by Tyler Prochazka | Dec 14, 2016 | Opinion
In his new Kindle book Mending the Net, author Chis Oestereich describes how a basic income can address some of the “wicked problems” facing humanity.
For Oestereich, the basic income can help society rethink its consumption patterns and possibly upend the “treadmill of subsistence.”
In the book, Oestereich predicts that the economy could be headed toward a recession. In the interview he said that basic income can be a “shock absorber” of economic downturns. Without a basic income, Oestereich said he worries that the next recession will be much worse than the last for many people.
One of the most unique effects of the basic income is its potential to change how we view careers and allow “self-determination,” Oestereich said.
“By standing individuals up on an income floor, we could open the door for many to create unique, fulfilling lives that might not otherwise be possible,” he said.
The full interview can be found below.
You said in the book: “A universal program removes the opportunity for politicians to erode benefits in a death by a thousand cuts scenario”. Can you explain why you think universal basic income evades austerity?
I don’t think it evades austerity in general as there are other programs to cut that could still greatly impact lives, but rather that it evades austerity because since it is universal, any cut must be done to everyone. Means testing programs are a game of continually shifting goal posts wherein a small adjustment to a qualifying measure can mean the difference between families having enough to sustain themselves, and coming up short. By shifting to a universal program the goalpost moves could no longer trim away at those on the margins.
Chris Oestereich
I’ve heard some say providing a greater array of people more money through basic income would exacerbate environmental degradation with their new consumption? Considering lower income individuals spend a higher percentage of their income. What do you think the overall effect on the environment would be from basic income?
I think environmental impacts are one of several valid concerns around basic incomes. That’s why I advocate for significant testing to see what we can learn. Some people may be enabled to purchase and consume more goods and services as the direct result of a UBI, but I think that’s an argument for finding an appropriate level of UBI that’s not so large that it allows people to go from living lives of unfulfilled needs, to being enabled to live destructive lifestyles. But I think some of us might cut back on some work and consumption that are part of today’s treadmill of subsistence. Take away the need for a full-time job to get by and some of us might only work three or four days a week and consume less resources through commuting and other related efforts. We need to gain a better understanding of the effects of a widely-implemented UBI, and then we might need to update social norms to align with systemic needs. And it’s possible that we could gain unexpected positive effects like those experienced in Utah where giving homeless people places to live resulted in reduced use of medical care.
You mentioned that we are probably counting down to a recession. How would a basic income address the issues of economic recession?
I called UBI an economic shock absorber because it would be there to blunt the negative impacts anytime the economy went south. (If we had a UBI in 2007, how many of the millions of people who lost their homes to foreclosure might have squeaked by without falling into those dire circumstances?) With a little something coming in each month comes a modicum of hope, rather than the steady drumbeat of a straight-line declining balance in your checking account. But if we don’t have a UBI in time for the next recession, I think we can expect that the outcome of the next one will be worse than the last one—at least for some segments of the population—as losses from the Great Recession “were disproportionally concentrated among lower income, less educated, and minority households.”
Why do you think the profit motive is destructive? And how does basic income help address the profit motive force?
I don’t think the profit motive is inherently destructive. But when it’s the sole focus of an organization, the profit motive allows businesses to hold extractive relationships over their employees. When a person has no other means of subsistence, the terms of employment are often highly-unfavorable. Give an unemployed person a decent monthly payment via a UBI and the choice is no longer one of zero income or an extractive employment relationship, so the calculus around the decision changes tremendously. Instead of being in a take-it-or-leave-it scenario with only savings (if that) to fall back on, you have a choice of tightening your belt and squeezing by on any savings you have along with your monthly UBI check. It would give workers a little bit of leverage in scenarios where they often have none.
You mentioned “If you hear someone talking about Milton Friedman and basic incomes in the same breath, it’s probably safe to assume that they’re looking for overall cost savings to reduce their personal tax burden.” Do you think libertarians that support basic income are primarily concerned with bringing down costs? And along those lines, do you think a coalition including fiscal conservatives and libertarians on basic income is possible?
My sense is that libertarians are primarily concerned with optimizing their personal tax effects. If a UBI could reduce administrative costs, and they would end up with a net financial benefit, you’d probably have their ears. But if they ended up paying more into the system, I think you’d quickly stop hearing about how great it was. So, I think they could be willing partners up to a point, but that they’d likely drop off from the cause at some point, and that they would eventually oppose efforts to increase the amount of UBI payments. My thought is that we could probably work together to get the proof of concept testing done, but that in working to make an initial UBI happen libertarians might become a drag on the effort as they would likely be aiming for systemic savings, rather than an outcome that would be measured in improved lives.
What inspired you to write this book?
Mending the Net wasn’t planned. I was invited to write chapters for a couple of different books, the ItsBasicIncome project that will be published out of the UK soon, and another anthology around environmental issues. I wrote them both independently and then realized that they would fit together nicely in a Kindle single format as the essays offer two different perspectives on “why” we ought to consider trying UBIs. (Readers will have to look elsewhere for the “how” argument as that’s not my bailiwick.)
As for the topics of the essays, I’ve never been a big fan of the rat race, and I’m a huge proponent of self-determination. Basic incomes help along both of those lines. By standing individuals up on an income floor, we could open the door for many to create unique, fulfilling lives that might not otherwise be possible.
What is your involvement in the basic income movement?
I guess I’m sort of a passionate advocate, but I certainly don’t see myself as a movement leader. There are others (like Guy Standing and Scott Santens) whose work I regularly look to for ideas and updates on the topic. For my part, I’m working to systematically address all wicked problems. To that end, I’m currently working on a book on the UK’s Brexit issue, as well as the second anthology from the Wicked Problems Collaborative (my publishing company), that will look at the promise and peril of our rapidly advancing technological environment.
by Kate McFarland | Nov 11, 2016 | News
The 2016 Global Action Summit, convening November 14-15 in Nashville, Tennessee, will include a panel on issues such as automation, the future of work, and universal basic income.
The annual summit of the Global Action Platform brings together corporate and nonprofit leaders, government officials, academics, and other invited guests for a series of keynote lectures and panel discussions. This year, 400 invited guests will take part in discussions on the theme of “scalable, sustainable solutions for abundant food, health, and prosperity.”
Of particular note to Basic Income News is a panel on the topic “Life in a Post-Employment Society”, whose participants include two prominent figures in the basic income movement (see short video clips below): Jim Pugh, who co-founded the Universal Income Project and The Basic Income Podcast, and freelance UBI writer Scott Santens. Completing the panel are M. Douglas Meeks, Professor of Theology at Vanderbilt University, and Michael Tanner, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Tanner has previously expressed skepticism of universal basic income, despite acknowledging potential advantages over the current state. More recently, he moderated a high-profile basic income forum with Charles Murray and Andy Stern.
During this panel, corporate advisor Bob Castro will moderate a discussion of ways in which governments or other institutions can help individuals and society cope with a world with fewer opportunities for employment. Panelists will address such topics as the feasibility of a universal basic income and possibilities for finding personal meaning outside of jobs.
The 2016 Global Action Summit will take place November 14-15 in Nashville, Tennessee, and the “Life in a Post-Employment Society” panel will be held on the afternoon of Monday, November 14.
The conference’s keynote speaker is journalist and CNN host Fareed Zakaria, who will offer a forecast of the effect of the election of US President Donald Trump on food security, health, and prosperity. Zakaria himself recently moderated another high-profile basic income debate, between pro-UBI Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes and anti-UBI New York Times columnist Eduardo Porter.
A complete schedule of other panels and events at the Global Action Summit is available at this page: https://globalactionplatform.org/pages/view/global-action-summit.
Note that registration is open only to participants and invited guests.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo CC BY 2.0 Steve Jurvetson
by Kate McFarland | Oct 12, 2016 | News
Joel Dodge is an attorney and writer based in New York City. Recently, he has been writing articles on the topic of universal basic income, several of which have been published in the online news publication Quartz.
Dodge’s interest in UBI stems in part from his attraction to the idea of a child allowance–a policy he encountered in the Netherlands while studying Dutch social programs. He cites the journalist Russell Shorto, an American expat living in Amsterdam, as an influence. In Dodge’s words, Shorto wrote about “the refreshing surprise of the Dutch government depositing money in parents’ bank accounts to help out with the cost of school books, diapers, and raising kids generally.” Commenting on the origins of his interest in UBI, Dodge explains, “The charm and user-friendliness of the policy stuck with me–how government wanted to be there to help out for the big moments in life, and it did so through simple automatic cash infusions.”
Read more: “The best way to fix child poverty in the US is to give poor kids free money”
With UBI’s recent increase in publicity and popularity, Dodge began researching earlier discussions of basic income guarantee programs in US politics — especially circa 1970, when the US federal government nearly passed a basic income guarantee in the form of President Richard Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan, and Nixon’s challenger, George McGovern, developed his own basic income proposal (the “demogrant”).
Dodge says, “Part of learning about UBI has been excavating our past political debates, which is exciting. So it’s both an old idea and an extremely cutting edge, even revolutionary one.”
Read more: “When Basic Income Was Almost an American Reality“
In his most recent writings on UBI, Dodge has explored some of the main objections from both Right and Left. He dismisses the contention that it will “make people lazy” — pointing that, insofar as people do stop working, they might make other valuable social contributions (as did such “gentlemen of leisure” as Charles Darwin and Rene Descartes).
Read more: “Universal basic income wouldn’t make people lazy–it would change the nature of work”
The major worry from the left — that a basic income would disrupt the welfare state in a way that leaves many worse-off — is one that Dodge finds more pressing. In communication with Basic Income News, he describes motivation for writing “The progressive case against a universal basic income“:
I was motivated to write [it] for two principal reasons. First, I think some of the hype surrounding the cross-ideological embrace of UBI is overstated. The right and left have very different ideas about how UBI would interact with the current welfare state, and I wanted to draw attention to that disagreement.
I also saw certain influential liberal policy figures like Larry Summers, Jason Furman, and Jared Bernstein rapidly coalescing around the same critique of UBI in recent months: namely, that funding a UBI would inevitably come at the expense of other social welfare programs. And I think it’s an important critique. Those who advocate for UBI on the left need to come up with a clear and plausible way to fund a UBI while merging it with our existing social welfare regime.
Scott Santens and some other UBI advocates support retaining government healthcare programs and adding on certain UBI supplements, such as disability benefits. They point to the holes in our social safety net, but that’s really an argument for just plugging in these holes to keep people from falling through the cracks–a much more practical near-term project in our political tradition than a UBI, frankly.
And the reason progressives support certain in-kind benefits like food stamps, housing support, and public healthcare is because we think these are essentially fundamental rights that everyone should be entitled to. Would we really go back on those basic instincts if we replaced the welfare state with a UBI? That is, if someone exhausted their UBI, would we support the hard-line Charles Murray-style position that they are out of luck and must depend on charity? I doubt it, and certainly hope not. So I think UBI needs to be structured in a way that adapts to the moral imperative of guaranteeing that certain targeted, basic needs will be met, understanding that there’s social value to providing more than just cash benefits in some circumstances.
Overall, Dodge describes himself as “deeply curious about UBI” but, at the same time, cautious. He believes that it’s important to wait for the outcomes of upcoming studies of basic income before adopting such a policy. Meanwhile, he maintains that progressive reforms should be approached in an incremental manner. As he relates in other remarks to Basic Income News:
I’m deeply curious about UBI. I admire the ambition, simplicity, and utopian instinct of UBI. But it’s also important to pay attention to how basic income works in practice in the experiments that are just gearing up. The best data we have now are from experiments conducted more than 40 years ago, so we need to see how UBI works today.
I also tend to be an incrementalist when it comes to progressive reform. So I try to harness some of the energy surrounding UBI toward smaller scale reforms. Some of our refundable tax credits could be transformed into direct periodic payments from the government to help out families year-round. There are good fiscal and efficiency arguments to back this up, so the political path is clearer. And if we enact UBI-lite policies today, it could pave the way toward bigger and bolder UBI-style reforms tomorrow.
Bibliographical Summary: Joel Dodge on UBI
“The best way to fix child poverty in the US is to give poor kids free money” (August 19, 2016) Quartz.
“Universal basic income wouldn’t make people lazy–it would change the nature of work” (August 25, 2016) Quartz.
“When Basic Income Was Almost an American Reality” (August 30, 2016) Medium.
“The progressive case against a universal basic income” (September 23, 2016) Quartz.
See also J. DODGE blog.
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Zoriah
by Kate McFarland | Sep 4, 2016 | News
The American news outlet Vox will be hosting its first conference — or, as it calls it, an “unconference” — in Washington D.C. from September 21-22. Among the questions to be discussed is “Should we replace the welfare state with a universal basic income?”
Vox will hold Vox Conversations in Washington D.C. from September 21-22. Attendance is by invitation only — although anyone can apply for an invitation — and attendees will develop their own schedule of events. According to an August 29 update (“Vox’s first conference will be different”), Vox aims to gather a “diverse of group of 150 people into a room” and let conversations develop organically.
Vox states that there is only one rule of the conference: “we don’t want to be bound by the narrow confines of what seems possible today. Let’s think about the world as it could and should be, not as it is.” The first suggested topic on the conference website is “Should we replace the welfare state with a universal basic income?”
As of the time of this writing (August 31), it is still possible to apply for an invitation to the (un)conference.
Confirmed participants so far include basic income advocate Scott Santens, former SEIU President Andy Stern — whose new book on basic income, Raising the Floor, has earned a considerable amount of publicity — and Natalie Foster, an expert on the sharing economy and gig economy who has spoken in favor of basic income.
The topic of universal basic income is not new to this news outlet. Vox contributor Dylan Matthews has written extensively about universal basic income since 2012. More recently, other Vox authors have begun writing on the topic as well. Vox has also covered basic income on its podcast The Weeds — including, most recently, an episode with Andy Stern as the featured guest. In 2014, Vox contributors made a video on universal basic income called “We know how to end poverty. So why don’t we?” This was followed by an episode of The Weeds with the same name (featuring Dylan Matthews).
See the Vox Conversations webpage to keep up to date about the (un)conference, or to apply for an invitation. Catch up on some of Vox’s recent UBI-themed articles below:
Dylan Matthews (Jul 16, 2016) “An expert on fighting poverty makes the case against a universal basic income“
Dylan Matthews (Jun 6, 2016) “Basic income advocates lost the battle in Switzerland. They’re winning the war.“
Dylan Matthews (Jun 1, 2016) “Some residents of Oakland are about to get a basic income“
Ezra Klein (Jun 1, 2016) “A universal basic income only makes sense if Americans change how they think about work“
Matthew Yglesias (May 31, 2016) “A universal basic income could absolutely solve poverty“
Dylan Matthews (Apr 15, 2016) “A charity’s radical experiment: giving 6,000 Kenyans enough money to escape poverty for a decade“
Dylan Matthews (Dec 8, 2015) “Finland’s hugely exciting experiment in basic income, explained“
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 David Zhou
Shout out to Kate’s patrons on Patreon
by Kate McFarland | Aug 23, 2016 | News
Euvie Ivanova and Mike Gilliland, digital entrepreneurs and world travelers, founded the Future Thinkers Podcast as an outlet to “explore and bring light to big ideas, open up to alternative modes of living, and think about how all of us can build a better future for all of humanity” (as stated on their website). Their goal is to create a community of individuals who are actively involved in building humanity’s better future. Recently, Future Thinkers has been developing and distributing materials that promote a universal basic income.
For example, they have outlined some commonly cited reasons to support UBI in a short and simple infographic video, which is available on YouTube (1 min 47 sec). (The image above is from this video.)
Additionally, episode 31 of the podcast, aired on July 29, was an interview with Scott Santens on a variety of issues related to UBI. The 48-minute episode covered topics including how a basic income could be financed, the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (and how this relates to the decoupling of income from employment), the likely effect of basic income on the open source movement, the age-old question of whether the goal of humanity is to be a walking billboard, and many others. A recording of the podcast is available on YouTube and the Future Thinkers website.
