by BIEN | Aug 22, 2017 | News
Futurism reported on automation, robots, and universal basic income through the provision of a chart-article. Some of the information summarized by the chart includes that fact that as there are 4.73 robots working per 100 human workers in South Korea. The global average is 0.66 per 100 workers. That ratio is reported to be rising rapidly throughout the world. Also, with more robots, they become cheaper to implement. Workers in the developing world are most at risk of losing jobs due to automation.
The problem is not limited manufacturing, however. It includes diverse areas such as farm labor, construction labor, truck drivers, mailer carriers, and so on. The chart mentions that $2,600 per month as a UBI solution is being considered in Switzerland, which BIEN has reported on, and only $1,000 per year in Kenya.(same paragraph as above) The chart also describes the cases of Alaska, Namibia, and Harper Lee.
It ends with quotes from supporters of a UBI, including Martin Luther King, Jr., Bertrand Russell, Harris Levine, Jeremy Howard, F.A. Hayek, and Thomas Paine.
More information at:
Futurism, “Universal Basic Income: The Answer to Automation?“, Futurism, June 2017
by Ashley | Jun 18, 2017 | News
Representative Chris Lee. Credit to: Office of Representative Chris Lee
In the face of growing economic inequality and projections of increased disparities in the coming decades, Hawai‘i has passed a resolution to establish a Basic Economic Security Working Group. The working group will investigate the impact job automation will have on the residents of Hawai‘i and its social safety net programs, and investigate the feasibility of universal basic income models and other efforts to identify the best pathway forward to ensure residents are able to thrive, if you’re wanting to be a thriving Hawaii resident, you have the option to live on the big island of Hawaii if you so wished to.
Hawai‘i has the highest cost of living in the United States. It is thus no surprise that the rate of economic inequality in Hawai’i has been steadily rising for decades, and that the top 1% income shares have doubled since 1978. In response, House Concurrent Resolution 89 was passed in May 2017 to establish a Basic Economic Security Working Group, focusing on five main tasks:
- “Assess Hawai‘i’s job market exposure to automation technologies, globalization and disruptive innovation;
- Assess Hawai‘i’s existing spending on social safety net programs and other relevant expenditures, as well as expected spending on those programs in light of anticipated automation technologies, globalization, disruptive innovation, and job losses;
- Identify and analyze options to ensure economic security, including a partial universal basic income, full universal basic income and other mechanisms;
- Monitor studies, trials, and efforts in Hawai‘i and other jurisdictions relevant to the basic economic security working group; and
- Seek out partnerships to publish or fund relevant trials or studies to evaluate options”
In an interview with Basic Income News, the sponsor of the resolution, Representative Chris Lee, frames the working group in light of the broader political context of the United States: “Politics in D.C. necessitate our evaluation of these future options because current policies are only making things harder for middle and lower class families. We must ask ourselves, what can we do now to head down the right path to ensure a viable economy and sustainable ways of living?”
Representative Lee went on to claim that, when future socio-economic landscapes are viewed through the lens of innovation and automation, some form of a basic income “seems inevitable”. The representative states that it is imperative to “acknowledge there are real issues both in our economy and society that current policy is not equipped to deal with” and that our economic and social infrastructure must evolve to match the speed of technological innovations.
Given that, in 2016, the service industry composed the majority of the state’s total GDP, automation may be one of the greatest challenges to its economic security in the near future. This threat is even more pressing given projections of the United States losing almost half of all jobs to automation in the next two decades. Hawai‘i’s resolution is proactive in addressing the specters of job loss and increased reliance on social safety net programs by mapping the potential future impact and mitigating negative effects with evidence-based strategies to inform legislation.
The majority of households in Hawai‘i are families with children. Representative Lee is mindful of how their lives can be shaped by economic insecurity and is working to create pathways forward to ensure people can thrive.
More information at:
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Hawaii, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2016
Oliver Garret, “How The Coming Wave of Job Automation Will Affect You and the U.S.”, Forbes, February 23rd 2017
Hawaii State Legislature, Representative Chris Lee, 2017
House of Representatives Twenty-Ninth Legislature, HCR 89, Open States, May 2017
InfoPlease, Demographic Statistics Hawaii, June 2017
Emmie Martin, “These are the 15 Most Expensive US States”, CNBC Money, May 15th 2017
Carlyn Tani,”Hawaii’s Growing Inequality“, Hawaii Business, March 2015
by BIEN | Mar 25, 2017 | News
From March 4 to May 7, 2017, a novel program will begin under the auspices of ‘Beyond Growth’ (“Oltre La Crescita”), which is a school of training open to all circa 2011, entitled ‘Need to work or work without? Automation, future of work, the basic income.’ Beyond Growth is an event intended to be a debate and a reflection.
There will be examination of a variety of issues, including the “relationship between automation and work, the effects of neoliberal policies and wage labor, and rethinking the current paradigm,” among other topics. Program here.
These topics will be debated and reflected upon in their cultural, economic, ethical, social, and technological dimensions. The ‘Beyond Growth’ conference will include four events for broad-based debate, followed by a concluding event offering results and a final discussion.
Further details can be found here and here (in Italian).
Image credit to Basic Income Network Italia
by Michael Lewis | Mar 4, 2017 | Opinion
Michael A. Lewis
Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College
In “Why a Universal Basic Income is a Poor Substitute for a Guaranteed Job,” Claire Connelly praises guaranteeing people a right to a job as opposed to guaranteeing them a right to an income. I’ve been involved in quite a few discussions, some of them debates, about the relative merits of basic income versus guaranteed jobs proposals. My position has always been that I have no problem, in principle, with guaranteeing someone a job. If guaranteeing jobs and an unconditional basic income were both financially and politically feasible, I’d be a proponent of both. But if I had to choose one of these policies over the other, I’d prefer the basic income. This is because I think guaranteeing people access to the resources they need to survive has priority over guaranteeing them the right to sell their labor. This, however, isn’t the debate I want to have here. What I want to do, instead, is raise a question about guaranteed jobs proposals: what would it really mean to guarantee someone a job? If those arguing that automation will result in a net loss of jobs for human beings are right, this question becomes especially salient.
Let me start by framing the question more precisely: under what conditions would the government, in its employer of last resort role, hire people? Connelly seems to be supporting the idea of government serving as a buffer stock mechanism. That is, it would step in to hire labor when private sector demand was low and, presumably, step aside when such demand was high. This would put a floor under the price of labor because private sector employers couldn’t, during economic downturns, use the threat of unemployment to get workers to accept lower wages.
As many readers of this site are no doubt aware, some have argued that automation is increasing rapidly and will only continue to do so. Now I’m no expert in this area. So I don’t know if these folks are right that we’re on the path to seeing robots take our jobs. But if they are, this would seem to cause a problem for the buffer stock idea.
The buffer stock approach seems based on a model of the economy where unemployment is due to periodic downturns. The public sector steps in to absorb the resulting labor surplus, but this is meant to be temporary. Once the economy starts growing again, and unemployment declines, public sector employment can contract, as those who worked in the public sector are absorbed by the private one. But automation isn’t supposed to work like that. Instead, there is a steady, but permanent, decline in many types of work as machines take our jobs. I know there’s a huge debate about whether other types of jobs will develop to replace the one’s lost to robots: but suppose such replacement doesn’t happen. Perhaps it’s premature to do so, but I wonder if guaranteed jobs proponents have thought about how their guaranteed jobs plan would work in such an environment. Would government indefinitely hire all those who’ve lost their jobs to machines?
by Michael Lewis | Feb 28, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Michael A. Lewis
Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College and the CUNY Graduate Center
When I first became interested in the basic income, I was a graduate student studying welfare reform. For those who aren’t in the know, “welfare” is the more common name used in the U.S. to refer to a program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and which used to be called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). TANF and AFDC aren’t exactly the same programs, but they do have some key things in common: they provide financial support to low income persons, most of those who receive such support are women and children, and, I think it’s fair to say, both programs are somewhat controversial.
The controversy around welfare has to do with the fact that many of those who receive benefits are apparently “able-bodied” persons who’re thought capable of working (“working” in this context means selling one’s labor in return for a wage, instead of, say, taking care of one’s children, something many would regard as work). Yet not enough of those on welfare are working, according to a common belief among many U.S. citizens/residents as well as, apparently, politicians. So in an attempt to socialize welfare beneficiaries into understanding the importance of work, many of them are required to work in return for their benefits, a practice commonly called “workfare.” Many also remain poor, even after receiving benefits, because the financial support they receive is pretty meager.
As a graduate student, I thought workfare, as well as the low level of benefits provided to recipients was a very unjust way of assisting poor persons; I also thought we could do better (in fact, I still think these things). My entry into the world of basic income was because I believed it a more just way of addressing poverty than welfare and related programs.
Once I started studying basic income and meeting others interested in the idea, I heard other justifications for it. It would enhance freedom, it would allow people to engage in care work if they so choose, it would give people an income representing their share of commonly owned natural resources, it would be a way of replacing some or all of the welfare state (which, of course, assumes there is something wrong with the current system), etc. But the argument that seems to have caught on the most, at least in the U.S., is the idea that a basic income will become necessary as robots/machines take our jobs.
I have to admit that part of me has been a bit concerned about the degree to which the automation argument seems to dominate basic income discussions. My worry is that as we spend so much time debating who’s right about whether robots will take most, or perhaps all, of our jobs and, therefore, whether there’ll be a need for a basic income, other arguments for such a policy get “crowded out” of the discussion. Yet as I’ve voiced this concern, mainly to myself, I’ve also wondered why this argument for a basic income seems to have caught on in a way that others haven’t?
I think part of the answer has to do with where I started—U.S. citizens/residents worry a lot about the degree to which healthy people work to take care of themselves (and their families) and are quite skeptical about policies they believe will allow people to shirk this responsibility. But I think another part of the answer has to do with the role of race in our society. I suspect that in the minds of many citizens/residents the degree to which a basic income would allow people to shirk their obligations to work would vary by race. To put it bluntly, I suspect many assume that black and brown people would be more likely to shirk this responsibility than whites would be. If I’m right about all this, then perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that the U.S. isn’t naturally the most fertile place for the basic income idea to take hold. But why would it take hold in the form of the automation argument? I think the answer here might be pretty simple. If machines are about to take all our jobs, then automation represents a relatively indiscriminant force. That is, “hard working white people” might be threatened just as much as “lazy shiftless brown ones” are. Perhaps this has been enough to get white folks to take notice of a policy that perhaps could address the problem.
About the author: 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.
