Andrew Yang for the Debates

My mind is not made up about universal basic income (UBI), but it seems to warrant serious consideration.

The most compelling argument in favor is the apparent increasing likelihood that machines will be able to most human jobs better and cheaper than most humans. There are good arguments that increased automation won't in fact eliminate jobs, but I think these arguments are short sighted, lacking the vision of, say, maybe my favorite visionary Yuval Noah Harari. For me, it's a "not if but when" argument. Sure, despite recent automation, the unemployment rate is low. But will this trend continue when Tesla displaces the trucking industry overnight? When, by some estimates, half of all jobs are eliminated within 10 years? It seems hard to be confident that the rate of automation will continue to be outstripped by the creation of new jobs and new employment sectors.

For any prediction work, we should consider not only the likelihood that something will come to pass, but what are consequences if it does. In this case, it's hard to see how massive and rapid unemployment would be anything but a national disaster, catastrophe, even emergency. Therefore, large negative consequences justify thinking hard about, or even planning for, the possibility.

Enter Andrew Yang. He's running for the democratic nomination on a single issue ticket, and he's making some waves, having already qualified for the debates. An appearance is not a lock, as only the top 20 candidates will be given a place, but it looks promising that a sizable chunk of the electorate will hear the argument.

For those who, like me, lament the sad state of political discourse, I think giving Andrew Yang $20 might be worth far more a bunch of lamenting.

My reservations about the idea come from my strong sense that it's really bad to have nothing important to do, and for most people in human history, that's a job. I don't subscribe to Freudian reasoning, but he was an astute observer of human nature, and the need for love and work was the bedrock of his psychology. We know that going on disability is one of the worst things that can happen to people, their health, their families, their communities, and surprisingly, their financial prospects.

Nonetheless, I currently come out in favor of the program, largely because unemployment would require social assistance, and direct payments seem to be the most efficient and supportive of human freedom.

But, it's a mixed bag. Looks like we should debate it.


More on the case in favor:

- Here's Andrew Yang's UBI kool-aid.
- If you like podcasts, this one is a pretty balanced and technical look at the Basic Income Guarantee.
- UBI even has supporters on the right, as detailed in this Washington Post article about conservative thinker Charles Murray.
- Another conservative stance.

And on the case against:
- Here's a quick take.
- Finland cancelled their pilot program.
- Here's another opinion-based position.

It's interesting that it's hard to find a good evidence based perspective on this, I'm happy to be enlightened if anyone knows of good sources.