by Kate McFarland | Sep 4, 2016 | News
The American news outlet Vox will be hosting its first conference — or, as it calls it, an “unconference” — in Washington D.C. from September 21-22. Among the questions to be discussed is “Should we replace the welfare state with a universal basic income?”
Vox will hold Vox Conversations in Washington D.C. from September 21-22. Attendance is by invitation only — although anyone can apply for an invitation — and attendees will develop their own schedule of events. According to an August 29 update (“Vox’s first conference will be different”), Vox aims to gather a “diverse of group of 150 people into a room” and let conversations develop organically.
Vox states that there is only one rule of the conference: “we don’t want to be bound by the narrow confines of what seems possible today. Let’s think about the world as it could and should be, not as it is.” The first suggested topic on the conference website is “Should we replace the welfare state with a universal basic income?”
As of the time of this writing (August 31), it is still possible to apply for an invitation to the (un)conference.
Confirmed participants so far include basic income advocate Scott Santens, former SEIU President Andy Stern — whose new book on basic income, Raising the Floor, has earned a considerable amount of publicity — and Natalie Foster, an expert on the sharing economy and gig economy who has spoken in favor of basic income.
The topic of universal basic income is not new to this news outlet. Vox contributor Dylan Matthews has written extensively about universal basic income since 2012. More recently, other Vox authors have begun writing on the topic as well. Vox has also covered basic income on its podcast The Weeds — including, most recently, an episode with Andy Stern as the featured guest. In 2014, Vox contributors made a video on universal basic income called “We know how to end poverty. So why don’t we?” This was followed by an episode of The Weeds with the same name (featuring Dylan Matthews).
See the Vox Conversations webpage to keep up to date about the (un)conference, or to apply for an invitation. Catch up on some of Vox’s recent UBI-themed articles below:
Dylan Matthews (Jul 16, 2016) “An expert on fighting poverty makes the case against a universal basic income“
Dylan Matthews (Jun 6, 2016) “Basic income advocates lost the battle in Switzerland. They’re winning the war.“
Dylan Matthews (Jun 1, 2016) “Some residents of Oakland are about to get a basic income“
Ezra Klein (Jun 1, 2016) “A universal basic income only makes sense if Americans change how they think about work“
Matthew Yglesias (May 31, 2016) “A universal basic income could absolutely solve poverty“
Dylan Matthews (Apr 15, 2016) “A charity’s radical experiment: giving 6,000 Kenyans enough money to escape poverty for a decade“
Dylan Matthews (Dec 8, 2015) “Finland’s hugely exciting experiment in basic income, explained“
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 David Zhou
Shout out to Kate’s patrons on Patreon
by Kate McFarland | Sep 3, 2016 | News
The European Forum for New Ideas is a conference that convenes annually in Sopot, Poland, bringing together academics, politicians, entrepreneurs, workers, and others to discuss the direction of the European economy.
This year’s conference will take place from September 28-30 on the theme of “The Future of Work: Realities, Dreams and Delusions”:
The implications of serious challenges currently facing Europe are all reflected in the continent’s labour market. The influx of immigrants, resuscitating EU unity, the technological revolution and the automation of processes will have tangible consequences for every EU citizen who wants to have a good job, decent pay and a stable future. Companies also have to tackle specific questions. Where to recruit new workers? How to retain those already employed? Which business models will be imposed by the automation of work and the possibility of artificial intelligence?
Notably from the standpoint of the Basic Income Earth Network, Guy Standing–BIEN’s cofounder and honorary co-president–will be participating in two sessions on the economic implications of technological change, both of which will be held on Thursday, September 29.
At the first, a morning plenary session, Standing will be one of six panelists. He will be joined by the author Martin Ford, who has promoted basic income as a way to cope with the automation of labor, especially in his popular book The Rise of the Robots (as well as in a recent White House roundtable discussion). Other panelists include Michał Boni (Member of the European Parliament), Michel Khalaf (President of MetLife EMEA), Ade McCormack (digital strategist), and Elżbieta Rafalska (Minister of Family, Labour and Social Policy in Poland). Marek Tejchman, Editor-in-Chief of Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, will moderate the discussion, which seeks to answer such questions as “Is polarization and fragmentation of work along with its attendant rise in inequalities inevitable?” and “What does the future hold in store for us: the end of unemployment, but also the collapse of stable employment?”
Later in the day, Standing will deliver an introductory speech at a debate on the topic “Is a Flexible and Secure Labour Market a Utopia?” (although he is not a participant in the debate itself).
Guy Standing is a Research Professor at SOAS, University of London, well known for his research and writing about the precariat. His latest book, The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does not Pay, was published in July of this year.
The European Forum for New Ideas is organized by Polish Confederation Lewiatan, in association with BusinessEurope.
For more information, including complete schedules, see the page for “The Future of Work: Realities, Dreams and Delusions” at the website of the European Forum for New Ideas.
Article reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Image (Krzywy domek Sopot ul. Bohaterów Monte Cassino) CC BY-SA 3.0 Topory
Shout out to Kate’s patrons on Patreon
by Andre Coelho | Sep 2, 2016 | Opinion
Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has just published a press release, announcing an experiment based on a partial basic income (< 800 €/month), instead of a full basic income (> 1000 €/month). Although the latter had also been considered for the experiment, it appears that the government has decided that the experiment should be conducted as a partial basic income, specifically 560 €/month. Here are the reasons for which Kela decided to recommend against running the trial with a full basic income:
- It would imply higher taxes;
- It would result in lower earnings-related contributions to unemployment and pension funds;
- Low income earners might quit contributing to unemployment funds and joining trade unions.
Let’s address each of these points:
- Kela links the higher tax rates with the “incentives for work”. The argument is that the former will lead to a reduction in the latter. Why? Ok, so a person on a job will pay more taxes. Assuming these taxes are maintained under reasonable levels, why is Kela assuming these people will stop working? Kela assumes a purely economic standpoint here – meaning that, according to Kela’s logic, people’s decisions, and particularly those related to work, result exclusively from monetary arithmetic. This logic, ironically, is completely non-economical in nature. Kela is assuming that people’s interests, preferences, and particular drives to do things for reasons other than money are not important, and hence can be discarded. Furthermore, Kela assumes that the possible effects of these preferences and drives on the experiment are not even worth trying to capture or understand. Stripping the argument from its technicalities and white-collar language, it can be reduced to the most common, basic, and prejudice-laden argument against basic income: that with a (full) basic income, people will stop working (“the laziness argument”). Nothing about the nature of the work itself is mentioned – such as whether it is socially useful or not, or whether it is contributing or not to people’s sense of belonging and happiness. The only thing that concerns Kela’s officials, analysts and institutional partners is whether a person stays on the job (whatever that job may be): if he/she does (or if an unemployed person becomes formally employed), that’s great; if not, that’s bad. Let’s not forget this is an experiment. If doubts exist, it’s precisely by undertaking an experiment that we might understand more about the subject being tested – in this case, ourselves. If the experiment is only intended to confirm what we already know, then it’s not an experiment: it’s a purposeless act taken only to gain collective confidence, much closer to public relations than science.
- Kela’s second argument goes like this: if people receive a full basic income, then why would they bother saving for unemployment and pension funds? Of course, these savings would be nonsensical at amounts lower than the basic income. But if someone has an average income above the basic income threshold, then a certain amount of unemployment and/or pension saving could be a wise investment, in order to maintain the same level of earnings in case of unemployment and retirement. For sure, this implies that, overall, there would be reduced contributions to unemployment and pension funds. But would that be a bad thing? After all, with the existence of a full basic income, people’s need for unemployment or retirement security would be reduced, so these funds wouldn’t need to be as large as they are today. Anyway, unemployment and pension funds are composed of money belonging to those who have directly contributed to them (or they are supposed to be). So they should only be as large as those people’s need for them. So what if a person stops paying their contribution to unemployment and/or pension funds because now he/she has a basic income? Nothing really happens, other than that the person will have a smaller amount of money to draw from when he/she becomes unemployed or retired. However, that person would never sink below the basic income level, and so a basic safety would always be in place.
- The first part of Kela’s third argument has already been dealt with in our second point. So, the remaining question is just about unionization. Why does Kela assume that joining a union is so important—so important, in fact, that a decrease in union membership could justifying not even testing a full basic income? Trade unions represent a certain kind of vision about work which is declining. In the USA, in the last fifty years, trade union membership has declined from around 33% (of all employees) to about 10% nowadays (Planet Money, 2015). Also in the UK, the number of registered union members has sharply declined in the last 35 years, from 13 million in 1979 down to 6.4 million as of 2014. A moderate to strong reduction in trade union membership has occurred in most other European countries as well, including Finland (Henrique de Sousa, 2015). At the same time, self-employment has been on the rise in several countries (e.g.: Austria, Belgium, Ireland, UK, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Finland)– although, in the European Union overall, it has stabilized around 16.7% since 2008 (World Bank). The vision of work that the trade unions represent includes fixed working periods, clear employer/employee relations, fixed negotiated incomes (collective bargaining), and holiday arrangements. All of these are getting less relevant as the time goes by. This comes with the acute rising of work flexibility, uncertainty over work periods and earnings, and the increase of precarious working conditions (Guy Standing, 2011). Precarity, unions’ number one enemy, does not necessarily represent a problem if a full basic income is in place. Unions were formed to give workers collective bargaining powers over wages and working conditions; in their absence, the threat of destitution was constantly used by employers to retrain and control workers. The employers could push less favourable deals onto workers, who were forced to choose between a bad deal and poverty. But this relationship, based on employees’ fear and employers’ abuse of power, need not exist – and, under a full basic income, would not exist. This makes sense because individual workers would have the personal bargaining power that a full basic income brings. Being part of a trade union would thus cease to be a necessity, and turn into a mere preference. So, reduced unionization is no grounds for rejecting implementing a full basic income, let alone merely experimenting with one.
Kela is rejecting a full basic income out of fear. This is an experiment. Of course there are issues, but that is exactly why the experiment is needed in the first place: to look at the extent of the consequences, within a controlled setup, before any full implementation. And experiment is needed to study the effects, expected or not. And to observe changes in people’s behaviours, when they are able to enjoy (during the experiment’s limited timeframe) a larger degree of freedom that they have never experienced before. I, for one, think that it’s entirely worth it. For the future of Finland – and of humanity.
More information at:
In Finnish:
Olli Kangas & Ville-VeikkoPulkka (eds.), “Preliminary report on a universal basic income”, Prime Minister’s Office, March 30th 2016
In English:
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, “Ministry of Social Affairs and Health requests opinions on a basic income experiment“, Sosiaali-Ja Terveysministeriö; August 25th 2016
Planet Money, “50 years of shrinking union membership, in one map”, February 23rd 2015
Department for Business Innovation & Skills, “Trade Union Membership 2014 – statistical bulletin”, June 2015
OECD Data, Self-employment rate (% of employment, 1990 – 2015)
World Bank, Self-employed, total (% of total employed)
Guy Standing, “The Precariat: the new dangerous class”, Bloomsburry Open Access / Creative Commons, 2011
In Portuguese:
Henrique de Sousa, “Sindicalização: a vida por detrás das estatísticas [Unionization: thelifebehindthestatistics]”, WorkingPaper, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, September 2011
Article reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı, Kate McFarland and Tyler Prochazka.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 2, 2016 | News
BIEN cofounder Guy Standing (Professorial Research Associate at SOAS, University of London) will be speaking at two events in Austria in September.
On September 15, Standing will be in Vienna for an event entitled “The Precariat: No Security, No Benefits, No Future”, which has been organized by the Vienna Greens and the Austrian Basic Income Group. Klaudia Paiha of the Austrian Trade Union Federation will also be speaking at the event (in German). The speakers will address the following questions:
Does the “precariat” exist as a new class or is this just a false assessment in the attempt to find a response to the new developments in capitalism and on the labor market? There are millions of people who live with constant insecurity and uncertainty. What are the approaches proposed by trade unions and by economists to help this growing share of the population secure their civil, social, cultural, political and economic rights?
For more information, see the webpage of the event: DAS PREKARIAT: KEINE SICHERHEIT, KEINE LEISTUNGEN, KEINE ZUKUNFT.
Then, on September 17, Standing will be in Klagenfurt to deliver a lecture as part of a TEDx event. The event will also include musical performances by jazz pianist Tonč Feinig and the “electro swing” act Kiss Me Yesterday, lectures on topics from the zero-waste lifestyle to the formation of planets, an appearance by Zombie Boy — and much more.
Standing’s TEDxKlagenfurt talk will address the topic of basic income as a solution to poverty.
For more information, see TEDxKlagenfurt.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Klagenfurt photo CC BY-ND 2.0 Jinpal Song
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Kate McFarland | Sep 1, 2016 | News
Ontario’s provincial government is on track to begin a pilot study of a guaranteed minimum income, according to the latest comments by former Conservative senator Hugh Segal. A more detailed report will be available in mid-September.
In June, the government of Ontario appointed Hugh Segal — a long-time proponent of a guaranteed income — to advise officials in the design and implementation of the pilot study, which is currently on track to begin before April 2017.
The pilot is designed to test a guaranteed minimum income, in which participants’ total incomes are topped up to above the poverty line. This income subsidy will supplement any support received from existing anti-poverty programs, which will not be eliminated or replaced during the pilot.
Thus, although it is often referred to by the term ‘basic income’, the policy to be tested in Ontario should be distinguished from the commonly discussed “demogrant” model of basic income, wherein all individuals receive a regular payment of the same amount, regardless of other earnings or total income. Ontario will be investigating a program that supplements the earnings only of individuals whose incomes are below a certain level (e.g. the poverty line). In this respect, the pilot is similar to Manitoba’s well-known “Mincome” experiment of the late 1970s.
As under a demogrant model, however, there would be no work requirement or other conditions that poor Canadians would need to meet to qualify for the guaranteed minimum income. All would be eligible, whether working or not.
According to CBC News’ most recent report (dated August 30), Segal has suggested that the government could run two types of pilots: one in a small community in which the entire community would receive a guaranteed income (as was the case in the Mincome experiment), and another involving a sample of individuals within a large community. The latter design would allow the beneficiaries of the guaranteed income to be compared against a control group, as in the recently-announced design of the basic income experiment in Finland.
Statements in the CBC’s article suggest that the participation in the pilot will be voluntary [1]. This would contrast with the Finnish experiment — in which, as a measure to prevent bias in the sample, participation is mandatory for those individuals selected to participate.
The CBC News report also notes Ontario will not receive direct financial support from Canada’s federal government — despite the fact that the majority Liberal Party endorsed guaranteed annual income as party policy at its convention in May. The provincial government itself has earmarked $25 million for the pilot.
According to CBC, Segal is planning to publicize a preliminary report on the pilot project in mid-September, making it available for three months of public consultation.
[1] Context: “…the pilot will not eliminate or consolidate existing poverty-reduction programs, but rather be designed as a top-up to such programs to lift its voluntary participants above the poverty line [emphasis added].”
Addendum (December 8): In light of the continued high frequency of view of this post, we note that the report in question was published on November 3. See the Basic Income News summary — and links to the full report — here.
References
Dean Beeby, “Ontario to test guaranteed-income program amid warnings about costs, effectiveness“, CBC News; August 30, 2016.
Roderick Benns, “New report out for Ontario pilot on basic income“, Basic Income Canada Network; August 30, 2016.
Rob Rainer, “Ontario moving toward basic income pilot”, Basic Income News; July 23, 2016.
André Coelho, “CANADA: Ontario reaches further into basic income implementation”, Basic Income News; June 26, 2016.
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Commonwealth Secretariat
