Minimum Income, Wellbeing, and Deirdre McCloskey on Parisian Beggars

Let us accept, if just for argument's sake, that the goal of politics and economic systems is the provisioning of the good life, as variously conceived, as broadly and fairly as possible. How then to achieve that aim? On the one hand, it would seem to require a commitment to individual freedom, old school Enlightenment style liberalism: people should be empowered to choose their own good life. At the same time, it also requires a commitment to common goods, the collective basis for individual flourishing and the source of much of our social wellbeing. In Sunday's NY Times, Tony Schwartz makes the case that our lasting successes and and life satisfaction are based on doing something that really matters, having the sense "that we're truly adding value in the world" (also the argument in my forthcoming book on The Good Life).

Economist Deirdre McCloskey has been wrestling with this contradiction throughout her career (which began as Donald McCloskey). In a chapter in Cash on the Table, she observes that economists overvalue self-interest and anthropologists overvalue social goods--and that both miss the complicated interplay.  As she explains to Paul Solman in a recent PBS NewsHour interview, this isn't just theoretical. She generally supports market approaches, but she also advocates a guaranteed minimum income on the grounds of moral values:
I was on a subway in Paris a long time ago, and this guy came into the car, and the first thing he said was: I’m 24 years old. Because he couldn’t beg if he was 27 years old — that’s when the minimum income came in. That is, if you were 27 in France, you got a minimum income. So he couldn’t persuasively beg. I’d like people who can’t make enough income to be helped out this way.

In the context of the developing world, guaranteed minimum incomes are a variant of conditional cash transfers (paying folks to keep their kids in school and healthy) and unconditional cash transfers. Give Directly gives $1000 to selected households in Kenya and Uganda; families do not apply, they are identified as needy and given the windfall. Overhead costs for such programs are minimal compared to traditional aid, and supporters argue that folks themselves know best what they need to get ahead.

Supporters of a minimum income argue that it both prevents extreme poverty and can encourage entrepreneurial behavior (by reducing the costs of failure). And more than just entrepreneurial ventures it can allow a greater range of life projects and wellbeing. 

Purpose and Wellbeing

As Tony Schwartz (in the NY Times) argues in a recent column: a sense of purpose--contributing to something meaningful and larger than yourself--is a core element of life satisfaction, wellbeing, and the good life. He quotes Nietzsche's observation: “He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how.”

We often hear purpose and passion as extolled virtues these days: find your passion, live life with a purpose. This is the sort of self-help that resonates with the demographic represented by readers of the Times.

Indeed, yesterday's paper ran an article about Martha Beck ("the merchant of happiness") who has built a small empire around life coaching: she says “Everything I’ve ever taught in terms of self-help boils down to this — I cannot believe people keep paying me to say this — if something feels really good for you, you might want to do it. And if it feels really horrible, you might want to consider not doing it." 

But, as readers of this blog will know, having a larger purpose in life is not the exclusive purview of the affluent and middle classes. The poor as well as the rich give purpose to their lives; it is in many ways what makes us human. And such larger purposes must not be as lofty or laudable as the passions featured in the paper: political extremism, racist ideologies, and other such projects may increase individual wellbeing among their adherents while harming collective goods.