by Guest Contributor | Sep 9, 2015 | Opinion
The Eurozone clearly needs a structural yet flexible central bank policy instrument that can be used to kick-start the economy as and when it is needed. A miniature version of the increasingly popular basic income policy would provide exactly this type of instrument.
By Willem Sas and Kevin Spiritus, originally published in Flemish Newspaper De Tijd, translation by Will Wachtmeister.
Can anyone remember what times were like before the crisis? When “cut-backs” was a word ascribed to the 1990s. When growth rates were healthy and inflation stable. When the benefits of a unified single European currency were still plain for all to see. Memories of those times have been fading rapidly. Especially so with persistent wage stagnation, mounting inequality and interest rates that have been reduced to basically their lowest possible level. Is there really no way out?
A policy response that is often put forward is looser monetary policy, the proverbial printing press. And since 9 March, the printing press has been in full swing in Europe too. Under the established label quantitative easing (QE), the European Central Bank has, after four years of hesitating, begun spending billions on buying up assets. This involves buying up private loans just as much as government bonds. The hope is essentially that this will stimulate both private and public investment.
Unfortunately, QE will not necessarily lead to more economic investment within the European Union. Insofar as public authorities aren’t able – or allowed – to invest, insofar as the financing doesn’t reach businesses and businesses don’t want to take on loans, QE will prove a fruitless endeavour. At the same time, QE could well lead to even more debt: by stimulating the economy through credit creation, it potentially blows more air into the bubbles caused by the most recent crisis. A massive buy-up of bonds and shares will in the end also cause asset-price rises, with the benefits going mainly to larger, wealthier investors.
Helicopter money
This all means that success is far from guaranteed: the approach is fraught with risks and has damaging implications for equality. QE thus does not appear to be the best way forward for Europe. This is why there are economists who propagate a more efficient alternative, the so-called “helicopter money” approach. For as long as the economy fails to recover, newly printed money is simply distributed directly to the general population, as if it were dropped from a helicopter. Research shows that the money would be spent pretty much straight after it’s received, which would restore confidence to invest among businesses. It would also restore business confidence to take on new employees, who in turn respond by consuming more. And so the result becomes a virtuous circle.
But there are drawbacks. Sharing out helicopter money is a temporary measure that can only be adopted in exceptional circumstances. If at some point it transpires that the ECB has gone too far and created a threat of runaway inflation, it is very difficult to remove the newly created money from the economy. This is why there is a clear need for a structural and flexible policy measure which the central bank is able to use to kick-start the economy as and when it is necessary.
A variation on the helicopter theme, a monetary basic income, provides a way forward. Under this scenario, the ECB would distribute an amount of money to each citizen on a monthly basis, calculated as a percentage of average income (the amount therefore varies between countries). Let’s assume for the sake of simplicity that the amount is 400 euros a month throughout the Eurozone. It’s important that the individual Eurozone countries remain responsible for raising the 400 euros – for example by reducing benefit payments or tax allowance levels – whereupon they pay it back to the ECB.
So far, this is a neutral measure that shuffles money around without creating a stimulus. This remains the case except in times of crisis when the central bank increases the monthly payment to, say, 600 euros, until the economy recovers. Meanwhile, each national authority keeps its repayment levels fixed at 400 euros. The ECB thereby ends up printing an additional 200 euros per person per month, and this money is relatively quickly spent. As the economy recovers and growth and inflation figures rise, the basic income can be returned to the neutral level of 400 euros. In cases where the ECB had been too generous, the basic income level could even be lowered temporarily to 300 euros until inflation stabilizes. This would essentially remove money from the economy.
Viewed as a monetary policy instrument for tackling crises, this type of basic income can hardly be considered an indulgence. But there is more to it than that. The approach also does what it says on the tin: it is a miniature version of exactly the sort of basic income which increasingly features in public debate. Supporters claim that a structural basic income would provide a way of dealing with automation, growing inequality as well as the stress and agitation of everyday life. It would also enable people to be more creative and entrepreneurial.
This last point is far from a certainty and in effect represents the biggest drawback of a basic income policy. How many people would actually invest in new skills? And what will happen to the labour supply? There do exist several economic models that simulate the effects of minor reforms but when it comes to the effects of a comprehensive reform such as basic income, we’re very much in the dark.
Income shock
As long as we can’t anticipate the consequences of introducing a basic income, making a case for it will remain difficult. And because the advantages will only really be felt when basic income is set at higher amounts, introducing it step by step is just as problematic.
Here our proposal for a limited monetary basic income offers yet another opportunity. To be sure, we don’t expect an amount that guarantees a dignified life to be introduced from the outset. But our proposal does allow economists to research the effects of a large income shock. When the central bank increases the monthly payment in times of crisis, this will generate a great deal of valuable evidence. As soon as the positive effects are ascertained, the neutral-level basic income can be increased step by step, eventually reaching the point of a fully-fledged basic income.
So we have stronger guarantees of success, less risk, and more equal opportunities to boot. That’s a better idea than quantitative easing for a start.
Willem Sas and Kevin Spiritus are completing their doctorates in public economics at the Center of Economic Studies at Belgian university KU Leuven.
Credit Picture CC Bobby Hidy
by Albert Joerimann | Sep 1, 2015 | News
8th International Basic Income Week
“A Safety Net for Life”—this is the motto of this year’s International Basic Income Week which will take place from 14th to 20th September in several European countries. On their website www.woche-des-grundeinkommens.eu, the promoters write: “In a world in which salaried work is increasingly marked by flexibility, lack of security and precarity an Unconditional Basic Income can resolve the fears that make people receptive of hatred and violence. It can create growth where growth is urgently needed, as well as facilitate degrowth where this makes sense. An UBI enables ecological and economical sustainability that can make sure the continuity of life on our earth for the future”.
Eight years ago, the Basic Income organizations of the German speaking countries started the International Basic Income Week which actually is spreading out to the other members of the European and global Basic Income movements; the corresponding invitations and appeals have been sent out, and there is a Facebook page as well. The major part of the activities up to now are still foreseen in Germany and in Austria, but other organizations increasingly start to seize the opportunity to attract the attention of the public within a broad, international campaign.
The website woche-des-grundeinkommens.eu gives plenty of information about the planned activities, about the principles of Basic Income and offers several important links (mostly in German). It is completed by an international version available under basicincomeweek.org. The calendar on this website shows up to now events in Sweden, Canada, a lecture at the Tsinghua University of Beijing (September 12th) as well as a large number of public meetings etc. in the Netherlands and in Belgium, in addition to the aforementioned events in Germany and in Austria.
More information at:
www.woche-des-grundeinkommens.eu
www.basicincomeweek.org
by Karl Widerquist | Sep 1, 2015 | News, The Indepentarian
A recent poll asking Alaskans how to deal with the state’s increasingly severe budget deficit found that trimming the Permanent Fund Dividend or PFD (also know as “the Alaska Dividend”) was the most popular solution. The poll also found that a second strategy for trimming the dividend was third in popularity.
-Alaska Dispatch News
The Alaska dividend is the closest program to a basic income in the world today. Each year it pays out a dividend, usually between $1000 and $2000 per year, financed out of the returns from the Alaska Permanent Fund or APF—a savings portfolio of more than $50 billion accumulated from past state oil revenue. Its enormous popularity earned it the nickname of “the third rail of Alaskan politics,” meaning that any politician who touched it died.
This poll might be an indication that the dividend is losing that status in the face of Alaska’s financial situation, which is deteriorating because of the state’s dependence on oil revenues. The state has no sales or income tax. The vast majority of its revenue comes from taxes, fees, and royalties on the state’s oil exports. Not only have oil prices declined by more than 50 percent since 2014, but the amount of oil exported from Alaska has been declining significantly for years. The state is quickly running through the savings it built up in good years, and it is faced with the situation in which it must either make deep cuts in spending or seek new revenue.
Asking Alaskans to respond to several strategies of dealing with this issue, the Rasmuson Foundation found the following:
- 66% of Alaskans agreed with “Using a portion of excess earning from the Permanent Fund to fund public services and programs while protecting the dividend program.” 27% opposed.
- 57% agreed with “Introducing a statewide sales tax.” 41% opposed.
- 55% agreed with “Putting a cap on the yearly amount of Permanent Fund dividends.” 41% opposed.
- 54% agreed with “Reducing oil development tax credits offered by the state.” 32% opposed.
- 41% agreed with “Introducing a state personal income tax.” 55% opposed.
- 16% agreed with “Making deep funding cuts to essential public services like schools, police, health care, and roads.” 16% opposed.
The first option might not sound like a cut in the dividend, but it is. There are no “excess earnings” in the PDF. Every dollar the PDF receives in returns either goes to spending or to generating more returns and higher dividends in all the years to come. Any strategy that defines some returns as “excess” and diverts those to other spending, necessarily means lower dividends in the future. This opinion protects the existence of the dividend, but it does not protect its future growth or even its current level. If any significant amount is taken in “excess earnings,” it will slow the growth of the dividend in the future, and it might even create negative future growth in the dividend.
The poll did not ask people whether they would support eliminating the dividend entirely, but over time either of the two strategies suggested would lead to significantly smaller dividends than what would otherwise occur.
The poll also did not ask about spending the principal of the PFD, which is constitutionally protected. The legislature would need a constitutional amendment to spend down the $52 billion fund, but with a simple majority vote, it could cancel the dividend and use that money to finance state spending. Before the recent fiscal crisis, such a strategy was politically untenable, but the poll shows that movement in that direction might have become politically tenable.
The poll results suggest that Alaskans might view the dividend as a luxury to be distributed as long as the state is booming. If so, it is very different than how most basic income supporters view it: as an essential tool to promote social justice and an important way to show solidarity with economically disadvantaged individuals. Whether this or any other view of the dividend is strong enough to project it during Alaska’s fiscal crisis remains to be seen.
For more information see:
Alex DeMarban, “Poll: Alaskans prefer new revenue over deep cuts, including tapping Permanent Fund.” Alaska Dispatch News, August 13, 2015.
The Rasmuson Foundation, “Alaska Attitude Survey On The State Fiscal Climate.” The Rasmuson Foundation, Conducted July 13 – 21, 2015
Representative Wes Keller, “My Turn: Don’t be snookered, ther’es no ‘free ride.’” The Juneau Empire. August 20, 2015
Rep Les Gara, “My Turn: Open discussion needed on oil taxation.” The Juneau Empire. August 19, 2015.
NOTE: The paragraph beginning, “The first option might not sound like a cut…” was added after this article was first posted in response to questions from readers.
by Citizens' Income Trust | Aug 26, 2015 | Opinion
Anthony B. Atkinson, Inequality: What Can Be Done?, Harvard University Press, 2015, ix + 384 pp, hbk, 0 674 50476 9, £19.95
Politicians of all political parties tell us that inequality is a problem and that they are working to reduce it. Now they have the manual that they need: and what we all now have is a book that builds on Tony Atkinson’s lifetime of careful and relevant research, that offers analysis of the definitions and causes of inequality, that proposes policies to deal with the problem, and that shows that the policies proposed are affordable.
The first part of the book discusses the meaning of ‘inequality’, and then studies how inequality has changed during the last hundred years. A particularly important conclusion is that in the immediate postwar decades, the welfare state was ahead in the race to keep up with widening inequality of market incomes, but since the 1980s it has failed to do so – often as a result of explicit policy decisions to cut back on benefits and on coverage. (pp.67-8)
Then the economics of inequality are discussed, and the final conclusion of the first part is that in order to reduce inequality market income inequality needs to be reduced and governments need to achieve more redistribution through tax and benefits systems. The second part of the book makes detailed proposals for policy change: technological innovation to increase worker employability; a better balance of power between the different stakeholders in the economy; guaranteed public sector employment at the minimum wage; a national pay policy (including a living wage); a guaranteed positive real rate of interest on savings; a capital endowment payable at the age of majority; a sovereign wealth fund; a more progressive Income Tax; a broader tax base; an Earned Income Discount; a progressive lifetime capital receipts tax; a progressive or proportional property tax; increased Child Benefit; increased overseas development aid; and either a participation income or a renewal of social insurance. Each of the proposals is persuasively argued.
In the third part of the book, Atkinson tackles three possible objections to his proposals: that they would reduce economic growth; that globalization would make them difficult to implement; and that we wouldn’t be able to afford them. He shows that the welfare state makes a positive contribution to economic performance; that his proposals would have incentive effects in the employment market; that global competition restricts the scope for redistribution rather less than we might think; and that his proposals could be revenue neutral.
Of particular interest to readers of this Newsletter will be the social security proposals. Atkinson is well aware of the problems relating to means-testing, he regrets that so many families in the UK are so dependent on means-tested benefits, and he studies two alternative possibilities: a Participation Income, and a renewed social insurance system. In relation to Child Benefit, he would like to see the end of the tax penalty for households that include higher rate taxpayers; he would like it to be paid at a higher single rate; he would like it to be taxed; and he would like the European Union to take the initiative in establishing an unconditional income for children throughout Europe.
Atkinson then discusses a Citizen’s Income, and decides that a flat tax to fund a Citizen’s Income high enough to replace existing benefits would be at too high a rate. He has here allowed research that he conducted thirty years ago into the rate at which a flat tax would need to be set to fund a Citizen’s Income to create an inconsistency in his approach. One of the proposals in this book is for a more progressive income tax than we have now: so why expect a Citizen’s Income to be funded by a flat tax? And why not consider paying for a Citizen’s Income by reducing or eliminating the Personal Tax Allowance?
Atkinson’s solution to the dilemma that he has constructed is a Participation Income that would be paid to people making a contribution to society. He recognizes that an administrative process would be required to decide who should receive the Participation Income, but when he begins to outline the kind of casework approach that would be required we can quickly see the size of the bureaucracy and the extent of the complex regulations that would be needed. To create the kind of workable definition of ‘citizenship’ or of ‘legal residence’ that the administration of a Citizen’s Income would require would be a lot easier. Research that the Citizen’s Income Trust undertook when Atkinson first suggested a Participation Income thirty years ago suggested that the list of eligibility criteria that he outlined then would have meant that only about 1% of the population would not have received a Participation Income. This research would now need to be repeated, but the outcome would not be very different. It would surely be both easier and cheaper to pay a Citizen’s Income than to pay a Participation Income.
And then comes a further contradiction: The chapter on costings employs the EUROMOD software managed by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex (Professor Holly Sutherland and her colleagues are well thanked in the book’s acknowledgments). The graph on p.297 that shows the effects of a Participation Income on inequality shows no evidence of any ‘participation’ conditions having been taken into account: and it is difficult to see how a programme such as EUROMOD could take into account such social contributions as voluntary work. What appears to have been modeled is a Citizen’s Income.
An alternative to a Citizen’s Income would be a reinvigorated social insurance system, which, as Atkinson recognizes, would need to be adapted to today’s labour market. He takes as his model the new Single Tier State Pension, and suggests that other National Insurance benefits should be higher in value and should achieve greater coverage – for instance, by lasting longer – and that National Insurance Contributions should be credited for periods during which any kind of contribution is being made to society (echoing the eligibility criterion for a Participation Income). The graph showing the effects on inequality of both a Participation Income and a reinvigorated Social Insurance system suggests that the former would redistribute from rich to poor, and the latter more towards middle income households.
We hope that this well researched and clearly written book will be carefully read by anyone with any connection to the making of social policy; that we shall see implemented as many as possible of the policies for which Atkinson has provided such useful evidence and such persuasive arguments; and that the arguments both for and against a Participation Income will contribute to the increasingly vigorous
and informed debate about a Citizen’s Income.
The book contains a useful glossary and a detailed index. The publisher is to be congratulated on publishing a good quality hardback at such a low price. Other academic publishers might like to follow this example.
[This review was first published in the Citizen’s Income Newsletter, 2015, issue 3.]
by Timothy Roscoe Carter | Aug 23, 2015 | Opinion
Image via FMDam.org.
[The following is an excerpt from a book in progress, The Poverty Abolitionist’s Handbook.]
Someone who offers a question that is really a challenge, like “Why would you believe something like that?”, will likely maintain their attention for about a minute. But someone who asks a more thoughtful question, even in a social situation, will likely maintain their attention a little longer, maybe three to five minutes. Nevertheless, brevity is a virtue, and the shorter the answer, the easier it is to understand and remember. So I have limited the speaking time of all of these answers to two minutes, and most are much shorter than that.
Q: Shouldn’t we lower the cost of a basic income through means testing? How does it make sense for the government to send free money to Bill Gates?
A: The taxes that pay for a basic income are the only sensible means testing, and Bill Gates would pay far more than he received. Means testing is itself a tax on the middle class that traps people in poverty by creating a strong disincentive to work and save for those already at the margins of employment. Means testing a basic income would transform a system of just predistribution into a redistributive welfare program. Means tested welfare programs are a way for the rich to make the middle class pay to stop the poor from revolting.
Q: Can we afford a basic income?
A: The gross domestic income for the United States last year was over $16 trillion and the total population was just under 320 million, giving us a mean average income of more than $50,000 per person. The 1950s and 1960s were known as decades of great economic growth in the United States. For most of the 1950s we had a top marginal income tax rate of 90 percent, and for most of the 1960s we had a top marginal rate of 70 percent. Our current top marginal rate is 39.5 percent. We could fund a basic income of $10,000 per person on top of all our other spending with an across-the-board income tax increase of 20 percent, and our top marginal rate would be 59.5%, still less than during the 1960s. That might not be the entire way we want to fund the basic income, but it does show we can afford it, and the cost would only go down from there as we started to cut now unnecessary welfare programs and began spending less on law enforcement and health care.
Q: What other government programs would we eliminate if we had a basic income?
A: Politics would not end if we had a basic income, and this is a point of contention among basic income advocates. There are socialists who see a basic income as just one of a large number of new government programs they want to implement, and there are libertarians who believe that their arguments for lower taxes, spending, and regulations will be more compelling if there are literally no poor people who need taking care of. But there is a quick and dirty compromise that could be implemented at the initiation of a basic income that would greatly reduce other welfare spending without raising or lowering our current welfare commitments. We could leave all current welfare programs on the books, but declare that the basic income will be treated as “unearned income” for purposes of determining benefits. For a basic income of $10,000 per year, federal SSI spending would cease, and food stamps likely would as well, and subsidies for housing, education, and health care would fall dramatically. Essentially, we would be treating everyone the same as we would now if they all started to receive an annual annuity, because they would.
Q: Wouldn’t giving everyone free money cause severe inflation?
A: It would if we just printed the money and gave it away. But as long as we pay for it through taxes, the money supply would remain stable and it would be no different than if everyone got more money from working. Alaska has a small basic income and there is no evidence that it has affected their inflation rate, nor is there evidence that prices rise when the minimum wage is raised. There is a potential for a basic income to cause a rise in the price of fixed assets such as land, but that is again no different from what would happen if everyone earned more money from wages, and those gains can be recaptured through land taxes.
Potential follow up Q: But if everyone were earning more money from working, wouldn’t the inflationary pressure resulting from greater demand due to higher wages be countered by the deflationary pressure resulting from the increased production due to more work? And wouldn’t giving free money to people who do not work tip that balance?
A: A market economy is not a Field of Dreams: Customers do not come because you build things, rather things get made because customers want them. Most items that would see a surge in demand due to a basic income are food or consumer goods that see reductions in prices from the economics of mass production. The exception would be where a seller has a monopoly, or in the case of fixed assets such as land, which I discussed before. Again, Alaskans do not work for their dividends, and when the minimum wage is raised there is no corresponding rise in production, yet neither of those causes inflation.
Q: Why do you want the government to give able-bodied people the same monetary benefits as the disabled? Shouldn’t people with special needs be entitled to more money to offset their tougher lot in life?
A: No. The communist idea of “to each according to their need” is patronizing in theory and degrading in practice. Currently in the U.S., disability payments are for the survival needs of those who cannot work. They are not intended to compensate for how bad your life is with a disability, and the amount you receive is not determined by what type of disability it is or even how bad it is, as long as it is bad enough that you cannot work. How could it be otherwise? Should a blind person get more or less than a paraplegic? Should a person bedridden from pain six hours per day get twice as much as a person bedridden three hours per day? How do you prove it? Of course, people shouldn’t have to prove their disability. No matter how long for, being bedridden is an awful thing for anyone to go through. It can be extremely difficult for people to remain comfortable, so some people have to get their mattresses changed on their beds more regularly. When doing this, it’s important that carers look for the Best Latex Mattress in Australia, for example, to make sure it will be comfortable and long-lasting. This is so important for anyone who is confined to their bed. They need to be comfortable.
How can you judge who is “disabled enough”, and how do you compare one disability against another? Currently the process of applying for disability is long, arduous, arbitrary, humiliating, and demoralizing. We think we can easily tell who *really* needs our help, when the truth is that many – but certainly not all – people with traditional and obvious disabilities like blindness, deafness, and being confined to a wheelchair lead easier and more fulfilling lives than many people with invisible disabilities like depression, fibromyalgia, or chronic fatigue. Search High Quality Kratom Online – Free Shipping over $100 – Kats Botanicals if you are suffering from ailments like this and are willing to try something a little bit different to treat them. We force people who cannot work to convince skeptical judges about how pitiful their lives are and then we label them as being either lazy frauds or useless burdens. You really cannot know what another person’s life is like. You don’t know what goes on behind closed doors. Not least the silent battles that those closest to you deal with on an almost daily basis. For all you know, your next-door neighbor has been advised to take the best CBD products on the market because their stress and anxiety levels have completely taken over their lives. When it comes down to it, it’s impossible to know how others live their lives. To make someone prove they are disabled is to make them convince themselves they have no hope.
Health insurance should include paying for specific items that are needed for a specific disability, such as a motorized wheelchair for someone with severe neuropathy or para-transit services for people with epileptic seizures that make it dangerous to drive. But for our basic living expenses, we all deserve them equally, and no one should be forced to prove it, especially if it is the difference between whether or not they would be able to access buildings, since some people may require the aid of a portable wheelchair platform lift to come in and out of their homes and places of work. This type of equipment is essential for day to day living.
Q: If we gave everyone an unconditional income, would not some people just waste it, or spend it on stuff that is bad for them?
Confrontational answer: Maybe. It is their money. Do you want everyone telling you what to do with your money?
Likely follow up: But it’s *my* money. It is the money that I pay in taxes that will go to the people who do not work.
Confrontational response: First, probably not. Unless you earn significantly more than median income, you will likely be a net *recipient* of the basic income. Second, the taxes you pay are your fee for the benefits of government, such as infrastructure, protection of your life and property, and use of legal structures such as contracts, corporations, and various forms of property. Your basic income is part of your personal dividend as an equal owner of the government. Do you worry about whether your landlord will misspend what you pay for rent, or whether McDonald’s will misspend what you pay for a Big Mac?
Utilitarian answer: Maybe. But there is no evidence that the government can run people’s lives better than they can run their own. The government can cause people to make better decisions by educating them and providing resources. But when the government imposes regulations, demands paperwork, and takes enforcement action against people, the burden and stress discourages personal improvement. And experiments with direct cash transfers to the poor show they often come up with useful and responsible things to do with the money that the experts never thought of. Finally, the sanction of taking away money is counter productive. Becoming homeless almost never causes addicts to give up drugs, teenagers to study more, or the overweight to buy more nutritious foods.
Q: Wouldn’t a lot of people just stop working if they received free money?
A: Would you? A major goal of the basic income is to eliminate the poverty trap of welfare by paying people whether they work or not. Most lottery winners work. Most trust fund babies work. Basic income trials for families in poverty in the U.S. in the 60s and 70s did show a 14% work reduction. The largest cause of the reduction were teenagers who stopped working and secondary workers who became homemakers; these reductions were likely responsible for the extraordinary gains in education and health outcomes produced by the cash grants. Some primary workers with two jobs quit one, and unemployed workers took longer to find work, perhaps being more picky about finding a job that paid better and suited their skills more. Not a single case was found of a primary worker quitting all jobs and living solely off the basic income. In fact, the primary workers in recipient families still worked more than full time on average. More recent cash transfer experiments in nations with extreme poverty such as Uganda have shown *increases* in work, as people without jobs often use the money to start their own businesses. The pattern seems to be that almost all people want to spend a significant amount of time engaged in productive work, and a significant amount of time in leisure activities, and they will use whatever money they have to achieve that balance.
Q: It seems like you are striving for a BIG at a level to satisfy Maslow’s first two tiers (Physical and Safety needs). If those two are met without effort what is the incentive for a person to be societally productive instead of simply working on fulfilling their higher tier needs?
A: The ideal level of a needs-based basic income would include access to some things that go beyond Maslow’s first two levels in a strict sense, but could be conceived as being included in them in the modern world, such as transportation, communication, and gyms and parks. But roughly, yes, we would be looking at providing the first two tiers on the hierarchy.
The higher level needs are things that the government can not, or should not, provide for people. The only way the government can provide self-esteem to individuals is to give them privileges that elevate them over others. In past times and places, some people have be able to meet their self-esteem needs simply by remembering that they are an aristocrat or a Roman citizen or a Catholic or a man or a white person. But in a legally egalitarian market society, the primary path to self-esteem is financial independence. People working on meeting their self-esteem needs in a market society will want to achieve financial independence far beyond simply having their survival and safety needs met, and they will be the primary candidates for doing all of the jobs needed by society, but only at the fair wages that will not hurt their self-esteem by making them feel exploited, which they would be willing to work at to meet survival and safety needs.
Self-actualization needs are highly idiosyncratic, and whether people working on fulfilling those needs will do other productive work society demands depends on the requirements of their respective projects. If fulfilling your self-actualization needs requires you to write a novel, you can probably live off of your basic income, and you may not be motivated to do other work. If your self-actualization requires you to sail a boat to the Galapogos Islands, you probably will be motivated to go earn some extra cash. For some, their self-actualization involves building a business. These people will be actively seeking out needs of society to fill.
Those who reach transcendence will be devoting most of their time to helping society almost by definition.
