WEBVTT - Will we have Basic Income in the future? 0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:07.160 Brought to you by Toyota. Let's go places. Welcome to 0:00:07.360 --> 0:00:15.120 Forward Thinking. Hey there, everyone, and welcome to Forward Thinking, 0:00:15.160 --> 0:00:18.160 the podcast that looks at the future and says money 0:00:18.200 --> 0:00:20.680 don't get everything. It's true, but what it don't get 0:00:21.000 --> 0:00:24.720 I can't use. I'm Jonathan Strickland, I'm Lauren, and I'm 0:00:24.800 --> 0:00:28.080 Joe McCormick. And today we're gonna be talking about a 0:00:28.200 --> 0:00:32.160 topic related to economics, something that we have I would 0:00:32.159 --> 0:00:35.800 say we've brushed up against it before on this show 0:00:35.880 --> 0:00:40.400 when we talked about Star Trek economics, some some other 0:00:40.760 --> 0:00:43.960 issues related to automation. But today we thought it would 0:00:43.960 --> 0:00:47.920 be a good time to jump headfirst into the topic 0:00:48.000 --> 0:00:50.879 of the basic income. Yeah. I almost think of this 0:00:50.920 --> 0:00:54.520 as like a a stepping stone, if you will, toward 0:00:54.640 --> 0:00:57.720 that Star Trek future where money no longer is a 0:00:57.880 --> 0:01:01.960 thing except when the plot requires to be right right 0:01:02.040 --> 0:01:04.480 or I mean for Ferengie who just really like it. Yeah, 0:01:04.600 --> 0:01:08.160 the latinum, the press latinum. Yeah. Yeah. And it's been 0:01:08.200 --> 0:01:11.520 a topic of our conversation because as artificial intelligence and 0:01:11.600 --> 0:01:15.480 robotics become more advanced and less expensive, robots are going 0:01:15.560 --> 0:01:19.479 to take our jobs and specifically our tedious dangerous and 0:01:19.680 --> 0:01:23.959 damaging hard labor type jobs, especially those those will happen 0:01:24.160 --> 0:01:30.280 first question about it, others will follow. That's that's kind 0:01:30.319 --> 0:01:32.720 of the scary thing, isn't it. Like one of the 0:01:32.760 --> 0:01:34.679 things I want to talk about later in this episode 0:01:34.720 --> 0:01:37.320 is a paper that I've referenced in a couple of 0:01:37.520 --> 0:01:39.679 things I've written for how Step Works that came out 0:01:39.680 --> 0:01:45.800 in by the Oxford researchers Carl Benedict Fry and Michael A. Osborne. 0:01:45.880 --> 0:01:50.279 And this paper is essentially a big look at where 0:01:50.320 --> 0:01:53.160 the future trends in automation are going to be, what 0:01:53.280 --> 0:01:55.600 jobs are going to be taken over by machines and 0:01:55.600 --> 0:01:59.760 by computer software. And as we record this podcast, Lauren 0:01:59.800 --> 0:02:02.760 and are actually preparing to fly to Austin, Texas to 0:02:02.840 --> 0:02:05.920 attend south By Southwest two thousand sixteen. Yeah, by the 0:02:05.960 --> 0:02:08.600 time you hear this, it will have already happen. Yeah, 0:02:08.639 --> 0:02:11.120 So we're giving you the future of the past right now. 0:02:11.280 --> 0:02:13.840 But one of the things that we both noticed as 0:02:13.840 --> 0:02:17.040 we looked at the different track programming, uh you know 0:02:17.280 --> 0:02:19.880 lists on south By south West, which is an enormous 0:02:19.919 --> 0:02:23.960 conference that's interactive, film, music, tons of different stuff going 0:02:23.960 --> 0:02:26.720 on there, but one of the really big topics that 0:02:26.760 --> 0:02:29.200 we saw coming up again and again was this idea 0:02:29.680 --> 0:02:32.480 of automation. How is that going to impact the job 0:02:32.560 --> 0:02:36.079 market and how is that going to impact things like income? 0:02:36.400 --> 0:02:39.400 And so that's very much in line with what we're 0:02:39.400 --> 0:02:41.520 going to talk about today. Yeah, So if you want 0:02:41.520 --> 0:02:43.360 to listen to a couple of those prior episodes that 0:02:43.400 --> 0:02:48.360 we've done, tune into one from December called will Robots 0:02:48.360 --> 0:02:52.919 Steal Our Jobs? Um? And then two from July called 0:02:53.120 --> 0:02:57.000 Hailing the Robotcab and Robot Taxis and the Future of 0:02:57.040 --> 0:03:00.520 Cab Drivers. Uh. And I don't have the the the 0:03:00.560 --> 0:03:03.680 episode title and date for the Star Trek Economy episode 0:03:03.760 --> 0:03:07.400 right in front of me, the Star Trek Economy, Okay, 0:03:07.440 --> 0:03:10.560 so just google Star Trek Economy. I have faith in you. Um. 0:03:10.720 --> 0:03:13.440 But but to summarize what we said there, you know, 0:03:13.600 --> 0:03:16.320 in the long term, this is great, like what an 0:03:16.360 --> 0:03:19.239 incredible future, y'all, Like no one has to clean toilets, 0:03:19.280 --> 0:03:21.920 or drive cargo trucks, or turn and burn burgers or 0:03:22.000 --> 0:03:26.240 like mine, toxic heavy metals unless they're really psyched about it. Um. 0:03:26.280 --> 0:03:28.360 In the short term, this is going to lead to 0:03:28.440 --> 0:03:32.640 so many growing pains and stands to specifically disenfranchise the 0:03:32.639 --> 0:03:35.600 people who are already living below the poverty line, even 0:03:35.640 --> 0:03:37.640 though they're working full time, because those are the kind 0:03:37.640 --> 0:03:39.640 of jobs that are going to go first, right, Yes. 0:03:39.760 --> 0:03:42.600 And one reaction to this trend, and I should say, 0:03:42.640 --> 0:03:45.160 it's not just a reaction to the automation trend, but 0:03:45.240 --> 0:03:48.000 it's a it's an idea that is bigger than a 0:03:48.040 --> 0:03:51.560 reaction to automation, but may specifically come into play because 0:03:51.600 --> 0:03:54.840 of automation, is the basic income, what's known as a 0:03:55.080 --> 0:03:58.080 guaranteed basic income. So I want to start with a 0:03:58.080 --> 0:04:00.360 little news story that was the basis of a of 0:04:00.400 --> 0:04:02.720 a house Stuff Works Now video I shot earlier this 0:04:02.760 --> 0:04:08.720 week about the Ontario provincial budget. So. Ontario is a 0:04:08.720 --> 0:04:12.480 province of Canada. It's their largest province. It's home to 0:04:12.480 --> 0:04:16.680 almost fourteen million people. And they release their budget online 0:04:16.800 --> 0:04:20.880 and it in chapter one, Section E Towards a Fair 0:04:21.000 --> 0:04:24.800 Society they write, and I'm just gonna read a longish 0:04:24.880 --> 0:04:27.719 quote here, but bear with me for a minute. One 0:04:27.800 --> 0:04:31.120 area of research that will inform the path of comprehensive 0:04:31.160 --> 0:04:35.360 reform will be the evaluation of a basic income pilot. 0:04:35.760 --> 0:04:38.320 The pilot project will test a growing view at home 0:04:38.400 --> 0:04:40.840 and abroad that a basic income could build on the 0:04:40.880 --> 0:04:45.320 success of minimum wage policies and increases in child benefits 0:04:45.360 --> 0:04:49.640 by providing more consistent and predictable support in the context 0:04:49.720 --> 0:04:53.120 of today's dynamic labor market. I like that term dynamic. 0:04:53.160 --> 0:04:55.720 That seems kind of euphemistic, but I like that they 0:04:55.720 --> 0:04:59.279 spell labor with a U A supposed to volatile or 0:04:59.320 --> 0:05:04.320 something like, Yeah, it's so dynamic it's terrifying. Yeah, would 0:05:04.360 --> 0:05:08.440 be another great work with this rickety old roller coasters dynamic. 0:05:09.440 --> 0:05:12.680 But anyway, continuing with the quote the pilot, and they're 0:05:12.680 --> 0:05:15.680 referring to the basic income pilot project. The pilot would 0:05:15.720 --> 0:05:18.440 also test whether a basic income would provide a more 0:05:18.480 --> 0:05:22.440 efficient way of delivering income support, strengthen the attachment to 0:05:22.480 --> 0:05:25.800 the labor force, and achieve savings in other areas such 0:05:25.839 --> 0:05:29.800 as healthcare and housing supports. The government will work with communities, 0:05:29.880 --> 0:05:33.640 researchers and other stakeholders in sixteen to determine how best 0:05:33.680 --> 0:05:37.279 to design and implement a basic income pilot. And this 0:05:37.320 --> 0:05:41.240 seemed really interesting to me because essentially, with this budget statement, 0:05:41.320 --> 0:05:45.920 the provincial government is announcing it's intentions. You might note 0:05:45.960 --> 0:05:47.880 that there aren't a lot of specific series, so we'll 0:05:47.880 --> 0:05:49.760 have to see what actually comes of this, but they're 0:05:49.760 --> 0:05:53.440 at least announcing their intention to do science on the 0:05:53.480 --> 0:05:57.279 governmental level. They want to run an experiment to see 0:05:57.279 --> 0:06:00.680 what happens when you try this new form of economics 0:06:00.760 --> 0:06:05.240 and find out whether or not it actually is efficacious. 0:06:05.279 --> 0:06:09.400 If so, does it make sense considering the the amount 0:06:09.440 --> 0:06:13.160 of investment required to make it happen? Sure, and and 0:06:13.200 --> 0:06:17.360 what kind of less numbers based qualifiers wind up coming 0:06:17.360 --> 0:06:18.719 out of it, like like how do how does it 0:06:18.800 --> 0:06:22.800 impact people's happiness and people's productivity? Right? Good points. So 0:06:22.960 --> 0:06:25.520 we we shouldn't start with the definition. I guess what 0:06:25.680 --> 0:06:27.640 is a basic income? And how is it different from 0:06:27.640 --> 0:06:30.679 all the other types of welfare and social security that 0:06:30.680 --> 0:06:33.479 that are already in place in governments all around the world. 0:06:34.400 --> 0:06:37.120 So there are a few different details and qualifications you 0:06:37.160 --> 0:06:39.799 could run variations on, you know, they're there are different 0:06:39.800 --> 0:06:42.440 ways to slice the pie. But in essence that the 0:06:42.480 --> 0:06:46.080 idea of a basic income is there's a government payout 0:06:46.320 --> 0:06:50.719 that's awarded to all citizens, without restrictions on use, without 0:06:50.800 --> 0:06:54.159 means testing. And it's these latter two parts of it 0:06:54.200 --> 0:06:56.679 that make it so different from most social security type 0:06:56.680 --> 0:06:59.640 programs today. So governments already have a lot of programs 0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:03.560 that a ward financial assistance. But maybe you're only supposed 0:07:03.560 --> 0:07:06.120 to spend it on certain types of food items, like 0:07:06.160 --> 0:07:08.480 you you're only really supposed to spend it on food 0:07:08.720 --> 0:07:11.840 like food stamps. Or maybe you only get it if 0:07:11.880 --> 0:07:14.400 you're over a certain age, or maybe you only get 0:07:14.440 --> 0:07:17.200 it if you're under a certain income, or if you're 0:07:17.280 --> 0:07:21.120 unemployed but actively seeking work, or you know, any number 0:07:21.120 --> 0:07:25.280 of conditions. Family structure is a certain way. The basic income, 0:07:25.440 --> 0:07:28.720 on the other hand, is it strips away all of that. 0:07:29.320 --> 0:07:33.360 It is an unconditional direct payout of money that every 0:07:33.440 --> 0:07:37.280 citizen receives, and anything on top of that you would 0:07:37.280 --> 0:07:42.320 get based upon your employment or lack thereof. So you work, 0:07:42.640 --> 0:07:45.040 you get it. You don't work, you get it right. 0:07:45.080 --> 0:07:47.360 You're young, you get it, you're old, you get it. 0:07:47.360 --> 0:07:50.720 It doesn't matter. Every citizen gets the basic payout right. 0:07:50.720 --> 0:07:54.000 And ideally the basic payout is somewhere in the level 0:07:54.000 --> 0:07:59.120 where you can see two very basic necessities at least 0:07:59.440 --> 0:08:02.960 at the very least um not necessarily some basic income 0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:06.960 things I've seen. It's more along a small stipend that 0:08:07.000 --> 0:08:11.200 could offset your expenses, It doesn't necessarily take care of 0:08:11.240 --> 0:08:13.720 the basic needs even at that level. And in some 0:08:13.800 --> 0:08:18.160 cases I've seen people argue for advocate for a basic 0:08:18.200 --> 0:08:22.120 income that goes above what you would need for the 0:08:22.120 --> 0:08:25.240 the most essential necessities had to get you above the 0:08:25.280 --> 0:08:28.640 poverty line, right, which I believe in the United States 0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:31.040 study rate equals a little bit over eleven grand a 0:08:31.160 --> 0:08:34.520 year right now, I think it. It can be calculated 0:08:34.520 --> 0:08:38.559 different ways depending on how many dependents you have, absolutely, 0:08:38.640 --> 0:08:41.199 and and honestly I didn't look up the most recent 0:08:41.280 --> 0:08:45.120 number right in two thousand and twelve, it was somewhere 0:08:45.120 --> 0:08:48.400 between eleven and twelve thousand dollars for and that will 0:08:48.440 --> 0:08:50.080 come into play in a little bit later in our 0:08:50.120 --> 0:08:52.760 our conversation as well. Right. So, obviously, as I've said, 0:08:52.920 --> 0:08:55.080 you can tinker with the idea, you can offer different 0:08:55.120 --> 0:08:59.080 variations on it. There's no one idea everybody agrees on. 0:08:59.120 --> 0:09:02.480 But that's the basic idea. It's a direct, unconditional payout 0:09:02.480 --> 0:09:04.960 of money that you can spend however you want, and 0:09:05.000 --> 0:09:08.600 everybody gets it. But there are questions you can mess with, 0:09:08.679 --> 0:09:12.000 like should the payout be graduated according to your other income? 0:09:12.120 --> 0:09:15.040 Like should the poorest people get a bigger payout than 0:09:15.120 --> 0:09:17.880 people who have more money. I don't know. You might 0:09:17.920 --> 0:09:19.960 be able to argue one way or another. Uh do 0:09:20.040 --> 0:09:23.280 you give the payout to adults ownly adults? Yeah? Or 0:09:23.320 --> 0:09:28.480 only to or to everybody including dependent children? Uh? And 0:09:28.840 --> 0:09:32.200 you know you mentioned this new idea. It's really the 0:09:32.280 --> 0:09:34.920 interesting thing is it's not that new of an idea. 0:09:35.240 --> 0:09:37.080 It's just it's one that we're starting to hear a 0:09:37.160 --> 0:09:40.320 lot of. Yeah. So if you want to look at 0:09:40.400 --> 0:09:42.800 maybe the origins of this idea are people who are 0:09:42.880 --> 0:09:46.719 advocated for something similar in years past. You can look 0:09:46.720 --> 0:09:50.200 all the way back to the sixteenth century early Dreds 0:09:50.960 --> 0:09:55.080 with Thomas Moore. What a guy. You know, this is 0:09:55.120 --> 0:09:57.000 not the place we want to go if you're trying 0:09:57.040 --> 0:09:59.800 to make the case that the universal basic income is 0:09:59.840 --> 0:10:05.720 not necessarily utopianism, because Thomas Moore was explicitly utopianist. Yes. Yes, 0:10:05.760 --> 0:10:08.880 in fact he wrote on the subject quite extensively. He 0:10:08.920 --> 0:10:13.160 was a humanist and uh. He advocated an idea similar 0:10:13.200 --> 0:10:16.760 to basic income, though specifically intended for the poor, as 0:10:16.760 --> 0:10:19.400 opposed to a universal basic income that would go to 0:10:19.520 --> 0:10:23.439 every single citizen of whatever country. He was specifically looking 0:10:23.440 --> 0:10:28.240 at England, but also did numerous uh He wrote a 0:10:28.320 --> 0:10:31.240 lot about the various countries in Europe at the time 0:10:31.600 --> 0:10:35.120 and talked about the idea of this minimum income. He 0:10:35.240 --> 0:10:38.400 argued that the minimum income would minimum income let me, 0:10:38.480 --> 0:10:41.840 let me enunciate properly, would create a greater social benefit 0:10:42.080 --> 0:10:46.600 than it would create a burden for the the state, 0:10:46.960 --> 0:10:50.600 the government to pay this out. His argument was that 0:10:51.559 --> 0:10:54.920 if people are not making enough money, they end up 0:10:54.960 --> 0:10:57.840 turning to theft in order to meet their basic needs, 0:10:58.360 --> 0:11:01.840 and then we end up spending resources capturing them and 0:11:01.880 --> 0:11:05.360 punishing them, often killing them, which removes them from being 0:11:05.360 --> 0:11:07.720 able to make any sort of social contribution at all. 0:11:08.679 --> 0:11:12.079 If you are curious about that set of situations, you 0:11:12.120 --> 0:11:14.600 can go listen to our Future of Burials episode which 0:11:14.640 --> 0:11:18.120 was just last week. So he argued that with a 0:11:18.120 --> 0:11:23.400 minimum income, you remove the the necessity for theft, and 0:11:23.720 --> 0:11:27.000 you remove the necessity for punishment and removing people from 0:11:27.040 --> 0:11:31.840 the possibility of contributing to society, and everyone benefits. Yeah, 0:11:31.920 --> 0:11:34.080 and and for furthermore, you know, if if you really 0:11:34.120 --> 0:11:36.480 care about human life, you you remove the necessity of 0:11:36.520 --> 0:11:39.200 the state at that time to you know, kill people 0:11:39.720 --> 0:11:43.760 to commit murder. He also he also admittedly said, maybe 0:11:44.000 --> 0:11:46.920 killing people for what amounts to petty theft is a 0:11:46.960 --> 0:11:50.360 little excessive. That was a radical idea at the time 0:11:50.400 --> 0:11:54.400 of Thomas Moore. Uh Now, the notion evolved over time. 0:11:54.800 --> 0:11:58.079 Lots of other people ended up contributing to this idea 0:11:58.240 --> 0:12:02.040 and and tweaking it or adding different ideas that ended 0:12:02.120 --> 0:12:05.400 up kind of being folded into the concept of basic income. 0:12:05.480 --> 0:12:09.360 Later on, in the eighteenth century, we started seeing the 0:12:09.400 --> 0:12:11.880 idea of basic endowment, which was sort of a precursor 0:12:12.080 --> 0:12:16.720 of life insurance. The idea being that, if, for example, 0:12:17.880 --> 0:12:21.520 a the the person who provided for a family were 0:12:21.559 --> 0:12:24.800 to die, would there be a system in place in 0:12:24.920 --> 0:12:29.440 order to keep that family sustained now that the person 0:12:29.559 --> 0:12:34.240 who was responsible for providing has passed away. That kind 0:12:34.240 --> 0:12:38.040 of concept. Then in the nineteenth century, utopian socialists began 0:12:38.080 --> 0:12:40.760 to argue for what would become basic income. It was 0:12:40.760 --> 0:12:42.839 still a very early version of that. At that time. 0:12:43.160 --> 0:12:45.800 The notion was that people were really moving into cities, 0:12:45.880 --> 0:12:48.000 and there was this kind of this this idea that 0:12:48.520 --> 0:12:51.080 the earth is there for all of us, right, that 0:12:51.200 --> 0:12:55.640 we all have an equal share of the earth, but 0:12:56.040 --> 0:12:59.439 we don't all have equal ability to reap the benefits 0:12:59.679 --> 0:13:03.120 of our share, especially if we're moving into cities and 0:13:03.240 --> 0:13:07.080 therefore you know, can't hunt or farm or exactly right, 0:13:07.160 --> 0:13:10.880 so we might not be able to benefit and someone 0:13:10.920 --> 0:13:13.559 else may be able to benefit well beyond their quote 0:13:13.600 --> 0:13:16.839 unquote share of the earth. And so it was kind 0:13:16.840 --> 0:13:19.679 of an argument that there need to be this redistribution 0:13:19.760 --> 0:13:23.560 in some ways just for basic survival. Again, not meant 0:13:23.600 --> 0:13:26.560 to have someone thrive at the expense of someone else, 0:13:26.600 --> 0:13:29.480 which actually is what was going on already, but but 0:13:29.679 --> 0:13:33.400 to to make sure that people who were having difficulty 0:13:33.440 --> 0:13:36.840 meeting their basic needs could in fact meet them through 0:13:36.880 --> 0:13:41.000 this philosophical argument, and that was really interesting. Then moving 0:13:41.040 --> 0:13:44.400 on to the twentieth century, philosophers began to argue for 0:13:44.440 --> 0:13:48.200 a more refined approach. Bertrand Russell and Roads to Freedom 0:13:48.240 --> 0:13:51.320 suggested that a secured minimum incomes sufficient for meeting the 0:13:51.360 --> 0:13:56.560 basic necessities for a person survival should be available to everyone. 0:13:56.960 --> 0:13:59.720 Larger incomes would be available to those willing and able 0:13:59.720 --> 0:14:02.040 to do more work, so those who contribute more to 0:14:02.120 --> 0:14:05.839 society get more out of it. So it's not People 0:14:05.960 --> 0:14:10.800 sometimes equate basic income with concepts like communism, but that's 0:14:10.840 --> 0:14:14.040 not what Russell was arguing. He was arguing, no, if 0:14:14.080 --> 0:14:16.600 you if you do work, you should be rewarded for 0:14:16.640 --> 0:14:20.400 that work. We're talking about a baseline income everyone gets 0:14:20.960 --> 0:14:25.360 beyond that. It. Yeah, It's all comes down to your 0:14:25.400 --> 0:14:27.880 willingness to actually work and contribute to society, and those 0:14:27.920 --> 0:14:30.840 who do more earn more. Uh So that's kind of 0:14:30.840 --> 0:14:33.360 an interesting idea that I think appeals to a lot 0:14:33.360 --> 0:14:36.000 of people on a very basic level. Now, as we 0:14:36.280 --> 0:14:40.640 go into discussing more about basic income, you'll understand that 0:14:41.400 --> 0:14:46.200 things that intellectually sound very simple in reality turn out 0:14:46.200 --> 0:14:51.200 to be insanely complicated. In reality. There is no such 0:14:51.320 --> 0:14:54.040 thing as simple. That's sort of what reality means. Yeah, 0:14:54.160 --> 0:14:58.200 I guess so. Uh. Nonetheless, there are several places that 0:14:58.320 --> 0:15:01.880 have been experimenting with implementing a program like this. Yeah, 0:15:01.880 --> 0:15:05.040 so we mentioned that the the Ontario Budget statement has 0:15:05.040 --> 0:15:08.080 announced that it has intentions to look into it. But 0:15:08.160 --> 0:15:11.280 there's also there are also activists in Switzerland who have 0:15:11.360 --> 0:15:15.640 managed to get a version of basic income sort of uh, 0:15:16.160 --> 0:15:18.120 at least up for a vote. I mean, if it 0:15:18.200 --> 0:15:20.760 has any chance of actually becoming the law, I don't know, 0:15:20.880 --> 0:15:24.880 but it's it's it's on the table, right Switzerland. Uh, 0:15:24.880 --> 0:15:27.560 and it's also i know, been discussed in Finland and 0:15:27.640 --> 0:15:31.040 in communities in the Netherlands, and you mentioned in your 0:15:31.080 --> 0:15:34.240 now video that that Quebec has also been thinking about. Yeah, 0:15:34.280 --> 0:15:38.240 there's been discussion about it. Okay, Yeah, So so what's 0:15:38.280 --> 0:15:42.200 the appeal of having a basic income today? Well, as 0:15:42.240 --> 0:15:44.680 we've kind of been discussing, there's a lot of social 0:15:44.680 --> 0:15:48.440 issues that could potentially be alleviated by this, you know, homelessness, hunger, 0:15:48.520 --> 0:15:52.840 petty crime, maybe even connected issues like criminal violence, gang 0:15:52.840 --> 0:15:55.880 and mob activity, substance abuse, poor mental health, and you know, 0:15:55.920 --> 0:16:00.040 related issues like domestic abuse, uh and the general a 0:16:00.080 --> 0:16:02.920 gory of like citizens lack of health insurance, creating this 0:16:03.040 --> 0:16:07.200 undue taxpayer burden through the overuse of emergency medicine rather 0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:10.320 than the healthier and cheaper preventative medicine that people with 0:16:10.360 --> 0:16:13.240 you know, money can access um It can also potentially 0:16:13.280 --> 0:16:16.479 boost the economy, like a kind of canes in perspective 0:16:16.480 --> 0:16:20.120 there sure, sure, the you know, the effects of this 0:16:20.200 --> 0:16:24.160 kind of thing on economies are always unpredictable because there's 0:16:24.200 --> 0:16:27.280 just so many factors at play. You know. The economy 0:16:27.440 --> 0:16:29.880 is is like a like a version of the weather 0:16:30.000 --> 0:16:32.920 that for me is a lot less fun to think about. Um, 0:16:32.960 --> 0:16:36.120 But you know, it seems likely that there would be 0:16:36.160 --> 0:16:39.600 a stimulus effect short term as people receive new spending power, 0:16:40.160 --> 0:16:43.120 and there's certainly a possibility that the effect would continue 0:16:43.320 --> 0:16:46.200 long term. And one of those people have money to spend, 0:16:46.280 --> 0:16:49.360 they spend it. Businesses make more money, they hire more people. 0:16:50.000 --> 0:16:53.720 One of the arguments specifically about boosting the economy falls 0:16:53.760 --> 0:16:56.800 down on that that not falls down but is specifically 0:16:56.840 --> 0:17:01.080 directed at the homelessness problem, saying that it is extremely 0:17:01.120 --> 0:17:06.560 difficult to to break out of that problem of homelessness, 0:17:06.600 --> 0:17:09.560 that this would address that, and that people who were 0:17:09.600 --> 0:17:12.880 homeless would have the money to uh end up getting 0:17:13.080 --> 0:17:17.240 a roof over their heads, and from that baseline, they're 0:17:17.359 --> 0:17:20.880 much more likely to succeed in becoming a contributing member 0:17:20.920 --> 0:17:26.280 of society. Uh That Without that, the the cards are 0:17:26.359 --> 0:17:30.200 so stacked against them. It's it's incredibly remarkable when someone 0:17:30.280 --> 0:17:33.560 is able to emerge. Yeah. Sure, you know, because because 0:17:33.600 --> 0:17:35.080 if you can't take a shower, it's harder to get 0:17:35.119 --> 0:17:39.000 a job and etcetera. Um, But all of our our 0:17:39.080 --> 0:17:43.159 personal like quasi socialism, fuzzy wuzzy feelings about all of 0:17:43.200 --> 0:17:45.679 this aside there are also lots of conservatives who have 0:17:45.760 --> 0:17:48.359 been talking about this as a as a potentially good plan. 0:17:48.640 --> 0:17:52.440 Oh yeah, I mean this idea actually does have conservative supports. 0:17:52.440 --> 0:17:55.640 Certainly not among all conservatives, but there have been conservatives 0:17:55.640 --> 0:17:57.760 who backed it. One of the main reasons is that 0:17:58.080 --> 0:18:03.240 it's a government reducing plan essentially. So right now you 0:18:03.359 --> 0:18:07.440 have a whole bunch of different means tested social security 0:18:07.520 --> 0:18:12.760 and welfare measures, and you have massive administrations and bureaucracies 0:18:12.840 --> 0:18:16.359 to oversee how these funds are given out and to 0:18:16.560 --> 0:18:19.480 make sure that they're they're given to the right people, 0:18:19.960 --> 0:18:22.320 and that people aren't trying to game the system by 0:18:22.359 --> 0:18:25.679 getting funds that they're not supposed to get, by trying 0:18:25.680 --> 0:18:29.520 to falsify or commit fraud. And you know, it's there's 0:18:29.640 --> 0:18:33.920 there's massive systems in place just trying to hold everything 0:18:33.960 --> 0:18:37.720 together to meet the requirements. And what if you just 0:18:37.720 --> 0:18:40.080 get rid of all the requirements. No more means testing, 0:18:40.440 --> 0:18:43.760 no no more any of this, it's just everybody gets 0:18:43.800 --> 0:18:47.960 the payout. That that's a that is a government reduction 0:18:48.080 --> 0:18:52.000 and so it replaces bureaucracy with the simple egalitarian system 0:18:52.040 --> 0:18:56.280 of social security. And in fact, there's one instance this 0:18:56.400 --> 0:18:59.080 is not exactly basic income, but along the same lines. 0:18:59.520 --> 0:19:02.240 The Eco him as Milton Friedman, who is usually considered 0:19:02.359 --> 0:19:06.280 a libertarian or some form of economic conservative, talked about 0:19:06.280 --> 0:19:09.159 the idea of a negative income tax. And this is 0:19:09.240 --> 0:19:14.040 essentially a two way inverted progressive taxation. So the more 0:19:14.080 --> 0:19:16.879 money you make, the more taxes you pay. But also 0:19:17.000 --> 0:19:21.679 below a certain threshold that that tax tax fee inverts 0:19:21.720 --> 0:19:24.520 to a payout rather than a fee, so you are 0:19:24.880 --> 0:19:28.120 you receive money from the government rather than paying in. Uh. 0:19:28.200 --> 0:19:31.680 In In in the nineteen sixties, Richard Nixon actually proposed 0:19:31.720 --> 0:19:35.800 a version of basic income. So yeah, yeah, so it's 0:19:35.800 --> 0:19:39.760 it's We should also point out that while uh, you know, 0:19:39.840 --> 0:19:42.800 this is not this is not simply a liberal versus 0:19:42.800 --> 0:19:45.960 conservative issue, that there are supporters on both sides, they're 0:19:46.000 --> 0:19:49.400 also critics on both sides exactly, and that that's, uh, 0:19:49.400 --> 0:19:51.760 that's a very good thing to point out. So one 0:19:51.760 --> 0:19:54.720 of the most obvious criticisms but something worth talking about 0:19:54.720 --> 0:19:56.679 in a little bit of detail is how do you 0:19:56.760 --> 0:19:59.560 pay for it? Sounds like if you're giving everybody money, 0:19:59.640 --> 0:20:02.000 you need do have a lot of money to give them? 0:20:02.040 --> 0:20:04.000 And where do you get it? Well? Shared like how 0:20:04.040 --> 0:20:06.359 but how much money are we talking about? Yeah, that 0:20:06.560 --> 0:20:09.879 that's worth talking about. So here we go. There is 0:20:09.920 --> 0:20:12.840 a November twelve thirteen piece by a guy named Danny 0:20:12.920 --> 0:20:16.040 Vinnick in Business Insider that did some math on this, 0:20:16.160 --> 0:20:20.160 actually just crunch some numbers to see roughly how much 0:20:20.240 --> 0:20:22.600 something like this would cost in the United States at 0:20:22.600 --> 0:20:25.560 the time. And so he was working off of twelve 0:20:25.720 --> 0:20:29.199 numbers from the budget in the census, and what he 0:20:29.240 --> 0:20:31.800 came up with was that from the twelve numbers, if 0:20:31.840 --> 0:20:34.479 you wanted to pay every adult in the United States 0:20:34.520 --> 0:20:36.879 between the ages of twenty one and sixty five, and 0:20:36.920 --> 0:20:39.880 he excluded over sixty five because that's when Social Security 0:20:40.200 --> 0:20:43.439 kicks in, and that's a different that's a different paying pool. 0:20:43.560 --> 0:20:47.080 So they just beginning social Security twenty one to sixty five. 0:20:47.760 --> 0:20:50.119 If you wanted to pay all those people an amount 0:20:50.240 --> 0:20:52.959 equal to the poverty line, which at the time he 0:20:53.320 --> 0:20:57.880 said was eleven thousand, ninety five dollars, it would cost 0:20:58.600 --> 0:21:03.080 two point fourteen trillion dollars. That's a that's a chunk 0:21:03.119 --> 0:21:06.120 of change. It is uh And he offers a point 0:21:06.119 --> 0:21:09.280 of comparison just to say, okay, two point fourteen trillion, 0:21:09.359 --> 0:21:12.159 how much is that compared to other big chunks of 0:21:12.200 --> 0:21:14.760 the US federal budget. Well, at the time g d 0:21:14.880 --> 0:21:18.719 P was sixteen trillion, so that's the the value of 0:21:18.760 --> 0:21:21.879 all final goods and services produced in the United States 0:21:21.920 --> 0:21:25.760 was sixteen trillion, So this would be a little more 0:21:25.800 --> 0:21:27.919 than one eighth of all the value of goods and 0:21:27.960 --> 0:21:31.040 services produced in the United States. But at the same time, 0:21:31.080 --> 0:21:34.000 the US military budget was seven hundred billion dollars, So 0:21:34.040 --> 0:21:35.840 I mean the government spends a lot of money in 0:21:35.880 --> 0:21:37.919 the United States. Well wait, wait, wait, wait, Joe, that 0:21:38.160 --> 0:21:40.640 you were talking earlier, though, the conservatives were pointing out 0:21:40.760 --> 0:21:45.879 that this approach also is about streamlining government, right, so 0:21:45.960 --> 0:21:49.280 it wouldn't just be two point fourteen trillion on top 0:21:49.359 --> 0:21:52.320 of everything the government already spends, but it would be 0:21:52.359 --> 0:21:56.159 partially replacing existing spending. So I want to read a 0:21:56.240 --> 0:22:00.439 quote where he deals with this part. He says, Aggressional 0:22:00.560 --> 0:22:04.440 Research Service report found that the federal government spins approximately 0:22:04.480 --> 0:22:07.840 seven hundred and fifty billion each year on benefits for 0:22:07.960 --> 0:22:11.080 low income Americans, and that rises to a clean trillion 0:22:11.119 --> 0:22:15.199 when you factor in state programs. Eliminate all those and 0:22:15.280 --> 0:22:18.199 the net figures. So there he's saying, the cost of 0:22:18.240 --> 0:22:21.920 the basic income minus the cost of the eliminated programs 0:22:22.920 --> 0:22:25.879 comes out to about one point two trillion needed to 0:22:25.880 --> 0:22:29.320 pay for a universal basic income. Still a hefty sum, 0:22:29.600 --> 0:22:32.760 and I have to agree that's still a pretty hefty sum. Yeah, 0:22:32.920 --> 0:22:36.600 I think that's a pretty uh, pretty nice understatement. So 0:22:36.720 --> 0:22:40.240 you could experiment with different payout options and sent compensations. So, 0:22:40.359 --> 0:22:42.320 for example, you could say, well, we're not going to 0:22:42.400 --> 0:22:44.919 pay people the entire all the way up to the 0:22:44.920 --> 0:22:49.720 poverty line, pay everybody almost twelve thousand dollars um. Or 0:22:49.880 --> 0:22:52.280 you could say that, well, we're gonna make other cuts 0:22:52.320 --> 0:22:54.880 to the federal budget to compensate for that that one 0:22:54.920 --> 0:22:58.240 point to trillion, Or you could increase tax revenue on 0:22:58.280 --> 0:23:01.160 the richest. Uh. There lot of ways you could slice 0:23:01.160 --> 0:23:03.440 the pie to make it work. But no matter what, 0:23:04.040 --> 0:23:06.720