Plan Proposal
In the lecture, Professor Trost talks about a plan he devised to create a Universal Basic Income, or what he likes to call a Universal Basic Dividend. To start, he gave us a list of definitions, which to someone like me who has a very limited business background, is very helpful and appreciated. Trost defined a dividend as a “distribution of profits to eligible shareholders,” which sounds more like a stock you can buy into than a regular income, which is what most people propose for the United States. He then gives a broad idea of what his proposal would consist of, as it would limit federal government power and maintain property rights without infringing on any other right. This plan already sounds better than most proposed Universal Basic Income plans that have been in circulation for the last couple of years and is more likely to be supported by fiscal conservatives, which is unheard of as far as UBI’s go. But, his number one selling point that he gave was that he is not just proposing a UBD, but a path to freedom for those who are stuck in bad situations and cannot get out without some help. While I am still skeptical at this point, because to me it is still sounding like the idea of a less corrupt welfare system, he qualifies his plan even further and offers a solution with an explanation. I am a numbers person, so seeing that Professor Trost did the math instead of just throwing another utopian-like idea out there that sounds great on paper but will fail just as horribly as the New Deal, it is refreshing and reassuring to know that he has data to back up his claims (this sounds like it should be expected but as a society, we have lowered the bar so much that it is shocking to me).
Qualifiers
Thinking ahead, Professor Trost gave us a list of both arguments against his plan and the non-negotiables that would be in place to prevent most of those arguments from happening. However, one of his points struck me as odd; he believes that by putting a UBD in place, only a small number of people would take advantage of it and lose all sense of personal responsibility. I would have to disagree with that notion. I have seen firsthand the corruption that comes from giving out money for not working and the effect that welfare checks have on individuals’ lives. There are too many lazy individuals out there who would much rather be handed the money tospend on whateverk they want, typically drugs, and would be overjoyed to not have to lift a finger for that money. Even with the elimination of minimum wages and increased mobility, those who are in bad situations willingly and continue to do nothing to change it will do no different with his proposed plan than they already do on welfare or stimulus checks. And on another point, the introduction of stimulus checks after the global pandemic COVID has proved that there is no real work ethic left in a majority of individuals. People can make money sitting at home watching TV and not worrying because they knew their checks were coming in the mail without having to work for them. So I propose a question, why do you, Professor Trost, believe that in this system it would be a different situation than what we already have happening? What about your plan that I either missed or misunderstood proves that your proposed plan would be changing those individuals’ perspective on life so dramatically that they got up off the couch, got off the drugs, and turned their lives around?
Closing Statements
Despite my last couple of points, I am in favor of Professor Trost’s plan of implementing a Universal Basic Dividend. He said all the right words with all the right numbers to convince me, a person who does not support welfare or any other already proposed UBI plan, that his plan, or even a version of it, would be the one to succeed in our country. The idea of having a flat tax rate is comforting, especially as a college student who was never taught to file taxes, as well as efficient given the success rates in other countries that already have one implemented in their societies. And I agree with his closing statement that unfortunately, even as great as this plan sounds and would be better than the previously existing system, it is only plausible right now. Politicians are too reluctant to give up power and too little amount of people know about it right now for the democratic process to take full effect. And speaking of politicians, I know that Professor Trost sees the potential population density shift towards low-cost areas, like Oklahoma, as a good thing, but how does that now affect gerrymandering and political leanings of the states? Historically, the Midwest states have all been lowkey in almost every aspect of life, but if they start to get a huge influx of people will that change the supply and demand? What will happen to our farmlands and agriculture? Will the pendulum swing the other way and the coastal cities, notorious for being uber-expensive and overcrowded, will now become deserted as people pick up and head west for cheaper opportunities? It is interesting to think about the socio-cultural impacts a plan like this could have on our societies in the future. I thought this lecture was very interesting to learn about and has sparked a few questions that I would love to explore further.
Picture Citation
“Manifest Destiny.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Feb. 2023, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny.
