by Michael Lewis | Oct 10, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Michael A. Lewis
I was recently listening to a talk show on public radio. The first segment was about President Trump’s tax proposals. It included a debate between a supporter of Trump’s plan and an opponent of it. The supporter is associated with the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. Her conclusion was that Trump’s proposed tax cuts would be great because they would lead to more economic growth and, therefore, more jobs. This is, of course, the supply-side/trickle-down economics reasoning, which could be a subject of debate itself.
A later segment on the talk show focused on New York City’s attempt to persuade Amazon to set up its headquarters in the city. For those who may not be aware, New York City’s mayor is widely considered to be politically progressive. If you are more familiar with European politics, you can think of him as something like a Social Democrat. He did not appear on the radio program, but one of his deputies did. The deputy said a primary reason the city wants to attract Amazon is that such a move would generate a lot of jobs.
Thus, there was a representative of a progressive mayor and a conservative, both of whom argued for two very different proposals on the same basis — jobs. This is not that unusual. The U.S. political Right and Left disagree on plenty: tax cuts, the proper role of the federal government, how best to improve U.S. schools, what the U.S. Constitution says about the right to own a gun, and a host of other issues. But both sides can always be counted on to agree that whether someone has a job or not is an issue of utmost importance.
Conservatives may argue that the best way to generate jobs is for the government to get out of the way and let businesses “do their thing.” Progressives may counter that the private sector will never create enough jobs for all those who desire one, and that the only way to assure people can find work is for the government to guarantee a right to work, even if it must do the hiring. But for both sides of the U.S. political spectrum, jobs are what matters.
It makes sense that both the Right and Left would be so focused on jobs. The main source of many, if not most, incomes in the U.S. is a wage or salary. For many people, if they lost their job, it would not be long before things became dire for them. For many of those currently without jobs, things are already quite dire. It is in the nature of capitalism for most of us to toil away as “wage slaves” as the Marxists define it. But it seems that over time, this economic necessity has developed into something many people call the work ethic, but which I have come to think might better be called the job ethic. The job ethic is the culture which develops when what we have to do to survive becomes not just a source of income but also one of social recognition.
In her book Justice and the Politics of Difference, the late philosopher Iris Marion Young has an essay on the definition of “oppression.” That essay is called The Five Faces of Oppression, and one of those “faces” is marginalization. Marginalization is what happens to the involuntarily unemployed. Obviously, those faced with this situation have a serious financial problem, given that they are living within a system which requires them to have money to meet their needs. But, according to Young, this is not the main reason involuntary unemployment is oppressive. The main reason is that those who are unemployed lack something which grants them access to being recognized and esteemed by their fellow citizens/residents — a job. It is this lack of a job which makes the unemployed feel cast aside and marginalized. The fact that someone is not willing to hire them results in their feeling socially worthless.
Being a philosopher/political theorist, Young does not support her argument with figures and statistics. But I think she may be onto something. A number of opponents of basic income seem to think so, too. Anyone who has followed the basic income debate has heard the argument that basic income is imprudent public policy because it would result in less work. Less work would mean people would be less inclined to engage in an activity which provides them not just with income, but also with meaning and social recognition. What these individuals are really saying is that basic income is bad social policy because it would result in fewer people having to obtain meaning and social recognition from what they have to do to “put food on the table.”
In the past, I have questioned whether basic income would have this effect. But I’m also inclined to wonder: So what if it does? As important as making a living is, humans do a lot of other things besides sell their labor. They spend time with children, spouses, and friends, they enjoy hobbies of various kinds, they engage in pursuits of higher learning, they become involved in civic pursuits to make the world a better place, and a host of other things. Can’t at least some of these things be sources of social recognition, as well? As long as capitalism and tasks that cannot be completed by machines exist, there will be a need for humans to sell their labor. But if a basic income freed some of us up to spend more time doing other things which provide us with social recognition, would that really be so bad?
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 Patrick Hoare | Oct 6, 2017 | News
Jon Altman and Eva Cox. Credit to: Alfred Deakin Institute (Deakin University, Melbourne)
The Alfred Deakin Institute at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia, hosted a forum on the 17th and 18th August discussing the concept of a universal basic income.
Workshop co-convenor Jon Altman (Deakin University and ANU) suggested that part of the impetus for the workshop was the sense that discussion of UBI in Australia was not as advanced as it was in other countries. As evidence of this he cited the comment made by Chris Bowen (Shadow Treasurer for the Labor party), who said that UBI was “a terrible idea”. Tim Hollo – Executive Director of the Green Institute – also highlighted the fact that the Greens were the only major party in Australia currently in support of the concept.
Dr Tim Dunlop – author of Why the Future is Workless – gave context to the discussion by talking about the state of work, technology and automation. He said the “salient point” in labour market analysis is that many problems are current. Evidencing this, he summarized some figures from the International Labour Organization, including; global unemployment exceeding 200 million in 2017; stagnation of real wage growth; decline in proportion of wealth going to wages; 760 million men and women worldwide in “vulnerable work”, defined as work unable to bring them above the the world poverty threshold of AUD $3.10 per day; millions in refugee camps and jails; record levels of over and under-employment; and the creation of “increasingly precarious” work.
Looking at future technology, Dr Dunlop said that the consistent finding was that “around 40 to 50% of jobs are at high risk of automation in the next twenty years” (Oxford Martins School Report, 2015) under “currently existing technologies” (McKinzie Report) and that it would be “close to a form of denialism”, therefore, to state, as many do, that “concerns about technological unemployment are overstated”. Associate Professor Karl Widerquist agreed with this point, stating that “people are not interchangeable parts” and often find that their “learn[t] skills” are “not needed any more”. In this regard, he said a UBI could compensate for the continual disruption of technology, and the inherent inability of workers to adapt and provide themselves with income. Phillip Ablett (USC), summarising work by Mullally, added that neo-liberalism’s emphasis “on ‘individual responsibility’ for poverty” contributed to this persecution of workers, where we tend “to blame individuals for their ‘failure’ to succeed in the market economy rather than consider the structural impediments to achievement”.
Professor Widerquist said a shift away from labour prosperity to capital prosperity has led to an “incentive problem” where employers don’t have an incentive to treat their employees appropriately since employees don’t have any power to refuse their conditions. The universal nature of a UBI, as such, would allow for a “voluntary participation economy instead of a mandatory participation economy”. Dr Frances Flanagan agreed that “capital accumulation” was central to the problem of “acute inequality”, however she expressed concerns that discussions around UBI focused too heavily on wage leverage and monetary incentive. Citing “care work” as an example “utterly antithetical” to the taylorisms of tasking and efficiency, Dr Flanagan said we need a more positive definition of ‘work’ since there are always ‘jobs’ that “require empathy, judgement and relationships”. UBI, consequently, needs to be “supportive of the fight for better jobs” and “[be] supportive of the fight against marketisation”. Professor John Quiggin (UQ) echoed Dr Flanagan’s concerns that UBI risks the possibility of replacing social services with a single payment, though he did point out that an unconditional stipend could destigmatise the concept of welfare payments to individuals, undermining the concept of the “deserving and undeserving poor”. Professor Eva Cox (AO) was also critical of UBI as a means to empowering a “protestant, male, Anglo” market system, where humans are economically judged as being good or bad “consumers”. She reiterated the need to revisit the concept of ‘work’ through a lense where humans were considered “social”, “dependent” and “interdependent”, advocating a UBI that was used to redefine “the social contract between the nation state and the individual”, with “reciprocity built into it”.
On the subject of evidence to support a UBI’s practical plausibility, both Professor Widerquist and Professor Greg Marston (University of Queensland) said that trials investigating the effects could be strategically dangerous since the trial conditions are often neither unconditional nor universal. Marston pointed to climate change as an example of where the accumulation of data has brought about, in many cases, confirmation bias in support of inactivity rather than impetus to instigate change. It was generally agreed that the issues of design and implementation were not, therefore, easily separated. Professor Quiggin, Troy Henderson and Dr Ben Spies-Butcher advanced the idea of a staged introduction, a “stepping-stone” approach which would retain the “big idea” excitement for voters and simultaneously satisfy technocrats. Quiggin’s preferred model was to favour the “basic” over the “universal” through various mechanisms and adjustments to tax regimes, introducing a full UBI payment to selected, vulnerable populations, and then gradually increase the number of people covered. The cost of everyone in Australia receiving a full UBI was estimated to be around 5-10% of GDP. Henderson and Spies-Butcher offered modelling that began by universalising the age pension, and by also introducing an “unconditional Youth Basic Income paid to those aged 20-24 based on a negative income tax model.”
In conclusion, the consistent theme of the two days was that UBI cannot be offered as a silver-bullet solution to issues around inequality, welfare, social security and the potential growing precarity of work. So while there is a tendency amongst advocates (worldwide) to present UBI as a single policy response for addressing many of the problems societies have with these issues, the very strong feeling of the workshop was that this could be a dangerous over-reach.
You can view some of the contributors speaking here.
More information at:
Kate McFarland, ‘NEW BOOK: Why the Future is Workless’, Basic Income News, November 5th 2016
Hilde Latour, ‘KARL WIDERQUIST: About Universal Basic Income and Freedom’, Basic Income News, July 31st 2017
Homepage of the International Labour Organization
James Manyika, Michael Chui, Brad Brown, Jacques Bughin, Richard Dobbs, Charles Roxburgh, Angela Hung Byers, ‘Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity’, McKinsey Global Institute, May 2011
Karl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne, ‘Technology at Work: The Future of Innovation and Employment’, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, February 2015
Oxford University Press, ‘The New Structural Social Work: Ideology, Theory, Practice 3rd Edition’, Bob Mullaly
by Kate McFarland | Sep 28, 2017 | News
The Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath, which has published a series of reports on the feasibility and implementation of basic income, commissioned a recently published survey on attitudes towards basic income in the UK.
The survey was conducted by the British market research organization Ipsos MORI, who interviewed a sample 1,111 individuals from the UK population aged 18 to 75. Interviews were conducted online in August 2017. In the recently published results, the survey data are weighted to represent the general UK population according to age, gender, region, employment status, social grade, and educational attainment.
In a series of three multi-part questions, Ipsos MORI queried respondents about their views on universal basic income (UBI), which it defined, similarly to BIEN, as “a regular income paid in cash to every individual adult in the UK, regardless of their working status and income from other sources In other words, it would be: universal (i.e. paid to all), unconditional (i.e. paid without a requirement to work); and paid to individuals (rather than to a household).”
Interviewees were also instructed to assume, for the purposes of the survey, that the amount of the UBI “would be set roughly at the amount the UK government judged to be necessary to cover basic needs, e.g. food and clothing (but not housing costs).”
Before laying out the description of UBI, the survey questionnaire additional mentioned, “As you may be aware, some countries are considering introducing a basic income.”
Results
Asked whether they would support UBI described as above, 49% of respondents replied affirmatively (15% “strongly support” and 33% “tend to support”), while 26% replied negatively (17% “strongly oppose” and 9% “tend to oppose”).
Reported levels of support decreased substantially, however, when funding mechanisms were specified. Only 30% would support UBI if it entailed an increase in taxes, with 40% opposing UBI in this case. Meanwhile, 37% would support, and 30% would oppose, a UBI funded by cuts on spending on current welfare benefits. If both funding mechanisms were put into place, support for UBI decreases to 22%, while opposition increases to 47%.
The preceding result is similar to what was observed in a 2016 poll conducted by Canada’s Angus Reid Institute, which saw that respondents tended to favor basic income in principle, but would not support an increase in taxes to fund it in their country.
In the second question, respondents were asked “Regardless of whether you support or oppose the UK Government introducing a basic income, which of the following, if any, would be your most preferred way of mainly funding a basic income, if it was introduced?” Options included “increasing taxes on wealth” (34% favored), “cutting existing welfare benefits” (28% favored), “raising income tax” (12% favored), and “other” (3% favored).
The second part of this question broadens the definition of a “basic income scheme” from the initial definition, asking respondents if they would support such as program if certain compromises were made to universality and unconditionality. More than half of respondents replied that they would support a policy “only paid to those who are in work, in training, doing voluntary work, or pensioners” (52% strongly support or tend to support) or one “only paid to those on low incomes” (57% strongly support or tend to support), with only 18% and 17%, respectively, reporting opposition to the policies. (It should be noted, however, that it would conflict with most established uses of the term–including that of BIEN–to call such a policy a “basic income” scheme.)
Support decreased if the program were only to benefit young people (aged 18 to 24) “who are in work, full time education, or in training”: 35% would support (or tend to support) such a program, while 33% would oppose (or tend to oppose) it.
The third and final question queried interviewees on the “how convincing” they personally found each of six arguments that have been made in favor of basic income. The results tentatively suggest that, among British adults, arguments that emphasize the ability for UBI to support unpaid work tend to have more pull than those that emphasize the policy’s potential to encourage traditional paid work.
The argument judged most convincing was one that framed UBI as a way of recognizing the value of unpaid work: “Many people do very important work that is unpaid, such as caring or other voluntary work. A basic income would be a way of rewarding and encouraging others to do this type of work.” A full 79% of respondents found the argument “very” or “fairly” convincing, while only 15% judged it “not very” or “not at all” convincing.
All arguments provided were found to be more convincing that not (i.e. considered by a majority of survey respondents to be “very” or “fairly” convincing). However, the least persuasive was found be the following: “Many unemployed people do not have an incentive to find a job because benefits they may currently be receiving are withdrawn. As everyone would receive it, a basic income would encourage unemployed people to get a job by allowing them to keep that basic income if they find work.” A relatively small 57% deemed this argument “very” or “fairly” convincing, and 35% found it unconvincing (or “not very” convincing).
Other arguments focused on automation, job insecurity, bureaucracy in administering welfare, the “harsh and unfair” nature of conditional welfare programs.
More information about the survey, including all weighted and unweighted data, is available here:
Ipsos MORI, “Half of UK adults would support universal basic income in principle,” 8 September 2017.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo (Newquay, Cornwall, United Kingdom) CC BY 2.0 Giuseppe Milo
by Michael Lewis | Sep 18, 2017 | Opinion
Michael A. Lewis
I recently read Kate McFarland’s very informative overview of several basic income “experiments.” The quotes are around that last word in my previous sentence because, as McFarland notes, not all these projects are truly experiments, at least not if the word “experiment” is being used the way it is in the social and biomedical sciences. As we use this term in the social sciences, an experiment is a study with the following features:
- Study participants or a cluster of them are randomly assigned to at least two groups
- At least one of the groups is a treatment group, while at least one is a control group
- The treatment group receives the intervention of interest, while the control group does not receive intervention.
Feature one above is key.
What random assignment does is make it very likely that the treatment and control groups will be balanced. “Balanced” roughly means that the distribution of variables related to both the intervention and outcome of interest are the same across treatment and control groups. So if after the data are analyzed we find a difference in the outcomes between treatment and control groups, we can attribute such a difference to the intervention of interest.
The random assignment feature is why Eight’s study in Uganda, as McFarland points out, has limited “usefulness as an experiment.” I think it is fair to say in fact, that social scientists would not consider what Eight is doing an experiment at all. I am not saying that Eight’s study has no usefulness whatsoever. It may be useful when it comes to keeping BI “in the spotlight” and, thereby, help to maintain attention on this movement. For those of us who, at least in principle, like the idea of a basic income, this is a good thing. But we should be careful when it comes to considering what we can learn from the Uganda “experiment.”
The study in Uganda is usually called a pre-test/post-test study. In such studies, measures are taken before an intervention of interest (the pre-test part), after the intervention is implemented (the post-test part), and then these “before and after” measures are compared to one another. If certain changes are observed, these may be attributed to the intervention in question. The problem with such studies is that we do not know what would have happened to the group which received the intervention had it not received it. Maybe the observed changes in the relevant measures would have occurred even if there had been no intervention. The reason we want control groups in experiments is to allow researchers to estimate what would have happened to the group that received the intervention had it not received it. Without a control group, the Uganda study simply may not tell us much about the effects of the cash grants they are testing.
The third feature above has to do with the intervention of interest. This is very pertinent to the experiments McFarland wrote about, as well as BI experiments in general. Following BIEN, McFarland defines BI as “a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.” As I read her piece, I thought she was interpreting this definition to mean that if a policy provides a cash payment, exactly as spelled out in the definition, but also decreases the payment if a recipient obtains an income from selling their labor, then such a policy wouldn’t be a basic income. Alaska has no income tax, but it does have the Permanent Fund Dividend. Since it gives folks the dividend but does not tax any of it back in the form of an income/earnings tax, its grant would be an example of a basic income. But if the U.S. or any other nation, granted people money unconditionally, periodically, on an individual basis, and without a means test but also taxed all sources of income, including earnings, then that country would not have a basic income. This may seem like a mere semantic point, having nothing to do with BI experiments. But I think it is incredibly relevant.
McFarland makes it clear that some places are assessing the effects of a BI as defined by BIEN. Others are testing the effects of programs similar to BI, as defined by BIEN, but with the added feature of a decrease in the BI grant if someone works. I think she refers to this as a guaranteed minimum income.
I suspect that if the U.S. ever did anything like a BI, it would be this guaranteed minimum income version. I think this is because of the vulnerability of a BI, as McFarland defines it, to what I call the “Bill Gates objection”—why give really rich people more money? If one can respond that rich people will not be net recipients because they would pay more in income taxes than they would receive in the BI, this might be a viable response to the objection.
If I am right about this, then studies like the one in Finland, which focuses on a BI, might not tell those of us in the U.S., or in other nations following a similar course, as much as we would hope. That is because the effects of a BI might differ from the effects of a guaranteed minimum income. As an example, if one could get a BI and keep all their earnings without any loss in the amount of their BI grant, such a policy could have a different effect on labor supply than one which would curtail the grant when income from earnings increased. All this means that BI supporters who get enthusiastic about findings from BI experiments ought to take a moment to see if what was studied is what they actually have in mind.
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 Kate McFarland | Sep 17, 2017 | News
Malcolm Torry, Director of the UK-based Citizen’s Income Trust, Visiting Senior Fellow at the London School of Economics, and General Manager of BIEN, has signed a contract with the publisher Palgrave Macmillan to edit An International Handbook of Basic Income.
Torry is currently recruiting authors of each of the book’s chapters (listed below). The publisher has issued the following the call for authors:
Palgrave Macmillan is planning to publish An International Handbook on Basic Income, which it intends to be a definitive guide to the current state of the debate.
The editor, Dr. Malcolm Torry, is seeking chapter authors who will represent the best available scholarship from around the world.
A few of the chapters will be commissioned: but for most of them the editor is seeking expressions of interest.
If you would like to express an interest in writing one or more of the chapters then please contact him at generalmanager@basicincom.org or info@citizensincome.org with a CV and a list of publications on Basic Income. Bids for individual chapters from two or three authors from different parts of the world will be particularly welcome.
Dr. Torry will be at the BIEN Congress in Lisbon from the 25th to the 27th September, and he would very much welcome discussions with prospective authors or groups of authors.
The table of contents is as follows:
Part I: The concept of Basic Income
- The definition and characteristics of a Basic Income
- The history of Basic Income
- The anatomy of a global debate
Part II: The effects of Basic Income
- Employment market effects
- Social effects
- Economic effects
- Ecological effects
- Gender effects
Part III: Implementation of Basic Income
- The anatomy of a Basic Income scheme
- The administration of a Basic Income scheme
- Costings for Basic Income
- The framing of Basic Income
- The feasibility of Basic Income
- Alternatives to Basic Income
- The funding of Basic Income
- The implementation of a Basic Income scheme
- Objections to Basic Income
- An illustrative Basic Income scheme
Part IV: Pilot projects and other experiments
- Canada and the USA
- Brazil
- Iran
- Namibia
- India
- Switzerland
- Finland
- The Netherlands
Part V: The political economy of Basic Income
- Libertarian arguments for Basic Income
- Left wing arguments for Basic Income
- Neoliberal arguments for Basic Income
- Human rights arguments for Basic Income
- The justice of Basic Income
- The ethics of Basic Income
Blank book photo CC BY 2.0 kate hiscock
