by Daniele Fabbri | Nov 25, 2018 | News
Credit picture to: CC(Paul May)
In an article published on Medium, “Universal Basic Income Is Silicon Vallaey’s latest Scam”, Douglas Rushkoff maintains that “The plan is no gift to the masses, but a tool for our further enslavement”.
Rushkoff was once a supporter of universal basic income (UBI), he says, but during a talk at Uber’s headquarters, with Uber management itself bringing up the possbility of UBI, an epiphany occurred to him and he changed his mind.
“The real purpose of digital capitalism is to extract value from the economy and deliver it to those at the top”, he says, and digital companies act by enacting a revised, perfected version of primitive accumulation. At this excels Amazon, by being an “automated wealth extraction platform”, through the control of the retail market and partially on the production of goods. But it becomes a problem when all the value is extracted from the market, consumers become too poor to pay for services or can’t buy enough goods, and even their data loses value.
In Rushkoff’s view, financing UBI through money creation or through corporate taxation would be a mean to keep consumers spending, a shortcut for ensuring that capital continues to accumulate at the very top. His words are harsh: “UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers.”
Silicon Valley’s support of UBI would, in Rushkoff’s view, be motived by a will to keep people from considering more enabling possibilities, which could challange the status quo: rather than asking for an allowance, we should ask for an ownership stake, as inequality rests on uneven distribution of assets. Assets that have been successfully appropriated by big corporations, which, unable to put money back in the economy, now ask for government intervention.
Rushkoff’s solution is, rather than UBI, a form of universal ownership: Universal Basic Assets. To support his view, he mentions the case of Denmark, where people have access to a share of the nation’s resources and consequently the social elevator works properly. This lends itself closer to the Commons concept, an ancient form of organizing societies but which has almost completely disappeared from today’s globalized and digitized society.
“A weekly handout doesn’t promote economic equality – much less empowerment. The only meaningful change we can make to the economic operating system is to distribute ownership, control and governance of the real world to the people who live in it.”
More information at:
Douglas Rushkoff, “Universal Basic Income Is Silicon Valley’s Latest Scam”, Medium, October 10th 2018
Article reviewed by Dawn Howard.
by Daniele Fabbri | Nov 23, 2018 | Research
Photo Credit: CC(Cindy Woods)
The last world development report from the World Bank is out. It investigates the changing nature of work and suggests what governments could and should do to address the phenomenon. Among the proposals there is the enhancement of social protection, to a degree disjoining it from formal wage employment, considering Universal Basic Income (UBI) as one of the options.
Digital transformation allows firm to grow rapidly, escaping the traditional patterns of production, and the rise of digital platforms make people more susceptible to the effects of technological change. The landscape of work is evolving and the skills required by employers around the world are changing: skills such as complex problem solving, adaptability and teamwork as central requisites. This in turn modifies how and at which terms people work, and short-term work is on the rise, bringing challenges to the existing welfare state, the report says. The World Development Report goes on suggesting three solutions governments should put into practice: investing in human capital, through the guidance provided by the Human Capital Project; enhancing social protection; and increasing revenue mobilization as a mean of financing the two aforementioned solutions.
The changing nature of work
Fears of technological based unemployment have their roots in history, spanning from the introduction of knitting machines in England in the XVI° century, to the Luddites distruction of textile machinery in the 19th century, but the overall effect of industrialization was to stimulate economic growth and to raise the living standards. This fear is also contemporary, supported by the trend of declining industrial employment in high-income economies in the last two decades. The Republic of Korea, Singapore, Spain, and the UK are among the countries in which it dropped by more than 10 percentage points but, on the other hand, millions of industrial jobs have been created in developing countries since the late 1980s.
Technology is disrupting, unevenly, the demand for skills, and its potential for the amelioration of living standards manifests heterogeneously: workers in elected sectors gains from technological progress, whilst others see themselves left facing displacement. The wealth created by the platform economy is huge, but its placed in the hands of a few, and A.I. raises concerns about the advent of a jobless economy following the rapid growth in the number of robots operating worldwide: if they are 1.2 millions in 2018, they will be 2.6 millions in 2019, an increase of 1.4 milion units in just one year. It should be noticed how, in the countries with higher robot density – Germany, Korea, Singapore – employment rates remain high, but in Germany the effect was a reduction in the hiring of new, young entrants; young workers, and economies anticipating larger numbers of entrants, may be more affected than others.
The extent to which robots replace workers remains unclear, with automation of routine work estimated to have also created 23 million jobs across Europe starting in 1999, and evidence suggesting that its overall effect is that of raising demand for labor, specifically in the technology sector, by providing the tools necessary for online work, or for taking part in the gig economy. It’s sure that jobs based upon repetition, which are “codifiable”, are those more endangered by automation, but estimates of the number of jobs at risk varies widely, for the US from 7% to 47%, the latter figure the result of automation probabilities developed by machine learning experts at the University of Oxford, a speculation which cannot account properly for the rates of technology absorption, which have been observed to vary greatly depending on the kind of technology, both internationally and intranationally.
The effect of automation on skills demand and on the production process is somehow more discernable. On the skills side, the demand for cognitive abilities which allow workers to be more adaptable, as critical thinking and socio-behavioural skills, is increasing; on the side of the production process there is the rise of global value chains, the changing nature of the boundaries of firms, and the fluid geography of jobs. The process has favored the more educated, and human capital seems the more effective protection against automation driven unemployment: “A big question is whether workers displaced by automation will have the required skills for new jobs created by innovation”. Innovation has the greatest impact on low and middle-skilled workers, either because they are more suceptible to automation, or because no complementarities with technology (human-machine cooperation) manifest.
The paper identifies how technology has disrupted the demand for skills: firstly, the demand for non-routine skills (i.e. cognitive and socio-behavioural) is increasing both in advanced and emerging economies; secondly, the demand for job specific-skills is declining; thirdly, payoffs to combination of different type of skills, allowing for greater adaptability and easier transfer among different jobs, appear to be increasing. The risk is growing inequality, as the report states:
“In advanced economies, employment has been growing fastest in high-skill cognitive occupations and low-skill occupations that require dexterity. By contrast, employment has shifted away from middle-skill occupations such as machine operators. This is one of the factors that may translate into rising inequality in advanced economies. Both middle- and low-skill workers could see falling wages ⎯ the former because of automation; the latter because of increased competition.”
Technology changes the way in which people works and the term under which they work. The gig-economy and jobs based on on-demand services, arising in an environment created by the advance of technology, don’t rely on long-term contracts but rather on extreme flexibility. There is a minimum productivity level at which firm find it optimal to employ workers formally before resorting to globalization, this means that informality is prefereable for everyone exept for the most productive workers.
If globalization and automation were to act simultaneusly, increasing the productivity of workers, the number of informal workers may decline, but if more requirements –minimum wage, required benefits – are imposed on firms, the positive “formal employment effect” may be reversed, and informality actually rise. The management of risk through employers doesn’t fit well with the new nature of jobs, and the use of payroll taxes to finance pensions and social insurance may no longer be sustainable, even for advanced economies, as the percentage of the workforce taking part into the formal economy decreases. Indeed, the changing nature of work stimulates informality, as taxation, ragulation, and social protection schemes don’t provide businesses with incentives to grow, particularly in developing economies. The issue is present in both emerging and advanced economies, and convergence is occurring among them, with increased informality in the advanced ones, leaving workers without access to benefits or protections and making the case for direct intervention of the government through benefit provision. “If automation pushes up the cost of distorting labor markets, and development improves the efficacy of the public sector, government should move away from regulation-based redistribution to direct social welfare support.”
Lifelong Learning
“Skill acquisition is a continuum, not a finite, unchangeable path”.
The advance of automation increases the demand for high-order cognitive skills, while simultaneously decreasing the demand for repetitive, job-specific skills. At the same time, the retooling of existing jobs make adaptability a fundamental requisite: the idea of a career for life seems no longer plausible, and shifts between jobs will be the norm. Thus, the profile of the ideal employee changes, as a single job may require the combination of skills from multiple disciplines: jacks of all trades will surclass the masters of one. How well countries respond to the changing demand for skills depends on how fast the supply of skills can shift, but the education system is traditionally adverse to change, and adjustment occurs predominantly out of compulsory education. Tertiary education, given its flexibility, allows for enrollment whilst participating in the workforce, and so will be the main provider of the cognitive skill-set required. Government should take action in enhancing instruction during youth, the period in which the learning capabilities are higher, and simultaneously helping to shape a better framework for adult learning as a complement to schooling, in order to “inoculate against job uncertainty.”
A new social contract
Old and new pressures calls for a renovation of the social contract, which the report defines as “a policy package that aims to contribute to a fairer society.” The changing nature of work is costly for workers and adjustments are needed: a global new deal is necessary. This new deal should be different from the one adopted in the US after the Great Depression, as the Depression was a transitory shock, whilst the advance and automation and informality are here to stay. Any social contract should be tailored to the specific country context, but some core elements remain: following the indications of Amartya Sen in “Development as Freedom”, the instruments for equality of opportunity are political freedoms, freedom of opportunity, and economic protection from abject poverty.
“The labor market is increasingly valuing advanced cognitive and socio-behavioral skills that complement technology and make workers more adaptable. This means that inequality will increase unless everyone has a fair shot at acquiring these skills.”
Strengthening social protection
Social protection should be enhanced through the improvement of its three main components: a guaranteed social minimum, social insurance and market regulation.
A guaranteed social minimum, with social assistance at its core, should be based on the concept of progressive universalism, with programs providing financial support to the largest possible share of the population, in order to account for the risks in the labour market. Social assistance needs to be reformed, as the Bismarckian model is no longer satisfying, and should be coupled with subsidized social sinsurance, not strictly based on participation in formal wage employment, financed through mandatory earning based contributions limited, at least initially, to the formal market. In order to provide equal opportunities, a social contract should also include means to provide education and upskilling, necessary for navigating the job market, starting from early childhood development, as knowledge is cumulative and pays more the earlier it starts.
“As social contracts are reimagined, subsidizing a basic level of social insurance — especially for the poor — could be considered. Such a reform could also equalize the costs borne by different factors of production, such as capital and labor, as the financing of the system is at least partly shifted away from labor taxes toward general taxation.”
Universal Basic Income
Universal Basic Income is being hotly debated as a mean to expand the guaranteed social minimum, the report says. It wouldn’t be a substitute for health, education, or other social services, but a supplement to existing social programs, and could end up replacing some programs with income support functions, increasing efficiency by reducing programs fragmentation. It’s monetary nature is an advantage: analysis of cash transfer programs showed advances in school enrollment rates, test scores, and cognitive development, food security and use of health care facilities, especially when combined with forms of intervention. The available evidence seems to disprove one of the main concerns related to UBI, that of work disincentives, as the Alaska dividend program shows no impact on employment (if not for the increase in part-time employment), and a study on the Iranian basic income program found that it did no harm to employment. The regular provision of welfare benefits granted by UBI would contrast with the arbitrarity of means-tested anti-poverty measures, which facing the dynamism of poverty ends up generating winners and losers.
The costs of UBI would depend on the level at which it is set, and its effects would depend on how it is financed. Simulations setting UBI at the level of existing cash transfer programs show that it would have significant fiscal impact, costing an additional 13.8 percent of GDP in Finland, 10.1 percent in France, 8.9 percent in the United Kingdom, and 3.3 percent in Italy. The taxation of UBI alongside regular income and the elimination of tax allowances were then used as sources of revenues for covering the additional costs: “in Finland and Italy, these measures were more than adequate to cover the additional costs of a UBI. In France, those revenues almost offset the cost of such a program. In the United Kingdom, taxing cash benefits and eliminating tax allowances were not enough to cover the UBI.” Simulations for developing countries found significant distributional effects: in Nepal most people would gain, in Indonesia 40% of the poor would be worse off and in South Africa most of the elderly and the poor would be worse off. This is due the structure and performance of the existing schemes, UBI being set at their level. A debate remains around whether some of the “cousins” of UBI, as a Job Guarantee or a Participation Income, conditional to the fulfillment of public jobs, or to volunteering, could be more beneficial, the report states.
Financing social inclusion
A basic social minimum package which uses UBI, set at the average poverty level, and aimed at adults would cost 9.6% GDP in low-income countries, 5.1% in medium-income countries and 3.5% in upper middle income countries. If the UBI was to be for everyone, the figures would be in the double digits in the poorest countries, 9% of GDP for middle income countries and 5.2% in upper-middle income countries. And the invesment for UBI should be coupled with investments in the creation of human capital, the report mantains. A significant mobilization of capital becomes necessary. Taxation patterns diverge from low income countries to high income ones; if the former rely mostly on indirect taxation –consumption and trade taxes – the latter rely on direct taxation. The paper analyzes sources of potential revenues to finance the global new deal, as excises taxes on tobacco and alcool, that even if considered regressive, have usually a long term positive impact on health. Value added tax could have a significant role in developing economies, whilst they are already diffused among advanced ones. A carbon tax may have strong impact, with a study finding that for the top 20 carbon emitting countries, optimal taxation could rise almost 2% of GDP, and be paired with the elimination of energy subsidies, which globally amouts to $333 billion. Personal and corporate income taxation may be aided by technology in avoiding tax avoidance.
“The virtual nature of digital businesses makes it even easier to locate activities in low-tax jurisdictions. The provision of goods and services from abroad without a physical presence in countries where consumers are located escapes the traditional corporate tax.”
Digitizing property registration systems will improve the collection of property taxes, and withholding taxes on payments of services will become more important in economies with strong digital presence and a prevalence of intangibles. Social protection should be enhanced keeping in mind financial costraints, and expanded as more resources are mobilized through improved taxation.
More information at:
World Bank. 2019. World Development Report 2019: The Changing Nature of Work. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Human Capital Project: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/human-capital
This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by the World Bank
by Daniele Fabbri | Nov 9, 2018 | News
Picture credit: David Pacey
In an article on Left Foot Forward, Karen Buck MP and Declan Gaffney argue for a partial Basic Income as a more practical option than Universal Basic Income (UBI).
With all the different expectations pinned to UBI, arising from its promise to address a wide range of problems going from technological drive unemployment to the income instability typical of precarious jobs, UBI risks to become a divisive topic. Sceptics argue that it ignores the problems of rising tax rates to unprecedented rates and ask if those most in need are the actual beneficiaries.
The idea of an unconditional, universal flat-rate payment could have wide appeal, the authors say: child benefit was not far from it before being taken away from high earners, and also the income personal allowance and the threshold for national insurance can be thought of as universal flat rate payments for those earning enough to benefit from them in full –“So we have UBI-like elements in the tax and benefit system already”.
The problem in the feasibility of UBI, the authors argue, arises when it is pitched at a too high level, has the ambition to replace existing social security and to provide enough to live on. But a less ambitious partial basic income could have a role in the reformation of the tax and benefit system.
The authors suggest as an option to replace income tax allowance with a flat-rate payment (of the same value) of a bit less than £50 per week going to everybody regardless of the income level, this way also those with no earnings would benefit from it.
This kind of partial basic income would not have the same scope of more generous UBI proposals, but it could nonetheless help getting more people off means-testing benefits, addressing the gender imbalance in the benefit system and in dampening income fluctuations.
“… as there continues to be disagreement on ultimate aims and objectives, we need to move the debate on to practicalities. A partial basic income, working with rather than replacing the social security system, is a good place to start”.
More information at:
Declan Gaffney and Karen Buck, “The practical response to our society’s widening inequality? A partial basic income”, Left Foot Forward, September 3rd 2018
by Daniele Fabbri | Oct 6, 2018 | News
Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang spoke at the Political Soapbox on Saturday, August 11th, 2018, during the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines.
Andrew Yang, a democrat running for president, former entrepreneur and CEO, and author of “The War on Normal People”, addressed the crowd at the Political Soapbox explaining his program.
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjaMqNUwD3I
He stated that one problem he identified lies in the fact that you need to move from places like Iowa in order to be able to find better career opportunities but, he said, there should be something better to do for young people rather than to move to Wall Street to make a lot of money for themselves. Ideally, after graduating from college, people would find a job, or build businesses, in the communities in which they are born and raised. An undergraduate should be able to volunteer, and make a living wage or better in his state, but nationwide people are required to move in order to pursue working opportunities.
This is the reason why he founded Venture for America in 2011, a non-profit with the aim of providing funds to top graduates and allowed them to take part in promising start-ups in developing cities around the U.S. But then he realized that this was not enough. There was a structural problem in the job market, and funding Venture for America alone was like “pouring water in a bathtub with a hole”.
The point is, in Andrew Yang’s opinion, technology will make human labor less essential.
He uses the example of some of the most common jobs in America – retail and sales, truck driving, and food prep. Automation is going to hit them all, with self-driving trucks already being tested in the field, moving in strict formation in order to optimize costs – a driving arrangement called platooning – and that expected savings from automation will be in the order of $168 billion per year in the freight industry.
Call centers will not be spared from automation, automated kiosks at McDonald’s will soon be more widespread, and 30% of malls will disappear in the next four years, due to Amazon gaining more and more of the market. The transformation will make many jobs obsolete, while stripping value from the many and concentrating it into the hands of a few.
Automation, if not dealt with appropriately, comes at a great cost, and people need to act together as a society to counteract the potential disruption brought by A.I.
In order to do so, Andrew Yang presents the three pillars of his campaign:
1)A $1,000 freedom dividend for each adult (which is a form of Universal Basic Income). Value is being hoovered up by the richest people, with the recent $1.5 trillion tax cut being spread unevenly, as only 6% went to workers. The time of trickle-down economics should come to an end, he says, and it should be substituted with trickle-up economics; money should move the other way around, from families and communities up. The economy is up to $19 trillion dollars, with an increase of $4 trillion in just the last ten years, and the Freedom Dividend is something feasible, he maintains.
2)Medicare for all, as healthcare costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy. People should be able to worry only about getting better, not about how to pay for it.
3)A new American Scorecard, which is a way to measure things differently than GDP does. This would include new indicators including well-being, mental and physical health, not only economic figures. This would also have an instrument which could account positively for motherhood work and parenting, and not for national defense expenses.
More information at:
Brianne Pfannenstiel, “Presidential hopeful Yang floats idea of $1,000 monthly ‘dividend’ for American adults”, Des Moines Register, August 18th, 2018
Sara Bizarro, “United States: Andrew Yang is running for President in 2020 on the platform of Universal Basic Income”, Basic Income News, April 8th, 2018
Article reviewed by Dawn Howard
by Daniele Fabbri | Sep 30, 2018 | News
Four Ontario mayors, with a letter addressed to Jean-Yves Duclos, who sits in the present Canadian federal cabinet as Minister of Families, Children, and Social Development, appeal to the Federal Government for assuming oversight over the Basic Income Pilot project in their communities.
The letter from the Mayors of Brantford, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes and Thunder Bay follows the early end of the pilot, wich was announced on July 31st by the new center right government of the Ontario province. It was and abrupt end, just three months after the pilot program was fully subscribed, following its announcement by the previous government in April 2017.
For the pilot, the province had enrolled 6,000 people, 4,000 to actually receive the payments, the others to act as a control group. In order to be selected for the pilot, the requisites were: being between the ages of 18 and 64, and living on a low income, defined as under $34,000 per year for singles and $48,000 for couples. Participants were to receive, under a tax credit model, $16,989 per year for a single person, less 50% of any earned income, or $24,027 per year for a couple, less 50% of any earned income.
The communities of Brantford, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes and Thunder bay were among those to be chosen as the sites for the pilot test, and Ontario’s pilot was at the center of a diffused international interest for the concept of basic income, with delegations from the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea and the Unites states visiting the communities in order to observe and learn from the experience. “We believe the results of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot would have provided crucial information that could enable not just the Ontario Government, but other jurisdictions around the country to determine the efficacy of such a program on a larger scale”, the mayors write.
The end of the project was justified by the minister of Community Social Services (CSS) because it supposedly provided a disincentive to work, ignoring that two thirds of pilot participants are currently working (some with part-time jobs), but nonetheless interested in contributing to the community and to upgrade their professional skills, the letter says.
The fallout from the Ontario government’s cancellation of the pilot is twofold, on the one hand it is detrimental to participants, and on the other one it is a step back in the research for a better, more comprehensive way, to assist citizens.
The pilot was in the first of the three scheduled years of duration, and its findings and level of success could not be determined appropriately, although many participants could already identify positive changes in their lives as a result of it. These reported having used the money to stabilize their housing, improve their health through better dieting and checking for opportunities to specialize themselves, going back to school and enhance their level of skills. The letter continues by saying that many participants reported an amelioration of their well-being and the regaining of confidence, self-esteem and dignity, as they become able to afford housing and improve their intake of healthy food. Futhermore, as a consequence of being able to afford the time for civic activities and volunteering, these people were becoming active members of their community.
The decision to stop the program is harmful the participants, as they made financial decisions having in mind the commitment of the Ontario government to supply them with a stable income over the next years. They were elected among the most vulnerable members of their communities and, once the pilot started, many incurred in expenses which are now irrecoverable. Planning ahead for the following three years period, some moved to safer rental accommodations, finding themselves locked in tenancy agreements they cannot afford, while others paid up-front to go back to school or to enhance their skills, and found themselves indebted.
In the letter, the mayors of the cities of Brantford, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes and Thunder Bay say that they fear that many of the participant will “inevitably fall into situations of homelessness and significant financial distress” without any fault of their own, and those struggling with mental health will now need additional support.
The mayors thus request that the federal government assumes oversight over the Ontario Basic Income project for the following two years, in order to complete it. They provide three reasons in support for their request. Firstly, the pilot infrastructure has already been built, with many of the up-front costs having been paid, the participants chosen and a project staff in place with given timelines and an evaluation team at work. Secondly, information gathered through the pilot, which is the greatest such test in the world and the first in Canada since Mincome in the seventies (the Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment, conducted between 1974 and 1979), would benefit the Federal Government, providing a bonanza of valuable data. And thirdly, one third of the total cost of the project, $50 million, has already been spent. There is no hope of recovering that amount, which considering the negative fallout produced by the premature cancellation of the pilot, is an expense that would end up only creating distress in the communities which were taking part in the experiment.
“Minister, when the program was launched, you said that you would be watching it closely and looked forward to seeing the results – as did we. Federal oversight of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot project would be the best option to revive the critical information that will be generated, protect pilot participants from crisis who entered into the program in good faith and ensure the funds that have already been spent on this program are not wasted.”
The termination of the pilot provoked turmoil and induced various reactions from the communities involved, and awaiting for an answer from the federal government, a judicial review has been requested over the cancellation of the experiment and a class-action lawsuit has been launched by Mike Perry, a social advocate for the program which is handling the cases pro bono, representing four pilot participants.
For more information:
Shawn Jeffords, “4 Ontario mayors asking feds to take over basic income pilot“, Global News, September 7th 2018
Chris Friel, Fred Eisenberg, Andy Letham and Keith Hobbs – Letter to Minister Duclos, September 4th 2018
Official Ontario Basic Income Pilot website
Kate McFarland, “ONTARIO, CANADA: New Government Declares Early End of Guaranteed Income Experiment“, Basic Income News, August 2nd 2018
Article reviewed by André Coelho
