by Kate McFarland | Aug 10, 2016 | News
On July 13, the Pakhuis de Zwijger, in collaboration with the cultural institution Goethe-Institut Niederlande, hosted a basic income event in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The event began with a few words from Anne van Dalen, who works as an artist in the Hague and was selected earlier in the year as the Netherlands’ second recipient of a crowdsourced, year-long basic income. Van Dalen reported that she has become more motivated since she began receiving the basic income, working longer hours than ever before, now that she is no longer “depressed about being a poor artist.”
Next, Sascha Liebermann, Professor of Sociology at the Alanus University of Arts and Social Sciences, reviewed the history of the basic income movement in Germany, including his own co-founding of the initiative Freedom not Full Employment.
Following Liebermann, Raymond Gradus, Professor of Public Economics and Administration at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, delivered an argument against unconditional basic income and in favor of participation income (driven primarily by concerns about reciprocity).
The last individual speaker was Ronald Mulder, the founder and secretary of MIES (Maatschappij voor Innovatie van Economie en Samenleving), the Dutch non-profit organization responsible for crowdfunding basic incomes for individuals like Anne van Dalen. Event organizer Bahram Sadeghi interviewed Mulder about his inspiration for creating MIES and his reasons for supporting basic income.
These short presentations were followed by a roundtable discussion, in which Sadeghi led a debate and conversation between Liebermann, Gradus, Mulder, and — as a new guest for this part of the event — Leisbeth van Tongeren, a Dutch MP from the Green Party.
The event was video-recorded, and the video is available on-line at Pakhuis de Zwijger’s website: “Free Money Society”
Photo from Goethe-Institut Niederlande.
by Roland Duchatelet | Aug 5, 2016 | News
Policy makers around the world adhere to the “labour Church”. Their dogma is that wealth is derived from labour. Nearly all economists in the world are priests of this Church, their Bible being Paul Samuelson’s textbook on economics.
In primitive economies “labour” was not a relevant concept. Villagers went fishing or hunting, taking care of their kids and preparing food without being aware that they were “working”. Later, the exchange of products and services in-kind became more important, leaving the boundaries of the villages. The use of coin money in 600 BC reinforced exchange of goods and services as the crucial building block of the economic system. However, paid labour was not a part of the economic system. Domestic services were largely remunerated by the provision of lodging, food, and clothes. The concept of paying for a day’s work emerged for services of soldiers when it was difficult to reward them in another way.
The number of people on “day pay” remained small until deep into the 19th century because “piece work” – being paid per unit produced – was the logical standard to pay workers. Measuring hours in factories did not happen until industrial production of clocks emerged in the middle of the 19th century. But the real trigger to pay workers by the hour and not by piece was the introduction of new production systems in some factories, such as in the assembly lines of Henry Ford. It became too difficult to evaluate the contribution of each worker to the value of the end-product.
An hourly rate makes sense because an hour is easy to measure. But it does not measure what you pay for: the added value of the service provided in that hour. The “paid hour ideology” has been built on this approximation and has now a massive “market share” of the way people get paid for their work. The labour Church does not mind the approximation regarding “added value”; a person with a useless job derives money and lifetime rights from his or her “work”, while parents working really hard to raise their kid to become a brilliant engineer do not get any financial reward, even if their kid is the creator of the next big invention helping propel humanity forward.
In fact, the “labour Church” defends a very new religion: if the time frame of the economic history of the world is scaled to a 24 hours day, hourly paid wages were introduced just 24 minutes ago.
Sharing food and helping each other, the values underlying the Basic Income ideology, are as old as humanity.
by Kate McFarland | Aug 2, 2016 | News
The Movement for Black Lives, the network of organizations behind the United States’ Black Lives Matter movement, released its first official platform on Monday, August 1. The platform calls for a universal basic income for all Americans, with an additional amount distributed to Black Americans as reparations.
The Movement for Black Lives (MBL), a collective of over 50 groups affiliated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, released its official platform on Monday, August 1.
The platform is constructed around six core demands: Ending the war against Black people; Reparations for past and continuing harm; Investment in education, health and safety, and divestment from exploitative forces; Economic Justice for all; Community Control of laws and institutions; and independent Black Political Power.
The platform is explicitly radical and visionary, aspiring to a “complete transformation of the current systems”, but its authors have also written policy briefs that outline intermediary steps to reach these visions.
The Movement for Black Lives’ demands include universal basic income, as described in its policy statement on Reparations. The document makes clear that MBL endorses a basic income for all Americans, with an additional amount (a UBI “PLUS”) given to Black Americans as reparations for harms ranging from colonialism and slavery to mass incarceration.
Political scientist Dorian T. Warren, a Fellow of Roosevelt Institute and Board Chair of the Center for Community Change, authored the policy brief. Its section on universal basic income is reproduced below:
What does this solution do?
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) provides an unconditional and guaranteed livable income that would meet basic human needs while providing a floor of economic security. UBI would eliminate absolute poverty, ensuring economic security for all by mandating an income floor covering basic needs. Unlike most social welfare and social insurance programs, it is not means tested nor does it have any work requirements. All individual adults are eligible.
No other social or economic policy solution today would be of sufficient scale to eradicate the profound and systemic economic inequities afflicting Black communities.
As patterns and norms of “work” change rapidly and significantly in the decades to come – no matter how profound those changes are – it is likely that Black America and other populations that are already disadvantaged will bear the brunt of whatever economic insecurity and volatility results.
A pro-rated additional amount included in a UBI for Black Americans over a specified period of time.
The revenue saved from divesting in criminal justice institutions could be pooled into a fund for UBI; this revenue could be earmarked for the “PLUS” aspect of the policy that would be targeted toward Black Americans. If combined with other funds, it would effectively function as reparations, in a grand bargain with white America: All would benefit, but those who suffered through slavery and continuing racism would benefit slightly more.
Federal Action:
UBI would have to pass both houses of Congress and then be signed by the president. The revenue could be generated by multiple sources which would require structural reforms to the tax code including higher taxes on the wealthy, taxes on public goods like air (carbon tax) or on certain industries (financial transactions tax), or a dividend based on distributing resources from a common-owned asset (like oil).
State Action:
Similar to national policy, UBI would have to pass through state legislatures and be signed by governors. Other instances might require amendments to State Constitutions. The precedent here is the Alaska Permanent Fund, set up in the late 1970s/early 1980s. All residents of Alaska receive an annual dividend based on the invested revenue from the publicly-owned oil reserves.
How does this solution address the specific needs of some of the most marginalized Black people?
UBI would then provide an individual-sustaining basic floor for people who are formerly incarcerated upon re-entry that does not currently exist.
UBI would be an improvement on portions of today’s current safety net and would benefit cash poor Black people the most. Some benefits, such as food stamps, are replete with paternalistic restrictions that rest on racist tropes about recipients and their consumption habits. Others, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), are significantly tied to work, which is problematic when structural racism continues to create so many barriers to Black employment. UBI lacks these flaws.
The document also links to Warren’s essay “Universal Basic Income and Black Communities in the United States“. In this short paper, Warren describes the problem of racialized economic inequalities in the American economy, and proposes UBI as a solution. He emphasizes that most forms of UBI would benefit the black community, and that “even an equal income could disproportionately benefit black Americans” since white Americans presently earn more on average.
Warren goes on to argue, however, that a “Universal PLUS Basic Income” model, with an additional pro-rated cash transfer specifically for African Americans, would be preferable as a way to “take into account the historical and cumulative disadvantages of income, wealth and inheritance afflicting black communities”.
The Black Lives Matter movement originated in July 2013, after a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman of all charges surrounding the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. The movement spread on social media via the use of the hashtag “#BlackLivesMatter”.
Tuesday, August 9 marks the two-year anniversary of the death of Michael Brown, another unarmed black teenager who was shot and killed by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. The fatal shooting launched a series of street protests that brought widespread national publicity to BLM to a point where the topic of raising the Black Lives Matter flag was discussed in various circles of the government to show solidarity against racism. The BLM flag may not be flying atop a monster flagpole anytime soon, but the discussions in several mediums have definitely carried forward the cumulative fears and concerns of the African American populace.
Monday’s release marks the first time in its history that BLM has issued a single, comprehensive set of policy demands.
MORE INFORMATION
The Platform is available at The Movement for Black Lives’ website: policy.m4bl.org.
Dorian T. Warren, “Universal Basic Income and Black Communities in the United States“.
General news about the release of the BLM platform:
Yamiche Alcindor, “Black Lives Matter Coalition Makes Demands as Campaign Heats Up“, The New York Times; August 1, 2016.
Eric M. Johnson, “Slavery reparations sought in first Black Lives Matter agenda“, Reuters; August 2, 2016.
Amée Latour, “How To Read The Black Lives Matter Agenda & See Its Comprehensive Plan For The Future“, Bustle; August 1, 2016.
Trymaine Lee, “Black Lives Matter Releases Policy Agenda“, NBC News; August 1, 2016.
Jamilah King, “The Movement for Black Lives’ New Policy Platform Looks Beyond the 2016 Election“, Mic; August 1, 2016.
Tess Owen, “Black Lives Matter reveals a policy platform that includes reparations and breaking up banks“, Vice; August 2, 2016.
Featured Image CC Gerry Lauzon
Thanks, as always, to my supporters on Patreon
by Kate McFarland | Jun 14, 2016 | News
A story that brought much excitement to Basic Income News six years ago may be winding to its end.
In 2010, Iran became the first country to pay a de facto basic income to its citizens–a policy that emerged as a byproduct of a pressing demand to reform the nation’s system of fuel subsidies.
At that time, the Iranian government determined that it would dedicate half of its oil revenues to government services and businesses, while distributing the other half in the form of unconditional cash payments to all citizens. The monthly amount was equivalent to about 40 USD, paid to heads of households.
Within a year, however, the government began facing difficulty in financing the subsidy program, and eventually resorted to asking comparatively well-off citizens to voluntarily opt out. As a result of the requests, about two-and-half million citizens began declining their subsidies, while 73 million retained them.
But these voluntary withdrawals from the program proved insufficient to halt Iran’s growing budget deficit–and, in January 2016, the government announced that it would remove an additional 3.3 million Iranians from the subsidy program, as determined based on an assessment of their financial situation. (For example, as the New York Times reported, one middle-class merchant was unenrolled after purchasing a car worth $7000.)
Finally, in April, the Iranian parliament approved a bill that will result in the loss of the cash payments to about 24 million citizens — nearly one-third of the population. The cuts will go into effect in September of this year.
For more about the recent cuts in the dividend, see:
Khatereh Vatankhah (Apr 26, 2016) “Outgoing Iran parliament moves to radically cut cash handouts,” Al Monitor.
For more on the history of the Iranian oil dividend, see these previously published columns in Basic Income News:
“IRAN: On the verge of introducing the world’s first national basic income” (Aug 12, 2010) by Karl Widerquist
“IRAN: Economic reforms usher in a de facto basic income” (Nov 9, 2010) by Yannick Vanderborght
“IRAN: Basic Income Might Become Means Tested” (Jan 18, 2012) by Karl Widerquist
“Iran’s Citizen’s Income Scheme and its Lessons” (May 21, 2012) by Citizens’ Income Trust
Image Credit: dynamosquito at flickr
by Guest Contributor | Jun 8, 2016 | Opinion
Karl Widerquist, co-chair
Louise Haagh, co-chair
We, the two co-chairs of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), have made the following proposal to BIEN’s 2016 General Assembly: “Starting as soon as possible, BIEN will have yearly Congresses whenever affiliate networks are available to host them.”[*] BIEN has held Congresses once every two years since its inception in 1986. The Congress in Seoul will be BIEN’s sixteenth. In this op-ed we explain why a move to annual Congresses are so important to BIEN at this time, and we address some concerns people might have with annual Congresses.
The main reason that BIEN needs yearly Congresses is that the Basic Income movement has grown enormous. In 1986, when BIEN began, it is hard to say there was a movement. There was a small tight-knit group of researchers; most of them came to every conference. Although some activists were interested in Basic Income, public opinion was not at point to make a real activist movement viable in many countries. Today Basic Income has millions of supporters around the world with many more joining every day. The topic has entered mainstream political debate in dozens of countries, many of which had no previous history of high-level discussion of basic income.
BIEN has to keep pace with the growth of the movement. Its role is to get people involved, to exchange ideas, to give people a chance to build on each other’s ideas. It’s missing too many opportunities to do that with such infrequent Congresses.
The second most important reason to begin having yearly Congresses is that BIEN has grown. BIEN was constituted as the Basic Income European Network, and its geographic reach was limited almost entirely to Western Europe until BIEN expanded to become the Basic income Earth Network in 2004. Even then, for several more years, most of its membership and most of the people attending its Congresses were European. But with BIEN’s expanded reach, it had to have Congresses in other parts of the world. BIEN has had successful Congresses in Africa, South America, and North America, and we expect it will have a successful Congress in Asia this July, but the expansion of geographical reach of BIEN’s Congresses has meant fewer Congresses in any region. Only the world’s most privileged people can travel halfway around the globe to attend a conference. We need to have more conferences in more regions so that more people have the opportunity to attend a one now and then.
We see very little downside to this proposal. Most organizations that have conferences have them yearly. The amount of basic income literature and activism going on today ensures that there is no risk that we will run out of new ideas to discuss at the congresses.
The most likely concern that might make people hesitate to endorse annual Congresses is the fear that they might be too much work and that BIEN might outstrip its resources. Obviously, two conferences are twice the work of one conference, but two conferences are not necessarily more work for any one person. Each BIEN Congress is run by one of BIEN’s affiliate networks. They take on the responsibility of raising funds, finding facilities, inviting participants, creating schedule, and virtually everything else involved with running a conference. The BIEN Executive Committee’s role is limited to overseeing this effort to ensure consistency.
When BIEN began in 1986, it had no affiliates, and there was only one national basic income network—the Citizens Income Trust[†] in the United Kingdom—in existence in the world. Today BIEN has about two dozen affiliates on all six habitable continents. Most of them either have hosted a BIEN Congress or would like to if they got the chance. Many more networks, many of them potential affiliates, are springing up around the world. In its affiliates and members, BIEN has far more resources than ever before. Many networks would like to get more involved in the movement by bringing the BIEN Congress to their country or region.
In 2014, three excellent proposals were put forward to host the 2016 Conference—one each from Finland, the Netherlands, and (South) Korea. According to BIEN’s rules at the time, the General Assembly could only pick one. That meant that we had to turn down two others. It was little consolation to those groups to say, “although you can’t host a BIEN Congress in two years, if you reapply, maybe one of you can host it in four years and the other can host it in six years.” That is an extremely long time to wait. We had to turn away groups that were willing and able to put on great conferences.
As the co-chairs of BIEN, we have been in touch with several groups that are interested in hosting the next BIEN Congress, and some of them are interested in doing it as early as 2017. We are, therefore, confident that we can move to yearly conferences right away. If in any year we do not have an affiliate network capable of hosting a conference, we have written the proposal in a way that allows us to skip a year.
Therefore, we see very good reason to support—and very little reason to oppose—a move to annual BIEN Congresses. We ask all of BIEN’s members to join us in supporting this motion.
— notes —
[*] The full wording is, “Starting as soon as possible, BIEN will have yearly Congresses whenever affiliate networks are available to host them. If BIEN cannot find affiliate networks to organize Congresses yearly, they will continue with Congresses once every two years.”
[†] Then called the Basic Income Research Group.
BIEN Congress
