by Sandro Gobetti | May 22, 2018 | News
On the the 28th of May, at 17h, Fondazione Basso hosts in via della Dogana Vecchia 5, in Rome, a book presentation and discussion titled “The strength of the basic income. Technological innovation, new welfare and experiments all around the world“.
The event will be an opportunity to compare and discuss different analysis and approaches on issues regarding the basic income proposal, as described in three different recently published books.
The authors of these three books will be present:
Roberto Ciccarelli, author of “Forza lavoro. Il lato oscuro della rivoluzione digitale [Workforce. The dark side of digital revolution]” (Derive Approdi, 2018)
Giuseppe Bronzini, author of “Il diritto ad un reddito di base. Il welfare nell’era dell’innovazione [The right to a basic income. Welfare in the age of innovation]” (Gruppo Abele, 2017)
Sandro Gobetti and Luca Santini, authors of “Reddito di base tutto il mondo ne parla. Esperienze, proposte e sperimentazioni [Basic income, all the world talks about it. Experiences, proposals and experiments]” (GoWare, 2018)
Giuseppe Allegri (University of La Sapienza) and Giacomo Marramao (University Roma Tre) will also talk at the event. The meeting is organized by the Basic Income Network Italia.
(Thanks to Anna Maria Catenacci)
by Micah Kaats | May 2, 2018 | News
76 billion dollars. That’s what it would cost to implement basic income in Canada according to a new report released by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
The report comes just days after Ontario began testing its own basic income pilot study in Hamilton, Brantford, Brant County, Lindsay and Thunder Bay. As part of the study, 4000 Ontarians will receive unconditional cash transfers of up to $2500 per month for the next three years. The new report estimates how much it would cost to roll out the program nationwide.
Importantly, the policy under consideration would not be an universal basic income, and would only be available to low-income individuals between the ages of 18 and 64. Roughly 1 in 5 Canadians (7.5 million people) would qualify for benefits. The plan would guarantee a minimum annual income of $16,989 for singles, and $24,027 for couples (those with a disability could receive an additional $500 per month).
The report also assumes that the guaranteed basic income (GBI) would replace $33 billion in federal spending already in place to help low-income people, thus bringing the net cost of implementing the program down significantly to $43 billion.
The report has drawn both praise and criticism from both sides of the debate. Opponents of the idea (including Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, who requested the PBO study) cite the high cost of the program, arguing that the plan would add an additional 13 percent to the current federal budget.
Supporters argue that the report actually underestimates the value of a minimum income by not taking into account potential savings in other areas of the economy. Elaine Power, a professor in public health at Queen’s University, notes that a basic income could save the government up to $28 billion in healthcare costs directly attributable to poverty. Andrew Coyne, a columnist at the National Post, also suggests that local governments would likely share the cost burden, which could knock an additional $20 billion off the federal price tag.
Currently, there are no plans to implement a nationwide guaranteed basic income in Canada. However, the report marks the first attempt by the federal government to estimate what such a program might cost. In order to further assess the viability of basic income in Canada, all eyes will surely be on the Ontario pilot study in the years to come.
More information at:
André Coelho, “ONTARIO, CANADA: Applications for basic income pilot project reach residents at Thunder Bay and Hamilton“, Basic Income News, 29th June 2017
André Coelho, “CANADA: Quebec is implementing a means-tested benefit, not a basic income”, Basic Income News, 24th January 2018
Rob Rainer, “A basic income for working-age adults is within fiscal reach“, 19th April 2018
by Kate McFarland | Apr 30, 2018 | Opinion
The following is part two of a two part series (part one can be found here) featuring Kate McFarland interviewing D. JoAnne Swanson of The Anticareerist on Basic Income. The original article can be found here.
KM: Are there any particular writers or thinkers on basic income who have influenced your views? Is there any additional literature that you would recommend for those who are interested, specifically, in the idea that basic income could facilitate and encourage unpaid work?
DJS: This could be a long list! Not all of these people are basic income writers per se, but they’ve all greatly influenced my views on basic income and unpaid work. Here are some of the writers I refer to most frequently, along with a favorite quote from each:
David Frayne – his interview in Contrivers’ Review is among the most lucid treatments of these topics I’ve ever read. I love his writing. I highly recommend his book The Refusal of Work.
“…there has to be more political organisation to create change. The book is deliberately very explicit about this because I felt a strong need to distinguish it from popular books promoting lifestyle changes like “slowness” or “life simplification” as solutions to the problems with work. We are seeing a lot of these books where the author is positioned as a sort of lifestyle guru, who is going to tell us the secret key to living well, and it is usually by working less, being less materialistic, and so on. I don’t think that people really benefit from being told this, and these books actually anger me to a degree, because they suggest that change is a matter of changing individual habits.”
Charles Eisenstein – author of Sacred Economics and The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know is Possible
“Why do we want to create more jobs? It is so people have money to live. For that purpose, they might as well dig holes in the ground and fill them up again, as Keynes famously quipped…Wouldn’t it be better to pay people to do nothing at all, and free up their creative energy to meet the urgent needs of the world?”
“Unfortunately, the term leisure carries connotations of frivolity and dissipation that are inconsistent with the urgent needs of the planet and its people as the age turns. There is a vast amount of important work to be done, work that is consistent with degrowth because it won’t necessarily produce salable product. There are forests to replant, sick people to care for, an entire planet to be healed. I think we are going to be very busy. We are going to work hard doing deeply meaningful things that no longer must fight upstream against the flow of money, the imperative of growth. Yet I also believe we will have more true leisure — the experience of the abundance of time — than we do today. The scarcity of time is one reason we overconsume, attempting to compensate for the loss of this most primal of all wealth. Time is life. To be truly rich is to have sovereignty over our own time.”
Charlene ‘Eleri’ Hamilton of Women4UBI on The Work Trap:
“Some detractors of Basic Income say that it will create dependency and slavery to the government. That is what is happening with our so-called safety nets now. You have to prove yourself to the government to get benefits. You have to continue to prove yourself to keep benefits. You are told when and how and why you can use those benefits. You will lose those benefits the moment you step out of the framework. Basic Income eliminates all that.
Basic Income is about trust and respect. We respect you as a member of our society, and we trust you to make your own choices. We don’t need to means test you, or scour through your finances, or judge what you buy when. When everyone gets the same level of benefit, then no one needs to be judged, shamed or excluded.”
Peter Frase – search his blog for the “work” tag. In particular, see Stop Digging: The Case Against Jobs and Work To Need. From Workin’ It:
“I want to separate the different meanings of work. But doing so is essentially impossible in a world where everyone is forced to work for wages, because they have no other means of survival. In that world, all work is work in the first sense, “necessary” because it has been made necessary by the elimination of any alternative.”
Kathi Weeks – The Problem With Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries and A Feminist Case for Basic Income:
“Demanding a basic income, as I see it, is also a process of making the problems with the wage system of income allocation visible, articulating a critical vocabulary that can help us to understand these problems, opening up a path that might eventually lead us to demand even more changes, and challenging us to imagine a world wherein we have more choices about waged work, nonwork, and their relationship to the rest of our lives.”
Silvia Federici – Wages Against Housework
See also the Caring Labor Archive.
“…under capitalism every worker is manipulated and exploited and his/her relation to capital is totally mystified. The wage gives the impression of a fair deal: you work and you get paid, hence you and your boss are equal; while in reality the wage, rather than paying for the work you do, hides all the unpaid work that goes into profit.”
J. Larochelle & C.A. L’Hirondelle of Livable4All – “What is Jobism?”
“…anyone doing informal but necessary work such as unpaid care-giving is put under financial duress because their time used for unpaid work cannot be used for paid work. Families, neighborhoods and communities are robbed of the time and resources they need thrive and be healthy. This robbing resources from the informal sector causes great harm to children, elders, people with extra needs from illness or disability and it breaks apart families and communities. This creates a negative feedback loop because the subsequent problems fuel the need for more ‘fixing’ jobs (e.g. social workers, addiction counsellors, police, lawyers, jailers, etc.).”
Ethan Miller – Occupy, Connect, Create! Imagining Life Beyond ‘The Economy’
“The sorcery of capitalist economics is precisely to make its own violence invisible, so that it can appear to be nothing but the miraculous liberator of human potential and the progressive deliverer of ever-abundant goods. And there is a disturbingly good reason for us to give in to this illusion: most of us are dependent on the very economy that has systematically exploited us and undermined the health of our communities and our environments. We have come to rely on the very “job creators” (that new euphemism for exploiters) whose project of profiting at our expense we condemn. We have come to need the very economic growth machine that is eating our world and destabilizing our planetary climate in the name of “progress.”
Lauren Chief Elk-Young Bear, Yeoshin Lourdes, and Bardot Smith, founders of the gender justice movement Give Your Money To Women: The End Game of Capitalism.
“This goes back to classism again and again and again. If you look across the spectrum, things women do for society are valued little or not at all in terms of money. They’re essentially forced to access capital through their relationships with men: personal, familial, professional.”
Molly Scott Cato – See Arbeit Macht Frei (the first edition of this book was released in 1996 under the title Seven Myths About Work.)
“Work is a confidence trick that lies at the heart of the economic system of capitalism. If a man walked up to another man and hit him over the head with a stick and stole half the money in his wallet this would be considered a crime and the man would be considered a threat to society. But if a man offers another a job and pays him half the value his labour generates we laud him as a wealth-creator, as a worthy entrepreneur, the sort of person our children should be taught to emulate in school.”
Sarah Jaffe – See Opting for Free Time:
“…we need to be willing to argue for leisure as a right, and as a feminist issue. […] A gendered demand for leisure would argue that women’s time is as important as men’s, whether we are spending it parenting or reading a book or lying on a beach. It would take into account the racialized and classed expectations of different groups of women, and argue that low-income women deserve time off too (and it would argue that they deserve to make enough money to enjoy that time.) It would point out that what is earned vacation for white women is not “laziness” in women of color.
It would argue not from any biological imperative (that rarely gets us anywhere good), but from a time-honored (though lately forgotten) labor and left tradition that says that time, as much as anything, is a right—and it would take from the Wages for Housework movement the idea that unpaid work in the home is still work that we deserve a respite from.”
Karl Widerquist – Among my favorite quotes from his work is this powerful statement:
“One answer of mine to one of the common questions [about universal basic income, a.k.a. UBI] is unusual, and it’s been a major theme in my writing since I started. When people say it’s something for nothing, I argue most emphatically that it is not. We force so many terrible things onto the poor. We don’t get their permission. And without UBI, we don’t pay them back for what we force on them. We make them live in a world where everything else is owned. We make rules about all kinds of things they could otherwise do. Our ancestors lived without such rules for 200,000 years. They could hunt, gather, fish or farm as they wished. We’ve taken all that away and given them nothing in return. UBI is long overdue. UBI is paying for the privileges you have taken. If we don’t have UBI we put the propertyless in the position where they have no other choice but to work for the very people whose privileged control of resources makes the propertyless unable to use resources for themselves. UBI is no less than the end of effective slavery.”
James Chamberlain, whose work I just discovered a few weeks ago. (My first reaction: “where were the people who were writing things like this when I was applying to graduate school?”) I’m very excited to read his new book Undoing Work, Rethinking Community, especially after reading an early draft of the first chapter.
“Not only does the requirement to work keep many of us too busy to engage in deep reflections on fundamental questions of collective existence, but the ideology of work erodes freedom by constructing paid work as an unassailable good and by placing it outside the realm of “reasonable” or “realistic” debate. By encouraging us to see the requirement to work for pay as an inevitable or even natural feature of collective existence, the ideology of work therefore chips away at our freedom to even imagine alternative futures in which paid work might play a different role (or none at all), and thus reduces our capacities to act according to our own ends.”
————
You can find out more about The Anticareerist and its author HERE.
Want to read back issues? An archive of all published issues is HERE.
You can also follow The Anticareerist on Twitter and Facebook.
In May, Kate McFarland will be speaking about anticareerism at the North American Basic Income Guarantee congress in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
by Karl Widerquist | Apr 25, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in October 2010.
The political climate in the United States has gotten increasingly unfriendly toward the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG). Since 1990s, Democrats and Republicans have agreed that any politically viable approach to poverty must involve forcing the poor to work. But it is not only cash assistance to the poor that is nonviable in the current political climate. It is not only progressive social policy. Left or right, it seems to be that the government lacks the ability to employ any ambitious strategy.
America was once a very ambitious country: the New Deal of the 1930s, the G. I. Bill of the 1940s, the interstate highway system of the 1950s, the space program and the Great Society of 1960s were all hugely ambitious goals pursued with ambitious strategies. More than a century ago, when an earthquake hit San Francisco or a fire hit Chicago, we rebuilt those cities better than ever within a couple years. Today, five years after the engineering failure that caused the flood in New Orleans, large parts of the city lie vacant while the government struggles to get the levees back only to where they were before they failed.
It would be wrong to say that the U.S. government has not taken on any ambitious goals in the last 30 years. It has ambitiously pursued tax cuts for the most privileged Americans, but by doing so it has hampered its ability to ambitiously pursue most other goals it has taken on. Under the Bush administration, the U.S. government took on the incredibly ambitious goals of invading and occupying two foreign nations. But the government has pursued those goals largely with the strategies of long-range missiles in the air and bribes for warlords on the ground, rather than committing resources to stabilize and rebuild those countries. Under the Obama administration, the U.S. government has taken on the ambitious goal of establishing universal healthcare coverage, but it plans to do so by mandating that individuals buy insurance, often from for-profit companies. Whether these goals are good or bad, the ambitiousness of the strategy does not match the ambitiousness of the goal. Meanwhile, we don’t even have the ambition to properly maintain the public transportation systems, highways, and other infrastructure left to us by earlier generations.
And in this climate, BIG supporters want to talk about this hugely ambitious idea to eliminate poverty with an unconditional payment to all citizens. How can this be worth talking about here and now?
One important reason to keep pushing for a big ambitious change is that we must not mistake a current political mood for the permanent political reality. The political mood changes for the better and for the worse, and it can change abruptly and unexpectedly. In the 1850s, no one, not even Abraham Lincoln himself, had a good reason to believe that the United States was within 10 years of outlawing slavery. In the 1920s, no one, not even Franklin Roosevelt himself, had a good reason to believe that the United States was within 10 years of introducing old age pensions, unemployment insurance, a national minimum wage, and so on.
The political mood is only a mood. It can change abruptly because most people do not hold firm convictions about politics. True believers on all sides of any political issue might dominate the debate, but most people’s political positions are tentative and subject to change. I cannot predict when and how the political mood will change, but I know that a major change takes people pressing for it, and it takes people being ready with well thought-out new ideas to take us in another direction. We need to talk about BIG now if we want to make it viable later.
The outpouring of enthusiasm for the vague ideas of “change” and “hope” in the 2008 election indicates that the appeal of the ambitionless philosophy that has been dominant for the last 30-years is declining. The most active resistance to the Democrats over the last two years has been made out of the minority who voted against them to begin with. But a significant part of the frustration that might swing the upcoming election is motivated not by some belief that the Democrats have gone too far but by the belief that they have not done enough. It is a sign of continued frustration at the bipartisan lack of ambition that continues to handicap the U.S. government.
I wish I could say with assurance that we are on the verge of a major shift in political mood in the direction of BIG. I cannot say that. I cannot see the future, and neither can those people who confidently pretend they can. But I can point to indicators that things are moving in the direction of BIG and small things we can do here and now to push things in that direction.
As I see it, there are four parts to the BIG model: (1) it’s in-cash; (2) it’s enough to meet a person’s needs; (3) it’s universal; and (4) it is understood as a human right or a right of citizenship. Anything that establishes even one element of this model moves in the direction of BIG.
Looked at in this way, the United States is not as far away from the BIG model as it might appear. Some of the most successful and popular elements in U.S. social policy are cash-based: refundable tax credits; unemployment insurance, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, and so on. The Food Stamp program functions almost like a cash grant (although with a paternalistic twist), and it is clearly motivated by the idea that everyone ought to have access to food. Social Security—as imperfectly as it works—is clearly motivated by the belief that all people ought to have a financially secure retirement. Despite all the shortcomings of the health care reform law, it helps to establish the idea that all people should have access to health care.
The public school system is an enormous in-kind universal benefit that is not even limited to citizens. Although the system has great inequities, the ideal of universal education is strong. A fully market-based educational system would offer no more than the faith that all parents will somehow find a way to purchase adequate education for their children. It’s not such a big change in mindset to go from the realization that we can’t assume every parent can provide an adequate education for their children, to the question of what makes us so confidently assume every parent can provide adequate food, shelter, and clothing for their children.
Looking beyond U.S. federal government policies, there is an increasing trend worldwide toward the use of in-cash benefits. Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend, Mexico’s conditional cash transfer program, Brazil’s Bolsa Familia, and South Africa’s pension system are just a few examples of how well cash grants can work and how popular they can be. All of this experience provides lessons for U.S. federal policies big and small.
There is nothing good about the current recession. But sometimes good things arise out of bad. This recession has reminded many Americans that they are not so different from people in need. Unemployment did not rise from 3 to 10 percent because people suddenly became lazy; the foreclosure epidemic was not caused by a sudden increase in the number of deadbeats. The government has put most of its effort into bailing out the economy from the top down, but there is growing belief among the American public that we should be aiming our policy from the bottom up instead.
What can we do? Two things: we can be on the side of big ambitious change and small incremental changes in the right direction. The world has big problems; we can be on the side of the ambitious strategy necessary to build a better world in the face of those problems. At the same time, there are small policy issues and many, many opportunities to nudge policy in the direction of a universalistic, rights-based, or cash-based strategies to meet human needs. Efforts to expand refundable tax credits and the cap & dividend approach to global warming are two small steps in that direction that are under serious consideration right now.
-Karl Widerquist, Portland, Oregon, October 2010
by Andre Coelho | Apr 24, 2018 | News
World Bank building. Picture credit to Financial Express.
The World Bank has released a draft report, published on the 20th of April, titled “The changing nature of work”, in which basic income is suggested as policy to “be read through the lens of ‘progressive universalism’”. This progress to a universal system should depend, according to World Bank analysts, on “basic social insurance” and also on a reliance on “flexible labour markets”, in a relationship that would not do without, though, targeting social assistance schemes.
The reason for maintaining conditional social assistance is, in this context, to “prioritize those at the bottom of the [income] distribution”. This maybe contrary to the (universal) basic income principle, but World Bank analysts consider important to identify those “who are the most vulnerable, where they live, and how vulnerable they are”. To address rising inequality and profound changes in the nature of work in the next few decades, basic income-like schemes are seen in this report as having “pros and cons”, which “may address challenges in coverage and take-up programs”. The advantages referred relate to more coverage and reduced stigmatization, but at the same time warnings are made to new possible challenges in administrative ruling and financing.
The report underlines the need to relax strict work regulations, stating that “stronger social protection systems can go hand in hand with more flexible labour markets”. A particular concern for labour costs to firms is expressed, especially when compared to technology. The World Bank’s view is that labour costs should generally go down (including unemployment benefits and minimum wages), associated with a “reformed social assistance and insurance systems”.
On the other hand, basic income – in the report often stated as “guaranteed minimum” – “may also ameliorate possible work disincentives”. That is clearly connected with the usually known as “poverty traps”, where people choose to remain eligible for social assistance, rather than risk going into formal employment and end up with less money (due to taxation). It is also linked to reduced administrative costs. Moreover, the report recognizes the importance of maintaining typical welfare services, like public health and education, and be careful in scrapping existing benefits, as some are not as prone to be immediately replaced by a basic income.
From a definition standpoint, World Bank analysts defend that basic income “is a process that serves the poor first, it recognizes that wider coverage is desirable (…) and allows countries to claw back benefits from the rich.” However, in their view, the progressive system envisioned should be a three-legged stool, as mentioned above: basic income, to cover “against catastrophic losses”, mandated social insurance, to “achieve an adequate level of savings”, and market-based voluntary savings, to complement the previous two.
Historically, the report recognizes, conditional benefits have gone a long way in achieving social security in many regions, both high and low income. That, combined with generally low uptake rates (60% in high-income countries and 20% of the poorest households in low-income countries), shows that there is room for improvement, although it remains unclear how conditional and unconditional social assistance should play out together, given this context, in the near future. Also, for financial reasons, the report advises low income countries to increase coverage (estimates put the elimination of poverty on a double-digit spending percentage relative to GDP, for those countries) of existing programs and enhance delivery platforms, instead of opting right now for a basic income. As far as financing is concerned, a particular emphasis is put on taxing “superstar corporations”, limiting their ability to escape taxation through loop-holes and tax havens, plus levelling the tax grounds between them (e.g.: Google, Facebook and others, which are usually less burdened with taxes than most other companies) and other companies. Eliminating energy subsidies, introducing or expanding carbon taxes and imposing inheritance or estate taxes are also possible routes for funding the “new social contract”, as envisioned by World Bank analysts.
More information at:
World Development Report 2019 Overview, “World Development Report 2019: The Changing Nature of Work”, The World Bank, 20th April 2018
