by Toru Yamamori | Aug 27, 2016 | News
Liisa Siika-aho (provided by herself)
As we’ve already reported here, Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has announced their most recent move in a plan to launch a basic income experiment. On 25th August the Ministry canvassed for the Finnish public’s opinion on a bill regarding a basic income experiment. Here is a follow up with the Ministry’s comments and experts’ responses.
Liisa Siika-aho, director, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health responded to BIEN on 26th August as follows:
Q: What is the basic income experiment and what is its aim?
A: The basic income experiment is included in Prime Minister Juha Sipilä’s Government Programme. The experiment is one of the activities aiming to reform social security so that it better encourages participation and employment.
Q: Why is the basic income experiment carried out?
A: The objective of the legislative proposal is to carry out a basic income experiment in order to assess whether basic income can be used to reform social security, specifically to reduce incentive traps relating to working.
Q: How are the participants selected?
A: Persons receiving Kela’s unemployment-related benefits, under certain limitations, would be included in the experiment. From the target group, a test group of 2 000 persons would be selected by means of random sampling.
Q: Is it mandatory to participate in the experiment?
A: Participation in the experiment would be mandatory for those selected.
Q: When will the experiment start?
A: It is suggested in the legislative proposal that a basic income experiment will be carried out in 2017–2018.
Q: What would be the level of basic income in the experiment?
A: The level of basic income would be EUR 560 per month. Basic income would be tax free for the receivers.
Q: How is the experiment financed?
A: A total of EUR 20 million has been reserved in the budget for the basic income experiment.
In addition to this, the benefits that Kela is paying at the moment would be used as an addition for those persons who are receiving basic security benefits at the beginning of the experiment.
Q: Who is responsible for carrying out the experiment?
A: The Social Insurance Institution of Finland (Kela) would be responsible for carrying out the experiment.
Finland has a long history of advocating UBI (for a brief summery, see here). Here are those advocates’ Comments.
Jan Otto Andersson with an article in the Helsingin Sanomat (taken by Toru Yamamori)
Jan Otto Andersson, Emeritus associate professor at Åbo Akademi, has been advocating UBI since around 1980 and is a founding member of the BIEN (European Network at that time). On 26th August, he had this to say:
It is not a test for what a basic income for all in the society would mean, but for just to see how it affects those who have been unemployed. …. So it is limited but interesting. It will improve the discussion which has been here for a long time….It [my feeling on the experiment] is positive because this makes the idea more well known.
Osmo Soininvaara, a former minister of Social Services with the Finish Green League and another long term advocate of UBI in Finland, posted a harsh criticism on his blog on 26th August, where he calls the experiment as ‘such a stupid model’. His reasons were as follows:
……
In a proper BI model, the received basic income does not, indeed, get smaller when your income level rises, but taxation starts from the very first euro earned. That’s why a proper basic income does not bring net income gains to people in mid-income jobs.
In this experiment taxation is left untouched. If you get into a 4000 euro per month job, you will earn 560 euros more than the person doing the exact same job next to you. We cannot afford to increase the income level of every job earner by 560 euros per month.
In this regard, the model is guilty of the accusations levelled against BI by those people who do not understand who basic income is supposed to work.
…..
(translated by Otto Lehto)
Otto Lehto, the former president of the BIEN Finland, gave us his comments, which seems to have a more nuanced tone:
Feelings, as an individual and academic, formerly of BIEN Finland, can be summed up as follows: The research parameters are about exactly the sort of compromise that one would expect to emerge as a result of the recommendations of an expert coalition commissioned by a wide-ranging coalition government spurred to action by a vague and compelling sense that something needs to be done, but equally held back by the realization that many toes will inevitably be stepped on, and many special interests will need to be reconciled, before anything can be done. Change breeds fear, and fear breeds paralysis. To allay skepticism, the parameters are designed to be the least offensive to, and the smallest possible departure from, the established norms and expectations of the Finnish workfare/welfare-state. In particular, excluding young people and students is, in my opinion, a moralistic choice of little merit and little justification, but it makes sense as a compromise within the status quo, and as a precaution against the critics of “free money to lazy students.”
The budgetary constraints and time constraints are beyond Kela’s control, so the main fault lies within the government. They also set the original goals and parameters within which the labour market participation focus has been raised as the main criteria, with the predictable result that human right, liberty. equality and other considerations of social justice bent have been largely set aside, to the chagrin of many (myself included). This. however, is the state of things, and can only be changed in the next general election of 2019.
2000 participants is a small sample, but if the budget does not change, this cannot be helped. Limiting the sample to people on the government unemployment benefits makes nominal sense as a result of the government’s single minded focus. But it skews the experiment by excluding a number of potential beneficiary groups, including people on low-paying jobs, students, the self-employed, etc. This does not even make sense from the government’s own (limited) perspective, since labour market participation is a more complex notion than the old-fashioned distinction, reflected in the official unemployment statistics, between people who are “in” and “out of” work.
The taxation aspect is another potential disaster. If taxation cannot be changed to reflect the new benefit structure, this will inevitably make SOME recipients of basic income better off than their peers, while some of them will be worse off than their peers. Such a model, with its creation of a massive budget-deficit, cannot be generalized for the whole national economy, as Osmo Soininvaara, the father of the Greens’ basic income model, has written in his recent blog, very critical of the government’s/Kela’s proposal.
I am very skeptical this experiment will produce any really interesting scientific results, but it serves the function of satisfying the nominal requirements of the government’s plan, and the pressures from the various interest groups. It does not appear too radical, too left-wing, nor too right-wing. It might serve a useful purpose in propelling the basic income discussion forward. At the same time, many instances will probably try and use to it squelch any further discussion, too.
Beyond my own views, I will now say something about how this proposal has been received more generally. The overwhelming consensus among my own group of friends, representing multiple parties, left-wing and right-wing, those opposed to basic income as well as those in favour, is that the experiment seems disappointing in many respects, and perhaps even doomed to fail. (Some will conspiratorially add: consciously?) Many people, including opponents and skeptics, would like a more thorough, larger-scale and better designed experiment. The lukewarm success, bordering on failure, of the experiment, before it has even gotten off the ground, is a good indication of the difficulty of institutional change in our country. Good ideas become OK ideas, bad ideas become OK ideas, until we are left with nothing but OK ideas. So, yes, this experiment seems… OK.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod.
by Kate McFarland | Aug 27, 2016 | News
American poverty expert Robert Greenstein opposes a universal basic income in the United States due to concerns about political feasibility, even though he is sympathetic to the idea in principle. Vox’s Dylan Matthews has interviewed him to find out more.
Robert Greenstein is the President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which he founded in 1981. Prior to this, he was the administrator of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service under President Carter and a designer of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, regarded as a watershed anti-poverty act. Anti-poverty programs have continued to constitute a major area of research and action for CBPP.
Greenstein’s extensive experience with anti-poverty programs has led him to reject universal basic income (UBI) as a feasible policy for the United States, for reasons that he lays out in a blog post at CBPP (dated May 2016). It is clear that he rejects UBI not on the basis of principle but on the basis of practical issues. He worries that any livable UBI would be too costly to finance by any politically viable means and that, conversely, any politically viable policy package involving a UBI would be worse for poor Americans than the current welfare state. This is because, in his view, enacting a UBI would require a cross-partisan alliance, which would push the policy to the right (e.g. by accompanying UBI with the elimination of all or most current welfare programs, as under Charles Murray’s controversial proposal).
Here are some representative excerpts:
A UBI that’s financed primarily by tax increases would require the American people to accept a level of taxation that vastly exceeds anything in U.S. history. It’s hard to imagine that such a UBI would advance very far …
Proponents often speak of an emerging left-right coalition to support it. But consider what UBI’s supporters on the right advocate. They generally propose UBI as a replacement for the current “welfare state.” That is, they would finance UBI by eliminating all or most programs for people with low or modest incomes. Consider what that would mean. If you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and convert them to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you’re redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them.
Will we really tax the top 1 percent or top several percent enough to finance most or all of UBI — on top of the higher taxes we’ll want the same group to pay to shoulder a substantial share of the burden of restoring Social Security solvency, repairing the infrastructure, and meeting other critical needs?
Greenstein, clearly, believes that the answer is no — and that, as a result, any politically feasible basic income would be much less than the aid currently provided to many of the poorest individuals (and distributed without any supplemental aid).
Nevertheless, Greenstein’s concluding sentence suggests that he is not opposed to UBI in principle:
Were we starting from scratch — and were our political culture more like Western Europe’s — UBI might be a real possibility. But that’s not the world we live in.
Robert Greenstein, CC BY 2.0
US Department of Agriculture
Last month, Vox’s Dylan Matthews — who has written extensively, and sympathetically, about UBI for several years — interviewed Greenstein, calling on him to expand upon his opposition to UBI.
In the interview, Greenstein reveals that he learned about UBI in the 1990s from the Brazilian Senator Eduardo Suplicy, a former co-chair and honorary co-president of BIEN:
We’ve had this long dialogue, where I would say that I very much shared the ideas of UBI but in the United States, I didn’t think it was feasible or practical. There were, however, ways to move in that direction, such as big expansions of the earned income tax credit and the like. It was an ongoing conversation with Eduardo for a number of years.
As in Greenstein’s CBPP post, a tension between idealism and practicality emerges in the interview. At one point, for instance, Greenstein states:
There’s nothing in US political culture to suggest that there’s openness to doing big tax increases, that’d extend well beyond people just at the top, in order to finance cash payments for people who have no earnings and little or no work record. I personally am in favor of doing that! But I don’t see support for that. I think they’d likely be excluded.
Relatedly, Matthews poses an important question regarding the role of individuals — such as himself — who advocate for radical change as a way to begin to change popular opinion:
One reason I write a lot about basic income is not that I think it’s going to pass soon, but because I think giving cash aid to poor people, including the nonworking people, is a very good thing, and I view it as part of my job as a writer with a platform to try in some small way to change public opinion on that. … Do you think there’s any value in basic income as a persuasive tool that can translate to more sympathy for comparatively modest expansions of the safety net?
Greenstein’s reply is worth reading in full, but we might quote some excerpts:
I very much agree with the guaranteed income goal. The question is how do you get there, and, given the math and US political culture and budget politics, make sure that one is making progress toward that rather than going in the wrong direction? I would view UBI proposals like Charles Murray’s, or even other proposals that don’t eliminate Social Security or Medicare but do eliminate all or most means-tested programs, as clearly steps backward when you do the math.
I worry a little about the UBI interest being a little bit of a distraction from the immediate steps and fights that actually move toward that. I’ve had this discussion with a couple of UBI people, about starting with the child credit and moving to phase in at $0 and so on, and it’s sort of like we’re talking past each other. It’s smaller, it’s incremental. But to me, that’s how you get toward the goal.
I like many people, think we need a robust carbon tax. If we could ever get one, I do think there may be a potential to do a modest-size universal payment with a portion of the revenue that’d grow over time. To me, that’s a different route. The biggest obstacle there isn’t UBI; it’s getting the support to actually impose the tax. But if global warming continues to become more and more of a problem, one certainly hopes that at some point our political system accepts that you’ve got to do something about that. I do think that’s a potential platform. …
Such incremental proposals and cautionary notes are worthy of attention, even — indeed especially — from those who are already committed to UBI.
Read the entire interview, as well as Greenstein’s original article, below:
Dylan Matthews, “An expert on fighting poverty makes the case against a universal basic income,” Vox; July 16, 2016.
Robert Greenstein, “Universal Basic Income May Sound Attractive But, If It Occurred, Would Likelier Increase Poverty Than Reduce It,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; May 31, 2016.
Featured image CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Third Way Think Tank
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Andre Coelho | Aug 26, 2016 | Opinion
Safety is a crucial issue. Without a sense of security, we don’t think straight, we don’t connect as well, and we don’t align as well with our core values. If we are not secure, we don’t feel safe, and if we don’t feel safe, fear grows from within. And with that fear comes distrust, anxiety and stress. And all of those blur clear-sighted decisions.
Ultimately, there is no denying that security is a hot topic at the moment. With crime levels rising on a daily basis, there is a general sense of unease within society. That being said, it is important to remember that there are plenty of actions that you can take to improve your sense of security.
For example, if you are a home or business owner, then installing a security system is strongly recommended. Hidden cameras and alarms are both fantastic crime deterrents and can help you to feel safer in your home or at work. Above all, everyone deserves to feel in control, and security systems can provide peace of mind during times of crisis. To learn more about some of the most popular home security options out there, take a look at the Verisure website.
Anyway, within this short essay I aim to provide support for the following proposition: given a minimum level of safety, people will make better decisions. In particular, they will invest more in green technology for their businesses and homes, which is unaffordable to many at the moment.
Before going into any details, though, we should ask this question: what is it that people want, anyway? Do they want more holidays? iPhones? Well-paying jobs? Less crime? Better security? As it seems, at a deeper level, what they want most is none of that.
According to an international questionnaire, created and administered by the association Together, people want the following:
Economy
Guarantee of purchasing power and financial safety for all
Redistribution of wealth for greater equality
Promotion of exchanges and circulation of means without money
The end of rampant consumerism, especially when producers are suffering from underpaid work
The development of a deconcentrated and stable economic system
Use of technology for the well-being and comfort of all
Governance
Zero poverty, zero exclusion, and zero carbon
Affirmation and implementation of the principles of co-responsibility
Empowerment of all and development a relationship of trust, freedom, and equality, to remove laws, regulations and cameras that focus on the control of people
Encouraging and teaching co-responsibility
Supporting all people’s engagement in society, regardless of role
Democracy
Giving participatory and direct democracy a holistic place
Improving representative democracy and abolishing dictatorship
Bringing elected representatives closer to citizens
Developing an ethics of democracy
Learning co-construction of policy by involving different actors including crossing perspective, skills and abilities
Empowerment of policy makers, making sure that they keep the promises that they have made
Transparency in actions of the government
Firmness and impartiality in justice
Simplification of the administration and legislation, and improved logistical organization
Policies to support the population, particularly for providing access to essential needs; an enhanced social state.
The end of media trash-talk that enhances racism and insecurity
Environment
Changing our relationship with nature, plants and animals
Reducing population pressure
Ensuring a rapid energy transition. Using the information provided by a service like Builder And Engineer to help people make changes in their home to waste less energy such as opting for a newer, more efficient boiler.
Fight against waste
Fight against pollution
Production that is more natural and small-scale
Cleanliness in public places, thanks to co-responsibility
Space management
Maintaining and protecting biodiversity
Preserving and developing agricultural and food-production areas such as family or community gardens
Arranging space to make it user-friendly and to facilitate common life, multiculturalism, creativity and new ideas
Adapting public roads for all while reducing traffic and enhancing transportation safety
Making the city a pleasant common good
Time management
Increasing the time available to people and improving management of time
Increasing time available for the family
Promoting volunteering by enabling candidates to get community service and recognizing volunteer spaces
Society
Enhancement of opportunities to live together and learn about others
Eliminating and prohibiting all forms of discrimination and racism in all areas, including employment
Avoidance of all forms of violence, harassment and war, plus eradicate those related to physical integrity
Facilitate networking and communication of the organisations and individuals
Maintenance of ethical and respectful behaviour for the sake of democratic functioning
Changing behaviour to encourage living together and respecting each other
Development of a common culture, whatever our religion
Solidarity with excluded and/or vulnerable people so that all are made to feel accepted
Reception of migrants and refugees as well as the homeless
More care for the poor by taking an upstream strategy to combat poverty
More aid for the disabled, including children and those who are alone and poor
These results are derived from the application of a specific methodology, the Spiral Approach, which has been applied in over 20 countries, involving around 120,000 people1. While this might be a small sample of all humanity, it is big enough to be taken very seriously. If these results mean anything, I assume, it’s that people would prefer to invest more in technologies that would lower their environmental footprint on this planet–if only they could afford it. And affordability has indeed been a major issue in contemporary Portugal. As we can observe in Figure 1, people have been losing purchasing power consistently over the past few years, except for a tiny percentage of people. At the same time, as expected, inequality has also risen (Figure 2).
Figure 1 – Personal income savings in Portugal, percent of GDP
Figure 2 – Income inequality in Portugal (quotient between the 20 percent richest and 20 percent poorest average income)
This is, of course, also mirrored in the growing number of poor people living in Portugal (Figure 3). These people might get free lunches (yes, these apparently do exist) if they prove their poverty – that’s how it goes these days – but, needless to say, it’s much harder to get a solar panel or an electrical vehicle, for example, just for being poor. But if you’re interested in learning more about solar panels check out Sandbar Solar’s residential solar services. You might be surprised as to what you can learn from them about the ranges of services that are available. Solar panels can generate a lot of energy (which can then be sold) but if you want to learn more about this, check out Solar MN.
Figure 3 – Poverty risk rate in Portugal, percent (footnote 2)
The question is: would they (or most of us, for that matter) actually buy these things, if they could afford it? Any direct response is, of course, mere speculation, since it’s impossible to run an experiment given the present mode of things. But we might take a look at what people who can afford greener technologies are actually doing with their money. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show a couple of trends in investment in electric vehicles and photovoltaic panels in recent years.
Figure 4 – Solar and geothermal energy generation, in tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) in energy mix
Figure 5 – Number of electric vehicles sold in Portugal
A quick look at these charts clearly shows increasing trends in purchases of these items. In the case of photovoltaic panels, Figure 4 refers to energy output, but higher output is of course linked to increased solar panel installations. This has happened in the midst of the present day austerity-driven impoverishment of nations, of which the Portuguese society is a victim.
According to a 2012 inquiry / poll, housing and other property amount to 81 percent of all assets3 owned by the 25 percent poorest families, with motor vehicles accounting for 18 percent. This basically means these families own nothing else (or close to nothing). Meanwhile, the richest 10 percent of families own 71 percent of their assets in their own house and other property (30 percent in their own house), 25 percent in businesses and 2.2 percent in vehicles. It is also noteworthy that, according to the same inquiry / poll, 91 percent of all the richest 10 percent of families own vehicles and 20 percent own other valuables compared to 39 percent in vehicle ownership and 5 percent in other valuables for the 20 percent poorest families. These differences are also mirrored in the value structure of those assets: a typical rich family (from the top 10 percent) owns a median value of 17 300 € in motorized vehicles, while the poorest 20 percent own only a median value of 2000 €. In other valuables, the differences are even sharper, with the richest families owning a median of 17 500 €, while poorest own only 300 € (median). Finally, up to the 90 percent richest families, vehicles and other values stays at a median of 13 000 €, which is about 37 percent of the amount the richest 10 percent of families own in these items (median values).
What this means is that, apart from the 10 percent richest families, and maybe some of the 20 percent richest ones, no one can really afford to buy electric vehicles, which have an average cost at 33 400 € (with 7 year batteries), and photovoltaic panel systems (micro-scale systems start at 10 000 € per 4.6 kW package). Given this scenario, what could a basic income to give people the opportunity to purchase these low-carbon technologies and contribute to solve the climate crisis?
According to a basic income viability study for Portugal, a 435 €/month payment to every adult would generate income increases for everyone earning 1200 €/month or less, before taxes. However, that increase will only be truly significant (after taxes) for those earning nothing, or close to nothing. Of course, 435 €/month basic income will only allow for a person to care for basic needs, such as food and shelter–not electric cars or photovoltaic panels.
It would, however, mean more money in the hands of people who are nowadays consuming less than they ought to, given their basic needs. And this will lead to higher economic outputs, especially in local economies. That, in turn, will increase monetary circulation, and eventually enough accumulation that some families will be able to afford green technologies. Another possibility is that people will come together in condos, neighbour associations, cooperatives and such, and pool their basic incomes (or whatever extra amounts they can get, given the existence of basic income). This way, they can acquire this equipment through their shared resources and manage it cooperatively. Also, the prices of these products are getting lower. This is especially true for photovoltaic panels, the price of which has fallen as much as 75 percent since 2009, and is expected to continue falling. The forecast for electric vehicles prices is more uncertain; however, due to technological advancement and higher supply, it is expected that these prices will also drop in the next few years (Joana Balsa, 2013).
The relationship between basic income and increased purchases of low environmental impact technologies is not obvious, at least for the products discussed in this short analysis (photovoltaic panels and electric vehicles). However, I’ve hinted at some factors that may determine that rise, given the implementation of something like a basic income in Portugal. Of course options to reduce environmental impact is not limited to the purchasing of photovoltaic panels and electric vehicles. Many other possibilities are available, at much lower costs, such as replacing existing low efficient lamps for LED technology lamps, riding bicycles or even reducing the ingestion of meat (while eating more vegetables).
Notes:
1 – More information on the data gathering method and resulting platform can be obtained here (in French).
2 – percent of people living in poverty or in risk of poverty.
3 – Non-financial assets.
More information at:
In Portuguese:
Sónia Costa, Luísa Farinha, “Inquérito à situação financeira das famílias: metodologia e principais resultados [Inquiry into families financial situation: methodology and main results]“, Occasional paper 1, Banco de Portugal, 2012
Miguel Horta, “RBI financiado pelas pessoas [Basic income financed by the people]“, October 2015
NOCTULA, Consultores em ambiente, “Energias renováveis: a revolução do preço da energia solar [Renewable energies: the price revolution of solar energy]“, August 2015
Joana Balsa, “Avaliação do impacto da introdução de veículos elétricos na procura de combustíveis em Portugal [Impact evaluation of introducing electrical vehicles in the demand for fuels in Portugal]“, Masters Thesis, Coimbra University, September 2013
Fundação Manuel dos Santos, PORDATA – Base de dados Portugal Contemporâneo website
Sónia Peres Pinto, “Há cada vez mais carros elétricos em Portugal [Electric cars are increasing in Portugal]“, SOL Economia, May 19th 2016
Associação Utilizadores de veículos elétricos, “O Mercedes Plug-In C350e da Mercedes, foi o veículo elétrico mais vendido em junho de 2016 [Mercedes Plug-In C350e was the most sold eletric vehicle in June 2016]“, August 6th 2016
In English:
TOGETHER – territories of coresponsibility website
Statistics Portugal website
by Kate McFarland | Aug 14, 2016 | News, Testimonies
Juon Kim has been an organizer of Basic Income Youth Network in Korea since 2013. In March of this year, Juon ran for a proportionate candidate of Green Party Korea in the general election, representing the party’s UBI agenda. She’s currently a graduate student of cultural anthropology, and plans to write her MA thesis about basic income.
In this Basic Income Interview, Juon talks about how she came to learn about and support basic income, and why she is now an activist.
About 5 years ago, only a few people in Korea knew about basic income, including my friends. Since they were studying basic income, I became aware of it but was not attracted to it at first. But after reading two women’s books, I decided to live as a UBI advocate and joined the Basic Income Youth Network based in South Korea.
One book is Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own. “It is necessary for women to have five hundred pounds a year and a lock on the door if you are to write fiction or poetry.” It reminded me of basic income immediately. The other is Carole Pateman, a feminist political theorist saying that basic income could guarantee universal economic citizenship of women.
Juon at the 2016 BIEN Congress in Seoul
When I was young, I dreamt of becoming a human rights lawyer. Many discrepancies in the society seemed to have been caused by law which is a tool only for the powerful. I entered university envisioning that I would stand in the forefront of social changes with the law as the tool for justice. I was even thinking of branding law firm ideas to increase my chances of being someone’s first choice to defend them.
But the university that I encountered back in 2010 was no more than a ruin. The gravity of making ends meet pulled heavily against my attempted search for friends with whom I would find solutions to the social ills. No time could be wasted if it wasn’t for career preparation, no space was available without fees, and ultimately no freedom to plan my life as I wanted was granted.
Fortunately, there were great classes and friends in and out of the campus. There were those who were being forcefully evacuated from the very place of their livelihoods in their cities, those who are taking their lives in their hands just to reclaim their lost jobs, and those religious figures, LGBT activists, disability-rights activists, grass-root activists and youth activists who fought against state violence and its forced militarization of Gangjeong village in Jeju island and forced nuclearization of Miryang in Korea.
I saw how they tried and worked to rebuild hope in their own respective communities. We met in support, delight and equality. I experienced happiness rising from others even amidst poor material conditions.
In our encounters I realized something. All of us who were dreaming of a better life, one that’s better than now, were in fact fighting against ‘dual poverty’. They fought against poverty of their own and simultaneously poverty of the world.
What I endured was not different from what they endured. It was in this moment I was introduced to the idea of ‘basic income’. I strongly related to its philosophy that the rights to eat and live should be guaranteed just for the reason that I am a constituent of this society.
What if the activists I met who suffered from dual poverty had basic income? What if my colleagues, women, youth and young adults, farmers, artists and seniors had basic income? What happens when there appears this gift called basic income in the Korean society, whose severe income bipolarization and winner-takes-all structures in all corners render all untrustworthy toward each other?
I imagined an alternative made possible by the hope called basic income to those who give up their lives or terrorize others’ lives because there cannot be a better tomorrow. Then I joined basic income movement because I wanted to imagine all these possibilities as one.
The ‘human rights’ that used to be so nondescript when I wanted to be its lawyer took shape as an economic citizenship, basic income. Basic income as the fundamental right for all humans. I hope it becomes a common sense to all everywhere in the world in the nearest future.
Photos used by permission of Juon Kim. (Cover photo: Juon promotes basic income at International Women’s Day, dressed as a suffragette.)
Juon wishes to thank her friend Heehe for translation assistance.
Basic Income Interviews is a special recurring segment of Basic Income News, introduced in July 2016 by Jason Murphy and Kate McFarland. Through a series of short interviews, we aspire to display the diversity of support that basic income receives throughout the world.
Have your own thoughts to contribute? Want to see yourself in a future Basic Income Interview?
Visit our interview form.
