by Kate McFarland | Jun 15, 2016 | News
The Australian Pirate Party has officially endorsed a “basic income policy” (more precisely, a negative income tax), according to an announcement published on June 14th, 2016.
In the announcement, Sam Kearns and Darren McIntosh — New South Wales senate candidates from Pirate Party Australia — elaborate on the need for a basic income, focusing on concerns about automation, the “inefficient, patronising and punitive bureaucracy” of Australia’s current welfare system, and the advantage of basic income in facilitating care work as well as new business and innovation.
As described in the party’s Wiki, the policy is a negative income tax designed to result in a minimum income of $14,062 per year for adults (aged 18 and over) who have completed school. This baseline amount would be “topped up” in certain cases, including parents, caregivers, aged and disabled persons, veterans, and low-income earners who lack public housing.
Pirate Party Australia was founded in 2008 and legally recognized by the Australian Electoral Commission in 2013. According to Wikipedia, it claimed approximately 1300 members as of 2015.
by Guest Contributor | Mar 8, 2016 | Opinion
By Liane Gale and Ann Withorn
for the Basic Income Woman Action Group (BIWAG)
Since 1909, International Women’s Day has been a day for recognizing women’s economic, political and social achievements. Yet over the past century, March 8 Women’s Day celebrations have revealed tensions between feminists, socialists and anarchists about the meaning of women’s roles in society. Feminists saw full equality through equal participation in the polity as the major way women would gain power. Socialists argued that full inclusion of women as workers within a self-aware proletariat was the way for women to achieve solidarity, and therefore power. Anarchists envisioned women’s liberation as based on learning new ways of living and loving, so that a new way organizing society would become possible.
Today, we view the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) as a means to transcend such historic differences. BIG offers a way for women to achieve basic economic security outside of the labor market. It firmly denies that only certain activities done outside the home and community should be rewarded, much less be the chief source of one’s respect and social value in society. With a meaningful basic income as a secure base for living, women everywhere should be more able to live a life without fear, and of their own design.
If basic income could fundamentally change the lives and fates of women and girls, and with it the fate of humanity, then why is this not widely discussed in the community? One case in point is the appeal by Martha Beéry to the national media agency in Switzerland to invoke bias towards male views in a panel on basic income on national television in 2012 that only included men. The decision was in her favor, but the inclusion of women’s points of view in regards to basic income has been slow both in mainstream and social media. Despite this, recently we have seen a welcome surge of contributions about the economic and social realities of women, that often offer basic income as a solution to some of the disadvantages women face.
These analyses include calls to elevate the value of care work and other contributions to society (such as community work), which are underpaid or not paid at all, and as a result do not elicit much respect by a society which largely equates money-making abilities with importance and status. Organizations, such as the Care Revolution Netzwerk, that is active in German-speaking countries, Mothers at Home Matter from the UK, and initiators and supporters of the “Leap Manifesto: A Call For a Canada Based on Caring for the Earth and One Another” are all grassroots efforts to change the current narrative. With the Basic Income Woman Action Group (BIWAG), we strive to contribute to this international effort. To that end, we are facilitating national and international conference calls with interested members and maintain a BIWAG Facebook Group.
The program of the 15th Annual North American Basic Income Congress in Winnipeg, Canada (May 12-15) is especially attentive to women’s concerns and to enhancing women’s roles in the movement. More than half of the planning committee members are women. Dr. Felicia Kornbluh, professor of Gender Studies, writer, welfare rights advocate and member of the Vermont Commission on Women, will give a keynote on “Two, Three, Many Precariats: Basic Income and the Fight for Gender, Class and Disability Justice”. Two other keynotes will also be given by women. At least sixteen panel presentations and speakers will be directly addressing links between basic income and women. In addition, three BIWAG sponsored roundtables will allow serious time for discussion of “Women’s Roles within the Basic Income Movement”, “Basic Income and the Care-Centered Economy”, and “Basic Income’s Role in Ending Violence Against Women.” A panel on the Color of Poverty and speakers from the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg will also bring much immediacy to the event.
The 2016 theme of International Women’s Day includes the goals of ending all forms of discrimination and violence against all women and girls everywhere, and we believe that a basic income would be a firm step into the direction of a more humane world for all.
To learn more about BIWAG or to get involved, please join our Facebook group or contact us at withorn.ann@gmail.com or liane.gale@gmail.com.
Recent contributions on women and basic income, and closely related issues and causes:
Nicole M. Aschoff, “Feminism Against Capitalism,” Jacobin, February 29, 2016.
Allissa Battistoni, “Why Women’s Work is Key to a Just and Sustainable Future,” Feministing, August 6, 2015.
Alyssa Battistoni, “Why Establishing a Guaranteed Income for All Can Help Prevent Environmental Catastrophe,”, Alternet (reprinted from Jacobin), February 19, 2014.
Madeleine Bunting, “Who Will Care for Us in the Future? Watch Out for the Rise of the Robots,” The Guardian, March 6, 2016.
Petra Buskins, “‘Flexibility’ Won’t Stop Women Retiring In Poverty,” New Matilda, October 30, 2015.
Liane Gale and Ann Withorn, “Basic Income Women Action Group”, Google Hangout, hosted by Marlen Vargas Del Razo, Living Income Guaranteed, Streamed Live, August 23, 2013.
Claire Cain Miller, “How Society Pays When Women’s Work is Unpaid,” New York Times, February 22, 2016.
Helen Ninnies, “As Rental Prices Rise, Women Stay in Bad Relationships to Survive,” Broadly, February 20, 2016.
Vanessa Olorenshaw, “Mothers at Home Matter and the Politics of Mothering – When Maternal Care is Taboo and Politicians Have No Clue,” Huffington Post U.K., March 17, 2015.
Meera Lee Patel: “Idea: All Work Deserves Pay,” Fast Company, January 20, 2016.
Ina Praetorius: “The Care-Centered Economy: Rediscovering What Has Been Taken for Granted,” e-book published by Heinrich Böll Stiftung, April 7, 2015.
Judith Shulevitz: “It’s Payback Time for Women,” New York Times, January 8, 2016.
by Josh Martin | Jan 17, 2016 | News
Shulevitz’s excellent article frames the basic income debate around gendered issues in the labor market and economy. She references the recent basic income developments in Finland, Canada, and the Netherlands, but her main points concern the benefits a basic income would bring to women by finally rewarding care work, which is disproportionately carried out by women. This article is a wonderful introduction to the basic income debate and gives much needed time discussing its impact on women.
Judith Shulevitz, “It’s Payback Time for Women”, New York Times, 8 January 2016.
by Scott Santens | May 4, 2015 | Opinion
In a recent opinion piece published here on May 2nd, Jurgen De Wispelaere made a case for the need to change Basic Income Day to a date other than May 1st. As the organizer of the Reddit Basic Income community’s involvement in promoting Basic Income Day for the past two years, I’ve been invited to respond to his criticism. This is my response and I will start with a question.
Why does the labor movement exist?
Think about that question for a moment. What is the ultimate goal and purpose of the entire labor movement? From whence did it arise? Where is it now? Where will it be in 50 years? And how do we best respect the history of the movement as time goes on?
In a recent piece titled “Ours to Master”, Peter Frase writing for Jacobin magazine makes the case for what he refers to as “enlightened Luddism,” where there should no longer exist in the logic of labor a short-sighted push against innovative new technologies. Advancing technology should be embraced for all it is capable of achieving. If a machine can do someone’s work, better and cheaper, it should. The problem is not technology’s elimination of jobs. The problem is in not properly distributing the resulting gains. So how should labor best go about doing that? Well, according to Frase…
“Winning a share of the fruits of automation for the rest of us requires victory at the level of the state rather than the individual workplace. This could be done through a universal basic income, a minimum payment guaranteed to all citizens completely independent of work. If pushed by progressive forces, the UBI would be a non-reformist reform that would also quicken automation by making machines more competitive against workers better positioned to reject low wages. It would also facilitate labor organization by acting as a kind of strike fund and cushion against the threat of joblessness. A universal basic income could defend workers and realize the potential of a highly developed, post-scarcity economy; it could break the false choice between well-paid workers or labor-saving machines, strong unions or technological advancement.”
A few very important ideas need to be understood here. In the 21st century, the labor movement will require winning basic income as a key victory, so as to not only win the gains of technology away from only continuing to fall into the hands of owners of capital, but to actually further empower the labor movement itself through enabling a massive general strike potential the likes of which has never before existed in all of history. Additionally, by achieving the ability for all workers to say “No” to unsatisfactory wages and conditions, the bargaining power of every single worker will be increased.
In other words, basic income is not the enemy of the labor movement. It’s its best friend.
It’s for this reasoning that a day such as Labour Day in the years ahead should galvanize labor around the idea of making technology work for workers – all workers – including those involved in all forms of unpaid labor involving care work like parenting (you know, that kind of work that makes new workers). And it should do so through a 21st century fight for universal basic income.
Basic Income Day is not antagonistic to Labour Day. It is synergistic. Its purpose is not to step on the accomplishments of labor in previous centuries, but to honor them and to propel the movement into a future of even greater accomplishments. Yes, people have died for the labor movement. People died on May 1st, 1929 fighting for the rights of workers too. And they were there for the same reason a group of coal miners went on strike on May 1st, 1926. They were there for the same reason the 1st International Workers Day was organized on May 1st, 1889. They were there for the same reason workers in the US called for a general strike for an 8-hour workday on May 1st, 1886, days prior to the bombing in Chicago on May 4th. And they were essentially there for the same reason the American Equal Rights Association was formed on May 1st, 1866.
What is that reason? The ultimate reason is the answer to the question I posed at the beginning: “Why does the labor movement exist?”
The labor movement exists because it is its right to exist, because humans have a right to exist. The labor movement exists because work should not only benefit the individual worker, but all workers in solidarity and even all of humanity in ultimate solidarity, not just the owners of capital. And the labor movement will cease to exist, if it does not rally around the idea of a basic income guarantee for all. The owners of technology will see to that, and so the labor movement must come to see it as well. This is a matter of equal economic rights, and these rights must be fought for and won.
Without fighting for and winning a basic income for all, unions will continue losing power through a continuing shift in the way we all work from what was once secure full-time jobs in manufacturing that complemented a labor movement, to what is increasingly insecure part-time jobs and globalized freelance labor involving zero-hour contracts and continually varying schedules. What work is shifting to makes it extremely difficult to gain leverage over capital.
The labor movement needs basic income if it is to not only survive but flourish. Workers need the ability to choose to work for themselves and to decline working for others, and that is only possible through basic income. Workers also should be able to benefit from technological gains, through either increased incomes or decreased work hours or greater benefits or even ownership. Working for others should be a choice, and that choice needs to be won by workers for all workers, whether traditionally seen as work or not.
That is universal solidarity and that is Basic Income Day.
I also personally see Basic Income Day as far more respectful to all that workers have fought for over the years – and some even died for – than to watch the modern labor movement continue fighting to work instead of for the freedom from work, or to let the labor movement fade away entirely as human labor gets replaced by machine labor.
What is the purpose of a labor union, anyway? I mean, when we get down to the core aim. Well, what is the purpose of a car company? The CEO who believes a car company’s purpose is to make cars is actually both incorrect and short-sighted. The real purpose of a car company is to enable the transportation of its customers in a way that always improves. Getting stuck on an existing means of providing transport, such as a car, is an obstacle to progress. A company should always seek ways to improve quality for its consumers. Cars are not the endpoint of the how to get a consumer from point A to point B problem, and the company that fails to see this will fail as a company because another company will innovate a new and better way.
It’s for the same reasoning that unions should stop to consider their own purpose. Is the purpose of labor unions to perpetuate themselves in current form? Is their purpose to increase wages and decrease hours through greater bargaining power for only those who are members? What will happen to labor unions in a world that no longer requires human labor? Is there a desire to celebrate May 1st, 2050 looking back at how people used to be able to live good lives, back when labor unions still existed?
The labor movement needs to recognize what year it is, just as all the rest of us do. Technology and globalization exist and we must recognize the effects these are already having on all of us. Basic income is the real “fight of the century”, and labor must not only join the fight, but lead it. If a truly universal basic income is to be won, in a way that grows over time to be more than basic, it must come from the left. The right, although also supportive of basic income, seems more likely to support a version that favors capital over labor. To be won in progressive form as a growing share of continually increasing national productivity will be a fight for the left to win.
Winning this fight for a universal basic income will begin at step one and that is realizing basic income is what the labor movement has actually been fighting for all along, without even knowing it – the right of a human being to the fruits of one’s own labor and to life itself.
We all have the right to greater bargaining power. We all have the right to never again need to worry about our next meal or about a roof over our heads. We all have the right for our labor to be replaced by machines and to benefit from this replacement. And so we all have the right to a basic income.
That’s the message of Basic Income Day, and it’s a message for all workers, past and present, to convey every Labour Day, and International Workers’ Day, and May Day from now until the day we come together to remember how we all once were compelled to labor for others in order to live.
by Karl Widerquist | Aug 29, 2014 | News
The Swiss government opposes the popular intiative for an unconditional basic income, but the national referendum is still to happen in 2016.
The Swiss Federal Council has released its evaluation of the popular initiative for an unconditional basic income (UBI), which received enough signatures last fall to trigger a nationwide referendum on it. The Federal Council evaluates all people’s initiatives in Switzerland making one of three recommendations: it could accept, reject, or no recommendation. The council chose to reject the initiative. The initiative will still take place sometime in 2016, the rejection means simply that the council recommends that citizens vote no on the proposal.
Enno Schmidt & Daniel Straub, the two main organizers of the people’s initiative said, “This is nothing special. We expected this.” The function of a people’s initiative is to bypass the government and go directly to the people even against the ruling government’s wishes.
The Federal Council also release a statement justifying its rejection of the initiative. The statement alleged many shortcomings of UBI, including: many low-paid jobs would probably disappear or be transferred abroad, Women would be forced back into the housework and care work. Taxes would rise considerably to finance the basic income and further weaken the incentive to work. The amount of the UBI proposed is too large and cannot be financed. It contradicts the principle of subsidiarity. The statement also defended the existing social system is in Switzerland. The Federal Council agreed with the founders of the initiative that each person has to be able to can live a life in dignity but argued that Switzerland achieves that goal with its existing system.
Schmidt & Straub’s reaction to the statement was mixed, “The tone of the message is fair, no nasty insinuations and no polemic.” But, according to Schmidt & Straub, the substance of statement implied that Switzerland would perish if this initiative were accepted by the people.
Philippe Van Parijs, of the Basic Income Earth Network said that this statement was an opportunity for Basic Income supporters “to point out the misunderstandings [in the statement] and to work out realistic scenarios in terms of amount and funding.”
For more information (in German) see:
Enno Schmidt & Daniel Straub, “Botschaft des Bundesrates über das bedingungslose Grundeinommen, [Report of the Federal Council on the unconditional Grundeinommen],” Volksinitiative Grundeinkommen, August 2014.
News.Admin.ch, “Bundesrat lehnt die Volksinitiative ‘Für ein bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen» [Bundesrat rejects the popular initiative “for an unconditional basic income’],” News.Admin.ch, 27, 08, 2014.
Didier Burkhalter, “Botschaft zur Volksinitiative «Für ein bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen» [Message Regarding the People’s Initiative ‘for an unconditional basic income’],” the Swiss Federal Council, 2014.
Aagauer Zeitung, “Bundesrat lehnt Initiative für bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen ab [Bundesrat rejects initiative for unconditional basic income].” Aagauer Zeitung, 27, 08, 2014.
For more information in French see:
Ludwig Gärtner, “Conseil fédéral suisse : Le Conseil fédéral rejette l’initiative populaire ‘Pour un revenu de base inconditionnel,’ [Swiss Federal Council, the Federal Council rejects the popular initiative ‘For an unconditional basic income’]” Zonebourse, 27/08/2014
Enno Schimdt contributed to this article.
“8 Millionen Fünfräppler auf Bundesplatz bei Initiative-Einreichung” -Aagauer Zeitung
