by Guest Contributor | Aug 15, 2016 | Opinion
The Unconditional Basic Income has been springing up around the world as a new human rights movement, protecting everyone’s fundamental right to life. In addition to basic human rights, traditional Chinese Confucianism, Buddhism and Daoism shows us the fundamental nature of humanity is good, in that all beings originally are Buddhas, all are endowed with Buddha nature (1), so each human being deserves equal respect and care. The Unconditional Basic Income is a manifestation of this ideology of benevolence.
Around 2,300 years ago, China’s Mencius wrote in King Hui of Liang, due to a lack of constant property, the common people also lack unwavering perseverance. This will lead to a dissipation of propriety, causing a tide of lawlessness. Waiting until a citizen breaks the law, and utilizing punishment to handle him is essentially like using a fishing net to ensnare the populace. How can a benevolent monarch think this type of policy can be put into practice? As such, a wise monarch will formulate property for the people, giving them the ability to serve their parents and provide for their spouse and children. During a year of prosperity, a family can eat well and during years of shortages, they can still avoid starvation. Then enlightenment can be put into practice, urging the populace to perform good deeds, making it easier for them to follow the enlightenment. This is what Mencius meant when he said “Establishing property of the people, make them have sufficient food and clothing; first support (the people), then teach (the people).”
Thus, each of the basic income experiments around the world allow us to realize that after a person receives a guarantee for their livelihood, crime goes down, educational outcomes go up, economies grow, physical and spiritual health improves, families and societies become more harmonious, and parents have more time to accompany and take care of their children. Society is created by each family unity. Creating more harmonious families will make a more harmonious and safe society. In today’s turbulent world, implementing a UBI is of the utmost importance.
Inspired by the news surrounding Switzerland’s basic income referendum, this February I worked with the respected teacher Chunchi Tsao, a doctor of traditional Chinese medicine, to start a new organization Global Basic Income Social Welfare Promotion Association in Taiwan. On Facebook, I recruited 30 people to found the organization to apply through the government to become an official organization. I hope that we can cooperate with the global movement to push the basic income, free education, social housing, free vegetarian restaurants for environmental protection, etc. in order to implement social welfare.
The honorary president of our association, Taiwan University’s School of Law European Union Law Research Center (EULRC) Dr. Lukas Lien said, “When the country’s founder, Dr. Sun Yatsen said ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,’ the genuine meaning was a country of social welfare, instead of the Nationalist KMT party’s idea of exploiting the people. No. The real meaning is to give all of the resources to the people and then the government can attain so-called legitimacy. Otherwise what can they rely on for legitimacy to levy taxes? The purpose of taxes is for educating the people, ensuring everyone has food, clothing, housing, transportation, and then the most important element is ensuring the most basic right to life. In German it is not called UBI. It is called the most fundament, the most basic right to life. That is to say, at the very least, is that no matter the circumstances, no one will face starvation.”
The purpose of government’s existence is to take care of the people. If a government does not take care of the people’s food, clothing, shelter, education and their fundament right to life, then a government is no longer needed, and in fact no longer has legitimacy to levy taxes and legislate to regulate the people. Since ancient times, both the East and the West have followed the ideology: “The will of the people is the will of Heaven,” and “The people are God.” The Book of History puts forward “Heaven sees what the people see, Heaven hears what the people hear,” and “That which the people desire, Heaven must abide by.” In Latin it is, “Vox Populi, Vox Dei”, or “The voice of the people is the voice of God.”
Dr. Lien also quotes the last Pope: “because all are created in the image of god, so we must protect people, in the same way that we protect the image of God. In his Christian Socialism course, Dr. Lien quotes Matthew 25 verse 31-46, the story of the judgement day: “Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” That is to say, we push for the basic income in order to push for world peace.
The practical way to achieve this is through the basic income, free education, and social housing as social welfare protections in the constitution and legislation. Educate the people about the ideology and law behind these basic rights is the first obligation. Revolution has to start from the mind. Once the people have the understanding of the ideology and law, then we will be able to choose and create a government of benevolence, as well as understand how to use legislation to push for these social benefits.
Collecting the revenue for the basic income has many different methods, for example taxes and printing money, cutting and integrating general welfare spending, generating profits or raising money. As science and technology continues to progress, humanity can already gradually use automation and robots to substitute human labor. This will give people more time and energy to pursue artistic and creative endeavors, entrepreneurship, spiritual development and realize their own dreams.
Our organization already conceived of some methods to fund the basic income: develop autonomous robotic national industries in order to produce food and other necessities and allocate the profits to all people. The American economist Milton Friedman 1969 popularized the satirical idea of throwing cash from helicopters and letting people collect it. In reality, the Central Bank could print money and directly give it to the entire population. In the second year, the basic income could be matched with a consumption tax and some of the money that was issued could be absorbed back into government coffers. From this, an uninterrupted source of finances could supply the revenue for the unconditional basic income to smoothly operate over the long-term. Certainly, there are many more methods for financing the UBI, which could all be properly tuned and applied.
Universal unconditional basic income is not only feasible; it is an imperative.
Annotation: 1. All beings are originally Buddhas – The Chart of Mortals, Saints, Delusion and Enlightenment
Written by Juku Shenguang: Founder, Vice-president and Secretary-General of Global Basic Income Social Welfare Promotion Association in Taiwan.
Translated by Tyler Prochazka
by Kate McFarland | Jul 6, 2016 | News
A recent survey of economists at leading institutions purports to show that 58% oppose a universal basic income, while only 2% support it. However, the survey asked specifically about a UBI that replaces all other social insurance programs and is paid only to adults over 21. Many opposed these qualifications, not UBI itself.
On Tuesday, June 28, the IGM (Initiative on Global Markets) Forum released the results of a survey on “universal basic income” distributed to the Economic Experts Panel — a panel consisting only of “senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States” chosen to be diverse in their specializations, locations, and political orientations.
Out of these economics experts, 58% either “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with a description of a specific universal basic income policy, while only 2% “agreed” and none “strongly agreed”. (The remainder were either “uncertain” or had no opinion on the matter.)
At first blush, such results are apt to shock and disappoint supporters of basic income. However, as with any survey, attention to the detail is key: what, exactly, were respondents asked?
In this case, respondents were asked to rank their opinion on the following statement on a five-point scale (or declare no opinion):
Granting every American citizen over 21-years-old a universal basic income of $13,000 a year — financed by eliminating all transfer programs (including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing subsidies, household welfare payments, and farm and corporate subsidies) — would be a better policy than the status quo.
Presumably, this particular policy proposal comes from Charles Murray, who endorsed exactly this in a recent Wall Street Journal feature.
Even before looking at the survey responses, we should take pause here: Charles Murray is a controversial figure even among — perhaps especially among — supporters of UBI. Left-leaning advocates tend to regard Murray and his proposals as “downright undesirable”, to use the phrase wielded by Daniel Raventós and Julie Wark in their June 15th article in CounterPunch.
Last January, to give another example, an article in Jacobin argued that a UBI “could do little to achieve egalitarian objectives — or even backfire badly” if the policy poorly designed. The author presented Murray’s proposal as an example of “non-liveable” basic income, due to its low amount and concurrent elimination of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
With this in mind, then, it should not be too surprising that several economists in the IGM Forum also took issue with the proposed elimination of all other benefits — but not UBI per se — when explaining their votes of “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree”. Some even expressed support of policies closely related to UBI. For instance, Richard Schmalensee (MIT) said, “A properly designed negative income tax could be part of a better policy, but replacing everything is a bad idea.” Similarly, Eric Maskin (Harvard) replied, “A minimum income makes sense, but not at the cost of eliminating Social Security and Medicare.” And Christopher Udry (Yale) opined that UBI could work if “coupled with universal health care and tax reform … but we are far from that.”
Larry Samuelson (Yale), who responded as “Uncertain”, stated, “There is much to recommend a universal basic income, but specifically a 13k income while ending all other transfers is difficult to assess.”
The proposed restriction of the UBI to adults over 21 worried other economists — such as William Nordhaus, who said, “And the children get nothing? The basic idea is sound but too simplistic as stated.” Likewise, Robert Hall (Stanford) simply offered, “Limitation to people over 21 can’t be the right answer.”
This is not to suggest, of course, that all of the economists surveyed were inclined to support a basic income (but just not Charles Murray’s version). Some did express opposition to UBI itself, and for reasons that we might expect: it’s too expensive, it might discourage work, it’s not necessary given current welfare programs, and “Bill Gates would get 13k, which is crazy.”
Nonetheless, it’s striking that many explanations of “Disagree” responses did not criticize UBI per se, and were sometimes even implicitly (or explicitly!) supportive.
Not all respondents gave explanations of their answers. However, looking through the list of economists surveyed, it’s further notable that the Murray-inspired UBI proposal elicited disagreement and uncertainty from some others who have previously expressed support of basic income. For instance, the Nobel Laureate Angus Deaton voted “Disagree”, despite having recently come out in favor of “basic income grants”. Even distinguished MIT Professor Abhijit Banerjee — who is an advisor for GiveDirectly’s basic income pilot and recently wrote a compelling case for UBI in The Indian Express — voted “Uncertain”.
Thus, supporters of UBI — and especially those on the left-side of the political spectrum — should not be discouraged by this particular poll, despite its purportedly showing that only 2% of a forum of economics experts “support a universal basic income”.
If there’s anything to concern us about this survey, it should be the implicit conflation (in its headline) of the general idea of UBI with Charles Murray’s specific, and very controversial, proposal.
On the other hand, the economists themselves do not make this conflation — and, indeed, their responses serve as a reminder of the danger of tying the idea of UBI to any one particular policy implementation.
As basic income researcher Jurgen de Wispelaere writes in a recent blog post,
Agreement at the level of the general idea amongst opposing political factions is often hailed as a virtue of the basic income proposal. However, once we move from idea to policy implementation, persistent disagreement may return with a vengeance.
This is an important message, and one which the IGM Forum survey illustrates well.
Reference:
“Universal Basic Income,” IGM Forum, Chicago Booth, June 28, 2016.
Thanks to Asha Pond for reviewing a draft of this article.
Thanks to my supporters on Patreon. (To see how you too can support my work for Basic Income News, click the link.)
by Guest Contributor | Jun 28, 2016 | Opinion
Author: Robin Ketelaars
The Swiss referendum for an unconditional basic income ended on June 5 with 23 percent voting yes. The organizers had expected 20%, so in many ways this was still a positive outcome.
With a turnout of only 47 percent, the result demonstrates that 53 percent of the population are indifferent about the basic income.
Opponents managed to bring forth negative stereotypes about the basic income. Enough money was available to manufacture billboards bearing the prejudices about the basic income concept. Mostly the opposition focused on the amount of money a basic income would cost, while basic income proponents had to raise awareness on their own.
WAY TOO HIGH
Abroad, there are plenty of opponents who believe they have sufficient knowledge to comment on the basic income. Thus, according to some, the amount proposed in Switzerland is too high: SFR 2500. This seems high when it is directly converted into euros (€2,250) or dollars ($2,577), however there is more to it. The proposed amount is based on the standard of living of the Swiss, but that is rarely discussed.
The cost of living in Switzerland is 68.87% higher than in the Netherlands [1], so 2500 SFR is about the equivalent of 1480 euros, which is an appropriate amount for the Netherlands. [2]
For Europe the amount comes to 60% of the median income poverty threshold [5]
Some comparisons
Big Mac in:
- the Netherlands € 3.71
- Germany € 3.86
- Basel € 6.44 [3]
A simple ticket for a ride will cost public transport in:
- Paris € 1.80 / trip
- Hamburg € 1.50 / trip
- Rome € 1.50 / trip
- Amsterdam € 0.89 + € 0.154 / km
- New York $ 2.65 / Trip
- Basel € 3.10 / 1 ZONE / 1 hour
- Zurich € 2.60 / 1 ZONE / 1 hour [4]
Notes
[1] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Switzerland&displayCurrency=EUR
[2] https://basisinkomen.nl/debat-basisinkomen-haalbaar-betaalbaar-utrecht-22-mei-2016/
[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/274326/big-mac-index-global-prices-for-a-big-mac/
[4] Basel https://www.bvb.ch/en/tickets-fares/standard-fares/single-tickets
Zuerich https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/vbz/en/index/tickets/tickets_prices/day_pass_single_ticket.html
Amsterdam https://www.amsterdamtips.com/tips/transport-tickets.php
New York https://web.mta.info/metrocard/mcgtreng.htm#payper
Rome https://www.rometoolkit.com/transport/rome_travel_pass.htm
Hamburg https://www.hvv.de/en/tickets/single-day-tickets/overview/
[5] https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do
by Guest Contributor | Jun 20, 2016 | Opinion
The level of Basic Income (BI) is a matter of heated debate in discussions of BI for national implementation, investigating the level at which BI would be ‘high enough’. There is also growing dispute regarding ‘partial’ vs. ’full’ BI. This was the central topic of investigation at this year’s BI conference in Maastricht in January. The following calculations, using a common formula and comparing BI levels for 24 European/OECD countries, aim to assist in the resolution of this debate.
We don’t want to make the system worse than it is. It’s logical, then, that the minimal level of BI should reach, at least, the level of current Social Assistance (SA): we could call this ‘partial’ BI. All BI proposals included in this analysis satisfy this condition.
It follows that implementation of a BI close to the level offered by the current social security system (e.g., the SA level) implies budget neutrality in countries with a more universal system.[1] This follows the argument “If we can afford our current welfare system, we can afford basic income” that Max Ghenis has well elaborated. These proposals might be socially more acceptable, given that the change would be ‘minimal’.
So, if the level of SA in a country indicates 1) the socially acceptable level of social aid and 2) the first estimation of the social welfare budget, BI at the same level would likely be the most financially and socially affordable solution, offering the shortest implementation time frame. Proposals for Slovenia[2], Hungary[3] and Finland[4] belong to this category.
On the other hand, the level of BI should be high enough to ensure a material existence and participation in society. We assume this when we argue that BI should be at least at the level of the current Poverty Threshold (PT): we could call this ’full’ BI. BI at such a level would probably fulfill the role of an emancipatory welfare system.[5] Proposals for Switzerland[6] and the Netherlands[7] fit into this second category.
The question is, how costly are lowered aspirations regarding a ‘partial’ BI level (e.g., in Slovenia, Finland and Hungary) in service of affordability and/or social acceptance in the foreseeable future? Will we achieve anything? As the microsimulation in Slovenia demonstrated, however, even a partial BI proposal (budget neutral, well below PT and above SA) proved to be: 1) better for the majority, 2) the same or better for the more vulnerable and 3) better for the lowest deciles. The Hungarian BI proposal seems to draw similar conclusions.
To serve discussion regarding the level of BI in different countries, a common formula (similar to that used for the Slovenian proposal) was used to calculate the levels of BI proposed in various countries.
Formula: BI = an average of three components:
- Social Assistance for a single person with no children: Indicates the currently acceptable minimal level of social aid (and the ‘budget’ of the current social security system).
- 1/2 of the Poverty Threshold at the point of 60% of the median income: Takes into account income distribution and the risk of poverty.
- 1/3 of average net wages: Takes into account the ‘value of work.’
A table with Basic Income calculations for 24 European and OECD countries allows us to draw comparisons across and within countries regarding: the social protection system (e.g., SA), the average wage (AW), the poverty threshold (PT), BI calculations using the same formula (both in national currencies and euro) and different BI proposals. It’s very important to note, however, that in countries where the level of SA is already higher than the BI calculation, the existing SA should be taken as a starting point. BI proposals for Finland and the Netherlands belong to this group.
Such BI calculations (that are above SA & ‘budget neutral’ & below PT) could serve BI discourse as the first benchmark:
- at which we could expect results that would be: a) better for the majority, b) the same or better for the more vulnerable and c) better for the lowest deciles;
- of the BI level calculation for countries that, as yet, have made no BI calculations;
- to evaluate competing national proposals;
- to evaluate proposals across countries;
- to evaluate existing social security systems, investigating by how much they diverge from this preferable solution;
- of common European social welfare solutions made by the people (of 99%) for the people and not from the EU elites.
Valerija Korošec: PhD in Postmodern Sociology, MSc in European Social Policy Analysis. Author of (eng) UBI Proposal in Slovenia (2012) sl. Predlog UTD v Sloveniji: Zakaj in kako?(2010). Co-editor UBI in Slovenia (2011). Member of Sekcija za promocijo UTD. Member of UBIE. Slovenian representative in BIEN. Fields of expertise: poverty, inequality, sastifaction with life, social policy anlaysis, gender equality, ‘beyond GDP’, paradigm shift, postmodernism, UTD, basic income. Slovenian. Born 1966 and raised in Maribor. Lives in Ljubljana. Employed at the Institue of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development (Government Office of Republic Slovenia). Views under my name are my own. @valerijaSlo
Footnotes:
[1] All included countries have a universal SA system, except: 1) Finland, Germany, Belgium, Estonia and Denmark, which have different levels of assistance based on employment status according to OECD statistic – in these cases it was the data for the ‘Employed’ SA level that were included; and 2) the United Kingdom, Greece and Italy, which have no scheme comparable to SA.
[2] https://basicincome.org/bien/pdf/munich2012/Korosec.pdf
[3] https://let.azurewebsites.net/upload/tanulmany.pdf (English version unavailable).
[4] https://basicincome.org/news/2015/12/finland-basic-income-experiment-what-we-know/
[5] https://basicincome-europe.org/ubie/charter-ubie/
[6] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-pay-idUSBRE9930O620131004
[7] Alexander de Roo, by mail.
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
