The possible benefits of universal income

Among all of this week’s readings about the ever-increasing divide of the rich and poor, as well as the importance of the government increasing incentives and funding for social innovation, one article in particular caught my interest. “Finland Wants to Replace Welfare Programs with a Minimum Income for all Residents” is an article that presents an idea that provides a solution to an issue that we have not yet discussed in this Social Innovation class. The article discusses how Finland is attempting to pay its citizens a baseline income of either 550 or 800 euros without taking away its necessary social services. I believe this is an important idea worth considering. This article reminded me of a recent blog post and podcast from one of my favorite sources, Freakonomics. Here is a link to the podcast and transcription: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mincome/. The blog post presents the idea that making a decent income is extremely difficult for those in poverty. Most jobs do not pay a living wage, so those in poverty are forced to take multiple jobs, and often inconvenient hours. To make matters worse, many of the minimum wage jobs that are currently available have the potential to become automated through technological improvements, which would displace the workers. Many of us have already seen automated cashiers in fast food restaurants like McDonalds, and right here in Pittsburgh, driverless taxis are already being tested. Uber, a company that has given many people a chance to make extra money by becoming drivers on their own terms, may not need to employ as many drivers in the future.

Many people might write off the idea of a universal income as too socialist, and might even say that it rewards individuals who are not working hard enough to escape their situation. However, I believe these feelings are misplaced. The US already hands out welfare, the basis of qualifying for which makes accepting more work extremely complicated for people in poverty since they may be unfairly pushed out of the necessary income range. A universal income would solve this problem. The US also funds many social programs, some of which are not necessarily as effective as they could be. By diverting the wasted funds on these inefficient projects, a good amount of funding could be pushed towards the universal income.

It would be silly to expect that people who receive a universal income would simply quit their jobs. I would argue, however, that working conditions may improve. It is possible that having a basic income would allow people to strive for the work that they are more interested in or passionate about, instead of taking possibly demeaning minimum wage jobs.

Bringing the conversation back to social innovation, while certain social interventions may no longer be necessary, market-changing social innovations will still be relevant and important. In fact, those  who were at the bottom of the pyramid will possibly have more funds to allocate toward these life-improving products or services. If this ever becomes the case, maybe Hyde, Fisher, Butcher, and Musa will no longer need to brand their farming irrigation device as the Super Money Maker—instead it could be called the Time Saver or the Happiness Generator and still be successful!