Jordan Peterson, cultural critic, psychologist, and member of the Self Authoring online service, gave his remarks on Universal Basic Income. His concerns seem to be largely drawn from a similar issue critics have with the idea, primarily in the face of leisure time: will people become lazy and unmotivated? Can people handle a life with none of the traditional burdens we normally face with work as it is? Where will people map out meaning in their lives?
All of these are fair questions, and Peterson seems to be open to the idea. A concern Peterson addresses is the rise of relative poverty in developed nations, which has been given terms such as “the precariat,” a term coined by Guy Standing. In addition to this, the rise of technology has made it so that many people who are not tech-savvy are poised to be left behind in this changing climate. This is coupled with the conservative myth that there is an infinite supply of jobs for everyone, and the liberal myth of retraining as a solution, both of which Peterson challenges directly. People might be phased out of the labor force, which is one of the general concerns automation forces us to examine.
In regard to UBI being proposed as a solution, Peterson seems to make some strong assertions. While he admits that a UBI is possible as something we can do, he remains unsure of “what would it do” to help people. In addition, Peterson makes a very strong claim that people in North America do not have issues with starvation due to a lack of income. Children go to bed hungry rather often, so Peterson’s remark doesn’t seem to be substantiated by any current facts or statistics. The most striking remark Peterson makes is perhaps a core view of his entire life’s work: he believes people are at their best when they are “burdened” by something. While one can sincerely entertain the possibility of struggles helping people become better versions of themselves, must it really be because one might not be able to add economic value due to factors beyond oneself, as Jeremy Howard argues? Is this an acceptable burden, given the scope of the problem?
Bündnis Grundeinkommen gathering at Brandenburg gate. Credit to: Enno Schmidt and Bündnis Grundeinkommen
The Bündnis Grundeinkommen, Germany’s political party campaigning on the single issue of introducing a basic income in the country, has held an open air event in preparation to participate in their first national election.
Hosted together with Kulturimpuls Grundeinkommen eV (a German broadcaster), the event took place on July 29th at the Brandenburg Gate, Berlin. There was a celebratory tone to the day with music provided by Kiezkneipenorchester, Juri di Marco and Bertram Burkert, and entertainment in the form of slacklining, by world record slackliner Alexander Schulz. Guest speakers included: Prof. Dr. Sascha Liebermann, Head of Education and Social Change in The Department of Education at Alanus College in Germany, Dr. Liebermann was one of the first advocates of UBI in Germany and adopted the campaign slogan “freedom instead of full employment”; Martin Bohmeyer, a 29 year-old web-developer, who self-imposed a basic-income in his own personal trial in 2014 and is now running an initiative called Mein Grundeinkommen in order to crowd-source for other individuals; Ralph Boes, a sit-in protester in central Berlin, who campaigns and argues for a guaranteed “livable income”; Prof. Dr. Bernhard Neumärker, Director for The Department of Economic Policy and Order Theory at The University of Freiburg; Enno Schmidt, who, in 2006 with entrepreneur Daniel Häni founded the Swiss Basic Income Initiative (Initiative Grundeinkommen) in Basel, which, in 2013 submitted 126,000 signatures in favour of the introducing of an unconditional basic income, leading to the UBI referendum in June of 2016; and Susanne Weist, the first chairman of the Bündnis Grundeinkommen, who received attention in 2009 due to her petition to the German Bundestag to introduce a basic income.
The press team at Bündnis Grundeinkommen said that “humans need security to thrive” and that “basic income is a secure economic base” which would allow humans to live in a new way, “pursu[ing] the lives they want to live”. The BGE:Open Berlin event was described as “a visual impression of this concept”, with Alexander Schultz’s slacklining performance embodying the concept of “basic income as a permanent earnings floor no one could fall beneath, offering security and personal freedom”.
Talking about the possibility of a UBI being introduced to Germany, Susanne Wiest, chair of Bündnis Grundeinkommen, said: “Basic Income may not only be about social security, but also about a better work-life balance and higher [level of] happiness. The days of people being exploited by the market wage would end. If people only work in jobs they enjoy, they would be more passionate about their work. No one would be excluded from society because they can’t find a job”.
Cosima Kern, vice chair of Bündnis Grundeinkommen, added: “Maybe the most important change would be a feeling of a shared prosperity, that we are all together in this”.
Commenting on the day itself, the speeches and the entertainment, Enno Schmidt stated that it was “amazing to see this UBI performance directly in front of the Brandenburger Tor, the symbol of the capital of Germany”. Regarding the meteoric rise of the party and of its origins, Mr Schmidt described how the co-founder of Bündnis Grundeinkommen Ronald Trzoska conceived of a party for basic income “on the day of the popular vote about the introduction of an UBI in Switzerland”. Although Germany does not have “the right of a people’s initiative, like the Swiss have”, Mr. Trzoska envisioned that a party could be formed within the MMP system at the German Bundestag, and campaign for the single issue of a UBI.
Mr. Schmidt stressed that the purpose of the Bündnis Grundeinkommen is “short and clear: unconditional basic income is electable”. It is a tool that means that “the people can do something for their ideal”. He did warn that “many make the mistake of mixing other issues with unconditional basic income and disguising the idea”, rather than focusing on it being an unassailable right, or, as he puts it: “[an] idea [that] is the human being”. There is often, also, too much focus, he says, on the concept of political parties, which are divisive and compartmentalizing. The time for political parties, as he sees it, is over. The “post-party party” of the single issue, such as the Bündnis Grundeinkommen, is more of a democratizing “social movement”, allowing direct participation and ensuring that the “trap” of waiting is avoided and that there is no temptation to “submissive[ly] attempt to participate in old sick forms”. “The party”, he summarized , “is a signal, it is an art form, it is a life platform and allows life for the unconditional basic income”.
On September 9th and 10th, German UBI activists met in Göttingen at BGE:open to discuss the political progress of UBI in Germany and worldwide. The elections the Bündnis Grundeinkommen participate in will take place on September 24th, 2017.
A Stanford University class –available on a podcast replays the 1970s Manitoba, Canada, experiment called “mincome,” on the way to rejoicing in Universal Basic Income.
In the U.S., Silicon Valley entrepreneurs like Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, who according to some is preparing to run for U.S. President, are promoting universal basic income.
What does basic income mean, students ask? The contentious subject raises many questions, such as: would society fall apart because everyone would just hang out on the couch?
The Stanford class seeks to separate the argument that robots will replace 47% of jobs, a prediction that fuels much of Silicon Valley’s support of basic income, from the “paradigm of work” dialogue, according to Juliana Bidadanure, Assistant Professor in Political Philosophy at Stanford University, who is teaching the class.
The podcast studies the observations of many “experts” on culture, race and gender in an effort to separate jobs (wage-work) from understanding the true nature of work. Several contributions are under analysis, such as the following:
– Doug Henwood — Journalist, economic analyst, and writer whose work has been featured in Harper’s, Jacobin Magazine, and The Nation, says if robots were really taking over, there would be a strong productivity growth in the U.S., which is not true, so far;
– Rutger Bregman — Journalist and author of “Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders and a 15-hour Workweek” thinks that if basic income were accomplished by the government printing money, that situation would definitely lead to inflation. But no inflation fears would be attached to a taxation process;
– Kathi Weeks — Marxist, feminist scholar, associate professor of women’s studies at Duke University in North Carolina, and author of “The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries” believes that wage-work is not the only meaningful activity. She points to pre-industrial society as a good example of when wage-work took a backseat to the value of non-paid work;
– Evelyn Forget — Economist and professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba and academic director of the Manitoba Research Data Centre, who first reported the “mincome” data. Forget argues that “mincome” made it possible for single mothers to get off welfare and proudly have a profession.
A second podcast will be available that discusses whether universal basic income is the end of capitalism or not.
Jurgen De Wispelaere, a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Research, University of Bath was interviewed on August 7th by Truthout, a nonprofit web-based news and commentary site whose aim is to provide “a platform for transformative ideas, through in-depth investigative reporting and critical analysis.” In this interview, he makes several important points regarding some of the issues in the current debate and research on Basic Income.
De Wispelaere’s key position is that Basic Income’s aim should be first and foremost about relieving poverty and social exclusion. Poverty is fundamentally a lack of money and Basic Income offers a solution to that problem. Compared to other forms of welfare, Basic Income avoids the well-known poverty trap, where earning wages leads to a loss of benefits, while also reducing the need for some of the bureaucracy associated with contemporary welfare states. De Wispelaere also says that welfare states already dispense some amounts of cash or quasi-cash, with Basic Income the main difference is really about how the money is distributed. As he says, “it is not just about whether or not you have more cash with a Basic Income, but also about how you get your cash.” Basic Income is characterized mainly by its unconditionality. De Wispelaere also mentions the Mike Leigh movie, “I, Daniel Blake” as an illustration of how current welfare policies can cause significant problems and how an unconditional Basic Income could make a big difference.
De Wispelaere also speaks about the value of Basic Income experiments, stressing that conclusions reached from one experiment may not be valid elsewhere due to limitations of time and location. Nevertheless, he argues that the experiments are worth pursuing and he identifies three key reasons for performing Basic Income experiments: implementation, politics, and philosophy.
There are a number of aspects of implementation that can be identified and fixed through running a limited experiment, things that are difficult to predict from a theoretical standpoint alone. Basic Income, although it is often presented as such, is not a simple policy; it will interact with other policies such as housing benefits, disability assistance, the tax system and pension rights. When doing an experiment, these interactions can also be tested, along with other parameters. Another great motivation for Basic Income experiments is politics. Risk-averse politicians may like the idea of a Basic Income but be reticent to propose implementing it in full. A limited trial can help gather more political support for a wider implementation. Finally, philosophical considerations reflect the different viewpoints as to whether we can trust people to play by the rules, or whether they are fundamentally lazy. Or, as De Wispelaere puts it, “do we think that the whole range of people to which Basic Income applies all are going to turn into Homer Simpsons?” According to De Wispelaere, “in many cases, evidence alone can’t solve these issues. It’s a philosophical and moral argument that has to be fought and won.”
De Wispelaere also says in the interview he is not convinced by the “Robots Are Coming” narrative. First, because we need Basic Income now to alleviate poverty, job fluctuation, and insecurity. Second, because when the robots do come there will be other significant issues that arise and Basic Income is not enough to solve those. Regarding the Silicon Valley positions, De Wispelaere says: “It is a bit of a caricature, but what they are effectively proposing is a very polarized, divided society. They talk about Basic Income as a necessary part of the solution but don’t mention other important social and economic struggles between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. For me, Basic Income may be necessary, but it’s certainly not enough.”
In a recent video released by the BBC, anthropologist Dr Jason Hickel argues for a form of planned de-growth which includes the provision of basic income.
Hickel is employed by the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), which for several years has been ranked second in the world for social sciences by the QS World University Rankings. In the video, he argues that modern society is harmfully addicted to economic growth, and that this is destroying the planet. He also states “Introducing a basic income and a shorter working week would allow us to get rid of unnecessary jobs and redistribute labour.”
The video is part of the BBC’s “Viewsnight” series, which is released on Facebook and YouTube with the intention of stimulating debate.
