by Josh Martin | Dec 18, 2014 | Research
[Josh Martin]
Becker’s post serves as an introduction to the basic income for those who are unfamiliar with it. He begins by noting Thomas Paine’s support for such a policy and then argues that it could be a good policy for America due to its ability to fight poverty and inequality. While politically unfeasible at the moment, Becker claims that this idea needs to be discussed as a policy option.
Sam Becker, “Is it Time to Consider a Basic Income?”, Wall St. Cheat Sheet, 19 September 2014.
Source: Thinkstock
by Karl Widerquist | Dec 17, 2014 | News, Research
Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
The Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare—a peer-reviewed, academic research journal—will have a special issue on the Basic Income Guarantee to be published in 2016. Manuscripts submitted by September 30, 2015 will be considered. The editors released the following call for papers:
The financial crisis of 2007-2008 and its recessionary aftermath have, once again, raised the issue of whether a market economy can be relied upon to assure economic security. Although the market economy is dynamic and quite productive, the financial crisis has highlighted its instability and tendency to produce high unemployment, low wages, stagnant wages, greater income inequality or a combination. Many would argue that the social welfare system, with its myriad of safety net programs, is intended to address such conditions. Yet it has holes that have allowed many to still live in poverty, many more to live with a very realistic fear of falling into poverty, and an erosion of the middle class. This instability and tendency toward low wages, stagnant wages for middle class families, or no employment in a market economy, coupled with a social safety net system riddled with holes, suggests that it is time to think about new approaches to income and wealth distribution, not only for purposes of poverty prevention or even poverty reduction, but also for social justice. Are there fairer and more efficient ways to distribute the fruits of our individual and collective efforts to everyone’s benefit?
One such program is the basic income guarantee (BIG), also called the guaranteed income. The idea is simple: replace most income support programs with a floor under everyone’s income, structured so that no one is in poverty and everyone is better off financially if they earn more in the private market. We’re issuing a call for papers for a special issue of The Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare (JSSW) to explore the merits of BIG and related proposals such as guaranteed jobs, stakeholder grants, asset accumulation policies, and living wage legislation. We’re interested in proposals related to BIG because some have argued that the goals of BIG could be better realized by other approaches, such as government guaranteeing a job instead of an income. The special issue is intended to consider the economic, social, political, and philosophical questions about BIG and related policies. The papers will be written by social workers and academics in related disciplines. The special issue is intended to explore some of the following Topics:
- BIG, other related programs, and social justice
- BIG, other programs, and gender relations
- Financing BIG and related programs
- BIG, other programs, and the labor Market
- BIG, related programs, and civic engagement
- BIG, related programs, and the bargaining power of workers
- BIG, related programs, and the family
- The political feasibility of BIG and related programs
This special issue of JSSW will be co-edited by Professors Michael Lewis, The Silberman School of Social Work, Hunter College, and Richard K Caputo, Wurzweiler School of Social Work, Yeshiva University. We invite authors to submit manuscripts not to exceed thirty double-spaced (12-pitch font) pages (including references) on any of the topics above as well as related topics. Manuscripts received by September 30, 2015 will be considered for a special issue of JSSW with an anticipated publication date in June or September 2016. Please send MS Word manuscripts that adhere to the APA Manual, 6th edition style, electronically, as email attachments to:
Michael A. Lewis, Associate Professor: michael.a.lewis@hunter.cuny.edu
by Josh Martin | Dec 17, 2014 | Research
[Josh Martin]
Hayward, Oldham, and Rosenbury write from St. Louis right after the ruling in the Michael Brown case that happened just a few miles away in Ferguson, Missouri. They argue that tackling racial tensions requires an understanding of the structural problems in the St. Louis metropolitan area and that one percent of the gross metropolitan product should be put toward three goals: excellent education, new conceptions of community via land use planning, and a “solidarity economy” that seeks to help those on the bottom. In this third goal, they mention the need for a guaranteed income for all that meets their basic needs. This could take the form of a basic income for all in the St. Louis metropolitan area.
Clarissa Hayward, Lynn Oldham, and Laura Rosenbury, “What now? Three ways to tackle structural injustice”, STL Today, 26 November 2014.
by Josh Martin | Dec 16, 2014 | Research
[Josh Martin]
This article scrutinizes the pro-banker approach the EU has taken in the aftermath of the recession and argues that we should be giving the money to the people instead. Jenkins discusses the QE practiced by the US and the EU and mourns its shortcomings. In contrast, Jenkins mentions the policy put forward by John Muellbauer to create “QE for the people” as a sort of basic income to the citizens instead of channeling the money to the banks.
Simon Jenkins, “We should cash-bomb the people – not the banks”, The Guardian, 26 November 2014.
Jean-Claude Juncker claimed the €21bn European fund would ‘entice private backers to invest ‘up to' 15 times the sum. Who will invest when there is no demand?' Photograph: Walter Geiersperger/Corbis (Source: The Guardian)
by Josh Martin | Dec 14, 2014 | Research
[Josh Martin]
This post discusses the libertarian debate over the basic income at the Cato Institute.
The Georgist News, “Social Media: Libertarians Battle Over a Citizen’s Dividend”, Georgist.com, 26 September 2014.
by Josh Martin | Dec 13, 2014 | Research
[Josh Martin]
Heydorn writes from the perspective of those enamored with the idea of a Social Credit proposal for a National Dividend. In this blog post he outlines the differences between such a dividend and a basic income. First, he acknowledges the structural differences. While a basic income is fixed at a level, the dividend would be fixed to productivity: no productivity, no dividend. Secondly, he claims that the purpose of the basic income is to achieve full employment, while the dividend is supposed to encourage leisure. Lastly, Heydorn says a basic income would be financed through currently in place means, but a dividend should be issued by a newly created National Credit Office. For these reasons M. Olver Heydorn argues that those in favor of the Social Credit should hesitate to support a basic income and should instead seek to convince basic income supporters to join them instead.
M. Oliver Heydorn, “The (Big!) Difference Between a ‘Basic Income’ and the National Dividend”, Socred.org, 30 October 2014.
