by Kate McFarland | Jan 17, 2017 | News
Juliana Bidadanure, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, has designed a graduate seminar on the philosophy of basic income, which she is currently teaching for the winter term.
According to the official course description, the seminar will address questions such as the following: “[I]s giving people cash no strings attached desirable and just? Would basic income promote a more gender equal society through the remuneration of care-work, or would it risk further entrenching the position of women as caregivers? Would alternative policies be more successful (such as job guarantees, stakeholder grants, or a negative income tax)? How can we test out basic income? What makes for a reliable and ethical basic income pilot?”
The seminar will analyze and critique basic income from multiple perspectives in political theory, including feminism, liberalism, republicanism, communism, and libertarianism. Initial readings include classic works by Philippe van Parijs and responses from his critics. Subsequent sessions will address contemporary philosophical work on basic income, as well as potential alternatives, such as job guarantees. Additional topics include empirical work on the health (and other) effects of basic income, the role of automation in motivating basic income, and basic income in relation to gender and racial justice, among others.
Explaining why she was inspired to develop the course, Bidadanure says, “It has been my dream for a while to teach a class on the Philosophy of Basic Income. First, because I am committed to the idea that everyone has a right to an income and because I think that UBI deserves serious treatment; second, because I think it is a great lens through which one can teach Political Philosophy. There is great writing for and against basic income from within pretty much each and every school of political thought. And so my idea was to introduce students of a variety of disciplines to a broad range of writers in political philosophy by focusing on UBI. Given the recent interest in Basic Income in the US, including by computer scientists, engineers and economists, I thought that the timing was right to launch the class!”
On February 8, a special panel on basic income experiments will be held in connection with the seminar.
The panel will feature guests Guy Standing (Professorial Research Associate at SOAS, University of London; BIEN co-founder), Elizabeth Rhodes (Research Director of Y Combinator’s basic income experiment), and Joe Huston (Regional Director at GiveDirectly). Standing, Rhodes, and Huston will speak about basic income research in (respectively) India, Oakland, and Kenya. The event will be presented as a roundtable discussion and open to the public. More information on this event is available here.
Reactions from Students
Although housed in the Department of Philosophy, the seminar spans topics of interest to students in many disciplines. The seminar group is constituted by 10 enrolled participants as well as a further 10 auditors, comprising students of philosophy, political science, psychology, economics, computer science, engineering, and business.
Asked about his interest in the seminar, one participant, a PhD student in Economics, remarks, “Basic income is such a hot topic, but I’ve not come across much rigorous academic thinking on the topic, in any discipline. I now discover there is a whole bunch in philosophy, which I was unaware of and which is really exciting!”
Commenting on his reactions after the first session, he adds, “It’s awesome that the class is about a third economists, a third philosophers, and a third computer scientists – it seems like the venue for a truly exciting exchange of views; and the arguments for and against basic income are so much richer and more diverse than this economist expected!”
Another student in the seminar, Sage, is currently working towards a masters in Symbolic Systems while also finishing an undergraduate degree in Computer Science. Her interest in the topic derives from her work in the technology sector:
“My masters thesis is a work of political philosophy analyzing the responsibility of tech companies to help those in poverty. I am interested in Universal Basic Income because it has grown increasingly popular in the US due to the fear that one day all of our jobs will be completed by robots. I am interested in exploring the other reasons for Universal Basic Income and determining if it is a viable choice in the U.S. given our trajectory in the tech sector. I was impressed by how diverse our class was by region, interest, and background. Having the opportunity to discuss topics in basic income with students so different from me is a fantastic opportunity to round out my research.”
Anusha, a graduate student in Computer Science says her love for data structures (especially the top view of binary tree) made her focus on natural language processing and computer vision. She became interested in the seminar due to her background in AI:
“I was really interested in this seminar because Universal Basic Income has been receiving a lot of attention lately, especially in the Computer Science and AI communities, due to the potential impacts of automation on the future of work. There have also been a lot of discussions around the joint responsibilities of Silicon Valley and policymakers to help those whose jobs are most at risk. I’m really excited about this seminar because it addresses Universal Basic Income from several different perspectives, and I’m eager to learn about the various arguments for and against UBI from those standpoints.”
Nishith, an undergraduate senior in Computer Science who works on computer vision and reinforcement learning, became interested in UBI following a discussion of the economic impact of self-driving trucks and President-Elect Donald Trump’s emphasis on bringing manufacturing jobs back to America. He is excited by Bidadanure’s seminar, adding, “I was surprised to learn that discussions about UBI need not revolve around automation (as they do in Europe) and had a great time talking about the potential benefits and pitfalls of this proposed policy [at the first class meeting].”
Dr. Bidadanure, who holds a PhD in Political Philosophy from the University of York, has research interests at the intersection of philosophy and public policy.
She has written on the theory and practice of equality, including, in particular, age-group justice and what it means to treat young people as equals. She has written on the specific arguments to give a basic income to young adults as well as on hybrids of basic income and basic capital.
Bidadanure plans to teach an undergraduate course on basic income at Stanford in the next academic year. She is also working to launch a basic income research initiative at Stanford as part of the Center for Ethics in Society in 2017.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan.
Information and photo provided by Juliana Bidadanure.
by Kate McFarland | Oct 31, 2016 | News
The American magazine The Atlantic hosted its first Future of Work Summit on October 26 in Chicago, Illinois.
This day-long conference included sessions on automation and technological unemployment (e.g. “Are Robots Taking Our Jobs?” with McKinsey Institute Partner Michael Chui); the rise of the sharing and gig economies (e.g. “The Sharing Economy” with Freelancers Union’s Sara Horowitz, Lyft’s Joseph Okpaku, and New York University Professor Arun Sundararajan); and the nature and importance of work (e.g. “Do We Need Work to Be Happy?” with Emeritus Professor of Psychology Barry Schwartz)–among others.
While many of the topics explored at the Future of Work Summit are relevant to the current movement for basic income, it is particularly noteworthy that one session was specifically focused on the topic: Atlantic editor Steve Clemons interviewed prominent BI advocate Scott Santens about his personal experience crowdfunding his own basic income, as well as the potential for a basic income in the United States.
A video of the entire Future of Work Summit is also available:
Read more about the conference here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/live/events/future-of-work-summit/2016/
N.B. Around 9:03, Clemons asks Santens if he has pressure-tested the idea of basic income against someone “dark and cynical and skeptical of good things”. The author would like to submit herself as someone who considers herself such a person but who nonetheless supports basic income as a utopian ideal, and who was influenced by Santens’ work. She is reported to have reacted to the question by pounding the desk and declaring, “Cynicism and utopianism are not inconsistent!”
by Kate McFarland | Aug 11, 2016 | News
Former SEIU leader Andy Stern and his book Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream have received a considerable amount of publicity since the book’s publication in June. Here are some highlights.
Over the past two months, Andy Stern has been interviewed in many notable podcasts, journals, and other media outlets. In June, for example, Bourree Lam interviewed Stern in The Atlantic about his background with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) among other topics, and Stern summarized his argument for UBI in video interviews for the American television channel CNBC and the international news agency Bloomberg.
The Guardian also published a piece on self-driving trucks that drew upon Stern’s work, describing future automation in the transportation industry as an example of the impending “tsunami” of job disruption that Stern discusses at length.
Then, in July, Stern appeared as a guest on the Diane Rehm show, a long-running talk radio show sponsored by the National Public Radio, followed by Vox’s popular The Weeds podcast. (The latter included an invigorating discussion with journalists Matthew Yglesias and Ezra Klein, both of whom have recently written about UBI for Vox, along with Sarah Kliff.) Shortly thereafter, Stern participated in a UBI-themed episode of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s podcast The Money, along with journalist Megan McArdle (US) and public policy researcher Henning Meyer (UK).
During the Democratic National Convention, Stern joined Salon’s Josh Zepps for a Facebook Live chat about the new direction American politics.
Most recently, Stern appeared on the August 8 episode of NPR’s Think podcast with Krys Boyd.
Reviews of Raising the Floor also appeared in a variety of publications, including TIME, Psychology Today, AlterNet, and Co.Exist.
One reviewer, psychologist Michael Bader, had once worked as part of group hired by Stern to help local unions “develop visions and long-term planning processes which were unfamiliar in many local union cultures” — an experience that made clear to Bader that “Stern broke the mold of a traditional union leader and was willing to experiment, take risks, and anticipate future trends.” In reviewing Raising the Floor, Bader remains impressed by Stern’s vision and ambition; however, he shows some hesitance to accept the forecast of a “tsunami” of job disruption:
If you buy Stern’s analysis of the magnitude of the catastrophe coming our way in the form of skyrocketing unemployment and underemployment driven by automation, artificial intelligence, robotics, and other new technologies, then you have to question whether traditional progressive solutions—stronger unions, a redistributive tax and regulatory system, a more activist government, and a broader and more effective social safety net—are sufficient to meet the challenge. If the answer is no, then radical ideas like the UBI start to break through our cynicism. In that case, we owe Andy Stern a debt of gratitude.
On the other hand, TIME editor Rana Foroohar is willing to accept that massive job disruption will take place, but she questions whether Stern has been too pessimistic regarding the future of organized labor:
The book fails to acknowledge another possibility, namely that the economic disruption it sketches, which will destroy both blue and white-collar jobs, could actually create a bigger, broader labor movement in the long run, perhaps the very long run. … Tech-related job disruption will affect all of us. That in itself may provide fresh impetus, and a big new market, for the next generation of labor organizers.
Meanwhile, Ben Schiller, a reporter at Co.Exist and known supporter of UBI, agrees with the main ideas expressed in the book, and commends Stern for getting into the “nitty-gritty” of implementation: “In the last chapter, he offers a blueprint for introducing UBI, covering the funding side, the politics side, and the out-in-the-streets mobilization side.”
As would be expected, reviewers, interviewers, and callers to radio shows have all varied in their willingness to accept both Stern’s forecast of cataclysmic economic disruption and his proposed solution of a universal basic income. In any case, the far-reaching publicity has helped to bring the idea of UBI, and some of the major arguments in its favor, to many people throughout America and the world.
REFERENCES
TEXT
Olivia Solon, “Self-driving trucks: what’s the future for America’s 3.5 million trucks?”, The Guardian; June 17, 2016.
Bourree Lam, “The Case for Unions to Support a Universal Basic Income“, The Atlantic; June 27, 2016.
Michael Bader, “Is Universal Basic Income a Powerful Strategy Against Job-Killing Automation? Andy Stern Thinks So“, AlterNet (also published in Psychology Today); July 1, 2016.
Rana Foroohar, “We’re About to Live in a World of Economic Hunger Games“, TIME; July 19, 2016.
Ben Schiller, “You Want A Basic Income? Here’s How We Might Actually Do It“, Co.Exist; July 25, 2016.
AUDIO
“Basic Income and Police Shootings”, Panoply Media (originally recorded for The Weeds by Vox); Jul 15, 2016.
“Andy Stern: ‘Raising The Floor’”, The Diane Rehm Show; July 11, 2016.
“A universal basic wage?“, ABC; July 21, 2016.
Samantha Guzman, “The Case for Universal Basic Income”, KERA News; August 8, 2016.
VIDEO
“The Argument for Universal Basic Income in the U.S.“, Bloomberg; June 17, 2016.
Andy Stern, “Why we should give every adult $1,000/month for free“, CNBC Power Lunch; June 22, 2016.
Reinvent, “A Proposal for Universal Basic Income from the Former President of SEIU”, YouTube; July 20, 2016.
Michael Garofalo, “A little isn’t enough: Tackling big problems with big solutions at the DNC”, Salon; July 26, 2016.
by Kate McFarland | Aug 7, 2016 | News, Testimonies
Jennifer Lawson studied philosophy and psychology at Stetson University and the University of North Florida. During graduate school, she suffered several psychotic breaks, and now lives on disability. Jennifer has been an advocate and activist for over twenty years.
How did you hear about Basic Income?
I studied political philosophy in graduate school. This means being fluent in all stripes of political argument. One day, while perusing the blogs, which I did quite often as a blogger for my university, I found some Libertarian arguments for Basic Income. This was a flavor of Libertarian who understands that poverty should be alleviated, but wants small government, too. I found the arguments compelling.
Why do you support a Basic Income?
I support a Basic Income because I am now disabled, and receive disability. There was a time, when I was applying for disability, where I had no income whatsoever. People who apply for disability often have a long waiting period during which time they have no money. This was a struggle for me because I still had bills and needs. I figured that if a Basic Income existed, there wouldn’t have been a time where I had no income coming in.
Photo used by permission of Jennifer Lawson.
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.
by Kate McFarland | Jul 17, 2016 | News
Jane Costello, Professor of Medical Psychology at Duke University, is a specialist in mental health and child development — and one of the first researchers to study the effects of the Cherokee casino dividend on the mental health of tribe members. In 1996, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina opened a casino and elected to distribute a portion of its revenues equally among all tribe members, paid as a cash subsidy. The payouts began at around only $500 per person per year, but they have risen to as much as $9,000 in 2006.
Costello wrote about the Cherokee’s cash transfer program in an article published in Salon in June, in which she describes her experience in conducting the the study, reviews her main findings (hint: the cash transfers had many positive effects on mental health, especially for children who grew up after the dividend was instituted), and connects her work to the current global movement for basic income:
The notion of universal basic income appears to be gaining steam internationally. So when the issue comes up again – as it will – I hope people will consider the evidence. Our experiment is one such piece of evidence. It has been running in the United States for 20 years, and it strongly suggests that on the whole, universal basic income works.
Jane Costello, “Many countries are weighing cash payments to citizens. Could it work in the U.S.?” Salon, Jun 21, 2016.
Photo of Cherokee, NC (2002) CC Jan Kronsell
