Opinion of Universal Basic Income

[ag]

Alas, while it would solve some of the worst poverty cases, it would also exacerbate long-term poverty. It would, pretty much, guarantee an existence of a stable underclass, without any education and any experience of employmenet in generations - or any chance to get out of this. While it would go a long way to calm down the uneasy consciousness of the middle class, it would, actually, hurt those below it. So, though well-intentioned, it is not a good policy. While appearing to be egalitarian, it is, actually, going to have exactly the opposite effect: entrenching the firm class divisions, reducing mobility and competition.

Now, I am all in favor of the society helping those less fortunate. It is just that this is not going to help, but hurt.

[ag]

One of the World Bank's findings (certainly not a left-leftist institution) in the case of Brazil's Bolsa Família

Let us stop right here. Bolsa Familia involves a "conditional cash transfer". That is not the same thing as the "universal basic income at all". These sorts of programs are, actually, pretty useful in combating poverty. It is just that they are very different from what you think they are.

[ag]

By itself, it's just another band-aid on a cancer patient. Just socialize the means of production instead.

Great idea. It will guarantee that pretty much everybody, except, perhaps, for the top managers - assuming these are corrupt - will live worse than the current poor do. In case you find the incorruptible managers, than you will guarantee that not even they will live well - without any improvement for anybody else. So, if you like a life that is nasty, brutal and short - be my guest, do this.

[ag]

It may be necessary with the advancement of technology.

Bullocks. Technology has nothing to do with it. The luddite argument is no truer today than 200 years back.

[ag]

do you really think it's more plausible that someone was driven to homelessness because they were an alcoholic or that they were driven to alcoholism because of their homelessness?

Alas, at least in rich societies, the former is far more likely to be true.

I am not blaming the poor here. In fact, alcoholism is a disease that derserves treatment - like any mental disease or addiction. But your assertion is, in fact, quite bizarre.

[ag]

Once again: I am all in favor of well-designed anti-poverty programs. But "universal basic income" would be a pro-poverty  program.

[ag]

We already have a growing underclass of people who go through much or all of their adult lives without ever finding stable employment. I don't really understand the objection, because they're already here whether you see them or not.

Well, the objection is that something should be done to get them out of it, should it not? There are many ideas out there that would, at least, try doing it.

[ag]

Once again: I am all in favor of well-designed anti-poverty programs. But "universal basic income" would be a pro-poverty  program.

Have you ever read about the Mincome experiment

You mean, a series of (mostly short-term and not entirely randomized)  1970s studies that pretty much established that giving people cash for not working results in nearly proportional reduction in wage income? Yes, I heard of those. Hard to say how this aids your argument, though

I mean, there is a reason why those studies did not lead to a wide adoption of this policy.

[ag]

I suspect that the wild success of CCTs is largely related to the fact that the money is offered as an almost guaranteed source of income; it's not particularly difficult to provide incentives for people to send their kids to school or to have them have check-ups. Give poor people money without strings attached and I imagine they'd make fairly similar choices.

Well, there is evidence it is not the case. To begin with, check-ups and school attendance have not been the universal norm even in areas where they were available before. I am not a specialist here, but the specialists do seem to agree there is a heck of a difference.

[ag]

I mean social policy is difficult and economists (of whatever hue) tend not to grasp this.

Considering how many economists spend most of their time thinking about how difficult it is, I find your statement somewhat perplexing. I mean, if economists did not grasp the difficulty of social policy, why would we still have any research in economics? Why would there be econ departments at universities?