by BIEN | Mar 6, 2017 | News
Sarah Gardner, a reporter for Marketplace, published three articles in December 2016 on the topic of universal basic income (UBI): How to support yourself after the robot revolution, Finland to test a basic income for the unemployed, and On the Canadian prairie, a basic income experiment.
In How to support yourself after the robot revolution, Gardner describes the prediction of Lawrence Summers, Former Undersecretary of International Affairs, that by the middle of the 21st century, one third of men between the ages of 25 and 54 will be out of work. The reason is automation.
Sam Altman, Gardner says, also sees automation, including software automation, as a factor for future unemployment. Altman and others are raising millions of dollars for a basic income experiment in Oakland, California.
In Finland to test a basic income for the unemployed, Gardner talks about the “buzz” around UBI in Silicon Valley, the Netherlands, and Finland. Finland, specifically, is facing a hard time with high youth unemployment. — general unemployment is at 8%, while young adults have a 20% unemployment rate. Olli Kangas, the director of government and community relations for KELA (the government agency responsible for public benefits), said, “In the present system they are a little bit afraid of accepting job offers, say, for two months or three months, because they think that, okay, how much would I benefit, in terms of money?”
In On the Canadian prairie, a basic income experiment, Gardner notes, as in the other articles, that automation and temp work are modern issues. Previously, however, there were the Mincome experiments in Manitoba, which trialled a payment similar to UBI.
While these trials were conducted in several parts of Manitoba, “the most interesting pilot was in Dauphin, a small farming town more than three hours northwest of Winnipeg,” Gardner says. Dauphin was a tight-knit Ukrainian community, and the Canadian government gave money, through the program, to ensure families “would never fall below a basic amount.”
Read the full articles here:
Sarah Gardner, “How to support yourself after the robot revolution“, Marketplace, December 7, 2016.
Sarah Gardner, “Finland to test a basic income for the unemployed“, Marketplace, December 13, 2016.
Sarah Gardner, “On the Canadian prairie, a basic income experiment“, Marketplace, December 20, 2016.
by Hilde Latour | Mar 5, 2017 | News
A mix of Dutch speakers from different fields, all in favor of a basic income, interactively discussed the concept of a universal basic income (UBI) during the symposium “a basic income, full speed ahead!!” [“het basisinkomen, volle kracht vooruit!!”] on January 23rd . The aim was to gather ideas about how to progress to make UBI a reality in the Netherlands as soon as possible. The symposium was organized by “Basisinkomen2018”, the organization behind the petition signed by more than 66,000 citizens (a number that is still growing).
Johan Luijendijk, co-founder of “Basisinkomen2018”, announced a few activities his organization will be organizing and/or funding in the Netherlands such as competitions between universities and informative movies aimed at countering negative preconceptions about a basic income.
He states that supporters can be found in left as well as right wing populations, but the image of a basic income is that of a left wing idea. There is still a lack of understanding of the concept of a basic income and many still believe it will make people lazy. There is also an obstinate, Calvinistic opinion in the Netherlands that one has to work for every penny, argues Luijendijk.
The audience expressed the need for a clear overview of each political party’s stance on basic income in the Netherlands. (On March 15th, the country’s Parliamentary elections will take place).
“Overall, the idea of a basic income is very much alive in the Netherlands, and Basisinkomen2018 will continue to invest in explaining the concept to the people,” Luijendijk assured the audience. An explanatory animation about basic income was introduced during the meeting, including strategic instructions about how to share it (not all at once).
According to Reinier Castelein, chairman of a Trade Union “de Unie” (financial sector), very few trade unions focus on a basic income because they are traditionally focused on work. However, he went on to say:
“An ever-increasing number of people are living on social benefits. Unemployment is increasing and will continue to increase, especially if you realize you disappear from the statistics when you don’t apply for jobs anymore. In the financial sector alone, 60,000 jobs have disappeared and more are expected to disappear. Due to the misbehavior of some people at the top of some banks, there is no empathy for these people in society.“
“More and more people are working in multiple small jobs in order to earn enough money for a decent living. With a basic income, unemployment can be abolished.” Castelein continues, “a basic income would contribute to a redistribution of work and income with less working hours a week, creating possibilities for participation in caring roles or other (currently unpaid, but useful) work.” People from the audience complemented these expected results with positive effects on health, decreasing criminality, and more room for creativity and contribution to solutions for the problems in society.
Employees can better focus on their work if they are not distracted by the struggle to make a living and the quality of work will improve under such circumstances, argues Ton Stuy, an employer in the transportation sector.
“With a basic income you can take away discontent and it is an answer to Brexit and Trump’s protectionism. Furthermore, a basic income creates room for lowering wages and it will not cost more than the crazy things we spend money on now, “ he states.
With respect to the affordability of a basic income, Stuy argues: “If you invest in the well-being of people, it will come back and therefore it will not cost anything, but will even be profitable. Employers who treat their employees well should get more attention.”
Liesbeth van Tongeren, a politician from the Green Left party (“GroenLinks”), compares the discussions about basic income with the discussions about the abolishment of slavery and the discussions about women’s empowerment in the past. In both cases, people originally argued it would be unaffordable and an unachievable goal. Eventually both turned out to be achievable and affordable.
The concept of a basic income also touches the question of what is appreciated: effort or the economic benefits? Many people say, “My job is a useless job, nothing would change if I didn’t do my job.” In reaction to the remark of Ton Stuy, who thinks a basic income will have a decreasing effect on wages, van Tongeren argues that the effect will be in both ways: some jobs will be paid more and others less. It will change the established hierarchy in society and it will also change the interrelationship of many men and women. These effects cause anxiety, according to van Tongeren.
For van Tongeren, the reality is that more and more people are falling out of the system. At the same time, 90 billion euros a month are created and spent in Europe in the context of quantitative easing. This money could instead be divided amongst the European citizens, which would be a good start. It would help if the IMF would make a statement about it in this context, van Tongeren states.
George van Houts, from the theater group The Seducers (“De Verleiders”), shares his experience with the audience and explains the role theater can play in the discussion about the current financial system. His theater group played several pieces around this topic and attracted full theatres. “We are informed by a group of scientists (Our Money, “Ons Geld”), who check if the information is accurate.” Van Houts explains that money is made by commercial banks, as debt.
“We performed a play around this topic at the Dutch central bank (“De Nederlandsche Bank, DNB”), and we were not argued against, but Klaas Knot (President of the DNB) asked why we would worry the people. ”Many top bankers know something will have to change, as the system is about to burst, according to van Houts. The responsibility of the creation of money should be given back to the government and it should not be created as debt, which is the case now.
Van Houts indicates a parallel system is already in place: the DNB-coin (similar to the bitcoin). This system can function parallel to the euro and people could be given a bank account at the DNB, which could be used for a basic income, for example. This could then be managed by a public organization that is not dependent on ‘voters’ favour’.
A basic income is inevitable, according to Jan Rotmans, Professor in Sustainability Transitions at Drift (Erasmus University Rotterdam). He supports this prediction by comparing the current stage of the “digital revolution” with the industrial revolution of the 19th century. “We live in a time of chaos, anxiety and social inequality, but eventually, the optimists were right.” The most important resistance comes from within, Rotmans explains. “It is better to have one small success story than many meetings trying to think it all through in order to implement it on a large scale. Just start doing it. Examples of such small scale initiatives in The Netherlands are the crowd funded basic income project in Groningen and the initiative in Terneuzen.” (The city council of Terneuzen thought they had found a way to implement a basic income for a small group of citizens on social benefits, but a few days after the symposium the central government claimed it was illegal). The technological developments are causing a battlefield in the middle part of the working-class and this is likely to cause a downward spiral of fear that “it will happen to me”. “Can we keep everyone at work? No,” so radical solutions are necessary, according to Rotmans, one of which can be a basic income.
Info and links
Special thanks to Josh Martin and Jenna van Draanen for reviewing this article
Photo: symposium a basic income, full speed ahead!!, January 2017, Rotterdam the Netherlands by Hilde Latour (at the desk from left to right: George van Houts, Jan Rotmans, Liesbeth van Tongeren and Johan Luijendijk)
by Michael Lewis | Mar 4, 2017 | Opinion
Michael A. Lewis
Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College
In “Why a Universal Basic Income is a Poor Substitute for a Guaranteed Job,” Claire Connelly praises guaranteeing people a right to a job as opposed to guaranteeing them a right to an income. I’ve been involved in quite a few discussions, some of them debates, about the relative merits of basic income versus guaranteed jobs proposals. My position has always been that I have no problem, in principle, with guaranteeing someone a job. If guaranteeing jobs and an unconditional basic income were both financially and politically feasible, I’d be a proponent of both. But if I had to choose one of these policies over the other, I’d prefer the basic income. This is because I think guaranteeing people access to the resources they need to survive has priority over guaranteeing them the right to sell their labor. This, however, isn’t the debate I want to have here. What I want to do, instead, is raise a question about guaranteed jobs proposals: what would it really mean to guarantee someone a job? If those arguing that automation will result in a net loss of jobs for human beings are right, this question becomes especially salient.
Let me start by framing the question more precisely: under what conditions would the government, in its employer of last resort role, hire people? Connelly seems to be supporting the idea of government serving as a buffer stock mechanism. That is, it would step in to hire labor when private sector demand was low and, presumably, step aside when such demand was high. This would put a floor under the price of labor because private sector employers couldn’t, during economic downturns, use the threat of unemployment to get workers to accept lower wages.
As many readers of this site are no doubt aware, some have argued that automation is increasing rapidly and will only continue to do so. Now I’m no expert in this area. So I don’t know if these folks are right that we’re on the path to seeing robots take our jobs. But if they are, this would seem to cause a problem for the buffer stock idea.
The buffer stock approach seems based on a model of the economy where unemployment is due to periodic downturns. The public sector steps in to absorb the resulting labor surplus, but this is meant to be temporary. Once the economy starts growing again, and unemployment declines, public sector employment can contract, as those who worked in the public sector are absorbed by the private one. But automation isn’t supposed to work like that. Instead, there is a steady, but permanent, decline in many types of work as machines take our jobs. I know there’s a huge debate about whether other types of jobs will develop to replace the one’s lost to robots: but suppose such replacement doesn’t happen. Perhaps it’s premature to do so, but I wonder if guaranteed jobs proponents have thought about how their guaranteed jobs plan would work in such an environment. Would government indefinitely hire all those who’ve lost their jobs to machines?
by Cameron McLeod | Feb 23, 2017 | News
A discussion on “the basic income experiment” was the focus of an episode of Al Jazeera’s The Stream, with Femi Oke and Malika Bilal, in January 2017.
The debate, which centred around the Finnish BI experiment, included perspectives from both sides of the issue: those concerned basic income will eliminate incentives to work and those who see BI as a path to reducing unemployment.
The debate included Marjukka Turunen, head of Kela’s legal unit (Finland’s Social Insurance Institution); Guy Standing, co-founder of Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN); Oren Cass, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute; as well as Scott Santens, writer and advocate for basic income.
The discussion began by asking what life will be like going forward for the 2,000 who were randomly selected by Kela for Finland’s first BI experiment: one man selected described his new sense of freedom on Facebook. Marjukka described how those selected could now do “whatever they want,” and will be studied only “in the background.”
Guy Standing was asked, with regard to his experiments in India, how people reacted when they were told they would receive an unconditional basic income. Guy discussed awareness days hosted before launch where the villages were told how the program worked, and where its unconditionality was emphasized. Guy also talked about the nutrition and health improvements, increased work, and “equity effects.” There were gains for the disabled, and the pilots had an “emancipatory effect.”
Also involved in the discussion was Scott Santens, who designed his own scheme: in 2015 he built up a crowd fund on Patreon and was able to receive 1,000 dollars a month, in what was meant to be his own personal basic income. Santens calls BI, “money that enables people to pursue what they wish to pursue.” He notes that he had not realized just how insecure he was until he found the security his basic income provided.
Oren Cass argued during the debate that that what happened in India was in fact not a basic income, because it did not undermine the principle that it is important to work for a living and similarly that Santens’ BI was not truly a basic income. The problem for Oren with Scott Santens’ scheme was that it does not indicate anything about whether or not we want society “to be a place where everybody receives a check no matter what they do.”
The discussion also touched on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and the broken income distribution systems of the 20th century. Guy claimed that the share of the economy going to labor is no longer constant: it is disproportionately going to capital. He noted the rise of political extremes and his theory of the precariat.
Oren stated that the rationale for a basic income had a number of “conflicting explanations” and he suggested a wage subsidy instead of BI. Scott argued this only benefits corporations, and that the BI provides employees with bargaining power. Marjukka noted later on that “we can’t know” whether BI is the solution “unless we experiment.”
In the brief post-show, the issue of automation, and the replacement of labour with capital, alongside Elon Musk’s position, were briefly touched upon.
More information at:
The Stream, “The basic income experiment.” Al Jazeera, January 5 2017. https://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201701052319-0025352
Credit Picture CC Mohamed Nanabhay (more…)
by Kate McFarland | Feb 19, 2017 | News
Indian economist Kaushik Basu, former Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist of the World Bank, has written an article for Project Syndicate in which he recommends that the United States consider “some form of basic income” as a partial solution to the economic insecurity of the working classes.
Basu broaches the idea of basic income, in addition to recommending progressive taxation and investments in education, in the context of suggesting alternatives to protectionist trade policies. While he does not expand on the type of basic income he has in mind, he refers to the program being tested in Finland (in which means-tested unemployment benefits have been replaced by an unconditional cash transfer) and the scheme discussed in India’s Economic Survey (a “quasi-universal” basic income which might be rolled out gradually, beginning with more vulnerable groups).
An effective solution to the problems facing American workers must recognize where those problems’ roots lie. Every time a new technology enables a company to use less labor, there is a shift from the total wage bill to profits. What workers need, however, is more wages. If they aren’t coming from employers, they should come from elsewhere.
Indeed, the time has come to consider some form of basic income and profit-sharing. Finland has experimented with this. In the emerging world, India, in its most recent economic survey, has outlined a full scheme.
In the same vein, the tax system should be made much more progressive; as it stands, there are far too many loopholes for the ultra-wealthy in the US. Investment in new forms of education that enable workers to take on more creative tasks, which cannot be completed by robots, will also be vital.
Shortly before the release of his Project Syndicate article, Basu was reported as saying in a Tweet that “The Universal Basic Income scheme [in India] should give a cut off income & ask ones above it to voluntarily forego it.” Indeed, the Economic Survey’s author, Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian, suggested encouraging voluntary exclusion of the wealthy from receipt of the basic income (see pg. 191).
It is unclear whether the “form of basic income” Basu mentions is also one he implicitly envisions as restricted to those below a certain income level. It is clear, however, that he supports the idea of divorcing wages from employment–at least as an important option to investigate.
Read more:
Kaushik Basu, “America’s Dangerous Neo-Protectionism,” Project Syndicate, February 13, 2017.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 World Bank Photo Collection
