by Tyler Prochazka | Dec 14, 2016 | Opinion
In his new Kindle book Mending the Net, author Chis Oestereich describes how a basic income can address some of the “wicked problems” facing humanity.
For Oestereich, the basic income can help society rethink its consumption patterns and possibly upend the “treadmill of subsistence.”
In the book, Oestereich predicts that the economy could be headed toward a recession. In the interview he said that basic income can be a “shock absorber” of economic downturns. Without a basic income, Oestereich said he worries that the next recession will be much worse than the last for many people.
One of the most unique effects of the basic income is its potential to change how we view careers and allow “self-determination,” Oestereich said.
“By standing individuals up on an income floor, we could open the door for many to create unique, fulfilling lives that might not otherwise be possible,” he said.
The full interview can be found below.
You said in the book: “A universal program removes the opportunity for politicians to erode benefits in a death by a thousand cuts scenario”. Can you explain why you think universal basic income evades austerity?
I don’t think it evades austerity in general as there are other programs to cut that could still greatly impact lives, but rather that it evades austerity because since it is universal, any cut must be done to everyone. Means testing programs are a game of continually shifting goal posts wherein a small adjustment to a qualifying measure can mean the difference between families having enough to sustain themselves, and coming up short. By shifting to a universal program the goalpost moves could no longer trim away at those on the margins.
Chris Oestereich
I’ve heard some say providing a greater array of people more money through basic income would exacerbate environmental degradation with their new consumption? Considering lower income individuals spend a higher percentage of their income. What do you think the overall effect on the environment would be from basic income?
I think environmental impacts are one of several valid concerns around basic incomes. That’s why I advocate for significant testing to see what we can learn. Some people may be enabled to purchase and consume more goods and services as the direct result of a UBI, but I think that’s an argument for finding an appropriate level of UBI that’s not so large that it allows people to go from living lives of unfulfilled needs, to being enabled to live destructive lifestyles. But I think some of us might cut back on some work and consumption that are part of today’s treadmill of subsistence. Take away the need for a full-time job to get by and some of us might only work three or four days a week and consume less resources through commuting and other related efforts. We need to gain a better understanding of the effects of a widely-implemented UBI, and then we might need to update social norms to align with systemic needs. And it’s possible that we could gain unexpected positive effects like those experienced in Utah where giving homeless people places to live resulted in reduced use of medical care.
You mentioned that we are probably counting down to a recession. How would a basic income address the issues of economic recession?
I called UBI an economic shock absorber because it would be there to blunt the negative impacts anytime the economy went south. (If we had a UBI in 2007, how many of the millions of people who lost their homes to foreclosure might have squeaked by without falling into those dire circumstances?) With a little something coming in each month comes a modicum of hope, rather than the steady drumbeat of a straight-line declining balance in your checking account. But if we don’t have a UBI in time for the next recession, I think we can expect that the outcome of the next one will be worse than the last one—at least for some segments of the population—as losses from the Great Recession “were disproportionally concentrated among lower income, less educated, and minority households.”
Why do you think the profit motive is destructive? And how does basic income help address the profit motive force?
I don’t think the profit motive is inherently destructive. But when it’s the sole focus of an organization, the profit motive allows businesses to hold extractive relationships over their employees. When a person has no other means of subsistence, the terms of employment are often highly-unfavorable. Give an unemployed person a decent monthly payment via a UBI and the choice is no longer one of zero income or an extractive employment relationship, so the calculus around the decision changes tremendously. Instead of being in a take-it-or-leave-it scenario with only savings (if that) to fall back on, you have a choice of tightening your belt and squeezing by on any savings you have along with your monthly UBI check. It would give workers a little bit of leverage in scenarios where they often have none.
You mentioned “If you hear someone talking about Milton Friedman and basic incomes in the same breath, it’s probably safe to assume that they’re looking for overall cost savings to reduce their personal tax burden.” Do you think libertarians that support basic income are primarily concerned with bringing down costs? And along those lines, do you think a coalition including fiscal conservatives and libertarians on basic income is possible?
My sense is that libertarians are primarily concerned with optimizing their personal tax effects. If a UBI could reduce administrative costs, and they would end up with a net financial benefit, you’d probably have their ears. But if they ended up paying more into the system, I think you’d quickly stop hearing about how great it was. So, I think they could be willing partners up to a point, but that they’d likely drop off from the cause at some point, and that they would eventually oppose efforts to increase the amount of UBI payments. My thought is that we could probably work together to get the proof of concept testing done, but that in working to make an initial UBI happen libertarians might become a drag on the effort as they would likely be aiming for systemic savings, rather than an outcome that would be measured in improved lives.
What inspired you to write this book?
Mending the Net wasn’t planned. I was invited to write chapters for a couple of different books, the ItsBasicIncome project that will be published out of the UK soon, and another anthology around environmental issues. I wrote them both independently and then realized that they would fit together nicely in a Kindle single format as the essays offer two different perspectives on “why” we ought to consider trying UBIs. (Readers will have to look elsewhere for the “how” argument as that’s not my bailiwick.)
As for the topics of the essays, I’ve never been a big fan of the rat race, and I’m a huge proponent of self-determination. Basic incomes help along both of those lines. By standing individuals up on an income floor, we could open the door for many to create unique, fulfilling lives that might not otherwise be possible.
What is your involvement in the basic income movement?
I guess I’m sort of a passionate advocate, but I certainly don’t see myself as a movement leader. There are others (like Guy Standing and Scott Santens) whose work I regularly look to for ideas and updates on the topic. For my part, I’m working to systematically address all wicked problems. To that end, I’m currently working on a book on the UK’s Brexit issue, as well as the second anthology from the Wicked Problems Collaborative (my publishing company), that will look at the promise and peril of our rapidly advancing technological environment.
by Kate McFarland | Dec 4, 2016 | News
The U.S. Department of Arts and Culture, a non-governmental organization that promotes “programs and policies that cultivate creativity, empathy, and collaboration”, released a new platform on November 19, 2016 — aimed at protecting Americans’ right to culture under a Trump presidency.
The platform consists of 10 policy demands — from a public service jobs program to criminal justice reform to investment in arts education — including a basic income grant.
About the basic income grant, the USDAC writes (pp. 22-23):
[R]ising costs, falling spending-power, the uncertainty of the economy, macroeconomic policies that have placed corporate success above individual well-being. For artists and cultural organizers as for others, the current system mandates overproduction, often exacerbated by under-compensation. For example, existing subsid[ies] for artists operates almost exclusively on a project basis, forcing artists who apply for support to constantly seek novelty and conform to arbitrary deadlines rather than allowing work to evolve and emerge according to a more organic timetable. Competition for scarce resources is incredibly intense and hugely discouraging for those who don’t fall under currently favored criteria …
In virtually every field, decision-makers fail to prioritize necessary time for reflection, restoration, and conviviality. It’s a challenge to discern, integrate, and act on cultural development needs when competition for survival eats what could otherwise be time for creativity, connection, and pleasure. We long for a future in which overproduction and overconsumption will no longer distort our society, with a universal cultural benefit: the ability to live in balance with each other and the life of this planet.
In its abridged platform, USDAC emphasizes that similar challenges confront workers in many occupations and that the organization is not making a “special pleading for artists”.
USDAC proposes a basic income grant large enough to cover basic needs such as food, housing, and medical care, distributed in the same amount to all regardless of other income.
To fund the BIG and other reforms, the organization proposes taxes on advertising and financial transactions, as well as the sell of “social impact bonds” to private investors.
Read the full platform here: “Standing for Cultural Democracy: The USDAC’s Policy and Action Platform”
Reviewed by Dawn Howard.
Cover photo: CC BY-SA 2.0 Edith Soto
by Tyler Prochazka | Nov 29, 2016 | Opinion
Europe has received a lot of attention for its recent moves toward experimenting with a basic income policy. What has been lost in this focus are the developments that are taking place in the rest of the globe, including the world’s second biggest economy: China.
Cheng Furui is one of the organizers of the China Social Dividend/Basic Income Network, and has done extensive research on China’s social safety net. In the interview below, she said a basic income would resolve many of the problems facing China’s current welfare program.
As the international economy faces increasing automization, Cheng said basic income is a potent answer to this issue in China.
“I believe that basic income and China’s status quo are aligned because it is in accordance with the essence of both socialism and the market economy,” she said.
The full length interview is below:
What is different between Universal Basic Income and China’s Minimum Livelihood Guarantee (Dibao)？
Dibao is China’s Minimum Livelihood Guarantee program. Anyone with an income below the minimum can receive a supplementary income up to the standard. In this way, Dibao is unconditional: no one can take away someone’s right to the Dibao income. The Dibao only provides a grant to those that are below the Dibao income standard. Thus, the government must conduct strict evaluations of recipients’ economic situations, which creates a lot of implementation problems and issues of abuse. By contrast, Universal Basic Income provides the grant to every person, regardless of income. Moreover, China’s Dibao benefit has a large discrepancy across different regions, consistent with the regional economic inequality that China already faces. Here is more information for reference: China’s MCA.
How do the Chinese view basic income? Do the Chinese generally understand about this policy?
Most Chinese don’t know about the basic income concept. Nonetheless, there are some places that are currently carrying out this policy, although they do not call it basic income. The areas that are implementing basic income all have different situations. The differences are not just regional, even neighboring areas have large differences depending on the community members’ organizational depth and shape.
Why should China implement basic income? What type of impact would it have?
The foundation for China’s implementation of basic income comes from China’s public ownership system itself. State owned enterprises, urban land, and mineral resources already exist, much like Alaska in the United States. Every person should have a share of public resources. This relies on the profit from the public resources being utilized as a basic income revenue, not only does everyone receive equal payment. This means the government does not have to collect more taxes from the rich only to give back to every person.
Chinese history applies the profit from publicly owned resources to supplement the country’s public finances, therefore lowering the private sector’s tax rate. In turn, conducting large scale investment in service sector and infrastructure development, including constructing railroads, and the systems that support the economy such as education and healthcare. These systems provide benefits to the vast majority of people. During China’s period of urbanization and gradual improvement of infrastructure and even completion of these projects, the profit of public resources perhaps can be used as a benefit to each person. Certainly, this will lower society’s overall wage rate or working hours. Simultaneously, some places have collective ownership of resources, and most of Chinese social dividends come from these resources.
What is the status of China’s basic income movement?
The basic income concept is currently only being discussed among Chinese academics and there are currently few researchers of the policy. However, the general public is already exploring implementation of basic income, also it is genuinely that every person in those areas can enjoy the local basic income. For example, much of the revenue for basic income programs is contributed by the collective organizations’ dividend bonus.
Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, rural China has implemented collectivization of land, the household farm quota system allows the individual to use the land for production, but they cannot sell the land to others. During the movement toward urbanization, one part of the land was acquired by the government. Some of these collective resources that were taken were compensated with urban-based resources, in turn producing new benefits. From there, it produced social dividends within these communities. Looking at the entire country, this was not a rare case.
In BIEN News, I recently introduced these types of cases. China is putting into effect the policy of ‘separation of three land rights’ (ownership, contracting right, and operating right), which will promote the land right equity investment Recently, our main work has focused on excavating the essence of these cases, evaluating the likelihood of wide-spread promotion of this policy. Under the recent pessimistic economic environment, we want to offer a feasible path forward.
Does basic income suit China currently? Does it fit with Chinese culture?
I believe that basic income and China’s status quo are aligned because it is in accordance with the essence of both socialism and the market economy. However, Chinese culture encourages labor and looks down upon laziness. With the development of automatization, machines will continue to replace human labor. As a result, Chinese people will start to rethink this issue. If a basic income is put in place, after it is implemented it is feasible that the entire country will uniformly cut down on the weekly work schedule. Previously China had a six-day work week, and now it has been cut down to five days. In the future, it is possible it can be reduced to a four-day work week.
Additionally, China’s various regions have had drastically different levels of development, and the cost of living differences are also quite large. The social security system has not yet achieved nationally uniform administration. Public resources and financial data also need to be gradually made more transparent. This lack of transparency has impeded the ability to evaluate the potential impact of basic income.
About the interviewee:
Cheng Furui is doing her Post-doctoral program in Chinese Academy of Social
Science. She got her PhD in Tsinghua University. Her research interest is social
policy. “Social Assistance and Poverty Alleviation Divergence: A Capability
Approach” is her $rst published book based on her doctoral dissertation,
which explores Chinese social safety net in details. She is a voluntary news
editor of BIEN now. She is also one of organizers of China Social
Dividend/Basic Income Network: bienchina.com
by Kate McFarland | Nov 24, 2016 | News
British journalist and broadcaster Paul Mason, author of Post-Capitalism: A Guide to Our Future, recently delivered a lecture in Amsterdam in which he points out the need for a universal basic income as a partial solution to changes in the economy due to new technologies. He raises related concerns in an article in The Guardian published shortly thereafter.
On October 25, author Paul Mason delivered a lecture at the De Balie culture center in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, wherein he argues that technological advancement has been not only correlated with but in fact a cause of economic stagnation. He attributes this to several characteristics of new information technologies: the ability to automate more jobs and job tasks, the ability to produce and reproduce goods at very low (even zero) marginal cost, and the ability to combine data through networks to generate new goods not reflected in standard measures of economic growth.
In addressing how the left should respond, Mason says, “Our long-term aim should be to push more and more economic activity [to be] done outside the market and the state.” This requires, in part, that we “end [the] reliance on wages for work.” In this context, he continues: “We need quickly to pursue the experiments with the universal basic income … and aim within 10 years for states to be in a position to roll out the policy itself.”
He goes on to add, however, that UBI alone is insufficient; the state, for instance, should also provide “cheap basic goods” (he mentions housing, healthcare, education, and transportation) and promote open source and non-profit businesses.
The entire lecture, along with the Q&A session, can be viewed below. Mason has also published a text version of his lecture on Medium.
https://vimeo.com/188859000#t=8m42s
In an October 31 article in The Guardian, Mason again broached UBI as a potential solution to technological unemployment — predicting a world in which smart technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, cause paid work to become scarce and sporadic. Here, in passing, Mason also links UBI to the potential fulfillment of Marx’s vision of a society in which people are free to “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, [and] criticise after dinner” without ever assuming an occupational identity as hunter, fisher, cattle-rearer, or critic.
References
Paul Mason (October 27, 2016) “Postcapitalism [in Amsterdam]” Medium.
Paul Mason (October 31, 2016) “The battle over Uber and driverless cars is really a debate about the future of humanity” The Guardian.
Photo: Paul Mason in 2015, CC-BY-SA-4.0 DTRocks via Wikimedia Commons
by Roland Duchatelet | Nov 23, 2016 | Opinion
About 25 years ago, when internet emerged, I addressed an audience saying: “If newspapers [didn’t already] exist today” there is “no way investors or bankers would support the business-idea to collect news, print it on paper around midnight and dispatch this printed stuff using thousands of vehicles to bring it to shops and individual readers before morning comes”.
In most western countries, social security became significant approximately 70 years ago, when it got an extensive legal basis. It now plays a crucial role in developed countries to give purchasing power to citizens who do not have an income from a job. Moreover, in many countries it provides free health care for everybody.
Just like internet changed the way news is distributed, the fact that computers and robots replace human work is a “game changer” for social security, which was totally based on labour contributions since its inception. More and more jobs are subsidised and therefore do not really “contribute” to the social security system anymore. Just like we continue to get news, even better and faster, we want to keep social security and improve it despite paid labour becoming less important in our economic system. In most West European countries, the amount distributed by the social security system increased constantly as a share of income of households and is now, if you include benefits in kind, more or less equal to the net pay households get from work. There is little political awareness of this fact.
Assuming social security never existed and we decide to create it, how would we organise the cash redistribution part of it? Just like blood in the human body redistributes blood cells to make all parts of our body work, money fulfils a similar role in society: allowing exchange of goods and services amongst individuals.
Like the heart of the human body pushes blood in various parts of our body and collects the blood on the other side, the social security system injects money, purchasing power, into society to fuel exchanges of goods and services.
In the future, the total amount of money distributed should be no less than today, and should gradually increase when automation further decreases the demand for paid labour in our economic system because we need purchasing power to drive economic activity.
The conditional character of the current social security system limits freedom to work, to move in with friends and so on. It is a huge deterrent to work and enjoy life. Assume a Belgian person gets 1200 € unemployment benefit and could get a job paying 1350 € net per month. Because that person loses the 1200 € as soon as she/he starts to work, the marginal reward is 150 € per month. Since there are approximately 150 working hours in a month, it is only worth 1 € per hour. Stupid system, yes indeed.
Therefore, the biggest part of the new social security system’s cash distribution, around 90 percent, should be a straightforward unconditional basic income distributed to everyone, the amount solely depending on the age. In the example above, this unconditional basic income could be 800 € per month for the 26 to 67 age group, lower than the highest “replacement income”, but not much lower than the average unemployment benefit in Belgium today. A second layer to the system should be conditional, based on specific needs or situations like invalidity, requiring administration. By comparison the administration cost of the new social security system would be roughly 90 percent lower than the current one.
There is no need of for additional taxes in the new system (see this Economist graph) if the basic income becomes a part (and does not come in addition) of the current income from work (or current social security benefits). For example if we decide the basic income for adults in the US to be 900 $ per month and a person’s net income from work is presently 1900 $, his pay-check will read: “basic income 900$, income from work 1000 $”. This could be done in two ways. The first way is the employer pays the basic income of his employee. The second way is that the state pays the basic income to the employee but charges a tax equal to the basic income to the employer. Either way, the employee keeps getting the same income, the employer has the same employment cost as before and the state has no extra cost. But to be aware of all these things, the employer might need to take advice about employment law from the advisors of the consultancies like Sentient in Leeds. If you own a company, you can look out for similar firms in your city or state to get an idea of all the laws before any kind of settlement about salary or employment contracts.
Only citizens which have no income at all or less than 900 $ would get more cash from the new system than what they get today. This extra distribution of money can be funded thanks to the lower administration cost of the basic income system in comparison to the present one.
If we could start all anew, we would cherish the local economy, promoting free and uncomplicated exchanges of goods and services between individuals to improve our well-being. For instance, if we have a plumbing issue in our home, instead of calling expert service providers, who have already made a big name for themselves and are doing well, we might want to contact local plumbers (such as royalflushsa.com.au) who do not necessarily have much publicity, but have excellent reviews. With an unconditional basic income-based social security, working for each other would be allowed. It would be even better if there were no labour taxes on services individuals provide to each other in the “proximity economy”.
Would the state lose much of the revenue from the income tax? Not much, since those exchanges of services do not tend to occur now, unless in “black”. But there would be an increase in revenue for people involved in proximity services, like for those who do not perform paid work today. Retired people would also consider earning money on top of their pension if they are sure there is no paperwork hassle at their Social Security office locations in Colorado, or wherever was local to them, and no risk for them to lose part of their retirement benefit.
The extra income would – for example – be spent in restaurants. That spending will yield income taxes and consumption taxes for the state, paid by those restaurants.
The social security system we know is a 70-year-old house to which our governments did not stop adding extensions. Meanwhile, they changed the windows, put in a new kitchen and bathroom, isolated the roof and connected everything by lots of cables.
We can reorganise the redistribution or purchasing power in a much better way: let’s build a new house.
