by Jason Burke Murphy | Feb 3, 2017 | Opinion
Basic Income as All-inclusive Democratic Subsidy: Securing the Social Freedom and Economic Power for All People
Written by: Katja Kipping
[A long translator’s note: Katja Kipping is chair of the Left Party (Linkspartei) in Germany and a member of the national parliament. She has served as spokesperson for Germany’s Basic Income Network (Netzwerk Grundeinkommen). Within the Left Party, she organized the “Emancipatory Left” faction and writes for the libertarian socialist magazine “Prague Spring” (Prager Frühling).
Kipping presented this lecture “Grundeinkommen als Demokratiepauschale” at the Basic Income Earth Network Congress in Seoul, Korea, July 19th. She has frequently argued for basic income throughout Germany and has helped organize a “Basic Income faction” that includes most political parties in parliament.
I have translated this with the hope that left organizations worldwide will pay attention to her vision of basic income as a core component for the democratic left. Basic income would provide a clear sign that the left has learned from problems wrought in the past by bureaucracy, technocracy, and authoritarianism. Kipping draws from a constitutional republican tradition of investigating institutions that promote robust citizenship and deliberation. See Casassas and De Wispelaere 2012 and 2015. She also links her hopes with that of the degrowth movement. I see basic income, as Kipping presents it here, as an antidote to alienation and right-populism. Social analysis shows basic income to be part of the design of truly public institutions.
Any lapses in quality or argumentation should be attributed to me.
Please note that Kipping also presented in Dublin at the 12th Basic Income Earth Network Congress in 2008. “Moving to Basic Income (BI) – A left-wing political perspective” can be found at BIEN’s website.
You can a video of Kipping presenting the original German speech at https://bien2016.org/en/video-basic-income-and-politics-of-democracy/.
The text of her speech can be found at: https://www.katja-kipping.de/de/article/1112.grundeinkommen-als-demokratiepauschale.html. ]
Basic Income as All-inclusive Democratic Subsidy
Securing the Social Freedom and Economic Power for All People
Contents
- Social Freedom and Democracy – radical democratic approaches to basic income.
- Economic Might for All – basic Income and democratic institutions
- Closing Remarks on social transformation
1. Social Freedom and Democracy – radical democratic approaches to basic income.
Radical democratic approaches to basic income pay close attention to the connections between people and to their mutual dependencies within a community. The community is here understood as something public and political. It is oriented towards the well-being of all and should be shaped by all. From this it follows that freedom should not be understood as a mere absence of intervention or interference. On the contrary, freedom should be understand as independence over against any arbitrary authority [Fremdherrschaft]. Freedom, in this sense, implies no arbitrary interventions or interference on the part of state institutions and also no possibility of such interventions and interference. Intervention is arbitrary if an intervention comes whenever the intervener wills it.
Freedom, on the other hand, is fulfilled primarily through self-governance. Self-governance is formed by social and individual organization and also by monitoring these potential interventions and the institutions capable of them. Individual freedom, viewed in such an intersubjective political context, is also social freedom. The highest value is active participation of all in the res publica – a collective deliberative democratic self-determination. This naturally implies social equality and the securing of social freedom, which implies preventing any economically grounded dominance and dependency. Laws and institutions also need to reflect, promote, and enable the common good and self-governance. (See Socialist Party South Korea 2009, Patry 2010, Cassasas/De Wispelaere 2012, Cassasas/De Wispelaere 2015).
The following six theses on the establishment of a basic income as an all-inclusive democratic subsidy can be derived from these basic principles of radical democracy and social freedom.
- Basic Income must secure what a political community requires from each citizen in terms of money. This includes securing existence, social participation, and participation in political life. This unconditional guarantee of existence and participation has a monetary component. Non-monetary components also exist, such as free access to public goods, and to public infrastructure and services. These monetary and non-monetary components do not exclude each other but rather they complete one another. Both these monetary and non-monetary forms should, first, provide people socio-economic independence and, second, preserve their status as citizens with economic negotiating power whereby they can participate in the formation of society. Without the adequate safeguarding of free and equal conditions of social participation, no democratic participation is possible – formal possibilities for participation are not enough.
Whoever does not have enough material resources is first of all excluded from political participation and, secondly, doesn’t have enough negotiating power within political processes. This means that basic income, like all vital services, needs to be provided long-term. As I see it, this is not a problem in a time of high productivity and surplus. At most, it is a problem for those who do not want to give up economic privileges and political power. There is enough for all—worldwide!
- From a radical-democratic perspective, the basic income on a regular basis is preferable to single disbursements, like with a stakeholder grant or starting capital. Only regular payments can guarantee a lifelong income and its corresponding participation.
- The right to an unconditional basic income must be combined with a modern understanding of citizenship. A distinction between a majority of citizens and a minority of immigrants with regard to elementary socioeconomic rights and opportunities would lead to a problematic division of the community and a majority’s dominance over a minority.
- From a radical democratic viewpoint, people receive the unconditional basic income as equal members of the political community, not as part of a needy group that depends on the state. Any particular stigmatization of population groups splits the community and is a source for domination. That would still be true with a partial basic income (or transfers that do not secure survival or make social participation possible) that is supplemented by need-tested, income-tested, or asset-tested social benefits in order to reach a sufficient level.
It is clear that a person, who must make him or herself a stigmatized petitioner at the social office has a significantly harder time taking an upright path towards the political formation of the community. As Zygmunt Bauman formulated it: “The decisive argument in favor of the basic income is that it is the conditio sine qua non of a republic, as it can only exist in the union of people with self-confidence, of people without existential anxiety. A basic income which actually secures existence and allows social participation would establish a principle of citizens’ rights, rights that are not subject to a divisive and disqualifying ‘access test’ by need tests.” (Bauman 1999). [Note: this is a translation of the Bauman quote as found in Kipping’s speech. –JBM]
Therefore 5 holds: All citizens only have their rights fully recognized reciprocally through a sufficient basic income. This also means that more affluent citizens are comparatively more likely to contribute to the financing of the basic income than the less well-off citizens. This poses the question of the redistribution of economic resources and economic power.
- Basic income is not tied to any condition. An obligation towards any social or political participation would be sources of new domination. These would enable arbitrary interventions. The question of what makes something socially recognizable, and what does not, opens up a considerable amount of bureaucratic discretion. A citizen’s right to a basic income that included a direct citizen obligation would also transform voluntary engagement into regulated compulsory participation.
I would like to end this section with a quote from a German supporter of basic income who is also a politician. “It is farcical that MEPs [Members of the European Parliament] claim to maintain their substantial independence through relatively high salaries in order to make themselves non-extortionable but most of these deputies do not consider it necessary to ensure such independence and non-blackmail for the sovereign, the people” (Spehr 2003, 105). Basic income’s individual guarantee of a secure existence and participation is, alongside other forms of universal security for people (such as free access to public goods, social infrastructure, and social services), an indispensable prerequisite for social freedom, democratic and political engagement and the negotiating power for all people. It is an all-inclusive democratic subsidy!
2. Economic power for all – basic income and democratic institutions
Whoever says A must also say B. Who calls for basic income so that people can enter the public sphere with negotiating power must also call for the public shaping of our political foundations, economy, and everyday life (see Casassas and De Wispelaere 2012 and 2015). We need this to secure a basic income and other sorts of public services. Arbitrary interferences in human affairs through economic power, by endangering survival, health, and natural resources is not acceptable. An economy that is deprived of public organization, an economy that is privatized, is unacceptable. That also means that an economy and a financial sector that is immune to democratic control and influence is likewise unacceptable.
An imbalance in power through the deprivation of the public (privatization) in one form or another reaches deeply into real political and social power relations and removes the political and therefore citizens from the formation and control of public affairs. On the one hand, this includes power that arises from economic distribution—income, assets, and investment opportunities. This certainly also includes power in the realm of shaping and administering the economy and the financial sector. Who actually determines the use of natural resources, production resources, investment and the way in which economic activities are taxed? Who is exercising an alienated domination over the people today with real, unequally distributed, forms of design and control, and who subjects society and the economy to the will of a minority?
In addition to basic income and other forms of life and of participation for all people, social freedom requires the self-government of the citizens: by means of joint and individual control and appropriate intervention possibilities, which are secured by appropriately democratic institutions. These institutions must give all people the opportunity to shape social and economic life individually and collectively (see Cassasas / De Wispelaere 2015).
Economic power for all means basic income, including other unconditional support for existence. It also means the safeguarding of the economy and society for all and the institutionally secured public and political shaping of the economy and the society by all. This makes a democratic social transformation all the more necessary and urgent. Tomorrow, I am speaking at another conference about the challenge that this entails for the European left.
3. Concluding Remarks on Socio-Ecological Transformation
Poverty and exclusion, power over the many by the few, and destruction of the natural foundations of human life – that is the situation.
The international degrowth movement, which is committed to a world with significantly less natural resource consumption and to a rollback of ecological destruction and damage to our planet, therefore argues for the cohesion of ecology, democracy and social security of all people, and thus for the convergence of the various social movements and political actors (see Blaschke 2016).
It seems to me that only with this complex point of view and a committed relationship between social movements can the challenges of the 21st century be countered. Basic income, which in fact assures material existence and enables social participation, is an important component of a social-ecological transformation, which seeks to also be a democratic transformation!
Literature:
Bauman, Zygmunt (1999), In Search of Politics. Cambridge. Polity Press.
Blaschke, Ronald (2016), Grundeinkommen und Degrowth – Wie passt das zusammen? https://www.degrowth.de/de/2016/02/grundeinkommen-und-degrowth-wie-passt-das-zusammen/
Casassas, David / De Wispelaere, Jurgen (2012), The Alaska Model: A Republican Perspective. In: Karl Widerquist / Michael W. Howard (Ed.): Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend. Examining his Suitability as a Model, New York, 169-188.
Casassas, David / De Wispelaere, Jurgen (2015), Republicanism and the political economy of democracy. European Journal of Social Theory, September, 1-18.
Kipping, Katja (2009), Ausverkauf der Politik. Für einen demokratischen Aufbruch, Berlin.
Patry, Eric (2010), Das bedingungslose Grundeinkommen in der Schweiz. Eine republikanische Perspektive, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien.
Socialist Party South Korea, Unconditional Basic Income and General Social Care, Party Program, Supplement No. 1, 2009 (Translation of Socialist Party of South Korea, “Basic Income for All und Universal Welfare”, translation by Min Geum, https://www.grundeinkommen.de/ Content / uploads / 2010/08 / 10-05-22-bge-program-socialist-party-korea-endrb.pdf
Spehr, Christoph (2003), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, in: Christoph Spehr (Hg.), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, Berlin, S. 19-115.
Spehr, Christoph (2003), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, in: Christoph Spehr (Hg.), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, Berlin, S. 19-115.
Translated by Jason Burke Murphy, Elms College
by Andre Coelho | Feb 2, 2017 | Opinion
There are studies (such as the Gallup World Poll) which point to a correlation between the unemployment situation and a relative reduction in people’s happiness. At first glance, one might immediately conclude that what we need is to provide jobs for everyone — problem solved. However, a rushed conclusion like this under-evaluates the situation, ignores its alternatives and can even become counterproductive.
These studies conclude that, beyond the obvious issue of income, jobs seem to be a source of meaning and self worth for people. This apparently only reinforces the above results, and so it seems that a Job Guarantee (JG) is a policy for the future and that we must implement it as soon as possible.
But lets calm down.
First, let’s think awhile on why individuals with jobs show higher relative happiness levels, when compared with unemployed individuals.
Part of the answer lies in the stigma associated with being unemployed. The thing is, in a society so dependent on jobs like ours, being unemployed is, unquestionably, a source of stigma. According to many in society, people are unemployed because he/she is incapable of finding a job, because she has not tried enough, because she not got enough education, because she has deficient social capabilities, or due to a wide range of reasons, real or imagined. Turn it as you like, that person is to blame. If structural unemployment is on a systematic rise due to automation and other factors, if incomes drop so low that people simply give up, if precarity is a daily reality, or if working conditions may be physically or psychologically degrading…those are only considered circumstantial excuses from someone who is lazy, case closed. Everyone will have a different path in their lives that they want to go down. Maybe for some, this doesn’t include getting a job. But for those of us who actively look for a job in the hopes of being offered an interview, this can take some time. To make this process a lot easier, maybe you could check out Berke, who can give you an overview of what the hiring process entails for the employer. As the candidate, you don’t always have an idea as to what the interview process will include, but through companies like Berke, you’ll at least have an understanding of what methods companies put in place to hopefully find the right candidates for the job. You may be able to use this advice to ace your interview! It will all fall into place eventually.
However, if proof of this argument is needed, retired people are relatively less unhappy than unemployed people, although they do not have jobs (Clemens Hetschko et al., 2012). Why? Because retirement is socially acceptable; it is expected that, after decades of valid contributions to society, through a job, the person can finally rest and become free to spend the rest of his/her life just walking at the park (if so he/she wishes). They look forward to retiring as they know it’s something they can plan for using resources like Joslin Rhodes UK as well as other services that can help them be prepared for their retirement, giving them that time to get settled and be happy with the outcome.
And, of course, getting help from the state to ease the income situation does not solve the problem. The reason is because the stigma is still there: now the person has to prove that he/she is factually incapable of gaining his/her own income. Apparently, the unemployment stigma was not enough: on top of that now comes the stigma of receiving a handout in order to survive.
What’s really at stake here, and again beyond the mere income situation, is that we live in a culture based on jobs as a source of meaning and value, and so the lack of a job is seen as a problem. However, the income situation is a major one, since lacking income represents a great source of unhappiness for individuals. So, the unemployed’s relative unhappiness when compared to employed individuals is only clear when seen in the context of our present culture, and not necessarily outside it. Basic Income (BI) can – and hopefully will – create conditions under which that connection does not exist. To guarantee jobs for everyone, in this first sense, does not necessarily generate more happiness for individuals than BI, simply because the cultural environment around work gets totally transformed.
Secondly, it is wrong to assume that people want jobs, as traditionally defined. And, to be clear, that doesn’t mean in any way that people do not want to contribute to society through their work. As living proof we observe all those individuals who, despite working in jobs in order to survive, can still (sometimes with great effort and sacrifice) manage to surmount enough energy and time to do voluntary work. That means that, for all those who have trouble believing these people actually exist, jobs are not necessarily a source of meaning and self-worth in humans, which is shown in greater detail in an informal study by Robin Chase (as presented in an article by Kate McFarland).
Thirdly, I think it is not necessary to list the growing quantities of jobs seen as unattractive, monotonous, unchallenging and/or offering no carrier development perspectives, recently labelled as “bullshit jobs
“. It’s hardly understandable the point in having people doing jobs that are not interesting to them, from which they do not get satisfaction, that do not allow them to explore their talents and that suck their precious lifetime, only to provide them with an income (which may not even be enough to cover basic expenses). If those jobs are not necessary, then let’s have them eliminated. If these are necessary, then let’s automate them. If that is not possible, then let’s pay more to whoever is willing to accept them.
The JG will only be beneficial to those searching for jobs – any job, we can assume in desperation – and cannot find them. For those currently and comfortably employed it would be innocuous, and for those who actually choose not to be employed (whether presently employed or not), in order to have time to pursue their passions and talents, it would only cause suffering and would be a waste of time.
On the other hand, BI is beneficial for all those who prefer not to be formally employed, are currently unhappily employed, or are indifferent, such as those individuals who are satisfied with their job at the moment. Moreover, BI will benefit the presently unemployed, offering them the chance to informally contribute to society and/or develop their capacities in order to be fit for jobs they see as more adequate to their profiles and preferences.
On a finer assessment, it seems that BI can be the strategy that will enhance people’s happiness, in respect to their relation to work. It’s also worth noting the potentially more complex and policing nature of the EG structure. To guarantee employment, the state will have to create it first, since apparently the marketplace is destroying it; To do that, these jobs must first be invented, and then distributed to people who will, supposedly, be willing to take them. There will have to be an effort to categorize each person’s abilities in order to establish a match between them and the jobs being created. It seems to be an enormous task, and a potentially highly bureaucratic one (more than we already have in our present welfare states). Even on the assumption that the state would be able to create all these jobs and to get people on them, it would still be necessary to have some system that would guarantee that the latter would stick to the former. Or at least have a way to generate new jobs for all those who want one or for some other reason had to change jobs. But maybe all this is unnecessary.
Alternatively, because basic income allows everyone to work creates conditions for each person to initiate his/her activity. If, for any reason, that person cannot do it (or does not want to do it that way), BI gives him/her the possibility to pursue education and/or skills to apply for the job he/she really craves. In time, BI will effectively put everyone to work. That’s because, one way or another, everyone wants to contribute to society, given the chance. Unfortunately, our current system prevents many people from working, precisely (and ironically) due to the coercive effect of needing a job – any job, even if the person gets actually sick from doing it – in order to survive.
To work in something meaningful and aligned with one’s values will render a completely different social environment than what we have today. To trust people to do what they think is best for their lives will completely change work, for the better. Unlike the JG, which will only mean more coercion and entrenchment of the present day job culture.
This article draws upon the articles by Kate McFarland:
Kate McFarland, “Basic Income, Job Guarantees and the Non-Monetary Value of Jobs: Response to Davenport and Kirby“, Basic Income News, September 5th 2016
Kate McFarland, “The Greater Happiness for the More Workers: Basic Income vs Job Guarantee Pt 2“, Basic Income News, October 21th 2016
More information at:
Clemens Hetschko, Andreas Knabe, Ronnie Schöb, “
by Michael Lewis | Feb 1, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Michael A. Lewis
online pharmacy
lipitor buy with best prices today in the USA
Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College
Back in the 1990s, I co-founded a group of academics and activists (some were both) called United States Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG). Since then, I’ve written a number of papers, book chapters, and other things in which I’ve argued for a basic income. I’ve also taught public policy courses where we’ve discussed this idea. Having been at this now for about twenty years, I’ve found that those skeptical about a basic income typically raise at least one of four objections: a basic income is unaffordable, it would be hyperinflationary, “able-bodied” people shouldn’t be given something for nothing (which is what a basic income would do), or it would lead to a decline in work. This last objection typically has two dimensions.
One is that we need people to work because we need them producing the goods and services which sustain us all. The other is that people need to work for themselves because it provides social connections and a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives. Although the first three objections, as well as the first dimension of the fourth, are important, I’ll focus here only on the second dimension of this fourth objection. It typically goes like this.
Work, by which these folks really mean the sale of labor in return for a wage, is good for people. One reason it’s good for them is because it provides a source of income. But it’s also good for them because, as stated earlier, it provides social connections, as well as a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives. Implementing a basic income would allow people to obtain income without their having to work for it, and this would likely result in their working less than they would in a world without such a policy. Less work would result in more social isolation, as well as less purpose and meaning in people’s lives.
There’s an obvious response to this objection articulated by David Mosciotra. Many, perhaps most, people don’t work for social connections, meaning, and purpose — they work for money. And they may be able to find more connections, meaning, and purpose spending less time at work and more pursuing hobbies, socializing with friends and family, pursuing more education, etc.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mosciotra on this point and have said similar things many times during discussions I’ve had with people about basic income. But, as I listened to people state this objection, another thought has often occurred to me. Let’s assume for the moment that people do work for social connections, purpose, and meaning in their lives, in addition to income. If this is so, why worry much about a basic income leading to a significant decline in work?
People’s basic income allotments would be paid in currency not units of social connection, purpose, and meaning (whatever this means). That is, people would be able to work less and not lose as much income from doing so as they would now. But if people worked less because they received a basic income, the number of social connections, sense of purpose, and meaning they’d lose, could be substantial, depending on how connected they are at work, versus how connected they’d be if they reduced their labor supply, and how the degree to which they work for purpose and meaning compares to the degree to which they work for income. If those who state this objection are correct that people work mainly, or largely, for social connection, purpose, and meaning, we shouldn’t expect much of a decline in work effort from a basic income. This is because a basic income would only replace some of the income people receive from work and none of the social connection, purpose, or meaning they receive from it. But if people don’t work mainly for social connection, meaning, and purpose, then we’re back to the point about how those who object to a basic income on these grounds appear to be misguided about what actually motivates people to work. In either case, one wonders how seriously we should take this objection. I’m inclined to think not very seriously at all.
The only sense I can make of this objection, and it isn’t much, is that work does provide people with social connections, purpose, and meaning but they aren’t aware of this. That might explain why simply getting some of their income from work replaced by a basic income would result in a significant decline in work. This line of thinking strikes me as pretty odd. It contends that people are currently engaging in an activity which gives them a sense of purpose and meaning, as well as allows them to connect with others.
Purpose, meaning, and social connection sound like very deep and profound things; they also sound like things people would be aware of. Yet, supposedly, millions of people are engaging in hours and hours of an activity which connects them to others, while also providing a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives, without them knowing that this is going on. That’s why giving them money they don’t have to work for could result in a substantial reduction in labor supply. This argument doesn’t strike me as very plausible. But I’m open to being convinced otherwise.
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 Guest Contributor | Jan 30, 2017 | Opinion
“The UBI Bait and Switch” by Bruenig, Jauhiainen, and Mäkinen: A Critical Response
By Otto Lehto, political economist, King’s College London; former chairman of BIEN Finland (2015-2016).
A recent article in Jacobin Magazine on the Finnish UBI experiment is mostly an accurate and well-researched piece of journalism. I was especially impressed by its fastidious attention to detail in its account of the timeline of events leading up to the experiment. However, as someone well-acquainted with Finnish UBI experiment, allow me to bring another perspective on the matter. Jacobin Magazine has all the right to be as firebrand leftist as it wants to be. No question, the rhetoric of the commentary is in line with its socialist ethos. But I would just like to point out a few things that are inaccurate or misleading.
I, too, have written about the government’s proposal in harsh and unforgiving tones in the past, so I really can’t fault them for that. The experiment, let us not mince words, is badly mangled, expert advice is ignored or distorted, and the government coalition’s commitment to any form of basic income is half-hearted, with the gracious exception of a few MP’s. The narrow focus on reducing unemployment and increasing workforce incentives is unfortunate. It becomes tragic when one realises that this ideological agenda drowns out the human rights perspective.
But this is where it gets tricky to fully agree with the Jacobin article’s apocalyptic spin. It describes the current experiment as a “UBI-as-workhouse nightmare”. Now hold on a minute. A workhouse is a place where you must work in exchange for basic amenities. This is a preposterous description of the UBI proposals and experiments underway today. Even under the most critical lens, the (partial) UBI model under experimentation in Finland, while obviously targeted too narrowly and with too many exclusions, significantly reduces the “workhouse nightmare” nature of the benefit system.
What are we to make of the conundrum? It would be useful to separate the general political ambitions of the Sipilä government and the UBI experiment itself. The Sipilä government has an admittedly “schizophrenic” attitude towards basic income. While, on the one hand, it is committed to seeing through the UBI experiment, it is simultaneously, via other channels, pushing for stringent workfare conditionality. These draconian practices – nonsense baked in the tears of unemployed people – are truly deplorable, even from the point of view of austerity itself, i.e. even if one believes the anti-Keynesian line that one must balance the budget when national output is down. The proposed and enacted cuts are disproportionately hurting poor people, relative to the cuts affecting the mid income and high income sectors. The richest people have even been given delicious tax cuts, while students, pensioners, sick people, disabled people and others have suffered.
All that is worth criticising. Some other enactments of the government, like drastically deregulating the opening hours of stores, or shaking the stiff and moribund government monopoly on alcohol sales, I personally find most welcome developments. But all things considered, the general direction of the austerity program, and the government’s attitude towards poor people, leaves a lot to be desired. But I would argue that one shouldn’t judge the UBI experiment on this basis.
I will concede that the general ethos of the Sipilä government certainly permeates the parameters of the experiment. The limits of the experiment were decided after the 2015 elections. The result is a predictable beast built upon the sorrowful soil of a Protestant work ethic that fetishises work incentives and bemoans the metaphysical sinfulness of laziness. It involves the misguided and conscious exclusion of people who are either too old or too young, or who are not currently recipients of the mainline unemployment benefit. This distorts the experiment from the start.
But here’s something to consider. The only people for whom the current UBI experiment is a significant welfare-reduction are people who fulfill all of the following criteria: 1) they happen to be long-term unemployed, 2) they happen to be taking part in the UBI lottery and 3) they happen to have received a slightly higher level of benefit from the state in the past. The diversity of benefits in Finland translates to a diversity of levels of income security, with some people relatively well-off while others receiving pennies (if anything at all). The universal UBI level of approximately €560 can be a reduction to people who have received approximately €650 in the past. The UBI is topped off with housing benefits and other types of discretionary benefits. But a few will obviously be net losers in any equalizing scheme. This is understandable. But this hardly qualifies as a “workhouse nightmare.” In fact, the reduction in quantity comes with many obvious upsides that may or may not compensate for the marginal reduction in the absolute level of welfare income for some people.
Even with net-losers mixed in with net-gainers (in a yet-to-be-determined proportion), the proposed UBI model is an improvement over the current system in almost every respect: 1) it is given automatically and without hassle (for the duration of the experiment), 2) it provides a long-term safety net (a steady shower rather than a drizzle of sporadic benefits) and 3) it is not withheld from people who take up part-time or full-time work (thus improving work incentives). I will surely not need to enumerate for my audience the other well-known benefits of a non-utopian UBI system.
In fact, since the tax system hasn’t (yet) been reformed to account for the UBI system, those lucky participants in the experiment who find employment, full-time or part-time, will also gain significantly in terms of post-tax income. To this extent the experiment is arguably too generous. The tax system obviously needs to be reformed as well, since money doesn’t just grow on trees.
But there’s another thing. Some of the aims of the utopian left, as evinced by this piece, are just contradictory or confused. One cannot simultaneously call for more legal power to the unions, in the style of the old corporatist model of the Nordic welfare state, and to call for a truly universal basic income guarantee. This, however, is the paradoxical cry of the Jacobin piece, whose logic I simply cannot comprehend. The power of the unions has been traditionally very strong in Finland. This has meant, e.g., the legally protected collective bargaining of wages and benefits. For all the good this has brought to industry-insiders, this has meant very little for people outside the framework. It has created a natural opposition between “inside” and “outside” groups: the “insiders” being the members of the protection racket of the unions and the employer’s associations, who receive good and generous benefits, while the “outsiders” being all the other people that fall outside the “standard” model of employment. The insiders have received semi-automatic and hassle-free benefits for a long time, while outsiders have suffered from the “workhouse nightmare” of the discretionary welfare bureaucracy. The guarantee of a non-union-based unemployment and sick leave benefit scheme in the form of a UBI naturally chips away at the monopolistic power of unions to determine who deserves what, when and under what conditions. This is a good thing.
Out of the four demons conjured by the authors of the Jacobin article in the concluding paragraph – “forcing unemployed workers into bad jobs while undermining organized labor, earnings equality, and the welfare state” – the first one, about forcing people into bad jobs, is simply false (nobody is forced under the UBI system to accept any bad jobs, either de jure or de facto); the second one, about undermining organized labor, is actually a mixed blessing (since it actually helps “outsiders” gain benefits at a cost to “insiders”); the third one, about earnings equality, is something that the authors give no reason to think is threatened by the experiment (and indeed, it seems like a complete throwaway line); and the fourth point, about undermining the welfare state, is a tad question-begging.
The real question is, which structures should be reformed and which not. The existing welfare state has obviously failed in many ways to provide effective welfare for all people, and it is impossible to reform the system (for the better) without breaking a few eggs.
If the accusation is levelled at the other stuff the Sipilä government is doing, or the broken moral compass of the austerity crowd, the accusation sticks much better. But I have tried to show these should be kept separate. The UBI experiment is, indeed, severely compromised as a result of a confluence of factors. It survives, barely, within narrow ideological bounds. But the important thing is that the experiment tests the waters for a paradigm shift – slowly, ineluctably.
Even a compromised UBI marks a steady improvement over the status quo in almost all conceivable dimensions. And those are just the conceivable dimensions.
Reviewed by Kate McFarland
Photo: Finland’s “frozen waves”, CC BY-ND 2.0 Marjaana Pato
by Guest Contributor | Jan 29, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Craig Rhodes
We are fast entering an era in which there’s going to be a chronic shortage of jobs for millions looking for employment. That trend is only going to accelerate. Everyone’s job is on the line now. If we don’t begin to address this problem, then we will suffer long-term consequences: mass unemployment and political alienation of millions because jobs are fast disappearing mainly due to automation.
My suggestion is strategic not tactical. The details can be worked out in committee negotiations.
Corporations are mining nearly every piece of online data that we as individuals produce and then selling it to the highest bidders including the NSA for hundreds of billions per year. To find out how to protect yourself from this visit websafetyadvice.com
.
It’s an unregulated modern day gold rush happening under our very noses without notice. We as individuals should be compensated for our data in the same way that corporations are compensated for their data. Copyright law should protect us in the same way it protects corporations. Terms of Service Agreements should be outlawed. Copyright laws should be amended or rewritten.
There’s a reason Google and Facebook do not bill us. We’re not their consumers — we’re their product. The lion’s share of profits made by Google, Facebook, AT&T, Verizon, and scores of other corporations are from the data we produce. Facebook’s billion plus users are the largest unpaid workforce in history.
If a corporation profits from our data, whether it be browsing history, emails, buying habits, contact lists etc. then they should have to pay us for it just as we must pay for their movies, music, software and more. Such compensation might go a long way toward alleviating our chronic employment problems as well as help the working class who are losing jobs faster than any other demographic. It would not be welfare nor would it involve raising taxes. It would be payment for services rendered in the form of a subsistent guaranteed income similar to the Alaskan model.
Manufacturing jobs are not going to come back. And in time automation will begin to affect the professional class as well. Those who depended on such jobs should be dealt with or our nation is going to suffer catastrophic consequences.
This and many more initiatives should be included in a robust strategy. We must be bold.
About the author: Craig Rhodes
online pharmacy
naprosyn no prescription
is a retired art teacher after 34 yrs. Active in politics since an early age. Rhodes held elective office. Lifelong gardener, musician, environmentalist, avid reader of all subjects both non fiction and fiction, potter, portrait artist, and more. Rhodes is active on any number of social media including Facebook and have been surfing the internet since it first appeared on the scene as the Arpnet under DARPA.
by Guest Contributor | Jan 27, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Pierre Madden
Basic Income, it is argued, provides an effective and efficient means of conquering poverty. What, exactly, is the problem that we are trying to solve? Mention poverty to someone and they are likely to immediately think of the Third World. Bringing the focus back to poverty in developed countries is fraught with preconceptions. People have predispositions to think about issues in certain ways. They share these predispositions with all other members of society regardless of specific opinions on social questions. Various models are utilized rather than others based upon how we frame the issue.[1] And so we feel that we have an intuitive grasp of the subject.
Courts will accept eyewitness testimony that someone was drunk. If a person were to get in an accident while driving and damage another’s car, then during the time of car accident settlements, the defense lawyer can bring in an eyewitness who can testify to the fact that the driver was intoxicated. The witness is not an expert. No Breathalyzer test was done; no blood sample was taken. They can just tell from a person’s demeanor and the nature of the accident whether or not it could have been a DUI case. It is considered common knowledge. The same can be argued for poverty. Broad definitions of poverty exist, such as: “the condition of a human being who is deprived of the resources, means, choices and power necessary to acquire and maintain economic self-sufficiency or to facilitate integration and participation in society.”[2] “In 1958, John Kenneth Galbraith argued, ‘People are poverty-stricken when their income, even if adequate for survival, falls markedly behind that of their community.'”[3]
The problem is translating this qualitative information into numbers so that policies can be implemented and progress tracked.
Some people accept that poverty is undefinable because it is a personal experience. This complexity is highlighted in the expression ‘poverty and social exclusion.’ A concept that you can’t define is difficult to measure. We may be evaluating actions taken to reduce poverty by a method which measures something completely different. Just counting the poor turns out to be a daunting task.
Many approaches are taken to arrive at a threshold value that defines poverty. I will present examples from Canada, Europe in general, the United States and the United Kingdom. Debates surrounding the various metrics are discussed as they come up. Some work incomes and welfare benefit numbers provide context.
In Canada, no official definition of poverty exists. Statistics Canada has been making this point for almost 45 years[4]. What is measured is low-income. Some countries like the United States have an official definition of poverty even if ‘there is still no internationally accepted definition of poverty-unlike measures such as employment, unemployment, gross domestic product, consumer prices, international trade and so on.’[5]
Statistics Canada tracks three low income statistics.
- The Low Income Measure (LIM) is 50% of the adjusted mean income of Canadians[6]
- The Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) starts with the spending of the average Canadian family on shelter, food and clothing (43% of after tax income).[7] The threshold is set at 20% more.[8] Any family earning less is below this Low Income Line.[9]
- The Market Basket Measure (MBM) ‘is a measure of low income based on the cost of a specific basket of goods and services representing a modest, basic standard of living.’[10] It takes into account the ability to reasonably participate in community activities as well as physical health. It varies by geographical location.
This last metric developed in the late 1990s by Human Resource and Skill Development Canada is different from the other two, introduced by Statistics Canada. The first two statistics are unambiguously relative. Strictly speaking they measure income inequality. While the Conference Board of Canada does not hesitate to refer to the MBM as absolute[11], the specialist I spoke to at Statistics Canada was not so sure.[12] However, he felt that the basic-needs poverty line (BNPL) proposed by Professor Chris Sarlo of the Fraser Institute might qualify as absolute. Sarlo himself nuances this view:
This basic-needs approach to poverty is often referred to as an ‘absolute’ measure. This label is misleading insofar as it suggests that the list can never change and is therefore completely out of place in our rapidly changing society. While the basic needs line does propose a broad list of necessities that remains in place over time, the nature, standard of quality, and the quantity of each of the components will vary across societies and will vary over time in a given society. In other words, the basic-needs approach is partly absolute (the list is limited to items required for long-term physical well-being) and partly relative, reflecting the standards that apply in the individual’s own society at the present time.[13]
Stepping back a bit, you can often use absolute poverty as a synonym for extreme poverty, a term applicable to deprivation in very poor countries. Even so, relative elements remain: you can’t compare the situation of someone with no heating in the Arctic to that of someone with no heating in the Tropics. Moreover, Sarlo’s BNPL is approximately 30% lower than the MBM using a similar approach. Clearly, relative and absolute measures overlap and both involve a degree of judgment and arbitrariness.
There are many other variations on these themes. I will cover just a few.
In Europe, they use a measure called the at-risk-of-poverty threshold to define poverty. It represents a ‘percentage of the median or mean value of the Equivalised disposable Income after social transfers.’[14] ‘A threshold of 60% is the most commonly used.’[15] EU countries simply referred to the 60% level as ‘generally accepted.’ [16] Tables sometimes show statistics calculated at 40%, 50%, 60% and 70%, without comment.
The official United States poverty threshold has a fascinating history.[17] Based on the work the Social Security Administration economist Mollie Orshansky, it is often referred to as absolute. However its creator labelled it ‘arbitrary but not unreasonable.’[18] As early as 1959, Orshansky was aware of the pitfalls and limitations of the standard budget (usually called market basket today) approach to defining poverty. At the time, and even today, only with food, because of its nutritional value, can we reach some consensus about what minimal requirements are. Orshansky used the two lowest budgets devised by the Department of Agriculture: the low-cost food plan and the even less expensive economy plan. For the non-food portion, she used Engel’s Law (named for the statistician Ernst Engel not Marx’s collaborator Friedrich Engels), a normative principle establishing that a family spends one third of its total income on food. Using a multiplier of three for food costs under both plans, with adjustments for childless couples and single people, 124 thresholds were developed for farm and non-farm families of various compositions. With a few minor modifications and yearly inflation updates, this measure, based on the economy plan, is still in use today to count the poor in the United States.
A novel variant of the market basket approach, the Minimum Income Standard for the United Kingdom
(MIS) is maintained by the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University in Leicestershire, UK. [19]
MIS is based on detailed research with groups of members of the public specifying what items need to be included in a minimum household budget. The groups are informed by expert knowledge where needed, for example on nutritional standards. The results show how much households need in a weekly budget and how much they need to earn in order to achieve this disposable income.’ [20]
MIS is not an absolute measure like the US poverty line nor is it entirely relative.[21] ‘MIS also seeks to ensure that minimum income is looked at in the context of contemporary society, but does so in an evidenced way.’[22] Rather than make assumptions about societal standards, public input is used. Also, the UK’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which created the MIS, does not consider it to be a measure of poverty[23] and uses the 60% of mean measure in reports it publishes such as Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2016.
To understand how different the figures are and to visualize the impact they have on the number of poor that are counted, I have converted all the metrics discussed into dollar amounts, in the table below. I make no claim that these numbers are comparable, only that they are reasonably accurate and up-to-date. The last three numbers are actual welfare payments rather than poverty statistics. They are strikingly lower than the rest and this fact does not speak for itself. It does, however, tell a story, if I may digress. The usual reaction when seeing these numbers is: how can someone live on such little income? I would ask: how does one get out of poverty under such straitened conditions? 5 In Quebec, a welfare recipient is allowed to earn $200 per month without penalty. Over that amount, for every extra dollar made their benefits are cut by a dollar (a 100% marginal tax rate). In France, every Euro earned is deducted. This is what is known as the poverty trap. The system is structured so as to remove any incentive to get out of poverty.[24] When governments set payment schedules so far below poverty lines and also discourage the poor from improving their situation, what message does that send?[25] And in case you were thinking that the answer is ‘Get back to work’, item 11 shows what those who cannot
work receive about 50% more, still nowhere near any threshold, except Sarlo’s BNPL (item 4), which has been ‘criticized as being too stringent and even “mean-spirited”.’13 More on that later.
Items 8 and 9 are incomes for a 40-hour workweek. These numbers indicate that poverty is not an issue confined to the unemployed. For example, in 2014, ‘Walmart’s low-wage workers cost US taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing.’[26]
| |
Annual thresholds for a single person in 2016[27] |
CDN$ |
US$ |
| 1 |
Canadian Low Income Measure (LIM) [28] |
$22,652 |
$16,904 |
| 2 |
Canadian Low Income Cut-off (LICO) [29] |
$20,788 |
$15,513 |
| 3 |
Canadian Market Basket Measure (MBM) for Montreal [30] |
$17,944 |
$13,391 |
| 4 |
Sarlo of the Fraser Institute: Basic-Needs Poverty Line (BNPL) (Canada) 13 [31] |
$12,205 |
$9,108 |
| 5 |
European low-income measure (60% of mean income) applied to Canada. |
$26,941 |
$20,105 |
| 6 |
US poverty threshold [32] |
$16,202 |
$12,091 |
| 7 |
Minimum Income Standard MIS (UK)[33] [34] [35] |
$28,533 |
$21,293 |
| 8 |
Pre-tax full-time earnings at minimum wage in Quebec [36] |
$22,360 |
$16,687 |
| 9 |
Pre-tax full-time earnings at US federal minimum wage [37] |
$20,207 |
$15,080 |
| 10 |
Actual welfare payment in Quebec for those deemed fit for work. [38] |
$7,476 |
$5,579 |
| 11 |
Actual welfare payment in Quebec for those deemed unfit for work. [39] |
$11,340 |
$8,462 |
| 12 |
French Revenu de Solidarité Active (RSA) [40] |
$8,752 |
$6,531 |
As mentioned previously, the most striking pattern in the table is how the last three entries are low, compared to the rest. The others cluster together with the notable exception of item 4 (Sarlo’s Basic-Needs Poverty Line) and Item 10 (the US poverty threshold). Both of these statistics tend towards absolute measures, which are meant to focus on deprivation rather than income inequality. Which measure is appropriate in a developed country? If all you have achieved is to avoid destitution, are you no longer living in poverty? Not if integration and participation in society is beyond your reach. This is why relative measures of poverty are deemed more appropriate choices, especially in developed countries: they account for social inclusion.
I have tried to frame the question of poverty in such a way as to provide a better understanding of the numbers that inevitably come to define it at some point. Many judgments and choices are involved in calculating these numbers. Agreeing on a number requires social consensus. Unfortunately, focusing on the numbers is not conducive to building such a consensus and is even counterproductive, in that it immediately evokes highly emotional questions of cost and fairness. The whole debate sidesteps issues of social exclusion and lack of opportunities, to which people can better identify in their own lives.
Getting back to the original question, we need a definition of poverty to implement Basic Income. However, labeling it with a threshold number is both necessary and self-defeating. It is not possible to implement Basic Income without pinning down the benefit and cost numbers, yet focusing on these numbers distracts from the positive principles that would muster support for them. Framing the question of what poverty is in such a way that principles are explored before we formulate a numerical definition is more important than the number itself. This reframing is thus a prerequisite to Basic Income.
Author biography: Pierre Madden is a zealous dilettante based in Montreal. He has been a linguist, a chemist, a purchasing coordinator, a production planner and a lawyer. His interest in Basic Income, he says, is personal. He sure could use it now!
Sources:
[1] Volmert, A., Gerstein Pineau, M., & Kendall-Taylor, N. (2016). Talking about poverty: How experts and the public understand poverty in the United Kingdom. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute.
[2] An Act to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion, CQLR c L-7 Quebec, Canada, art. 2
[3] Galbraith, J. K. (1958). The Affluent Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Quoted in Wikipedia: Poverty threshold
[4] On poverty and low income by Ivan P. Fellegi, Chief Statistician of Canada September 1997
[5] Ibid.
[6] Statistics Canada Table 206-0091 Low income measures (LIMs) by income source and household size in current dollars and 2014 constant dollars.
[7] Statistics Canada Low-income cut-offs
[8] “Twenty percentage points are used based on the rationale that a family spending 20 percentage points more than the average would be in ‘straitened circumstances.'” Ibid.
[9] LICO for a single person in a metropolitan area in 2012 = $19597
[10] Market Basket Measure (2011 base)
[11] https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/caninequality.aspx#ftn12
[12] Andrew Heisz, assistant director of the Income Statistics Division of Statistics Canada, personal communication, October 19 2016
[13] Sarlo, C. (2006). Poverty in Canada: 2006 Update. The Fraser Institute.
[14] E-mail from Geoffroy Fisher, Eurostat User Support, Eurostat helpdesk December 28, 2016.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (Insee)
[17] All of the information in this paragraph and much more, as well as a wealth of references to primary sources can be found in Gordon M. Fisher, The Development of the Orshansky Poverty Thresholds and Their Subsequent History as the Official US Poverty Measure, May 1992-partially revised September 1997
[18] Orshansky, “Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile,” Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 1, January 1965, p.4. Quoted in Fisher (see previous note)
[19] https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/
[20] https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/whatismis/
[21] “…We would not expect the content of a MIS basket to stand still. But we also don’t think that changes in the average AUTOMATICALLY trigger proportionate changes in the minimum, and in this sense it is not a relative measure.” Donald Hirsch, Director of Centre for Research in Social Policy, personal communication, Nov 1 2016
[22] Donald Hirsch, Director of Centre for Research in Social Policy, personal communication, Nov 1 2016
[23] Joseph Rowntree Fondation Press Office, personal communication, January 11, 2017
[24] John Stapleton Why is it so tough to get ahead? How our tangled social programs pathologize the transition to self- reliance. Metcalf Foundation November 2007
[25] There is no question that low welfare payments are a political choice. In 1969, when Quebec introduced its first welfare legislation, benefits for people under 30 were set at 70% of the amount provided to everyone else. Accounting for inflation, this still represents more than what someone unfit for work receives today.
[26] Forbes April 15 2014
[27] Throughout, $US1 = CDN$1.34
[28] Statistics Canada Table 206-0091 Low income measures (LIMs) by income source and household size in current dollars and 2014 constant dollars.
[29] Statistics Canada Table 1 Low-income cut-offs (1992 base) after tax. 2014 figures for large metropolitan areas adjusted for inflation.
[30] Statistics Canada Market Basket Measure thresholds (2011-base) for reference family of two adults and two children, by MBM region Data for Montreal converted to single person (see note 1 in table)
[31] $10314 X 129.1/109.1 = $12,205
[32] US Census bureau Poverty Thresholds for 2015 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 years $12082 adjusted for US inflation (0.1%), 1 US$ = 1.34 CDN$
[33] https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/
[34] Minimum Income Calculator
[35] £1 = US$1,23
[36] Minimum wage in Quebec = CDN$10.75
[37] US$7.25 per hour as of July 2016
[38] Emploi Quebec How benefits are calculated
[39] Ibid.
[40] Le revenu de solidarité active (RSA)
