Put Joe Biden Down as a “No” on Universal Basic Income

 

My guess, both from what’s in the media and talking to insiders, is that former Vice President Joe Biden is going to make a 2020 run for the Democratic presidential nomination. (He’s the very slight favorite, according to PredictIt.) In fact he just announced, Axios reports, “a big-name list of members of the Biden Institute Policy Advisory Board.”

In addition, he also put forward a plan to “restore the basic bargain … in this country that if you contributed to the success of an enterprise you got to share in its profits so you could not only make ends meet but also get ahead.” Lots in their about education, skills building, and reducing barriers to work (oddly though nothing about occupational licensing).

One thing that caught my eye is that Biden weighed in on the issue of a universal basic income. He doesn’t think much of it. Biden:

Americans don’t want a no-strings-attached check from the government, like the universal basic income proposal pushed by some leaders in Silicon Valley. They want work that provides dignity and a sense of community as well as a good paycheck. To deliver on that, we need policies that support work and ensure workers can succeed in a changing economy.

I think Biden probably has the politics right here. (And the policy, too, for that matter.) Work is still how people define themselves to a great extent, and how they order their lives. It might also seem odd to promote such a policy when the unemployment rate is 4% and likely headed lower, perhaps much lower. And what is the upside in promoting a policy that might a good one for the year 2043? Of course, the idea may be gaining traction among progressives, especially the activist class. So maybe there will be a candidate who hoists the UBI banner. Oprah?

Published in Economics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 29 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    I’m not sure, but given what’s happened to the republican party, I might actually vote for him.  He’s at least a person I’d feel comfortable letting in my living room.

    • #1
  2. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    I’m not sure, but given what’s happened to the republican party, I might actually vote for him. He’s at least a person I’d feel comfortable letting in my living room.

    Not if your middle aged aunt was in there.  Or at least you shouldn’t.  Biden’s campaign slogan should be “Dopey and Gropey.”

    • #2
  3. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    I’m not sure, but given what’s happened to the republican party, I might actually vote for him. He’s at least a person I’d feel comfortable letting in my living room.

    Not if your middle aged aunt was in there. Or at least you shouldn’t. Biden’s campaign slogan should be “Dopey and Gropey.”

    Yea, but he’s gropey in the “goofy old man” way, not in the “dirty old perv” way.  And I don’t think he’s a crook.  Look, would I vote for him against Paul Ryan?  Probably not.  But relative to what our parties have been upchucking as candidates lately, we could do worse.

    • #3
  4. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Why is UBI even discussed as a serious topic? No one really cares. That is the problem. 

    • #4
  5. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    I’m not sure, but given what’s happened to the republican party, I might actually vote for him. He’s at least a person I’d feel comfortable letting in my living room.

    That’s what Clarence Thomas thought until Biden went with he pack.

    • #5
  6. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    The argument for universal income was to get rid of the conditions in welfare that make it so destructive. Much better to turn all of it over to the states without mandates and with perhaps one or two years of declining funding and let those who can, figure it out, fund it as their citizens want, or kill them.

    • #6
  7. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Biden’s like Ed Rendell, or James Carville: he’s a strong partisan, but not a strong ideologue. He’ll fight for the Democrats till his dying day but he’s not a leftist. He’s your average, old fashioned Dem northeast machine politician. I would have liked him more if he hadn’t been an overcaffeinated cheerleader from 2008 to 2016. 

    I have one “personal” thing against him, and it’s not really his fault: the assumption on the part of condescending liberals that older whites feel reassured by having someone who is also old and white, so we aren’t frightened by change. I’d take John McWhorter for president over the old white guy anytime. 

    • #7
  8. jeannebodine Member
    jeannebodine
    @jeannebodine

    I live outside of Delaware and I’ve watched Joe Biden in operation for over 30 years. The local press was a tad more objective then or maybe the reporters hated him just like everyone else did. Whatever the reasons, his transgressions were seldom glossed over in the press.  It doesn’t take a lot of searching on the web to discover that Joey “Paste-Eater” Biden is one of the nastiest, vindictive, vicious snakes in the nest of vipers we call Washington, DC. He is so repugnant, he makes the rest of the vipers look good in comparison and even the vipers themselves keep their distance, knowing that Choo Choo Biden is a cut above and never to be trusted.

    Don’t be fooled by his “regular old guy” persona from Scranton, PA, someone that you’d like to have a beer with on a Friday night. He’s a brazen liar; a back-stabber, a plagiarist, a loathsome individual, a crooked fraud (see his son and China + 30 year track record of shady deals and illegal activities), an ungracious cheapskate (except with our money), a repellent human being on so many levels. He has one of the filthiest mouths in politics and isn’t afraid to abusively unload on anyone, anytime. Not to mention his creepy fondling of young girls and his propensity for walking around nude in front of female Secret Service agents. And as full time caregiver for a husband who has EOAD, Joey exhibits many classic signs of dementia. Or perhaps he’s just a stone-cold idiot who was dropped on his head as a baby. Repeatedly.

    Oh, but Trump! Right? Be careful for what you wish for.

    • #8
  9. jeannebodine Member
    jeannebodine
    @jeannebodine

    Sorry, wrong thread.

     

    • #9
  10. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    He’s a bit swampy for my taste. 

    • #10
  11. Chris Campion Coolidge
    Chris Campion
    @ChrisCampion

    So, has anyone read the link, to Biden’s proposals?  Here’s a few gems (highlights mine):

    Joe:  Lastly, we need to break down the barriers that keep workers on the sidelines of our economy or keep them from being paid fairly for their work. We have to remove obstacles that deprive workers of their bargaining power. For example, we need to get rid of non-compete agreements that prevent workers from seeking better job opportunities elsewhere. Nearly half of workers will be subject to these agreements at some point – not just engineers with trade secrets, but sandwich makers, pest control workers, and so many more. We need to prevent companies from denying workers overtime by mislabeling them as management. It’s wrong. And, we need to support laws that allow labor unions to flourish and fight for basic worker protections.

    1.  Non-competes are voluntarily signed.  There’s a reason they exist, so the company doesn’t lose something to a competing company due to a resource taking that proprietary info shopping.

         2.  Salaried workers aren’t “denied” overtime pay; they willingly took jobs that aren’t hourly based.  I’m not “management”, and never have been, but I work a hell of a lot more than 40 per week.  Why?  Because I’m a professional and work as much as I need to in order to get the job done.

         3.  Unions are fully free to form in the United States.  We don’t need to “support” more laws in this regard; that sounds a lot like compulsory union installation, by fiat.  There’s a reason unions have been dying in the US.  You don’t need them to have benefits or good working conditions.  It’s not 1884.  Unions prevent competition; ironically, competition is what drives companies to improve working conditions, salaries, benefits – so they can attract and keep the best talent.

    Joe has some ideas: 

    There are all sorts of reasons people are unable to get hired or retain a job. Everyone should have a chance to get in the game.

    1.  Then learn a trade or skill that has value in the marketplace.  Like plagiarism.  That’s worked out great for you, Joe!

    That means we need to end discriminatory policies such as those that allow an individual to get married to a same-sex spouse in the morning and get fired for it in the afternoon. 

    1.  Hey Joe – that’s already illegal.

    We need to end policies that exclude from the workplace individuals who have served their time in prison.

    1.  Hey Joe – I don’t like working next to felons.  Do you?  Oh, wait.  You’ve worked in the White House.  My bad.

    And, we need to ban job applications that require a college degree for jobs people could do just as well without one.

    1.  No.  It’s not the government’s job to determine requirements for tens of millions of jobs.  The market does that.  Unless you’re saying higher ed has no value.  If that’s true, then stop all funding for higher education, immediately, including the student loan program the gov’t took over under your prior administration.

     

    Joe Biden is permanently wrong about everything.  Don’t entertain the stupid that oozes forth from his greasy piehole.  Ever.

     

    • #11
  12. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Chris Campion (View Comment):
    Non-competes are voluntarily signed. There’s a reason they exist, so the company doesn’t lose something to a competing company due to a resource taking that proprietary info shopping.

    Chris, I think you’re mistaken on this point.  I practiced labor law in California for 30 plus years, and non-compete agreements were always illegal there.  Not that I would hold up California as a model for anything, but on this particular point Uncle Joe may be on to something.  In my experience, the absence of non-compete agreements in California was a net positive.  You say that there’s a reason that these agreements exist.  In fact, there are a few reasons – but one of them is to lock employees into a job so that the employer can pay them less because they have no option to go elsewhere.  As a general rule I favor competition, and I would rather see employers retain their employees by paying a competitive salary instead of doing it by locking them out of the labor market.

    Yeah, there is also a concern about misappropriation of trade secrets, but that is pretty easy to handle directly.  If an employee really does steal trade secrets, it is pretty easy to prove in litigation.  That is why the vast majority of employers are very careful to ensure that no employee brings trade secrets from a former employer.  

    • #12
  13. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    I thought we had a proposal we could all get behind when I saw the headline “Put Joe Biden down…” but the sentence continued on needlessly.

    • #13
  14. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    In a world where three of the last four major party presidential nominees were Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Barack Obama, I still say we could do worse.

    • #14
  15. Chris Campion Coolidge
    Chris Campion
    @ChrisCampion

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Chris Campion (View Comment):
    Non-competes are voluntarily signed. There’s a reason they exist, so the company doesn’t lose something to a competing company due to a resource taking that proprietary info shopping.

    Chris, I think you’re mistaken on this point. I practiced labor law in California for 30 plus years, and non-compete agreements were always illegal there. Not that I would hold up California as a model for anything, but on this particular point Uncle Joe may be on to something. In my experience, the absence of non-compete agreements in California was a net positive. You say that there’s a reason that these agreements exist. In fact, there are a few reasons – but one of them is to lock employees into a job so that the employer can pay them less because they have no option to go elsewhere. As a general rule I favor competition, and I would rather see employers retain their employees by paying a competitive salary instead of doing it by locking them out of the labor market.

    Yeah, there is also a concern about misappropriation of trade secrets, but that is pretty easy to handle directly. If an employee really does steal trade secrets, it is pretty easy to prove in litigation. That is why the vast majority of employers are very careful to ensure that no employee brings trade secrets from a former employer.

    Thanks Larry – clearly not my area of expertise.  I was thinking they were similar to NDAs.

    • #15
  16. TRibbey Inactive
    TRibbey
    @TRibbey

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    In a world where three of the last four major party presidential nominees were Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Barack Obama, I still say we could do worse.

    Oprah?

    • #16
  17. AltarGirl Inactive
    AltarGirl
    @CM

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    I’m not sure, but given what’s happened to the republican party, I might actually vote for him. He’s at least a person I’d feel comfortable letting in my living room.

    Wouldn’t let him near my daughter. There’s a video with a girl about her age with this look of horror as she jerks away from his hand on her chest.

    • #17
  18. TRibbey Inactive
    TRibbey
    @TRibbey

    AltarGirl (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    I’m not sure, but given what’s happened to the republican party, I might actually vote for him. He’s at least a person I’d feel comfortable letting in my living room.

    Wouldn’t let him near my daughter. There’s a video with a girl about her age with this look of horror as she jerks away from his hand on her chest.

    Oh c’mon! I would be totally fine with Mr. Biden smelling my wife’s hair, I don’t know what you are so bent out of shape about. /sarc

    • #18
  19. Chuckles Coolidge
    Chuckles
    @Chuckles

    Chris Campion (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Chris Campion (View Comment):
    Non-competes are voluntarily signed. There’s a reason they exist, so the company doesn’t lose something to a competing company due to a resource taking that proprietary info shopping.

    Chris, I think you’re mistaken on this point. I practiced labor law in California for 30 plus years, and non-compete agreements were always illegal there. Not that I would hold up California as a model for anything, but on this particular point Uncle Joe may be on to something. In my experience, the absence of non-compete agreements in California was a net positive. You say that there’s a reason that these agreements exist. In fact, there are a few reasons – but one of them is to lock employees into a job so that the employer can pay them less because they have no option to go elsewhere. As a general rule I favor competition, and I would rather see employers retain their employees by paying a competitive salary instead of doing it by locking them out of the labor market.

    Yeah, there is also a concern about misappropriation of trade secrets, but that is pretty easy to handle directly. If an employee really does steal trade secrets, it is pretty easy to prove in litigation. That is why the vast majority of employers are very careful to ensure that no employee brings trade secrets from a former employer.

    Thanks Larry – clearly not my area of expertise. I was thinking they were similar to NDAs.

    You mean they aren’t voluntarily signed?  That they are signed involuntarily?  How is that even possible? 

    • #19
  20. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    Non-competes are to protect companies from investing in the training of an employee only to have them poached by a competitor before seeing a return on their investment. They should be voluntary — and are; don’t accept the job if you don’t want to sign — but I don’t see anything wrong with them as long as they expire after a reasonable period of employment.

    • #20
  21. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Interesting criticism of the universal basic income.

    • #21
  22. Chuckles Coolidge
    Chuckles
    @Chuckles

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Interesting criticism of the universal basic income.

    He didn’t mention open borders, but sure brought it to mind.

    • #22
  23. Chuckles Coolidge
    Chuckles
    @Chuckles

    I finally went to the linked site, Predictit  and looked at the other names.  

    Gad.

    • #23
  24. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Chuckles (View Comment):

    Chris Campion (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Chris Campion (View Comment):
    Non-competes are voluntarily signed. There’s a reason they exist, so the company doesn’t lose something to a competing company due to a resource taking that proprietary info shopping.

    Chris, I think you’re mistaken on this point. I practiced labor law in California for 30 plus years, and non-compete agreements were always illegal there. Not that I would hold up California as a model for anything, but on this particular point Uncle Joe may be on to something. In my experience, the absence of non-compete agreements in California was a net positive. You say that there’s a reason that these agreements exist. In fact, there are a few reasons – but one of them is to lock employees into a job so that the employer can pay them less because they have no option to go elsewhere. As a general rule I favor competition, and I would rather see employers retain their employees by paying a competitive salary instead of doing it by locking them out of the labor market.

    Yeah, there is also a concern about misappropriation of trade secrets, but that is pretty easy to handle directly. If an employee really does steal trade secrets, it is pretty easy to prove in litigation. That is why the vast majority of employers are very careful to ensure that no employee brings trade secrets from a former employer.

    Thanks Larry – clearly not my area of expertise. I was thinking they were similar to NDAs.

    You mean they aren’t voluntarily signed? That they are signed involuntarily? How is that even possible?

    I never said they weren’t voluntary, although people often sign them without reading or understanding them.  But what I said was that they were anti-competitive and not positive for labor markets.  But we had a saying about documents signed at the outset of employment:  “An applicant will sign anything you put in front of him, including giving away the rights to his first born child.”

    • #24
  25. Chuckles Coolidge
    Chuckles
    @Chuckles

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Chuckles (View Comment):

    Chris Campion (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Chris Campion (View Comment):
    Non-competes are voluntarily signed. There’s a reason they exist, so the company doesn’t lose something to a competing company due to a resource taking that proprietary info shopping.

    Chris, I think you’re mistaken on this point. I practiced labor law in California for 30 plus years, and non-compete agreements were always illegal there. Not that I would hold up California as a model for anything, but on this particular point Uncle Joe may be on to something. In my experience, the absence of non-compete agreements in California was a net positive. You say that there’s a reason that these agreements exist. In fact, there are a few reasons – but one of them is to lock employees into a job so that the employer can pay them less because they have no option to go elsewhere. As a general rule I favor competition, and I would rather see employers retain their employees by paying a competitive salary instead of doing it by locking them out of the labor market.

    Yeah, there is also a concern about misappropriation of trade secrets, but that is pretty easy to handle directly. If an employee really does steal trade secrets, it is pretty easy to prove in litigation. That is why the vast majority of employers are very careful to ensure that no employee brings trade secrets from a former employer.

    Thanks Larry – clearly not my area of expertise. I was thinking they were similar to NDAs.

    You mean they aren’t voluntarily signed? That they are signed involuntarily? How is that even possible?

    I never said they weren’t voluntary, although people often sign them without reading or understanding them. But what I said was that they were anti-competitive and not positive for labor markets. But we had a saying about documents signed at the outset of employment: “An applicant will sign anything you put in front of him, including giving away the rights to his first born child.”

    Thanks for the correction, and I appreciate the comment about new hires.

    • #25
  26. Chris Campion Coolidge
    Chris Campion
    @ChrisCampion

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Chuckles (View Comment):

    Chris Campion (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Chris Campion (View Comment):
    Non-competes are voluntarily signed. There’s a reason they exist, so the company doesn’t lose something to a competing company due to a resource taking that proprietary info shopping.

    Chris, I think you’re mistaken on this point. I practiced labor law in California for 30 plus years, and non-compete agreements were always illegal there. Not that I would hold up California as a model for anything, but on this particular point Uncle Joe may be on to something. In my experience, the absence of non-compete agreements in California was a net positive. You say that there’s a reason that these agreements exist. In fact, there are a few reasons – but one of them is to lock employees into a job so that the employer can pay them less because they have no option to go elsewhere. As a general rule I favor competition, and I would rather see employers retain their employees by paying a competitive salary instead of doing it by locking them out of the labor market.

    Yeah, there is also a concern about misappropriation of trade secrets, but that is pretty easy to handle directly. If an employee really does steal trade secrets, it is pretty easy to prove in litigation. That is why the vast majority of employers are very careful to ensure that no employee brings trade secrets from a former employer.

    Thanks Larry – clearly not my area of expertise. I was thinking they were similar to NDAs.

    You mean they aren’t voluntarily signed? That they are signed involuntarily? How is that even possible?

    I never said they weren’t voluntary, although people often sign them without reading or understanding them. But what I said was that they were anti-competitive and not positive for labor markets. But we had a saying about documents signed at the outset of employment: “An applicant will sign anything you put in front of him, including giving away the rights to his first born child.”

    Actually, I believe I’ve signed one.  I worked as a contractor for an energy company, and I think there was a non-compete clause, something like six months, in terms of not being able to leave the gig and then come back, working for another contracting company.

    I think they were trying to avoid shopping of skillsets to the highest payers, that kind of thing.

    • #26
  27. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Chris Campion (View Comment):
    I think they were trying to avoid shopping of skillsets to the highest payers, that kind of thing.

    Yep.  Also known as competition.

    I have wondered whether there might be a connection between California’s prohibition on non-compete agreements and the fact that many of the most IP intensive industries (e.g., tech and entertainment) settled in California.  From the perspective of an individual company, non-competes are useful because they turn employees into virtual indentured servants with depressed wages.  But from the perspective of an entire industry (assuming every company uses them), non-competes are damaging because they make it hard to find employees with relevant experience and they prevent skilled workers from finding their highest and best use.  I’m sure there are other factors at work but, as I said, I wonder.

    • #27
  28. Chris Campion Coolidge
    Chris Campion
    @ChrisCampion

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Chris Campion (View Comment):
    I think they were trying to avoid shopping of skillsets to the highest payers, that kind of thing.

    Yep. Also known as competition.

    I have wondered whether there might be a connection between California’s prohibition on non-compete agreements and the fact that many of the most IP intensive industries (e.g., tech and entertainment) settled in California. From the perspective of an individual company, non-competes are useful because they turn employees into virtual indentured servants with depressed wages. But from the perspective of an entire industry (assuming every company uses them), non-competes are damaging because they make it hard to find employees with relevant experience and they prevent skilled workers from finding their highest and best use. I’m sure there are other factors at work but, as I said, I wonder.

    I work at a company where roughly half the workforce is contracted out, across all types of work (I work in a project management office, so it’s business-related, not field work contracting).  They’ve recently finalized a list of essentially approved contractors, in order to bring the wage variance in line, and more importantly, bring these costs down a bit.

    Businesses can box themselves into a corner pretty well.  You wind up having some critical roles sourced as contractors, not permanent employees.  Because the pay is really good, they’re unlikely to turn over, but you rely on them not leaving – so you put some rules in place to prevent rate-shopping amongst contractors.

    It’s essentially risk mitigation.  I can see where a tech-heavy California would have a problem with these, as they need to retain the labor, at (almost) any price, to be competitive, else the labor goes where the work is, which can be anywhere.

    But, to my main point: Joe Biden is an economic idiot.

    • #28
  29. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Chris Campion (View Comment):
    But, to my main point: Joe Biden is an economic idiot.

    Oh sure.  No argument there.  Joe Biden is every kind of idiot there is.

    • #29
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.