In this week's video lecture, Dr. Trost went over his plan for a universal basic dividend. In this, he described that his plan would limit the federal government's power, maintain property rights, and have a minimal effect on other areas. The idea is to form a common ownership among people that creates a society that works at a state level rather than a federal level. While it reduces the governmental power by leagues, this plan doesn’t fully diminish the government. We see this plan taking power away and delegating it out to the states.The plan for a universal basic dividend relies heavily on the constitution, stating that it is mainly focusing on article five; the convention of the states (16:00). The biggest add-on to this plan, which will decide if it has a chance to succeed or not, is that this plan should be a constitutional amendment.
To start his lecture, Dr. Trost begins by defining the terms; Libertarian, Conservatism, Progressivism, Communism, and Universal Basic Income. To start, Universal Basic Income means that it is something given to every citizen regardless of merit or need, it provides for basic needs, and is in the form of direct cash payments. This idea that was laid out was mentioned to the Alaska permanent fund, which is a dividend of 1000 dollars to their citizens for living there from their oil money. Yet as Dr. Trost mentioned in response to a question in the Question and Answers section of his lecture, this is by no means enough money to live by and isn’t a sustainable version of Universal Basic Income. This part is important because it links back to what the dividend is actually for, which is the basic needs of the people.
The main objections that were brought up over the Universal Basic Income mainly focused on the personal work ethic of the citizens. The main idea was that universal income was a mule, and this plan put into place would cause citizens to feel like they needed the government to take care of them instead of themselves. This is something that entrenches the idea that citizens will view the government as a provider. The other point made was the idea that the higher a person's income the less they work. This goes into the argument that this will give an entitlement mentality and cause an elimination of personal responsibility. Another argument on this same brand is that it will cause people to gain an entitlement behavior over getting money while not having to work.
Dr. Trost also went over the overarching benefits he could see happening with this plan. He explains that there is the freedom for the individual to walk away when needed, that there is increased personal mobility for individuals, and that no minimum wage will make jobs open up for “low-skilled individuals” (29:00). As for the Government, he talks about the benefits of the Government no longer needing to protect certain industries or companies that are too big to fail, as well as the limitations in terms of picking winners through subsidies. The other benefit that he could see coming to fruition from the Universal Basic Income, which directly goes against the idea that people will lose incentive in this plan, is that there will be new schools created. The idea here is that Universal dividends will create new schools for new learning opportunities for as long as you wish because the tuition would also be a percentage of your dividend.
The topic of no minimum wage creating a space for new job openings creates issues. If there is no minimum wage, then this can cause the aforementioned “low-skilled individuals” to be exploited for their work. If we take “low-skilled individuals” to mean those with developmental and intellectual disabilities, then this would cause the mindset of paying workers with disabilities to be worse than it already is. Now, if “low-skilled individuals” is referring to people without disabilities who would rather do very simple tasks as a job then I can see this idea of no minimum wage opening simplistic jobs for people. I do believe, that no matter who was being referred to, the idea of no minimum wage could prove to be problematic.
In reference to the critique that there would be no self motivation to learn and work and push yourself as a person, is not exactly what I would take as a huge concern. There are people that wouldn’t want to work if getting money, but that number I believe would be small when they realize that the system doesn’t work if there isn’t a constant cycle of give and take. If too many people decide to only enjoy the spoils of life, then no one ends up putting things out to enjoy. I think this leads into the idea of opening up schools specific to certain fields of study. This would make the community a smaller organization-based community, because suddenly there is a larger group of people that are doing what they enjoy for work.
