A Universal Basic Income and Work Incentives: What Does the Empirical Evidence Tell Us?

In Part 1 of this series, I outlined some basic economic theory regarding a universal basic income (UBI) and work incentives. By a UBI, I mean an income support policy that provides a set monthly benefit to every citizen. A UBI, as I define it, would to everyone, regardless of income, wealth, or employment status. In that respect it differs from means-tested income support policies (MTIS), such as current US welfare system programs or a negative income tax (NIT), which reduce benefits as the recipient’s income increases.

The fear that a UBI would undermine work incentives is among the most important sources of resistance to the idea. In Part 1, I argued, on theoretical grounds, that replacing the existing welfare system with a UBI would tend to increase average work effort. This part will look at several sources of evidence that support the theory, beginning with the famous income maintenance experiments (IMEs) of the 1970s and 1980s.

What we can learn from the IMEs and what we can’t learn

The income maintenance experiments in question followed a method known as randomized field trials. Each of the experiments enrolled from several hundred to several thousand households and divided them into two groups. They assigned one group to an experimental income support policy while a control group continued to be covered by existing welfare programs, including Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps, and others. IMEs testing various policies took place in New Jersey, Iowa, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, and Washington. They covered both urban and rural areas; both single parent and two-parent households; and various ethnic groups.

Universal Basic Income and Work Incentives: What Can Economic Theory Tell Us?

Everywhere you look, it seems, people are talking about a Universal Basic Income (UBI)—a monthly cash benefit paid to every citizen that would replace the existing means-tested welfare system.

Supporters maintain that a UBI would not only provide income support to people in need, but would also increase work incentives. That is because, unlike the current welfare system, it would not claw back 50, 70, or even 100 percent of the earnings of low-income workers who make the effort to get a job. Opponents are more skeptical. They fear that if everyone were given a basic cash income with no requirement to work, people would quit their jobs in droves and we would end up with a nation of layabouts.

Who is right? This post examines the relevant economic theory. Part 2 will look at the evidence.

Krugman vs. the Libertarians on Phosphorus, Freedom, and Environmental Economics

Paul Krugman is at it again with a stunningly ignorant NYT op-ed on libertarians and the environment, “Phosphorus and Freedom.” As the author of a book on the libertarian perspective on environmental policy, I would like to respond.

Phosphorus comes into the picture in the form of agricultural runoff that pollutes Lake Erie, recently making the Toledo water supply temporarily undrinkable. Krugman blames this kind of thing on libertarians, who, he says, endorse an idea of freedom that includes the freedom to pollute one’s neighbor’s water supply.

Sadly, Krugman’s knowledge of the libertarian position on environmental economics seems to be limited to what he hears on talk radio and what he reads on conservative web sites like Red State. That is problem No. 1: Krugman pretends not to understand the difference between conservatism and libertarianism. He should start by reading Friedrich Hayek’s classic essay “Why I am Not a Conservative,” but maybe he can’t tear himself away from Red State.

According to Krugman, libertarians believe that “anyone who worries about the environment is engaged in scare tactics to further a big-government agenda.” In truth, real libertarians care very much about environmental issues. They just see them through a different lens than Krugman does. >>>Read more

How Many Miles Can You Drive on One Hour's Wages? From the Model T to the Prius in One Chart

Recently I came across this assertion in a comment box on one of my favorite websites: “The cost to fuel your car has never been higher as a percentage of disposable income.” 

Really? I know gasoline prices are high, but you just can’t make that assertion without looking at incomes and fuel economy, too. I decided to check the data.

I was able to put together 50 years of pretty consistent data for the key variables, with only a little stitching together to make the starting points and end points fit. The series I used were:

• Nominal wage in dollars per hour for production and nonsupervisory workers.
• Average fuel economy of cars on the road, old and new, based on a series from the Department of Transportation for 1980 to 2012 and estimates from various sources to fill in the earlier years.
• Average gasoline prices from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Department of Energy.

For  years before 1964, data are harder to come by. Instead of trying to put together a complete series, I decided to go with spot estimates for three iconic cars of yore: A 1919 Model T (About 17 MPG), a 1935 Ford V-8 (about 15 MPG), and a larger 1950 Ford V-8, about 14 MPG.

To calculate the miles that you could drive per hour worked (MPHW), just divide your wage by the price you pay for gasoline and multiply by your car’s fuel efficiency in miles per gallon. >>>Read more

US Job Market Records Best Six-Month Gains in Years

Today’s report from the BLS showed that the US economy added 209,000 payroll jobs in July. With

upward revisions for May and June, total job growth for the past six months comes to 1,400,000, making it the best six-month stretch since the recovery began. Private sector employers added jobs in both goods and services. The government sector reported 11,000 new jobs, all at the local level. Federal employment was unchanged while state governments shed 1,000 jobs.

The household survey also showed solid gains. The civilian labor force grew by 239,000, well above the average monthly gain of recent years. Total employment increased by 131,000. (Because of sampling error and methodological differences, the number of new payroll jobs in the survey of employers often differs from the change in employment according to the household survey.) With so many workers entering the job market, the number of unemployed increased by 197,000, sending the unemployment rate up slightly to 6.2 percent. The broad unemployment rate, U-6, which takes discouraged workers and involuntary part-time workers into account, also rose by a tenth of a percentage point. >>>Read more

Follow this link to view or downward a brief slideshow with additional charts of the latest employment situation