In the current turbulent times, there is a fierce debate emerging how cities should adjust to rapidly changing economic and technological trends. Smart City Education Inside invited two experts to discuss the prospect of cash transfers to enhance sustainability and provide equitable educational opportunities for students.
Smart City Online Education Inside is a joint project between the Digital Education Institute, III, and the Talent Circulation Alliance. Under the supervision of the Bureau of Industrial Development Taiwan, the project launched a series of panel and keynote speaking events for those interested in education technology, sustainable learning, and sustainable society.
On Tuesday (8/11), Mr. Ameya Pawar, who had served two terms on the Chicago City Council and was the first Asian and Indian American elected to major office in Illinois, shared his presentation “Dignity, Decency, and Agency: The Case for Universal Basic Income.” Income inequality, wealth inequality, and decades of policies favoring wealthy corporations and big banks over working people, drew him to the idea of Universal Basic Income (UBI).
Pawar believes that every aspect of society is impacted by inattention to poverty, it is necessary to invest in mitigating it at both the national and local level.
“What leads us to believe that people will do something wrong or bad or do less if we help them a little bit?” Pawar asked. “To achieve sustainability, people need to have built-in resilience,” he said.
In response to the idea that giving cash may make people less willing to work, Pawar said that research has shown that is not the case. “Giving people money does not change the fact that people, as human beings, want to be productive; instead, it gives people more choices and breathing room in their lives,” he said.
On Thursday (8/13), we invited Mr. Sean Kline, who is the Systems Entrepreneur in Residence with RSA Future of Work Center, to share his presentation “Child Focused Development in the Digital Era.”
Kline believes, as services and technology become the dominant drivers of the economy, some segments of the population have been left behind. That’s why, a more modern and robust social safety net is needed to help transition and adapt to this rapid technological change is needed. While the government is putting tremendous conditions on how low-income families use public benefits, it is capable of giving people money in the form of large tax deductions. These unequal requirements demonstrate trust for one group and mistrust for the other. In fact, unconditional cash is administratively easier to deliver especially if it is provided universally.
With children being an important focus of Kline’s work, he suggests that lacking investment in children not only shapes their life’s trajectory, but shapes the trajectory of potential economic growth for society as a whole. Sharing examples of universal children’s saving accounts, baby bonds, and basic income and how they have benefited children, he believes that these are the primary methods to support children universally in the digital age.
Even in a pandemic, basic income advocates are finding creative ways to bring attention to basic income. The Basic Income March organizers are partnering with an application to allow activists to march for basic income around the world and possibly set a record in the process.
With the goal of achieving 50 million steps, enough to “circumnavigate the globe,” this year’s march on September 19 is partnering with the WATT mobile application. Marchers can use the app now to start counting their steps to “express solidarity for the cause.”
At the same time, there are 35 cities organizing in-person basic income events around the world. For example, there are bike parades, street corner protests, and even interactive art installations in support of basic income.
WATT is described as “the world’s first platform for virtual marches and charity walks.” The application allows marchers to select a cause they believe in and count their steps for the cause on their mobile phone from anywhere in the world.
Income Movement co-founder Stacey Rutland said she felt there was a need for organizing grassroots energy in the United States around basic income, so she organized a march in October 2019.
“The first march was a huge success. Within six weeks we were able to get it up and running and have thirty cities across the globe participate,” Rutland said.
The success with the first march convinced Rutland that there was a “hunger” for basic income grassroots activism. However, with the rise of the pandemic, Rutland had to find new ways to organize demonstrations for basic income.
“The ability to physically march quickly went out the door, but the need for public demonstration was pretty significant because of the dire economic circumstances that people found themselves in,” Rutland said.
These circumstances allowed Rutland to look closer at digital options as she strived to create a “marriage of the digital world and the physical world.” This brought Rutland to connect with Kalyan Gautham, the CEO of WATT.
Gautham said his goal with making the app was to “digitize events of solidarity such as marches and charity works so that people from across the world can participate in these events without having to travel to a different location.”
WATT’s development started before the pandemic, but the app became far more urgent once social distancing restrictions became a reality.
On the app, marchers can share videos and pictures of themselves marching, while pledging a certain number of steps for the cause. This allows activists to plan a unified and continuous demonstration around the globe with clear data on the size and persistence of the marchers. Each participant can challenge others to take more steps and even create micro events within the demonstration.
After Andrew Yang dropped out of running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, Rutland said it is important for basic income advocates to transition to a new stage of activism.
“The primary goal for 2020 from our perspective at Income Movement is to move from a single candidate movement to a long-term movement,” she said.
For Rutland, the pandemic has been a “horrific” experience for many low-income individuals in the United States around the world. She said a possible silver lining is that it has “brought to the surface for a lot of people the need to rethink how our economy works” so these long-standing issues can finally be addressed.
“What we hope is for the march to be something that’s fun, that’s exciting and that doesn’t feel like work but feels like a celebration while also creating an impact,” Rutland said.
This past week, Finland released the final results from its two-year “basic income” experiment. The program produced a modest increase in working days among basic income recipients and noticeable improvements in perceived happiness and healthiness.
Is this a surprise? When governments give people cash assistance, of course, their lives will improve. And with financial stress alleviated, these recipients will still find productive uses for their time.
Simply imagine the unearned suffering billions of people could have been spared if governments had implemented basic income prior to the pandemic and global economic depression.
Basic income skeptics should consider which system failed when confronted with the current avalanche of suicide, descent into addiction, and hungry mouth these twin crises have created. But according to the government’s standard, Finland’s basic income experiment still “failed” because recipients only increased their working days by a week or so.
Let that sink in. Despite proof that the program improved basic income recipients’ physical and mental well-being, it was deemed a failure because it did not fix every aspect of the labor market in two years. Recipients worked more, but that apparently still was not enough.
Maybe the standard by which success is judged is, therefore, the true failure.
Our current situation shows us that the government was dead set on keeping us in jobs at all costs. And the natural result of that obsession to “preserve work” is that governments are now bailing out corporations instead of their people.
Of course, well-connected businesses like airlines are bailed out first (and multiple times) as average people languish on the edge of financial ruin. Meanwhile, complicated schemes in the United States like the “Paycheck Protection Program” are designed to create the impression of modest job loss, since employees are kept tacked to their employer by way of payroll. But these “jobs saved” are meaningless insofar as many small businesses will immediately shutter from falling demand whenever the program ends. Many are zombie employers, animated by governments’ obsession with “jobs” over human wellbeing.
Even increasing unemployment benefits with a $600 bonus has been a nightmare, having never gone to many informal workers like caregivers and mothers in the first place. The unemployed will now make every effort possible not to return to work. Unlike with basic income, where the payment is available unconditionally, people will lose their leisure time and $600 unemployment bonus when they accept their next job.
Unemployment payments are also being used to threaten employees to return to work before the pandemic is even under control. In Iowa, the governor said unemployment recipients will be thrown off unemployment assistance if they do not return to work when lockdowns are eased: even if their workplaces are still hotspots for COVID. This means even more lives will be sacrificed on the altar of “increasing work” and “saving jobs.”
In contrast, basic income would empower people to make an informed decision whether it is safe to return to work without the loaded gun of economic self-destruction being held to their head. Governments should pay people directly instead of paying their employers. If they did, employers would have to meet the safety and pay standards of the people they hope to woo back into work
Almost a year ago, I wrote that the era of “experimenting” with basic income to determine whether it causes “laziness” should end. This question is more often than not asked in bad faith by opponents of basic income, who ignore overwhelming evidence that it generally increases the number of hours recipients work: even leaving aside the productivity gains in those work hours, as people are given more freedom to choose how their labor is allocated.
When the article was written, Canada cancelled its basic income experiment and Finland released its first year of results. These experiments were deemed failures at the time. But the absurdity of that belief is clearer than ever before.
We stand at the abyss, with the highest unemployment rates and deepest recession of our lifetimes on the horizon. And yet governments have doubled down on putting “jobs,” narrowly defined as roles serving corporate interests, over our wellbeing. This paradigm, by supercharging the economic fallout of the pandemic and forcing people back to work without safety rails in place, defies all logic.
A debate has broken out in Taiwan over sending cash to combat the economic downturn related to the global coronavirus pandemic.
The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) plans to stimulate select areas of the economy using coupon vouchers. The second-largest party, the Nationalist Party (KMT), has pushed for cash instead.
The DPP argued that cash is more likely to be “saved,” while vouchers have a better “stimulative” effect on the economy because they must be spent.
Chiang Wan-an, a member of the KMT, said sending cash is a more realistic way of providing financial security for Taiwanese. Cash can be used on paying education fees, healthy food items, and other essential areas, Chiang said.
Singapore plans to send a one-time payment of $420 USD to all Singaporeans above age 21 on April 14.
Taiwan’s proposed vouchers could be used to reduce the price of certain goods by 25 percent. KMT members argued this would not be convenient for those who do not understand the mobile payment system it would require.
This voucher system would also not help the poor who need to make essential purchases not covered by the vouchers, the KMT said.
Taiwan’s ruling DPP party did not rule out cash, but said that plans to send out cash would be targeted to “disadvantaged groups.”
Reports are emerging that Spain is hoping to deploy a “permanent” basic income type program in the near future. The program comes as Spain aims to respond to the economic crisis from the global coronavirus pandemic.
Spain has one of the worst coronavirus outbreaks in the world with over 13,000 deaths.
Spain’s push for establishing basic income as a “permanent instrument” that “stays forever” will help reduce financial anxieties for many families worried about their jobs. Sending cash to families rather than corporations will better ensure economic security for the most vulnerable.
However, questions remain about the nature of the program and whether it will be truly universal and unconditional.
If Spain successfully implements basic income, it will become the first European country to implement the program on a national scale and one of the only places in the world to do so.
Finland famously experimented with a basic income pilot program. The experiment made recipients happier and healthier. Nonetheless, some government officials were upset the basic income pilot did not significantly affect employment status within a year for recipients.
Nadia Calviño, Spain’s minister for economic affairs, said the payments will be targeted to families and will differentiate based on their “circumstances.” In practice, differentiating based on circumstances will result in means tests that fall on the poor. If there are strict criteria, then some families who need assistance may be unnecessarily excluded or have their assistance delayed.
A better system is presuming each individual qualifies and allowing wealthier individuals to opt-out. If an individual who received basic income has a large income by the end of 2020, the government can phase out their basic income through the income tax system the following year.
Universality helps the poor, not the rich. It ensures all those who need assistance can receive it immediately. The true costs of universality are lower because it requires less administration and bureaucracy to implement the program.
