It also bolsters the argument that this is a step toward establishing a “universal basic income” or UBI, by which people would be guaranteed monthly payments to pay for the basic necessities of life. It is this characterization of the measure as a form of UBI that has attracted the backing of wealthy California tech bros and investors who view Oregon as a cheap ballot measure laboratory for testing their concept.
I was a much bigger advocate of a UBI prior to the pandemic. Reality went and changed my mind. I continue to think it works for low-income kids (via the childcare tax credit) which lifted something like 40% of poor kids out of poverty.
I’m much more skeptical now about how it work for adults. My thought used to be that it would free people to do pursue those passions which economics precluded them from attempting. How great would it be if the aspiring actors who are waiting tables could actually focus their full energies on acting? What we saw instead was an idleness and lack of productivity that frankly continues to reverberate around society. The government simply handing out cash was wasteful, inefficient, and in many cases destructive. Not to mention highly inflationary. I would not do it again.
Instead, I think what society owes to its members is food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. I’m not talking opulence in any of those cases. I mean basic food, basic clothing, basic shelter, and basic healthcare.
Money can be a proxy for those things, but I think it’s a poor one. In many cases we’re talking about people who, demonstrably, cannot manage money well in the first place (which is how they ended up needing societal assistance). Giving more money via a UBI doesn’t solve for this.