I'd be a big fan of giving anyone with a PhD a small social stipend and means-tested health insurance.
It's much cheaper than other universal basic income proposals.
It's much cheaper than other universal basic income proposals.
Why should PhDs get a social stipend, but not a chef? This would ultimately be a net transfer of wealth from the chefs to the PhDs, by force of law.
Disasters are going to happen. Having an unskilled population could mean the end of humanity.
A tiny increase in allowance for learning and maintaining(!) useful skills could be an interesting approach. Cooks seem pretty nice to have. In a worse case scenario they could be even more valuable if they could cook on open fire, do a bit of gardening, know more about nutrition.
It will be somewhat of a hard puzzle slapping value on training that is theoretically useful, we might have to do crude generalizations like phd = 200$ extra per month but it wouldn't be perfect or even elegant.
Most phds have and would continue to have meaningful employment.
Many PhDs would just want to do research in their field and would continue doing so as long as they can feed and house themselves. Societally, maybe many of these wouldn't produce anything "useful", but some percentage might develop some breakthrough in their field that would more than make up for paying for all the rest.
Would it be better to have some PhD educated math prodigy working an unrelated job paying a median salary because there's nothing available in academia or if we just let that person work on their research all day, might they develop something that would be more useful?
You could make the same argument for providing a universal basic income for everyone, but in the general population you're going to have a higher percentage of people who will just watch Netflix all day or whatever you consider to be a useless activity.
Yes, thank you, nailed it.
I think if we want the government to pay PhDs to promote research and the advance of knowledge, the PhDBI proposal has some limitations as a means to that end. Many PhDs are gainfully employed, and often have much higher incomes than those without PhDs; they are hardly in need of this stipend. Aside from these cases, it is not clear that the PhDs thus supported are in fact productive, or that the stipend will actually effect the advancement of knowledge, and it seems that it would be very hard to assess the success of this initiative given its structure, or impose any sort of accountability.
You identify "some PhD math prodigy," but there are twice as many doctorates in philosophy as there are in math, and while I am in favor of some PhDs in philosophy, it is not clear the extent to which this specific achievement is something the government needs to be subsidizing. It may be the case that this PhDBI structure would incentivize the pursuit of low-quality PhDs, in the hopes of obtaining the stipend and then ceasing productive work.
(Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/185353/number-of-doctora... )
The government has a variety of avenues to promote research in specific fields: by employing those researchers directly, by funding research universities, by issuing grants to researchers engaged in research. I feel these might be better at obtaining public policy goals, while being much less susceptible to rent-seeking.
And roughly 2000 in math. http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/phds-awarde...
>The government has a variety of avenues to promote research in specific fields: by employing those researchers directly, by funding research universities, by issuing grants to researchers engaged in research. I feel these might be better at obtaining public policy goals, while being much less susceptible to rent-seeking.
It's surprisingly difficult to engage in pure research with government grants, believe it or not. In certain fields, like philosophy and math, just covering health insurance and providing lunch money might be much more effective.