by Yannick Vanderborght | Jun 19, 2013 | Research
Mateo Alaluf is a Professor of Sociology at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) in Brussels, Belgium. In this opinion piece (in French), he focuses on the renewed interest in basic income throughout Europe, and insists on the fact that basic income is a neo-liberal idea. According to Alaluf, in a basic income society wages would be lower, and retrenchment in existing social programmes would be much easier. He rather advocates the reinforcement of existing programmes, and the introduction of a so-called “maximum income”.
The opinion piece can be found here (in French): https://www.rtbf.be/info/opinions/detail_l-allocation-universelle-contre-la-protection-sociale?id=8018227
by Yannick Vanderborght | Jun 10, 2013 | News, Research
Aynur Bashirova – BI News – 2013.
Basic Income has a new advocate at a major U.S. publication. Since December 2012, Matthew Yglesias has published four articles in Slate magazine, each arguing for basic income, either on the basis that it would speed up the economic activity and that it would reduce poverty.
Matthew Yglesias
Yglesias argues that the current system of getting out of economic crisis and ending poverty is too complex and it does not work. Instead, he says, we should find a simpler and faster approach, which is to print money and distribute it to everyone, regardless of his or her income. If people had more money, they would be buying more things. Increasing the size of savings would reduce the borrowing costs of firms and this will push up the value of stocks and other financial assets.
Yglesias accepts that there is one downside to this approach, which is the risk of inflation due to printing too much money. However, the central bank has promised it is temporarily capable of tolerating 2.5% of inflation, until unemployment falls below 6.5%. Currently, inflation is just below 2%, which means that there is a room to implement Yglesias’ plan, which should help the US get out of the crisis.
On the issue of poverty, Yglesias draws the simple conclusion, “I’ve come to think that directly transfering [sic] cash money to people in need is the most underrated tool around for fighting poverty.”
He makes the connection between his two goals for basic income clear from his first article. Specifically discussing international poverty relief in Kenya, he writes, “when you give a poor household stuff that helps them but in some ways may undercut local businesses involved in the production and distribution of stuff. Transferring purchasing power (i.e. money) to a high-poverty community not only helps the recipient, but creates economic opportunities for others to obtain that money by providing useful goods and services.”
Matthew Yglesias is Slate’s business and economics correspondent. Before joining the magazine he worked for ThinkProgress, the Atlantic, TPM Media, and the American Prospect. His first book, Heads in the Sand, was published in 2008. His second, The Rent Is Too Damn High, was published in March.
All four articles are online at Slate:
Yglesias, Matthew. (2013). “The Best and Simplest Way to Fight Global Poverty.” Slate. May 29, 2013.
Yglesias, Matthew. (2013). “EITC Isn’t the Alternative to a Minimum Wage. This Is.” Slate. Feb. 17, 2013.
Yglesias, Matthew. (2013). “Print Money. Mail Everybody a Check.” Slate, April 1, 2013.
Yglesias, Matthew, “Fighting Poverty By Giving Poor People Money” Slate Magazine, Dec. 25, 2012
by Yannick Vanderborght | Jun 10, 2013 | Opinion
Marina P. Nóbrega – for the Municipal Council for the Citizen’s Basic Income, Santo Antonio do Pinhal, SP, Brazil
Humanity has to rescue the human solidarity that used to pervade tribal societies where wealthy was evenly shared. In our days money has to be used to that effect as great social thinkers have been preaching. In Brazil, President Lula´s law 10,835 from 2004 says that “A monthly benefit enough for the basic needs of a person will be paid equally to all. This basic income is to be instated by steps, taking care first of the most in need.” This law is still unregulated but the government, immediately after, created the successful Bolsa Familia (BF) program. Law 10,835 is unique in the world and needs to be regulated as to the steps to be taken to gradually universalize the benefit.
The Municipal Council for the Citizen’s Basic Income in the city of Santo Antonio do Pinhal has such a proposal.
Our initial proposal was to have a municipal pilot project fueled by a percentage of gross earnings from private businesses and private donations plus 6% per year from the city’s revenue. The idea was to create a fund to operate as the Alaska scheme. The Council analyzed carefully this proposal in the light of basic income principles and the practical attempts made to collect funds. We came to the conclusion that the Alaska way is impossible to succeed in our conditions besides we also do not accept that the annual and variable dividends represent the idea we have about a basic income.
Instead, we suggest that the path to Basic Income should go through 3 stages. We do not think this to be the best way for other countries but, considering Brazil’s situation, with almost 50 million under the support of the conditional BF (average of US$ 17.50 per person), we have a stepping stone to approach the final goal of including all in basic income. The steps suggested are:
Step 1 – Start the unconditional and universal basic income with all newborns in Brazil in the near future. The Council suggested that the caring parent receives US$ 35.00 per month and the same amount is deposited monthly in a savings account in name of the child, to be withdraw when he/she reaches legal age. This will be particularly valuable in two ways: it is financially viable, progressive and amenable to planning, will carry a strong symbolic value benefitting the children of the nation and pointing to a better future. This move will have a crucial educational value by giving people of all social classes time to understand the revolutionary value of a minimum income independent of work.
Step 2 – Next we suggest remove all conditionalities linked to the Bolsa Familia program. This will require that the funds for the almost 50 million involved (about 25% of our population) be doubled. We can predict that the result will be impressive economically and socially. The humiliation of means test, the complexity of the paperwork that opens the opportunity for political manipulation will vanish. The economy will benefit, and the results will be boosted by the possibility of taking regular jobs or opening a small business, both banned under the present conditionalities. These people will be freed from the known “poverty trap” created by the requirements for admission.
Step 3 – The Bolsa Familia bureaucracy can now be directed to monitor people that are still economically vulnerable but outside the government lists or people that fall into the “precariat”. They and their dependents should immediately receive the unconditional basic income.
PS: The Council can be reached by sending mail to maripnobrega@gmail.com
Phones: 55 12 9777 9115 or 55 12 3911 3839
by Yannick Vanderborght | May 27, 2013 | Research
SOAS, a publication of the University of London, published an article on May 10, 3013 on the Indian basic income pilot project including quotes from an interview with Guy Standing, one of the organizers of the project.
SOAS, “Unique pilot schemes assess impact of basic income schemes on India’s rural poor,” 10 May 2013
https://www.soas.ac.uk/news/newsitem84314.html
by Yannick Vanderborght | May 27, 2013 | Opinion
The 1st of May is a traditional day in many European countries where members and supporters of trade unions demonstrate for better working conditions. I participated with some friends of mine and had a discussion about basic income with one of them. He is a member of a German trade union and skeptical about basic income as many other members (Gewerkschafterdialog Grundeinkommen 2013). His main argument against basic income is that it would further weaken the position of trade unions and thus impair working conditions.
I have to admit I share his position that trade unions are an important support for employees in order to achieve their rights and fair wages. First, it is hardly possible for an individual to know all necessary information for a successful wage negotiation. Information available is mind blowing and time required to process information is rare. Second, it is difficult to keep track with amendments in the law and developments on the labor market for a person who is only confronted with this topic once a year. Third, one person has rarely the same impact in negotiations as a group of people. Fourth, a person might not have required negotiation skills compared to a trade union with professional negotiators who have training in negotiation. The lack of information, time and skills, thus, make trade unions important for employees.
There has been the argument a basic income would not only provide people with necessary recourses for a life in dignity but also with time for education and training (Howard 2005; Pasma 2010; Standing 2002, 2009). It would be easier to gather information or acquire necessary skills. Both would improve the position of an individual in wage negotiation.
This does not mean that the situation would become perfect and trade unions would be redundant. They would be still important for educating and uniting people. Sometimes, however, I experience members of trade unions terrified exactly from this idea of a situation where they are redundant and have to start recovering from redundancy. I experience them like doctors who fear a world without diseases because they would not have to heal anyone any longer.
In my point of view, this is a contradiction. Should it not be the aim of trade unions to create an environment where employees have equal powers compared to employers? Should it not be the goal of trade unions to empower employees so they can choose the support of trade unions but do not have to rely on them?
If the answer is yes, I hardly understand the rejection of basic income by trade unions. Basic income would allow employees to say no. They would be able to refuse working conditions they dislike. They would be closer to be on a par with employers as they are nowadays.
It, therefore, is time for trade unions to learn basic income is a helpful instrument to achieve their aims and to drop the fear of independent and empowered employees.
Resources:
Howard, M. W. (2005) Basic Income, Liberal Neutrality, Socialism and Work. In: Widerquist, K., Lewis, M. A. & Pressman, S. (eds.) The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Gewerkschafterdialog Grundeinkommen (2013) Stimmen. https://www.gewerkschafterdialog-grundeinkommen.de/stimmen Accessed 05/05/2013.
Pasma, C. (2010) Working Through the Work Disincentive. Basic Income Studies 5 (2), 1–20.
Standing, G. (2002) Beyond the New Paternalism. Verso.
Standing, G. (2009) Work after Globalization: Building Occupational Citizenship. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, the UK ;, Northampton, MA.
