by Jason Burke Murphy | Jun 10, 2016 | Opinion
I have been part of Basic Income Earth Network’s and US Basic Income Guarantee Network’s social media team for a while and I want to clarify something for as many readers as possible. There are three ways of looking at the basic income movement: Basic Income can be endorsed as a (1) proposal or (2) a project or (3) an idea. A lot of communication causes people to evaluate each other more harshly than they need to because they mistake where the speaker or writer is coming from.
I will say what I mean and show how this distinction helps me.
(1) Basic Income as Proposal: When I describe basic income as a proposal, I am referring to any bill or law that implements an unconditional grant. Here we are looking at the policy. Here are some US-based examples:
Alaska invests a small amount of the land rent it charges and puts out the dividend to every citizen. They give about $2,000 to every individual and $8,000 for a family of four.
The Healthy Climate and Family Security Act would put a cap on carbon, charge fees, and distribute the revenue to everyone. This would amount to about $1,000 per person and $4,000 for a family of four. (Ref. www.climateandprosperity.org)
The Fair Tax act gets rid of the income tax and replaces it with a national sales tax. They acknowledge that this move would hurt low-income people so they include a dividend for all. They list around $7,200. (https://fairtax.org/)
An interesting common feature of these three examples is that basic income was an afterthought for many supporters. These proposals are not parts of projects that seek to abolish poverty or secure independence for all.
The Alaskan Governor at the time the dividend was implemented, Jay Hammond, was following the basic income movement and he sought a more substantial amount. Alaska, however, has never had a basic income movement. There has never been an attempt to push the grant all the way to a poverty-ending amount. That said, at $2,000 a year for all family members, the Alaskan Permanent Fund raises the incomes of low-income families more than most other proposals out there. The dividends were largely an accidental product of the State’s Constitution, which gave un-owned land to the State. If power-brokers in Alaska had known that this land included some of the most lucrative oil reserves in the world, this would not have happened. Hammond’s commitment combined with these fortunate circumstances produced the Alaska Permanent Fund.
Supporters of the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act are mainly trying to develop an answer to the threat of climate change. They understand that a cap on carbon would raise prices on fuel and other things that many low and moderate income people need. Some supporters are enthused about the dividend to be sure, but it is very seldom sold as a stepping stone for a dividend high enough to foster independence. Again, with that said, there are very few proposals that would result in an increase in average income of $1,000 in low-income communities.
Fair Tax supporters are primarily focused on getting rid of the income tax. The dividend is seldom emphasized in their literature. When it comes to the impact on poverty, the math is more complex for this proposal, because the new sales tax would be high. Proponents do cite economists who stress that the Fair Tax would have a progressive impact.
When Basic Income Earth Network or US Basic Income Guarantee Network links to an article describing a project like this, we get a lot of comments that evaluate them as if they were the entire basic income project. The proposal is treated like a project. We are informed that you cannot live on $2,000 a year. We know that. Many respondents “project” projects onto proposals. They don’t evaluate the proposal but an imagined series of other proposals that would stem from an imputed project. When Silicon Valley investors start a basic income pilot, we are told that they want to cut this and that. But they have not said so, and we will not know their project until they start making concrete demands.
Lots of media presume that a basic income replaces all other social provisions, which is a view that I have only rarely encountered in my time with engaged members of USBIG and BIEN. We hear a lot of false news that Holland or Finland is replacing everything with BI. Projects are being foisted onto proposals and policies.
Keep in mind that a basic income may well be implemented as an afterthought or as a part of a project that most anti-poverty activists oppose. Charles Murray’s proposal would consist of $10,000 per person and a $3,000 health care voucher. This would replace everything that currently promotes social protection. When he emphasizes the amount of money this would save, that includes bureaucratic expenses, but that also entails a huge withdrawal of other expenses, such as social provisions that many anti-poverty activities would rather keep .
While we should not endorse a bill that implemented Murray’s proposal, we can acknowledge the grant is a good idea if it is not accompanied with harmful cuts. If such a basic income were to be implemented (and Paul Ryan has expressed an interest in consolidating anti-poverty provisions), those who support BI as part of an anti-poverty project will have to fight to keep the grant and raise it. We have to talk about basic income now so that anti-poverty activists do not oppose it.
(2) Basic Income as Project: Once a basic income is part of a project, we have to look at what the whole project seeks to do. Many of the supporters of basic income pilots in Finland also support austerity as the right response to the European financial crisis. Almost everyone involved with Basic Income Earth Network and its affiliates are opposed to austerity. They see basic income as a way to combat poverty directly, with less bureaucracy and more security for most citizens. Many supporters of basic income in Finland are working to make sure the pilots are an opportunity to push basic income as emancipatory .
How it is funded, what is cut, what is not cut—all of these factors turn a policy item (an unconditional cash grant) into a project. We have to learn how to assess whole projects.
Left-wing organizations should make a basic income part of their left-wing project. Left-wingers that denounce basic income as “neo-liberal” are refusing to de-link the policy from a rival project. They should write out what sorts of basic income they would support and condemn the powers-that-be for not securing economic independence for all.
Free-market enthusiasts (I am not calling them “right-wing”) should make a basic income part of their free-market project. Those that denounce a basic income as “socialist” or “communist” are refusing to de-link the policy from a rival project. They need basic income if they care about extending the benefits of markets to everyone.
In the US, there are no left-wing or free-market organizations (or magazines or parties) that have stated clearly whether or not basic income is part of their project. My hypothetical left-wingers and free-marketers are based on reading a few thousand Facebook comments and individual columnists.
De-linking the proposal from the project can be difficult. Would an otherwise free-market-oriented economist with a basic income in the mix still be “left-wing”? Is basic income such a good policy that we should support someone who supports a rival project? Some people are suspect of an Alaska-style dividend just because they know the state usually votes Republican.
These are the sort of choices we will face. If a supporter of a rival project embraces basic income, one has to decide whether or not to jump ship. Some basic income supporters will want to work within other projects. Some will work within the Greens or within Socialist or Labor or Environmental organizations. Others might name a particular bill and lobby for it.
Basic Income Action in the US has stated that they seek any unconditional grant that leaves the least-well-off and the majority with more income than before. They have lobbied for the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act and hope to get a bill sponsored that has a full-fledged basic income in mind. BIA argues that this project improves any other project. Whether they are the left or the right, whether they have a good tax plan or a bad one in mind, they would be that much better with a basic income in the mix. See them at www.basicincomeaction.org.
(3) Basic Income as Idea: There is another way to think about basic income. This is an idea that gets in your head. Once you realize that it is mostly a question of political will, you start to think about how different the world would be if everyone had a share. You start to wonder how different schools would be. How different political life would be. How different the art world and the sport world would be.
When I first heard about basic income, I was excited because I saw it getting to people who need it. I had seen the manipulation of money and power deny the invisible and the powerless the resources they need. Too many times I saw “jobs programs” pretend to hire “everyone who sought work.” Sports arenas and lectures were sold as anti-poverty programs. A basic income gets around all that. Now, I think more about how much more powerful low-income communities will be. And I see better the work they are already doing.
Sarath Davala, Renana Jhabvala, Soumya Kapoor Mehta, and Guy Standing organized a pilot program in India and wrote a book that testifies to its emancipatory effects. A video they made provides a nice synopsis. One sees here an image of strong people made more powerful.
I see the same impact in low-income parts of the US. Basic income gets around the pretending so many people do when they approach poverty. I wrote a piece on how a basic income could work in the Saint Louis/Ferguson area that has this sort of emancipation in mind. One of my main goals was to get readers to just see what a difference more income would make. We should spare them the hectoring about each and every choice they make and issue a share.
The Swiss Basic Income Movement mostly sought to push basic income as an idea in Switzerland but also all over the world. History’s largest poster posed the question: What Would You Do If Your Income Were Taken Care Of? They posed it in English and reassembled the poster in Berlin . A picture of the poster was shown in Times Square. They are posing a question to the world.
The movement has pushed people to think about what makes a life and a society good. Long before basic income becomes a policy, it does great work as an idea.
Another example is the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres. Their shelters talk with residents about basic income. They have a copy of the Pictou Statement they wrote in which they proclaim their support for basic income.
The statement calls on some of the most vulnerable people in the world to think about how different things would be if everyone had a share:
“We refuse to accept market measures of wealth. They make invisible the important caring work of women in every society. They ignore the well-being of people and the planet, deny the value of women’s work, and define the collective wealth of our social programs and public institutions as “costs” which cannot be borne. They undermine social connections and capacities (social currency).”
Publicly endorsing basic income offers a chance for different relationships between people. When a shelter tells someone fleeing assault that they want a different allocation of resources, this breaks the long chain of bureaucrats, landlords, advisors, and hustlers. When I tell someone that I think they deserve a share, I have a chance to show that I recognize them as valuable. That is a powerful idea.
I have also found that people who are not sure they believe basic income is feasible politically end up pointing to other social provisions that they consider more efficient or politically feasible. They start to talk about education and health and public employment. This is a far better conversation than one that argues between some provisions and no provisions, which is the one we are hearing far too often. That is a powerful idea.
A lot of people have seen police violence, corruption, and the privileged position of the wealthy, and they just can’t imagine a government that macro-manages and micro-manages a just economy. However, they have seen Social Security issue a check to everyone and they have seen the IRS tax forms issue an exemption. They know that this proposal is simple enough for even a bureaucratic government to implement. That makes this a powerful idea.
Lots of people are saying that they think basic income is great, and then they get challenged to produce a proposal or to spell out their project. I want to see more basic income policy proposals out there. I want to see more people make basic income part of their projects. But we also need to see people saying “The world be better if we did this.” We need to get as many people as we can to say “That’s a powerful idea.”
by Jessica "Trinley" Rafka | Jun 9, 2016 | News
Original article published in SPREEZEITUNG, January 11th, 2016, written by Ursula Pidun. Translation by Jessica Rafka.
Discussions about an unconditional basic income have been around for a while. But this topic is not picking up steam. What are the reasons for this, and why are unions and political parties still very much against a basic income? We will be discussing these questions, and the many different social, economic, and political advantages of having a UBI (Unconditional Basic Income) with Reimund Acker, who has worked as a council member of the non-party affiliated, 2004 founded, Netzwerk Grundeinkommen (Basic Income Network) in Germany.
The network contributes to the introduction of basic income to Germany and other countries. This organization counts more then 4,000 individual members, and over a hundred member organizations—including the BDKJ (Federation of Catholic Youth), the KAB (Catholic Worker Movement), and the AWO-Jugend (The Workers’ Welfare-Youth), each with more than 100,000 members—it is the largest basic income organization in the world. The Network is the German affiliate of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), and a member of the Unconditional Basic Income Europe (UBIE) network. Together with the Austrian and Swiss Basic Income Networks, they’ve held three conventions, and organized the biannual BIEN-Congress 2012 in Munich, which was attended by 450 scientists, activists, and politicians from all over the world.
Mr. Acker, you are an elected councilor of Netzwerk Grundeinkommen. When did you get involved with this topic and to what extent?
Reimund Acker, Netzwerk Grundeinkommen
Since 2008, I’ve been active as an honorary volunteer of the network council, that acts as an executive committee of the network. Back then only a few experts knew what to make of the concept of “basic income”. Meanwhile, it is so well-known that the media uses it without explanation. The high profile that basic income has gained in Germany is thanks to important players like Götz Werner, Susanne Wiest and Michael Bohmeyer, but particularly the work of the Network that will be 12 years old this fall.
Political parties still hesitate to embrace a basic income, despite the growing approval among renowned experts. What are the causes and what is the current status within the parties?
Basic income had a bad start in leftist circles, because it was initially suspected to be a neoliberal concept. Meanwhile, however, word got around that this assumption would only be true for a partial basic income – a UBI, that’s too low to live on.
In the 80s the Green Party still had the basic income issue in their repertoire. I, for one, learned about it there. It got lost temporarily on their way to power. The Social Democrats are afraid that their golden calf “work”, would be damaged by basic income. As if the value of work would increase by being forced on people! Veteran Greens and Social Democrats often show a certain loyalty to their Hartz Laws: “But we meant well!”
For the Conservatives, the basic income seems to have fallen victim to a skiing accident. It happened earlier to Dieter Althaus, former Prime Minister of Thuringia, who designed his own basic income model which he had examined by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation to tender it to his party for inclusion in the program. Althaus disappeared from the political stage back then and with him his project.
To date, the most tragic blow to basic income happened within the party that carries “Freedom” in its name. Since freedom is still the primary focus of basic income and not free money from the government, which we already have. The former liberals, who today are mere neo-liberals, wanted to jump on the UBI band-wagon with their “citizen’s income”, but it was just a “Hartz-V”. Even the great liberal Ralf Dahrendorf, couldn’t change anything when he wrote in their register on the occasion of an anniversary celebration of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, convening all the party members including the complete FDP (Free Democratic Party) leadership that a basic income—and not their silly citizens income—belongs on every liberal’s agenda. All applauded well-behaved.
With so much discussion in virtually all relevant parties you would think there would slowly be more of a movement?
Meanwhile, there are at least strong minorities for the basic income in the Leftist Party and the Green Party. The Pirates, as the only not so small party, have it on their program. All three parties respectively promised in their last election programs the establishment of a committee of enquiry for a basic income. Sadly, the Green Party has meanwhile backed out. The public reluctance of politicians when it comes to basic income does not necessarily reflect the true majorities among them, as long as the endorsement of a basic income could harm their career.
The nature of UBI is to separate income from work. In other words, basic income could significantly strengthen the position of workers. Isn’t it long overdue in the 21st Century?
Yes, whereby the separation of work and income is limited at the poverty line. Thus, there remains an incentive for gainful employment, even more so than under Hartz IV. The prospect to turn down a job offer because of a basic income, should lead to more power for workers, reinforced by unionization. A very important effect that I see, that basic income could have, is the weakening potential to ransom job security. Today, someone just needs to yell “jobs” and all our good intentions are forgotten. To the extent that existential fears would decrease with the basic income, workers, politicians and ultimately the whole of society would be less vulnerable to extortion.
Parts of the economy fear a striking competitive disadvantage. Is this concern justified in your view?
No, on the contrary I believe that the introduction of basic income would increase competition between countries. However, the effect also depends on the method of financing the UBI. If people were better able to follow their career interests and abilities with a basic income, not every third worker would be dissatisfied as is the case today. An employee occupying a job that he hates keeps the other person, who would love that job from having it. What a waste of talent and life!
Wouldn’t it be much more efficient, if people worked a job they liked, instead of working precariously to survive economically in the first place?
Of course, it would be more efficient if people would work because they want to instead of having to: Better quality, less waste, more commitment to improve working conditions and operational processes, fewer sick-days. A motivated workforce is priceless. It’s conceivable that many workers would be happy with less pay, as long as at the end of the day it’s supplemented with a basic income. On the other hand, some UBI models want to prevent further wage cuts in Germany by maintaining at a legal minimum wage in spite of a basic income.
What other economic benefits might result from a reasonably well-invested UBI?
At any rate, a basic income would lead to savings in pension and unemployment insurance, since only the difference between the present level and the basic income must be insured. So, whoever would want a retirement income of 500 Euros above the basic income would only have to pay premiums for an income of 500 Euros, since he receives the basic income without making contributions. But there are other economic benefits of having a UBI that would also produce competitive advantages. It would allow for more innovations and business start-ups, since basic income constitutes non-refundable venture-capital. Many business ideas, research and development projects or art projects fail already in the planning phase because they don’t pay the rent upfront. By contrast, whoever gets a basic income, knows his rent and cost of living are safe, and he can develop, test and implement his ideas in peace.
We keep rationalizing, but remain stuck on the same to old structures, like the 8-hour workday, just like it was 100 years ago. How important is a UBI in regards to an earned income in our modern times?
Entrepreneurs may see the advantages of basic income, in that they’d no longer have the unbeloved role as employers who are expected to create and preserve jobs, but could focus on their main objective: To produce goods and services as efficiently as possible, i.e., with a minimum of resources. And human life is a precious resource. Götz Werner doesn’t tire of saying that no one starts a business to create jobs. The basic income could, therefore, also lead to social policy again, made by those who we elect for it, and entrepreneurs won’t have to apologize, if they cut jobs.
Basic income diminishes the importance of gainful employment. I hope we successfully distance ourselves from the perverted notion of work as end in itself and source of income and return to the original meaning of work: The investment of effort to produce something essential or meaningful. Then we’ll be able again to see it as progress, when it succeeds, to produce the same things with less work: Machines are taking our jobs? Finally!
The economy would be forced to make precarious jobs more attractive. A demand that leads to more income equality and thereby more value for society?
Yes, if job seekers no longer have to accept just any job, employers will have to consider how to convince them to work for them; especially, if the proposed activity is unpopular, for example, so-called “dirty work”. So that such work is even done, there are exactly four possibilities: Force, automation, better pay, or do it yourself. When UBI eliminates force, the other three remain. No doubt, I’ll experience my remuneration as equitable, if I’m able to negotiate it freely, without the threats in my ear from an employment agency of who will cut my benefits. This does not mean that the resulting income will be considered fair by society as a whole. What remains will be the scandalous inequality of income and wealth. Even a basic income cannot change that much at first.
Could UBI bridge the gap between the rich and the poor, at least a little?
Basic income isn’t about redistribution in the first place, even though it could end up that way with the right financing. The redistributive effect increases, not only on the revenue (taxes) side, but also on the expenditure (UBI) side. Indirectly, a less intimidated society could enforce more equitable distribution. For this, something would also have to be done in education, though. After all, basic income is not a panacea: It doesn’t solve all problems, but often expedites solutions.
Key is less red tape: Payment of a general UBI could do away with numerous welfare benefits including complex application processes and means-testing. Does the public sector fear job losses?
Sure there are employees in the social sector with concerns, that basic income could make their jobs obsolete. On the other hand, many of our members are engaged in this area, and know of the problems of the current system and therefore understand the necessity of changing the system. Insofar as these jobs have to do with the calculation and payment of benefits, they will not disappear because of a UBI, but rather steamrolled under the gigantic wave of automation coming at us. On the other hand, we will still want to afford debt counselling, youth services, and job placement agencies even after the introduction of basic income. And who ever earns their living conducting research on people who conceal their income to abuse public assistance benefits today, in the future, could be more profitably employed in the chronically understaffed tax fraud evasion department. In any case there will be plenty of time for re-trainings, as no one wants to roll out basic income over night in all its glory, but rather we can count on a lengthy transitional period.
Let’s talk about the unions, that are in the least ruffled by a universal basic income, or as the case may be, speak out vehemently against it. What reasons could they have?
In the unions, it appears that support for a basic income is less at the top—just like in political parties—than at the base. Again, the reason I suspect is fear that basic income could damage the value of work (what ever that means exactly). On the other hand, with regard to basic income there seems to be a shift in thinking in the unions. Meanwhile, Verdi and IG Metall have decided to talk about basic income. UBI-friendly unionists maintain a website for basic income. Overall, however, I can not quite understand unions’ resistance to basic income. Hasn’t anyone there ever considered, what UBI would mean solely for their strike fund?
How great is the probability that, in the near future—say within a few years— Germany will introduce a basic income?
In the last general election, basic income was brought up as a subject matter for the first time, which is illustrated, for example, by the fact of being adopted for the first time as a question of the Wahl-O-Mat of the Federal Agency for Civic Education. At the next election the basic income will be an important issue. Netzwerk Grundeinkommen will see to it, and I hope for considerable tailwind for our work from the referendum on the basic income in June in Switzerland and the debates triggered by it. At the latest, for the federal election, basic income will be a decisive issue, and from then on we can expect a majority in the Bundestag for the basic income at any time.
What criteria must be met to make significant strides in this area?
Above all, I think that we need a serious, nonpartisan, nationwide organization with good media presence that spreads the word about basic income, persistently and with increasing intensity. And I hope we are able to expand the network into such an organization. Today it’s already the world’s largest basic income organization with over 4,000 members.
Furthermore, we must prevent basic income from becoming publicly identified with a particular political party. Because then, it would become a pawn of politicians and that would mean the end of the majority support for this idea. That’s what happened to climate change in the USA, for example, that meanwhile, conservative voters think is a trick construed by Democrats to foist their political goals. Therefore, it’s more favorable if support for a basic income is simultaneously broadcast in as many parties as possible.
Finally, what’s most important for the spreading of the basic income idea is that it does not lead to strong resistance from the industry. Unfortunately, yes, the state of our democratic system today is so lousy that the economy can enforce their will readily against the will of the people. That is why it is so important that business leaders like Götz Werner, or more recently the Telekom CEO argue in favor of basic income. Because then there is hope that a massive rejection of UBI in the economy could at least be weakened. But perhaps there will be a shift in thinking among business leaders, similar to the unions.
by Jessica "Trinley" Rafka | Jun 5, 2016 | Opinion
The preliminary polls are in for all Cantons (states) in Switzerland. As many already know, the referendum did not pass, with only about 23% of voters in favor of it.
From the website for the Swiss Federal Council
%-Yes Vote for Basic Income ; Average: 23.1 %
These are the provisional results on election day this Sunday. The final results will be in after validation by the Federal Council—a good 2 months after the vote – and the final results may differ slightly from the provisional results.
Note: population numbers multiplied by 1000
According to statistics reported on PolitNetz.com, a platform that claims to provide politically independent information, all five major Swiss parties recommended a “NO” vote on the referendum.
The Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SRG) unofficially polled prospective voters in April, and the results looked slightly better than the results today:
According to the Swiss government portal (www.ch.ch), a “referendum allows the people to alter the text of the constitution” to reflect changes they wish to make to the law. Within an 18 month period, 100,000 signatures must be collected in support of the referendum for it to be considered. The referendum then has to pass with both a popular majority and a majority of the cantons, for it to become the law. But even then, the government reserves the right to alter the text to suit their interpretation of it.
The Universal Basic Income initiative would have amended the Swiss Federal Constitution to read as follows:
Art. 110a (new) unconditional basic income:
- The Confederation shall ensure the introduction of an unconditional basic income;
- The basic income to enable the entire population a dignified existence and participation in public life;
- The law regulates in particular the financing and the amount of the basic income.
Although, the results are not a total surprise for the Swiss, in whom it is still deeply ingrained that work is tied to income, Swiss media outlets are already speculating as to the reasons for this massive blow to the referendum. Some are saying that even the Swiss Social Democratic Party, that has been favorable towards the general idea of a basic income, feared that the text was “too vague” and all social benefits would be scrapped at once, leaving the most vulnerable even more so.
Despite the apparent “slap in the face”, many Universal Basic Income supporters see these results as very positive! Co-initiator of the Referendum, Daniel Häni reports that he’s happy with the results, “I would have only expected 15 percent approval. It is amazing and sensational that we are now at more than 20 percent.”
by Tyler Prochazka | Jun 4, 2016 | Opinion
One of the masterminds behind the upcoming Swiss referendum on the basic income Enno Schmidt said that no matter the outcome on June 5, he will still have achieved his goal of starting a widespread discussion about the issue.
Schmidt started his basic income advocacy back in 2006 and has been pushing the idea through films, lectures and articles ever since. In 2013, he and others collected over 120,000 signatures in order to get the basic income up for a referendum in Switzerland, which he said was not an easy task.
In anticipation of the upcoming referendum, Schmidt answered some questions about the past, present and future of the basic income in Switzerland and beyond. Some of the quotations have been edited for clarity.
Why did you found the initiative basic income? What was your intention for the initiative in 2006? Have your goal’s changed?
The reason was to make the people more free in their decisions about their life and in their personal responsibility to live according to their own intentions.
The right to political initiatives for everyone in Switzerland and the Direct Democracy made it possible to come up with this proposal to create a general discussion throughout the entire population and to finally achieve a referendum.
The intention was to give all people a basic income unconditional in order to create a society with more variety, less fear, and more productivity in a much broader sense. Also part of the goal was to bring the idea of unconditionality to our otherwise purely functional conceptions of living. Ultimately it represents the question about what it means to be human. The goal did not change but has been enriched with more and more significance. Aspects such as the upcoming data economy, the need to strengthen civil society, the necessary power shift towards the citizens all contributed to this conception.
How did you happen upon the concept of the basic income? Why do you think you were drawn to the idea?
Because the basic income refers to the individual, not to a specific circumstances. It does not determine people, it enables everyone to come into play in society. It does not judge what people do. It’s a base of human kindness and a protection of privacy. It’s about respect and appreciation towards the other and it’s about self-determination. Thus new the new and unforeseen can happen and develop. Today there is no more lack of material goods. The productiveness in the old sense increases with ever less human labor. We need a space for the new productivity as we face our current challenges. We have to rethink the income supply and examine our values. Separating income and work reveals the value of work. No one should be blackmailed with his livelihood. The right to work is the right to do what you really want to do. This right needs a right to income. The unconditional basic income is a democratically coordinated income, not negotiated economically. The logic and beauty of the idea has drawn me.
How would you compare the public’s interest in the basic income in 2006 to the interest/support right now?
Ten years ago, we moved across the country, organized events and let others come up for discussion. We still do. But now the media has come from all over to us and spread the idea worldwide. We started from a little point with nearly no knowledge in society about the idea. And still we are far from a majority convinced of the basic income. But attention and acceptance has greatly increased. Not only in Switzerland. But Switzerland has the benefit of direct democracy. With our campaign for the vote we managed to even get some of the opponents of the basic income to acclaim the concept as the new idea for Europe. The interest grew rapidly after the World Economic Forum in Davos discussed the unconditional basic income as the most innovative and intelligent solution for the upcoming digitalization era, and once again grew rapidly due to the upcoming vote.
How do you feel about your chances with the upcoming vote?
With this vote, we will have established the subject firmly in society. If one in five votes is yes, then that is incredible progress. So much has moved in the minds, in fixed opinions, and new eyes have appeared. It’s the first time in history that this issue is discussed in an entire population with the serious background of a referendum to vote on and decide.
By this vote the majority may vote no, but the vote itself is an opportunity to introduce an unconditional basic income to society. But maybe in ten years the next referendum will result in a majority voting yes. Therefore, it is not so much a question about how we feel about our chances, but we already have taken the chance to create a public and broad debate about the basic income unlike anything seen before. This vote is a milestone on a path on which the debate is getting stronger at home and abroad.
Can you describe the process of getting the initiative on the ballot? How did you feel when the initiative was successfully scheduled for a public vote?
I felt as if the gate was opened for a heavenly reality and a really human approach, for an big event and great chance. When the Federal Chancellery had approved the people’s initiative, we had 18 months’ time to gather at least 100,000 valid signatures of Swiss citizens. This is not online. You have to go on the street in all types of weather. That is not easy. While doing so a new dynamic developed. “Generation basic income” converted the severe toil into a sporting competition. We turned the large number into achievable goals, with each individual collecting visible results, and over the long run a series of successes.
When we submitted 126,000 signatures on October 4, 2013 in the Federal Chancellery, I had the feeling of having made gotten the essentials, that the way was now open for a general major debate in society. The referendum itself is already a point of arrival. We offer the proposal: The citizens vote.
How has your outlook changed for the prospect of the basic income over the last ten years?
I realized early on that a basic income will come. The idea is as strong as the idea of democracy or human rights. It is of the same kind. It is even the same idea. The question is not whether it comes, but how it comes and by whom, by what interests. This prospect has been confirmed over the time. Already in the design of the meaning of an unconditional basic income is its way of being introduced. An unconditional basic income not only allows more flexibility, it also requires more. It comes through the people who are affected or it comes out wrong. It may not come automatically as a result of automation. It may not come from the rich to the poor and not as an economy measure. It should not be a new feudalism, no philanthropic colonialism and not to plug old holes. If the unconditional does not affect everybody, it is for no one. The comprehensive and greatness of this idea became even clearer for me and thus also the possibilities to use it quite differently.
What would the implications be if the Swiss vote yes on the referendum? What would the implications be if they vote no — including for you and your advocacy?
With a majority yes the introduction will be prepared and probably start with pilot projects such as in Finland. This will take some years. About the amount of a basic income and the type of finance it probably will come to next public votes. Also other points of the basic income can lead to new referendums. Overall, I think, it will need 20 years. With a majority no the discussion also will go on. This referendum has given such a strong thrust to the debate. The development will go along as well, just not within the authorities. Also pilot projects can arise in some cities and cantons. And the development in other countries continues. We see things not isolated in Switzerland. We see it in conjunction with the other areas experimenting with the basic income. Another referendum in Switzerland is possible and the introduction will go more quickly. Time does not stand still and an unconditional basic income becomes more and more inevitable.
by Kate McFarland | Jun 2, 2016 | News
The London-based New Work Order is a group for self-directed individuals building careers outside of the mainstream. In its own words, NWO is “a close-knit network of ambitious and proactive people who are building careers on our own terms.”
The NWO founders describe their journey as follows:
Our journey took us from Switzerland to London, where we met with hundreds of ambitious but frustrated people who felt trapped in a world of work where they didn’t belong.
They longed to be in control of their own destiny, to make an impact on the world in their own unique way and to experience life to the fullest, beyond the confines of a job that offered little meaning, fulfilment or freedom.
We were consistently inspired by the boldness and commitment that these people showed towards transforming their lives by doing work that mattered to them. But we also witnessed their struggles. …
NWO exists primarily to provide a support network for such individuals.
Around here, of course, many of us would say that a universal basic income is what we really need to empower all people to transform their lives through meaningful work — and thus immensely benefit members of a group like NWO.
This is why it’s fortunate that the New Work Order’s podcast recently broadcast an episode dedicated to basic income, featuring guest Scott Santens.
During the 35 minute interview, Santens describes what a basic income is, where the idea came from, how it would work in practice, and why it is necessary in our present societies. He also talks about what its like to live with a basic income, having achieved his own crowdfunded basic income in December 2015.
Stock picture of people working in coffee shop from Pexels.
