by Genevieve Shanahan | Apr 6, 2017 | News
The MIT Tech Conference, an annual event hosted by the MIT Sloan Tech Club at the MIT Media Lab, took place on Saturday, February 18th this year. TechTarget reports an impassioned exchange regarding basic income that occurred at the conclusion of a panel on the current state of robot technologies. Universal basic income was “largely seen as the best answer to taking care of a displaced workforce,” though the challenges of such proposals were also addressed.
This discussion of basic income arose from points made regarding the rise of automation and the associated predicted loss of jobs:
“To be sure, embracing and adopting technology has always been a competitive advantage. Horses, for example, used to be a major force by which work got done; they labored alongside humans to plow fields and deliver goods, but they were sidelined by advances from the second industrial revolution.
“Liam Paull, research scientist in the distributed robotics lab at MIT’s CSAIL and the panel moderator, asked panelists if robotics will present a scenario where humans are the horses? The comparison was crude, but the point was clear: When robots perform factory jobs or drive trucks better than humans, those careers disappear forever.”
Points raised over the course of this discussion, reported by TechTarget, include the following: that new, unforeseen jobs may emerge when existing jobs become obsolete; that automation risks exacerbating inequality both within the US and around the world; and that more evidence is necessary before solid policy recommendations can be made.
Nicole Laskowski, “Roboticists: Universal basic income demands attention,” TechTarget, March 2017
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo: MIT Robotics, CC BY-NC 2.0 Adrian Black
by Genevieve Shanahan | Mar 15, 2017 | News
Benoît Hamon, French presidential candidate for the Socialist Party, was the subject of France 2’s political programme, l’Émission politique, on March 9. He here offered a revised version of his much discussed basic income proposal, which has been seen by many as backpedalling on earlier, more ambitious plans.
Previously covered by Basic Income News here and here, the prior iterations of Hamon’s proposal involved the gradual introduction of basic income in steps. The first would provide a basic income without means testing for those between the ages of 18 and 25 (who are currently excluded from un- and underemployment benefits in France), while later steps would expand the non-means tested basic income to other segments of the population and increase its amount.
With last week’s update, Hamon has indicated that the payment to young people would in fact be means tested. “All workers who receive a net salary up to 1.9 times the SMIC [minimum wage] each month” would receive an additional income, reaching up to 600 euro “for those who have nothing,” he said. “For a student who would work one day in five, the net gain would be 500 euro.”
BIEN’s French affiliate, the French Movement for Basic Income (MFRB), offers their analysis of this development. They explain that the first step of the new proposal would still be an improvement of the existing benefits system (the RSA) by automating its payment, increasing its amount to 600 euro/month and making it available to those between the ages of 18 and 25. Means testing would apply to all recipients under this revised proposal, however, such that only those receiving a net wage of less than 1.9 times the minimum wage (i.e., 2165 euro) would stand to benefit. The payment would then be on a sliding scale according to income – for each euro earned through work, the amount of the basic income would decrease by 28 cents.
Nicole Teke, public relations coordinator for the MFRB, highlights that this first step thus does not constitute a basic income:
“It is regrettable that Benoît Hamon has mainly focused on the first step. For the MFRB, it is essential not to forget the second step in the next five-year term, as this is the point of interest for basic income: to be fully effective, it must be universal, individual and unconditional.”
Hamon continued to defend the idea of basic income during the week, noting that, in pricing the benefit, “we have thought about it on the basis of gross financing, but the universal income also yields money.” Julia Cagé, Hamon’s economic adviser, made similar claims, arguing that, while the deficit may increase at the beginning of Hamon’s term to fund the basic income, it will quickly fall due to, among other factors, the positive effects of the basic income boosting the economy.
The first round of the presidential election will take place on 23 April. If no candidate wins a majority at that point, the second round will take place on 7 May. Hamon is currently polling at fourth place and has lost some Socialist Party support to Emmanuel Macron, who split from that party and formed his own, En Marche!, towards the centre of the political spectrum. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that Hamon would seek to make his proposals more palatable to such elements.
Watch the full programme here (in French):
Read More:
“Revenu universel : le MFRB analyse la proposition de Benoît Hamon” [Universal income: the MFRB analyse Benoît Hamon’s proposal], Le Mouvement Francais pour le Revenu de Base, 14 March, 2017.
Claire Rush, “Socialist candidate Hamon backtracks on universal basic income”, RFI, 10 March, 2017.
Rémi Clément, “Comment Hamon justifie son revirement sur le revenu universel” [How Hamon justifies his turn-around on universal income], Challenges, 10 March, 2017.
“Revenu universel. Benoît Hamon revoit sa copie” [Universal income. Benoît Hamon revises his copy], Ouest France, 7 March, 2017.
Genevieve Shanahan, “FRANCE: Hamon becomes Socialist Party presidential candidate following basic income-focused campaign”, Basic Income News, 30 January, 2017.
Stanislas Jourdan, “FRANCE: Pro basic income candidate set to win socialist primary election”, Basic Income News, 22 January, 2017.
Stanislas Jourdan, “FRANCE: Minister of Economy says he is open to basic income”, Basic Income News, 26 January, 2016.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo: Benoît Hamon at meeting in Brest, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Benoît Hamon
by Genevieve Shanahan | Mar 7, 2017 | News
In this article, Tracey Reynolds, a professor of social sciences at the University of Greenwich, surveys some arguments for and against basic income on gender equality grounds, and highlights the ways in which these arguments overlook the heterogeneous experiences of women. Specifically, she points to how black women have tended to relate to care work and reproductive labour in ways that differ from the dominant understanding of how (white, middle-class) women perform this kind of work.
For instance, one feminist argument against basic income is that it would encourage women to exit paid work, due to the persisting gender wage gap, and return to traditional gender roles. Yet Reynolds’ research, she claims, shows that black women’s mothering identity has come to combine “their dual status of economic worker and domestic carer.” In this way, perhaps, the gendered division of labour experienced as normal by many white, middle-class households would not be a particularly attractive way of structuring family life for black and other ethnic minority families.
Reynolds also highlights that basic income would not be a panacea for gender equality – pointing, for example, to the ways in which migrant women are exploited for cheap care work by the wealthier women of the global north.
Reynolds’ article is part of Compass’ blog series ‘Universal Basic Income: Security for the Future?’.
Tracey Reynolds, “Black women, Gender Equality and Universal Basic Income,” Compass, January 27, 2017.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo: Greenwich University, CC BY 2.0 Paul Hudson
by Genevieve Shanahan | Mar 6, 2017 | Research
Patricia Schulz, a Swiss lawyer and specialist in international human rights and gender equality, offers a short paper advocating for basic income from a feminist and gender equality perspective in the peer-reviewed journal Global Social Policy.
In this article, Schulz argues that strong arguments for basic income “based on social justice, equality, dignity, freedom from want” could be bolstered by more systematic arguments from a gender perspective.
A central point made in this article is that existing social security systems are tied to long-term remunerated work, disproportionately beyond the reach of women:
“as most social security systems are (still) based on contributions linked to remunerated work, independent or salaried, the inferior income of women, their restriction to part-time jobs as well as the interruptions in their careers due to care responsibilities will directly impact the level of social protection they can expect in case of old age, disability, illness and so on, as well as expose them to depend on a partner and/or the (welfare) state.”
Schulz is an expert with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), a member of the Board of the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), and was the director of the Swiss Federal Office for Gender Equality (FOGE) for six years until 2010.
Patricia Schulz, “Universal basic income in a feminist perspective and gender analysis,” Global Social Policy Forum, January 31, 2017.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo: Patricia Schulz, member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women addresses during the 5th Edition of Ciné ONU, Palais des Nations. Friday 6 March 2015, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 UN Geneva
by Genevieve Shanahan | Feb 13, 2017 | News
The Economist has published a short article focused on the basic income chapter of India’s recent Economic Survey (covered in Basic Income News here).
The article expresses the opinion that the case for basic income is premature in rich countries (assuming automation and associated job loss is the main case for such a scheme in these states). However, it argues, the case is more compelling in India given its “thicket of welfare payments” that are plagued by inefficiencies and corruption:
“Giving people cash would be far better than today’s system of handing out welfare in kind. The plethora of schemes in place for Indians to claim subsidised food, fuel, gas, electricity and so on are inefficient and corrupt. Beneficiaries are at the mercy of venal officials who can lean on them to accept less than they are entitled to. Payments in kind rest on the paternalistic assumption that poor Indians are incapable of making rational spending decisions.”
While exploring potential issues to do with the political palatability of including wealthier people in the programme and ensuring the payments reach low-income rural areas with limited access to banking facilities, the article concludes: “as a way of helping the world’s poorest people, the case for a UBI is strong.”
The Economist, “Bonfire of the subsidies: India debates the case for a universal basic income”, The Economist, February 2, 2017.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Photo: People queue outside a bank, Salt Lake City, Kolkata. CC BY 3.0 Biswarup Ganguly
