $63,122 for the average non-manufacturing worker." 

 As I've pointed out pointedly in the past, this is simply logically incorrect. You cannot use averages to represent what is happening on the margin. If the premium is falling, that clearly means that the marginal wage for new jobs is significantly lower than the average pay for all existing jobs. The correct comparison is between wages for new jobs across sectors (marginal analysis), NOT average wages for all jobs across sectors (infra-marginal garbage).

This point is magnificently made by Reich:

Even if we didn’t have to compete with lower-wage workers overseas, we’d still have fewer factory jobs because the old assembly line has been replaced by numerically-controlled machine tools and robotics. Manufacturing is going high-tech. Bringing back American manufacturing isn’t the real challenge, anyway. It’s creating good jobs for the majority of Americans who lack four-year college degrees. Manufacturing used to supply lots of these kind of jobs, but that was only because factory workers were represented by unions powerful enough to get high wages. That’s no longer the case. Even the once-mighty United Auto Workers has been forced to accept pay packages for new hires at the Big Three that provide half what new hires got a decade ago. At $14 an hour, new auto workers earn about the same as most of America’s service-sector workers. 

 Bravo, Roberto!

 Marginal wages in manufacturing are much lower than average wages, and many new jobs are ones that require a high degree of skills/education.

 Reich's solution to create jobs and raise wages for non-college Americans is to re-empower unions! This would certainly raise wages, but would in all likelihood not be a big boon for increasing the number of jobs.

 I think this issue of what to do about living standards of "unskilled" workers in America is going to continue to worsen and the only feasible long run solution is going to be a type of guaranteed basic income policy.

Hey if Herbert Simon, Freddy Hayek, Bob Solow AND Milton Friedman all agree on it, it must be worth considering, right?