On June 1 President Donald Trump announced to the world that he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. During an hour-long, 2,000 word, speech in which the president never made mention of "climate change," he made the unsubstantiated assertion that the agreement would cost the U.S. as many as 2.7 million jobs by the year 2025. This move placed our country in opposition to 194 treaty participants and alongside Syria and Nicaragua, the only two countries that did not sign on.
International and national condemnation was fierce and predictable, dividing Mr. Trump's inner circle as well. While the expressed rationale for terminating our participation in the accord appeared designed to appease his political base, the thought process behind the decision seems grounded in Mr. Trump's distrust of the science behind climate change - something he referred to as a "hoax" during the campaign.
Many of Mr. Trump's core supporters reject the expertise of the vast majority of scientists who believe that global warming is linked to human activity. Politicians like Texas Senator Ted Cruz even deny that any warming has been recorded during the past 15 years. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, does not believe that human activity causes climate change. Michele Bachmann believes that nature itself is to blame. And Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe is famous for stating categorically: "My point is, God is still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what he is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
While this may seem like an isolated issue, the attitude of many people, politicians most prominently, is emblematic of what appears to be an expression of a pervasive anti-intellectual attitude lodged in our culture. The literature supporting this line of argument is quite substantial. In 1963 Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter published a study entitled "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," for which he received the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction the following year. For a case study Hofstadter analyzed the 1952 presidential election battle between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. He argued that the contest ultimately came down to a campaign contrasting relative ignorance and superior intellect. Intellect lost. Hofstadter ultimately concluded that, perhaps as a consequence of the "democratization of knowledge," the acquisition and spread of knowledge among the "common people," anti-intellectualism had become embedded in our national fabric.
Our intellectual history has long been grounded in what political scientists refer to as the "protestant ethic," which dictates that a person's duty is to achieve success through hard work and thrift. Success reflects a sign that we are "saved." Combined with "utilitarianism," an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, these ideas became the underpinning of capitalism, a dominant building block for U.S. success. (See Max Weber, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"). Over time intellectual pursuit for its own sake began to be looked at as an impediment to economic development. Enter politicians of various stripes, and analysts observing what they see, and worrying about what we are in for.
For decades politicians have realized that scientific expertise did not sell well. Simplistic bombast, usually confused with ego-infused "common sense" did. Elected officials frequently attacked intellectuals by identifying them in terms such as an "effete core of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as individuals," (Spiro Agnew), or publishing statements like: "I would sooner live in a society governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory, than in a society governed by the 2,000 faculty members of Harvard University." (William F. Buckley). When Donald Trump mentions that he wants to "drain the swamp," he really means getting rid of arrogant technocrats, bookish intellectuals and politically correct elites.
The transition from intellectual pursuit to a dominantly utilitarian focus also infiltrated our educational institutions. U.C. Irvine professor Catherine Liu recently remarked that "We don't educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs." Our students used to rank at the top of the world in math and science. In a recent PEW Research Center test for 15-year-olds from 35 participating OECD countries, we now only placed 30th in math and 19th in science. Hardly surprising, since our educational emphasis has shifted, and since many of our supposed role-models pride themselves on their ignorance.
Decades ago Isaac Asimov warned us of "a culture of ignorance in the United States, nurtured by the fake notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good a your knowledge." In April of this year EPA administrator Scott Pruitt eliminated all climate change references from its website, and instructed his staff to eliminate them from their lexicon. The administration apparently does not want to talk about this.
The question is: "Do we still accept that 'E=MC squared,' or do we want to vote on this?" Ignorance may be comforting to some of our leaders, it is a curse for the future of our country.
Saturday, June 24, 2017
Thursday, June 1, 2017
ARE WE GETTING READY TO PROVIDE A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME FOR EVERYONE?
Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg's commencement address to Harvard's class of 2017 on May 25 included a suggestion that appears to be gaining increasing support among contemporary business leaders. In his address Mr. Zuckerberg proposed that: "we should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas." For us, on the west coast, this came on the heels of a similar recommendation made by Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Y-Combinator president Sam Altman, which was quoted in an article written by Marisa Kendall for the Bay Area News Group, and published on May 21st. Initial responses to these suggestions indicate that the concept is not well understood by the public at large, and, for many, appears to be something entirely new and coming out of left field.
A substantially similar proposal was first published in 1797 when Thomas Paine, in a pamphlet titled "Agrarian Justice," advocated for what he called "asset based egalitarianism," a social insurance system for young and old financed by a 10% tax on inherited property. During the 1960s and 1970s other proposals emerged. Economist Milton Friedman, in his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962), proposed a "negative income tax," while Austrian Nobel Laureate economist Friedrich Hayek in "Law, Legislation and Liberty" (1973) made the case for a Universal Basic Income as well. President Nixon once even contemplated a policy that would have provided "unconditional income for all poor families." (Rutger Bregman, "Nixon's Basic Income Plan," Jacobin, May 5, 2016.)
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) refers to a form of social security in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money in addition to any income received from elsewhere. With technology and automation changing the labor market at an increasing pace, and as new technologies replace working conditions, in many minds the question for the future becomes how to best provide economic security for all. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich produced a column entitled: "The "iEverything and the Redistributional Imperative" (March 16, 2015). In it Reich postulates a little gadget called "iEverything"," which will give us anything we need, and which will be here before we know it. He suggests, however, that once it arrives we won't be able to buy it, because there won't be any paying jobs left. Researchers estimate that almost half of all U.S.jobs are at risk of being automated in the next two decades. Reich and others conclude that because of the speed of technological change a universal basic income will eventually be inevitable.
It is tempting to compare today's technological revolution with the industrial revolution that started in the mid 18th century. Both of these significantly transformed society. At a superficial level, however, we should recognize two important differences. The industrial revolution matured over a period of a hundred years or so. The pace of change was relatively slow, giving workers more time to adjust. Although many workers were shifted from being highly skilled and valued specialists into a fairly cheap, easily replaceable unskilled labor force, they did not typically lose their ability to make a living. The revolution we are experiencing today is much more rapid, giving many workers not enough time or resources to shift into new marketable skills. Elon Musk and others foresee an impending robot revolution expected to leave a trail of unemployment in its wake. "Futurism," a newsletter designed to "cover breakthrough technologies and scientific discoveries that will shape humanity's future," report that robot to worker ratios are rapidly increasing, currently running from 1.64 per 100 workers in the U.S. to 4.78 per 100 workers in South Korea. It projects that occupations like insurance underwriters, farm laborers construction workers, fast food cooks, truck drivers and mail carriers are among the many that are at risk.
Proponents of the UBI approach argue that it will free welfare recipients from the paternalistic oversight of conditional welfare-state policies. They suggest that traditional welfare schemes create a disincentive to work, because they cause people to lose benefits at the same rate that their income rises. They project that UBI will be affordable because it serves as a substitute of a wide range of social welfare programs. Since most people are above the median income level, they will, in fact, financially underwrite a basic income for all through their income tax. They look at UBI as a promise of equal opportunity, and a new starting line set above the poverty line. Opponents basically disagree on all counts. Even though they might support the "trickle down" concept, they don't see it here.
Several countries have experimented with some form of UBI. Alaska implemented its own brand in 1982. Its system is called the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), which is derived from earnings on investment of the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF), a portfolio of diversified assets. Because of market fluctuations, the amount given to Alaskan residents vary. Canada, Finland, The Netherlands, and numerous developing African countries have also started to experiment with this approach. In June of 2016 Swiss citizens participated in a referendum asking whether a form of UBI should be incorporated into their constitution. The proposal was to provide a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss Francs to each citizen. It failed with 76.9% of voters voting against.
Even though many are still uncomfortable with the idea of giving people money simply for being a citizen, the heightened interest in these kinds of proposals suggest that intelligent people from all walks of life contemplate an impending need to address the negative consequences of a technological revolution that continues to pick up speed. Current conditional welfare-state policies may well be obsolete, and need rethinking.
A substantially similar proposal was first published in 1797 when Thomas Paine, in a pamphlet titled "Agrarian Justice," advocated for what he called "asset based egalitarianism," a social insurance system for young and old financed by a 10% tax on inherited property. During the 1960s and 1970s other proposals emerged. Economist Milton Friedman, in his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962), proposed a "negative income tax," while Austrian Nobel Laureate economist Friedrich Hayek in "Law, Legislation and Liberty" (1973) made the case for a Universal Basic Income as well. President Nixon once even contemplated a policy that would have provided "unconditional income for all poor families." (Rutger Bregman, "Nixon's Basic Income Plan," Jacobin, May 5, 2016.)
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) refers to a form of social security in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money in addition to any income received from elsewhere. With technology and automation changing the labor market at an increasing pace, and as new technologies replace working conditions, in many minds the question for the future becomes how to best provide economic security for all. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich produced a column entitled: "The "iEverything and the Redistributional Imperative" (March 16, 2015). In it Reich postulates a little gadget called "iEverything"," which will give us anything we need, and which will be here before we know it. He suggests, however, that once it arrives we won't be able to buy it, because there won't be any paying jobs left. Researchers estimate that almost half of all U.S.jobs are at risk of being automated in the next two decades. Reich and others conclude that because of the speed of technological change a universal basic income will eventually be inevitable.
It is tempting to compare today's technological revolution with the industrial revolution that started in the mid 18th century. Both of these significantly transformed society. At a superficial level, however, we should recognize two important differences. The industrial revolution matured over a period of a hundred years or so. The pace of change was relatively slow, giving workers more time to adjust. Although many workers were shifted from being highly skilled and valued specialists into a fairly cheap, easily replaceable unskilled labor force, they did not typically lose their ability to make a living. The revolution we are experiencing today is much more rapid, giving many workers not enough time or resources to shift into new marketable skills. Elon Musk and others foresee an impending robot revolution expected to leave a trail of unemployment in its wake. "Futurism," a newsletter designed to "cover breakthrough technologies and scientific discoveries that will shape humanity's future," report that robot to worker ratios are rapidly increasing, currently running from 1.64 per 100 workers in the U.S. to 4.78 per 100 workers in South Korea. It projects that occupations like insurance underwriters, farm laborers construction workers, fast food cooks, truck drivers and mail carriers are among the many that are at risk.
Proponents of the UBI approach argue that it will free welfare recipients from the paternalistic oversight of conditional welfare-state policies. They suggest that traditional welfare schemes create a disincentive to work, because they cause people to lose benefits at the same rate that their income rises. They project that UBI will be affordable because it serves as a substitute of a wide range of social welfare programs. Since most people are above the median income level, they will, in fact, financially underwrite a basic income for all through their income tax. They look at UBI as a promise of equal opportunity, and a new starting line set above the poverty line. Opponents basically disagree on all counts. Even though they might support the "trickle down" concept, they don't see it here.
Several countries have experimented with some form of UBI. Alaska implemented its own brand in 1982. Its system is called the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), which is derived from earnings on investment of the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF), a portfolio of diversified assets. Because of market fluctuations, the amount given to Alaskan residents vary. Canada, Finland, The Netherlands, and numerous developing African countries have also started to experiment with this approach. In June of 2016 Swiss citizens participated in a referendum asking whether a form of UBI should be incorporated into their constitution. The proposal was to provide a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss Francs to each citizen. It failed with 76.9% of voters voting against.
Even though many are still uncomfortable with the idea of giving people money simply for being a citizen, the heightened interest in these kinds of proposals suggest that intelligent people from all walks of life contemplate an impending need to address the negative consequences of a technological revolution that continues to pick up speed. Current conditional welfare-state policies may well be obsolete, and need rethinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)