by Kate McFarland | Jun 11, 2016 | News
Andy Stern, the former president of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), has written a new book on basic income: Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream. This upcoming book was previously announced on Basic Income News, and it remains true that the book will published on June 14, 2016. We now get to say, however, the book will be released next week.
In his new book, Stern investigates the current and projected state of the labor economy — focusing especially closely on the effects of new technologies — and argues that we need to adopt a universal basic income to prepare to massive disruptions in the job market of the not so distant future. Along the way, he talks to “economists, futurists, labor leaders, CEOs, investment bankers, entrepreneurs, and political leaders” about their predictions for economic change in upcoming decades.
Trade unionist Andrew Brady recently conducted a short interview with Andy Stern about the book, which can be viewed here. Stern notes that “we’re about to face a time of major economic disruption” — “a tsunami of change” — when merely tinkering with current policies and programs, such as adopting stricter labor laws, “will not be sufficient to solve workers’ problems.” Thus, “we need to guarantee that there’s a floor” for workers, even though there might be work on top of it.
Stern further elaborates on these issues in an article for Daily Caller, in which he remarks on the outcome of Switzerland’s June 5th vote on basic income.
Today’s economic pain though may only be a warm-up to more anguish if we fail to act boldly, and expediently. There is now quite reputable research on the potential disruption of software and AI; an Oxford University study predicting the loss of 47 percent of all U.S. jobs by 2033; Boston Consulting Group estimating up to 25 percent by 2025; McKinsey Global 45 percent elimination of all present tasks, with artificial intelligence reducing 13 percent more, could be harbingers of a future of increased economic peril.
Indeed, as he describes in a post on The World Bank’s Jobs and Development blog published last April, these changes in the economy played a large role in Stern’s decision to leave his prestigious post in organized labor. (He is now a Senior Fellow at Columbia University.)
I didn’t resign from SEIU because I was bored. Rather, after nearly fifteen years at the helm of SEIU, I had lost my ability to predict labor’s future. I could do that in the 1990s and early 2000s. But, by 2010, the economy was changing and fragmenting at such warp speed that I couldn’t see where it — or labor — was headed. At the end of that year I embarked on what became a four-year journey to discover the future of jobs, work, and the American Dream.
Already, the new landscape of work is populated by free agents and temporary workers who have more freedom and flexibility in their work life, but no job security and significantly less leverage with the people and companies who hire them. My focus turned to larger questions: If there are significantly fewer jobs and less work available in the future, how will people make a living, spend their time, and find purpose in their lives? Also, how can we keep the income gap from growing so wide that it erupts into social discord and upheaval?
I believe there is a solution – the universal basic income or UBI.
This blog post, “Moving towards a universal basic income,” is an extract from Raising the Floor, and it’s well worth reading in its entirety as you wait for the book to arrive.
The philosopher and political economist Philippe Van Parijs — well known in these parts as a cofounder of BIEN — calls Raising the Floor “a stunning combination of lucid analysis, up-to-date information, and lively dialogues that culminates in a bold proposal for universal basic income.”
The book has also received praise from the likes of former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich, author Barbara Ehrenreich, CEO Tim O’Reilly, and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards.
Andy Stern with Lee Kravitz (2016) Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream, PublicAffairs.
Picture of Andy Stern from Ralph Alswang via flickr
by Jessica "Trinley" Rafka | Jun 9, 2016 | News
Original article published in SPREEZEITUNG, January 11th, 2016, written by Ursula Pidun. Translation by Jessica Rafka.
Discussions about an unconditional basic income have been around for a while. But this topic is not picking up steam. What are the reasons for this, and why are unions and political parties still very much against a basic income? We will be discussing these questions, and the many different social, economic, and political advantages of having a UBI (Unconditional Basic Income) with Reimund Acker, who has worked as a council member of the non-party affiliated, 2004 founded, Netzwerk Grundeinkommen (Basic Income Network) in Germany.
The network contributes to the introduction of basic income to Germany and other countries. This organization counts more then 4,000 individual members, and over a hundred member organizations—including the BDKJ (Federation of Catholic Youth), the KAB (Catholic Worker Movement), and the AWO-Jugend (The Workers’ Welfare-Youth), each with more than 100,000 members—it is the largest basic income organization in the world. The Network is the German affiliate of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), and a member of the Unconditional Basic Income Europe (UBIE) network. Together with the Austrian and Swiss Basic Income Networks, they’ve held three conventions, and organized the biannual BIEN-Congress 2012 in Munich, which was attended by 450 scientists, activists, and politicians from all over the world.
Mr. Acker, you are an elected councilor of Netzwerk Grundeinkommen. When did you get involved with this topic and to what extent?
Reimund Acker, Netzwerk Grundeinkommen
Since 2008, I’ve been active as an honorary volunteer of the network council, that acts as an executive committee of the network. Back then only a few experts knew what to make of the concept of “basic income”. Meanwhile, it is so well-known that the media uses it without explanation. The high profile that basic income has gained in Germany is thanks to important players like Götz Werner, Susanne Wiest and Michael Bohmeyer, but particularly the work of the Network that will be 12 years old this fall.
Political parties still hesitate to embrace a basic income, despite the growing approval among renowned experts. What are the causes and what is the current status within the parties?
Basic income had a bad start in leftist circles, because it was initially suspected to be a neoliberal concept. Meanwhile, however, word got around that this assumption would only be true for a partial basic income – a UBI, that’s too low to live on.
In the 80s the Green Party still had the basic income issue in their repertoire. I, for one, learned about it there. It got lost temporarily on their way to power. The Social Democrats are afraid that their golden calf “work”, would be damaged by basic income. As if the value of work would increase by being forced on people! Veteran Greens and Social Democrats often show a certain loyalty to their Hartz Laws: “But we meant well!”
For the Conservatives, the basic income seems to have fallen victim to a skiing accident. It happened earlier to Dieter Althaus, former Prime Minister of Thuringia, who designed his own basic income model which he had examined by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation to tender it to his party for inclusion in the program. Althaus disappeared from the political stage back then and with him his project.
To date, the most tragic blow to basic income happened within the party that carries “Freedom” in its name. Since freedom is still the primary focus of basic income and not free money from the government, which we already have. The former liberals, who today are mere neo-liberals, wanted to jump on the UBI band-wagon with their “citizen’s income”, but it was just a “Hartz-V”. Even the great liberal Ralf Dahrendorf, couldn’t change anything when he wrote in their register on the occasion of an anniversary celebration of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, convening all the party members including the complete FDP (Free Democratic Party) leadership that a basic income—and not their silly citizens income—belongs on every liberal’s agenda. All applauded well-behaved.
With so much discussion in virtually all relevant parties you would think there would slowly be more of a movement?
Meanwhile, there are at least strong minorities for the basic income in the Leftist Party and the Green Party. The Pirates, as the only not so small party, have it on their program. All three parties respectively promised in their last election programs the establishment of a committee of enquiry for a basic income. Sadly, the Green Party has meanwhile backed out. The public reluctance of politicians when it comes to basic income does not necessarily reflect the true majorities among them, as long as the endorsement of a basic income could harm their career.
The nature of UBI is to separate income from work. In other words, basic income could significantly strengthen the position of workers. Isn’t it long overdue in the 21st Century?
Yes, whereby the separation of work and income is limited at the poverty line. Thus, there remains an incentive for gainful employment, even more so than under Hartz IV. The prospect to turn down a job offer because of a basic income, should lead to more power for workers, reinforced by unionization. A very important effect that I see, that basic income could have, is the weakening potential to ransom job security. Today, someone just needs to yell “jobs” and all our good intentions are forgotten. To the extent that existential fears would decrease with the basic income, workers, politicians and ultimately the whole of society would be less vulnerable to extortion.
Parts of the economy fear a striking competitive disadvantage. Is this concern justified in your view?
No, on the contrary I believe that the introduction of basic income would increase competition between countries. However, the effect also depends on the method of financing the UBI. If people were better able to follow their career interests and abilities with a basic income, not every third worker would be dissatisfied as is the case today. An employee occupying a job that he hates keeps the other person, who would love that job from having it. What a waste of talent and life!
Wouldn’t it be much more efficient, if people worked a job they liked, instead of working precariously to survive economically in the first place?
Of course, it would be more efficient if people would work because they want to instead of having to: Better quality, less waste, more commitment to improve working conditions and operational processes, fewer sick-days. A motivated workforce is priceless. It’s conceivable that many workers would be happy with less pay, as long as at the end of the day it’s supplemented with a basic income. On the other hand, some UBI models want to prevent further wage cuts in Germany by maintaining at a legal minimum wage in spite of a basic income.
What other economic benefits might result from a reasonably well-invested UBI?
At any rate, a basic income would lead to savings in pension and unemployment insurance, since only the difference between the present level and the basic income must be insured. So, whoever would want a retirement income of 500 Euros above the basic income would only have to pay premiums for an income of 500 Euros, since he receives the basic income without making contributions. But there are other economic benefits of having a UBI that would also produce competitive advantages. It would allow for more innovations and business start-ups, since basic income constitutes non-refundable venture-capital. Many business ideas, research and development projects or art projects fail already in the planning phase because they don’t pay the rent upfront. By contrast, whoever gets a basic income, knows his rent and cost of living are safe, and he can develop, test and implement his ideas in peace.
We keep rationalizing, but remain stuck on the same to old structures, like the 8-hour workday, just like it was 100 years ago. How important is a UBI in regards to an earned income in our modern times?
Entrepreneurs may see the advantages of basic income, in that they’d no longer have the unbeloved role as employers who are expected to create and preserve jobs, but could focus on their main objective: To produce goods and services as efficiently as possible, i.e., with a minimum of resources. And human life is a precious resource. Götz Werner doesn’t tire of saying that no one starts a business to create jobs. The basic income could, therefore, also lead to social policy again, made by those who we elect for it, and entrepreneurs won’t have to apologize, if they cut jobs.
Basic income diminishes the importance of gainful employment. I hope we successfully distance ourselves from the perverted notion of work as end in itself and source of income and return to the original meaning of work: The investment of effort to produce something essential or meaningful. Then we’ll be able again to see it as progress, when it succeeds, to produce the same things with less work: Machines are taking our jobs? Finally!
The economy would be forced to make precarious jobs more attractive. A demand that leads to more income equality and thereby more value for society?
Yes, if job seekers no longer have to accept just any job, employers will have to consider how to convince them to work for them; especially, if the proposed activity is unpopular, for example, so-called “dirty work”. So that such work is even done, there are exactly four possibilities: Force, automation, better pay, or do it yourself. When UBI eliminates force, the other three remain. No doubt, I’ll experience my remuneration as equitable, if I’m able to negotiate it freely, without the threats in my ear from an employment agency of who will cut my benefits. This does not mean that the resulting income will be considered fair by society as a whole. What remains will be the scandalous inequality of income and wealth. Even a basic income cannot change that much at first.
Could UBI bridge the gap between the rich and the poor, at least a little?
Basic income isn’t about redistribution in the first place, even though it could end up that way with the right financing. The redistributive effect increases, not only on the revenue (taxes) side, but also on the expenditure (UBI) side. Indirectly, a less intimidated society could enforce more equitable distribution. For this, something would also have to be done in education, though. After all, basic income is not a panacea: It doesn’t solve all problems, but often expedites solutions.
Key is less red tape: Payment of a general UBI could do away with numerous welfare benefits including complex application processes and means-testing. Does the public sector fear job losses?
Sure there are employees in the social sector with concerns, that basic income could make their jobs obsolete. On the other hand, many of our members are engaged in this area, and know of the problems of the current system and therefore understand the necessity of changing the system. Insofar as these jobs have to do with the calculation and payment of benefits, they will not disappear because of a UBI, but rather steamrolled under the gigantic wave of automation coming at us. On the other hand, we will still want to afford debt counselling, youth services, and job placement agencies even after the introduction of basic income. And who ever earns their living conducting research on people who conceal their income to abuse public assistance benefits today, in the future, could be more profitably employed in the chronically understaffed tax fraud evasion department. In any case there will be plenty of time for re-trainings, as no one wants to roll out basic income over night in all its glory, but rather we can count on a lengthy transitional period.
Let’s talk about the unions, that are in the least ruffled by a universal basic income, or as the case may be, speak out vehemently against it. What reasons could they have?
In the unions, it appears that support for a basic income is less at the top—just like in political parties—than at the base. Again, the reason I suspect is fear that basic income could damage the value of work (what ever that means exactly). On the other hand, with regard to basic income there seems to be a shift in thinking in the unions. Meanwhile, Verdi and IG Metall have decided to talk about basic income. UBI-friendly unionists maintain a website for basic income. Overall, however, I can not quite understand unions’ resistance to basic income. Hasn’t anyone there ever considered, what UBI would mean solely for their strike fund?
How great is the probability that, in the near future—say within a few years— Germany will introduce a basic income?
In the last general election, basic income was brought up as a subject matter for the first time, which is illustrated, for example, by the fact of being adopted for the first time as a question of the Wahl-O-Mat of the Federal Agency for Civic Education. At the next election the basic income will be an important issue. Netzwerk Grundeinkommen will see to it, and I hope for considerable tailwind for our work from the referendum on the basic income in June in Switzerland and the debates triggered by it. At the latest, for the federal election, basic income will be a decisive issue, and from then on we can expect a majority in the Bundestag for the basic income at any time.
What criteria must be met to make significant strides in this area?
Above all, I think that we need a serious, nonpartisan, nationwide organization with good media presence that spreads the word about basic income, persistently and with increasing intensity. And I hope we are able to expand the network into such an organization. Today it’s already the world’s largest basic income organization with over 4,000 members.
Furthermore, we must prevent basic income from becoming publicly identified with a particular political party. Because then, it would become a pawn of politicians and that would mean the end of the majority support for this idea. That’s what happened to climate change in the USA, for example, that meanwhile, conservative voters think is a trick construed by Democrats to foist their political goals. Therefore, it’s more favorable if support for a basic income is simultaneously broadcast in as many parties as possible.
Finally, what’s most important for the spreading of the basic income idea is that it does not lead to strong resistance from the industry. Unfortunately, yes, the state of our democratic system today is so lousy that the economy can enforce their will readily against the will of the people. That is why it is so important that business leaders like Götz Werner, or more recently the Telekom CEO argue in favor of basic income. Because then there is hope that a massive rejection of UBI in the economy could at least be weakened. But perhaps there will be a shift in thinking among business leaders, similar to the unions.
by Philippe van Parijs | Jun 6, 2016 | Opinion
Despite being factually defeated in the ballots, the Swiss initiative for basic income should be regarded as a giant step in the now unstoppable march towards basic income, says BIEN Founder Philippe Van Parijs.
Philippe Van Parijs is Professor at UCLouvain, Hoover Chair of Economic and Social Ethics. Chair of BIEN’s International Board
June 5th, 2016 will be remembered as an important landmark in the worldwide march towards the implementation of unconditional basic income schemes. On that day, all Swiss citizens were asked to express their approval of or opposition to the following proposal:
- The Confederation introduces an unconditional basic income.
2. The basic income must enable the whole population to live a dignified life and to participate in public life.
3. The law will determine the funding and level of the basic income.
The proposal was rejected, with 76.9% of the voters against, 23.1% in favor. Why was this rejection predictable? And why is it such an important step forward?[1]
From 0 to 23%
To answer these questions, a brief historical overview is in order. In 2008, the German film maker Enno Schmidt and the Swiss entrepreneur Daniel Häni, both based in Basel, produced Grundeinkommen: ein Kulturimpuls, a “film essay” that gave a simple and attractive picture of basic income. The dissemination of this film through the internet helped prepare the ground for a popular initiative in favor of the proposal quoted above, which was launched in April 2012. Another popular initiative, which proposed an unconditional basic income funded specifically by a tax on non-renewable energy, had been launched in May 2010, but it failed to gather the required number of signatures. The initiators of the 2012 initiative first thought of specifying that the basic income should be funded by the Value Added Tax, as was suggested in the film, but they dropped the idea for fear of reducing support for the proposal. They also chose not to stipulate a precise amount of the basic income in the text itself. But their website did mention a monthly amount of 2500 Swiss Francs per adult and 625 Swiss Francs per child as the best interpretation of what was required, in Switzerland, “to live a dignified life and to participate in public life”. If an initiative gathers over 100.000 validated signatures in 18 months, the Federal Council, Switzerland’s national government, has the obligation to organize a country-wide referendum within three years either on the exact text of the initiative or on a counter-proposal to be negotiated with the initiators.
On the 4th of October 2013, the initiators handed in spectacularly 126.406 valid signatures to the federal chancellery. On the 27th of August 2014, after validation of the signatures and examination of the arguments, the Federal Council rejected the initiative without making a counter-proposal. In its view, “an unconditional basic income would have negative consequences on the economy, the social security system and the cohesion of Swiss society. In particular, the funding of such an income would imply a considerable increase of the fiscal burden”. The proposal was subsequently submitted to both Chambers of the Swiss Parliament. On the 29th of May 2015, the Commission of Social Affairs of the National Council (Switzerland’s federal house of representatives) recommended by 19 votes against 1, with 5 abstentions, that the proposal for an unconditional basic income should be rejected. After a thorough discussion at a plenary session on the 23rd of September 2015, the National Council proceeded to a preliminary vote and endorsed this negative recommendation by 146 votes against 14 and 12 abstentions.
On the 18th of December 2015, the Council of States (the Swiss Senate, made up of representatives of the cantons) considered the initiative in turn and rejected it by 40 votes against, 1 in favor and 3 abstentions. On the same day, the proposal was the object of a second and final vote in the National Council: 157 voted against, 19 in favor and 16 abstained. In all cases, all the representatives from the far right, center right and center parties voted against the proposal. All pro votes and abstentions came from the socialist party and the green party, both of which were sharply divided. At the final vote in the National Council, 15 socialists voted in favor, 13 against and 13 abstained, while 4 greens voted in favor, 5 against and 3 abstained. The degree of support thus oscillated between 0% in the Federal Council, 2% in the Council of States and 4, 8 and 10% in the National Council (commission, preliminary and final vote).
For the popular vote on the 5th of June 2016, the national leaderships of nearly all parties, including the socialist party, recommended a “no” vote. The only exceptions were the green party and the (politically insignificant) pirate party, which recommended the “yes”, joined by a number of cantonal sections of the socialist party from all three linguistic areas. Against this background, it was entirely predictable that the no vote would win. The actual results of nearly one vote out of four for “yes” — with peaks at 35% in the canton of Geneva, 36% in the canton of Basel-Stadt, 40% in the city of Bern and 54% in the central districts of Zürich — is far above what the voting record in the Swiss parliament would have led one to expect. We must, moreover, bear in mind that Switzerland is perhaps the country in Europe in which support for an unconditional income should be considered least likely, not only because of the deeper penetration, in Calvin’s homeland, of a Calvinist work ethic, but above all because of the comparatively low levels of unemployment and poverty it currently experiences.
In Switzerland and beyond: broader and more mature
Everyone now realizes, however, that even if the initiative had not managed to gather the votes of more than the 2.5% of the Swiss citizens who had given their signatures at the initial stage, it would have been, thanks to the initiators’ stamina and their impressive communication skills, a stunning success. There is now no population in the world or in history that has given more thought to the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal than the Swiss have done over the last four years. And the effect was by no means confined to Switzerland. Just in the few days preceding the popular vote, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Guardian, and countless other newspapers around the world felt forced to publish substantive articles in order to explain at length — sometimes quite well, sometimes not so well — what a basic income is and what it is about. There is certainly no week in the history of the world in which the media have allocated so much time and space to a discussion of basic income.
Apart from giving a big boost to the spreading of the idea, the Swiss initiative has also greatly contributed to the maturing of the debate about it. For one lesson to be drawn from the experience is that a proposal that stipulates a high amount for a basic income, but no precise way of funding it, can easily gather the required number of signatures for a vote – while still being a long way from convincing a majority among the voters who bother to turn up on voting day (about 46% of the electorate in this case). A shining star that indicates the direction is enough for the former, but visible signposts on the ground marking a safe path in its direction are essential to achieve the latter. Whenever I was invited to join the Swiss debate, I argued that introducing in one go an individual basic income of CHF 2500 (38% of Switzerland’s GDP per capita) would be politically irresponsible. True, no one can prove that such a level of unconditional basic income is not economically sustainable. But nor can anyone prove that it is. Nor will any local experiment performed or planned in Switzerland or elsewhere prove that it is. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the economic sustainability of an unconditional basic income at that level will require a number of preconditions currently unmet, including the introduction of new forms of taxation — for example the micro-tax on electronic payments that played an interesting role in the Swiss debate — and effective international cooperation against tax evasion — not exactly Switzerland’s strongest point.
In the immediate future, however, it should now be clear that more modest but significant steps forward can and must be worked out and debated. They must involve an individual unconditional basic income at a lower level (say, 15 or 20% of GDP per capita) that would still need to be topped up by means-tested social assistance benefits or housing grants, certainly for urban single-adult households. It is not because in many cases the unconditional basic income would not suffice, on its own, to “enable the whole population to live a dignified life”, that it would not make a big difference to the security, bargaining power ad freedom of choice of many of the most vulnerable among us. Even in the short run, introducing such an unconditional basic income is definitely sustainable economically. It is up to us to make it politically achievable.
The totally unprecedented Swiss initiative has not only made many people, in Switzerland and far beyond, far more aware of the nature and size of the challenges we face in the twenty first century and of how a basic income might help us address them; by triggering countless objections, some naive and some spot on, it has also helped the advocates of basic income to sharpen their arguments and to better see the need for realistic next steps. For both of these reasons, the Swiss citizens who devoted a tremendous amount of time, energy and imagination to the “yes” campaign deserve the warm gratitude not only of the basic income movement worldwide, but of all those fighting for a free society and a sane economy.
[1] Many thanks to Nenad Stojanovic (Zurich and Princeton) for reliable information and insightful comments.
by Kate McFarland | Jun 5, 2016 | News
On Sunday, June 5, the Swiss people voted down the following referendum:
The initiative proposes to insert the following article in the federal constitution:
1. The government will provide a basic income.
2. The basic income will allow the people to live in a dignified manner and participate in public life.
3. Legislation will determine the funding for the system and the actual amount of the basic income.
Although the referendum met defeat, June 5, 2016 will be remembered as a watershed date in the history of the basic income movement — marking the first time that basic income has been submitted to direct democracy.
The Swiss popular initiative deserves accolades not only for making basic income a point of serious discussion in Switzerland but also for propelling the idea into the global spotlight.
This article looks back at highlights of the campaign previously featured in Basic Income News.
The Swiss popular initiative for an unconditional basic income was launched in March 2012. By October 2013, the campaign had collected 125,000 signatures — more than enough to guarantee that a national referendum would be held on the issue.
The Swiss Parliament voted on the initiative in September 2015, rejecting it 146 to 14 (with 12 abstentions). After this, a popular vote was scheduled.
Since its beginning, Switzerland’s basic income movement has employed novel and creative tactics to garner publicity. In October 2013, after the successful collection of signatures, campaigners flooded the ground outside of the Federal Palace in Bern eight million coins — one for every person in Switzerland.
Money flowed outside of the Federal Palace in Bern
The months leading up to the popular vote brought a string of new clever demonstrations.
Basic income advocates dressed as robots danced at Davos in January, during the World Economy Forum, and marched through the streets of Zurich in April.
In May, supporters of the referendum created the world’s largest poster, officially recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records, which was broadcast in Times Square in New York City and later taken on tour to Berlin.
Biggest question in the world
Finally, less than two weeks before the vote, a pro-UBI group gave away Switzerland’s first crowdfunded basic income to a randomly selected participant, and is currently raising money on its website for another basic income raffle.
However, the basic income movement comprised far more than flashy demonstrations and publicity stunts. It also ushered in much serious discussion of basic income, bringing internationally-known scholars, researchers, and political figures into the fold.
For instance, in the month prior to the vote, major conferences on basic income convened in Switzerland. The Future of Work Conference, held on May 4 in Zurich, featured keynote addresses by such noted individuals as Yanis Varoufakis (former Greek Minister of Finance), Robert Reich (former US Secretary of Labor), Erik Brynjolfsson (MIT economist), among others, as well as a series of panel discussions with equally impressive lists of participants (e.g., the Experiments Panel, Labor Panel, and Entrepreneurs Panel).
Additionally, on May 13, a UN-sponsored panel discussion on basic income was held at the Palace of Nations in Geneva. Thomas Vollmer from the Swiss Federal Social Insurance Office presented the government’s anti-UBI position, while BIEN members like Guy Standing and Ralph Kundig laid out the case in favor. (Click through the previous links for videos from the respective conferences, previously unpublished on Basic Income News.)
Switzerland’s basic income campaign — and the thoughts and questions behind it — also became the subject a new book, Voting for Freedom: The 2016 Swiss Referendum on Basic Income: A Milestone in the Advancement of Democracy.
In the book’s forward, venture capitalist Albert Wenger emphasizes the historical and global significance of the Swiss movement: “This vote represents a historic opportunity for social and economic progress. By embracing basic income in a peaceful vote, Switzerland could lead the way for others to follow.
Despite the ultimate failure of the referendum, the campaign has surely been a success for global basic income movement — where it will continue to inspire advocates and activists in other countries. Indeed, the campaign has already been the direct source of inspiration for a similar movement in Germany as well as one in Portugal.
In fact, despite the rejection of basic income on a federal level, the Swiss city of Lausanne might still proceed with its own basic income pilot.
Lausanne, Switzerland might still test BI (Credit: Alice)
One thing, for sure, is clear: thanks in large part to Switzerland, the world is now debating the merits of a basic income.
Glancing back at the few weeks prior to Sunday’s vote, we can quickly assemble an impressive list of international media outlets that published articles about the referendum: The BBC, Reuters, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, The Independent, USA Today, Channel NewsAsia, CNN Money, Yahoo Finance, The Economic Times, CNBC, The Inquisitr, Tech Insider, Fortune, Express Tribune, Bloomberg, and AskMen, among many others.
No doubt the international conversation will continue and grow after the announcement of the results – and, although these results are negative, the campaign can surely count this a major success, and we basic income advocates throughout the world owe immense gratitude to the Swiss popular initiative.
Thanks to my supporters on Patreon. (To see how you too can support my work for Basic Income News, click the link.)
by Kate McFarland | Jun 2, 2016 | News
The London-based New Work Order is a group for self-directed individuals building careers outside of the mainstream. In its own words, NWO is “a close-knit network of ambitious and proactive people who are building careers on our own terms.”
The NWO founders describe their journey as follows:
Our journey took us from Switzerland to London, where we met with hundreds of ambitious but frustrated people who felt trapped in a world of work where they didn’t belong.
They longed to be in control of their own destiny, to make an impact on the world in their own unique way and to experience life to the fullest, beyond the confines of a job that offered little meaning, fulfilment or freedom.
We were consistently inspired by the boldness and commitment that these people showed towards transforming their lives by doing work that mattered to them. But we also witnessed their struggles. …
NWO exists primarily to provide a support network for such individuals.
Around here, of course, many of us would say that a universal basic income is what we really need to empower all people to transform their lives through meaningful work — and thus immensely benefit members of a group like NWO.
This is why it’s fortunate that the New Work Order’s podcast recently broadcast an episode dedicated to basic income, featuring guest Scott Santens.
During the 35 minute interview, Santens describes what a basic income is, where the idea came from, how it would work in practice, and why it is necessary in our present societies. He also talks about what its like to live with a basic income, having achieved his own crowdfunded basic income in December 2015.
Stock picture of people working in coffee shop from Pexels.
