A recent YouTube video from The Young Turks, a left-wing news-based channel with close to 4 million subscribers, focuses on the universal basic income (UBI) pilot project currently being planned in Stockton, California.
The video consists of an interview with Michael Tubbs, Mayor of Stockton, the youngest Mayor in Stockton history. He discusses the nature of the project, and what he hopes it will achieve.
The project has previously been covered in some detail by Basic Income News.
A new research carried out for the European project PIE* News Commonfare, which involved three European countries (Croatia, Italy and Holland), has just been released.
In this research, several questions have been asked. How has the precarious workers lives have changed? Between unhappiness and potentiality, between fragility and autonomy, between self-exploitation and freedom? How did it turn out to be, under the blows of the crisis and also through the influence of technology? How have they perceived, and imagined to subvert, social and political difficulties?
The research offers an analysis of the transformations in the production system, of the transition between Fordism and post-Fordism era, the main changes in the labor market, the advent of mass precariousness, the transformation of welfare models and the new emerging (social) needs. Here lies a field research that also addresses the issue of how people, starting from their condition of necessity, build good practices, social cooperation and new forms of liberation. This research work represents the attempt to recount, compare and connect processes of community empowerment and autonomous planning paths, thereby re-establishing a “sense of the future”. It does so by reconstructing an existential perspective in a deeply changed environmental, material and subjective context.
The desire for freedom and autonomy among precarious generations clearly emerges, and with it the need for a new era with new rights based on guaranteed income.
1. THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND THE PIE CONDITIONS
1.1. DIMENSIONS OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHANGE OVER THE LAST DECADES
1.1.1 THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL AND PRODUCTIVE TRANSFORMATIONS
1.1.1.a The Italian context
1.1.1.b The Croatian context
1.1.1.c The Dutch context
1.1.2 LABOUR MARKET AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION
1.1.2.a The Italian Context
1.1.2.b The Croatian context
1.1.2.c The Dutch Context
1.1.3 DIMENSIONS OF THE CRISIS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF WELLFARE POLICIES
1.1.3.a The Italian Context
1.1.3.b The Croatian context
1.1.3.c The Dutch Context
1.2 THE PIE CONDITIONS: RISK OF EXCLUSION, THE EXPERIENCE OF PRECARIOUSNESS AND UNCERTAINTY OF SOCIAL SUBJECTS
1.2.1 THE EFFECT OF PRECARIOUSNESS ON THE NEW POOR
1.2.1.a The Italian context
1.2.1.b The Croatian context
1.2.1.c The Dutch context
1.2.2 THE MULTIDIMENSIONALITY, THE TRANSVERSAL NATURE OF POVERTY, AND THE PERCEPTION OF RISK
1.2.2.a The Italian context
1.2.2.b The Croatian context
1.2.2.c The Dutch context
2. THE CHALLENGE OF NEWLY EMERGING NEEDS AND WELFARE STATE SYSTEM
2.1.a The social protection system, measures available in Italy
2.1.b The social protection system, measures available in Croatia
2.1.c The social protection system, measures available in Netherlands
2.2 PEOPLE EMERGING NEEDS
2.2.a Emerging needs in Italy
2.2.b Emerging needs in Croatia
2.2.c Emerging needs in Netherlands
3. OVERTURNING THE PIE CONDITIONS: STORIES AND EXPERIENCES OF COMMUNITIES
3.1 BOTTOM-UP WELFARE: NATURE AND IMPACT OF GRASSROOTS PRACTICES
3.1.a Bottom-up Welfare in Italy
3.1.b Bottom-up Welfare in Croatia
3.1.c Bottom-up Welfare in the Netherlands
3.2 GOOD PRACTICES: STORIES OF REPRODUCIBLE AND EFFECTIVE EXPERIENCES
3.2.a Experiences in Italy
3.2b Experiences in Croatia
3.2c Experiences in the Netherlands
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: THE SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM, MEASURES AVAILABLE IN ITALY
ANNEX 2: THE SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM, MEASURES AVAILABLE IN CROATIA.
ANNEX 3: THE SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM, MEASURES AVAILABLE IN THE NETHERLANDS
*PIE (Poverty, Income, Employment) – Commonfare is a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme under grant agreement No 687922
Universal basic income. A radical rethinking of work, well-being and freedom. This is the title of the meeting that took place within the Festival of Journalism held in Perugia on April 13th, 2018. From 2 pm at the Teatro della Sapienza, Alessandro Gilioli de L’Espresso magazine interviewed Guy Standing from BIEN (Basic Income Earth Network).
As an introduction to the meeting, a question was asked:
Can we create a fairer society by providing a guaranteed income for all citizens? What would this mean for our health, wealth and well-being?
Basic income is rooted in the idea that all citizens have a role in generating the wealth currently enjoyed only by a few. Faced with the increasing precariousness in all areas of work, an emerging disaffected mass class and signals of political instability, basic income is an issue around which to build new progressive policies, to redefine citizens’ relationship with work and the community in which they live. Guy Standing, an economist who has been for many years a leading figure worldwide in research on basic income, illustrates what we can learn from the pilot projects on basic income undertaken in various parts of the world, what the effects are on the economy, on poverty and on work, and why many of the arguments against basic income can be overcome.
Blockchain is a kind of register, or digital ledger, of economic transactions. According to specialists, it is incorruptible since it exists as a distributed network of registers, and hence impossible to hack.
Moreover, put simply, blockchain is a simple yet ingenious way of passing information from one location to another in an automated and safe manner. Firstly, one party involved in a transaction initiates the process by creating a block. This block is verified by computers distributed around the internet. The verified block is then added to a chain, which is stored across the internet, creating not just a unique record, but a unique record with a unique history. Falsifying a single record would mean falsifying the entire chain in millions of instances and this is thought to be virtually impossible. Accordingly, blockchain technology poses a number of exciting opportunities for businesses. Consequently, you can learn more about these opportunities by reaching out to an organization that offers blockchain development services.
There are no doubts about it, since 2008, the year of its first appearance, blockchain has evolved from a single article (by Satoshi Nakamoto) to a global phenomenon. At present, numerous applications have been found and are being researched for Blockchain, so much so that an international meeting of people working with the Blockchain has been set up. And this year that meeting, the Blockchaingers Hackathon, happened in Groningen, in the Netherlands, from the 5th to the 8th of April (some results of the Hackathon can be watched here).
The Blockchaingers Hackathon had already been organized in 2017, at the same location, but this year Hilde Latour, Co-chair of the Universal Basic Income Europe (UBIE), was there to try and plant the seed of basic income in several blockchain working teams. There have already been proposals that merge the blockchain and basic income concepts, such as the one involving artificial intelligence and autonomous assets, presented at the Blockchain Innovation Conference 2017 of Vincent Everts by Jan-Peter Doomernik. The connection of this “crazy thought experiment” with basic income was further explained by Hilde Latour at that same Conference, possible to watch on this short five-minute presentation.
At the Blockchaingers Hackathon 2018 Hilde was interviewed in twooccasions, where basic income is generally described, as well as its possible integration with what is called the “machine economy“. In any case, according to Hilde, basic income can be viewed as a transitional solution between the present day monetary economy and a future society where goods and services will be available to all, without the intermediation of money.
Credit Picture CC Flickr.com / Foam: Futures of the Universal Basic Income
Reyer Brons, editor-in-chief of Vereniging Basisinkomen (Association for Basic Income), the Dutch branch of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), and also member of the Network for Political Innovation (NPI, a Dutch think tank), has, in recent months, collected about seventy objections that people might bring up in discussions about (the introduction of) an unconditional basic income (UBI). All objections are subdivided into twelve themes and provided with a short explanation and a refutation or relativisation.
The intention of the work is to give people some background information which can help them in debates about the UBI with supporters and opponents of the policy. As the complete work is rather comprehensive and written in Dutch, only the themes and objections will be presented in this article. An overview of all objections is given (unfortunately only in Dutch) on the website of the NPI with links to the full descriptions. The arguments are also published on the website of the Vereniging Basisinkomen, in a special category of objections (‘Bezwaren’).
In this article, a first example is presented, a short description of an argument with its concomitant explanation and relativisation. Then, some other themes and objections are listed.
For instance, one of the arguments under the theme ‘Implementation’, states “We cannot oversee the long-term effects”.
The objection is followed by a short explanation, that notes:
“It is probably true, that disadvantages of the introduction of a basic income will become obvious in time. However, it will be regarded as an acquired right by that time and therefore it is to be expected that negative developments will evoke opposition among the general public. For example, lowering the level of the basic income would lead to major problems, because many people will not be prepared to face the reduction.”
Subsequently a refutation is given:
“This type of argument is fatal for every policy change. Of course, there will be unforeseen effects, but what policy has none? There are many examples of unexpected consequences, but it did not stop progress. Who could have thought that the exploitation of gas fields in Groningen [a province in the north of the Netherlands] could cause serious earthquakes after decades of drilling? Or that fatal traffic accidents could increase again as a result of the introduction of the smartphone?
In the course of time, society will change in a variety of ways due to the introduction of the policy. Proponents look forward to experience with an unconditional basic income. In their eyes, the effects will have a strong positive influence on society. Furthermore, it is also possible to model the long-term effects (e.g. via micro simulation studies).
If undesirable long-term effects arise, further measures must be developed to counteract the unfavorable consequences. This also applies to the current welfare system. It must be understood that the adverse effects of the current system can hardly be tackled, until that system is thoroughly addressed. When economic conditions deteriorate in a given society, it cannot be ruled out that the basic income payment must be lowered, but the same applies to current benefits. On the other hand, it also cannot be ruled out that the payment will increase over time.”
All objections are listed below, arranged by theme:
Reciprocity is necessary for the legitimacy of the social state and its moral support, that means that an unconditional basic income cannot be solidary
Having a paid job gives dignity, status and a sense of social integration, basic income will make people lazy
With basic income, young people no longer take the trouble to study
Only a small group of people is capable of handling freedom well
Basic income leads to an increase in the use of alcohol and drugs
Basic income is bad for the emancipation of women
The basic income lowers the participation of women at the labor market (they might stay at home to look after the children or take up other unpaid care work)
Talents remain unused
Basic income promotes overpopulation
People always want something more than they see with someone else, therefore they will begrudge someone a basic income
The group consisting of free-riders, maladjusted or anti-social people will grow, if there is basic income for everyone
Many are annoyed by the behavior of free-riders, profiteers and anti-socials. Those people are not worth to get a basic income. If they should receive the payment, it would be disastrous for its acceptance
It is not in our hands, it is up to other people to decide on basic income
The policy is too big for us to handle, we only have four years as a government
Firstly, we have to do this and then that …, there are so many urgent problems that need to be addressed. The basic income case removes more important reforms from the political agenda
The design of existing experiments is too small, they can’t tell anything about the real effects of a basic income
When an UBI is implemented, and it fails to succeed, we can’t get rid of it anymore
Anyway, introduction of the policy in our country is impossible
We should not start with the policy, the introduction of a basic income is far too complex
A basic income can’t be properly phased in, because if we do, we will have two concurrent welfare systems, which might lead to a lot of nasty implications
We start enthusiastically with the introduction of the policy, but ignore all warnings pertaining to possible implementation problems
We cannot oversee the long-term effects of a UBI
The reader will notice that some objections are in conflict with each other. For instance, some people may view an unconditional basic income as a ‘communist’ or ‘socialist’ idea, while at the other end of the political spectrum, it is considered as ‘neoliberal’ policy. The idea is rejected for all of these reasons. After all, opposition to the basic income comes from different angles. The same is true for immigration. One person might say that a basic income promotes immigration, whereas another thinks that it inhibits the influx of immigrants.
Andrew Yang is a young entrepreneur who is running for president on the platform of Basic Income. As an entrepreneur, he started and led several technology and education companies. More recently he founded Venture for America, “a nonprofit that places top graduates in startups in emerging U.S. cities to generate job growth and train the next generation of entrepreneurs.” Because of his varied experience, Yang travelled all over the United States and came face to face with the reality of several dreary and forlorn locations. In his new book, The War on Normal People, he describes visiting Detroit in 2010, when the city “was just beginning its descent into bankruptcy,” he remembers “cold, empty streets feeling abandoned,” and he saw the same in “Providence, New Orleans, and Cincinnati.” These experiences led him to create Venture for America, sending talented entrepreneurs to these cities in an attempt to create jobs and revitalize these areas.
Andrew Yang and President Obama, 2012
Even though Venture for America was highly successful, “people were clapping us on the back, congratulating us on our accomplishments,” but he thought: “What are you congratulating us for? The problems are just getting worse.” He realized that there is too much “human and financial capital flowing to just a handful of places doing things that are speeding the machine up rather than fixing what is going wrong.” Yang realized that technology was hitting the economic fabric of the country and “eliminating livelihoods for hundreds, thousands of the most vulnerable Americans.” This is the beginning of a wave he calls the Great Displacement, a wave that “grinds up people and communities” in ways that are not clear nor straightforward and that can lead to utter disaster – this reality is already partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump, and when it hits it will become even more frightening. Yang feels a sense of urgency, in the sense that we need to do something, “it’s getting late, and the time is running short.”
When asked about how he decided to run for president, he said: “What happened was that I saw Donald Trump get elected and realized that there is a very short window of time between now and when things get so bad that it is going to be difficult to easily reconstitute many of the regions [that are most affected and that elected Trump]. It was in 2017 and I decided that someone should run for President on Universal Basic Income and so I went around and asked who is going to do this? When I saw no one was going to do it, I decided to do it.” Yang’s platform is mainly focused on Universal Basic Income, but also includes Medicare for All and something he calls Human Capitalism. In Human Capitalism we would still have a free market, but would not be focused primarily on corporate profits, but instead should follow three central tenets: “1. Humans are more important than money, 2) The unit of a Human Capitalism economy is each person, not each dollar, 3) Markets exist to serve our common goals and values.”
In his book, War on Normal People, Yang paints a bleak view of automation. He predicts it will arrive soon and in full force, anytime between 2020 and 2030. Service jobs will be mostly automated as well as customer service jobs, construction jobs and jobs that include driving a vehicle. Recently the New York Times had a piece about the automation of retail, Retailers Race to Automate Stores, saying that there will be stores with “hundreds of cameras near the ceiling and sensors in the shelves help automatically tally the cookies, chips and soda that shoppers remove and put in their bags. Shoppers accounts are charged as they walk out the doors.” Customer service in call centers can be easily substituted by artificial intelligence (AI) so effectively that you may not be able to tell if you are speaking to a person or a computer. Many more intellectually based jobs such as accountants, insurance sellers and paralegals can also be more efficiently done by AI. One of the most worrisome areas where job loss will hit hard is driving a vehicle. Self-driving trucks and cars can displace many middle-aged males in the United States, in areas that are already hard hit by automation. The Great Displacement, according to Yang, is scary and happening fast.
One of the policies that can be immediately implemented is Basic Income, which Yang calls a Freedom Dividend. Yang’s proposal calls for $1,000 a month for each American, $12,000 a year. Yang suggests that the most efficient and quick way to finance a Basic Income of this kind is implementing a VAT – Value Added Tax, of around 10%, many European countries have a VAT around 20%. Yang believes a VAT is an adequate way to gather funds for Basic Income because it is charged on volume, not on profit, so that large retailers, such as Amazon, would not be able to escape it. Even though VAT would increase prices for all, when used exclusively for Basic Income it would lead to lower income people still benefiting from the policy. Yang said: “it’s going to help 85 percent of Americans, the only people that it doesn’t help are the top 15 percent who will be putting a lot more money into the VAT. The people that consume the most are the richest and with a VAT they can’t escape it, with income tax rich people are excellent at escaping it in various ways.” Yang also prefers it to a wealth tax as “people will start shifting wealth around in various ways” and would easily be able to avoid it. Yang also defends a Carbon Tax.
Andrew Yang, Melanie Friedrichs and Sean Lane
Yang has a vision of the future where, aided by a Basic Income, or the Freedom Dividend, local economies will thrive: “My vision for the future is of an artisanal economy that many people participate in, that is borne by human interests that are not trying to build the next Chipotle or Google. You create a bakery that everyone loves in your town and then you employ 10 people and everyone is happier because there is a very good bakery. Then you multiply that by a bunch of businesses. That’s the future to me. It’s impossible for more and more people to compete against the mega-corps, but when everyone has a Universal Basic Income, then we can all frequent business we enjoy. That’s the ideal vision and that’s what Universal Basic Income allows for.”
In the book, The War on Normal People, Yang speaks about time banking exchanges in local communities that already exist. According to him, that’s a way to address how people will spend their time in satisfying and productive ways, after automation arrives and Basic Income is implemented. In Brattleboro, Vermont, there is a time bank with 315 members that has already exchanged 64,000 hours of mutual work. With a time bank, each person offers whatever services they have and bank time that can be latter traded for other services that others offer within the community. It’s a way to stay busy, connected, and meet your community neighbors. Yang suggests something called Digital Social Credits, which would work in a similar way, connecting communities and providing a local exchange of services.
Yang’s campaign has started and he is ready for the challenge ahead. In his own words: “I’m going to run for president on Basic Income for the next two and a half years. The better I do, the more real Basic Income becomes for millions of Americans. We can run again in 2024, and 2028, until we win, if we don’t win this time.” Yang sees Basic Income as an urgent policy that needs to happen now as is willing to fight for it as a presidential candidate.
