STEVEN PEARLSTEIN

There is the freedom from want, despair and psychological insecurity that would come from having income sufficient to provide the necessities of life. But there is also the freedom to choose not to work for a time in order to take care of family members, pursue a passion, acquire education or contribute to a worthwhile community project. There is the freedom to start a new business with an uncertain future, the freedom to say yes to a job that pays little but yields joy and satisfaction — and the freedom to say no to a job that pays too little or is demeaning and unpleasant. Why, they ask, should such freedoms be reserved only for the wealthy?

How will we deal with a world where leisure is abundant and there aren't enough good-paying jobs to go around? To meet this political and economic meta-challenge, the hot new idea is the universal basic income — using some of the wealth generated by all this new technology to guarantee everyone a baseline income, whether they are working or not.

Guaranteed income schemes can take various forms, but in the simplist the government sends every citizen an annual check in an amount sufficient to keep the worlf from the door when misfortune strikes, but not large enough to satisfy anyone's idea of a good life.

… there is inherent in the dynamics of capitalism a natural and destabilizing tendency toward inequality of income, wealth and opportunity.

Unlike the 19th century, when real estate and government bonds were the primary form of capital, it is riskier assets that generate most of the wealth in the modern global economy — assets that can more quickly lose value as a result of changes in technology or global competition.

In any country, … only a small portion of the income earned in any year is a result of individual work effort, ingenuity and risk-taking. The rest is explained by the natural resources with which that country is endowed, the physical infrastructure, the collective know-how of fellow citizens, the quality of public and private institutions, and the degree of trust that greases the wheels of commerce, politics and everyday life.

As free-market champion Friedrich Hayek saw it, guarenteeing everyone a subsistance income was the moral precondition for opposing broader socialist schemes to equalize income. For Milton Fried, it was an opportunity to eleminate expensive layers of government bureaucracy.

… there is inherent in the dynamics of capitalism a natural and destabilizing tendency toward inequality of income, wealth and opportunity.

Unlike the 19th century, when real estate and government bonds were the primary form of capital, it is riskier assets that generate most of the wealth in the modern global economy — assets that can more quickly lose value as a result of changes in technology or global competition.

How will we deal with a world where leisure is abundant and there aren't enough good-paying jobs to go around? To meet this political and economic meta-challenge, the hot new idea is the universal basic income — using some of the wealth generated by all this new technology to guarantee everyone a baseline income, whether they are working or not.

Guaranteed income schemes can take various forms, but in the simplist the government sends every citizen an annual check in an amount sufficient to keep the worlf from the door when misfortune strikes, but not large enough to satisfy anyone's idea of a good life.

There is the freedom from want, despair and psychological insecurity that would come from having income sufficient to provide the necessities of life. But there is also the freedom to choose not to work for a time in order to take care of family members, pursue a passion, acquire education or contribute to a worthwhile community project. There is the freedom to start a new business with an uncertain future, the freedom to say yes to a job that pays little but yields joy and satisfaction — and the freedom to say no to a job that pays too little or is demeaning and unpleasant. Why, they ask, should such freedoms be reserved only for the wealthy?

As free-market champion Friedrich Hayek saw it, guarenteeing everyone a subsistance income was the moral precondition for opposing broader socialist schemes to equalize income. For Milton Fried, it was an opportunity to eleminate expensive layers of government bureaucracy.

In any country, … only a small portion of the income earned in any year is a result of individual work effort, ingenuity and risk-taking. The rest is explained by the natural resources with which that country is endowed, the physical infrastructure, the collective know-how of fellow citizens, the quality of public and private institutions, and the degree of trust that greases the wheels of commerce, politics and everyday life.