The California Research Bureau hosted a panel on March 23, 2017 regarding current issues facing the state of California, and one of the topics that arose was Universal Basic Income.
The panel, hosted by Anne Neville and featuring three experts — Nicholas Davis; Rachel Hatch; Irena Asmundson — focused on various topics of inequality facing Americans in the state of California. From housing, to health care, to inequality itself, many of the themes focused on how to reshape and adjust society for the wellbeing of its citizens. At one point during the panel, the topic of Universal Basic Income arose, and all three experts took time to explain their views on it during a roundtable discussion.
Nicholas Davis, who was the most connected to the concept of a basic income, spoke in favor of it. Davis argues there are three reasons why a discussion on UBI is essential: the first is about creating security for people in current social climates of instability and insecurity; the second reason focuses on empowering personal freedom, to escape the issues of governmental paternalism; and the final point addresses social justice, which focuses on inclusiveness so that the gains of technology are shared with all instead of a few.
Irena Asmundson then took the response to Davis’ remarks, talking about the economic cost to introducing a UBI. The representatives main point regarding affordability for a UBI in California in terms of taxation would be that the state would need to obtain four times the amount of money it currently does from citizens. However, the largest form of aversion Asmundson expressed was on America’s failings to introduce affordable housing and health care to its citizens, and that these issues need to be solved before a UBI can be considered feasible. In her view, she believed the failure at addressing baseline needs like housing and health care to be far more crucial than assuring a minimum floor, which in comparison UBI may seem more nuanced and not direct at addressing those issues.
Finally, Rachel Hatch expanded upon Asmundson’s position on inequality, and worried that a UBI may not deal with the issue of wealth inequality. Hatch believes a basic income may assure people a minimum financial base, but that it will do very little to address systemic inequality, where just eight men own as much wealth as the bottom half of the human species.
Zoltan Istvan is running for governor of California in 2018 and has made headlines for his proposal to develop California lands and use the revenue to form a Universal Basic Income for all California households.
Istvan, who is running as a Libertarian and also ran for president in 2016, recently spoke to the UBI Podcast to discuss his proposal and why he believes it is the surest path to a basic income.
By monetizing federal lands in California, Istvan said he wants to “kill two birds with one stone” by eliminating poverty and pushing economic development in the state. Based on his research, Istvan said each California household could receive over $50,000 annually if the 45 million acres of unused land were developed.
“If we developed land and resources in California, we would be able to afford a basic income,” he said. “I’ve promised to do all of this without raising taxes.”
This plan, he said, would “lift 19 million Californians out of poverty.”
“It doesn’t matter what party you are running for, that is totally unacceptable,” Istvan said.
“With this large of a basic income, the welfare system would naturally go away because they would not have to rely on the state,” Istvan said. He expressed that this form of basic income will also “avoid the traditional opposition from business interests because it would open new development opportunity.”
“Implementing the basic income this way would attract support from both sides,” Istvan said, “because it would develop the economy and help the poor.”
Some of the primary criticisms of this plan are likely to come from environmentalists. But Istvan, who once worked for Wild Aid and National Geographic, said that environmentalists should not be worried, and eliminating poverty should be a high priority for the left.
“We can make all the arguments we want for why preserving the environment is good, but for me feeding people, giving them the right education, these are things that matter more,” Istvan said.
To ensure that the land was preserved, Istvan said the land would be “leased, not sold”, and the land will have to be returned to the state in its previous condition or better. The plan will not involve national parks.
“The environment can be preserved through radical green technologies that are just on our front door,” he said.
If Istvan is elected, he said he would immediately begin pushing this proposal. Once the revenue starts coming in from the development, Istvan said he could begin handing out a partial basic income.
“I want to transform poverty. It is just insane to me as somebody who loves technology and science that in the Twenty First Century we have a system where 40 percent of Californians are at the poverty line,” Istvan said. “This is something that does not just sound wrong to me, it sounds outright insane.”
California State Senators have introduced a bill that would establish a carbon “cap-and-trade” system and distribute a large portion of the revenues as a dividend to all state residents, that is, as a type of basic income.
California State Senator Bob Wieckowski and Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León (both members of the Democratic Party) have introduced the proposed legislation SB 775, which would establish a floor and ceiling on the price of carbon in the state. The policy would go into effect in 2020, with the price floor and ceiling increasing incrementally each year.
Among US states, California has been ambitious in its efforts to reduce carbon emissions, passing a law in 2006 that established a goal of reducing emissions to 1990-levels by 2020. This has been easier to keep track of in more recent times as many businesses are now required to report their carbon emissions, and many do so using carbon emissions software. So far, however, the state has primarily relied on regulation of emissions levels as a way to meet its targets. Legislators like Wieckowski and de León believe that pricing regulations will be more effective at reaching longer-term goals in limiting carbon emissions.
One specific feature of SB 775, however, is relevant to those with an interest in basic income: the establishment of the California Climate Dividend Program, which would distribute a portion of the program’s revenue in the form of quarterly cash payments, distributed in equal amount to all residents of California on an individual basis. The dividend is, then, a form of basic income, although the amount of the dividend is not yet known and presumably would remain far below a livable income.
If SB 775 becomes law, the California Climate Dividend Program is likely receive the majority of the new state revenue (around 90 percent according to MIT Technology Review, and between 50 to 90 percent according to Vox). Other revenue would be directed towards public infrastructure, disadvantaged communities, and research and development in clean energy. It is possible now to get cheaper energy suppliers for renewable energy solutions from companies like Pulse Power Texas. States are starting to fund these kinds of sustainable energy projects but if people are able to afford it, then they should try to get things like wind energy or solar panels onto their house.
The legislation would also establish a Climate Dividend Access Board, which would work with state tax officials to develop a mechanism for delivering the quarterly dividends to residents, and to “maximize the ease with which residents of the state may enroll in the program.”
Environmental advocates often endorse per capita dividends in conjunction with taxes or fees on carbon as a way to offset the cost to consumers of higher energy prices. In the words of SB 775, the dividend is introduced “for the public purpose of mitigating the costs of transitioning to a low-carbon economy.” Carbon dividends have gained cross-party support in the United States, with a group of prominent Republicans issuing a proposal for a carbon tax and dividend earlier in the year. Correspondingly, many American basic income supporters see a carbon dividend as a practically and politically feasible way to introduce a small basic income in the country.
To become law, SB 775 needs to pass both houses of California’s legislature with a two-thirds majority.
Y Combinator has filmed a video in which researchers Elizabeth Rhodes and Matt Krisiloff discuss the firm’s basic income pilot.
Y Combinator is a firm based in Silicon Valley that invests and coaches promising young startups, connecting them to potential investors. They have currently launched the first phase of their pilot in Oakland, California. (See the recent Stanford Panel for details)
Elizabeth Rhodes, a PhD in Social Work and Political Science, is the Research Director for the Basic Income Pilot at Y Combinator’s Research arm, YC Research. Matt Krisiloff joined YC Research from Y Combinator where he had worked on Y Combinator Fellowship.
Rhodes begins the discussion by defining Basic Income as unconditional cash payments to individuals to ensure a minimum level of economic security.
Krisiloff explains the Basic Income Pilot was influenced by Y Combinator´s Open A.I. project. As the team began to see the possibilities in General Artificial Intelligence, they saw the implications on the traditional work environment and a need for a more robust safety net in the U.S. to allow people to react to changes.
Rhodes gives a brief overview of Basic Income pilots to date, noting that no modern studies have been conducted in the U.S. since the 70´s. Rhodes explains that the current Y Combinator pilot is to test logistics, survey methods, recruitment, while simultaneously devising the research plan for a larger study. YC Research has pulled together a working group of 24 academics and policy people, as well as following guidelines laid out by the Institutional Review Board for research involving human subjects to ensure all ethical requirements are met.
The larger pilot will give unconditional cash transfers to a test group of individuals. Rhodes notes that past studies have focused on workforce participation, this study hopes to gain more holistic learning about the effects a basic income has on the individual’s- health, mental health, well-being, time use (family time, volunteering) and economic health.
Watch the full videoto hear thoughts around possible outcomes in terms of future policy changes, welfare, unconditional cash transfers and possible effects on the economy.
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!”
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.
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. 