Chris Lee, a Democratic state representative from Hawaii, made international headlines when he passed legislation creating a working group to study Universal Basic Income.
Lee recently joined the UBI Podcast to discuss the legislation.
He said the working group will analyze Hawaii’s exposure to automation and the potential for solutions, such as basic income, to address this issue. The working group will also look at the efficacy of Hawaii’s current social services system and whether it is adequate for the challenges of the future.
“It’s safe to say, that if we do nothing…these programs that we are already spending money on are going to go through the roof. To say nothing of unemployment and other changes in the economy that is going to exacerbate income inequality and limit the opportunity for people to work and make a living,” Lee said.
There is no end-date to the working group, and Lee said the key players will likely be organized by the end of this summer. Lee said he hopes that by the next legislative session in January the working group will have produced enough research to push for funding for deeper research into evaluating various proposals.
A potential outcome of the working group is to create a pilot program that is “not necessarily administered by the state,” but is tailored to the local economy, he said.
While the United States had a debate over basic income during the Nixon Administration, Lee said he hopes that initiatives like this working group can bring the discussion to a new generation.
“I think this is definitely an inflection point where we have to acknowledge that the challenges that face us are far larger than our existing infrastructure and economic system is equipped to deal with,” Lee said.
Lee said there must be some changes in the system.
“I think that ultimately we have no choice and it is inevitable that we see some sort of paradigm shift in the way we are doing things,” he said.
The legislation passed unanimously, and Lee said he has not encountered opposition to the proposal. The legislation had support from labor unions, the business community, social justice advocates, and regular Hawaiians.
There were even a handful of legislators Lee worked with on the working group that already had exposure to basic income previously, he said.
“I think that respect for one’s neighbor, that ‘aloha spirit’ is something that drives our value set so that when we come together and say that everybody should have the right to basic financial security — that’s something I think is meaningful to people. So I think everybody has at least been open to the idea of having this discussion and seeing where it will go,” Lee said.
Karl Widerquist, vice-chair (at the time of the interview he still was co-chair) of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) was interviewed extensively by Keith Brown from the “We Are Here Podcast” on April 28th. During the interview, Widerquist explains Universal Basic Income (UBI) creates a market economy where income doesn’t start at zero and where people have a positive, rather than a negative, incentive to work.
“Employers currently have an incentive to pay very low wages because income starts at zero. You can work fulltime a whole year and still live in poverty.” In almost every country, there are conditional systems for people who do not work. Widerquist argues that these systems supervise recipients and create high overhead costs. “If you can show you can’t work or can’t find a job, then you are eligible for something. If not, you will get nothing. This means people have a negative incentive to work and will accept jobs with very low wages to prevent them from falling into [extreme] poverty.”
UBI is going to help people that are afraid of becoming poor when they lose their job for whatever reason. According to Widerquist, “UBI can free people from that anxiety.” Widerquist explains UBI is not just for the poor, but also for the middle class. It gives people a choice to leave their dead-end jobs and do something else they really want to do. If you are struggling to meet your basic needs, you will be miserable. If you have UBI that meets your basic needs, you will not be in misery. We will get a situation where money no longer buys happiness. Freedom is the power to say no.
UBI can also be seen as compensation to people for the duties that have been imposed on them, according to Widerquist. For instance, a plumbing system is created because the water is polluted, and people have to pay for it, even if they are not the ones that polluted the water. They don’t have a choice. He gives an example of how this can be compensated: The state took the land from the natives (Inuit) in Alaska to let companies drill the oil from it. These companies pay the government and a small part of it is given ‘back’ to the citizens (Alaska’s “Permanent Fund Dividend”).
There are many variations on what people think UBI should look like around the world. Most people agree that it has to be at least enough to meet your basic needs (food, shelter, clothing and enough to live on is the minimum). The maximum is the highest sustainable income possible. Widerquist’s personal view is that “you should be compensated at the highest sustainable level, as it is a compensation for non-equal duties that the government is opposing on us.”
Starting at $12,000 in the US a year would be okay, in hopes of building up to $20,000 or more if it proves to be workable. But starting off at a higher level than $20,000 without building up to it gradually would be risky.
According to Widerquist. “The government is already spending over 2 trillion dollars a year to maintain people’s income and we still have 13.5% of the population living in poverty. So the current system is not working and extremely expensive”.
Widerquist does not believe that UBI requires cuts in other programs, but he gives some examples of government spending that can be replaced by it, including foodstamps and most unemployment benefits.
“It is feasible; the only thing we need is the will to do it. It has not been attempted before on a large scale, but there is a first time for everything”.
On the topic of the “Alaska permanent fund dividend”, which started in 1982, Widerquist argues, “In Alaska they have a very small basic income of one thousand US dollars a year for every resident (man, woman, and child) and even that very small amount has made Alaska one of the most equal states with very low poverty rates. It has been going strong for 35 years now. It makes a huge difference when you realise that a single mother with four kids will get 5000 US dollars a year. In a good year even 10000 US dollars a year.”
UBI can be popular across the political spectrum once it is in place, because the benefits are diverse. “We are tired of inequality growing and poverty staying where it is. The middle class needs a pay raise. Nothing else has worked for the middle class. Let’s try UBI”.
Widerquist continues, “Realize it is also a good deal for people who like capitalism, because it gets out a lot of the bureaucracy and paternalistic attitudes. It is simple and without supervision. The market economy will still exist, but without poverty.”
We spend so much time making our living that we never have time to live our lives.
With UBI, a lot of us would still want to work to get our luxuries, but we can take our time to reflect and do things we really want to do.
Representative Chris Lee. Credit to: Office of Representative Chris Lee
In the face of growing economic inequality and projections of increased disparities in the coming decades, Hawai‘i has passed a resolution to establish a Basic Economic Security Working Group. The working group will investigate the impact job automation will have on the residents of Hawai‘i and its social safety net programs, and investigate the feasibility of universal basic income models and other efforts to identify the best pathway forward to ensure residents are able to thrive, if you’re wanting to be a thriving Hawaii resident, you have the option to live on the big island of Hawaii if you so wished to.
Hawai‘i has the highest cost of living in the United States. It is thus no surprise that the rate of economic inequality in Hawai’i has been steadily rising for decades, and that the top 1% income shares have doubled since 1978. In response, House Concurrent Resolution 89 was passed in May 2017 to establish a Basic Economic Security Working Group, focusing on five main tasks:
“Assess Hawai‘i’s job market exposure to automation technologies, globalization and disruptive innovation;
Assess Hawai‘i’s existing spending on social safety net programs and other relevant expenditures, as well as expected spending on those programs in light of anticipated automation technologies, globalization, disruptive innovation, and job losses;
Identify and analyze options to ensure economic security, including a partial universal basic income, full universal basic income and other mechanisms;
Monitor studies, trials, and efforts in Hawai‘i and other jurisdictions relevant to the basic economic security working group; and
Seek out partnerships to publish or fund relevant trials or studies to evaluate options”
In an interview with Basic Income News, the sponsor of the resolution, Representative Chris Lee, frames the working group in light of the broader political context of the United States: “Politics in D.C. necessitate our evaluation of these future options because current policies are only making things harder for middle and lower class families. We must ask ourselves, what can we do now to head down the right path to ensure a viable economy and sustainable ways of living?”
Representative Lee went on to claim that, when future socio-economic landscapes are viewed through the lens of innovation and automation, some form of a basic income “seems inevitable”. The representative states that it is imperative to “acknowledge there are real issues both in our economy and society that current policy is not equipped to deal with” and that our economic and social infrastructure must evolve to match the speed of technological innovations.
Given that, in 2016, the service industry composed the majority of the state’s total GDP, automation may be one of the greatest challenges to its economic security in the near future. This threat is even more pressing given projections of the United States losing almost half of all jobs to automation in the next two decades. Hawai‘i’s resolution is proactive in addressing the specters of job loss and increased reliance on social safety net programs by mapping the potential future impact and mitigating negative effects with evidence-based strategies to inform legislation.
The majority of households in Hawai‘i are families with children. Representative Lee is mindful of how their lives can be shaped by economic insecurity and is working to create pathways forward to ensure people can thrive.
More information at:
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Hawaii, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2016
A Targeted Universal Framework for Shared Prosperity and Enduring Progress
By Mark Gomez
May 30, 2017
There is more than enough in the American economy, not merely to end poverty, but for everyone to prosper. And in the next 40 years, the economy will double again. Now is the time to construct a framework of bold policies to tackle extreme inequality and finally end racial economic exclusion.
Unfortunately up to quite recently, progress-minded activists have been proposing a familiar set of policies from a bygone era that represent little more than baby steps forward. These policies neither excite voters to go to the polls in droves, nor embolden candidates to risk their office to ensure the policies become law.
In this essay, we propose a strategic reform framework that adopts familiar set of policies for a new era of possibilities, with an eye towards how they can each uniquely contribute to economic prosperity and stability for all. In so doing, we believe we can inspire a new vibrant brand of politics and rekindle a belief in progress.
Excessive Power Creates Extreme Inequality
A few corporations and people enjoy remarkable prosperity. The rest of us are stuck. Without enough in our pockets to drive the economy forward, our prosperity is not just inequitably shared, it is fleeting.
Across product chains, prosperous firms know how to ensure their contractors produce high quality products. And prosperous firms have generated ample jobs across their regions. However, these firms have yet to ensure that the workers they rely on also prosper.
Extreme inequality is born of excessive power wielded by a few firms and people. This power is built on stabilizing advantages inherent in our economy (e.g. natural monopolies, industry clusters) or granted through policies (e.g. patents, occupational licenses).
The stabilizing advantages (e.g. unions, free college, cheap homes) that once built the white middle class have been severely weakened. Of course these advantages also were often designed to exclude people deemed less worthy–women, African Americans, immigrants and others.
The dominant players’ extreme power slows economic progress and corrupts our democracy. We need to create effective countervailing power mechanisms and supporting institutions. And we need to recreate stabilizing advantages not just for the white middle-class, but also for African-Americans, immigrants and others who have yet to fully prosper.
Driving the Economy Forward from the Back
Our framework puts money back into people’s pockets enabling them to drive enduring prosperity. Those at the back of the income and wealth distribution, those who heretofore have been held back will now lead the economy forward benefiting all of us.
Income and wealth created socially needs to be distributed socially rather than by the few. To revive the economy and protect our democracy, we must strategically break up perilous concentrations of income and wealth. This tames dominant economic players, rewards the work of the rest, and ends racial economic exclusion.
This framework is built on three pillars: a decent stable income, a sturdy foundation of assets, and a share in our economy’s prosperity. Here is an initial take at what this could practically look like in dollars and cents.
1. A Decent Living EITC with the maximum credit set so that a single earner full time minimum wage worker’s household earned income reaches 250% of federal poverty. Childless workers will receive proportionate credits. The credit will be distributed monthly. To break up perilous concentrations of income, the program will be paid for by a tax on the top 20% of earners.
2. A Social Inheritance Trust of $60,000 made available at 21 years of age. The initial annual contribution to the trust will be $2,857 per child. To break up perilous concentrations of wealth, the program will be paid for by a new tax on all forms of property. To ensure benefits for those now under 21, a one-time wealth tax will be imposed.
3. Prosperity Shares with monthly dividends to everyone over 18 years of age. The initial annual dividend would be $6,000 per household. To break up the perilous concentration of corporate income, the program will be paid for by a tax on the most prosperous of firms.
A Targeted Universal Framework
Our universal goal is to ensure everyone prospers. Each policy is targeted to address the structure of industries and of households. Our strategy is built upon how business firms are connected through value chains and regional economies. And our strategy recognizes how hourly wages, annual income, and assets each contribute to households getting by.
The “Decent Living EITC and Prosperity Shares” together reflect our ideal of the good life. We believe hard work should be rewarded and we believe in financial independence. The “Decent Living EITC” ensures dominant firms contribute to the prosperity of workers at less advantaged firms. And the “Prosperity Shares” ensure that we all, not just the upper middle class with stocks, enjoy our nation’s prosperity.
Over time, “Prosperity Shares” may be increased faster than the “Decent Living EITC”, eventually moving towards a more traditional UBI. The framework gives us the flexibility to adjust the distribution of income if, indeed, robots reduce the number of hours humans need to work.
The “Social Inheritance” breaks up racial economic barriers driving the political transformation needed to pass these policies. Those groups who heretofore have been held back from sharing in our prosperity are in many cases the most active politically in critical regions of the country.
This policy framework is predicated on reforming our antiquated national, state and city minimum wages laws. There is a legitimate fear that, with a decent living, EITC firms will in time not grant raises to their lesser paid workers. To ensure firms do not cheat in this manner, we need robust living wage standards with premiums for more prosperous regions.
None of this framework is possible without immigration reform. The dominant economic players, the people and firms, in the most prosperous regions rely on the hard work of undocumented immigrants. Their work is underpaid precisely because these workers and their firms lack power, in no small part, because they work in the shadows of our political economy.
For each policy we did not ask “how are we going to pay for this?” Instead we asked this: “At whose expense was the extreme income or wealth created?” Too many analysts critique extreme inequality only to then put forward policies that leave ill gotten gains intact. At the very least, moving forward, we need to discontinue the radical redistribution of income and wealth of the last two generations.
Over time, the income and asset standards need to increase with the economy. If they are indexed merely to the cost of living, within 40 years, we will the recreate extreme inequality we have worked so hard to undo. The income standard should be indexed to the U.S. GDP per capita. The asset standard is indexed to U.S. wealth per capita.
Shared Prosperity and Enduring Progress
Over the next generation, if we follow the historical trend, we will add to our economy $7 trillion in income and $27 trillion in wealth. Because each of us, and those who came before us, have contributed to that prosperity, we should share in it. In short order, we can ensure everyone enjoys a ‘middle-class’ standard of living. And, in the years to come, we should be able to ensure people do still better.
Mark Gomez, a long time community activist and labor union strategist, now leads the Leap Forward Project at the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society.
Billionaire businessman Johann Rupert, chairman of Swiss luxury goods company Richemont and South African investment holding company Remgro Limited, has recently been speaking in favor of basic income.
In March, Rupert spoke to the Swiss economic newspaper Finanz und Wirtschaft about the state of the Swiss watch industry. While the interview mainly focused on this specific industry and Rupert’s company Richemont, it eventually turned to some more general questions.
Asked about his biggest worries for the future of the economy, Rupert mentioned growing inequality and threat of job losses due to automation; in his view, such social and economic changes would intensify political extremism and hatred in society.
When then questioned about potential solutions, Rupert brought up basic income, stating, “In order to mitigate the job losses through automation, we will have to talk about forms of unconditional basic income [German: Formen eines bedingungslosen Grundeinkommens].”
In May, Financial Times reported that Rupert had told journalists, “I’m a proponent of universal basic income. We have to give time to people to re-skill themselves for a new economy.”
According to Forbes, Rupert is Africa’s fourth richest person.
Unfortunately up to quite recently, progress-minded activists have been proposing a familiar set of policies from a bygone era that represent little more than baby steps forward. These policies neither excite voters to go to the polls in droves, nor embolden candidates to risk their office to ensure the policies become law.
This framework is built on three pillars: a decent stable income, a sturdy foundation of assets, and a share in our economy’s prosperity. Here is an initial take at what this could practically look like in dollars and cents.
