The team behind the upcoming Bootstraps documentary, which will follow a group of actual basic income recipients, has launched a crowdfunding campaign.
Conrad Shaw and Deia Schlosberg, the Bootstraps team, announced the campaign on the UBI Podcast to raise $50,000, in the next two months, to start a pilot program with real people.
Once the first $50,000 is raised, Shaw said they can begin handing out the basic income, initially, to a small number of recipients. Each recipient will receive $1,000 a month for two years.
For each $50,000 raised, they will be able to fund two basic income recipients.
Every time $50,000 is raised, a member of the Bootstraps newsletter can choose an American to participate in the documentary and receive a basic income.
In addition, those that contribute to the crowdfunding campaign can get rewards, such as a Bootstraps t-shirt or even tickets to the premier of the documentary.
The overall purpose of the campaign is to bring awareness of basic income to the “public at large” in the United States.
“The reason our pilot is different is that it is designed to facilitate storytelling,” Schlosberg said.
To carry out the campaign, the team is working with Handup, an organization that is focused on helping homeless individuals. Shaw said the leader of Handup is a proponent of basic income.
Schlosberg is confident that greater media interest will follow once they raise enough money.
“A lot of people have said ‘Sounds great. Get back to us once it is up and running.’”
Each day, the team will release a UBI thought of the day, which will often be accompanied by an interview with one of many basic income scholars they have interviewed.
“We’ve been interviewing a lot of thinkers on UBI and we have hours and hours of amazing material,” Schlosberg said. “We want these great thoughts out there.”
So far, most of the academics whom the team has interviewed have been proponents of the basic income. The larger resistance to the idea, Shaw said, has been from people on the street.
“What we find, in general, is it is all about how you sell the idea. Basic income sells itself,” Shaw said.
In the last six months, during the initial stage of the documentary, the general public has become much more aware of the basic income, Shaw said.
For Shaw, the campaign is an important step in establishing a Universal Basic Income throughout the country.
“You have to pick which projects have the best chance of having a large impact and we designed this project to fill a hole that we see,” Shaw said.
Hong Kong’s newspaper of record, South China Morning Post, recently covered the surge of interest in Universal Basic Income (UBI) in the Asia Pacific.
The author, David Green, points out the positive data that has been demonstrated thus far from cash-grant experiments, such as in India.
South Korea has had interest in basic income since the “youth dividend” was implemented in Seongnam city. BIEN held its Congress in South Korea last year.
The article notes that Taiwan is seeing increased interest in the idea of basic income since the first Asia Pacific focused Basic Income conference was held in Taipei.
The headline references China’s dibao program, which is a cash-grant minimum income guarantee. The dibao has many differences to UBI as conceived by Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN). Primarily, dibao is not a universal cash-grant (dibao is means-tested and only given to those that are under the dibao poverty line).
Due to dibao’s means-tests, the article notes there are an array of issues with China’s minimum income guarantee, primarily that it does not reach the poor.
Tyler Prochazka, features editor of BI News, was quoted as advocating for China to create “special economic zones” to test a UBI.
The basic income is known for cutting across ideological lines. Libertarians, who have had a long history supporting the basic income, are also giving the idea a fresh look as a way to replace the current welfare system.
Many libertarians, though, remain skeptical of whether a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is in line with libertarian ethics, and other libertarians believe it would cause economic damage.
Daniel Eth, a PhD student at UCLA studying computational nanotechnology, argued in Thinking of Utils that strict libertarianism, particularly without UBI, “enables oppressive systems to emerge, even when no one is acting in bad faith and all agreements are consensual.”
Eth joined the UBI Podcast to discuss the problems of libertarianism that does not endorse basic income.
One of the primary issues with strict libertarianism, Eth argued, is that without a social safety net, workers are not truly volunteering for work, because they are agreeing to work simply to survive.
“There is an uneven power dynamic and that contracts are almost inherently exploitative, at least for those that are living hand to mouth,” Eth said.
At least with a basic income system in place, Eth said, the workers could decide to walk away from unreasonable working conditions.
“if a basic income is large enough to satisfy people’s basic needs, it goes a long way to correcting for that (power dynamic),” he said.
One area of agreement between Eth and libertarians is that market-based solutions “tend to be much more effective than the alternative of central planning.”
That is to say, without appropriate taxes to account for things like pollution, then the market outcome will not reflect these costs to society and the environment.
From this framework, Eth said something like a carbon tax would be a “great way to pay” for a basic income because it would account for pollution, but also allow the market to solve.
“The market is almost like an algorithm, like what a computer might use to solve a problem and I think it tends to be better at finding solutions than central planning. But you have to ask it the right question. You have to make sure you are solving the problem you want to solve,” Eth said.
People often ask whether a country has to reach a certain stage of development before a basic income can become viable. A new documentary series will help answer that question.
Village One is a new series that follows a village in Uganda, Busibi, where each villager is receiving an unconditional basic income of around $18.25 USD per month for adults and $9.13 USD for children. There are 56 adults and 88 children who are receiving the basic income in the village for at least two years.
Steven Janssens, the director of Village One and the founder of Eight, discussed this project with the UBI Podcast. The series can be viewed now and will have a new episode premier each Saturday.
Eight is partnering with Ghent University to conduct research on the effects of the basic income on the village. The project has only been running since January, and Janssens said he already has seen dramatic results.
“Every child is going to school in that village now, whereas before it was around 50 percent,” he said.
The positive results on education were not just for children. One 18 year old was able to go back to school after he started receiving the basic income, Janssens said.
So far, Janssens said they have seen an improvement in health care access, increased entrepreneurship, and democratic organization, even though it has only been around three months since the basic income was started.
According to Janssens, villagers have created “saving circles” where they pool together their funds so that they can invest in larger expenditures, even for the benefit of the entire village.
“They are more social with each other. They talk more, they get involved more. They also make plans to make the water distribution better, to make the roads better,” Janssens said. “They are really talking a lot with each other to make improvements for the whole village, not only the individual.”
As for negative effects, Janssens said he has not yet seen anyone change their behavior for the worse because of the basic income, including harming the environment or spending it on “temptation goods,” such as alcohol.
“People who were already boozing before, continue to (do so), but they don’t (consume) booze more or less. People don’t start boozing or using alcohol. There is no change in that type of consumption,” he said.
GiveDirectly, which is also running a basic income program in Africa, has run into some issues with individuals skeptical of the organization refusing the basic income. Janssens said they have also had some similar instances in their case.
“There is one family that refused our project because they believe that we are going to take over the land, or they don’t believe the money is really for free,” Janssens said.
For Janssens, he said he hopes that his project can help people see the effects of basic income for themselves.
“We see a lot of inequality and it is so unfair. In all of my travels I see the same. You see so many people with so much potential, so many talents and they are actually in a lot of cases just wasted. A basic income is one of the instruments that can improve it,” Janssens said.
The views expressed below and in the UBI Podcast do not necessarily express those of Basic Income Earth Network, or BI News.
While school choice and basic income advocates may not always see eye to eye, they may have more in common than they realize.
In my new UBI Podcast series, I interviewed Emily Runge, an education policy researcher for the Show-Me Institute. Runge advocates that the government provide parents more choice in how their children is educated, including providing families cash grants for education.
UBI Podcast tinyurl.com/UBIpodcast
The way Runge described her advocacy for school choice parallels much of the rhetoric that basic income advocates use.
“The overlap that I see, is there’s a recognition that there are vulnerable populations and the status quo is working against them. And the way the government treats them, for example the public school system, is not always the best.”
The intention of school choice, Runge said, is to allow individuals to decide what is best for their families and children.
“With the school choice movement, and the Universal Basic Income movement, is we are empowering individuals, giving them more agency, and this is a more innovative way to deal with problems that we see,” she said.
Arizona recently signed into law America’s first ever universal education savings account (ESA) program. This system will eventually allow any student to apply for a state-funded savings account that can be spent on education services, including tuition, online services, tutoring, and education materials. In theory, this will unlock a host of degree paths and careers for low-income families.
High school students can receive up to $5,000 per year in their ESA, and $4,600 is available for K-8.
For now, the number of students that can enroll in an ESA is capped at 5,500. Children with disabilities can receive a higher cash grant, depending on the services needed.
Runge said a universal ESA may be the ultimate goal, and other school choice offerings should also be pursued. In the meantime, Runge said that there are many good public schools that should be allowed to continue to operate.
The choice, she said, should be given to the parents not the government.
“Instead of children being assigned to a particular school, we advocate that money should follow the child,” she said.
As it stands, Runge said those with a lot of wealth can afford school choice, it is vulnerable and low-income populations that do not have the choice.
The intersection between poverty and education disparities is well known. And children of wealthy parents certainly have more opportunities for a superior education, simply because they have the cash to pay for these services.
Like basic income, an ESA has the potential to shift power from bureaucrats to individuals. There would still be conditions on the money, as ESA cash would necessarily be ear-marked for education, although the choices would be infinitely more for poor families in the status quo.
However, there are likely many basic income advocates that are skeptical of a cash-grant system when it comes to education. And there are likely many school choice advocates that are skeptical of no-strings attached cash grants to families.
Nonetheless, there should be more discussions between movements, such as basic income and school choice, on the areas that they overlap and how both can achieve their goal of empowering all families regardless of their background and situation.
