EXCERPT FROM HOTAIR.COM
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/05/sanity-in-switzerland-as-basic-income-proposal-fails/One thing the BIG (Basic Income Guarantee) supporters did promise is the free market would stay intact. But their explanation leaves a LOT to be desired. Via BasicIncome2016.org:
An entrepreneur can now be sure that people will come to her because they actually want to work with her. Motivation will become a prerequisite for a job application. Even the employee is now more free in his position of negotiation. He can say yes to work that interests him and in which he can be of optimal use. Personal development through our work, having success and taking responsibility will become key attributes of a job search. The applicant can also say no to unappealing job offers more easily. The threat of taking away a person’s livelihood can no longer be used as a means to force employees to work under bad conditions.
The transfer of an unconditional basic income reduces the cost of labor. It acts as a subsidy to the existing wages. Being secured up to the level of the unconditional basic income, each person can now do her work without hesitation.
This is pretty much hogwash, even though there are plenty of people working in job situations they don’t want to be in. But what the BIG supporters fail to point out is everyone DOES have a choice. If someone is unhappy in the job they’re in, they can start looking for other places of employment or start their own business. If there’s no openings in the same industry, then people can decide whether they want to completely switch industries or go back to school to learn new skills. It absolutely could lead to student debt, long workdays, and less free time, but if someone decides to make that choice, it’s their own choice.
A Basic Income Guarantee is actually something which scholars in the U.S. have studied from time to time. CATO Institute actually looked into what a BIG might look like in 2014 when Matt Zwolinski suggested it wasn’t necessarily a bad idea because it could reduce reduce bureaucracy and be a replacement for the current welfare state. Zwolinski called it “pragmatic” because of how the situation currently is.
Maybe the state shouldn’t be in the business of giving out welfare at all. Maybe it shouldn’t be running schools, or highways either. But, as Jacob Levy notes, since it does do these things, libertarians have good reason to demand that it does so in a way that is as “more rather than less compatible with Hayek’s rule of law, with freedom from supervision and surveillance by the bureaucracy, with the ability to get on with living their lives rather than having to waste them proving their innocence.”
The problem with Zwolinski’s thinking, and those of the Swiss BIG, is its heavy reliance on the state and the need to provide “fulfillment now.” It’s tough to be able to push for policies which will take years to accomplish (lowered or no taxes, fewer government laws and regulations, no welfare, repealing gun laws, etc). But it’s still an important fight, especially as the leviathan of government grows and grows on a daily basis. There’s no reason for a government to be the “All-Father” of our lives and decide who gets what and when and I’ve written before how there’s evidence suggesting government intervention actually raises costs. The Swiss realized this in their decision to reject the BIG. Hopefully they’ll be the only nation to have to realize this and the notion of a BIG will stay in philosophical circles and not ballot booths. Although, given how things go, I wouldn’t be surprised to see other countries start considering a BIG in the next ten to 20 years.
