Tomas Vargas, a recipient of Stockton’s “universal basic income” program.
Although the Stockton SEED (Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration) basic income-type experiment is still ongoing, some encouraging signs are already showing up. Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs already says that “I think the data shows that people make good decisions, people are healthier, happier”, and a few of the program’s beneficiaries have already given positive feedback.
That is the case of Stockton resident Tomas Vargas, who earns less than the official poverty line, which at the moment stands at 46000 $/year. His view of the program and his personal experience has been recorded on a short podcast on Capital Public Radio, after he knew he would receive 500 $/month, no strings attached, for 18 months (more details of the program in previous news articles). Although that value amounts to only about 20% of Vargas earnings, and to 13% of the poverty line, he still says that “It makes a difference on choices I can make”. He talks about a “big stress relief”, and has a clear notion that the experiment will have an impact for the future of the basic income policy, at least in Stockton.
Although briefly, Tubbs skimmed through the UBI experiment in the latest State of The City 2019, where he delivered an hour-long, much appreciated speech focusing on poverty, crime, housing and community building.
A few low-income families with children, in the United States, are about to receive 20 unconditional checks, and be subject to an overall health analysis, both mothers and their children. The program is called “Baby’s First Years” and is a research initiative from the New York University.
Starting next month, 1000 mothers will be randomly selected from poor households in New York, New Orleans, Minneapolis-St. Paul and Omaha (Nebraska). 400 of these mothers will be given 333 $/month, for 20 months, with no strings attached, while the other 600 study participants will only receive 20 $/month during the same period (this should be the control group). The study will focus on early-stage child development, hence the women in question will be mothers to new-born babies, but living below the federal poverty line, which for a parent in a family of four roughly equates to 1070 $/month (single income in the family). For comparison purposes, the living wage of an adult in a family of four, in New York, has been calculated as 4940 $/month (single income in the family). So, the experiment being rolled-out is testing the effects of a 7% (the percentage varies according to the living wage of the other cited cities) share of the living wage, even though it represents around 33% of the poverty line wage.
Researchers want to determine “whether money has a causal impact on children and families”. This relationship has already been established in other research studies, although less evidence exists on the impact on new-born babies and their mothers. According to Katherine Magnuson, one of the involved researchers and professor at University of Wisconsin, more than allowing these mothers to more easily buy essential products for their children, the point of the study is to know if the money can “help free up some of the mental bandwidth that gets gobbled up by living in poverty”. Again, the relationship between poverty and diminished brain functions has already been demonstrated through research, but not specifically involving mothers and their new-borns development.
The team theorizes that not only the money itself, but the simple regularity of the payments is in itself a stabilization factor, due to its predictability. That can lead to alleviating stress, hence more positive relationships between mothers and their children. In the words of Katherine Magnuson, “If you’re not worried about your bus pass, you’re going to be a lot more able to have a conversation with your 2-year-old”. That extra cash may prove enough to free up what researchers call “cognitive load”, and naturally allowing mothers to focus more on their children and their future, instead of worrying about bills to pay.
Several outcomes will be analysed, such as children’s overall health and brain activity (with EEG scans), as well as behaviour and language monitoring. IQ tests will also be applied, for children older than two-years old. Mothers will also be monitored, specially concerning their health, stress levels and interaction with their children.
Lisa Gennetian, one of the study’s lead researchers summarizes the intent of this work: “What is in the best interest of children is really what our study is designed to answer (…) I think the policy implications are much broader than UBI (universal basic income)”. That view may be a consequence of a too narrow interpretation of a broader UBI definition, but still the “best interest of children” should, in principle, have a positive impact on the adults they will one day become, and the society they will help to create.
How the welfare system in the UK – and in Scotland in particular – is failing to reduce poverty and economic insecurity, within its own terms.
Presentation of the updated findings on the basic income trial presently ongoing in Fife.
Modelling the impact of a basic income in Scotland (by Landman Economics).
Analysing political, legal and administrative scenarios enabling a first Scotland-wide basic income experiment, in the path for its implementation in the region.
The report also features direct input from potencial beneficiaries of the Fife basic income trial (which is still under study / consideration), a precious contribution from those directly affected by the current system of means-testing conditional social security. Taking the example of Fife, Painter and his colleagues have projected that “£2400 a year would half destitution and reduce relative household poverty by 8,5%. A basic income of £4800 a year would end destitution and reduce relative household poverty by 33%.” It’s relevant to notice that the Scottish living wage is currently £9 per hour, which for a regular 8 h/day job amounts to about 1440 £/month. So, these basic income amounts under consideration are only 14 and 28% of what it takes to live comfortably in Scotland.
Anthony Painter summarizes how a basic income in Scotland could be tested within a whole set of other public policies in place:
“In A Basic Income for Scotland we map how pilots of basic income could work with a full set of supports alongside cash payments. We call this community designed system of interlocking public, community, and employer supports wrapped around basic income a ‘Civic Basic income’.”
Hilde Latour, a long-standing basic income activist from the Netherlands, has recently made a presentation on a TEDx independently organized event, in Amstelveen, Netherlands. Latour is also a coordinator / director at Wisecolab, a forward-looking organization of thinkers, activists and technology experts, who try to bring new common good narratives to people, backed and helped by technology recent and future developments.
Summarizing Latour’s TEDx talk, the following can be said: Hilde is on a mission to create a world free of poverty. A basic income for everyone on this earth will not only eliminate poverty but will also contribute to other goals like reduce crime and increase health. It will impact us all. There is no need to wait for politicians. Innovation and technology can help to create this sustainable future.
An important report on basic income has been released in the UK, as announced before, and publicly presented at the RSA last Tuesday. In that report, one central idea is to put forward, for the UK social reality: to give every adult citizen a 100 £/week (equivalent to about 460 €/month), unconditionally and without means-testing. According to the Progressive Economic Forum (PEF), this policy can be tested in the UK in five different ways (for an year):
Giving a 100 £/week (116 €/week) to every adult in a randomly selected community, plus 50 £/week (57 €/week) for children and any extra amount to account for disability necessities. The scheme would replace all benefits but the housing benefit.
Giving a 70 £/week (81 €/week) to every adult in a randomly selected community, plus 20 £/week (57 €/week) for children, but keeping child benefits. All other means-tested benefits would remain in place, accounting for the unconditional transfer as income, thus reducing or eliminating the (existing) benefits paid.
A 50 £/week (58 €/week) to every adult in a randomly selected community, plus any existing benefits (not considering the unconditional transfer as income).
A randomly selection of adults (country-wide) on welfare seeing conditionalities removed.
A randomly selection of homeless people given an unconditional cash grant, replacing other (cash or non-cash) benefits.
At the referred presentation, Labour Party’s John McDonnell, the Exchequer Shadow Chancellor, said the Labour Party is not committing to introduce basic income in the UK (if elected), but this report will definitely be instrumental for the party’s next manifesto design.
Not surprisingly, Tories in parliament stand firmly against this policy, branding it as a “handout”, and dismissing it as hugely expensive and unfair to “hardworking taxpayers”. To that, Guy Standing, main author of the referred author, has replied that governments looking forward should “at the very least introduce local pilots to see how effective it could be”. He and RSA Director Anthony Painter have been strong proponents of reducing or eliminating means-testing and conditionality in general, in a welfare system in the UK which has been “expensive to administer and is causing destitution”. Painter summarizes by saying that “basic income-style pilots have been proven to have beneficial effects on health, well-being, and trust, while giving people more freedom to decide for themselves how to manage their lives.”
A series of articles have been produced on this issue, in several news outlets, such as the Guardian, Brave New Europe, the Mirror and BBC News. The presentation video can be watched below, and also heard on an RSA podcast.
