by Daniele Fabbri | Jul 19, 2019 | Research
Credit Picture CC(OECD/Marco Illuminati)
The OECD published “The Future of Work Employment Outlook 2019“.
Change is underway, driven by digitalisation, globalization, and demographic changes, and will impact each and every way in which our society operates. While on the one hand these mega-trends can amplify our capacity to better our lives, on the other they also pose challenges, which need to be dealt with.
With estimates suggesting that 14% of jobs are at risk of disappearing completely in the next decades and 32% changing radically, middle skilled jobs are particularly exposed to the transformation, with the risk of a hollowing out of the middle class: automation works “from the middle out”. The transition will bring to the emergence of many lower quality jobs on one side, and to other with a high degree of knowledge intensity. The risk is that earning inequalities between low and high skilled workers will increase.
“Shaping a future of work that is more inclusive and rewarding calls for a Transition Agenda for a Future that Works for All- a whole-of-government approach that targets interventions on those who needs it most”
Traditional means of income support will need to be revised, as they leave out a great number of precarious workers, which will make up for a greater share of the labour force. In the context of a flexible job market, which will see an increase in the number of entries and exits, and the need for continuous modernization of skills and work practices, the design of new systems of workers protection will become pivotal to the functioning of societies. It is important that workers know where they stand and can get the necessary protection and help in the area that they are in. So if they need something like a portsmouth workers compensation attorney or something similar that relates to legal requirements, they will be able to do so for their support.
Workers outside of the traditional form of contract are the one in the direst situation, as access to social protection is difficult for workers in non-standard employment; those who are falsely self-employed, finding themselves under the yoke of employers who don’t want to be held accountable for them. With little control over their wage and their working hours, they are the ones requiring more protection.
With non-traditional workers 50% less likely to be unionized, the emergence of monopsony in the labour market cannot be discarded, and with the instrument of collective bargaining lacking, changes to address the problem by providing the employees with more leverage are required.
Whilst the outlook discards universal basic income (UBI) as being too costly, this says nothing about its actual capacity to work as a solution. It is true that the main obstacle to the introduction of a UBI is to find its source of financing, but the measure’s design would help solving many of the problem arising in the labour market, as recent publications by the World Bank and the International Labour Organization pointed out.
Article reviewed by Dawn Howard.
More information at:
OECD, The Future of Work
by Andre Coelho | Jul 11, 2019 | Research
Leah Hamilton (left) and James P. Mulvale (right)
Leah Hamilton and James P. Mulvale have researched into the implications of the truncated basic income pilot in Ontario, Canada. From a set of controlled, semi-structured interviews, five participants agreed to subject to the procedure. These participants had experienced both conditional welfare programs such as the Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program, and were beneficiaries of the Ontario basic income pilot until it was terminated by Doug Ford’s cabinet.
The conclusions show that the basic income pilot had effects that contrasted with those experienced by the participants in the traditional social security programs. So, while in the latter, participants felt trapped in “a cycle of precarity and dependence”, the former made them feel “human again”, since “they had always desired to be members of the workforce and gain financial independence”. The study’s conclusions also match other research efforts comparing traditional welfare with basic income type of experiments, which reinforces those same conclusions. It also refers the need to consider potential hidden savings in health costs, and additional economic activity brought by basic income policies. Those cost savings and potentially larger tax collection must then be a part of any serious effort to finance basic income, particularly in high-income countries.
The following abstract accompanies the article:
Neoliberal social assistance programs are broadly seen as inadequate and intrusive. This phenomenological analysis compares social assistance in Ontario, Canada, and a recent pilot project to test basic income as an alternative method of enabling economic security and social participation via qualitative interviews with pilot recipients who had previously received traditional assistance. Results indicate a desire to be financially independent, but that the conditionality of traditional programs had negative repercussions including work disincentives and deleterious bureaucratic hurdles. Respondents reported that basic income has improved their nutrition, health, housing stability, and social connections; and better facilitated long-term financial planning.
More information at:
Leah Hamilton & James P. Mulvale (2019) “Human Again”: The (Unrealized) Promise of Basic Income in Ontario, Journal of Poverty
Leah Hamilton, “Why Welfare Doesn’t Work: And What We Should Do Instead”, Basic Income News, June 29th 20128
by Andre Coelho | Jun 16, 2019 | News, Research
The National Academy of Social Insurance recently (April 2019) published a paper where the idea of implementing a relatively small basic income ($200-$400 per month, at least initially) has been explored by authors William Arnone, Peter Barnes, Renée Landers and Griffin Murphy, supported by the Economic Security Project. The paper goes into detail on potential mechanisms by which this basic income might be implemented in the USA.
This study intents to deliver information on how to fulfil the vision outlined in the historical document “Need for Security”, from 1935, where it was clearly summoned that “the one almost all-embracing measure of security is an assured income. A program of economic security, as we vision it, must have as its primary aim the assurance of an adequate income to each human being in childhood, youth, middle age, or old age—in sickness or in health.”
From the paper synopsis it can be read:
This concept paper examines the possibility of providing a base level of income to certain subsets of, and perhaps to all, U.S. citizens as a means to increasing their economic security. The authors begin by highlighting the extent of contemporary financial insecurity and continue with a discussion on how an assured income program might complement existing social insurance and social assistance programs. This is followed by an examination of past and present programs that share goals with the assured income concept described, and an exploration of how these programs might provide a basis for the Social Security Administration’s administering an assured income benefit.
More information at:
William Arnone, Peter Barnes, Renée Landers and Griffin Murphy, “Assured Income”, National Academy of Social Insurance, March 2019
by Andre Coelho | Jun 12, 2019 | News, Research
According to a recent report (May 2019) by UCL Institute for Global Prosperity (IGP), guaranteeing universal basic services (UBS), such as health care, education, child care, transportation and digital information, would be more beneficial to low income groups than universal basic income (UBI).
It is argued, in the referred report authored by Anna Coote, Pritika Kasliwal and Andrew Percy, that “extending public services is likely to be more effective in addressing poverty, inequality and wellbeing than unconditional cash payments to individuals”. That assertion is linked to a yet to be published article by Coote and Yazici called “Universal Basic Income, A literature review”, while the present report does not “consider the case for UBI in any depth”. The discussion defending UBS, in the report, seems then to be unilateral. However, cost considerations between the two systems, for the United Kingdom reality, have been done in a previous report (from 2017). From these calculations, the authors have reached the conclusion (stated after the 2019 report’s release) that UBS would cost around 10% less than UBI to implement in the country.
Andrew Percy, co-author of the report (supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation) and Citizen Sponsor at IGP, has said that “universal access to basic public services must be the foundation of 21st century welfare that delivers real social security, allows people to make meaningful choices about their work, and can be delivered in an affordable and practical way”, which doesn’t seem to pitch UBS against UBI. Others, like Will Stronge (Autonomy think tank) and Mathew Lawrence (Common Wealth think tank), explicitly consider UBI and UBS to be complementary in an evolving model for society.
Anna Coote. Picture credit to: Green European Journal
Anna Coote and co-author Edanur Yazici have also recently (April 2019) published another report (signing for the New Economic Foundation), entiled “Universal Basic Income: A Union Perspective”, which clearly rejects UBI in favour of a UBS. That study has been published by the global trade union federation Public Services International (PSI), financially supported by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung foundation. This particular report was analysed by UBI activist Scott Santens, who has written that it is “a prime example of a disinformation campaign designed to manipulate public opinion against the idea of universal basic income”, and a “shameless propaganda” move.
The publication of the 2019 report on universal basic services, by the IPG, has also spurred a reaction in Guy Standing, a lifelong researcher, economist, author and activist for UBI. According to him, in an article published in Open Democracy, “there is no contradiction between having some public quasi-universal basic services and a basic income”. He adds, concluding, that these systems “address different needs and stem from different rationales. But having cash enhances freedom of choice, is potentially more empowering and can be more transformative. I plead with those advocating ‘Universal Basic Services’ to stop juxtaposing the idea of more and better public services with giving people basic income security.”
More information at:
Laurie MacFariane, “Universal services more effective than a Universal Basic Income, argues new report”, OpenDemocracy, May 16th 2019
Scott Santens, “‘Universal Basic Income Doesn’t Work’ Says New Prime Example of Fake News”, Medium, May 31st 2019
Guy Standing, “Why ‘Universal Basic Services’ is no alternative to Basic Income”, Open Democracy, June 6th 2019
by Andre Coelho | Jun 7, 2019 | News, Research
Apart from experimental designs testing basic income-like policies, in small scales, theoretical evidence keeps mounting, showing that basic income is not a pipe dream, but a practical reality within our reach. Published earlier this year, a new report issued by the Compass think tank demonstrates just that. It proposes two models for change in the British social security system, one that installs a partial basic income for a cost of 28 billion £/year (approximately the benefits cut per year since 2010), and another that would rise the unconditional transfer of the first model through the operation of a “citizens’ wealth fund”.
As a summary, it can be read in the report’s conclusions:
The to models presented satisfy the feasibility tests set out earlier. Both models:
- Are progressive: they raise the incomes of low-income households at the expense of those on the highest incomes, cut poverty and reduce inequality; the greatest benefits go to the poorest;
- Provide a basic income for all, while reducing the level of sanctions; Britain would finally have a secure income floor set to rise over time;
- Become more progressive and more powerful anti-poverty instruments as basic income payments rise;
- Help to correct the gender imbalance of the present system;
- Ensure that there are almost no losers among the poorest households
- Apply a new 15% rate of income tax, an additional 3% on each rate of income tax, and an extension of national insurance payments.
It is still worthy to say that the 28 million £/year figure cited above can be collected in a variety of ways, for instance reversing the freezing of diesel and petrol excise duties since 2010 (9 billion £/year), reversing cuts in corporate tax rates from 18 to 28% (26-28 billion £/year), reduce the number and value of tax reliefs (ex.: eliminating the “entrepreneur’s relief”, saving 2,7 billion £/year), phasing out financial support to home owners and private landlords (which mainly benefit property developers) (8 billion £/year), among other possibilities. All these imply reversing tax cuts and attributed benefits to the relatively wealthier members of British society, which makes them quite progressive measures.
More information at:
Stewart Lansley and Howard Reed, “Basic Income for All: From Desirability to Feasibility”, Compass, January 2019
by Andre Coelho | Jun 5, 2019 | News, Research
The reading of results from basic income type of experiments is, apparently, dependent on who is reading them. The Ontario present government officials did not think, for instance, that there were particular advantages or benefits from pursuing with the Ontario basic income experiment. The particulars of the Ontario (basic income) pilot cancellation have been extensively reported on (some examples below), so much so that a new report was published with some evidence of the benefits experienced by more than 400 participants, according to their responses. This may be another case of dissonance between government power and common citizens: what is felt by the latter as beneficial is discarded as ineffective and wasteful by the former. Why, then, was this basic income pilot program cancelled is a legitimate question one might ask, if the participants themselves felt it as a success.
For example, the baseline survey reported that at the start of the pilot 81% of participants were suffering from moderate to severe psychological stress); At the end over 70% had reported their mental state to have improved in several categories. This is attributed to having fewer financial worries such as debt. In addition, participants were apparently better able to buy edibles online canada and other treatments for their conditions, whereas before they may have refrained due to budget concerns. Due to the legalization of medical marijuana in several countries, such as the United States and Canada, many scientists are looking into the effects of CBD and cannabis. In terms of the physiological benefits of Cannabis, compounds like CBD seem to have anti-inflammatory properties, helping to relieve chronic muscle and joint pain. Nevertheless, when ingested, these effects might be amplified, so these relief properties could be felt in even greater strength with THC edibles that you can purchase from get kush or other such cannabis retailers online. There is growing evidence that CBD is an effective monotherapy or complementary therapy for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Cannabis (rather a chemical in the Cannabis sativa plant known as cannabidiol) may be helpful in reducing anxiety, the most common mental health issue. The information provided here is not intended as medical advice and it is highly recommended that one consults a health expert before consuming CBD products. This is merely intended as an overview various types of CBD commodities (such as CBD Oil UK) of that may be of assistance to people suffering from anxiety or stress.
Overall, the participant experience compiled in this report partly mirror that of Finland’s basic income-type experience first results: more agency, anxiety relief, more social connection and financial security. The majority started eating better, and were able to make plans for the future…which evaporated as soon as the pilot was cancelled by Doug Ford’s government. In numbers, answers returned the following results (from Basic Income Canada Network):
- 88% of respondents reported less stress and anxiety and 73% had less depression.
- 58% improved their housing situation;
- 34% found the basic income supported employment by affording transportation to work, child care or ability to start or expand a business;
- 32% of respondents were able to go back to school or upgrade skills (note that a majority of employed participants in the government baseline survey – recipients and control group – said they were in dead-end jobs);
- 74% were able to make healthy food choices and 28% stopped using food banks;
- 46% were able to pay off debt;
- 52% were able to see friends and family more often, 55% were physically more able to do activities, and 45% reported fewer health problems;
- Many respondents talked about working hard their whole lives, often at multiple jobs, but never really having a life, until basic income made that possible.
More information at:
Kate McFarland, “ONTARIO, CANADA: New Government Declares Early End of Guaranteed Income Experiment“, Basic Income News, August 2nd 2018
Sara Bizarro, “Ontario, Canada: Reactions to Ontario Basic Income Pilot Cancelation“, Basic Income News, September 18th 2018
Daniel Fabbri, “Four Ontario Mayors asking the Federal Government to take over the Basic Income Pilot“, Basic Income News, September 30th 2018
André Coelho, “Canada: Ontario’s basic income experiment ended, but the ground is fertile for more pilots“, Basic Income News, December 22nd 2018
Sheila Rogehr and Joli Scheidler-Benns, “Signposts to Success: report of a BICN Survey of Ontario Basic Income Recipients“, Basic Income Canada Network, February 2019
André Coelho, “When a few drops of rain allow flowers to blossom: Finland’s basic income experiment generates its preliminary results“, Basic Income News, February 16th 2019
