by Andrew Sanchez | Sep 14, 2018 | News
In her recent work Give People Money: How a Universal Basic Income Would End Poverty, Revolutionize Work, and Remake the World (W.H. Allen), Atlantic writer Annie Lowrey offers a new account of the universal basic income (UBI) rooted in her experience as a global observer of geopolitics, economics, and social policy.
Lowrey approaches UBI as a potential tool to redress a variety of issues, including inequality, poverty, and technological unemployment, which have become increasingly divisive in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the recent boom in AI research. By viewing human action rather than impartial circumstance as the primary driver of socio-political change, Lowrey concludes that UBI represents an “ethos” of universality, unconditionality, and inclusion as much as any concrete policy proposal.
In the opening chapter, Lowrey explores the relationship between basic income, work, and technological unemployment. After sketching the twinned histories of human advancement and the fear of technological unemployment, she examines why current innovations in AI might be qualitatively different from earlier achievements and why these differences may in fact lead to widespread joblessness. Lowrey notes that certain Silicon Valley luminaries, whose own endeavours threaten the livelihood of many low-skilled workers, have promoted the UBI as a necessary social policy for a jobless future.
Despite calls by technologists for a UBI as a “social vaccine for the 21st Century,” Lowrey ultimately considers discussion of basic income in relation to future joblessness as premature. Although she grants that basic income could operate as an important vehicle of state provision in the future, Lowrey prefers to consider the UBI’s potential to address current social and economic problems.
These problems range from a labour market with stagnant wage growth in Houston to chronic poverty on the shores of Lake Victoria to the challenges of welfare reform in rural India. In each case, Lowrey unpacks how political choices, bureaucratic structures, and personal circumstance converge to prevent certain people from meeting their basic needs.
Through carefully examining different political, geographic, and economic contexts, Lowrey can assess the benefits and drawbacks of basic income proposals in a variety of contemporary settings. This approach accepts that any form of UBI would affect different communities and individuals in unique and perhaps unpredictable ways.
Give People Money distinguishes itself from other works on the topic through its commitment to personal narrative and Lowrey’s own experience with the people who stand to benefit from basic income proposals. Although she examines the ethical and economic justifications of UBI, her primary focus lies in the human story and the way she came to view UBI as an ethos of transformative social change. Give People Money ultimately advocates for UBI not by advancing specific policy initiatives, but by presenting basic income as an impetus to radically reconsider what humans owe one another and how the earth’s bounty ought to be shared.
by Jelena Vitic | Aug 21, 2018 | News, Research
Picture credit to: Big Think.
On the 12th of July 2018, Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released the report “Expanding Work Requirements in Non-Cash Welfare Programs”, in response to an executive order made in April 2018 on reducing poverty in America.
The poverty rate of 3%, as measured in the CEA report, is at an all-time low. Although a favorable result, the authors point out that “many non-disabled working-age adults do not regularly work, particularly those living in low-income households. Such non-working adults who receive welfare benefits […] can become reliant on welfare programs.” In an attempt to increase self-sufficiency in recipients of benefits, they propose strengthening and increasing work requirements.
Ed Dolan reflects on the results outlined in the report in his article for the Niskanen center. He poses four questions that challenge the report’s main conclusions.
- Are the measures of poverty used in the report appropriate?
In the report poverty was measured through consumption starting in 1980, when the first reliable data is available. After adjusting for changes in purchasing power, the results show that the poverty rate has fallen compared to 1980. Although this approach has solid ground in research, Dolan argues that alternative measures produce different results (examples available here and here), mainly due to different definitions of poverty itself and using different years as the base for comparison.
- Who are the recipients?
The CEA distinguishes between two groups that currently receive welfare support: i. recipients unable to work, and ii. non-disabled recipients able to work. They report that non-disabled recipients have lower employment rates compared to the general population of working age. The authors explain this finding with the fact that recipients receive less benefits as their income raises which demotivates them to find work.
Dolan challenges this argument by saying that recipients cannot be easily grouped into non-disabled and disabled welfare beneficiaries. The Kaiser Family Foundation study found that some individuals that reported not working due to some form of disability do not meet the social security disability requirements for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) support, making them officially non-disabled. These individuals are unlikely to get employed despite policy adjustments, effective tax rates and work requirements.
- Are work requirements effective?
According to the CEA, there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that work requirements would be effective in reducing dependency on welfare benefits and increasing employment. Their argument is based on the welfare reform that took place in the 1990s.
Dolan disagrees with this conclusion, pointing out that the golden standard among experts for evaluating the 1990s reform is a series of eleven experiments known as the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies, conducted in the 1990s across the country with each lasting five years. In these experiments, participants were divided into two groups. The treatment group received benefits as a function of work requirements, while the control group continued to receive payments without conditions. The treatment group had modest gains in employment and there was a 1% decrease in total income on average. The results showed that the increase in wages was often smaller than the decrease in benefits. Finally, positive results were produced only where administrative support was provided (one-on-one interactions, training etc.). Dolan believes this provides little evidence that work requirements would help recipients move towards self-sufficiency. He also criticizes the CEA report for not emphasizing the crucial role of administrative support.
- What is the real agenda?
Dolan believes that work requirements are not likely to be effective at increasing employment and raising self-sufficiency: “Think of it this way. As currently configured, the message to in-kind welfare beneficiaries is, ‘We encourage you to work, but if you do work, we will take your benefits away.’ Adding work requirements changes the message so that it becomes, ‘If you work, we will take your benefits away, but we will also take them away if you don’t work.'” However, as a tool to lower welfare payments and reduce administrative costs work requirements could be effective, since more individuals would be excluded from the system, according to Dolan.
More information at:
“CEA Report: Expanding Work Requirements in Non-Cash Welfare Programs“, Council of Economic Advisers, July 12th 2018
Executive Office of the President, “Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility“, Executive Order 13828, April 10th 2018
Ed Dolan, “Do we really want expanded work requirements in non-cash welfare programs?“, July 23rd 2018
MaryBeth Musumeci, Rachel Garfield, and Robin Rudowitz, “Medicaid and Work Requirements: New Guidance, State Waiver Details and Key Issues“, January 16th 2018
by Patrick Hoare | Feb 9, 2018 | News
University of Michigan in Autumn. Credit to: Flickr.
Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan, in collaboration with the Stanford Basic Income Lab and with support from the Economic Security Project, are inviting applications to participate in a three-day workshop from May 18th – 20th 2018, in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The workshop will provide opportunities to learn about basic income projects and shape the long-term research agenda. Participants will discuss and debate about basic income: What are the arguments for and against? What is the evidence that cash is the way to confront economic and social issues versus employment or human capital interventions? What are the major questions experts are grappling with about basic income, and where can junior scholars fit in? This workshop will seek to equip junior scholars interested in pursuing research on basic income with the tools to take the next step in their research agenda.
Experts in the field of basic income studies will lead the workshop. Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan will pay travel, lodging, and meal costs for a limited number of participants.
The workshop aims to:
- Familiarize participants on basic income research, currently available data sources and state of the art projects that are underway
- Present basic income findings from top research scholars in the field
- Provide opportunities for participants to engage leading experts in discussions on the top priorities for the next generation of basic income research and policy
- Provide interactive instruction and debate on the various models that basic incomes might take (e.g., child allowance, guaranteed basic income)
- Provide practical tips and ideas for basic income research design
- Provide participants with an opportunity to identify their own research projects and develop preliminary design that can be used when the participant returns to her/his home institution
Sessions will be three hours each morning and afternoon. Participants will have time to work on their research projects and consult with faculty every day. This workshop will not offer instruction in statistics or formal research methods.
The application deadline is Friday, February 16, 2018
Applications will be accepted from emerging scholars, including early-stage graduate students, advanced doctoral students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty early in their career. Members of groups historically under-represented in the social sciences – including scholars from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU) and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) – are strongly encouraged to apply.
To apply, send application materials via email to povertysolutions@umich.edu with the title: Application for New Directions in Basic Income Workshop. Applications should be submitted as a single PDF file that includes the following elements, in the order listed below:
- Cover sheet with your name and institutional affiliation with mailing address, email address, and telephone number
- Curriculum vitae or resume
- Brief summary of your current research or analysis activities and interests and how they relate to basic income (about 2 pages, 1 inch margins, 11 font)
- Description of how participation in the workshop will benefit your research and/or long-term career goals (no more than 2 pages)
- For questions about the content, structure, objectives or applying for the workshop, contact Poverty Solutions at povertysolutions@umich.edu.
The deadline for receipt of applications is 5 PM Eastern Time on Friday, February 16th 2018. Selected applicants will be notified no later than Friday, March 16th 2018.
by Karl Widerquist | Jan 3, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in September 2006.
I was struck by a report in the Associated Press reported on October 12th that a 63-year-old Ohio man intentionally had himself convicted of bank robbery. Timothy J. Bowers sought a three-year prison sentence to bridge the gap until he becomes eligible for full Social Security benefits. Bowers had lost his job making deliveries for a drug wholesaler more than three years ago and had been unable to find anything but minimum wage labor, which he could not live on. So, finally, he went to a bank, handed the clerk an envelope and demanded that she put cash it in. He then walked straight to the bank’s security guard, confessed, handed him the envelope filled with only $80 in cash, and calmly waited for the police.
The court-ordered psychological evaluation pronounced him sane and competent to stand trial. Judge Angela White gave Bowers the three-year sentence he asked for. According to the AP, “Prosecutors had considered arguing against putting Bowers in prison at taxpayer expense, but they worried he would do something more reckless to be put behind bars.” Arguing against tough sentencing is an ironic position for American prosecutors well known for locking away petty criminals.
This is an isolated incident. It is hardly a repeat of the Irish Potato famine when there were stories of large numbers of people getting themselves arrested to avoid starvation. But still, I think it says something about the low-wage labor market in the United States today. U.S. prisons are not easy, pleasant, or kind places to be under any circumstances. America is not in a famine; by some measures, it is the richest country in the world. What does it say about the jobs we offer the underprivileged when a sane person can choose prison over labor market?
-Karl Widerquist, New Orleans, LA, September 2006
by Kate McFarland | Oct 29, 2017 | Research
A basic income and job guarantee are commonly presented as competing solutions to poverty and economic insecurity. In a new paper for the Institute of Labor Economics, however, Felix FitzRoy and Jim Jin of the School of Economics and Finance University of St. Andrews make a case for combining the approaches.
According to the authors, proponents of a basic income often fail to give due attention to the importance of work and employment to subjective well-being and life satisfaction; unlike a basic income, a job guarantee can provide a good job for all those who want to work, and can also offer training and experience to allow individuals to advance to better jobs. At the same time, the authors argue that a job guarantee overlooks the importance of non-standard employment (they note, for example, that self-employed workers often report high levels of satisfaction, and value their autonomy) and unpaid labor, such as child and elder care.
FitzRoy and Jin develop a proposal for a modest basic income (or partial basic income) in conjunction with a guaranteed job offer for those able and willing to work, striving to combine the advantages of each approach in a policy package that is also both affordable and politically feasible.
Read the full paper here:
Felix FitzRoy and Jim Jin, “Basic Income and a Public Job Offer: Complementary Policies to Reduce Poverty and Unemployment,” Institute of Labor Economics (IZA) Policy Paper No. 133.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo: Employment Office (1916), CC BY 2.0 Seattle Municipal Archives
