The Swiss village of Rheinau is being targeted for a basic income experiment. The idea is being promoted and produced by the Dorf Testet Zukunft organization (Village of the Future Test). It started in 2016, through a popular initiative, and it had already been approved by more than 25% of the Reinhau population, at the time. Although Reinhau is only habited by 1300 people, 813 have already registered for the experiment. That is above what the organization needed for starting funding, which was 651 registrations.
The basic income test itself is planned to start as early as 2019, given enough funding is secured, which starts now. The Dorf Testet Zukunft will have to raise over 5 million Swiss Francs (4,4 million Euros). The plan is for this amount to be distributed unconditionally to all registered participants, for a year. The money will be distributed according to age, such that until 18 years old children receive 550 €/month, the 18-22 years old bracket receive 1100 €/month, from 22 to 25 years old 1640 €/month and above that a 2190 €/month stipend is specified. According to the organization, income from other sources will be discounted over the basic income, up to its maximum value. However, no one will be left with less income than presently, and all people with less income than the basic income value will have more than before (during the experiment). The exact and appropriate experimental mechanism and values are in accordance with villagers and the local council, since the project is open to comment and contributions from all involved.
Dorf Testet Zukunft’s team is composed by several dedicated people, headed by project initiator and filmmaker Rebecca Panian, Reto Ormos (financial expert) and Reda El Arbi (Communications), among others. There is also a scientific team dedicated to the project, including Jens Martignoni (FleXibles), Aleksandra Gnach (linguistics professor at ZHAW), Theo Wehner (ETH Zurich) and Sascha Liebermann (Alanus Hochschule). Other support come from activists like Daniel Häni, Götz Werner and Enno Schmidt.
Funding is planned to be done through a crowdfunding process, using Wemakeit, a crowdfunding platform founded in Switzerland in 2012. Data is to be collected from recipients during its duration, with a focus on answering general questions such as “What happens to the people?” and “What happens in the community?”, and analyzed afterwards. A documentary film is also planned, directed by Rebecca Panian, which main drive is a search for an answer for “how we want to live in the future”.
The idea is, in a nutshell, can be condensed in the following words written in the Dorf Testet Zukunft’s website:
“We want to test a possible new future as realistic as possible. This requires pioneers who dare and try it out. Best case: we can encourage people to discuss about the idea of the basic income because we are convinced that a system change must come from the people. Not prescribed from a government.”
Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang spoke at the Political Soapbox on Saturday, August 11th, 2018, during the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines.
Andrew Yang, a democrat running for president, former entrepreneur and CEO, and author of “The War on Normal People”, addressed the crowd at the Political Soapbox explaining his program.
He stated that one problem he identified lies in the fact that you need to move from places like Iowa in order to be able to find better career opportunities but, he said, there should be something better to do for young people rather than to move to Wall Street to make a lot of money for themselves. Ideally, after graduating from college, people would find a job, or build businesses, in the communities in which they are born and raised. An undergraduate should be able to volunteer, and make a living wage or better in his state, but nationwide people are required to move in order to pursue working opportunities.
This is the reason why he founded Venture for America in 2011, a non-profit with the aim of providing funds to top graduates and allowed them to take part in promising start-ups in developing cities around the U.S. But then he realized that this was not enough. There was a structural problem in the job market, and funding Venture for America alone was like “pouring water in a bathtub with a hole”.
The point is, in Andrew Yang’s opinion, technology will make human labor less essential.
He uses the example of some of the most common jobs in America – retail and sales, truck driving, and food prep. Automation is going to hit them all, with self-driving trucks already being tested in the field, moving in strict formation in order to optimize costs – a driving arrangement called platooning – and that expected savings from automation will be in the order of $168 billion per year in the freight industry.
Call centers will not be spared from automation, automated kiosks at McDonald’s will soon be more widespread, and 30% of malls will disappear in the next four years, due to Amazon gaining more and more of the market. The transformation will make many jobs obsolete, while stripping value from the many and concentrating it into the hands of a few.
Automation, if not dealt with appropriately, comes at a great cost, and people need to act together as a society to counteract the potential disruption brought by A.I.
In order to do so, Andrew Yang presents the three pillars of his campaign:
1)A $1,000 freedom dividend for each adult (which is a form of Universal Basic Income). Value is being hoovered up by the richest people, with the recent $1.5 trillion tax cut being spread unevenly, as only 6% went to workers. The time of trickle-down economics should come to an end, he says, and it should be substituted with trickle-up economics; money should move the other way around, from families and communities up. The economy is up to $19 trillion dollars, with an increase of $4 trillion in just the last ten years, and the Freedom Dividend is something feasible, he maintains.
2)Medicare for all, as healthcare costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy. People should be able to worry only about getting better, not about how to pay for it.
3)A new American Scorecard, which is a way to measure things differently than GDP does. This would include new indicators including well-being, mental and physical health, not only economic figures. This would also have an instrument which could account positively for motherhood work and parenting, and not for national defense expenses.
Could a guaranteed livable income create healthy societies and save the planet?
A grassroots group of Asian feminists address this question by organizing a panel of leading experts on basic income and environmental justice, taking place on Wednesday, October 17th 2018, the International Day to Eradicate Poverty. Guaranteed Livable Income and Sustainable Futures is the second annual public event on basic income hosted by Asian Women for Equality, and will take place at La Maison du Développement Durable (House of Sustainable Development) in Montreal, Canada.
The panel includes Rob Rainer of Basic Income Canada Network, Cathy Orlando from the Citizen’s Climate Lobby Canada, Indigenous activist Cherry Smiley, and a host of other community organizations that will delve into what basic income could mean for sustainability and environmental justice, and how this relates to advancing Indigenous rights, women’s rights and racial equality.
Simultaneous interpretation will be available between French and English, and the venue is wheelchair accessible. Registration is possible here.
On the 9th of October 2018, at 6 pm, professor Sascha Liebermann will speak at the GLS Bank in Frankfurt. The event is organized by the Bündnis Grundeinkommen Hessen (Hesse Basic Income Alliance) political party and is expected to last for around two hours.
General description of the event:
Unconditional basic income (UBI) is a monthly amount of money which is sufficient for your existence, unconditional and for everybody. The UBI is a polarising idea for most groups in society. Opponents fear that the principle of pay-for-performance will be undermined. Others think that the UBI will weaken social justice, because the existing social welfare state will disappear. Supporters of UBI claim that it will be an effective mechanism to create a humane working environment, in a time of increasing digitalisation of work. Above all, supporters claim that UBI gives the opportunity to free human beings from an economic straight-jacket and existential threats, allowing all members of society to prosper and develop their own potential.
The GLS Bank in collaboration with the ‘Bündnis Grundeinkommen Hessen’ party has invited Professor Sascha Liebermann from the ‘Alanus Hochschule für Kunst und Gesellschaft’ near Bonn as guest speaker. The purpose is to explore the concept and discuss with the audience the risks and opportunities of UBI.
The letter from the Mayors of Brantford, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes and Thunder Bay follows the early end of the pilot, wich was announced on July 31st by the new center right government of the Ontario province. It was and abrupt end, just three months after the pilot program was fully subscribed, following its announcement by the previous government in April 2017.
For the pilot, the province had enrolled 6,000 people, 4,000 to actually receive the payments, the others to act as a control group. In order to be selected for the pilot, the requisites were: being between the ages of 18 and 64, and living on a low income, defined as under $34,000 per year for singles and $48,000 for couples. Participants were to receive, under a tax credit model, $16,989 per year for a single person, less 50% of any earned income, or $24,027 per year for a couple, less 50% of any earned income.
The communities of Brantford, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes and Thunder bay were among those to be chosen as the sites for the pilot test, and Ontario’s pilot was at the center of a diffused international interest for the concept of basic income, with delegations from the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea and the Unites states visiting the communities in order to observe and learn from the experience. “We believe the results of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot would have provided crucial information that could enable not just the Ontario Government, but other jurisdictions around the country to determine the efficacy of such a program on a larger scale”, the mayors write.
The end of the project was justified by the minister of Community Social Services (CSS) because it supposedly provided a disincentive to work, ignoring that two thirds of pilot participants are currently working (some with part-time jobs), but nonetheless interested in contributing to the community and to upgrade their professional skills, the letter says.
The fallout from the Ontario government’s cancellation of the pilot is twofold, on the one hand it is detrimental to participants, and on the other one it is a step back in the research for a better, more comprehensive way, to assist citizens.
The pilot was in the first of the three scheduled years of duration, and its findings and level of success could not be determined appropriately, although many participants could already identify positive changes in their lives as a result of it. These reported having used the money to stabilize their housing, improve their health through better dieting and checking for opportunities to specialize themselves, going back to school and enhance their level of skills. The letter continues by saying that many participants reported an amelioration of their well-being and the regaining of confidence, self-esteem and dignity, as they become able to afford housing and improve their intake of healthy food. Futhermore, as a consequence of being able to afford the time for civic activities and volunteering, these people were becoming active members of their community.
The decision to stop the program is harmful the participants, as they made financial decisions having in mind the commitment of the Ontario government to supply them with a stable income over the next years. They were elected among the most vulnerable members of their communities and, once the pilot started, many incurred in expenses which are now irrecoverable. Planning ahead for the following three years period, some moved to safer rental accommodations, finding themselves locked in tenancy agreements they cannot afford, while others paid up-front to go back to school or to enhance their skills, and found themselves indebted.
In the letter, the mayors of the cities of Brantford, Hamilton, Kawartha Lakes and Thunder Bay say that they fear that many of the participant will “inevitably fall into situations of homelessness and significant financial distress” without any fault of their own, and those struggling with mental health will now need additional support.
The mayors thus request that the federal government assumes oversight over the Ontario Basic Income project for the following two years, in order to complete it. They provide three reasons in support for their request. Firstly, the pilot infrastructure has already been built, with many of the up-front costs having been paid, the participants chosen and a project staff in place with given timelines and an evaluation team at work. Secondly, information gathered through the pilot, which is the greatest such test in the world and the first in Canada since Mincome in the seventies (the Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment, conducted between 1974 and 1979), would benefit the Federal Government, providing a bonanza of valuable data. And thirdly, one third of the total cost of the project, $50 million, has already been spent. There is no hope of recovering that amount, which considering the negative fallout produced by the premature cancellation of the pilot, is an expense that would end up only creating distress in the communities which were taking part in the experiment.
“Minister, when the program was launched, you said that you would be watching it closely and looked forward to seeing the results – as did we. Federal oversight of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot project would be the best option to revive the critical information that will be generated, protect pilot participants from crisis who entered into the program in good faith and ensure the funds that have already been spent on this program are not wasted.”
The plenary sessions of the BIEN Congress 2018 are now available to view, here (all).
Individually, the recordings can also be watched in the following embedded links.
Philip Alston, “Should We Frame Basic Income as a Human Right?”
Louise Haagh, “The Ethics and Economics of Basic Income Revisited”
Lena Lavinas, “Can Basic Income Resist the Financialization Logic?”
Evelyn Forget, “The Basic Income Path to a Healthier Society”
Roundtable Plenary on basic income experiments with Jamie Cooke, Sarath Davala, Evelyn Forget, Loek Groot and Olli Kangas, moderated by Philippe Van Parijs
