by Dave Clegg | Nov 16, 2016 | Opinion
The London-based Apolitical website’s article on basic income (BI) opens with “Money for nothing – it sounds like a utopia” and then looks at some examples of BI concepts that have already been applied around the world.
This phrase, “money for nothing” represents a commonly held bias that, when there is no commodity returned for the money, whether that commodity is a thing or someone’s labour, then there is no tangible value returned for the monies. This bias is widely held and promoted by many adherents of modern-day economic theories – a bias which too often dismisses, or simply ignores, the numerous personal and societal benefits that others have evaluated and documented as attributable to BI models.
The article does a fairly good job of maintaining its organizational claim of being “apolitical” in that it does not overtly favour any particular side in the issue. Yet that does not mean it has escaped the narrow-minded focus that so many politicians, their handlers, and media commentators alike have grudgingly adopted regarding the BI. In fact, the Apolitical article offers a wonderful example of the very limited ways in which the BI idea is being appraised, namely as simply a response to job automation and/or carrot-and-stick welfare programmes.
Apolitical does, occasionally make mention of the fundamental roots of a BI, roots that run far deeper than simply jobs and poverty. Yet to emphasize that a BI is simply about addressing poverty or unemployment is to overlook the very foundation of a BI – namely that such a policy is meant to be an expansion upon, and commitment to, something that should never be commodified, namely personal freedom. All other aspects of a BI flow from this fundamental premise. That is, if a nation and its people are sincerely committed to the idea of freedom itself.
The five points made by Apolitical in the above article are all legitimate and commonly discussed around the world. Yet the shallowness of these points is intricately tied to the same old penny-pinching issues that surround welfare, as well as the easy access to cheap human labour that employers have enjoyed for far too long.
Yes, a BI can help eliminate the stigma and overbearing bureaucracy associated with welfare programmes. It would also force employers to be truly competitive regarding employee wages and hours. However, the most valuable asset each and every person possesses is our time in this life. We should be the stewards of that time – not employers and not bureaucrats. It is the personal freedom provided by a BI that is truly important to everyone, not just the workforce and welfare recipients.
A BI would allow individuals to tend to family and personal concerns without the anxiety of how to survive without a “job” income during these times of personal need. For example, if a family member severely injured as the result of a car accident. The family of this person may be too young for jobs, or on very low income as they had been relying upon the injured family member for income and cannot afford a carer to help in these times. In this case, a BI would help tremendously. Some might say that they can seek a uber accident attorney Glendale or a personal injury lawyer in order to seek compensation and financial security. Indeed these cases can bring great compensation, but court cases can take time, what will the family do in the meantime? Again, a BI would allow individuals to tend to family and personal concerns should anything happen. There may be no greater freedom than to have the time and economic stability necessary to order our lives as we, ourselves, see fit, rather than as employers demand, as is becoming far too common these days.
Politicians are slowly coming to accept that individuals are the best stewards of their monies, not bean-counting governments who tend to value the beans over the people the beans are intended for.
Let us examine each of Apolitical’s five points to see how personal freedom is addressed here.
1. Governments are not thinking the same as tech optimists
Apolitical is right about this and politicians are notoriously slow to respond to social changes of any kind, never mind one of this magnitude. Yes, the tech optimists foresee an evolutionary step in human time management when robotics and automation take over the monotony and the drudgery of the repetitive and injury-prone tasks found in so many labour-intensive “jobs”. Of course, these robotic inventions will not come soon enough to stop so many of our hardworking population from getting injured. In the meantime, if you’ve been injured at work, you will likely be entitled to personal injury compensation. Hopefully, the workforce of tomorrow will mean fewer people will have to take legal action in the future. If at all an employee needs to take some legal action but do not know where to head out for the same, check for firms similar to Douglas Beam, P.A. We should create a new workforce that is far more reliable (never taking time off), disposable (without regrets or complaints), and economically more efficient than human beings.
From the technologist’s viewpoint, a BI becomes an essential aspect of employment and personal advancement because of the accelerating pace of technological advancement. Every new innovation requires that the humans who will be utilizing those innovations undergo time-consuming training and up-skilling. These advances can even lead to whole new careers for which a BI would be the springboard to pursue those educational and up-skilling goals. To tech experts, this is not “money for nothing” but instead an investment in the future of the nation, its economic infrastructure, its people and its economy.
But there is also a very real need to understand how a BI frees workers – especially those who only have labour, rather than any marketable skills or training, to sell – from the spectre of destitution and homelessness if they are unable to find work, or simply to feed and/or shelter themselves on the meager, subsistence wages offered today to unskilled labourers.
Of course, time management in this case refers only to the workplace. What is overlooked here is the personal freedom that a BI introduces into the optimist’s time management scheme. A BI would provide an individual with the economic freedom to then choose to acquire more skills or education, or to spend more time with family, or to take a much-needed break. This freedom is of great value to the individual, as well as their future prospects, but has little or no meaning to many economists.
Apolitical, however, does make a very good point about welfare reform. It is true that eradicating the expensive and needlessly patronizing welfare bureaucracies would entail huge cash savings for governments at national, provincial/state and municipal levels everywhere – savings that could be utilized far more efficiently and effectively when incorporated into a BI.
2. People already get money for nothing
Actually people get money from their government because they are deemed, by their government, to be in need and it is a government’s principal responsibility to succor to its citizens in times of need. While Apolitical talks about how “money for nothing already exists in the state pension” system, it ignores a number of other social safety net programmes such as health care, welfare, student loans, disability, make-work projects, employee subsidies, food banks, and shelters, to name a just a few of the most common.
Social safety net programmes always incur infrastructure and staffing costs associated with the policing and distribution of these monies. A BI removes the stigma associated with so many of these programmes via its universality but it cannot ignore the special needs associated with people such as the disabled, seniors, and the unemployed. Their special circumstances can easily entail more than simply a “free money” infusion involving things such as in home support, accessibility of public buildings, mobility aids, wheelchair-friendly streets and curbs, and emotional and mental supports to deal with chronic and acute complications, to name just a few.
Apolitical also mentions the Alaska Fund, a decades old statewide “free money” programme that, today, is surrounded by much controversy, with some demanding the money be used, instead, to fund state social programmes while others are happy for the money to be put directly into the hands of the people themselves.
This is a very good example of how the assets of a community – its resources, both natural and human – are the heart and soul of its economy. However, the Alaska Fund’s greatest feature is that it offers good, sound support for the premise that some of the wealth flowing from a community’s resources should be returned to the people that comprise the community.
The debate here is not whether “free money” should be distributed to the citizenry, but rather how much and in what manner.
3. The schemes in the developing world aren’t really analogous
Apolitical is absolutely right to point out that the drastically modified BI programmes implemented in Namibia, India, and Brazil cannot be directly applied in more developed areas. These programmes are largely a response to severe destitution and poverty in those countries, while here in North America the BI is framed as a response to automation and welfare inequities.
However, Apolitical does recognize that there is a self-empowerment and entrepreneurial spirit that blossoms within the poorest individuals in the above-mentioned countries once they have been freed to make their own choices of how best to utilize their time and abilities to address their own needs and interests.
These observations correlate well with Canada’s own Dauphin Manitoba Mincome BI programme, which ran for five years. Mincome was well monitored and documented at a variety of levels and interests. Documentation that highlighted the many personal advantages derived from a BI. These advantages included the reduction of both individual and family stress levels, greater ability to cope with family issues and, most importantly, noticeable improvements in children’s health and growth due to better nutrition which lead to higher learning evaluations. While some people did indeed leave the workforce, they did so to upgrade their education and skills, to attend to personal and family issues, or simply to take a much needed break.
All of these findings amount to huge social and personal savings that invariably strengthen and improve communities, yet, once again, they are not benefits that economists are able to quantify or put a monetary value on and are too often deemed to be without value.
4. It actually all comes down to incentives
Here Apolitical addresses the commonly held fear that a BI would act as a disincentive to “working,” as if “paid employment” should be every person’s preoccupation rather than the management of their lives. However, Apolitical cites Hugh Segal, a Canadian senator who has been a long-time advocate for BI programmes and who laments the very real disincentives to improving one’s life that have been built into Canada’s social programmes. This is why Senator Segal has long applauded the personal empowerment that a BI could provide to all Canadians.
It is here that Apolitical acknowledges Sam Altman of Y Combinator – a US private investment firm – who sees a BI as the seed money necessary to provide the personal freedom allowing individuals to be economically empowered to address the rapidly changing education and training demands of a technologically driven economy. Of course, Altman seems far more interested in employing a BI to address the demands of technology and its impact upon production and the workforce than in actually addressing personal freedom per se.
Apolitical is absolutely right to acknowledge that BI differs from existing, welfare-style social programmes and highlights the divide as between those who insist upon “incentives” used coercively to promote job seeking and those who support the “freedom to choose” as incentive enough for anyone.
5. It’s not utopia or bust
Apolitical wisely concludes that, if supporters of a BI succeed, “…they will establish the principle that you can simply give people money and trust them to use it in a way beneficial to themselves and, indirectly, to society.” This is a sentiment long-shared by those who advocate for BI and wonderfully demonstrates that this sentiment is central to personal freedom and the creation of an empowered population. For Apolitical and the rest of us only time will tell.
by Kate McFarland | Nov 12, 2016 | News
Canadian journalist Roderick Benns, publisher of the progressive news site Leaders and Legacies, has devoted much of the past two years to interviewing experts on basic income–with a focus on the possibility of a basic income in Canada.
On the basis of the material accumulated in this time, Benns has now produced a 290-page book on basic income, Basic Income: How a Canadian Movement Could Change the World, which is now available for purchase through Amazon.
Featuring scores of interviews and articles with prominent Canadians, including federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May, Senator Art Eggleton, and retired Senators Hugh Segal and Michael Meighen, there are also interviews with MPs Scott Brison and Dan Blaikie, as well as big city mayors like Calgary’s Naheed Nenshi and Edmonton’s Don Iveson. Benns also interviewed researchers, academics, educators, and medical doctors, along with average Canadians — to get them to imagine what their lives would be like under a basic income guarantee.
In addition to writing for Leaders and Legacies, Benns assists with the communication efforts of BIEN’s Canadian affiliate, the Basic Income Canada Network.
Announcement:
“New book on Basic Income by Leaders and Legacies publisher released” Leaders and Legacies (October 24, 2016).
Book:
Roderick Benns (2016) Basic Income: How a Canadian Movement Could Change the World, CreateSpace Independent Publishing.
by Nick Yeretsian | Nov 11, 2016 | Research
PROOF, the interdisciplinary research group that studies food insecurity in Canada, has published research on guaranteed annual income and food insecurity (not having access to sufficient affordable, nutritious food) in Canadian Public Policy.
Seven years of national-level data shows that a guaranteed annual income (in this case, Canada’s Old Age Security program and its supplement for those with low incomes) is effective in decreasing food insecurity among low income seniors in Canada.
“Turning 65 and being eligible for this funding is associated with, on average, a 15 percentage point drop in food insecurity compared to baseline.”
-PROOF press release
In the households studied, the prevalence of food insecurity was cut by nearly 50% among low income single-person households who were food insecure after the age of 65 and who, during the time of the study, experienced a shift in their source of income from wages or conditional public assistance to public pensions.
At the beginning of this year, 2.83% of Canadians were using food banks. And the use of food banks has been on a steady rise over the past decade across Canada. (Click here for an interactive map of the nation’s food insecurity levels as of 2012.)
While food insecurity in Canada is crescendoing, so is the support for Basic Income (BI) as a way to dampen it. PROOF’s study backs the recent surge of Canadian BI endorsements as a way to solve food insecurity and other problems associated with poverty.
Here are some of the endorsements just in the past year:
- Food banks like Winnipeg Harvest began advocating for BI.
- Food Banks Canada put BI at the top of its list of recommendations in its annual report.
- The Haliburton, Kawartha Pine Ridge District Health Unit endorsed BIG (joining many Ontario health units who have done the same).
- The Waterloo Regional Council endorsed BI.
- Valerie Tarasuk (Professor of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Toronto) has recommended a guaranteed annual income to alleviate food insecurity.
- Hugh Segal recently recommended that food security be one of the variables studied in the upcoming pilot in Ontario (he is one of the Project Advisers).
“Although this work is focused on low income seniors, it paves the way for future research to identify alternative funding models, like basic income, that address poverty in individuals before they are eligible for Old Age Security.”
-Tim Li PROOF Administrator
On November 17-18, the University of Toronto is hosting a conference on advancing food insecurity research in Canada.
PROOF’s new research is available here: https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/cpp.2015-069
McIntyre, L., Dutton, D. J., Kwok, C., & Emery, J. H. (2016). Reduction of Food Insecurity among Low-Income Canadian Seniors as a Likely Impact of a Guaranteed Annual Income. Canadian Public Policy, 42(3), 274-286.
Picture: cover of journal Canadian Policy
by Kate McFarland | Nov 4, 2016 | News
The latest step to Ontario’s basic income pilot occurred on Thursday, November 3, 2016, when the Ministry of Community and Social Services released a call for public input on the design and objectives of the study and published a new comprehensive report from Project Adviser Hugh Segal.
In February 2016, the provincial government of Ontario, Canada announced a budgetary commitment to finance a pilot study of a basic income guarantee. In June, the government appointed former senator Hugh Segal — who has been promoting basic income in Canada for more than a decade — as the project’s Special Adviser. (For some of Segal’s past writings on basic income, see here.)
Segal has now released a detailed and comprehensive discussion paper in which he lays out his recommendations for the design and administration of the pilot. The government is soliciting input from the public before it makes its final decision.
This release of this proposal for Ontario’s basic income study closely follows the publication of details about the upcoming pilots in Finland and the Netherlands, as well as the charity GiveDirectly’s study in Kenya.
A Negative Income Tax Model
If the provincial government of Ontario decides to adopt Segal’s newly announced proposal, it will test a basic income guarantee (BIG) — wherein cash payments are disbursed automatically and unconditionally to individuals whose income falls below a certain threshold — as a replacement to its Ontario Works program and Ontario Disability Support Program.
Segal recommends that participants in the pilot be guaranteed a monthly income of at least $1320, or 75 percent of the province’s Low Income Measure, with an additional $500 supplement to those with disabilities.
In Segal’s proposal, the BIG is to be structured as a negative income tax (NIT), in which the amount of the subsidy is tapered off for higher earners, in contrast to a “demogrant” model wherein all participants would receive a fixed monthly payment regardless of other earnings. That is, the government would “top up” the earnings of pilot participants whose incomes fall beneath $1320 (or other level chosen for the basic income guarantee). Those who earn more than $1320 per month would receive smaller benefits or, depending on earnings, none at all.
Eligibility is to extend to all residents of the selected communities between the ages of 18 and 65, regardless of current income. All participants will be guaranteed a minimum income, as per the NIT model summarized above. However, depending on their initial and subsequent earned income, some participants may not receive any payment during the course of the experiment. As Segal’s discussion paper notes, “even though the program is based on a principle of universal access, not all participants will receive symmetric payments or any payment at all.”
Segal offers two reasons for his recommendation that the pilot test a negative income tax rather than a universal demogrant. First, this makes the design unique: no other planned trial of a basic income guarantee will employ the NIT model; thus, outside of Ontario’s pilot, no data on the impact of this specific model will be collected. Second, Segal believes that a demogrant, unlike an NIT, is not realistically affordable in Canada (nor in other developed nations).
Experimental Design
Segal recommends two types of studies:
(1) A randomized control trial, to be conducted in an urban center, in which different treatment groups receive different levels of guaranteed income and/or pay different rates of taxes on additional earned income. Subjects will be randomly sampled from all residents (of at least one year) between the ages of 18 to 65, with participation in the experiment being voluntary. Participants would then be randomly assigned to one of four groups, including a control.
(2) “Saturation sites” in which all members of a community receive the basic income guarantee (and are subject to corresponding changes in the tax schedule). Ideally, according to Segal’s report, “one saturation site would be located in southern Ontario, one in northern Ontario, and one would be chosen and planned in close collaboration with First Nations communities.”
In each case, the study is to last a minimum of three years.
Measured Outcomes
According to the discussion paper, the “core question” that Ontario’s pilot endeavors to answer is, in Segal’s words, “Is there a more humane and efficient way to reduce poverty, a way that better respects the rights of those in poverty to make their own life choices, reduces stigma and growth in bureaucracy, yet produces improved outcomes in terms of work and life prospects?”
In order to answer this question, Segal lays out many variables that he urges researchers to monitor and analyze in the pilot, including the following:
- Administrative costs or savings to the government.
- Health outcomes, as measured by (for example) prescription drug use or number of visits to primary care physicians, emergency departments, and hospitals.
- “Life choices” such as career decisions, education decisions, family decisions, and choices in living arrangements.
- Education outcomes of participants and their children, including completion, attendance, and standardized test scores.
- Work behavior, including employment status, hours worked, number of jobs, and participation in job-search activities. The report mentions participation in the underground economy as another outcome of interest.
- “Food security” status as assessed through the Canadian Community Health Survey and the researchers’ own surveys or interviews.
- Subjects’ “perceptions of their place in society, their capacity to contribute, their social environment’s capacity to protect them” as collected through interviews.
- Interactions between the basic income guarantee and other welfare programs (e.g. the Canada Child Benefit).
- In saturation sites, community-level impacts such as changes in rent and prices of goods and services, crime and incarceration rates, civic participation, and the use of public services.
Thus, the Ontario pilot is likely to examine a much wider and more diverse range of outcomes than the impending basic income pilots in Finland and the Netherlands, which focus more narrowly on assessing the impact of a basic income guarantee on employment.
This difference follows in part from a deliberate decision not merely to reproduce these studies. Segal states Ontario should not duplicate research being conducted elsewhere, for the sake of “maximiz[ing] the diversity of various different data sets generated by such endeavours.”
National Context
Segal recommends that Canada’s federal government “consider partnering with any willing province on any Basic Income pilots now being considered or contemplated.”
As Segal describes in the report (links added), Ontario is not alone in Canada in its interest in pursuing a basic income pilot:
“[T]he federal government introduced an enhanced child benefit in July 2016, with the objective of constructively increasing the income of low and middle-income Canadian families with children. Moreover, the House of Commons Finance Committee recommended in its pre-budget report that the government of Canada move forward with a pilot project on Basic Income.
“In its most recent ministerial mandate letter, the government of Quebec instructed the Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity to modernize income support programs and embrace better ways of reducing poverty, including a Basic Income guarantee. The Quebec Liberal Party Youth Wing, in August 2016, summoned the government to implement a Basic Income guarantee in lieu of the province’s current welfare system. The government of Nova Scotia has initiated a comprehensive social support review looking for better ways to eliminate the welfare wall and to better support the working poor. The mayors of Calgary and Edmonton have welcomed the idea of a Basic Income guarantee and associated pilot projects, as has Alberta’s Minister of Finance. In August 2015, the Government of Saskatchewan Advisory Group on Poverty Reduction also recommended a Basic Income pilot.”
Call for Input
As announced on November 3, 2016, Ontario’s Ministry of Community and Social Services will be conducting consultations to solicit public input on the basic income trial, guided by Segal’s discussion paper. Consultations will run through January 2017.
Those who want to provide input may contribute in one of two ways: attend an in-person meeting (see the schedule here) or share feedback online (until January 31, 2017).
The first stage of the pilot study — selecting the sites, obtaining access to data sources, and selecting and obtaining consent from participants — is slated to commence before the end of March 2017.
More Information
News release from the Ontario government (Ministry of Community and Social Services): “Ontario Seeking Input on Basic Income Pilot”
Discussion paper: “Finding a Better Way: A Basic Income Pilot Project for Ontario” by Hugh Segal.
Thanks to Jenna van Draanen for proofreading a draft of this article.
Cover photo: “Terminally Invisible” CC BY-NC 2.0 Kat Northern Lights Man (taken in Toronto, Ontario).
by Kate McFarland | Sep 13, 2016 | News
The Centre justice et foi (CJF, “Center for Justice and Faith”), a Montréal-based center for social analysis, is hosting public discussions on basic income on September 27 and 28.
The goal of these discussions is to shed light on common questions surrounding basic income and related policies. One important issue to be addressed is the difference between the policies typically called universal basic income (UBI) and guaranteed minimum income (GMI). Under a guaranteed minimum income, all individuals are eligible to receive an unconditional “top-up” of their earnings to guarantee that their total income is above a certain threshold (such as the poverty level). Receiving the top-up would not be conditional on working or looking for work. However, in contrast to the way in which UBI is commonly described, the payouts of a GMI would be “clawed back” with higher earnings. Individuals above a certain income level would not receive the GMI. (Depending on the accompanying tax policies, a UBI and GMI could result in an identical income distribution.)
Much of the discussion surrounding “basic income” in Canada has centered on GMI: the much cited Angus Reid poll, released in August, asked specifically about a GMI; Hugh Segal’s latest remarks indicate that the pilot in Ontario will investigate a GMI. Notably, this was also the type of policy tested in Dauphin, Manitoba in the oft-referenced Mincome experiment of the late 1970s.
Other questions to be addressed include the following:
- Would the implementation of such a policy justify cuts to important social programs?
- How would the policy impact the private sector?
- What consequences would a UBI or GMI have on the job market?
Although perhaps eclipsed by Ontario in media coverage, Québec has also shown considerable interest in basic income (or guaranteed minimum income), and might be moving toward testing or implementing such a policy. Earlier in the year, François Blais was appointed as Québec’s Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity and tasked to work on developing a guaranteed minimum income plan for the province.
The first CJF event will be held on Tuesday, September 27 in the Cultural and Environmental Centre Frédérick-Back in Québec, and feature three speakers: Sylvie Morel (Professor of Industrial Relations at Université Laval), Serge Petitclerc (political analyst and spokesman of the Collective for a Poverty-Free Quebec), and Eve-Lyne Couturier (researcher at the Research Institute of Socioeconomic Information).
The second event will take place the following evening at Montréal’s Bellarmine House. Petitclerc and Couturier will again be participating, in addition to Marie-Pierre Boucher (Professor of Industrial Relations at Université du Québec en Outaouais).
See the event flyer for details concerning the time and location. Both are free, although a donation is suggested.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Translation help from Jenna van Draanen and Denny Flinn
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Meriol Lehmann
Shout out to Kate’s supporters on Patreon
