by Karl Widerquist | Jun 6, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published on Basic Income News in June 2014.
This book was recommended to me a a technology-based argument for the basic income guarantee (BIG), and it is, but its support is tentative and only for BIG in the form of the Negative Income Tax (NIT), not in the form of a Universal Basic Income (UBI).
The authors define the computer revolution that is currently underway as “the second machine age.” The industrial revolution was “the first machine age.” It brought machines that could apply power to do simple but profoundly important tasks, eventually replacing most human- and animal-powered industries with steam, electrical power, and so on. Machines of the first machine age could often do those tasks much better than humans or beasts of burden ever could. For example, the replacements for horses—automobiles, trains, and airplanes—can carry more people and more cargo father and faster than horses ever could.
Machines of the second machine age have gone beyond the application of power; they are also replacing some human brainwork. Calculators have been around so long that few people are aware they replaced a form of human labor, called “computers.” In the early 20th century, “computers” were people who did computations. It was skilled brainwork, far beyond the capabilities of the up-and-coming technologies of the day, such as the internal combustion engine. Computers (as we define the term today) have almost entirely replaced that form of human labor, and their ability to substitute for human labor only continues to increase—especially when combined with robotics.
The computational powers of computers are so strong can already beat the best chess masters and “Jeopardy” champions. Self-driving cars, which have turned driving into a complex computational task, will not only relieve us all of the task of driving to work, they have the potential to put every professional driver out of business. Perhaps computers, then, will someday learn not just to calculate, but also to think and evaluate. If so, might they eventually replace the need for all human labor?
Erik Brynjolfsson
Perhaps, but Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, the authors of the Second Machine Age, do not base their arguments on any such scenario. The possibility of a truly thinking computer is out there, but no one knows how to make a computer think, and no one knows when or how that might happen.
So, the authors focus on the improvements in computers that we can see and envision right now: machines that can augment and aid human thought with computational ability increasing at the current exponential rate. As long as computers are calculating but not truly thinking, humans will have an important role in production. For example, although computers can beat an unaided chess master, they cannot beat a reasonably skilled human chess player aided by computer. This is the focus of the book: computers and robotics taking over routinized tasks (both physical and mental), while humans still the deep thinking with access to aid from more and more computer power.
This change will be enough to radically transform the labor market and eliminate many (if not most) of the jobs that currently exist. At the enormous rate of increase in computing power, one does not have to envision a self-aware, sentient machine to see that the effects on the economy will be profound. According to the authors, “in the next 24 months, the planet will add more computer power than it did in all previous history; over the next 24 years, the increase will likely be over a thousand-fold.”
The book’s analysis of those changes is very much based on mainstream economic theory. In the books analysis, increases in unemployment and decreases in wages are attributed almost entirely to a decline in demand for labor thanks to the introduction of labor-replacing technology. Political economy considerations, in which powerful people and corporations manipulate the rules of the economy to keep wages low and employment precarious, are not addressed. When the authors consider shifting taxes from payroll to pollution, they don’t consider that powerful corporations have been using their power over the political process very effectively to block any such changes.
Andrew McAfee
Yet, the book demonstrates that even with purely mainstream economic tools, the need to do something is obvious. We have to address the effects of the computer revolution on the labor market. The second machine age creates an enormous opportunity for everyone to become free from drudgery, to focus their time on the goals that they care most about. But it also creates a great danger in which all the benefits of second machine age will go to the people and corporations who own the machines, while the vast majority of people around the world who depend on the labor market to make their living will find themselves fighting for fewer jobs with lower and lower wages.
The technology-replacement argument for BIG has been a major strand in BIG literature at least since the Robert Theobald began writing about the “triple revolution” in the early 1960s.[*]
So, approaching this book as I did, I was on the lookout through a large chuck of the book, waiting for BIG to come up. I was very surprised to see the entire “Policy Recommendations” chapter go by without a mention of BIG.
The authors finally addressed BIG in the penultimate chapter entitled, “long-term recommendations.” In the audio version of the book, the authors spend about 20 minutes (out of the 9-hour audiobook) talking about BIG. They recount some of the history of the guaranteed income movement in the United States with sympathy, and write, “Will we need to revive the idea of a basic income in the decades to come? Maybe, but it’s not our first choice.” They opt instead for an NIT, writing “We support turning the Earned Income Tax Credit into a full-fledged Negative Income Tax by making it larger and making it universal.”
Their discussion of why they prefer the NIT to UBI is perhaps the weakest part of the book. They favor work. They want to maintain the wage-labor economy, because, taking inspiration from Voltaire, they argue that work saves people from three great evils: boredom, vice, and need. I am skeptical about this claim. I view it as an employers’ slogan to justify a subservient workforce, but my skepticism about this argument is not why I find the book’s argument for the NIT over UBI to be the weakest part of the book. The reason is that the argument from work-incentives gives no reason to prefer the NIT to UBI. The authors view the NIT as a “work subsidy,” but it is no more a work subsidy than UBI.
The NIT and the UBI are both BIGs, by that, I mean they both guarantee a certain level below which no one’s income will fall—call this the “grant level.” Both allow people to live without working. UBI does this by giving the grant to everyone whether they work or not, but taxing them on their private income. NIT does this by giving the full grant only to those who make no private income and taking a little of it back as they make private income. In standard economic theory, the “take-back rate” of the NIT is equivalent to the “tax-rate” of the UBI, and so either one can be called “marginal tax rate.”
Applying standard mainstream economic theory (which is used throughout the book), the variables that affect people’s labor market behavior are the grant level and marginal tax rate. The higher the grant level and the higher the marginal tax rate, the lower the incentive to work whether the BIG is an NIT or a UBI. You can have an NIT or a UBI with high or low marginal tax rates and grant levels, and you can have a UBI or an NIT that have the same grant level and marginal tax rate. It is for this reason that Milton Friedman, the economist and champion of the NIT, gave for drawing equivalence between the two programs:
INTERVIEWER: “How do you evaluate the proposition of a basic or citizen´s income compared to the alternative of a negative income tax?”
FRIEDMAN: “A basic or citizen’s income is not an alternative to a negative income tax. It is simply another way to introduce a negative income tax”.
-Eduardo Suplicy, USBIG NewsFlash interview, June 2000, https://www.usbig.net/newsletters/june.html
If the book’s arguments for work incentives are sound, I seen an argument for a modest BIG with a low marginal tax rate, but I see no argument one way or another why the BIG should be under the NIT or the UBI model.
Whatever one thinks about the issue of NIT versus UBI, the book presents an extremely sophisticated and powerful argument for moving in the direction of BIG. Therefore, it is a book that anyone interested in any form of BIG should examine closely.
-Karl Widerquist, Cru Coffee House, Beaufort, North Carolina, June 2, 2014, revised June 14, 2014
Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee. The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2014. Audio edition: Grand Haven, Michigan: Brilliance Audio, 2014.
by Karl Widerquist | May 30, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published on Basic Income News in December 2012.
buy prograf online
prograf no prescription
This year Alaskans received a dividend of $878, not bad compared to all the other states, but this dividend is the smallest since 2005, and it is only the second time in more than 20 years that the dividend has been below $900 per person. Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) needlessly fluctuates widely. This year’s dividend is 25 percent smaller than last year’s dividend of $1,174, and it is 57 percent smaller than the 2008 record-high dividend of $2,069 (not counting the one-time supplement of $1200 that was added to that year’s dividend).
The declining dividend does not mean that the PFD is in trouble. Actually the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF), which financed the PFD, is at near-record high levels. It closed the 2011-2012 fiscal year at 40.3 billion dollars. The dividend was low this year because the state uses a complex formula averaging the returns over a five-year period to determine yearly returns. The five-year average was chosen to smooth out fluctuations in market returns to create a more stable dividend, but—as Alaskans can easily see—a five-year average is not enough to do that job. Markets tend to have stable long-term trends, but they can have occasionally large yearly fluctuations (either up or down) that can dwarf a five-year average. The mid-2000s market boom, and the 2008-2009 market bust were just such fluctuations. Now, several years later with the boom returns falling out of the calculations but the decline still in, the 2008 market bust affects the dividend the more than it did at the time.
There’s a better, more stable way to calculate the dividend. It’s called percentage of market value (POMV). Most financial managers agree that an individual can afford to withdraw up to 4 percent of a well-invested diversified portfolio and still expect it to grow in real terms over time.
If Alaska used this rule to calculate the PFD, this year’s dividend would have been $2,380. It would have been a record-high dividend, because the APF closed the fiscal year at a record-high level. Suppose then there was a major sell-off in the markets and the fund declined by 25% to $30 billion. The dividend would decline by 25% as well, to $1,846. Suppose instead it rose by 25% to $50 billion. The dividend would rise by 25% as well, to $3,076. Because 25% is an unusually large fluctuation, we can expect this to be an unusually large change in the dividend. Most often it would change by less than 10% from year to year, and in most years it would increase.
Perhaps Alaskans should be more conservative. The goal of the fund is not just to payout as much as possible. It is also to save for the future. The more the APFC pays out in dividends now, the slower the APF and the PFD will grow over the long term. So, perhaps a POMV rule of 3% would be better—a little more cautious—than the 4% rule. If so, payouts this year would have been $1860. Payouts after a 25% decline to $30 billion would be $1,395. Payouts after a rise to $50 billion would be $2325, and Alaska could expect to larger reinvestments by the APFC to help the APF get to $50 billion much more quickly.
POMV just makes sense. Nobody likes the big fluctuations. No one wants their dividend to be less than half of what it was a few years ago. POMV stabilizes dividends, making it easier for Alaskans to plan, and it can be part of a conservative payout strategy that will keep the fund growing over time.
-Karl Widerquist, Doha, Qatar, November 2012
by Guest Contributor | May 28, 2018 | Opinion
A step to a future of solidarity and sharing
For hundreds of thousands of years, men and women lived in tribal groups, practicing mutual cooperation and solidarity. In the present we live in capitalism, competing among ourselves, driven by individual ambitions to ‘have’. This is not doing us any good. However, we can see it as a painful but necessary civilizational phase, a means of developing the capacity to produce all that’s necessary for the material life of all. The age of capitalism has only lasted 200 years. A better future could be drawn with the re-establishment of an economy of solidarity between people. We propose a process of systematic, automatic and unconditional transfers of money between people, from those who have more to those who have less. We call it Unconditional Basic Income of All for All, or ‘UBI-AA’.
The Past – from Ancestral Economy to Capitalism
Human societies in which all men and women have lived on Earth since people here exist, and until the formation of the first sophisticated civilizations, were tribal groups. They functioned through cooperation and solidarity between their members in tasks such as obtaining and distributing food, building shelters and family dwellings or taking care of community assets; tasks that today we would call ‘economic’. In fact, over hundreds of thousands of years of human presence on Earth the whole economy was cooperative and supportive. And it was sustainable then.
After the emergence of the first sophisticated civilizations and empires – about 6,000 years ago – things began to change, and the forms of economic organization put into practice came to vary from then. Today, however, all the economic diversity that has existed over those 6,000 years is virtually nullified, and a unique model has once again consolidated. It is called capitalism, and it has been going on for about 200 years.
While the ancestral economic mode was based on solidarity and cooperation between people, on a harmony between them and nature and on an orientation towards the mere satisfaction of their needs, capitalism is characterized by competition among peers, by the predation of the Earth and by an orientation of its agents towards unlimited material accumulation. Both models are hegemonic, each in its own time. But that’s all they have in common; as for everything else, it is difficult to find more opposing realities.
Can, like its ancestral homologous form, also this present ‘state of the art’ in economic organization – capitalism – last for hundreds of thousands of years? It doesn’t seem possible, given the condition in which it left us humans, and the planet, after only 200 years. And yet, despite its deeply dark sides, an important merit can be attributed to capitalism: with the demand for accumulation and profit it gave us machinery, techniques and knowledge that can now allow us to have the resources for the material comfort of all. This is only a possibility and not inevitable because although these machines, techniques and knowledge give us the capacity, they alone do not guarantee that we will use it. However, capitalism cannot possibly make any sense in history unless the immense price it charged and still charges us eventually results in the actual extinction of the material scarcity from the face of the Earth. Only then will it be seen as a process of rising human civilization to a higher level, albeit with great suffering.
Thus, the great question of the present is how to accomplish the potential that capitalism offers us, to free ourselves from the ‘fatality’ of material scarcity. The simple progress of the economy, as we have it, does not seem to be the way. Reality shows us very clearly that the mere growth, without any change or innovation in the logic and processes of the present economy, will never raise the condition of all, although it may greatly improve it for some people. Neither the strengthening of the so-called welfare state, in its traditional, bureaucratic, expensive and life-controlling form, can do more than mitigate poverty. Traditional welfare will never eliminate poverty and it charges from its beneficiaries a price in dignity and in humanity that the more unnecessary it becomes, the more intolerable it gets.
No, capitalism does not inherently have a mechanism to guarantee essentials for all. Let us resurrect from our ancestral economic way its essential element: solidarity among people.
A Future – the UBI-AA
Solidarity among people is the essential idea of the alternative distribution model of the resources generated in society we will talk about here: the Unconditional Basic Income of All for All, or ‘UBI-AA’.
To show what it is and how it works we will turn here to an explanation given elsewhere:
The UBI-AA is a revenue redistribution process designed to operate monthly, providing automatic and unconditional transfers among citizens, from those who have higher incomes to those with low or no income at all. Built, supported and leveraged by them, the process will invite the participants to take responsibility and engage in their communities, which will reinforce them.
It works in two stages:
1) As it is acquired, each member of the community discounts to a common fund – a ‘UBI Fund’ – a proportion of their income, at a single and universal rate;
2) At the end of each month, the Fund’s accumulated total is equally and unconditionally distributed by all members of the same community.
This simple process of treating everyone equally puts those who in each moment have above-average incomes to deliver to the UBI Fund more than they receive from it, and those who have below-average incomes would receive more. Thus, the process operates a joint distribution between the participants of part of their individual incomes. In addition, to reduce inequalities between them, this solidarity between peers creates an unconditional guarantee of income for all, that is, an Unconditional Basic Income.
It follows from the action of the UBI-AA process the loss of available income by some and its gain by others. For those who lose money, it is important to limit the loss, while maximizing the gain for the rest to ensure broad acceptance of the policy.
The demand for this double result should not, however, mean a devaluation of the possibilities of mutability of all individual positions. With the passage of time and with the exercise of the options that the process itself will open to the participants, the situations of income “winners” or “losers”, in which each of them will at each moment be, should always be seen as circumstantial.
To make possible its intended effects, the implementation of the UBI-AA should be accompanied by the release of its participants from the burden of personal income tax. Such tax relief will compensate them for the contributory effort required by the UBI-AA process, although, for those above a certain level of income, such compensation may turn out to be merely partial.
Abolished the personal income tax, the moderation of loss for citizens with higher incomes and, at the same time, the material significance of the gains to those in the opposite condition, will be possible if the rate of contributions to the UBI Fund is set at an optimal level, balancing the two outcomes. [1]
A more complete description of the UBI-AA process, as well as a simulation of the financial effects it would have produced, both in individual citizen spheres and in the State budget, hypothesizing it in force in Portugal in 2012, can be seen here.
UBI-AA differs from most of the traditional redistributive processes in operation because it is unconditional; and from most of the unconditional alternative processes for being a construction of common citizens instead of the policy of a government, a central bank or any other ‘power’.
What is proposed with the UBI-AA is not directly the creation of an unconditional guarantee of income for all. The proposal is the institution of an alternative form of organization of the economy in its distributive side. This will be accomplished with the income distribution process described above; a process that will favor the rehabilitation of values such as solidarity and voluntary cooperation between people, and of which the creation of an unconditional guarantee of income for all will be a corollary.
We hope that may contribute to the flourishing of a new culture, less marked by the centrality of material goods. Who knows if making everybody’s access to essential material resources as simple as the possibility of breathing, will not end up instilling in us the same attitude towards those resources – money and things it buys – as that we have towards the air we inspire: no matter how valuable it may be to us, we do not quarrel with each other for it; we use the quantities we need. Accumulating it would no longer be necessary.
Such cultural shift would certainly be a great step forward for us, human beings, and very good news for Earth.
[1] This stretch is an English translation from Projeto de um RBI – Local – Solidário – Voluntário, [Project of an UBI – Local – Supportive – Voluntary], by Miguel Horta, 2017, available (in Portuguese) from: https://pt.scribd.com/document/341205904/Projecto-RBI-Local-V-2017.
Written by Miguel Horta
by Karl Widerquist | May 23, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published on Basic Income News in August 2012.
Last February two conservative commentators, Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs, from the Fox News Network, praised the Alaska Dividend as “a perfect Model” of what America should be doing with its resources. It is amazing that prominent conservatives can praise a policy that redistributes income from the wealthiest Americans to all Americans unconditionally—without means test or work requirement.
O’Reilly began by saying, “It is my contention that we, the people, own the gas and oil discovered in America. It’s our land, and the government administers it in our name.”
Later, Dobbs added (as O’Reilly nodded and voiced agreement), “All of the vast energy reserves in this country belong to us, as you said. In Alaska, there’s a perfect model for what we should do as a nation. We should have—what it’s called there is a Permanent Trust. Let’s call it the American Trust. And the oil companies, that pay about $10 billion per year in fees and royalties—have that money go into this trust fund, not to be touched by the Treasury Department or any other federal agency, but simply for the investment on behalf of the American people (citizens). A couple things happen. One is, it reminds people whose oil this is, whose coal this is, and what the rights of an American citizen are. And it even puts a little money, a little dollar sign, next to what it’s worth to be a citizen. Have dividends disbursed and distributed every year. … [The other thing is] Peg [the royalties] to the price of gasoline … and that money go into that trust fund for the American people. I think you’d see a lot of people start to pay a little different attention to what people think and respect citizens a little more.”
It was a very good statement of what the Alaska model is for and how it ought to work.
But I doubt the two commentators realize how subversive their words were. If the government realized that the land belongs to all the people and truly began to administer it for everyone’s benefit, many changes would happen. If all the oil, coal, and natural gas of America belong to all Americans equally and unconditionally, so do all the gold, silver, bauxite, fish, timber, land, and groundwater. So do the atmosphere, the broadcast spectrum, and many other things worth an awful lot of money. If everybody who asserted private ownership of any of these things had to pay into the kind of public trust fund O’Reilly and Dobbs endorse, that fund would finance the most massive redistribution of wealth from rich to poor in the history of the United States (if not the world), and it could probably support a basic income large enough to permanently end poverty in America.
-Karl Widerquist, South Bend, Indiana, August 2012
Video of Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs discussing the Alaska fund and dividend is online at: https://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/1472237953001/government-
For more on the Alaska model, including cost estimates of the potential value of the natural resources the government gives away for free see the following two books:
Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its Suitability as a Model, co-edited by Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard (Palgrave-MacMillan, 2012):
https://us.macmillan.com/book.aspx?isbn=9780230112070
Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform around the World, co-edited by Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard (Palgrave-MacMillan, 2012)
https://us.macmillan.com/book.aspx?isbn=9781137006592
Or contact me: Karl Widerquist <Karl@widerquist.com>
by Michael Lewis | May 18, 2018 | Opinion
Facebook and Economic Security Project (ESP) co-founder, Chris Hughes has a new book out. Called Fair Shot: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn, the book is part memoir, part policy proposal. The memoir chronicles Hughes’ childhood growing up in a North Carolina working class family, his school days, including four years at Harvard, his co-founding of Facebook, his failure as owner of the New Republic, and his efforts trying to figure out how best to give away his new-found fortune. The things Hughes learned during this thirty-year journey led to the policy proposal part of the book.
Hughes advocates what he calls a guaranteed income (GI) and is clear about how his proposal differs from a universal basic income (UBI). A UBI would periodically provide everyone with a certain amount of money without any means-test or work requirement. Hughes’ guaranteed income proposal has two provisions which distinguish it from a UBI: it is means-tested and it does have a work requirement. His idea is that we should provide every adult living in a household with an income of less than $50,000 a year a guaranteed income of $500 per month. So if Tara and Willow were a couple with a household income of $45,000 per year, each would each receive $500 per month. Thus, each would end up with $6,000 per year or $12,000 per year for the two of them. If Buffy and Angel had a household income of $60,000 per year, they would be ineligible for the program.
One reason Hughes is so interested in distinguishing his proposal from UBI is that he believes UBI has become too associated with automation. That is, the most frequently heard argument for UBI is that as robots and automation destroy jobs, we will need to reorganize society so people will be able to get their needs meet without having to sell their labor. Hughes rightly points out that there is a fair degree of debate about the extent to which jobs will be destroyed and, therefore, the extent to which concern about automation is a compelling enough reason to advocate UBI. Hughes also rightly reminds us that whether or not automation will destroy all, most, or whatever number of jobs; the job market is already unstable enough for there to be a need now for a policy that promotes economic security. And he believes his GI proposal is that policy.
As an “old timer” in the basic income “movement” I feel obligated to point out that UBI was discussed long before folks in Silicon Valley were paying attention. And many of those discussions had little to do with robots or automation. Thus a name change, from UBI to GI, is not necessary to suggest there may be reasons to support UBI other than worries about robots taking our jobs. But here we get to the crux of the matter: Hughes’ proposal does not appear to be just a name change but a different policy altogether. As I said above, GI would not be universal and would not be granted to those who are not working. The means–tested nature of GI is clear: those in households with incomes under $50,000 per year would get it, while those in households with higher incomes would not. I’m not a fan of this aspect of Hughes’ proposal, but, for the purposes of this essay, I’m going to set this aside. The work conditioned nature of Hughes’ proposal is less clear. This is what I want to focus on in the rest of the essay.
Even though Hughes’ GI would require people to work in order to receive it, however it does not have to be wage-work. That is, Hughes is willing to expand the definition of “work” to include care work, such as uncompensated child and elder care, as well as studying for a formal degree or training programs. So someone caring for their child or studying for a B.A. would be considered a worker and, therefore, eligible for the benefit, as long as their income was under $50,000 per year.
Hughes places such emphasis on work because he believes it is good for us; he tells us that it makes us, “happier, healthier, and more fulfilled” (p. 103).
As I was reading this discussion of the problems faced by the unemployed, I found myself wondering how much stem from an inability to find something fulfilling to do and how much from stigma. I do not think it is unfair to say that our society denigrates people whom we think can work but choose not to.
But let’s say Hughes is right and people do feel more fulfilled if they engage in wage work. Let’s say that engaging in wage work makes us less prone to depression, irritability, and insomnia. Going to college or caring for one’s kids is not wage work. So what do studies showing we are less prone to psychological and physical problems when we engage in wage work have to do with the kinds of non-wage work Hughes wants to compensate with his GI? I suspect it’s fulfilling, at least some of the time, to take care of one’s kids or to attend college. Is this why care takers and students, along with wage workers, should be compensated with a GI? But if something being fulfilling is sufficient to warrant compensation, why stop at wage work, care work, or going to school? People do all kinds of things, besides these three, they find fulfilling. Why not give them a GI too?
On page 92 of his book, Hughes says that, “everyone who contributes to their community” should receive a GI. It seems that engaging in something fulfilling is not what warrants receipt of a GI — making some social contribution does. This raises the question of whether being a wage worker, care taker, or student are the only ways to contribute to one’s community. Hughes’ answer seems to be “no.” On page 112, he argues for a more expansive definition of “work” which would include not just wage work, care work, and studying but also community service, religious service, and artistic work.
Here I found myself wondering how far Hughes is willing to go. That is, how expansive a definition of “work” does he want? The more expansive his definition becomes, the more fuzzy the distinction between GI and UBI (the unconditional part) becomes. To see what I’m getting at consider the following example.
In downtown Manhattan, there’s a famous, at least among many basketball lovers, outdoor basketball court on 4th Street and 6th Avenue. Basketball, in a sense, is a very communal game. A person may shoot jump shots all by themselves. But to play a full-court pick-up game requires ten people. So if someone decides to play, even for the “selfish” reason that they get fulfillment from it, they benefit the other nine players as well, simply by making the game possible. Now the folks who play at this Manhattan court are quite good. Many of us who’ve seen games at this court think it’s some of the best pick-up basketball we have ever witnessed. In fact, the quality of games at this court is so high, that large crowds of people usually gather just to watch the action. Presumably, these spectators get a great deal of enjoyment from watching these folks try to get the “ball in the hole.” Now here’s the question: are the players at this court, simply by playing, making a social contribution? They are not doing wage work, care work, art work, or religious service. Are they doing community work? If Hughes’ GI were enacted and all these players were from households with incomes of less than $50,000 per year, should they receive it?
Another way to get at the question above is this: under an expanded definition of work what would not qualify as work? If it turned out that anything done during one’s waking hours was work, then the difference between GI and the unconditional part of UBI would simply be semantic. Hughes could respond that semantic distinctions are not “merely semantic.”
In a society where work is a fundamental value it may be necessary to call something work, as well as convince others that it is, in order to give the person engaged in that activity a guaranteed income. This is a response I would agree with. But I would add that the importance of semantics cuts both ways.
Requiring an activity to be considered work before the person engaged in it can receive income support is also sending the semantic, or symbolic, message that only working people deserve economic security. I can understand why we might want to do this in a hunter-gatherer society where all are living on the brink of starvation. But do we really need to in the richest society the world has even known? Consider something that may at first appear unrelated.
The U.S. currently imprisons about 1.5 million people. Anyone familiar with the U.S criminal justice system is aware that our prison population is, arguably, one of the most despised groups of people in the nation. Yet we grant all these prisoners a right to food. Prison life is no doubt hard. And we certainly do not feed incarcerated people the best food possible. But we do feed them, and I suspect anyone who proposed that we stop doing so would not get very far. Now here’s a question: is refusing to make a social contribution worse than the most serious violent crimes we have imprisoned some people for committing? If not, why propose a policy which sends the semantic message that non-working people do not deserve income support, income that could help them obtain food, as well as meet other basic needs? Why send a semantic message which implicitly amounts to the claim that non-working people are worse than some of our most violent prisoners?
To anticipate a possible misunderstanding, I am not claiming that non-working people are better than some of our most violent prisoners. My point is simply that if all prisoners have a right to subsistence, why not grant non-working people that same right? Prisoners, non-working people, and all the rest of us are human beings in need of food and other means of subsistence. A UBI, at the semantic level at which I am speaking, acknowledges this. Hughes’ GI proposal does not.
Thanks to Chris Hughes for his very helpful comments on this piece. Any mistakes or errors are, of course, my responsibility alone.
About the author:
Michael A. Lewis is a social worker and sociologist by training whose areas of interest are public policy and quantitative methods. He’s also a co-founder of USBIG and has written a number of articles, book chapters, and other pieces on the basic income, including the co-edited work The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee. Lewis is on the faculties of the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College and the Graduate and University Center of the City University of New York.
by Karl Widerquist | May 17, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This summer and fall I’ll give at least ten talks in seven cities in six countries including the United States, Canada, France, Scotland, Finland, and Lithuania. Here’s the information I have on each talk so far:
Friday, May 18, to Sunday, May 20, 2018, keynote speaker at “New Directions in Basic Income Workshop,” the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, presenting “The Devil’s in the Caveats: A Critical Discussion of Basic Income Experiments,” Sunday, 1:00 – 2:30pm.
Thursday, May 24, to Sunday, May 27, 2018, participant at “North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress,” McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, presenting “The Devil’s in the Caveats: A Critical Discussion of Basic Income Experiments,” Saturday 10:30 – 12:00pm, Room 1305/07.
Wednesday, June 13, Paris, France. Guest speaker at Science Po, presenting “Freedom as the Power to Say No.” Details TBA
Thursday, June 14, to Saturday, June 16, 2018, participant at “The Economic Ethics Network Conference.” Invitation only. University of Paris, presenting “Justice as the Pursuit of Accord.”
Sunday, June 17, Talk to Basic Income Activists on “Basic Income’s Third Wave,” Paris, France, details TBA
Monday, June 18, 3 to 5pm, guest speaker presenting “Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy,” Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), Paris, France
Friday, July 20, 2018, presenting “A Critical Discussion of Basic Income Experiments: The Devil’s in the Caveats,” Glasgow, Scotland
Friday, August 24 to Sunday, August 26, 2018, participant at Basic Income Earth Network Congress, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland, presenting “Microsimulation Analysis of the Cost of Basic Income in the United Kingdom” (joint presentation with Georg Arndt).
Thursday, August 30, to Saturday, September 1, 2018, participant European Network for Social Policy Analysis Conference, Institute of Sociology and Social Work, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, presenting “Basic Income’s Third Wave.”
Thursday, October 18, to Saturday, October 20, 2018, participant at Association for Political Theory, Haverford and Bryn Mawr Colleges, Pennsylvania, presenting, “The Prehistory of Private Property, Part 1: The Myth of Appropriation.”
