by Kate McFarland | Jul 11, 2016 | Opinion
An article in the June 4th edition of The Economist, entitled “Basically Flawed,” argues that universal basic income is a radical policy that is just too risky to pursue. The anti-UBI argument itself is flawed, however, largely due to understating the benefit of UBI–if not ignoring its moral necessity.
According to an article in the June 4th edition of The Economist [1], universal basic income (UBI) is a policy of uncertain need but certain costs. A simple risk-benefit analysis, then, would advise us to maintain our current welfare states (perhaps with less radical adjustments) rather than gamble with a UBI.
The argument has two main components: first, establishing that there is no definite need for a UBI; second, establishing that a UBI presents unavoidable costs.
Concerning the first, the author assumes that there is one (and only one) reason why something like a UBI would become necessary: widespread unemployment due to new technologies. Here the author notes that the robot job takeover has not happened yet, and expresses skepticism that it ever will:
Worries that technological advance would mean the end of employment have, thus far, always proved misguided; as jobs on the farm were destroyed, work in the factory was created. Today’s angst over robots and artificial intelligence may well turn out to be another in a long line of such scares.
Having set aside robot-driven angst, the author turns to defend the claim that UBI has sure costs. The first and most obvious of these is financial: a UBI is certain to be expensive to any government that implements it. For example,
An economy as rich as America’s could afford to pay citizens a basic income worth about $10,000 a year if it began collecting about as much tax as a share of GDP as Germany and replaced all other welfare programmes with the basic-income payment.
Moreover, the author complains that a UBI would “destroy the conditionality on which modern welfare states are built” — leading to an “erosion” of the workforce:
During an experiment with a basic-income-like programme in Manitoba, Canada, most people continued to work. But over time, the stigma against leaving the workforce would surely erode: large segments of society could drift into an alienated idleness.
Finally, the author worries that it would be impossible to combine UBI with a reasonable immigration policy; immigrants would have to be barred or else treated as “second-class citizenries without access to state support.”
Thus, the author concludes, the risks of UBI — which are both large and near-certain — greatly outweigh its sole benefit as insurance against technologically-driven job loss (which might or might not occur).
Reply by Basic Income News editor Kate McFarland
The basic income proponent could, if she wished, directly attack any one of the author’s premises. She might be tempted to argue that a universal basic income could be afforded and that it could be reconciled with a fair immigration policy, contest the claim that it would cause people to stop working, or produce evidence that mass technological unemployment is indeed very likely.
For my own part, I am not particularly interested in quibbling over any of these points, however important they might be independently. Instead, I will concentrate on two overarching problems with the author’s argument:
1. The argument understates the potential benefits of a universal basic income, which far exceed security against a robot job apocalypse.
2. The argument assumes that risk-benefit analysis is an appropriate method by which to answer the question of whether to adopt a universal basic income. But this would not be the case if, for example, a basic income is required as a matter of individual rights or social justice.
Why do we need UBI?
In an article published last April, Rutger Bregman writes, “Forget about robots. The reasons why we need basic income are infinitely better.” This is a crucial viewpoint–and one common in basic income discourse, the media’s apparent fondness for “the robot issue” notwithstanding–which must be taken into account when addressing potential benefits of UBI.
Take, for instance, the elimination of poverty. When scholars and researchers like Pranab Bardhan, Nkateko Chauke, and the team at GiveDirectly–to name only a few–argue that developing nations should adopt a basic income, they are not worrying about robots; they are thinking about poverty and inequality.
But, of course, poverty is also a pressing and immediate concern in high-tech countries like the United States. Indeed, a recent article in the New York Times sparked a debate about whether a UBI could abolish poverty in the US. When Scott Santens and Vox’s Matthew Yglesias joined the fray to argue that it indeed could, they remained focused on the issue of present poverty–not future automation.
Perhaps the author of The Economist article believes that a UBI is unnecessary to fight poverty, because existing welfare programs could just as well be tweaked to accomplish this goal. But, if so, the author would overlook many known problems with means-testing, which a UBI might eliminate.
The abolition of poverty–along with all the hurdles, stigmatization, and poverty traps created by means-tested programs–is a potential benefit of UBI that is clearly quite profound, yet one the author fails to mention.
Furthermore, a benefit unique to UBI is that, if high enough, it would enable workers to refuse employment. This too promises many positive results in the here and now, without waiting for robots to arrive at the door.
A UBI could be an enormous boon to workers who need or desire to leave full-time employment, if only temporarily, in order to raise a child, care for an ailing family member, return to school, start a small business, participate in voluntary community services, contribute to the arts, or pursue any other unpaid project. UBI is often said to recognize the value of unpaid labor in all of its forms; current systems of social welfare do not.
Moreover, it is often argued that this ability to refuse work benefits even those workers who do wish to retain full-time employment, insofar as it increases their bargaining power: if a worker cannot be replaced by someone desperate to take any job just to survive, it is easier for that worker to demand higher wages, better working conditions, or shorter or more flexible hours. It is UBI, not existing welfare systems, that would generate this type of bargaining power.
None of these advantages of UBI are mentioned in the risk-benefit analysis in The Economist, despite the fact that they are arguably as near-to-certain as any of the alleged risks–robots or no robots–and would be positive impacts of very high magnitude. A UBI might well be expensive, but one should to consider its full range of benefits in order to properly assess whether it is worth its high price tag. The author does not.
Of course, this is all to grant that the use of risk/benefit analysis is a fitting approach to the decision of whether to pursue UBI–but I believe that even this assumption can, and should, be questioned.
Is UBI “just just”?
As evidenced by the various articles linked above, it is popular to argue in favor of basic income on the basis of its predicted effects: pro-UBI authors of cite empirical evidence of effectiveness cash-transfer to establish the claim that a UBI “will work”. That is, many authors argue that UBI will achieve certain desired outcomes (or not cause certain outcomes generally deemed undesirable, such as decreased workforce participation, laziness, or higher spending on alcohol or other temptation goods).
But what if a basic income is not merely an effective means to attain socially desirable ends? What if universal and unconditional basic income is mandated as a matter of social justice?
This is, in fact, far from an uncommon view within the basic income movement.
For example, Guy Standing and Yanis Varoufakis have recently described UBI as a form of social inheritance (cf. their linked lectures). The idea here is this: the money distributed in a UBI is money that rightfully belongs to all of us, equally, as inheritors of the wealth generated through the collective activities of our forebears.
Alternatively, one might argue for a right to a livable basic income in other commonly recognized individual rights–such as, perhaps most straightforwardly, a right to a certain minimal standard of living, just for being alive. Furthermore, a well-entrenched view in philosophical work on basic income–canonically presented by Philippe van Parijs and later developed in a somewhat different form by Karl Widerquist [2]–holds that the protection of freedom mandates an unconditional basic income.
If a universal basic income is a universal human right, then there is no question of whether the benefits are worth the risks; thus, arguments of the form given in The Economist don’t get off the ground. There is simply no question as to whether a UBI should be adopted: it should. The only question is how to manage whatever risks the policy would create, or perhaps how to tweak and fine-tune the policy to minimize risk.
If a basic income is a right–if it’s necessary as a matter of social justice–then we must find a way to fund it, even if it requires hefty tax increases on the rich (or even German levels of government spending!). And we must be willing to assume risks, including the possibility that some individuals will leave the workforce (some of them, perhaps, to simply smoke weed and watch Netflix).
This is not to suggest that we should ignore the potential risky outcomes. On the contrary, it is crucial to understand what the risks are, so that we might build safeguards against them. But, under the present supposition that basic income is simply a right, they should be viewed as potential problems that can–and must–be surmounted for the sake of what is owed to individuals and society.
[1] “Basically flawed,” The Economist, June 4, 2016.
[2] Such arguments are made in the books mentioned in the embedded links. N.B. All chapters from Widerquist’s work are available for free download from his website.
Thanks to Genevieve Shanahan and André Coelho for reviewing a draft of this article, and thanks to my supporters on Patreon.
“MET II Robot Lab” photo CC Georgina Rose.
by Kate McFarland | Jun 11, 2016 | News
Andy Stern, the former president of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), has written a new book on basic income: Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream. This upcoming book was previously announced on Basic Income News, and it remains true that the book will published on June 14, 2016. We now get to say, however, the book will be released next week.
In his new book, Stern investigates the current and projected state of the labor economy — focusing especially closely on the effects of new technologies — and argues that we need to adopt a universal basic income to prepare to massive disruptions in the job market of the not so distant future. Along the way, he talks to “economists, futurists, labor leaders, CEOs, investment bankers, entrepreneurs, and political leaders” about their predictions for economic change in upcoming decades.
Trade unionist Andrew Brady recently conducted a short interview with Andy Stern about the book, which can be viewed here. Stern notes that “we’re about to face a time of major economic disruption” — “a tsunami of change” — when merely tinkering with current policies and programs, such as adopting stricter labor laws, “will not be sufficient to solve workers’ problems.” Thus, “we need to guarantee that there’s a floor” for workers, even though there might be work on top of it.
Stern further elaborates on these issues in an article for Daily Caller, in which he remarks on the outcome of Switzerland’s June 5th vote on basic income.
Today’s economic pain though may only be a warm-up to more anguish if we fail to act boldly, and expediently. There is now quite reputable research on the potential disruption of software and AI; an Oxford University study predicting the loss of 47 percent of all U.S. jobs by 2033; Boston Consulting Group estimating up to 25 percent by 2025; McKinsey Global 45 percent elimination of all present tasks, with artificial intelligence reducing 13 percent more, could be harbingers of a future of increased economic peril.
Indeed, as he describes in a post on The World Bank’s Jobs and Development blog published last April, these changes in the economy played a large role in Stern’s decision to leave his prestigious post in organized labor. (He is now a Senior Fellow at Columbia University.)
I didn’t resign from SEIU because I was bored. Rather, after nearly fifteen years at the helm of SEIU, I had lost my ability to predict labor’s future. I could do that in the 1990s and early 2000s. But, by 2010, the economy was changing and fragmenting at such warp speed that I couldn’t see where it — or labor — was headed. At the end of that year I embarked on what became a four-year journey to discover the future of jobs, work, and the American Dream.
Already, the new landscape of work is populated by free agents and temporary workers who have more freedom and flexibility in their work life, but no job security and significantly less leverage with the people and companies who hire them. My focus turned to larger questions: If there are significantly fewer jobs and less work available in the future, how will people make a living, spend their time, and find purpose in their lives? Also, how can we keep the income gap from growing so wide that it erupts into social discord and upheaval?
I believe there is a solution – the universal basic income or UBI.
This blog post, “Moving towards a universal basic income,” is an extract from Raising the Floor, and it’s well worth reading in its entirety as you wait for the book to arrive.
The philosopher and political economist Philippe Van Parijs — well known in these parts as a cofounder of BIEN — calls Raising the Floor “a stunning combination of lucid analysis, up-to-date information, and lively dialogues that culminates in a bold proposal for universal basic income.”
The book has also received praise from the likes of former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich, author Barbara Ehrenreich, CEO Tim O’Reilly, and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards.
Andy Stern with Lee Kravitz (2016) Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream, PublicAffairs.
Picture of Andy Stern from Ralph Alswang via flickr
by Philippe van Parijs | Jun 6, 2016 | Opinion
Despite being factually defeated in the ballots, the Swiss initiative for basic income should be regarded as a giant step in the now unstoppable march towards basic income, says BIEN Founder Philippe Van Parijs.
Philippe Van Parijs is Professor at UCLouvain, Hoover Chair of Economic and Social Ethics. Chair of BIEN’s International Board
June 5th, 2016 will be remembered as an important landmark in the worldwide march towards the implementation of unconditional basic income schemes. On that day, all Swiss citizens were asked to express their approval of or opposition to the following proposal:
- The Confederation introduces an unconditional basic income.
2. The basic income must enable the whole population to live a dignified life and to participate in public life.
3. The law will determine the funding and level of the basic income.
The proposal was rejected, with 76.9% of the voters against, 23.1% in favor. Why was this rejection predictable? And why is it such an important step forward?[1]
From 0 to 23%
To answer these questions, a brief historical overview is in order. In 2008, the German film maker Enno Schmidt and the Swiss entrepreneur Daniel Häni, both based in Basel, produced Grundeinkommen: ein Kulturimpuls, a “film essay” that gave a simple and attractive picture of basic income. The dissemination of this film through the internet helped prepare the ground for a popular initiative in favor of the proposal quoted above, which was launched in April 2012. Another popular initiative, which proposed an unconditional basic income funded specifically by a tax on non-renewable energy, had been launched in May 2010, but it failed to gather the required number of signatures. The initiators of the 2012 initiative first thought of specifying that the basic income should be funded by the Value Added Tax, as was suggested in the film, but they dropped the idea for fear of reducing support for the proposal. They also chose not to stipulate a precise amount of the basic income in the text itself. But their website did mention a monthly amount of 2500 Swiss Francs per adult and 625 Swiss Francs per child as the best interpretation of what was required, in Switzerland, “to live a dignified life and to participate in public life”. If an initiative gathers over 100.000 validated signatures in 18 months, the Federal Council, Switzerland’s national government, has the obligation to organize a country-wide referendum within three years either on the exact text of the initiative or on a counter-proposal to be negotiated with the initiators.
On the 4th of October 2013, the initiators handed in spectacularly 126.406 valid signatures to the federal chancellery. On the 27th of August 2014, after validation of the signatures and examination of the arguments, the Federal Council rejected the initiative without making a counter-proposal. In its view, “an unconditional basic income would have negative consequences on the economy, the social security system and the cohesion of Swiss society. In particular, the funding of such an income would imply a considerable increase of the fiscal burden”. The proposal was subsequently submitted to both Chambers of the Swiss Parliament. On the 29th of May 2015, the Commission of Social Affairs of the National Council (Switzerland’s federal house of representatives) recommended by 19 votes against 1, with 5 abstentions, that the proposal for an unconditional basic income should be rejected. After a thorough discussion at a plenary session on the 23rd of September 2015, the National Council proceeded to a preliminary vote and endorsed this negative recommendation by 146 votes against 14 and 12 abstentions.
On the 18th of December 2015, the Council of States (the Swiss Senate, made up of representatives of the cantons) considered the initiative in turn and rejected it by 40 votes against, 1 in favor and 3 abstentions. On the same day, the proposal was the object of a second and final vote in the National Council: 157 voted against, 19 in favor and 16 abstained. In all cases, all the representatives from the far right, center right and center parties voted against the proposal. All pro votes and abstentions came from the socialist party and the green party, both of which were sharply divided. At the final vote in the National Council, 15 socialists voted in favor, 13 against and 13 abstained, while 4 greens voted in favor, 5 against and 3 abstained. The degree of support thus oscillated between 0% in the Federal Council, 2% in the Council of States and 4, 8 and 10% in the National Council (commission, preliminary and final vote).
For the popular vote on the 5th of June 2016, the national leaderships of nearly all parties, including the socialist party, recommended a “no” vote. The only exceptions were the green party and the (politically insignificant) pirate party, which recommended the “yes”, joined by a number of cantonal sections of the socialist party from all three linguistic areas. Against this background, it was entirely predictable that the no vote would win. The actual results of nearly one vote out of four for “yes” — with peaks at 35% in the canton of Geneva, 36% in the canton of Basel-Stadt, 40% in the city of Bern and 54% in the central districts of Zürich — is far above what the voting record in the Swiss parliament would have led one to expect. We must, moreover, bear in mind that Switzerland is perhaps the country in Europe in which support for an unconditional income should be considered least likely, not only because of the deeper penetration, in Calvin’s homeland, of a Calvinist work ethic, but above all because of the comparatively low levels of unemployment and poverty it currently experiences.
In Switzerland and beyond: broader and more mature
Everyone now realizes, however, that even if the initiative had not managed to gather the votes of more than the 2.5% of the Swiss citizens who had given their signatures at the initial stage, it would have been, thanks to the initiators’ stamina and their impressive communication skills, a stunning success. There is now no population in the world or in history that has given more thought to the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal than the Swiss have done over the last four years. And the effect was by no means confined to Switzerland. Just in the few days preceding the popular vote, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Guardian, and countless other newspapers around the world felt forced to publish substantive articles in order to explain at length — sometimes quite well, sometimes not so well — what a basic income is and what it is about. There is certainly no week in the history of the world in which the media have allocated so much time and space to a discussion of basic income.
Apart from giving a big boost to the spreading of the idea, the Swiss initiative has also greatly contributed to the maturing of the debate about it. For one lesson to be drawn from the experience is that a proposal that stipulates a high amount for a basic income, but no precise way of funding it, can easily gather the required number of signatures for a vote – while still being a long way from convincing a majority among the voters who bother to turn up on voting day (about 46% of the electorate in this case). A shining star that indicates the direction is enough for the former, but visible signposts on the ground marking a safe path in its direction are essential to achieve the latter. Whenever I was invited to join the Swiss debate, I argued that introducing in one go an individual basic income of CHF 2500 (38% of Switzerland’s GDP per capita) would be politically irresponsible. True, no one can prove that such a level of unconditional basic income is not economically sustainable. But nor can anyone prove that it is. Nor will any local experiment performed or planned in Switzerland or elsewhere prove that it is. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the economic sustainability of an unconditional basic income at that level will require a number of preconditions currently unmet, including the introduction of new forms of taxation — for example the micro-tax on electronic payments that played an interesting role in the Swiss debate — and effective international cooperation against tax evasion — not exactly Switzerland’s strongest point.
In the immediate future, however, it should now be clear that more modest but significant steps forward can and must be worked out and debated. They must involve an individual unconditional basic income at a lower level (say, 15 or 20% of GDP per capita) that would still need to be topped up by means-tested social assistance benefits or housing grants, certainly for urban single-adult households. It is not because in many cases the unconditional basic income would not suffice, on its own, to “enable the whole population to live a dignified life”, that it would not make a big difference to the security, bargaining power ad freedom of choice of many of the most vulnerable among us. Even in the short run, introducing such an unconditional basic income is definitely sustainable economically. It is up to us to make it politically achievable.
The totally unprecedented Swiss initiative has not only made many people, in Switzerland and far beyond, far more aware of the nature and size of the challenges we face in the twenty first century and of how a basic income might help us address them; by triggering countless objections, some naive and some spot on, it has also helped the advocates of basic income to sharpen their arguments and to better see the need for realistic next steps. For both of these reasons, the Swiss citizens who devoted a tremendous amount of time, energy and imagination to the “yes” campaign deserve the warm gratitude not only of the basic income movement worldwide, but of all those fighting for a free society and a sane economy.
[1] Many thanks to Nenad Stojanovic (Zurich and Princeton) for reliable information and insightful comments.
by Josh Martin | Jun 5, 2016 | News
On June 5, 2016, Swiss people voted on a referendum that included a question about implementing a universal basic income. Although the official text for the vote did not specify the level, the campaigners proposed 2,500 Swiss francs for adults and 625 francs for children per month.
Credit to Basic Income News Editing team (namely Josh Martin, Jenna van Draanen, Kate McFarland, André Coelho, Karl Widerquist and Tyler Prochazka) and Philippe Van Parijs.
The referendum on Unconditional Base Income (UBI), as they call it, has been building since 2013 when the Swiss Citizen’s Initiative, co-initiated by Enno Schmidt, gathered enough signatures (more than 100,000) to successfully trigger their right to have a national referendum on the issue. Although the Swiss Federal Council rejected the initiative in August 2014, the rejection was more of a symbolic suggestion to vote against the basic income than a consequential political action: the Swiss people had already asserted their constitutional right to the referendum.
Basic income advocates utilized headline-grabbing tactics to gain publicity for the referendum. Upon submitting the initiative in 2013, basic income supporters dumped 8 million five-rappen coins (one for each Swiss citizen) outside the Federal Palace in Bern. Then, in the final weeks before the vote, members of the Swiss Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income unveiled a poster that broke the poster size world record.
While this referendum may have been voted down, the Swiss basic income movement helped spark an international dialogue on how a basic income can help fix issues related to poverty, social policy, and technology, among other topics. This conversation has caught the imaginations of citizens all over the world and has led to commitments from governments or non-profit organizations to establish basic income pilot projects in Finland, the Netherlands, Canada, Uganda, Kenya, India, and in Silicon Valley, as well as public considerations for basic income research in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, and Namibia. This dialogue is truly global, and media outlets all over the world have begun writing articles and making videos debating the merits and principles for a basic income.
Even with a defeated referendum, the basic income movement is poised to march forward toward a brighter future in the coming years: thanks, in part, to the efforts of the Swiss basic income advocates who triggered this momentous referendum. We extend a special “thank you” from the BI News editorial team to all of those involved in the Swiss movement who have publicized basic income and worked so tirelessly on this referendum.
Sources:
More information on the results themselves can be seen here.
Confédération Suisse. Votation nº 601 official results, June 5th 2016
Ethan Jacobs, “Switzerland’s Basic Income Vote Turns Finance Reform Into a Democratic Spectacle”. Inverse, February 11, 2016.
by Kate McFarland | Apr 19, 2016 | News
Rutger Bregman in June 2015
Source: Victor van Werkhooven (Wikimedia Commons)
Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-Hour Workweek, the latest book by the award-winning Dutch journalist Rutger Bregman, will be published in English on Tuesday, April 19. The book was originally published in Dutch, and met immense success in the Netherlands — where it not only became a national bestseller but also helped to spearhead the movement for municipality-level basic income experiments.
Early in the book, Bregman transports the reader back to a long-gone time of utopian fantasy — to visions of “Cockaigne,” a land where “rivers ran with wine, roast geese flew overhead, pancakes grew on trees, and hot pies and pastries rained from the skies,” and all people danced, drank, and lounged together as equals. A new vision of utopia, he argues, is sorely needed in modern societies.
A century ago, influential thinkers like John Maynard Keynes predicted that automation and improved efficiency would render work all but gone in the not-so-distant future. Instead, here in the early decades of the 21st century, we citizens of developed nations find ourselves working longer hours than ever — all too often in jobs that we ourselves find meaningless. (On the last point, see Bregman’s lucid discussion of “bullshit jobs” in hist chapter entitled “Why it Doesn’t Pay to be a Banker.”) Technology has brought great improvements in living conditions — at least for a few — but dreams of a paradise of leisure seem lost to the wind.
Detail from Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s “Luilekkerland” (“The Land of Cockaigne”), 1567
How, then, can we reclaim our visions of utopia? How can we turn our modern “Land of Plenty,” as Bregman often calls it, into a land of plenty for all — and plentiful leisure and life-fulfillment as well?
No doubt, many skeptics and naysayers will find Bregman’s solutions — his visions of a universal basic income and a 15-hour workweek — to be fanciful as the mythical land of Cockaigne. Bregman himself concedes that, to many, his proposals will sound like “crazy dreams.” But it can’t be over-stressed that this “crazy dream” is, indeed, a “utopia for realists.” Far from being a woolly-headed dreamer, Bregman proposes and describes specific steps en route to utopia — from disincentivizing overtime to taxing banking transactions to developing alternative measure of progress to the GDP — and thoroughly backs his claims with diverse historical and experimental evidence.
For example, in his first chapter on basic income (“Why Everyone Should Get Free Money”), Bregman presents the findings of multiple studies of the effects of “free money.” He discusses the results of “Mincome” experiment in Dauphin, Manitoba, and similar concurrent studies conducted in the United States, in some detail — in addition to summarizing the outcomes observed by charitable organizations like GiveDirectly, which deals in no-strings-attached cash donations, and formal studies of cash transfers to the poor. He effectively combines statistics, anecdotes, and theoretical considerations in making the case that a basic income is the most effective means to combat poverty — a realistic approach to utopia-building if any is.
Of course, as Bregman knows, basic income, on its own, is not sufficient to create a utopian future. I will leave it to the reader to discover the other facets and nuances of his “crazy dream” — but, as an educator, I do want to call special attention to Bregman’s critique of our present discourse about education, which he (accurately) notes “invariably revolved around the question: Which knowledge and skills do today’s students need to get hired in tomorrow’s job market?” According to Bregman, this is “precisely the wrong question.” Instead, educators must ask what knowledge and skills we want students to have — to prepare them “not only for the job market but, more fundamentally, for life.” I couldn’t agree more. (Of course, as a philosophy instructor, I also couldn’t agree more when Bregman specifically recommends training students in “philosophy and morals,” but I digress…)
Utopia for Realists is a highly recommended read — but, in the words of Reading Rainbow’s LeVar Burton, you don’t have to take my word for it. Bregman’s book has received widespread praise from noted scholars and thinkers in the basic income movement and beyond.
Nick Srnicek, the co-author of another influential utopian-leaning book (Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work), calls Utopia for Realists “a bold call for utopian thinking and a world without work – something needed more than ever in an era of defeatism and lack of ambition,” while noted social theorist Zygmunt Bauman describes it as “brilliant, comprehensive, truly enlightening, and eminently readable” and “obligatory reading for everyone worried about the wrongs of present-day society and wishing to contribute to their cure.”
BIEN co-founder Philippe van Parijs also commends the book, saying, “Learning from history and from up-to-date social science can shatter crippling illusions. It can turn allegedly utopian proposals into plain common sense. It can enable us to face the future with unprecedented enthusiasm. To see how, read this superbly written, upbeat, insightful book.”
To learn more about Rutger Bregman and Utopia for Realists, visit the website of its publisher The Correspondent, a crowdfunded online journal for which Bregman has written extensively.
Bregman was recently interviewed by Gawker about basic income, in conjunction with the English version release of his book. The interview covers much ground, including the feasibility of a basic income in the United States (Bregman sees a “natural fit” for a basic income in the US, calling it the “ultimate marriage of conservative and progressive politics”), and responses to a battery of potential objections, such as the free-rider problem, the threat of inflation, and the worry that an economy in which people work fewer hours could not generate sufficient revenue to finance a basic income.
For a short and accessible video introduction to Bregman’s ideas about a basic income, watch his TEDx talk on YouTube.
