Saez, E. (2018). Striking It Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States. Inequality in the 21st Century,39-42. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2017.pdf
Background: This is a ghastly statistic that almost seems unbelievable. A large part of this income disparity has to do with automation. Cheaper labor equals larger profits. So when a corporation can find a way to cut costs they will. Whether that be lowering wages or turning to automation. This greed by corporations hurts workers within the private sector. Having to compete with machines by taking lowered or stifled wages make living comfortably extremely difficult and/or impossible.
I used this to show just how large the income inequality gap is so that it gives the reader some idea of just how out of hand it has gotten.
Top 1.0 percent reaches highest wages ever-up 157 percent since 1979. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/blog/top-1-0-percent-reaches-highest-wages-ever-up-157-percent-since-1979/
Background: Which if just looking at the percentage for the bottom 90% looks great, however comparing it to the top .1% you can see just how outrageous it really is. In 1979 the average income for the bottom 90% was $29,608 while the top .1% earned $622,018. In 2017 on average the bottom 90% made $36,182 while the top .1% made $2,756,865. This ridiculous growth within nearly half a century has created more problems for the average U.S citizen.
I used this source to show the difference in growth between the 99% and the .1%. This shows the reader the absurdity of the rates of growth between the two.
Preliminary results of the basic income experiment: Self-perceived wellbeing improved, during the first year no effects on employment – News archive for customers. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-archive/-/asset_publisher/lN08GY2nIrZo/content/preliminary-results-of-the-basic-income-experiment-self-perceived-wellbeing-improved-during-the-first-year-no-effects-on-employment
Background: These findings show partially what was thought what a UBI would do. It did increase happiness. This could be for a multitude of reasons. It could be because they had a little more financial freedom, as in, they could pay bills they were worrying about, repay debts, eat healthier, etc. This is great in a democratic sense that these people were able to feel less hopeless and hopeful and confident for the future, but in a capitalistic sense it would be seen as a negative as the participants of the study’s job prospects didn’t really improve. According to Finland’s Labour Institute for Economic Research compared to the control group those who did receive money they worked on average .4 days more in 2017 and earned $24 less. This would show that nothing has changed in a capitalistic sense, but we also have to remember that this is just a one year chunk of a two year study. We won’t know until 2020 for the full results.
I used this source to show that even though a UBI might not help with job prospects that it gave the participants more confidence and optimism for the future.
Smith, A. (2010). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Charleston, SC: Bibiobazaar.
Background: but Adam Smith’s Labor Theory of Value would say that the income made by the worker for the company is the material expense and compensation for the work put in. Many other philosophers would disagree however.
I used this source to explain the Labor Theory of Value and how workers are exploited through labor.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1971). Capital by Karl Marx. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
however a UBI would not necessarily fall under this system. Within a capitalistic society a UBI would be implemented sort of as a compromise between these two ideologies. A UBI would give the workers more value when it came to the development of goods and decrease income inequality between the different economic classes, while the capitalists still own the means of production and still make a profit, however at a much lower rate and at a more equal rate to the income of the workers.
I used this source to explain Marxism, but also how a UBI is a bridge between capitalism and Marxism.
Hunter, B. (2017, September 08). The Top Three Arguments against a Universal Basic Income | Brittany Hunter. Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/the-top-three-arguments-against-a-universal-basic-income/
Background: One of the first arguments against a UBI is that it’s too expensive. This is true funding a UBI would require a raise in taxes and a rise in the U.S deficit, however this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
I used this source to provide arguments against a UBI so that I could turn those arguments into strengths for a UBI
Background: This is what keeps the U.S and many countries at peace and afloat. Most countries have invested within the debts of other countries. This encourages trade as a prosperous economy increases the purchasing power of that economies currency. This, in turn, increases the worth of the loan held by the foreign country.
I used this source to show who holds the U.S’s debt to make the argument that having federal debt isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Canada’s Ontario government cuts basic income project short. (2018, August 01). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45023510
Background: If you look at a UBI in what studies have been conducted you can see that this isn’t enough money to live off of. The ideology behind a UBI is to allow for more economic freedom within a changing landscape with the rise of automation. Most participants in these studies anyway are also on welfare programs. To keep taxes lowered it would be logical to change where taxes are spent.
I used this source to show how much money was received by participants to show how difficult it would be to live off a UBI. This would prove that a UBI is more of a incentive than a handout.