Researcher Lu Chien-yi (盧倩儀) says that governments have a duty to ensure citizens’ basic needs are met. However, she’s not been won over by the idea of universal basic income (UBI) — regular, unconditional state payments to all — and suggests that one should judge any proposal by the company it keeps.
Neoliberal economists like Milton Friedman and tech tycoons such as OpenAI CEO Sam Altman have expressed support for various forms of UBI, she says, but warns that “They’re not our friends.”
“Their kind of UBI would be used to justify an economic system that features extreme concentrations of wealth and extreme environmental costs,” and rule out any real reforms, says Lu, a research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of European and American Studies.
Photo: AFP/TIME /TIME Person of the Year
By contrast, what she calls a “left wing UBI” would help people “escape from the cage of the so-called ‘free market economy.’” Highlighting the role government contracts have played in building Elon Musk’s wealth and the scale of regulatory capture, Lu scoffs at the idea that the playing field is anywhere near level.
“The market is not an invisible hand,” she says.
Neoliberal supporters of UBI argue that it would provide a safety net without the inefficient bureaucracy and paternalism of a traditional welfare state. Because citizens could make their own decisions and act according to their own priorities, it would encourage individual responsibility and respect consumer choice.
Photo: Fang Pin-chao, Taipei Times
“Right-wing elites have always been very good at appropriating attractive slogans and concepts,” says Lu, who suspects that some UBI proponents on the right have “a vicious hidden agenda to get rid of the welfare state.” Abolishing the tapestry of targeted payments and services that makes up a modern welfare system would reduce citizens’ bargaining power, and make the powerless even more vulnerable, she says.
Many of the ultra-rich, Lu says, “foster a narrative that people are poor because they’re lazy or they lack self-discipline. But it’s the concentration of wealth in their hands that makes others poor. It’s the system, not work ethic, that’s creating inequality.”
Another of her concerns is that UBI would leave those who depend on it exposed to the market, which is “a nice playground for rich people,” but the source of great stress for the many who struggle to meet rent or afford healthcare.
Photo: AP
The proposal made by UBI Taiwan (see the first part of this series in yesterday’s Taipei Times) prompts Lu to ask if, wittingly or not, the group is promoting the kind of universal basic income that would serve the interests of the rich and powerful.
In e-mailed answers provided to the Taipei Times, UBI Taiwan say they “rely on small donations and government subsidies for general funding,” and that they’re not supported by external institutions. They’re preparing to launch a UBI experiment with backing from a fintech company, however, and they hope to get other businesses on board, pitching involvement as a way to fulfill ESG responsibilities or as a social impact initiative.
ENTRENCHING LOW PAY
A common criticism of UBI is that it might entrench low pay and precarious work, by unintentionally subsidizing employers who don’t pay well or promise a minimum number of working hours. But the same is said of certain existing state-funded benefits: In the US, some researchers contend that SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and daycare subsidies often bridge the gap between low wages paid by employers and the actual cost of living.
UBI Taiwan, which has been studying guaranteed income systems since 2017, acknowledge this risk, but go on to say: “We believe the net effect of UBI is to increase workers’ bargaining power, not depress wages.”
A stable safety net would empower individuals, “giving them the confidence to refuse low wages or poor working conditions, which in turn will drive wages upward.”
Alternatively, UBI recipients could spend time upskilling, pursuing passion projects or engaging in socially valuable activities, such as volunteering.
“This may reduce the labor supply, forcing companies to either offer higher wages to attract employees or invest in automation,” UBI Taiwan says.
As outlined in yesterday’s article, the group believes it’s devised a way to give everyone aged 18 to 35 a guaranteed basic income of NT$15,515 per month without hiking income or corporation taxes, and that there are compelling reasons why this cohort deserves special help.
So far, there’s been no stampede of politicians throwing their weight behind the proposal. The only elected official showing a consistent interest in UBI is Ko Ju-chun (葛如鈞), a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator who often talks about technology and its ramifications. UBI Taiwan says it doesn’t want the UBI movement to be linked with any particular party given current political polarization.
USB VS UBI
Lu thinks a system of universal basic services (UBS) would be more equitable than UBI, and also better for the environment. Providing cash can help people survive, but it often fails to address the root causes of social dysfunction, such as a lack of affordable housing. When organizing healthcare, transportation, and other services, governments can mandate electric vehicles, 100-percent renewable energy and locally-sourced inputs.
Essential services should be part of “the commons,” shared resources and public goods accessible to every member of society, rather than private property or market commodities, she argues. In an ideal world, “they’d be decommodified.”
“People in Taiwan are naive about the super-rich and tech firms. They don’t see how harmful these people are,” laments Lu. “You see how they react when Jensen Huang (黃仁勳) comes to Taiwan? Many think that whatever is good for AI, is good for Taiwan. They don’t consider the cost in terms of land, water and energy.”
In Lu’s opinion, AI is already having “a terrible impact. It’s very intrusive, taking our data and privacy, then coming back to train us what to read, see and think. It’s deepening the wealth and power gaps.”
Economic and geopolitical ructions may make life worse for the average person.
“But there are also opportunities for real, systemic progress — so long as we don’t just apply band-aids,” Lu says.
Exceptions to the rule are sometimes revealing. For a brief few years, there was an emerging ideological split between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) that appeared to be pushing the DPP in a direction that would be considered more liberal, and the KMT more conservative. In the previous column, “The KMT-DPP’s bureaucrat-led developmental state” (Dec. 11, page 12), we examined how Taiwan’s democratic system developed, and how both the two main parties largely accepted a similar consensus on how Taiwan should be run domestically and did not split along the left-right lines more familiar in
As I finally slid into the warm embrace of the hot, clifftop pool, it was a serene moment of reflection. The sound of the river reflected off the cave walls, the white of our camping lights reflected off the dark, shimmering surface of the water, and I reflected on how fortunate I was to be here. After all, the beautiful walk through narrow canyons that had brought us here had been inaccessible for five years — and will be again soon. The day had started at the Huisun Forest Area (惠蓀林場), at the end of Nantou County Route 80, north and east
Specialty sandwiches loaded with the contents of an entire charcuterie board, overflowing with sauces, creams and all manner of creative add-ons, is perhaps one of the biggest global food trends of this year. From London to New York, lines form down the block for mortadella, burrata, pistachio and more stuffed between slices of fresh sourdough, rye or focaccia. To try the trend in Taipei, Munchies Mafia is for sure the spot — could this be the best sandwich in town? Carlos from Spain and Sergio from Mexico opened this spot just seven months ago. The two met working in the
This month the government ordered a one-year block of Xiaohongshu (小紅書) or Rednote, a Chinese social media platform with more than 3 million users in Taiwan. The government pointed to widespread fraud activity on the platform, along with cybersecurity failures. Officials said that they had reached out to the company and asked it to change. However, they received no response. The pro-China parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), immediately swung into action, denouncing the ban as an attack on free speech. This “free speech” claim was then echoed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC),
RSS