“The answer is blowing in the wind”. Picture credit to: BBC News.
It’s official. Twenty-seven Nobel Laureate economists, four former chairs of the Federal Reserve, fifteen former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers and two former secretaries of the US Department of Treasury now agree: a carbon-tax must exist, and its dividends should be distributed back to all US citizens. It is relevant to say that most of these co-signatories are ‘former’ actors of these important economic institutions, which may leave an open question mark on whether the present officials at these institutions also corroborate their support for this basic income-like carbon taxation policy.
According to long-time basic income advocate and researcher Philippe van Parijs, “this amounts to the endorsement of the Paine argument for basic income by a remarkable congregation of US top economists of all colors”. That would be granting a basic income as a right of existence to each citizen, in this case for sharing the Earth’s atmosphere; hence the right to live in a clean, climate change-free version of it – at least while there are anthropogenic carbon emissions being dispersed into the atmosphere.
Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action. Guided by sound economic principles, we are united in the following policy recommendations.
I. A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.
II. A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. A consistently rising carbon price will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development. It will also accelerate the diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services.
III. A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient. Substituting a price signal for cumbersome regulations will promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long-term investment in clean-energy alternatives.
IV. To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established. This system would enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors. It would also create an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.
V. To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices.
It may also be relevant to acknowledge that “economic growth” and “competitiveness of American firms” can be read as central in this statement, which might leave another question mark on whether these top economists and advisers would still support a related policy if it, by any chance, didn’t involve these iconic aspects of modern-day capitalist economy. Also interesting is the reference to “cumbersome regulations”, which should be scrapped, and of the acceleration and “diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services”. This also sounds reminiscent of a contemporary known driver of orthodox, 21st century economic theory: green growth.
Guy Standing, another long-time defender of the basic income policy, writing from Davos, where the world’s richest discuss money and politics at the highest level, has said that he considers this Economists’ Statement as “a major move toward basic income”, adding that he “even had agreement from Larry Fink on one panel debate.” This could indeed be very relevant, since Fink is one of the richest people alive today and therefore his net contribution to a basic income-like policy is, potentially, very large. Other participants at Davos, such as Martin Wolf from the Financial Times, have expressed more cautious approaches to this radical proposal, having said, “I have not been in favor, but I would not be against it, if it were introduced”. This could arguably be the equivalent of saying if a basic income were introduced, he would not reject the payment, but would not support it, either.
The complete co-signatory list for the Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends can be read here.
A new working paper released by Growthpolicy, which disseminates research by Harvard scholars on the topics of economic growth, employment, and inequality, argues that a universal basic income is superior to current low wage subsidies in several ways. The author, Associate Professor of Economics at Harvard, Dr. Maximilian Kasy contends that these subsidies, specifically the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in the United States, comparatively carries several economic, moral, and political disadvantages.
The EITC is a subsidy to low income working families and increases with income to specific thresholds, depending on household size. The credit has been found to incentivize work, reduce welfare dependency, improve child health and educational outcomes, and lifts roughly 6.5 million people above the official poverty line. Kasy argues that a basic income could produce similar outcomes while eliminating several important drawbacks. First, because the demand for labor is finite, especially in times of recession, incentivizing some workers to work more, which ultimately creates fewer jobs overall. In other words, if a service sector employee works overtime hours in order to maximize the EITC credit, her employer will not need to hire an additional employee to cover those hours. Further, multiple researchers have found that subsidizing low wage work via the EITC plus cuts to traditional welfare, in the 1990s, decreased pressure on employers to offer a living wage and ultimately contributed to the declining value of the minimum wage. In essence, Kasy argues, the EITC is a subsidy to employers. Conversely, a UBI would increase the bargaining power of workers and wages would thusly rise.
Dr. Kasey also asserts that a basic income would reduce the coercive power that employers, abusive partners, and a paternalistic welfare system hold over economically marginalized populations. Low wage workers, survivors of domestic violence, and mothers at the mercy of intrusive welfare policy would have an increased ability to walk away from exploitative situations. Furthermore, a basic income would fairly compensate child and elder care work, which is largely done by women and goes unrewarded in our current wage-based system.
Finally, as many have argued, Dr. Kasey finds that a universal basic income carries potentially greater political stability than means-tested benefits. For example, while the passage of Social Security in the 1930s and Medicare in the 1960s was met with cries of “Socialism!,”, these were soon widely popular across the political spectrum and are rarely considered as potential areas for federal budget cuts.
The Concluding Conference of the German Research Foundation-funded research team “Landnahme, Acceleration, Activation. On the (De)-Stabilisation of Modern Growth Societies” and the Second Regional Conference of the German Sociological Association will be held in Jena from September 23 to September 27, 2019.
Even as the scars left by the economic crisis began to heal, societal division and polarization are rampant, and there is reason to believe that the “Great Transformation”, conceptualized by Karl Polanyi as “a period of profound change, most likely including the abandonment of dominant growth patterns, forms of production, and lifestyle that have been maintained over decades” is occurring.
The double conference in Jena wants to address where such “journey” will bring us and who should set its course.
Event Program:
23 September: opening evening with Branko Milanovic and others.
24 September: presentation and discussion of research findings from the Jena Centre of Advanced Studies, the general theme is “After Rapid Growth”, the main topic addressed are the “contours of future post growth societies”.
25 September: main topics of discussion will include global finan-cial markets, class and social structure, sustainability, gender relations, migration and flight, mobility, labour relations, and social movements.
26 September: individual examples of alternative development options.
27 September: the topic of digitisation, and thereby a key future project of neo-capitalist expansion will take centre stage.
“The conference seeks to provide a platform for ‘Experimental Utopistics’. The well-founded (case- based) debate around diagnoses of time and distinct future trajectories of society shall take place not exclusively among sociologists, but in an interdisciplinary forum and enriched by the expertise from social practice. In this sense, the formal-organisational frame of a double conference is part of the attempt to test possibilities and limitations of such sociological utopistics, to explore, as well as question, its usefulness.”
How can a guaranteed livable income help us to live equitably, sustainably, and peacefully? This was the central question explored in an event hosted by Sarah Mah and Thao Hoang of the feminist grass-roots organization Asian Women for Equality on the International Day to Eradicate Poverty on October 17, in Montreal, Canada.
Mah served as the moderator for the evening. She initiated the panel discussion by calling attention to the relationship between environmental sustainability, women’s rights, and a guaranteed livable income.
“We host these panels as feminist platforms for discussions about guaranteed livable income to bring academia, grassroots, and frontline groups together…to bring different fields together and build alliances and shared theory with each other,” Mah said.
In light of the recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the severity of climate change, she described how rapidly changing climate conditions disproportionately affect the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in society, especially women.
“Women are already vulnerable to male violence and exploitation, and this is made worse in climate-change induced natural disasters,” she said.
The first panelist was Rob Rainer of Basic Income Network Canada. Rainer argued for a paradigm shift in which basic income plays a central and inherent part. Shedding light on the already existing forms of basic income-like programs in Canada such as the child tax benefit and old age security, he drew attention to the emotional and financial security these that these programs already provide for large segments of the population. He argued that a basic income has the potential to promote and encourage citizen engagement in environmental protection.
“By ensuring or improving one’s economic security, basic income decouples such security from attachment to the paid labour market and supports the pursuit of non-market work that actually may be far more important for community well-being, sustainability and survival,” Rainer remarked.
For example, people might engage more in local food production, urban farming, and citizen wildlife monitoring and what about the simple, yet incredibly impactful, act of picking up the tons of plastic on our beaches and in our oceans. Yet, as Rainer pointed out, “it’s difficult to participate in this when you are struggling for survival.” A basic income could allow us to engage more sustainability with our surrounding environment, and pour more of our energy and presence into conserving, caring for, and protecting our planet.
Panelist Cathy Orlando from the Citizen’s Climate Lobby, a non-partisan, non-profit organization, spoke further on the connection between environmental sustainability and a guaranteed livable income. Orlando began by showing how our pursuit for a just, peaceful, and equitable world is inextricably connected to the environment. She zeroed in on the carbon fee and dividend policy as a very promising approach for climate justice, poverty alleviation, and re-distribution of wealth.
A carbon fee and dividend scheme is often likened to a “Robin Hood climate tax” which taxes carbon polluters, and gives the revenue back to citizens in the form of a monthly check (the dividend). It is a way of re-distributing wealth that works to discourage fossil fuel use, spur clean energy investment, and reduce CO2 emissions. The common thread, Orlando argues, is the analogous nature of the carbon dividend and basic income – which are both aimed at redistributing wealth to the poor. This, she remarked, “reduces inequality [as] the poor are more carbon virtuous inherently and the top one percent of earners in Canada consume six times as much as the bottom ten percent.”
After the panelists’ presentations, a conversation took place between the panel and various community respondents including Sean Devine of Revenue de Base Quebec, Vincent Duhamel from Climate Justice Montreal, Paul Clarke from Réfugiés Montréal and Penny Beames, organizer of McGill’s Sustainability Research Symposium. They explored further aspects on guaranteed livable income and a sustainable future. Among the issues raised was the question of how refugees figure into the discussion of a Canadian basic income – an important question in lieu of the millions of people who are, and will be, displaced because of climate change.
For instance, members of the panel agreed that basic income should be granted regardless of immigration status, which Mah noted is a position held by the organization Asian Women for Equality. Another issue brought up was how a basic income would render people less prone to over-consumption. In response, the panelists reflected that a basic income could provide stability, allow self-reflection, and strengthen social networks. They offered this as a possible explanation as to how guaranteed livable income might counteract over-consumption – a central issue in any conversation about sustainability.
In the end, the discussion highlighted the opportunities and challenges of a policy approach that would promote granting people an equal share of the wealth, and perhaps also protect the health of our environment.
The relationship between poverty and the planet is complex, which raised a myriad of questions and concerns, such as the potentially harmful impacts of ‘clean’ energy sources like land loss and displacement of vulnerable peoples, children’s rights, and the broader issue of how this relates to, or challenges, the existing paradigm of economic growth. Nonetheless, the panel discussion helped to shed light on some of the ways in which a guaranteed livable income might help us live more sustainably, addressing issues of climate justice and the protection and empowerment of society’s most vulnerable. Mah noted that Asian Women for Equality “sees it as a fundamental shift away from our culture of maximized profits, consumerism and exploitation, toward a world of mutuality, beneficence, and sustainable living – both for people and for the environment.”
Perhaps, more of us have begun to envision what this peaceful, equitable, and sustainable world will look like going forward.
Basic Income is a radically different and yet elegantly simple notion that has been around for decades: all citizens should have an income and be allowed to maintain their dignity, simply because they are citizens in a society that is prospering. In social policy terms, this idea can be put into action by giving unconditional cash payments to citizens. In the 60s and 70s, there were several long-term Basic Income policy experiments in the USA and Canada. The goal of these experiments at the time was to see if giving people money would be a disincentive to workforce participation. In the end, there was only a very small reduction of work participation among the subjects. In the USA women worked fewer hours per week, an understandable consequence is given that there were on average 4 children per family in the study group. Young men in Canada reduced their work participation, but high school completion rate increased, with stipends enabling the pursuit of higher levels of education. Furthermore, there was an increase in divorce rates, which was the main motivator to take BasicIncome off the table at the time, but looking back seems like it was not such a bad result, Basic Income was shown to empowered women in difficult situations to be able to exit those situations.
BasicIncome has recently returned to vogue, and Canada was, until recently, conducting an experiment in the province of Ontario, led by the of the Liberal government. It was a pilot program guaranteeing an income to 4000recipients in the region an and was supposed to last three years, but it was abruptly canceled in July 31st 2018, by the newly elected Ford administration. There have been many reactions to the cancellationof this pilot program, including a class action suit filed by fourLindsey residents, represented by lawyer Mike Perry. The Basic Incomerecipients in this class action are arguing that they “made plans to improvetheir lives when they signed up for the pilot in April last year, providing thegovernment with detailed personal information to be approved and expecting thepilot to run its three-year term.” It also seems like a breach of basic socialresearch ethics and complaints have been filed to Veritas, the company the previous government hired to ensure ethical standards are metin the conduct of research involving human beings.
On the aftermath of the cancelation, and as a reaction to it, photographer JessieGolem, also a recipient in the experiment, started a portrait series named Humans of Basic Income, depicting photos of Basic Income recipients displaying placards with their stories handwritten on them. We spoke to Jessie about her experience as a recipient of the Ontario Basic Income trial and about her own experience as a recipient and her perspective on the Basic Income pilot that gave rise to her portrait series.
Can you tell me a little bit about your background?
I
grew up in the small town of Hanover, Ontario. I’m quite lucky and privileged
that I’m actually quite close with my family and had a stable childhood. My
parents are still together, and I grew up in the same house and attended the
same elementary school and high school. We were not rich, but we were always
provided for, and my childhood was happy, stable and peaceful. I went to school
at University of Waterloo, majoring in Religious Studies. I was also quite
religious at the time and lived at a bible college in Kitchener, but I don’t consider
myself religious anymore, and actually have an article published on the
Huffington Post on the reasons behind that decision. Later, I moved to
Hamilton, and while in Hamilton I went to school at George Brown College in the
Assaulted Women’s and Children’s Counselling and Advocacy program. I explored a
number of careers, including youth pastor, piano teacher (I’m a classical
pianist) and social worker, but I currently work as the Operations Manager at
Photographers Without Borders, and hoping to expand my career as a
photographer, storyteller, and writer.
What was your work life like before Basic Income?
I’ve had numerous jobs in my life. I have worked as a cleaning lady, I’ve worked in retail, I’ve ran kids programs and day camps and worked as a dog walker. I’ve always worked/volunteered for not-for-profits in different capacities my entire adult life. Prior to receiving Basic Income I was working as a dog walker in the mornings/afternoons, teaching piano in the evenings, and in the time in between, working at Photographers Without Borders, and working to book photography projects and grow my own freelance photography business. I had no free time. I often wouldn’t be able to get home to cook myself dinner, and I’d often find myself up until late in the night working on projects and applications.
What is Photographers Without Borders?
Photographers Without Borders (PWB) is an international non-profit that amplifies the stories of grassroots organizations all over the world by sending volunteer photographers and videographers to document the work they are doing. The organization is able to receive this footage to build their own capacity, while PWB also brings awareness to these issues through a robust social media, a print magazine and online magazine, and a video series. I have volunteered at PWB for two years, and we are on the brink of realizing some tremendous growth which would expand our capacity as an organization, and potentially offer paid positions to staff. BI gave me the time to devote to PWB full-time in order to realize that vision. Losing BI means I will have to reduce my capacity at PWB.
How did your plans get foiled by the cancelation?
I had plans to work full-time at pursuing photography and building my business to a point where it’s self-sustaining, as well as develop my capacity at PWB and help to grow the organization. I will now have to return to having multiple jobs.
Even though it was canceled, do you think that there were positive consequences for you personally from having participated in the program?
Yes. I have now experienced what living and pursuing photography full-time feels like, and I’m very excited about this life, and don’t want to return. I have used the cancellation to pursue a portrait series, and I believe this experience has made me bolder, and less afraid of taking risks in order to succeed. I threw myself into the portrait project without a lot of thought, andI’m lucky for all the miracles along the way that has kept this project alive. I’m less afraid of the consequences, and more passionate about amplifying the stories of the people I have met on this journey, who have become friends.
What do you say to critics who accuse you and others in the project of being “parasites”?
I believe this kind of dehumanizing language is extremely dangerous and opens up the opportunity for violence. With language such as “parasite” it strips a person of their humanity, saying they are only human if they contribute to the economy financially. If they are unable to do so, they aren’t human, they are parasites. In history, when dehumanizing language is used against a group of people, it allows for the justification of violence, because this person is seen as “the other” or “less than human” and therefore less of a person than the one holding the prejudice, and this allows for violence. It’s this dehumanizing language that has, historically, caused genocide and holocausts. Furthermore, this was a pilot project, and even those opposed to BI would benefit from the results of the project, so they can use the facts and data obtained to justify their opposition. And 70%of the people on the pilot project had/have jobs, myself included. Anyone who wasn’t working wasn’t doing so because they were lazy but do to physical and mental disabilities that prevented them from working.
Do you think a pilot that included more income levels and a more gradual take back rate could avoid this accusation?
I’m not sure. I think the stigma against people in poverty is only really growing, especially in this area where political views between the left and right are becoming so far divided. You still see name-calling and dehumanizing language used to describe people of opposing political views, and you see this from both liberal and conservative-minded people. It would be interesting to see what a pilot focused on a wider range of income could do and how it would affect people. I did like that Ontario focused on low-income people, because it was a study attempting to address and come up with a solution to a social service system in Ontario that I now know is deeply broken, and keeps people in poverty. It would be interesting to see a pilot focused on a wider range of incomes, however. A multi-faceted, nuanced approach would be really great to see, where different income levels in different areas, and different types ofpilots are examined. We do see this right now – there are Basic Income studiescurrently taking place in small communities and pockets all over the world.
What do you think is the main purpose of the pilots?
There are so many purposes for the pilots, but one of the bigger ones I see is that we need to examine the future of economics in our society, as the rise of AIand technology changes the future of work, and in many cases, increasingly replaces the need for human work. This is an economic change as big as the Industrial Revolution that will be realized in our lifetimes. Humans don’t need to work in a factory if a robot is doing the work, online banking has replaced the need for bank tellers, self-serve check-outs in grocery stores and kiosks in fast food restaurants have replaced cashiers, thus many industries which were so heavily reliant on human work are increasingly no longer needing humans. The question of how one works, and how one derives an income and contributes to the economy is a tremendous question to ask – it is imagining a new world. Increasingly, the issue of climate change and globalization will also affect the future of economics. A Universal Basic Income is just one idea, but it’s worth examining. Right now we are only in the stages of speculation, but research and pilot projects would be able to drive the conversation forward, answering important questions while unearthing new ones. The pilots can absolutely measure the cost benefits – how much money is saved in healthcare costs if people have access to good healthy food and don’t develop long-term health problems? What is the cost benefit if a person is avoiding committing crimes and the ensuing consequences because they have all of their basic needs taken care of? And I think it’s important to analyze different models of Basic Income because the economic needs of communities all over the world are vastly different from one another. I think what a Basic IncomeProgram in Ontario looks like can’t and shouldn’t look like what a Basic Income Program would look like in another country, or even in another part of Canada. Different areas have different economic needs, which is why I’m glad to see so many projects taking place all over the world that are trying out different models of Universal Basic Income.
In your opinion, was the pilot working in getting people to improve their situations, including your own experience?
Having a Basic Income improved my life. Everyone I’ve talked to were improving their lives, and these improvements were small, but noteworthy steps to living better lives out of poverty – lives with dignity. Small things like the ability to afford to buy new clothes, or buy healthier food at a nicer grocery store, or be able to pay bills on time. The amount was small – if someone wanted to use Basic Income as a disincentive to work, they could, however, they would not be living a nice life. It was enough to get a leg up out of poverty – move into safer housing, get a better job, and live better lives, contributing to the economy. The cost of poverty on a person’s mental wellbeing is staggering – the amount of mental energy it takes to survive will actually reduce a person’s IQ. If all their mental energy is concerned with how they will pay the next bills, where they will find food, how they will pay for health care, etc. there is no time for one to dream of bigger pursuits. I saw Basic Income buying people that precious time. To give that to someone, and then take it away with no warning, and little information, and no reason based in fact, is simply reprehensible.
*
The Basic Income movement is still going strong, despite the Ontario Pilot’s cancelation. In Canada, activists are fighting to take the pilot to a Federal level, and to finish the research that was started. At the time of the cancelation, there was no data analysed by the pilot, all we have are the stories of the recipients as told in Jessie’s portrait series and on a website called Basic Income Voices. These stories are powerful and provide a window into how Basic Income can bear positive, life-changing benefits for its beneficiaries. The future is here and the time to explore policy solutions is now.
