Take a photo of a barcode or cover
emeelee 's review for:
Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn
by Chris Hughes
I greatly enjoyed reading Fair Shot, and I learned a great deal. Granted, I've never taken a single economics class in all my years of schooling, but Hughes explains his concepts in a very understandable way and backs up all of his ideas and claims with empirical evidence. There is a comprehensive bibliography included at the end of the book.
Fair Shot is an argument for the development of a monthly $500 guaranteed income for working Americans who make less than $50,000 per year. It is not, as other reviewers have stated, an argument for a universal basic income; in fact, it argues against a UBI in America. The author, Chris Hughes, is one of the co-founders of Facebook. Born into a working-class family, he had the experience of becoming super wealthy almost overnight and, by his own admission, largely through circumstances beyond his control.
Though some of this book falls more into the territory of memoir rather than policy, I enjoyed all of it. Like I said, I don't have any background knowledge in economics, and I've still never seen The Social Network, so much of the information Hughes presented was new and highly interesting to me. The book is written well and was not a slog to get through like some nonfiction writing.
I only recently learned about the concept of a universal basic income and was floored by the very idea. Nothing like it had ever occurred to me as being possible, much less desirable. Yet it also immediately intrigued me. I think the idea of a guaranteed income that Hughes presents here addresses some of the problems with a UBI, including being cheaper and targeting those who need it most, and without making things worse for certain people (who might already be receiving some other form of government benefit).
Because the idea of guaranteed income is new to me, I had no idea that it is not by any means a new idea in general. In fact, it's even been historically bipartisan. For example, President Nixon (yes, Nixon) passed a guaranteed income measure through the House which then stalled in the Senate, and eventually became the more watered-down EITC (earned income tax credit). I'm probably just clueless, but I was shocked at the history this idea has had in American politics and philosophy.
Hughes addresses many of the dissenting worries regarding a guaranteed income, including whether it will cause people to stop working altogether. In short, the answer is no, it won't. First of all, people want to work, and secondly, the guaranteed income would not be enough to subsist on alone. It would be enough to bridge the gap between struggling and actually homeless, though. It would help make ends meet for those who are teetering on the brink. It would enable people to leave a job that isn't working out for them without fear of loss of income. It would help students and new mothers through a time when formal employment is difficult. There's also no evidence that the income would be "misspent" on things like drugs and alcohol. In fact, studies show that people are more likely to purchase drugs and alcohol when their lives are desperate and unstable. A guaranteed income provides people with stability and a hope for future opportunity that encourages them to be more involved in society and the economy than they would otherwise.
Fair Shot also has answers for the skeptics who argue that funding better and continuing education programs are a better way of addressing the issues which lead to poverty. In a nutshell, that is what we've been doing for decades, yet the results don't show much progress. It's not working. We need something bolder and simpler, and which is also conveniently cheaper in the long run.
Hughes acknowledges the historical financial oppression that people of color have experienced in America, which still disproportionately keeps many POC under or close to the poverty line today. Though he admits that many past and current financial benefits programs have excluded and disenfranchised these communities, he does not outright address the way that POC have been exploited in history for the gain of rich white men. Many of the US's first wealthy elite made their money literally off the back of slaves and immigrants. In today's economy, much wealth is still being made off of the exploitation of POC, whether domestically or through outsourced and underpaid labor. Hughes does, however, point out that 96% of the wealthiest 1% are white.
One point that Hughes seems to have overlooked is that extreme wealth does not only come about from luck, but through direct greed and exploitation of the working class. With POC, certainly, as I've already pointed out, but also just in general. Jeff Bezos, the owner and CEO of Amazon, the richest man in America, still pays most of his employees minimum wage for part-time work without benefits. The ultra-wealthy do not "work hard" for their wealth, or at least they do not worker harder than the average American who does not make nearly as much money. If company profits were to benefit all of its employees rather than merely its executives, that alone would go a long way to alleviating poverty in this country.
In the absence of that, these ultra-wealthy companies and families should be taxed in order to provide an income floor for our poorest citizens. The 1% made their fortunes off the back of the American people-- it's only fair that they give some of it back. The 1% made their fortunes by utilizing the American economy-- it's only fair that they put some of it back into the economy.
Cash transfers, as is shown in Fair Shot, do more to alleviate poverty and stimulate the American economy, more quickly and cheaply, than other kinds of charities and programs which only focus on symptoms of the larger issue. Rather than applaud the wealthy for donating fractious amounts of their fortunes to ineffective or narrowly focused non-profits (for a deduction on their taxes), tax them and give it back to the people who made that wealth possible, in the form of a guaranteed income.
A Princeton study found that of all the jobs created between 2005 and 2015, 94 percent of them were contract or temporary, meaning virtually every job we created in the last decade was piecemeal and the income was unreliable. (46)
Fair Shot is an argument for the development of a monthly $500 guaranteed income for working Americans who make less than $50,000 per year. It is not, as other reviewers have stated, an argument for a universal basic income; in fact, it argues against a UBI in America. The author, Chris Hughes, is one of the co-founders of Facebook. Born into a working-class family, he had the experience of becoming super wealthy almost overnight and, by his own admission, largely through circumstances beyond his control.
Saying people get lucky is not a denial that they work hard and deserve positive outcomes. It is a way of acknowledging that in a winner-take-all economy, small chance encounters—like who you sit next to at a dinner party or who your college roommate is—have a more significant impact than they have ever had before. In some cases, the collections of these small differences can add up to create immense fortunes. […] But luck doesn’t just happen. We have created an economy dominated by forces that reward luck in an outsized way. Some of these changes might be desirable and some not, but they are all the result of political decisions that we purposefully make as a society. There is no invisible hand creating a winner-take-all economy in which luck takes on this disproportionate role. We are its authors and enablers. (39-40)
Though some of this book falls more into the territory of memoir rather than policy, I enjoyed all of it. Like I said, I don't have any background knowledge in economics, and I've still never seen The Social Network, so much of the information Hughes presented was new and highly interesting to me. The book is written well and was not a slog to get through like some nonfiction writing.
We don’t need to go back in time and “make America great again” by re-creating a world that provided economic mobility to a select group—we need to build a new economic order that empowers all Americans to get ahead. (88)
I only recently learned about the concept of a universal basic income and was floored by the very idea. Nothing like it had ever occurred to me as being possible, much less desirable. Yet it also immediately intrigued me. I think the idea of a guaranteed income that Hughes presents here addresses some of the problems with a UBI, including being cheaper and targeting those who need it most, and without making things worse for certain people (who might already be receiving some other form of government benefit).
The guaranteed income would create a floor below which people could not fall, a reliable foundation for people to build on. It wouldn’t be enough money on its own for anyone to live on. It would supplement income from other sources like formal labor, a job in the gig economy, informal work, or other government benefits. Everyone who contributes to their community would earn the income, even if they’re not making money in the formal economy. That would include mothers and fathers of young kids, adults caring for aging parents, and college students. (92)
Because the idea of guaranteed income is new to me, I had no idea that it is not by any means a new idea in general. In fact, it's even been historically bipartisan. For example, President Nixon (yes, Nixon) passed a guaranteed income measure through the House which then stalled in the Senate, and eventually became the more watered-down EITC (earned income tax credit). I'm probably just clueless, but I was shocked at the history this idea has had in American politics and philosophy.
[Martin Luther King Jr.] put the emphasis on dignity. Other activists and thinkers on the left and right have made the case that without financial security, no one can be truly free. Belgian philosopher Philippe Van Parijs has been one of the most visible and ardent advocates for the idea that we cannot imagine a society with true freedom unless all its members have the ability to invest in themselves and make their own decisions. Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman made a similar case. Many of the these twentieth-century thinkers followed in the tradition of writers like Thomas Paine and Thomas More. For centuries, philosophers have argued that only a guaranteed income can grant every individual the freedom that civilization is meant to provide. (132-133)
Hughes addresses many of the dissenting worries regarding a guaranteed income, including whether it will cause people to stop working altogether. In short, the answer is no, it won't. First of all, people want to work, and secondly, the guaranteed income would not be enough to subsist on alone. It would be enough to bridge the gap between struggling and actually homeless, though. It would help make ends meet for those who are teetering on the brink. It would enable people to leave a job that isn't working out for them without fear of loss of income. It would help students and new mothers through a time when formal employment is difficult. There's also no evidence that the income would be "misspent" on things like drugs and alcohol. In fact, studies show that people are more likely to purchase drugs and alcohol when their lives are desperate and unstable. A guaranteed income provides people with stability and a hope for future opportunity that encourages them to be more involved in society and the economy than they would otherwise.
[E]vidence from existing American programs shows that a little bit of cash doesn’t cause people to drop out of the workforce, but instead helps them find work. If people have financial stability from a guaranteed income, they can choose work that’s fulfilling, purpose-driven, and a match for their skills. (109)
Fair Shot also has answers for the skeptics who argue that funding better and continuing education programs are a better way of addressing the issues which lead to poverty. In a nutshell, that is what we've been doing for decades, yet the results don't show much progress. It's not working. We need something bolder and simpler, and which is also conveniently cheaper in the long run.
The problem is that many people still do not have the money to be able to take advantage of the education opportunities that would help them. You can teach a man to fish all day, but if he can’t afford to buy a rod, reel, and bait, what good will it do? (174)
Hughes acknowledges the historical financial oppression that people of color have experienced in America, which still disproportionately keeps many POC under or close to the poverty line today. Though he admits that many past and current financial benefits programs have excluded and disenfranchised these communities, he does not outright address the way that POC have been exploited in history for the gain of rich white men. Many of the US's first wealthy elite made their money literally off the back of slaves and immigrants. In today's economy, much wealth is still being made off of the exploitation of POC, whether domestically or through outsourced and underpaid labor. Hughes does, however, point out that 96% of the wealthiest 1% are white.
The people who would benefit most from a guaranteed income are those who have historically been overlooked or excluded from economic development programs. Families in the lower tier of income distribution in our country are disproportionately made up of people of color. These families were also often systematically excluded from educational and financial support structures in the past. Many people of color have organized for the idea historically. As Anne Price, the president of the Insight Center, writes, “It’s abundantly clear that a basic income program has much greater potential than is captured in the mainstream conversations about UBI—it holds the promise of addressing, head on, some of our most deeply entrenched racial and economic inequalities.” A guaranteed income targeted to households making less than $50,000 would boost the incomes of African American and Latino people in particular. (170)
One point that Hughes seems to have overlooked is that extreme wealth does not only come about from luck, but through direct greed and exploitation of the working class. With POC, certainly, as I've already pointed out, but also just in general. Jeff Bezos, the owner and CEO of Amazon, the richest man in America, still pays most of his employees minimum wage for part-time work without benefits. The ultra-wealthy do not "work hard" for their wealth, or at least they do not worker harder than the average American who does not make nearly as much money. If company profits were to benefit all of its employees rather than merely its executives, that alone would go a long way to alleviating poverty in this country.
In the absence of that, these ultra-wealthy companies and families should be taxed in order to provide an income floor for our poorest citizens. The 1% made their fortunes off the back of the American people-- it's only fair that they give some of it back. The 1% made their fortunes by utilizing the American economy-- it's only fair that they put some of it back into the economy.
The natural drift of capitalism toward inequality requires a constant vigilance to make the market work for everyone, not just for the rich. That’s important because most of us want a world with basic fairness, and it’s also important because capitalism will break down if wealth continues to concentrate at the rate that it has in recent years. (182)
Cash transfers, as is shown in Fair Shot, do more to alleviate poverty and stimulate the American economy, more quickly and cheaply, than other kinds of charities and programs which only focus on symptoms of the larger issue. Rather than applaud the wealthy for donating fractious amounts of their fortunes to ineffective or narrowly focused non-profits (for a deduction on their taxes), tax them and give it back to the people who made that wealth possible, in the form of a guaranteed income.
“There is nothing new about poverty,” [Martin Luther King Jr.] declared. “What is new is that we now have the techniques and the resources to get rid of poverty. The real question is whether we have the will.” (144)