Vouchers prevent choices. Unconditional basic income creates choices.
Soylent and Basic Income
For those who don't know me, I have a crowdfunded basic income. This means I start every month with $1,000 as my absolute minimum for the month no matter what. I'm free to then earn any amount on top of that, but I never earn less than that. That's a basic income. It's an unconditional income floor.
Some confuse this idea with welfare but the two ideas are like night and day. Because welfare is removed with earned income, instead of kept in addition to earned income, there is a distinct disincentive to earn additional income with welfare, but not with basic income. Welfare also involves the provision of things like food stamps instead of money to buy food, and housing vouchers instead of money to buy housing. Welfare is paternalistic. Basic income is trusting.
In short, conditional welfare is about the limiting of choices, and unconditional basic income is about creating choices without limit.
With that said, there's a specific choice I've been making that I'd like to talk about. I'm a huge fan of Soylent 2.0. I absolutely love the stuff. It's a 400-calorie meal replacement drink that's about $3 per bottle. It's technically possible to live on it and only it. It's something that takes zero seconds for me to make and less than a minute to consume, which is great for me because despite my love of cooking, I hate spending time eating breakfast and lunch on weekdays. It's something I've always wanted since I was a kid dreaming of sci-fi meals in pill form. It's even something I actually contributed to on Kickstarter to help make it a thing. It's vegan, so two-thirds of my meals are now meat-free. It's proudly GMO, which the scientist in me loves for using biotechnology to maximize food production. And it's also a food I would not be allowed to purchase if I were receiving food stamps.*
It's that last part that really bothers me. Why should some politician or bureaucrat be allowed to control what foods we can or can't buy to best meet our own daily dietary needs? Should certain companies and the foods they sell get preferential treatment for lining the right political pockets? Should politicians be able to prevent their constituents from buying seafood because they themselves personally see that as a luxury food instead of a staple?
If the big concern is that people won't responsibly buy healthy food or even food at all if given money to spend on anything, we've studied this concern. Mexico compared giving food to giving cash and found that people used cash to buy food. That should not be shocking, but for some reason for many it is, especially those who think it would be spent on "temptation goods" which we conclusively know is false from a review of 30 studies that even shows the opposite effect. If that surprises you, what may be even more surprising is how Kenya started giving people cash instead of food and years later discovered 9 out of 10 recipients had at some point used some of it to start a business or restock their herds. In other words, 90% treated it as capital instead of just money for food!
This is why what people fear most about giving people cash is also its greatest strength. Cash can be used on anything in an infinite number of creative ways. It allows maximum flexibility whereas non-cash welfare provides very little flexibility. That is of course by design, but that design is truly counterproductive and shockingly full of holes.
Having a basic income means that I get to make my own choices. I therefore choose to spend about 10% of my basic income on Soylent, such that it is my breakfast and lunch five days a week every week for the foreseeable future. How much do you spend monthly in total on breakfast and lunch, Monday through Friday? For many of you, that amount will exceed $100. That's your choice. This is mine. Those on food stamps don't even get that choice. They have no choice but to accept the limits imposed on them by the state, even if such limits cost them (and therefore the taxpayer) more money than the lack of limits would.
With a basic income, I am free to get creative in meeting my dietary needs. By creative, I don't only mean Soylent itself, but how I go about buying it. A 12-pack of Soylent costs $34 on Amazon. That's $2.83 per bottle. However, there's a 15% discount for subscribing to at least five products on Amazon. Soylent is shelf-stable. That means I can stock up and therefore setup six different subscriptions such that I receive six cases every two months instead of three every month. That drops the price to $2.41 per bottle. According to what I've seen on /r/Soylent, there are other creative ways out there of dropping the price even further.
The above example is also meant to show how it is counterintuitively more expensive to be poor. Greater access to money can save money. Everyone who shops at Costco knows how much cheaper food is to get in bulk, despite the greater upfront costs and membership fee. $100 per month in food stamps is not the same thing as $1,000 per month in basic income, not only because of the amount, but because basic income allows someone the new option of spending $300 on far more groceries than would have been possible with $100 per month in food stamps for three months, despite the total amount spent on food in both cases being $300.
Another important aspect of choice is competition. Imagine for a moment you have food vouchers and have ten stores around you, but only one accepts your vouchers. For you, there exists no competition. That store can overcharge because of its artificial monopoly just like company stores once did by paying their workers in company scrip instead of cash. This can mean that even though a gallon of milk is around $4 at the other nine stores who are in competition with each other, a gallon of milk is $6 at the only store you can buy milk at with your voucher. Replacing that voucher with cash however, means all stores have to compete for your business, which also means lower prices for everyone, not just you. Cash means more choice, because everyone is competing for that cash.
It is this aspect of basic income I really want to emphasize with this post. Basic income creates new choices. The existing system makes lots of choices for people, while also actively preventing even more choices from ever being made. Such a paternalistic system of strings and walls actively inhibits both creative thinking and long-term thinking. It therefore also means less innovation.
With my basic income, I have full control over my own daily nutritional requirements. And my personal preferences are my own. Most people want to take time out of their days to eat breakfast and lunch. I don't. I'd rather drink my Soylent and get back to whatever I'm doing. That by the way is an option mostly reserved by the rich, where food just appears in front of them to be consumed, without having spent the time and energy into securing the ingredients and preparing the meal themselves. However, you may have some other preference in how you go about meeting your daily caloric requirements for life, and whatever that preference is, you should not be prevented from it, "for your own good", by those with authoritarian tendencies who get off on feeling like they've saved you from yourself, thereby validating them to themselves as somehow better than you.
It's time we stop treating each other like children, and start treating each other like adults capable of making our own decisions without a nanny state controlling our behavior. Unconditional basic income is an adult policy. It is a policy of trust and agency and freedom. It says that no one knows what's best for you, except for YOU.
The above is in no way a paid advertisement for Soylent. I seriously just love the stuff and think it provides a great example of a new food option meeting a demand long unmet.
Interested in doing more to grow the basic income movement than you can through social media alone? Filling out this survey from the Universal Income Project would be helpful. You can also sign the Economic Security Project's belief statement, join the Basic Income Slack channel, Basic Income Action, and the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network.
Thanks Scott. For someone who knows everything about the poverty trap, your words make perfect sense. Being poor is really expensive, and it limits your choices in so many ways.
I'm intrigued by the idea of eating like this because so often I don't want to cook to the point of just going without food for a few days.
Someone I went to school with sells something similar that she's thriving on, however I'm one of the people on food stamps that you mentioned & simply can't get it, even though it'd probably improve the quality of my life far more than denying my nutritional needs has been! Though I'm thankful & grateful to be given what I am while getting back on my feet, you're correct about the challenges the current system places on us.
So glad you've found a product you love that works for you!
Thanks! I do have hopes that eventually Soylent will be available in retail stores, at which point it would hopefully be a valid food stamp purchase for you, but only time will tell.
@scottsantens got you a $1.61 @minnowbooster upgoat, nice! (Image: pixabay.com)
Want a boost? Click here to read more!
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by scottsantens from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
This post has received a 0.78 % upvote from @drotto thanks to: @banjo.
A good write up indeed.
And why I do not support UBI right now. As in, it would be used for govern-cement control.
They want everyone chipped, and if you do anything to upset them, they just turn off your chip, and you have nothing.
Govern-cement likes control. And UBI would be made in that image.
To control people.
You didn't seem to get the message here. Basic income has no conditions. You get it as a citizen of a nation. No chip required. No strings. No ability to tell you what to do.
Look at Social Security as an existing basic income, but with an age requirement. Does the government have increased control over seniors because of it? No. In fact, the exact opposite it true. The government has less control over seniors, and in fact caters to them.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about basic income... Where on this site we have had many people talk about having fines, levies and criminal charges paid out of the basic income.
And I do not agree with your assertion that govern-cement doesn't have control over seniors. Ever have a friend declared dead?
How is it even possible to use UBI to control people? That makes no sense to me. Please explain.
After UBI is implemented. The minimum needed to live will be equivalent to UBI.
If ever the UBI is taken away, that person immeadiately has no house and no food and a has to find some way to make a minimum of UBI right away or starve to death. And, if you have paid attention to the "UBI-like" thing in Australia, you will notice that many people have suddenly found themselves homeless and/or owing lots of money to the govern-cement because of the people in charge of (mis)managing the UBI.
So, if you are living off UBI, the govern-cement can just flip a switch and turn you into a homeless begger. That's control.
Don't show up to a rally, because facial recognition software is tied in the UBI computer. Don't go to certain web sites, or do certain web searches, because those are also tied in the UBI computer...
False: https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7
As for the rest of your comment, the fact you refer to government as "govern-cement" shows your lack of ability to have any kind of serious discussion.
UBI is unconditional. That's the entire point of it, to remove the ability of government to dictate terms, and also shrink the size of the state down by removing the need of countless bureaucrats. This is why Milton Friedman himself supported it.
If you hate government so much, what's your solution to the automation of human labor? What do you think is going to happen when millions of paid drivers become unemployable, and millions of other jobs fall to AI? Have you got any answer to offer other than "govern-cement is evil'?
Hell, let's even just look at the here and now. What's your solution to the problem of the working poor? What's your solution to the fact tens of million of people are working, and yet don't earn enough to live above the poverty line?
Well, since section 8 housing basically made all the cheap apartments rent at the section 8 housing level, I don't see how you could claim that the basics will cost anything but the amount given in UBI. It might be different this time, but It has happened in every other controlled environment.
Govern-cement is out to kill or control all the people. So, until that gets changed, I will not get behind any plan that involves the govern-cement. And you think I am just being obstinate? I am just one of those "conspiracy wack-jobs"? And thus I can't have a decent conversation?
I do not hold much kin with Rothbard. But two people who wrote extensively about UBI you might want to read.
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
1984 - George Orwell