A UBI Should Mean Less Labor Regulation
I am generally in favor of a UBI, at least compared to the existing state of affairs. Strictly speaking, I’d prefer the elimination of the welfare state in its entirety, because I think welfare makes people worse off, on average. But that’s a complicated topic, and involves lots of very unintuitive and cold-feeling calculations, and I think it is a political nonstarter.
(There’s a variant of a UBI I am less reservedly in favor of - citizens each get an equal proportion of whatever is left over in the federal budget each month. I think this aligns a lot of incentives much better than the system we currently have, but it’s hard to get to there from here.)
So, that out of the way - let us suppose you think I’m a monster, now. Maybe you’re a free market economist who thinks that a UBI is really really bad. Or maybe you’re a social welfare person who thinks my comments about welfare making people worse off are some kind of evil.
Let’s start from there: I’m a monster. And here’s the monstrous deal I think a UBI offers: We don’t need most labor laws anymore. If everybody gets a living-wage UBI - no argument remains for a living-wage minimum wage. No argument remains for minimum wages at all - and in many respects, we should expect wages to plummet.
If employment is at-will for -workers- - if they do not depend on their employment to continue living - then the power dynamics of labor have changed dramatically. We don’t just lose the argument for a minimum wage - we lose the argument for the vast majority of labor laws entirely. All work is optional - nobody needs to work - and therefore, labor laws no longer need to balance the power dynamic between employees and employers.
Arguments likely remain in certain marginal cases - but they change in nature dramatically. Arguments for safety regulations become less about protecting employees from the exploitation of employers, and become more about protecting employees (and employers) from particular cases of poor decision-making - labor safety becomes less of a class issue, and becomes more like seat belt laws.
And there are classes of employment where the employees are regarded as wielding disproportionate power in our society - a lot of the arguments about STEM fields ultimately kind of come down to this - which mean “anti-discrimination” laws may remain relevant.
But - if you’re for a UBI, and are arguing with those who oppose it on free market grounds - a useful avenue of argument may be the observation that we can dispose of a lot of current labor regulations, including the minimum wage, under a UBI scheme.
And if you’re against a UBI - perhaps consider whether your position would change if the bargain includes getting rid of a lot of deadweight-loss regulations in our society.