Free money for everyone?

 

Everyone should be rich

“No whining, everyone should be rich, vote Opposition Party, together for ourselves.” The Opposition Party was a fictional political party in the Netherlands run by two dubious characters. The creators of the fiction, Van Kooten and De Bie, intended to mock populist politicians. If the Opposition Party had been for real, the party would have fetched a few seats in parliament in 1981. Why isn’t everyone rich? Maybe it is because poor people haven’t enough money.

Perhaps everyone should get money for free so that no-one is poor. This is called a universal basic income. Nowadays most people make money by doing a job. That is because without people working nothing will be done and nothing will be made. This has been true for as long as humans exist. On the other hand, there are many more people than needed for all the work that needs to be done, at least if everyone works forty hours per week. This has also been true for as long as humans exist.

Pointless jobs

In the past most people worked only a few hours per day on average. This changed with the Industrial Revolution. Idleness became frowned upon and factory owners promoted the belief that everyone has a duty to work long hours. Nowadays many people do jobs that do not contribute to making products or services people need and also do not contribute to society. And a pointless job can make you unhappy.

Executing a job, whether it is useful or not, uses resources. People drive in their cars to their offices which are heated or air-conditioned. If a pointless job consumes materials and energy that are in short supply, or pollutes the environment, there is a compelling reason to axe it. That may require giving people money to remain idle. The anthropologist David Graeber estimates that at least a third of all jobs are pointless.1

There is no good measure as to determine which jobs are pointless. For instance, Graeber mentions the job of a receptionist at a publisher. The receptionist had nothing to do, except for taking up an occasional telephone call. Another employee could easily have done this alongside his or her other tasks, but without a separate receptionist no-one would take the publisher seriously. Graeber contends that the best indication of a job being pointless is when people who do the job themselves believe it is.1

A game of Monopoly

Wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated. The super rich have increased their share of global wealth in recent decades. Whether or not it was at the expense of the rest is a matter of political debate. Nevertheless, to keep the economy going and to forestall a catastrophic global economic collapse, there may no be no other option than to make the rich hand out money to the poor, either via negative interest rates on outstanding debts or a redistribution of income. for instance a universal basic income.

One can think of the capitalist economy as a game of Monopoly. If you have played Monopoly more than once, you may have observed that at first players build capital in the form of houses and hotels. You can get rich by making the right investments. There is also an element of luck involved. The game ends when most players are bankrupt. It is possible to extend the game by letting the rest borrow money from the winners. The winners can now enjoy being rich while the rest can stay in the game. Of course, the rest can never repay their debts. The players could stop pretending and let the winners hand out money to the rest so that the game can continue. That might happen via a negative interest rate on debts or taxing the rich and giving this money to the rest.

monopoly1935

The alternative would be to start from square one, or more precisely, removing all the houses and the hotels, and start a new game. That might be fun for a game but in the real economy this would be a horrendous disaster. Imagine all the houses, roads, and factories gone. There would be nothing to buy and everyone would be poor. Economists figured this out long ago. The famous economist John Maynard Keynes thought that the state should borrow money from the winners and spend it so that the others would be employed and have some money to spend so that the game could continue.2

Keynes’ plan did get a lot of attention and that’s why he is famous. Some other economists weren’t so pleased. Governments could now justify lavish spending by borrowing money from the rich to spend it on public works or lower taxes, leaving a debt to be paid by future generations. Keynes also advised governments to reduce spending when the economy is doing well,2 but this rarely happened. And if there is no starting from square one, the rich are getting richer while the rest isn’t getting ahead. Furthermore, the state borrowing money from the winners makes things worse as interest must be paid. In this way the others end up paying taxes to pay interest to the rich. This could become a huge problem in the long run. But Keynes wasn’t interested in the long run. “In the long run we’re all dead,” Keynes said. Now the long run has passed and Keynes is dead.

The game of Monopoly has a bank too. The bank is a magical source of money. Every time you finish a round, a fixed sum of is given to you. That is great for a game. If it wasn’t for this everlasting fountain of money, the game would have ended after a few rounds. Monoply already has a universal basic income. It can help to keep the economy going. But adding money to the real economy can make money worth less. If people have more money, prices often go up as there is more money to buy the same stuff. For example, if everyone craves for that latest model mobile phone, producers can raise prices, unless people run out of money and can’t buy them. In a game of Monopoly the prices of rents are fixed but the prices of streets may rise. If you want to buy a street from another player when there is a lot of money in the game, you often pay more than the intial price. The rich are bidding up prices of streets. In the real economy something similar happens. Inflation is low but prices of assets like stocks and real estate are rising.

Realising our full potential?

Proponents of a universal basic income tell us that it will all be fine and dandy and that we will be free to realise our dreams. If you always wanted to become a blogger or a vlogger, you can become one when there is a universal basic income because you don’t have to work for a living.

The opponents of a universal basic income paint a dismal picture of people sinking into an abyss of idleness filled with writing blogs nobody wants to read and making videos nobody wants to see. A job can make you feel useful. And there must be a compelling reason to do unattractive jobs, otherwise they won’t be done, they argue.

Many countries already have benefits for people without a job. Unattractive low paying jobs are often done by immigrants who don’t have access to those benefits. Nevertheless, if there is an income guarantee, people will only do a job if it benefits them either emotionally or financially. In other words, jobs have to be attractive.

Machines taking over?

In the future machines may become better than humans at most jobs. Until very recently only simple tasks have been taken over by machines. This already put a lot of people out of work. The surplus of workers could be employed in the government and the service sector. Many of these jobs are pointless. Machines in the future can do much more. Self driving cars will replace human drivers and cause fewer accidents. Robots can care for the elderly and this could be an improvement as robots don’t have moods. Computers will be better at diagnosing diseases and robots will be better at operating patients.

Few professions appear safe from the coming onslaught. Economists tell us that robots will create many new jobs for humans, for example programming and maintaining them, but that may be wishful thinking. There is however one big problem blocking progress, or our descend into the abyss of idleness if you like. If people lose their jobs they also lose their income so that they don’t have the money to spend on the products and services the machines produce. Progress may halt if the economy can’t operate with fewer jobs.

Perhaps there will be a lack of energy in the future so that human labour is going to replace machines instead. If humanity is to curb its energy and materials use in order to deal with the limits our planet poses on our activities, machines may be replaced by humans. The need for an income guarantee might seem less pressing in that case as there could be more work. In that case it would probably be harder to guarantee an income that is sufficient to live off.

If there is an income guaranteed that is sufficient to live off, people don’t need jobs. In that case there may be no need for minimum wages so people can do a job cheaper than machines if they really like to do it. And so humans could still care for the elderly in the future while robots could do the heavy lifting. And that may be good because when humans do jobs because they like to do them, and not because they need the money, they can have better moods. Compared to existing welfare schemes, there is more inventive to work as people can keep the money they earn.

That sounds great. And perhaps it will work out this way. A universal basic income can improve the bargaining position of workers. It might lead to the following situation:

  • unattractive jobs that machines can do will be done by machines;
  • unattractive jobs that machines can’t do will be paid well;
  • attractive jobs that machines can do will be paid poorly as there will be volunteers;
  • attractive jobs that machines can’t do will be done by humans, but it is hard to predict how these jobs will be paid.

Obstacles on the way

Implementing a guaranteed income may not be easy. There will be obstacles on the way. Some of them may be hard to predict as they will emerge once the income guarantee has been introduced. A few questions can be raised already. For instance, does an income guarantee make people fill their time with idleness or does it give them the possibility to realise their potential? It is possible that both will happen.

Many people believe that there should be a universal basic income that replaces existing welfare schemes. It would reduce the amount of bureaucracy as the administration would be relatively simple compared to existing schemes. Existing social security schemes redistribute money to those who lack sufficient means of existence. A universal basic income is given to everyone, including the people who don’t need it.

A universal basic income can become expensive and require higher taxes. This would not please tax payers and it could lead to tax evasion. And why should the rich receive a universal basic income too? An alternative is a guaranteed income that is to be settled with the income tax. People with low incomes would receive income tax instead of paying it. If the income guarantee is € 1,000 and the income tax is 50%, the scheme works as follows:

gross income
income tax
net income
€ 0
– € 1,000
€ 1,000
€ 1,000
– € 500
€ 1,500
€ 2,000
€ 0
€ 2,000
€ 3,000
€ 500
€ 2,500
€ 4,000
€ 1,000
€ 3,000
€ 5,000
€ 1,500
€ 3,500

If machines are to replace human labour, other sources of taxing may have to replace the income tax to fund the income guarantee, but it is still uncertain to what extent that will happen and how long that will take. How a guaranteed income can be paid for remains a puzzle and the answer to that question may emerge over time. But it will not work if the wealthy don’t pay for it. Like in the game of Monopoly the winners need to hand over money to the rest to stay in the game. This may be done via taxes on wealth or in the markets for money and capital via negative interest rates.

Negative interest rates can make the wealthy hand over money to the middle class via mortgages and loans as well as to governments via government debt because debtors don’t pay interest but receive it. In this way the middle class has more money to spend while governments have more money to give to the poor. Negative interest rates might happen because the wealthy have trouble finding profitable investments and making these investments profitable might require them handing over money to the rest so that the rest has money to spend on the products and services made by the corporations owned by the wealthy. How a financial system with negative interest rates might work out is explained in the section about Natural Money.

The first step

An income guarantee for everyone is costly and it is a long way before this is implemented world-wide. The first step might be to start with an income guarantee for the poorest people in the world to be paid for by a global wealth tax, so that the wealthiest people are going to pay for it.

The poorest can benefit from a small amount of money like one euro per day. NGOs might distribute the money. If one billion people were to receive this allowance, this would cost 365 billion euro per year, a small amount compared to what is currently spent on weapons and wars.

Featured image: De Tegenpartij poster. Van Kooten and De Bie (1981). [copyright info]

Other image: Monopoly game.

1. Bullshit Jobs. David Graeber (2018). Simon & Schuster.
2. General Theory of Employment, Money and Interest. John Maynard Keynes (1936). Palgrave Macmillan.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s