The concept of Universal Basic Income was something I have subconsciously been very apprehensive and negative towards. Honestly, before this week, I had never really sat and pondered it. Professor Trost's talk and argument for Universal Basic Dividend changed my perspective in a lot of ways.
To start, he said that the United States has a problem of creating a cycle of dependency within current welfare systems and that Universal Basic Dividend would allow for freedom to exist, or the ability for people to walk away and have a choice. People in impoverished neighborhoods that take part in welfare programs are forced to go to lower income schools and are limited in their decisions because of government interference.
Before listening to the entirety of Professor Trost's talk, I sided with Bob Lawson in being skeptical of Universal Basic Dividend because of the risk that it will increase people's dependency on the government. While I now see the argument and positive outcomes of UBD, I am skeptical of a few things.
My concern is that if by removing minimum wage, would an issue of labor shortage for more "undesirable" work become an isse? For example, minimum wage jobs within the fast food industry. With the removal of minimum wage, I am skeptical that employers will decrease funding for employee hourly pay in order to maximize budgets. This would lead to people quitting and potentially relying on the Universal Basic Dividend to get by. Obviously, still working would add on top of the UBD and create more financial stability, but would it be worth it to most people? I don't think so.
A point was made in the talk about pursuing higher education by choosing to attend college. This really got me thinking. Most people attend public schools up until senior year of high school, which is free of charge. A fraction of those students choose to go to college and pay to further their education. The same idea, theoretically, would apply for people who choose to continue to work and climb the ladder of success when Universal Basic Dividend became a thing.
My other skepticism is that if by adopting a more federalist approach by allowing states to handle funding when the federal government reaches its limit, it would create isolation and divide between states Obviously, we already have state governments that disagree and blue/red states, so we are already not united, but would UBD and removing the government's involvement so drastically and immediately create a wave of chaos.
