by Guest Contributor | Mar 17, 2017 | Opinion
Article 25 and Basic Income: The perfect match
Most of us are aware of the problems we are collectively facing: environmental issues, job losses or job insecurity, homelessness, increased violence, terrorism, an immigration and refugee crisis, overpopulation, poverty and famine.
What hardly anyone is talking about is that we are all connected, and as much as we may have separated ourselves by nationality, religion, cast, political parties etc., the fact remains that we are one humanity or, as some describe, “one human family”. The planet provides for all of us without making a distinction – food, water, air, oceans and land – our commons. Yet we have managed to privatize these essential resources for only one purpose: to make money and profit, thus determining who should have access and who should go without.
Humanity has become so complacent over the last few decades that 18 million people are dying every year in a world of abundance. They have become the forgotten people as we have normalized their plight in our minds, often with the words “poverty has always existed, it’s nothing new”. Yet that poverty is steadily growing in many countries, with more impoverished famines in the developing world and increased homelessness and foodbanks across the West. We don’t hear much of those either, unless we ourselves are affected. Yet these deprivations are directly connected to increased violence, immigration, a degrading environment, homelessness and overpopulation.
So, what is the answer? Demanding Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a Global Basic Income could be the solution we are looking for, as they go hand in hand.
On December 10. 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including Article 25 on the right to an adequate standard of living:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Sadly, Article 25 has never been implemented globally through appropriate government interventions and redistributive measures, but if it were, it would finally end poverty and create hope for millions of people for the first time. An Unconditional Basic Income, a periodic cash payment delivered to all on an individual basis to cover basic needs, would also be essential, because it will help make it all possible. It will finally guarantee the universal realization of Article 25.
Basic income is already widely debated around the world within some countries, such as Finland, Spain, Canada, Holland and Scotland having trial projects. Peter Bevan Baker of the Green Party on Prince Edward Island, Canada, stated positive effects of an Unconditional Basic Income that include: “Local economic growth, supporting entrepreneurship, reducing administrative, complexity and costs, improving working conditions, reducing crime, improving health, and helping to build vibrant rural communities” (source).
However, some free market thinkers argue for a fixed (basic income) amount per person in favor of scrapping all other social services, like unemployment benefits and housing benefits. Their argument is that it will save the government a lot of time and money in determining who qualifies for welfare and who does not. This might be an incentive for politicians, but at the same time it might worsen the situation of relatively disadvantaged, vulnerable, or lower-income people. Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), at last years General Assembly in Seoul, stated that it should not replace the compensatory welfare state, but rather complete and transform it into an emancipatory welfare system. Unconditional Basic Income Europe (UBIE) agrees with that statement, and both organizations advocate that there should be no means testing, but a guaranteed monthly or annual payment given to all.
In this way, a basic income is an emancipatory policy and will help us to strengthen democracy. The word ‘democracy’ originally comes from Ancient Greece and means ‘power of the people’. Unfortunately, this type of democracy does not exist anywhere in the world, but to get closer to this ideal, everyone on the planet should have a minimum degree of economic freedom to be able to choose how they want to live their own lives. It is the hope for every human being, given the social transformations it will unleash by enabling all people to plan for a secure future.
Of course, for an Unconditional Basic Income to work for everyone, the different living conditions of people around the world need to be considered. Some people live in dire poverty, with no roof over their head and no idea where their next meal is coming from. A small monthly income might make life a bit easier, but it will not be enough to lift them out of poverty once and for all. There is a growing sense of a new consciousness or awareness that we cannot separate ourselves from the cries of our brothers and sisters, no matter where they are in the world. Unconditional Basic Income was originally discussed only on national levels, but has since expanded in view to a global level, to include the most marginalized people.
What should also be taken into account is that most countries outside Europe do not have a comprehensive welfare system in place. This is another reason why many economic migrants are seeking a livelihood in Western Europe, where they would have the right to free medical treatments, housing and other benefits. If they had these basic social services guaranteed at home, they may never leave. Also, many developing countries do not have an adequate tax system in place to offer a functioning welfare system. Even with overseas aid going to many of these countries, the money flowing out to the more affluent parts of the world is usually much greater than the original donations given.
If it is not large corporations that harm these countries through illicit activity and profit repatriation, then it is often corruption at the highest level. Nigeria for example has a tremendous wealth of oil and minerals. Here the government officials live like kings, yet their people are one of the poorest in the world, with millions now facing the prospect of famine. Let us also not forget the numerous tax havens that many big companies use, which is equivalent to any other form of corruption. In all cases, money and resources is effectively stolen from the people that are in most dire need of it.
The list of corruption and exploitation goes on, endlessly. For all of these reasons, we urgently need to demand the human rights of Article 25 for everyone in the world, which is the key that will open the door to a truly Global Basic Income. Firstly, we must ensure that everyone has their basic needs covered, which means adequate housing, food, medicines etc., and an Unconditional Basic Income will safeguard the rest.
Over time, the guaranteeing of Article 25 and a basic income will mean that the world population will eventually stabilize, and people will no longer need to immigrate on a mass scale. Even the environment may be less exploited when illicit practices like poaching and sales of rare timber become much less common, or stop completely, as this has often been the only means for some poor people or villages to make a livelihood.
If enough people demand the full realization of Article 25, there will also be a huge knock-on effect on the wars that are everywhere being waged, as government spending must first cover the needs of its people before it can further invest in armaments.
Furthermore, food speculation must stop, as instead all countries work together to finally distribute the food to where it is most needed. For too long has food been used as a commodity in the financial sector, where it is often left to rot in the store houses of the West to increase its market value.
Pharmaceuticals will also have to change their profit-orientated ways of doing business, if we want to guarantee free or cheap healthcare for all citizens of this world.
The founder of Share The World’s Resources, Mohammed Mesbahi, has described in a new book how these drastic changes in government priorities can be brought about. In ‘Heralding Article 25: A people’s strategy for world transformation’, he writes that if we are waiting for our governments to do the job for us, we will be waiting for eternity, while most social and environmental trends are getting worse. Our only hope is to join together with millions of ordinary people in huge, continuous protests on a world-wide scale to demand from our governments the immediate implementation of Article 25, with the United Nations as the governing body to oversee and the organizational logistics.
For many people, such a plan of action may sound far too simple and even naïve, considering the complexity of political issues today. Yet there is nothing complicated about the fact that there is more food in the world than is needed, and yet people are dying of hunger. Governments all over the world are not serving their people, but instead they facilitate the profit interests of multinational corporations, which in turn exploit us. The only way to reverse this systemic injustice is through the people of the world uniting under the banner of Article 25. Not against capitalism or ‘the system’, which has also led us nowhere in the past, but through a simple demand for everyone’s right to a dignified life.
Of itself, an Unconditional Basic Income will not be sufficient to achieve an end to poverty. The hollow promise of economic growth and more jobs will also never work. The one ingredient that will make it possible is countless numbers of people rising up in peaceful protest with an engaged heart, and not just the intellect, for anything else will be short lived.
There are many groups that are doing tremendous good work for people and planet, and that should and must continue. But if we could unite even once a week and raise our voices for governments to implement Article 25 and a Global Basic Income, then we might start seeing some real changes.
By Sonja Scherndl and Anja Askeland
by Andre Coelho | Mar 15, 2017 | Opinion
A debate has arisen about the definition of basic income and the facts that support the movement. To contribute my input to the debate, I feel the need to respond, line by line, to Francine Mestrum’s latest article published on Social Europe.
It starts right at the top, with Mestrum equating basic income, professed in the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) Newsletter articles, with guaranteed minimum income. To justify this approach, she mentions the fact that no basic income has ever been implemented, and that the pilots concerned transferred cash only to poor people. Although her view is understandable, she fails to see that these pilots intended to test the outcome of a basic income implementation (which effectively transfers income from the relatively richer to the relatively poorer). It’s not that in a future basic income implementation rich people will not get it (as opposed to the Negative Income Tax approach); universality implies they also get it, but then all of the basic income and more is taken away
, through taxation. That’s redistribution functioning.
We already see that in our current welfare states, but in twisted, unfair and inefficient ways. The conditionalities associated with present-day social security are creating poverty traps all around, so the unconditionality associated with basic income is intended to eliminate them. However, and as a matter of fact, her reference to the Canadian basic income experiment
at Dauphin is misplaced, since Dauphin was actually an experimental saturation site, which means that everyone in the town was eligible for the cash. The income monitoring and distribution simulated the taxation effect (only positive transfers for the relatively poor).
Then, Mestrum goes on to say that current basic income experimental plans in the Netherlands, Finland and Scotland “can threaten social protection mechanisms”. Well, we in the basic income movement have already heard enough about the possibility of basic income being highjacked by right-wing neo-liberals threatening to dismantle social protection mechanisms (and much more) with the introduction of a basic income. I can hear them say, between the lines: “Here’s free money to everyone! Now get out of our faces and let us dismantle everything in existence publicly owned or managed.” Of course there’s a risk. I’m not denying it. However, any person who is aware will not be fooled by such intentions. I, among many other basic income defenders (most of them, actually), support a basic income which is complementary to the welfare state, not a substitution for it. Louise Haagh makes a very good case for this defense, as expressed here.
Then the questions. According to Francine, the only serious questions worth answering on basic income are whether income distribution schemes, like in Alaska, should be limited to resource-rich regions, and whether there shouldn’t be a global fund (linked to resources from all regions) to cover global needs. These are important questions, no doubt. But hardly the only serious ones. How about, “Should not all people enjoy a minimum amount of freedom in their lives, instead of being pressured and exploited all the time?”, or “Should not countries and their governments make efforts to reduce structural inequalities, which are seen as the source for countless social problems?”, or even “Should not countries introduce a way to guarantee basic financial security for all, as a way to effectively deal with the changing nature of work, precariousness and automation?”. My view is that Francine Mestrum nurtures a very narrow view on what is and what is not meant to be a basic income.
As for semantics, notably the “basic income” vs “minimum income” discussion in France, I do have not much to say. However, if we limit ourselves to a pure language discussion, note that “basic income” can mean anything from the most abject dictatorial sanctions-based system (as in present-day United Kingdom) of social assistance, to the most progressive, avant-garde unconditional system of cash transfers. Once each one of us explains what he/she understands these terms to be, there should be no confusion left.
Next, Mestrum identifies BIEN as a source of the problem, to be held responsible for these disputes in language (which she inelegantly calls “communicating on alternative facts”). This is unfair. More precisely, it is unfair because it stems from a misunderstanding of the mission of BI News. BIEN’s Newsletter is a collection of articles from Basic Income News for a given month. These articles convey information about what is happening around the world concerning basic income, and an article about the alleged confusion between “basic income” and “minimum income” would actually be a good candidate for Basic Income News. Articles can report news from someone defending basic income, or somebody else critiquing it (as Francine Mestrum does). Events and other publications on the Internet are also frequently highlighted byBasic Income News. What is posted on Basic Income News does not necessarily convey BIEN’s views on basic income. Instead, for that end, a short, general definition is available on BIEN’s website. There can be absolutely no mistake here.
Another thing has to be perfectly clear. As a BIEN member, and Basic Income News editor-in-chief, my role is not to speak for the minds of other people, even when they are confusing “basic income” with “minimum income”. Basic Income News is expected to be an impartial news service, aiming nonetheless to disseminate information about basic income. Interested readers will take their time to digest all this information, to think and to draw their own conclusions. Here I resort to a line I normally use in these situations: no one convinces no one, only the individual becomes self-convinced. Now, for that, of course, one must be in possession of enough information. And that’s where we, at Basic Income News, step in.
Understandably, Francine Mestrum has a deep rooted fear that basic income implementation will lead to the collapse of the welfare state and, with it, all the hard won social conquests, such as public education and public health and, of course, democracy. We are all too weary of the effects of the rentier capitalist economy thriving these days, chief among them the erosion of democracy. But Francine’s fears are not against basic income. These are against, as she herself puts it, “those who do not believe in society”. And that’s why all true defenders of a social basic income, the one that promotes solidarity, complements the welfare state and recognises the commons, must do exactly that: promote solidarity, defend the welfare state (while improving it) and help expand the commons.
Otherwise, I must agree with Francine: our society will inevitably decay into a dystopia of unbelievable proportions, destruction of the environment and exploitation of the people.
More information at:
Francine Mestrum, “The alternative facts of the basic income movement”, Social Europe, 16th February 2017
by Guest Contributor | Mar 10, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Rahul Basu
It is often argued that the existing system of benefits is riddled with flaws, and a universal basic income would be preferable. Arguments made include the high cost of administration, the errors of exclusion (target group not receiving the benefit), the errors of inclusion (people wrongly receiving the benefit), corruption, and the cost of access for the beneficiary, which includes time, effort, and suffering degradation at the hand of bureaucracy. What this explanation doesn’t specify is under what conditions is targeting preferable, and when is universalization better?
Let’s take a simple model to examine some scenarios. Assume that a country has 1,000 residents and a per capita income of $50,000. It pays a benefit to 200 people, 20% of its population. The benefit (say free food) for each person is $5,000, 10% of the average income of the country. This would cost 2% of the GDP:
| Population x Average income |
= Total income of country (GDP) |
| 1,000 x $50,000 |
= $50,000,000 or $50 million |
| 20% of Population x 10% of Average income |
= (20% x 10%) of Total income of country = 2% |
| 200 x $5,000 |
= $1,000,000 = $1 million = 2% of $50 million |
For the moment, let’s assume no administration costs or costs of access. Let’s also assume that 80 people (40% of the target group) do not receive the benefits, and instead the same number of people outside the target group wrongly receive the benefit. And everyone receives the full amount or nothing at all. Therefore, the scheme is correctly benefiting only 120 people (12% of the population (40% x 20% or 120/1,000)), and only $600,000 or 60% of the money is well spent (1.2% of GDP (60% x 2% or $0.6 million / $1.0 million)).
Suppose we withdraw this benefit and universalize it. Then each person in the country will receive a benefit of $1,000 or 2% of average income ($1 million / 1,000 or $1 million / $50 million). If we examine individual scenarios, we can draw up the following table:
| |
Benefit |
UBI |
Difference |
Pop |
Total |
| Beneficiaries |
$5,000 |
$1,000 |
-$4,000 |
120 |
-$480,000 |
| Excluded group |
$0 |
$1,000 |
$1,000 |
80 |
$80,000 |
| Wrongly inclusion |
$5,000 |
$1,000 |
-$4,000 |
80 |
-$320,000 |
| Remaining |
$0 |
$1,000 |
$1,000 |
720 |
$720,000 |
| Total |
|
|
|
1,000 |
$0 |
A few things jump out. More beneficiaries have lost (120) compared to those who have gained (80). The total amount going to the beneficiary group is now $200,000, a reduction of $400,000. Further, no beneficiary is receiving the full $5,000. And while 80 individuals correctly suffer a reduction in undeserved benefits, another 720 outside the beneficiary group are receiving $1,000.
The other aspect to consider is political. While everyone is receiving the same amount, 720 of the 800 net beneficiaries of the UBI are probably not strongly concerned by a 2% increase in income. However, the losers, while only 200, are more highly motivated to defend the benefit, as it is proportionately a greater loss. Further, the 120 rightful beneficiaries are likely to have below average income. This is the central political challenge in universalizing existing benefits.
Under what scenario would the errors be large enough for universalization to make sense? One basic threshold could be set at where the total money going to the target beneficiary group does not diminish. Under what circumstances does this occur?
Let the target group be T% of the population and the proportion correctly included under the benefit is C% of the target group. In this situation, when T% = C%, the total amount received by beneficiaries will be the same under the benefit and universalization. In other words, the proportion of the target group to the population is the same as the proportion of those receiving benefits to the target group.
Let’s examine our earlier example of a benefit of 10% of average income to 20% of the population. If only 20% of the target group is receiving the benefit (20% of 200 = 40), then universalization will keep the total amount received by the target group constant.
| |
Benefit |
UBI |
Difference |
Pop |
Total |
| Beneficiaries |
$5,000 |
$1,000 |
-$4,000 |
40 |
-$160,000 |
| Excluded group |
$0 |
$1,000 |
$1,000 |
160 |
$160,000 |
| Wrongly inclusion |
$5,000 |
$1,000 |
-$4,000 |
160 |
-$640,000 |
| Remaining |
$0 |
$1,000 |
$1,000 |
640 |
$640,000 |
| Total |
|
|
|
1,000 |
$0 |
This is a fairly strong condition. If 30% of the population benefits, universalization makes sense if less than 30% of the benefit amount is actually received by the beneficiaries. In other words, 70% is stolen, or the cost of access is high. Such poor implementation is unlikely to be found in any developed economy for a significant benefit. It may be possible to find such benefits in developing countries where the corruption may be high, and cost of access may be significant for some groups.
The essential result doesn’t change even if we assume that beneficiaries receive a part of the benefit (due to corruption or cost of access issues). In order to achieve the same total amount received by beneficiaries under universalization, the ratio of net amount received by beneficiaries to the total entitlement / spend should be equal or less than the ratio of beneficiaries to the population.
To take a simplified real life example, the Economic Survey of the Government of India discusses the desirability and feasibility of a UBI in depth. Appendix 2 of Chapter 9 estimates for the flagship Public Distribution Scheme (PDS), 36% was lost to corruption, 36% to the non-beneficiary group and 28% to the target group. It further estimates that 60% of the target group are receiving benefits, and that the target group is 40% of the population. Only 28% of the budget is being received by the target group of 40% of the population. Clearly, a UBI (which eliminates corruption as well), would ensure that 40% of the budget is received by 40% of the population that needs it most, which would be an improvement on the status quo. This assumes the budget is kept proportionate and numerous other considerations have been set aside (the entire food supply chain for example).
While these are examples, they bring out clearly the extreme inefficiency and corruption required to make substituting a benefit for a UBI a net positive for the target beneficiaries. There are other considerations of course.
Iran replaced its enormous fuel subsidy
online pharmacy
orlistat no prescription pharmacy
, which was largely benefiting the rich and industry, with a UBI of a lower aggregate amount. Similar subsidies that have been captured by the rich can be a fertile ground for such structures. The carbon tax + dividend proposal is one on similar lines. By not pricing carbon emissions, the rich are being provided a benefit by the state. A carbon tax eliminates the benefit, while the dividend universalizes it.
Advocates for replacing targeted benefits with a UBI have a high standard to meet, and must demonstrate that there is a net benefit from universalization of existing benefits.
About the author: Rahul Basu is a member of the Goenchi Mati Movement, which asks for minerals to be treated as a shared inheritance. Mining is the sale of the family gold. For fair mining, there must be zero loss mining, saving all mineral money in a permanent fund, and distribute the real income only as Citizens’ Dividend.
by Michael Lewis | Mar 4, 2017 | Opinion
Michael A. Lewis
Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College
In “Why a Universal Basic Income is a Poor Substitute for a Guaranteed Job,” Claire Connelly praises guaranteeing people a right to a job as opposed to guaranteeing them a right to an income. I’ve been involved in quite a few discussions, some of them debates, about the relative merits of basic income versus guaranteed jobs proposals. My position has always been that I have no problem, in principle, with guaranteeing someone a job. If guaranteeing jobs and an unconditional basic income were both financially and politically feasible, I’d be a proponent of both. But if I had to choose one of these policies over the other, I’d prefer the basic income. This is because I think guaranteeing people access to the resources they need to survive has priority over guaranteeing them the right to sell their labor. This, however, isn’t the debate I want to have here. What I want to do, instead, is raise a question about guaranteed jobs proposals: what would it really mean to guarantee someone a job? If those arguing that automation will result in a net loss of jobs for human beings are right, this question becomes especially salient.
Let me start by framing the question more precisely: under what conditions would the government, in its employer of last resort role, hire people? Connelly seems to be supporting the idea of government serving as a buffer stock mechanism. That is, it would step in to hire labor when private sector demand was low and, presumably, step aside when such demand was high. This would put a floor under the price of labor because private sector employers couldn’t, during economic downturns, use the threat of unemployment to get workers to accept lower wages.
As many readers of this site are no doubt aware, some have argued that automation is increasing rapidly and will only continue to do so. Now I’m no expert in this area. So I don’t know if these folks are right that we’re on the path to seeing robots take our jobs. But if they are, this would seem to cause a problem for the buffer stock idea.
The buffer stock approach seems based on a model of the economy where unemployment is due to periodic downturns. The public sector steps in to absorb the resulting labor surplus, but this is meant to be temporary. Once the economy starts growing again, and unemployment declines, public sector employment can contract, as those who worked in the public sector are absorbed by the private one. But automation isn’t supposed to work like that. Instead, there is a steady, but permanent, decline in many types of work as machines take our jobs. I know there’s a huge debate about whether other types of jobs will develop to replace the one’s lost to robots: but suppose such replacement doesn’t happen. Perhaps it’s premature to do so, but I wonder if guaranteed jobs proponents have thought about how their guaranteed jobs plan would work in such an environment. Would government indefinitely hire all those who’ve lost their jobs to machines?
by Michael Lewis | Feb 28, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Michael A. Lewis
Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College and the CUNY Graduate Center
When I first became interested in the basic income, I was a graduate student studying welfare reform. For those who aren’t in the know, “welfare” is the more common name used in the U.S. to refer to a program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and which used to be called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). TANF and AFDC aren’t exactly the same programs, but they do have some key things in common: they provide financial support to low income persons, most of those who receive such support are women and children, and, I think it’s fair to say, both programs are somewhat controversial.
The controversy around welfare has to do with the fact that many of those who receive benefits are apparently “able-bodied” persons who’re thought capable of working (“working” in this context means selling one’s labor in return for a wage, instead of, say, taking care of one’s children, something many would regard as work). Yet not enough of those on welfare are working, according to a common belief among many U.S. citizens/residents as well as, apparently, politicians. So in an attempt to socialize welfare beneficiaries into understanding the importance of work, many of them are required to work in return for their benefits, a practice commonly called “workfare.” Many also remain poor, even after receiving benefits, because the financial support they receive is pretty meager.
As a graduate student, I thought workfare, as well as the low level of benefits provided to recipients was a very unjust way of assisting poor persons; I also thought we could do better (in fact, I still think these things). My entry into the world of basic income was because I believed it a more just way of addressing poverty than welfare and related programs.
Once I started studying basic income and meeting others interested in the idea, I heard other justifications for it. It would enhance freedom, it would allow people to engage in care work if they so choose, it would give people an income representing their share of commonly owned natural resources, it would be a way of replacing some or all of the welfare state (which, of course, assumes there is something wrong with the current system), etc. But the argument that seems to have caught on the most, at least in the U.S., is the idea that a basic income will become necessary as robots/machines take our jobs.
I have to admit that part of me has been a bit concerned about the degree to which the automation argument seems to dominate basic income discussions. My worry is that as we spend so much time debating who’s right about whether robots will take most, or perhaps all, of our jobs and, therefore, whether there’ll be a need for a basic income, other arguments for such a policy get “crowded out” of the discussion. Yet as I’ve voiced this concern, mainly to myself, I’ve also wondered why this argument for a basic income seems to have caught on in a way that others haven’t?
I think part of the answer has to do with where I started—U.S. citizens/residents worry a lot about the degree to which healthy people work to take care of themselves (and their families) and are quite skeptical about policies they believe will allow people to shirk this responsibility. But I think another part of the answer has to do with the role of race in our society. I suspect that in the minds of many citizens/residents the degree to which a basic income would allow people to shirk their obligations to work would vary by race. To put it bluntly, I suspect many assume that black and brown people would be more likely to shirk this responsibility than whites would be. If I’m right about all this, then perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that the U.S. isn’t naturally the most fertile place for the basic income idea to take hold. But why would it take hold in the form of the automation argument? I think the answer here might be pretty simple. If machines are about to take all our jobs, then automation represents a relatively indiscriminant force. That is, “hard working white people” might be threatened just as much as “lazy shiftless brown ones” are. Perhaps this has been enough to get white folks to take notice of a policy that perhaps could address the problem.
About the author:
online pharmacy
premarin no prescription pharmacy
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 Pierre Madden | Feb 24, 2017 | Opinion
Translated from a series of French fictional stories based on the basic income: https://revenudebase.quebec/histoires/ (in French)
Written by the Revenu de Base Quebec Team
Translated by Pierre Madden
Notice
These stories are fiction. Let’s face it, Basic Income is not yet a reality anywhere (with the exception of Alaska), only a promising proposal, tested successfully on a small scale. While any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental, the situations described do resemble what real people experience every day and illustrate how Basic Income can work in practice and what impact it can have on peoples’ lives.
1. Mady and her family
Her name is really Madelyn. Everyone calls her Mady. 57 years old and recently widowed, her husband’s long illness forced her to cut her work hours in half. She was on the edge of bankruptcy. Things are better now that she is back to full-time. Going through something like bankruptcy can be tough on a person, that is why there are steps in place to help them through this with assistance like a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Attorney Milwaukee firm or a firm within their area, that can stop foreclosures and repossessions of property. Luckily Mady didn’t get to this stage.
Her youngest, Samuel, born just before it was too late, is now 20 and still in school. He lives at home. If he hadn’t worked at least 15 hours per week since the age of 15, the phone, the scooter, the computer and the few name brand clothes he splurged on would have been out of reach. He took an extra year to finish junior college: taking all the required courses was not always possible. He is about to start college in another city. Mady doesn’t know how she is going to be able to help him pay for 4 years of university. Her other children, Helen and James,35 and 33, have their little families. They get by…
Actually, James is doing much better than Helen. Even if he and his wife don’t have permanent jobs, they manage to make enough at consulting for him and translation for her, to have a relatively comfortable life with their two kids. To get to that point, they had to survive 3 lean years around the time the children were born. They had no paid parental leave. The problem now is managing everything. Day care for one child, elementary school for the other, a bit of sports and music for all, and the constant search for contracts, a job in itself for freelance workers.
“Poor Helen!” laments Mady, “her boyfriend left her with three kids” and she calls him names we can’t print. She met him in her early thirties; they were in love; she felt it was time to have kids; now or never; he seemed to agree. Four eventful years and three children later she finds herself in an all too common misery: rare odd jobs, trading services with other “single parents” who can’t afford childcare, clothes from hand-me-downs or thrift shops, expensive rent, minimal groceries, finicky welfare agents and all the rest.
However, it is her parents that worry Mady the most. Her mother is 82 and her father 87. He is becoming senile; she is in good health. She is exhausted taking care of her husband. Mady can see that her mother won’t last long. After sixty years of marriage, she refuses to be separated from her man. Mady’s siblings live in other cities so sooner or later she will have to pick up the slack: if not with her father , then with her mother. She worries a lot about how she will manage.
Mady, her family and a basic income for all.
Let’s imagine what it would be like…
Although Helen would be no less alone with her children, she would benefit the most from a Basic Income. Her personal allocation, combined with those of her children, would not necessarily amount to more than what she receives now in aid. However these sums are without condition, without meetings with government agents, without reports, without intrusion into her private life.
Best of all, she could build on this revenue by earning more without penalty: she could really think of improving her situation by working more and more, progressively, while still taking the time to raise her kids. The future would hold promise for her and her family.
James and his wife would have had an easier time when the children were born. They could have worked a bit less and enjoyed a less crazy life. Then again, young and ambitious, they liked the hectic pace. For sure, with less uncertainty comes less stress.
Samuel would probably be a year ahead in his studies, his child’s Basic Income permitting him to not work or work much less, just to pay for a few indulgences or to help out his mother during his father’s illness. On turning 18, he gets the full adult Basic Income; at university in another city, with an apartment, food and schooling to pay, his finances would still be very tight.
Mady, for her part, would not have risked bankruptcy during her husband’s illness. She could even have stopped working to care for him. Also, she would have less apprehension at the thought of caring for her parents or of her children caring for her in the future.
2.Peter Martin Inc.
Young and prosperous industrialist, Peter Martin’s success does not go unnoticed: big house with three garages, an equally imposing cottage by a prestigious lake, a sleek and fast number to get him from his homes to the factory. Family finances certainly benefit from his wife’s medical specialist income. And their two kids can dream of studying anywhere on the planet, a planet they know well, having traveled all over, both with their parents and alone.
Peter is past forty and greying: he had to work hard to get to where he is; he had to go through a bankruptcy and several other very difficult periods. Even if in the past few years his company is in constant growth, he never gets a moment’s rest: competition is fierce and worldwide. He has to constantly win new markets in an increasingly complex environment and continue to offer high-quality innovative products to distinguish himself from everybody else.
And if only that was the end of it! Creating products, exploring markets, that’s what he does best; that’s why he built his business. He started with a few employees and worked directly with them on the shop floor. Now that there are several hundred more, it’s a different game. Recruitment and employee turnover have become factors as critical as competition and innovation. That is why implementing effective performance appraisals of employees is important to make sure they are working to their highest level, and management is doing what they are required to meet employee’s needs. To support these appraisals, employers can also look at adding in a management strategy such as real-time feedback
that can help with tracking the employee’s work that they have been completing throughout the year, so when the appraisal comes they can have all the information needed at that moment.
Easy, the life of a rich industrialist? Only on the surface. Exhilarating for sure, though; Peter Martin would not think of trading places with anyone.
Peter Martin Inc., 20 years later
At the age when a salaried worker has retired, Peter Martin is still going strong and has just gone through most eventful period in his professional life: the implementation of Basic Income.
When this “thing” began to appear in the public debate, he was dead set against it
like most of his business colleagues: he thought it was raving lunacy. However, as general support for this social measure grew, at home in Quebec, in Canada and globally, he had to take it seriously.
The fundamental discussions he had had with his employees to establish joint management of his factories and profit sharing had shown him how far such measures could contribute to improving the working climate and even the product quality, not a negligible bonus. Discussions with his employees about Basic Income, heated at first, finally convinced him to take the project seriously.
From an opponent he became a supporter unlike most of his entrepreneur colleagues. When the policy was finally adopted, he couldn’t help feeling a bit nervous…
Guess what? No cataclysm occurred; no massive resignation of his personnel, his main fear. Of course a few left: most of them, temporarily, to look after a sick family member or to complete a personal project. Crazy demands for raises did not materialize. In fact, filling entry level jobs became easier and turnover in highly specialized employees dropped. Workers’ motivation improved and productivity went up. An unexpected consequence was the sharp drop in sick days, because lower stress levels employees felt in their lives and in their work.
3. Gwen and Max’s story
Small family that wants to devote more time and money to their kids, Gwen and Max were married in 2003. Tom was born in 2005, Marie in 2008, Tom is a little boy in perfect health. Unfortunately, his sister was born with a hearing deficit that delayed speech and reading development. Thanks to the help from the local hospital and from her teachers, Marie is improving every day.
Max was a union worker in the automotive industry. He was laid off in 2008 after the economic crisis and now works part-time operator mechanic, and while he worked there he may or may not have been using an auto repair invoice template for the work he does in the side but unfortunately doesn’t now due to a sharp drop in pay. If he could pay for the training, he would upgrade his skills to get a commercial job.
Gwen tops up the family revenue by working part-time in local businesses. Her hours change constantly, which on top of low pay, prevents her from being with her children as much as she would like. The parents are concerned that they won’t be able to provide their kids with the best chances of success such as the school aid programs and other opportunities available to their classmates.
If Gwen, Max, Tom and Marie could benefit from a Basic Income, their situation would improve considerably. Marie could take dance classes after school to help with her integration and get support to improve her reading. Tom could afford hockey equipment and join the school team. Thanks to a secure source of funds each month, Max could undertake the training needed to reorient his career. Gwen could spend more time with her children by not having to work while they are at home. This small additional revenue would greatly improve their family life and the future prospects of both parents and children.
4. Jane’s story: raising your child alone
Jane is 40, her daughter Emily is 12. It’s just the two of them. Emily’s father left them when she was 4. Jane wants to make sure that her daughter does not follow in her footsteps. Jane works as a waitress in a local restaurant and has trouble making ends meet. Paying the bills while still putting healthy food on the table for Emily is a challenge. Jane finds welfare humiliating so she has not applied for government aid even if she is eligible. She would like to earn more but has neither the training nor the opportunities to increase her revenues.
With a Basic Income, added to her waitress salary, Jane would be better able to take care of her daughter, spend more time with her when necessary, provide balanced meals, let her study, do sports. Jane just needs more freedom in her choices, without having to answer to the government.
With a Basic Income, Jane’s economic situation would have no impact on Emily’s schooling. Her daughter would have the same chance of professional success as children born in more privileged environments.
5. The story of Gabe, entrepreneur
Gabe has always dreamed of being his own boss. Although, at the moment, he works for a big company and earns a comfortable living, what he really wants is to start his own business. When he was in college, Gabe invented a more efficient cement pouring system which could save up to 25% of the time needed to lay foundation in large construction sites. Unfortunately, because he had to pay back his student loans, Gabe was unable to launch his business and instead took a job in a civil engineering firm.
In 2012, because of rising rent, he bought a little condo. He was about to make a move when he realized that his monthly payments made it unrealistic to leave a stable job and go for it. In case things did not work out, he would lose his condo and have to go crawling back to his old employer.
A Basic Income would give Gabe the financial security he needs to create his business. Indeed, the monthly amount would be sufficient to cover his student and condo payments and have enough to eat. A bank loan would become possible in order to launch his company. He would then have the credibility to approach his current employer to enlist his support for the project. Gabe figures it would take a year of hard work to demonstrate the potential of his new technology and start generating revenues.
Basic Income is the launching pad he needs to become his own boss.
6. Arnold Choi’s story
Arnold arrived in Canada in 2013 with only a work permit in hand. Now he is a permanent resident and well on the way to becoming a Canadian citizen.
As an engineer from China, he came to Montreal to earn money to send back to his family back in Beijing. Arnold fell in love with Canada. He is well integrated in the community, goes to church every Sunday and volunteers at a food bank.
He works as an engineer in a buildings and public works company and has been able to put aside enough money to think of bringing his wife Suzanne and their children to Canada.
Unfortunately, his father became very ill in 2014. Arnold had to return to Beijing, to look after him and accompany him in his final days. Medical and funeral expenses were substantial and now Arnold can no longer afford to bring his family to Canada.
With a Basic Income, Arnold could have brought his family to Canada and supported them in their new life. Arnold can appreciate to what extent the Canadian population is the fruit of immigration. Arnold being a member of the community, it is only fair that he should bring his family. A Basic Income would give him enough security to reunite his family and perhaps make new citizens for Canada.
