by Pablo Yanes | Dec 19, 2017 | News
Zone 10 – Guatemala City.
With the support of the Swedish Embassy and Oxfam in Guatemala, the Central American Institute for Fiscal Studies (ICEFI) has presented a new book entitled Universal Basic Income: More Freedom, More Equality, More Jobs, More Well-being. A Proposal for Guatemala (2019-2030), was presented in simultaneous events held in Guatemala City and Quetzaltenango. The book explains how inequality is affecting people’s lives and undermining the possibilities of strengthening democracy and development in the world, and Guatemala in particular. In light of this reality, the book proposes a universal basic income (UBI) of Q175 per month (20 €/month) accompanied by increased social spending from 2019 to 2030, which could eliminate extreme poverty and reduce inequality, while generating 4.7 million jobs and potentially boosting economic growth as much as 50%. It also gives scenarios for its financing – including a progressive tax reform – and the main challenges to its effective public administration.
When studying social inequality in Guatemala, the book mentions income inequalities, worker insecurity, the scourge of child labor and lack of employment guarantees, the still unaffordable cost of the basic food basket, the acute chronic malnutrition ravaging Guatemalan children (especially indigenous and rural children), the visible discrepancies in women’s political representation in public and private power arenas, widespread poverty and extreme poverty – also more and more wearing the face of indigenous and rural women – and the complex, institutionalized racism permeating all realms of society. All this is reinforced by the overwhelming problems of corruption and lack of transparency, by paltry public spending on the production of universal, quality goods and services, and by a tax policy that lacks legitimacy among the citizenry due to the unfair way in which taxes are collected and certain economic sectors are granted privileges.
For ICEFI, this reality requires alternative proposals to help mitigate social inequality and its more harmful effects and build economic, social and fiscal scenarios for underpinning sustainable, inclusive economic development. Together with improved public goods and services, a UBI – understood as a sum of money allocated by the State to each citizen or resident – would have a positive impact on Guatemalan society. With a monthly per-person amount of Q175, the UBI could eliminate extreme poverty and reduce inequality. The study, which should be considered a seminal work subject to discussion and more in-depth examination, also reveals that a UBI such as the one proposed could generate 4.7 million jobs in the coming years (33% of the working-age population in 2030), spread out over the entire national territory in agriculture, industry, finance, and commerce – an effect that could boost economic growth by close to 50%. Moreover, the related bankarization would promote the formalizing of businesses aimed at providing goods and services to the public. Inequality would be reduced from 0.538 to 0.472, as measured on the Gini index – better than Costa Rica (0.504 in 2014) but still far from what has been recorded for Uruguay (0.379 in 2014).
As for taxes, the proposal includes financing mechanisms (with and without tax reform). The tax reform scenario is based on a modernization of the income tax, elimination of tax privileges, and gradual reduction of income and value-added tax evasion. The book also emphasizes that implementation of a public policy such as the one proposed implies a revaluation of the State’s role as the main guarantor of individual rights and booster of development and democracy. Fiscal policy can potentially close the current gap between the economy and citizen well-being. With a modern fiscal outlook and political agreement for a profound fiscal reform, the country could have the resources for financing a UBI and other public programs aimed at enhancing social well-being, smoothing the way for compliance with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development while driving productive transformation, access to credit and economic formalization.
In this book, ICEFI recognizes that a UBI would not solve all the problems the country urgently needs to face as a result of its past and present. Together with improved public services, however, it could provide a minimum though effective floor of social protection for tackling inequality and all its related phenomena. At a time when most citizens are unhappy with the current economic and political model, the study can also serve as a basis for debate on alternatives for change. Discussion of a UBI in Guatemala is expected to bring together small, medium, and large enterprises, merchants, producers and cooperatives, as well as social organizations pushing agendas for development and democracy.
The study is available in Spanish.
by Guest Contributor | Dec 4, 2017 | News
A new report from the International Labour Office (ILO), a United Nations agency dealing with labour-related issues, mentions Basic Income as an option for the reform of social security:
… is a renewed debate about a universal basic income (UBI) as a way of improving income security in the face of uncertain availability of jobs. As argued by proponents, it would guarantee a minimum standard of living for everyone irrespective of employment, age and gender, and would give people the freedom and space to live the life they want. Its proponents also argue that a UBI may contribute to alleviating poverty while reducing the administrative complexity and cost of existing social protection systems. A wide range of proposals are being discussed under the label of UBI, highly divergent in terms of objectives, proposed benefit levels, financing mechanisms and other features. Opponents of UBI proposals dispute its economic, political and social feasibility, question its capacity to address the structural causes of poverty and inequality, and fear that it may entail disincentives to work. Moreover, it is argued that a UBI – especially neoliberal or libertarian UBI proposals that aim at abolishing the welfare state – may increase poverty and inequality and undermine labour market institutions such as collective bargaining. (p.180)
To read the whole report, click here.
Photo: “Unemployment line” at FDR Memorial, CC BY 2.0 woodleywonderworks
by BIEN | Nov 30, 2017 | News
At the Web Summit in Lisbon, Portugal, from November 5th to 8th, Guy Standing took part in this big event. Over 60,000 participants from 170 countries attended the event; the event hosted about 1,200 speakers.
Some speakers included influential individuals like Elon Musk, Al Gore, Bono, Margrethe Vestager, Travis Kalanick, Jack Dorsey, Reed Hastings, Mike Krieger, Eva Longoria, Professor Stephen Hawking, and others. In addition, the 800th anniversary of the Charter of the Forest, which is a companion document to the Magna Carta, was also celebrated and represented at the event.
It was held in the Speaker’s Chamber of the House of Commons. Guy Standing’s panel asked, and was themed, on two questions, “Is it the answer to inequality for which we have all been waiting? Or a convenient way for governments to evade the provision of real social services?”
More information at:
Web Summit, “University of London’s Guy Standing, Kela’s Marjukka Turunen, GiveDirectly’s Michael Faye, Government of Portugal’s Augusto Santos Silva & Yahoo Finance’s Rob Pegoraro”, November 2017
by Micah Kaats | Nov 24, 2017 | News
In recent years, basic income has found support across the political spectrum. While some have justified it as a human rights issue, others believe it to be necessary in the fight against poverty and rising inequality. According to many supporters, these are sufficient justifications in their own right. However, many basic income proponents also cite the growing threat of automation to employment. Put simply, as robots become smarter and cheaper, more and more workers will find themselves out of a job, and basic income programs will be required to offset rising unemployment and job displacement. This view is particularly popular in Silicon Valley and has been championed by the likes of Elon Musk, Richard Branson, and Mark Zuckerberg. However, a new report from Pearson, an education publishing company, challenges this line of reasoning.
Pearson’s analysis, with help from researchers at Nesta and the Oxford Martin School, diverges from previous reports on automation (Frey & Osborne, 2013; Arntz et. Al, 2016; McKinsey, 2017; Richard Berriman, 2017) in two key respects. While previous studies have tended to focus exclusively on the potentially destructive effects of automation, Pearson’s report also incorporates the potential for growth in jobs and skills that may be complemented by automation. The study also considers how automation may interact with seven specific global trends to affect supply and demand in the labor market over the next decade: (1) environmental sustainability, (2) urbanization, (3) increasing inequality, (4) political uncertainty, (5) technological change, (6) globalization, and (7) demographic change.
Pearson’s report relies on a combination of expert testimony and, perhaps fittingly, machine-learning. Two panels of artificial intelligence experts in the United States and United Kingdom were asked to rate the future prospects of thirty occupations in the context of the seven global trends identified by the researchers, and to report on how certain they were in their predictions. This information was then fed into machine-learning algorithms, along with data from the U.S. Department of Labor, to generate predictions for more than 1,000 occupations in the United States and United Kingdom.
Using this model, the researchers at Pearson reached the following six conclusions:
- 20% of the workforce are in occupations that will shrink.
This figure is smaller than previous high-end estimates of 47% (Frey & Osborne, 2013), but also larger than more conservative estimates of 9% (Arntz et. Al, 2016). In line with previous findings, Pearson reports that routine, physical or manual abilities will become less valuable over time. However, Pearson also notes that certain sectors typically considered doomed by automation such as agriculture, trades, and construction, may actually show pockets of job growth where new skills are required to complement new technologies. So, it can be said that there cannot be a complete elimination of people in the workforce. Instead, building skill sets to work alongside automated machines could be the way to go. For example, with large industries adopting newer technologies and automation to improve the production process, an automation parts supplier could be the need of the hour, as there will always be a requirement for people who have the necessary knowledge to handle new machines and implement efficient functionalities.
- 10% of the workforce are in occupations that will grow.
Specifically, the researchers argue that jobs involving judgment and decision making, teaching, active learning, interpersonal skills, complex problem-solving, originality, fluency of ideas, and systems thinking will all grow in value. Jobs in high demand will include teachers and education professionals, sports and fitness workers, caregivers, managers, hospitality workers, legal professionals, and engineers. Occupations in the public sector, as well as those resistant to globalization, emerge as particularly resilient. Further, jobs in the construction sector and those that involve outdoor manual work could also need constant manpower, as we see companies such as Crane Renovation Group reaching out to potential workforce to increase hiring and provide consistent jobs. Pearson also points out that jobs and skills that will become more valuable are not specifically confined to any one particular income bracket or skill level.
- 70% of the workforce are in occupations where their future is uncertain.
- So-called “21st century” skills will experience higher demand.
- Both knowledge and skills will be required for the future economy.
- Occupations can be re-designed to pair uniquely human skills with technology.
A global leader in education publishing itself, Pearson argues for sweeping reforms to education systems so that they may adapt faster to the changing needs of labor markets, and begin offering more flexible pathways to employment including credentials and microdegrees. Pearson also advises business leaders to start thinking of ways to redesign roles to balance technological and human resources. Finally, the researchers encourage individuals to develop skills that are “uniquely human” and commit to becoming lifelong learners.
However, the report is not without limitations and the researchers note the large degree of uncertainty baked into any analysis of job creation, which is notoriously more difficult to predict than job destruction. Critics have also argued that Pearson greatly underestimates the difficulty of implementing public and private reforms in the context of the political and social turbulence accompanying severe job displacement.
Nevertheless, despite these limitations and the challenges that lie ahead, Pearson’s researchers remain optimistic about the future of work. They summarize their findings rather succinctly: “The bottom line of our research, we can all stop agonizing about machines taking our jobs.”
You can download the full report here, or visit the microsite.
by Cordelia Holst | Nov 6, 2017 | News
On Thursday, October 19th, activists, social justice advocates, economists, futurists, venture capitalists, writers, community organizers and politicians gathered at the Old Mint in San Francisco – a symbolically poetic building – to talk about Cash. Organized by the Economic Security Project, the goal of the conference was to “reimagine what an economy built on the well-being of everyone could look like.”
Cara Rose DeFabio and Sandhya Anantharaman were the MC’s for the day, introducing each segment, panel or presentation, showcasing a range of thoughts around how cash transfers can shape society. See the full schedule here.
The conference embraced a range of reasons why giving cash through a Universal Basic Income is an appealing concept. Most segments were in a panel format with experts in their field, moderated by one of their own. This allowed participants to see the differences in thinking across the movement as well as its broad appeal, regardless of what brought these thinkers into to the movement. The first panel was a discussion on automation’s effect on the work force, and how UBI could provide economic security during retraining, between jobs, or to supplement part time work. Another panel, with representatives from three different venture funds, discussed how a UBI might encourage entrepreneurship, while a third panel talked through historical and current systemic racist and sexist policies and practices, and how a combination of a UBI plus a wealth tax to help fund it could course correct extreme inequality.
A general acceptance for the benefit of cash transfers seemed to be the most basic common denominator. The audience was educated on the results of past cash transfer and basic income experiments, as well as updates on current experiments. You can view a high level video of some of the outcomes of these experiments here.
Mayor Tubbs of Stockton talked about his plans for a UBI in his city. Elizabeth Rhodes also gave an update on the Oakland Y-Combinator project. Then Joe Huston, CFO of Give Directly spoke to the effectiveness of cash transfers and positive outcomes in their work in Kenya and Uganda. He announced that Give Directly is now involved in its first US based project, where they are giving debit cards with $1500 directly to victims of Hurricane Harvey in the Houston area. He noted the work that still must be done changing perceptions around what people will do when they are given cash unconditionally, joking that employers don’t say, “I would like to give this employee their bonus, but I’m worried they might drink it away,” yet this is somehow common thinking that needs to be changed based on research results.
Aisha Nyandoro, CEO of Springboard to Opportunity spoke about where the current Welfare system in the US fails. She illustrated the challenges that families living in poverty in Mississippi have piecing together welfare benefits from the government – housing voucher, electricity voucher, and food stamps. The system creates poverty traps and the benefits don’t cover many of the real needs these families have, but cash would. Cash would also limit interaction with the system and remove the feeling of being judged, as well as the stigmas around welfare.
Damareo Cooper, Director of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative shared his personal story also highlighting how the current welfare system and prison system fails children and young people, making a convincing case for switching to cash. Almaz Zelleke, professor of Political Science at NYU Shanghai, went further, explaining why a UBI must be paid as cash and not a negative income tax.
Throughout the day, however, there seemed to be a lack of consensus on aspects surrounding universality and unconditionality of a cash transfer policy. The range of standpoints could be seen clearly in a panel with Hawaii State Representative Chris Lee and Alaska State Senator Bill Wielechowski, as well as Joseph Sanberg, the founder of Golden State Opportunity Foundation. Bill educated the audience on the Alaska permanent fund. On the aspect of Universality and Unconditionality he said, “Universality is critical. If the policy was needs-based it would diminish it. The fund is framed as each resident’s ownership of shared resources. This is something that Alaskans share together.”
On the other side of the issue, Joseph Sanberg said, “The social contract is work and you will be able to have economic security.” He tied work requirements to the right to economic security and his efforts have been focused on California Earned Income Tax Credits.
Chris Lee from Hawaii seemed to be working out his state’s position on the issue, noting that for their Earned Income Tax Credits they have expanded the definition of work, looking at where people are spending their hours – for example, caregiving. He did note that his task force is looking at a universal benefit across all economic classes.
Aisha Nyandoro cited the work she does as evidence that work requirements are difficult and policy makers are out of touch on the issue. She invited any policy makers that wanted to get in touch to call her. Anne Price, President of Insight Center for Community Economic Development, explained how racism and sexism shaped current welfare policy around judging who is deserving and who is undeserving. She noted that it is degrading to be on the receiving end of morality, and shared her vision for dignity for all: universal benefits – working or not.
How to pay for it was touched on by some, with ideas ranging from a wealth tax to combat inequality, to a shared patrimony dividends, like Alaska, or some combination of these revenues.
Other highlights of the day included a session by Jane McGonigal from the Institute for the future, and A Frank Conversation about Money with Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook and Co-Chair of the hosting Economic Security Project. Jane coached the audience on how to create empathy for our future selves and envision a future with Universal Basic Income. Anna Sale from “Death, Sex, and Money” interviewed Chris Hughes about his thoughts and feelings around his own fortune and why he supports Universal Basic Income.
The organizing team is clearly very competent and professional, as the entire conference ran very smoothly from check in, AV, lunch, and seating. All details were thought out and executed well. Participants had many opportunities to make connections and discuss the themes.
All in all, this was a very important gathering for the movement.
