by Tyler Prochazka | Jul 7, 2016 | News
“Shouldn’t I have enough to eat? And don’t I deserve a safe place to sleep?”
These are the first lines from the song that shook up this year’s North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress. The song, “Just Because I’m Alive,” was performed live at the congress by musician Brandy Moore, an advocate for the basic income.
Moore is starting a GoFundMe campaign to help fund a studio version of the song that she hopes to release in August. Moore said she has already raised over 10 percent of the goal, and hopes “the momentum keeps going.”
One of the primary reasons that Moore supports the basic income is that it would let all of us be “free to do what we want with our lives.”
“I believe that art is a priceless contribution to society and that artists should be valued. I believe that all the unpaid work that people carry out in our society should be recognized as priceless as well. Anytime anyone is caring for another who cannot care for themselves in some way,” Moore said.
About two years ago, Moore came across the idea of basic income on Facebook and, as she puts it, became “intrigued.”
Her curiosity did not stop there . Moore was inspired to write a song about basic income and wrote it in “one sitting.” She said she started with the first two lines of the song “and everything else flowed out of that.”
Moore said that it is important to create art related to the basic income, because art “has the ability to touch hearts and inspire minds in a very immediate way.”
“It gives a voice to feelings and subjects that people often find hard to talk about in words to each other about, but still need to be expressed. It helps people feel less alone and more connected with the rest of humanity,” Moore said.
“It beautifies our lives. It captures people’s attentions and gets conversations going. It can make an unfamiliar idea feel more acceptable because it has touched people in a deeper way than it would have by just talking about it.”
Ursule Critoph, an attendee at NABIG, said Moore’s performance “struck a chord” with the audience. Critoph said using art to promote the basic income will help “appeal to the human heart and spirit.”
“While Brandy never mentioned the words basic income, her lyrics express the essential foundations that underlie the importance of a guaranteed basic income. Appealing to the universal human need for affirmation, food, shelter and other aspects of a full life is critical to convincing persons that access to a basic income must be a universal right,” Critoph said.
Maria Wong, a worker at the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter, also listened to Moore’s live performance. She said loved the lyrics because it illustrated the reason she is “fighting” for the basic income: “it’s a human right.”
Wong said the basic income would help women, such as those at the shelter.
“Women experience poverty at higher levels because of their responsibilities to care for family and lack of options or value in the workforce. We think a Guaranteed Livable Income will give women more autonomy and be less invisible in society,” Wong said.
Prior to becoming a full-time artist, Moore worked as an office temp, but she said she “hated the way it would suck all my energy away,” so she started focusing wholly on her music.
She said she thinks that others should also have the choice to do what they love.
“We were meant to be free,” Moore said. “And when enough of us believe that we deserve to be free, we will be.”
Click here to see the live performance.
Lyrics:
Shouldn’t I have enough to eat?
And don’t I deserve a safe place to sleep?
Where no one can take what doesn’t belong to them,
And I don’t have to look over my shoulder
Why must I pay for my existence
And why must I prove my worthiness
I have a right to basic needs
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Just because I’m alive
I don’t look like you
And I don’t act like you
And I could never make it in your world
But I still deserve a decent life
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Just because I’m alive
I’m alive. Just because I’m alive
I’m hungry
I’m cold
I’m lonely
I feel
Just like you do
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Just because I’m alive
I’m alive. Just because I’m alive
Alive Alive Alive
Just because I’m alive
Shouldn’t I have enough to eat?
And don’t I deserve a safe place to sleep?
by Kate McFarland | Jul 6, 2016 | News
A recent survey of economists at leading institutions purports to show that 58% oppose a universal basic income, while only 2% support it. However, the survey asked specifically about a UBI that replaces all other social insurance programs and is paid only to adults over 21. Many opposed these qualifications, not UBI itself.
On Tuesday, June 28, the IGM (Initiative on Global Markets) Forum released the results of a survey on “universal basic income” distributed to the Economic Experts Panel — a panel consisting only of “senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States” chosen to be diverse in their specializations, locations, and political orientations.
Out of these economics experts, 58% either “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with a description of a specific universal basic income policy, while only 2% “agreed” and none “strongly agreed”. (The remainder were either “uncertain” or had no opinion on the matter.)
At first blush, such results are apt to shock and disappoint supporters of basic income. However, as with any survey, attention to the detail is key: what, exactly, were respondents asked?
In this case, respondents were asked to rank their opinion on the following statement on a five-point scale (or declare no opinion):
Granting every American citizen over 21-years-old a universal basic income of $13,000 a year — financed by eliminating all transfer programs (including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing subsidies, household welfare payments, and farm and corporate subsidies) — would be a better policy than the status quo.
Presumably, this particular policy proposal comes from Charles Murray, who endorsed exactly this in a recent Wall Street Journal feature.
Even before looking at the survey responses, we should take pause here: Charles Murray is a controversial figure even among — perhaps especially among — supporters of UBI. Left-leaning advocates tend to regard Murray and his proposals as “downright undesirable”, to use the phrase wielded by Daniel Raventós and Julie Wark in their June 15th article in CounterPunch.
Last January, to give another example, an article in Jacobin argued that a UBI “could do little to achieve egalitarian objectives — or even backfire badly” if the policy poorly designed. The author presented Murray’s proposal as an example of “non-liveable” basic income, due to its low amount and concurrent elimination of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
With this in mind, then, it should not be too surprising that several economists in the IGM Forum also took issue with the proposed elimination of all other benefits — but not UBI per se — when explaining their votes of “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree”. Some even expressed support of policies closely related to UBI. For instance, Richard Schmalensee (MIT) said, “A properly designed negative income tax could be part of a better policy, but replacing everything is a bad idea.” Similarly, Eric Maskin (Harvard) replied, “A minimum income makes sense, but not at the cost of eliminating Social Security and Medicare.” And Christopher Udry (Yale) opined that UBI could work if “coupled with universal health care and tax reform … but we are far from that.”
Larry Samuelson (Yale), who responded as “Uncertain”, stated, “There is much to recommend a universal basic income, but specifically a 13k income while ending all other transfers is difficult to assess.”
The proposed restriction of the UBI to adults over 21 worried other economists — such as William Nordhaus, who said, “And the children get nothing? The basic idea is sound but too simplistic as stated.” Likewise, Robert Hall (Stanford) simply offered, “Limitation to people over 21 can’t be the right answer.”
This is not to suggest, of course, that all of the economists surveyed were inclined to support a basic income (but just not Charles Murray’s version). Some did express opposition to UBI itself, and for reasons that we might expect: it’s too expensive, it might discourage work, it’s not necessary given current welfare programs, and “Bill Gates would get 13k, which is crazy.”
Nonetheless, it’s striking that many explanations of “Disagree” responses did not criticize UBI per se, and were sometimes even implicitly (or explicitly!) supportive.
Not all respondents gave explanations of their answers. However, looking through the list of economists surveyed, it’s further notable that the Murray-inspired UBI proposal elicited disagreement and uncertainty from some others who have previously expressed support of basic income. For instance, the Nobel Laureate Angus Deaton voted “Disagree”, despite having recently come out in favor of “basic income grants”. Even distinguished MIT Professor Abhijit Banerjee — who is an advisor for GiveDirectly’s basic income pilot and recently wrote a compelling case for UBI in The Indian Express — voted “Uncertain”.
Thus, supporters of UBI — and especially those on the left-side of the political spectrum — should not be discouraged by this particular poll, despite its purportedly showing that only 2% of a forum of economics experts “support a universal basic income”.
If there’s anything to concern us about this survey, it should be the implicit conflation (in its headline) of the general idea of UBI with Charles Murray’s specific, and very controversial, proposal.
On the other hand, the economists themselves do not make this conflation — and, indeed, their responses serve as a reminder of the danger of tying the idea of UBI to any one particular policy implementation.
As basic income researcher Jurgen de Wispelaere writes in a recent blog post,
Agreement at the level of the general idea amongst opposing political factions is often hailed as a virtue of the basic income proposal. However, once we move from idea to policy implementation, persistent disagreement may return with a vengeance.
This is an important message, and one which the IGM Forum survey illustrates well.
Reference:
“Universal Basic Income,” IGM Forum, Chicago Booth, June 28, 2016.
Thanks to Asha Pond for reviewing a draft of this article.
Thanks to my supporters on Patreon. (To see how you too can support my work for Basic Income News, click the link.)
by Toru Yamamori | Jul 4, 2016 | News
The Swiss referendum has been covered in Japanese media. While some media coverage, especially televised reports, uses the photogenic scenes which were created by Swiss activists, many reports don’t cover the activists’ bottom line message: ‘What would you do if your income were taken care of’.
An exception is this short article by Hideaki Nakamura, an editorial writer of the Mainich Newspapers, entitled “Question from Switzerland”. He cites a voice of an activist (from Toru Yamamori’s interview with Enno Schmidt, a founder of the Swiss initiative), who says that they would like people to think about how to live.
Nakamura presents a recent poll on what university students in Japan would like to work for. According to the poll, 25% of students would like to work for others and society. Nakamura suggests that this shows a possibility of a basic income in Japan.
中村秀明Hideaki Nakamura, “スイスからの問いQuestion from Switzerland”, 毎日新聞the Mainich Newspapers, 15th June 2016
by Kate McFarland | Jul 1, 2016 | News
Varun Gandhi, Member of Parliament of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has endorsed basic income in an article published in The Hindu on June 30, 2016. The BJP, the ruling party in India, is the largest political party in not only India but (as of March 2015) the world, with 88 million registered members.
In his article, Gandhi calls for more basic income studies to be conducted in India, and delineates an impressive list of benefits that he expects from the policy:
A regular unconditional basic income, scaled up through pilots, and rolled out slowly and carefully, seems ideal for India. It can help improve living conditions including sanitation in our villages, providing them with access to better drinking water, while improving children’s nutrition. Regular basic income payments can help institute rational responses to illness or hunger, enabling households to fund their health expenses instead of encountering a vicious cycle of debt. It can help reduce child labour, while facilitating an increase in school spending. It can transform villages, enabling the growth of productive work, leading to a sustained increase in income. It could cut inequality; grow the economy; all while offering the pursuit of happiness.
Varun Gandhi has nearly 270,000 followers on Twitter and over 3 million Facebook fans.
Feroze Varun Gandhi, “Why we need to talk about a basic income,” The Hindu, July 1, 2016.
Image from Varun Gandhi’s life in pics (NDTV)
Thanks to my supporters on Patreon. (To see how you too can support my work for Basic Income News, click the link.)
by Josh Martin | Jun 24, 2016 | News
Three reporters from Bloomberg Businessweek included a question about Basic Income at their White House interview of President Obama yesterday. John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief for Bloomberg; Megan Murphy, Bloomberg News Washington bureau chief; and Editor-in-Chief Ellen Pollock, asked the president,
Some economists suggest that globalization is going to start targeting all those services jobs. If you want to keep up wages in that area, doesn’t it push us toward something like a universal basic income?
Obama answered, in full:
The way I describe it is that, because of automation, because of globalization, we’re going to have to examine the social compact, the same way we did early in the 19th century and then again during and after the Great Depression. The notion of a 40-hour workweek, a minimum wage, child labor laws, etc.—those will have to be updated for these new realities. But if we’re smart right now, then we build ourselves a runway to make that transition less abrupt, because we’re still growing, and we’re beating the competition around the world. Look, for example, at smart cars, where the technology basically exists now. The number of people who are currently employed driving vehicles of some sort is enormous. And some of those jobs are pretty good jobs. You know, people are worried about Uber, but the fear is actually driverless Uber, right? Or driverless buses or what have you.
Now, there are all kinds of reasons why society may be better off if smart cars are the norm. Significant drops in traffic fatalities, much more efficient use of the vehicle, so that we’re less likely to emit as much pollution and carbon that causes climate change. You know, drastically reduced traffic, which means we’re giving back hours to families that are currently taken up in road rage. All kinds of reasons why we may want to do that. But if we haven’t given any thought to where are the people who are currently making a living driving transferring into, then there’s going to be deep resistance.
So trying to separate out issues of efficiency and productivity from issues of distribution and how people experience their own lives and their ability to take care of their families, I think, is a bad recipe. It’s not an either/or situation. It’s a both/and situation.
Obama did not mention Basic Income in his answer, but he did talk about some concerns of the movement. Chris Weller, of Tech Insider, interpreted Obama’s remarks as a hint at support, and saying, “Now Obama seems to be leaning in the same direction.”
Karl Widerquist, Co-Chair of the Basic Income Earth Network was less certain that Obama wanted to communicate support:
Obama didn’t clearly answer the question, but there is a lot of good news in this interview. Just the fact that the question was asked shows the growth of the movement. These were three top-level reports at one of America’s top news publications. They had an audience with the President at the White House. They only asked 16 questions. And they devoted one of those questions to the subject of Basic Income. Without the worldwide movement that’s sprung up in the last few years this would not have happened. I doubt any reporter has bothered to ask the President any form of Basic Income Guarantee since the 1970s.
Obama’s answer doesn’t clearly say whether he is for or against Basic Income, but what he is trying to do is clear and obvious. He doesn’t want to endorse basic income, but he wants Basic Income supporters to support him. The last paragraph is masterfully unclear. He uses the phrase “bad recipe,” which implies that his answer is negative, but I read over that paragraph again and again, it’s increasingly unclear what the bad recipe is. The need he feels to obfuscate is progress: had he been asked this question in 2008, he might have clearly stated his opposition, as he clearly opposed same-sex marriage back then. I wonder if it’s an exaggeration to say he’s less willing to alienate Basic Income supporters in 2016 than he was to alienate same-sex marriage supporters in 2008?
Obama attempts to court Basic Income supporters by showing them that he understands two of their concerns (automation and climate change). Apparently he hopes this much will be enough to gain their support even though he doesn’t specifically support their proposed solution. He doesn’t mention the issues of poverty, inequality, and freedom that are so important to most Basic Income supporters, but the Basic Income movement has forced the President to take notice and think about some of the issues they have brought up. That’s not victory, but it marks the growth of the movement.
The full interview will appear as the cover story in this week’s Bloomberg Businessweek, and it is already online:
John Micklethwait, Megan Murphy, and Ellen Pollock, “The ‘Anti-Business’ President Who’s Been Good for Business.” Bloomberg Businessweek, June 27-July 3, 2016
Chris Weller’s interpretation is online at:
Chris Weller. “President Obama hints at supporting unconditional free money because of a looming robot takeover,” Tech Insider, Jun 24, 2016
Business Week
