by Stanislas Jourdan | Jan 16, 2017 | News
The European Parliament will vote on a report calling on the European Commission and all EU member states to “seriously consider” basic income in order to address the economic consequences of automation and artificial intelligence.
On Thursday 12 January, European Parliament’s committee on Legal affairs (JURI) adopted a report on “Civil law rules on robotics” which considers the legal and economic consequences of the rise of robots and artificial intelligence devices.
According to the report, since “robots, bots, androids and other manifestations of artificial intelligence (“AI”) seem poised to unleash a new industrial revolution, which is likely to leave no stratum of society untouched, it is vitally important for the legislature to consider all its implications. There are many tools claiming to be the best tool for machine learning and if these keep developing can artificial intelligence become a real threat to human job roles?
It reads further: “the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, so raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems if the current basis of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequality in the distribution of wealth and influence”
To cope with those consequences, the report makes a strong call for basic income. “A general basic income should be seriously considered, and (the European Parliament) invites all Member States to do so.”
The resolution is based on a report prepared by the Working Group on Legal Questions Related to the Development of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, established in January 2015.
This legislative initiative is however not legally binding. If adopted in February by the European Parliament’s full house, the EU Commission would be invited to present a legislative proposal but it can also refuse to do so.
The Commission is not entirely unaware about basic income. Last year, Social Affairs Commissioner Marianne Thyssen said she would follow with great interest the outcomes of the basic income experiments currently underway in Finland.
The rapporteur of the report, Socialist MEP Mady Delvaux, said she was satisfied that basic income was included by the JURI Committee at this stage.
However she expressed doubt that the idea would survive the plenary vote. In a statement published on the website of the Socialist and Democrats group at the European Parliament, the MEP explained:
“As social democrats, it is urgent that we look at new models to manage society in a world where robots do more and more of the work. One idea adopted in this report is to look at a universal basic income – where everyone would receive a wage from the government whether they are in work or not.”
Mady Delvaux MEP
Barb Jacobson, Chair of Unconditional Basic Income Europe said, “We are very pleased Mme Delvaux mentioned basic income in this report, and we hope that Parliament and the Commission will give it serious consideration along with rules about the use of robots. The benefits of automation should be enjoyed by all members of society, not just those companies which directly benefit from it.”
UBI-Europe urges European basic income supporters to get in touch with their MEPs to make sure this aspect of the report reaches the Commission.”
“Whether automation ends up destroying a larger proportion of jobs or not, however, incomes are already increasingly insecure, and in most parts of Europe wages have stagnated or fallen. While many member states are starting to take basic income seriously, the need is urgent. The EU could help lead the way with its own Eurodividend,” added Nicole Teke, Secretary of UBI-Europe.
The European Parliament is expected to vote on the final report on the week of February 13.
Pictures CC European Parliament
by BIEN | Oct 23, 2016 | News
After months of hearings and discussions with experts, the French Senate released a report on Basic Income recommending pilot projects.
Article by Didier Di Camillo adapted from MFRB’s statement on the report.
The parliamentary commission on basic income was initiated in May under the proposal of Socialist MP Daniel Percheron. Under the ‘mission of information’ procedure of the French senate, MPs can form an ad-hoc committee to investigate specific topics and produce non-binding recommendations.
The 433-page report formally commits to the testing of a basic income in France, through three-year pilots involving up to 30,000 citizens. The report also concludes that if the pilots showed successful results, the potential implementation of a nationwide basic income should meet the following criteria:
- Be paid only to adult residents registered by fiscal authorities;
- Be higher than the current minimum income scheme in France;
- Be unconditional, although the money could be targeted to specific uses (in the form of vouchers);
- Be financed by an important fiscal reform and partial replacement existing social benefits in a manner that favors the recipients.
Those conclusions broadly follow the main recommendations from the basic income movement in France.
Immediately following the public release of the report, the MFRB has immediately called on the government to provide the necessary funding as soon as possible in order to speed-up basic income trials in France. Those pilots would demonstrate its societal need and help pave the way for implementation.
“The result of many hours of discussions”
As Percheron MP pointed out, “This report, the result of many hours of discussions with economists, philosophers, and representatives from labor unions, civil society groups and public institutions, provides a first-ever glimpse of where they stand on this old but nonetheless revolutionary issue.”
Hearing with Marc de Basquiat, prominent basic income advocate and founding member of MFRB.
The French Movement for a Basic Income (MFRB) praised the substantive work conducted by the Senate’s committee, which was composed of MPs from different political stripes–another sign that the interest in basic income transcends the left-right divide.
The Senate’s report is the first parliamentary report on universal income produced in France. The diversity of visions expressed by its contributors points to a convergence. The MFRB welcomes this: “as the implementation of a basic income must not come at the expense of essential social programs. As a citizen’s movement, we examine the various proposals that emerge based on our charter. The whole concept must promote greater social justice and a real reduction in poverty and inequality.”
With basic income becoming a key issue in the political arena, the MFRB also calls on all candidates in the upcoming presidential and legislative elections of 2017 to take a stance on a true basic income – one which upholds the inalienable right to a universal, unconditional and individual income. In this context, the MFRB is willing to work with all political actors, associations and media to broaden the debate on this important issue for France today.
by Nick Yeretsian | Oct 22, 2016 | News
Benoît Hamon, member of the French National Assembly for Yvelines, is making unconditional basic income a key component of his Socialist Party (PS) primary campaign.
Though all of the Green candidates have showed support for basic income, Hamon is the only PS candidate to express vigorous support for the idea.
In an article in Les Echos, Hamon lays out some of his main reasons for advocating for a UBI:
“We can not accept that thousands of French are forced to sacrifice their physical and mental health for grueling and precarious jobs. A transition is necessary and the ambition is great. Tomorrow, our citizens could be released from sustained uncertainty and, instead, choose their mobility. Tomorrow, all working forms of economic and social utility are recognized and valued, beyond the single employee or paid work. The value of an individual and his right to dignity would not be indexed to their contribution to GDP.”
Relatedly, Hamon campaigns for the recognition of “burnout” as an occupational disease. “The Law on social dialogue and employment” first recognized burnout in this way last year, and Hamon would like to make further advancements.
“[I]n 2016, 20% of French say they are on the edge of burnout, and 70% of paid employees do not feel noticed.”
In his arguments for a UBI, Hamon also stresses the risk of unemployment due to increased mechanization of work. As he points out on his website,
“In Europe, between 2000 and 2010, 7.6 million jobs have disappeared under the direct impact of new technologies.”
“While 10% of the workforce is unemployed, up to 3 million jobs could disappear in France with digitization by 2025.”
Moreover, today in France, 24% of individuals between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed. “The youth… should no longer be synonymous with insecurity,” writes Hamon.
Hamon proposes an unconditional basic income distributed to every adult citizen on an individual basis. He says, “its amount and funding would be adjusted regularly to ensure each and every citizen has sufficient income to live and participate in public life.”
Hamon’s Breakdown
Here are the main features of the UBI program that Hamon proposes.
Every adult citizen would receive €750 per month. This would cost €300 billion per year. The UBI would exist alongside €18 billion in housing subsidies, €23 billion in social benefits, and €53 billion in family benefits–his rationale being that “the Basic Income should strengthen, not reduce the social protection of the French.”
Hamon plans to finance the basic income in part through reforms to the tax system, expecting to bring in €24 billion in revenue by individualizing income tax, €84 billion by closing tax loopholes, and €80 billion by fighting against tax evasion. He also recommends taxing wealth and digital technology, in addition to other appropriate taxation (he provides the example of French tax authorities who are currently demanding €1.6 billion in back taxes from Google).
Le revenu universel, la voie pour le progrès socialLe #RevenuUniversel pose la question fondamentale de la société que nous voulons pour demain. Pour aborder l’avenir avec confiance, notre pays a besoin d’un projet mobilisateur en ce début de XXIe siècle. Ayons l’audace de créer le revenu universel, comme nous avons eu l’audace de créer la sécurité sociale, pour protéger chaque citoyen face aux aléas de la vie.
Posted by Benoît Hamon on Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Hamon wants to change conceptions of wealth, the value of individuals, and the value of work from economic (GDP) to social, cultural, and educational. He explains his vision in the above video.
September polls show Hamon with support from 14% and 16% of those who intend to vote in the election. The PS presidential primary will take place on January 22, 2017.
On October 18th, Hamon invited people to a well-attended Q&A over coffee and drinks. Hamon’s campaign is part of a growing surge of interest in UBI in France. France’s prime minister, for instance, recently reopened the gates for discussion on basic income.
Cover Photo: by Margot L’hermite, published on Facebook on Oct 25, 2013.
Graphic: by BenoitHamon2017, campaign flyer.
Video: by Benoit Hamon, published on Facebook on Oct 4, 2016.
by Stanislas Jourdan | Sep 25, 2016 | News
Twice in a week, the French socialist Prime Minister raised the topic of basic income, pledging to open up the discussion on how to modernize the country’s welfare system.
Updated on 26/10 after Nicolas Sarkozy’s statement on basic income.
For a second time this week and third time this year Manuel Valls, the French Prime minister, mentioned basic income as a possible way forward.
In a statement on his Facebook page, the minister said: “We need to open up new paths. Here is one: a universal income, a single benefit, open to all starting from 18, replacing a dozen existing benefits. The government will engage a dialogue with all stakeholders in order to build a flexible, simple and therefore more efficient solution for all individual situations. I think this debate should be opened. In order to go further! To reinforce our social model!”
“We know how much complexity increases inequality. Having access to a minimal income should not be an obstacle race,” Valls also said earlier this week at a ceremony in remembrance of Michel Rocard, a prominent figure of French Left and spiritual father of the RMI, the first minimum income scheme implemented in France in 1988.
Back in April, Valls made strong commitments to modernize and simplify the welfare system in France. This happened after the Government published a report outlining bold recommendations to simplify and modernize France’s welfare system. Although the report doesn’t endorse basic income, it provides an in-depth analysis of the idea, and offers ambitious policy proposals that could pave the ways towards UBI. In particular, it proposes to extend the eligibility criteria of the current minimum income scheme to people from 18 to 25 years old, to make benefit payments automatic, and to partly individualize the benefits.
At the time, Valls committed the government to look into the proposals and speed up the implementations of the proposed measures.
Ambiguous statements
However, the Prime Minister has always been ambiguous in defining “basic income”. Speaking of a “universal income” in an earlier confused statement this year, he made it clear that he believed that such a system should be means-tested. According to him, universal income should not be “paid to everyone including those who have sufficient income – it would be too costly and meaningless – but a targeted grant to all of those who really need it.”
Race to the elections
With the French general elections in the horizon (May 2017) and the primaries campaign hitting the media everyday, French politicians are quickly joining the basic income camp, especially on the Left.
Already several candidates have publicly supported basic income in the context of their Party primaries. In the Greens, all candidates support the measure (Karima Delli, Yannick Jadot, Michèle Rivasi, Cécile Duflot). In the Socialist Party, Benoît Hamon recently announced his strong support for the idea. Emmanuel Macron, who recently left his post as Minister of the Economy to focus on his electoral campaign also said he is interested in the idea.
Among the conservatives, MP Frédéric Lefebvre has become a vocal UBI supporter and was intending to run as candidate for the Party’s primaries, but he did not collect enough sponsors. In the meantime, former President Nicolas Sarkozy who is trying to make is political come-back and run the election again said he is against UBI. However he is in favor of a single benefit scheme which would be a move towards UBI. ” I want those who live on the welfare state to be obliged to accept a job, a training or to do volunteering for the community” Sarkozy explained.
Other socialist candidates including Jean-Luc Bennahmias, Arnaud Montebourg and Marie-Noëlle Lienemann are also known to be sympathetic to the idea but have not made committing statements so far.
Behind the growing fear of the rise of the Far-right’s Front National, chances have never been so high for France to seriously look into the the possibility to adopt a basic income, or at least to implement paving stones towards it.
Picture: CC Parti Socialiste
by Andre Coelho | Sep 2, 2016 | Opinion
Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has just published a press release, announcing an experiment based on a partial basic income (< 800 €/month), instead of a full basic income (> 1000 €/month). Although the latter had also been considered for the experiment, it appears that the government has decided that the experiment should be conducted as a partial basic income, specifically 560 €/month. Here are the reasons for which Kela decided to recommend against running the trial with a full basic income:
- It would imply higher taxes;
- It would result in lower earnings-related contributions to unemployment and pension funds;
- Low income earners might quit contributing to unemployment funds and joining trade unions.
Let’s address each of these points:
- Kela links the higher tax rates with the “incentives for work”. The argument is that the former will lead to a reduction in the latter. Why? Ok, so a person on a job will pay more taxes. Assuming these taxes are maintained under reasonable levels, why is Kela assuming these people will stop working? Kela assumes a purely economic standpoint here – meaning that, according to Kela’s logic, people’s decisions, and particularly those related to work, result exclusively from monetary arithmetic. This logic, ironically, is completely non-economical in nature. Kela is assuming that people’s interests, preferences, and particular drives to do things for reasons other than money are not important, and hence can be discarded. Furthermore, Kela assumes that the possible effects of these preferences and drives on the experiment are not even worth trying to capture or understand. Stripping the argument from its technicalities and white-collar language, it can be reduced to the most common, basic, and prejudice-laden argument against basic income: that with a (full) basic income, people will stop working (“the laziness argument”). Nothing about the nature of the work itself is mentioned – such as whether it is socially useful or not, or whether it is contributing or not to people’s sense of belonging and happiness. The only thing that concerns Kela’s officials, analysts and institutional partners is whether a person stays on the job (whatever that job may be): if he/she does (or if an unemployed person becomes formally employed), that’s great; if not, that’s bad. Let’s not forget this is an experiment. If doubts exist, it’s precisely by undertaking an experiment that we might understand more about the subject being tested – in this case, ourselves. If the experiment is only intended to confirm what we already know, then it’s not an experiment: it’s a purposeless act taken only to gain collective confidence, much closer to public relations than science.
- Kela’s second argument goes like this: if people receive a full basic income, then why would they bother saving for unemployment and pension funds? Of course, these savings would be nonsensical at amounts lower than the basic income. But if someone has an average income above the basic income threshold, then a certain amount of unemployment and/or pension saving could be a wise investment, in order to maintain the same level of earnings in case of unemployment and retirement. For sure, this implies that, overall, there would be reduced contributions to unemployment and pension funds. But would that be a bad thing? After all, with the existence of a full basic income, people’s need for unemployment or retirement security would be reduced, so these funds wouldn’t need to be as large as they are today. Anyway, unemployment and pension funds are composed of money belonging to those who have directly contributed to them (or they are supposed to be). So they should only be as large as those people’s need for them. So what if a person stops paying their contribution to unemployment and/or pension funds because now he/she has a basic income? Nothing really happens, other than that the person will have a smaller amount of money to draw from when he/she becomes unemployed or retired. However, that person would never sink below the basic income level, and so a basic safety would always be in place.
- The first part of Kela’s third argument has already been dealt with in our second point. So, the remaining question is just about unionization. Why does Kela assume that joining a union is so important—so important, in fact, that a decrease in union membership could justifying not even testing a full basic income? Trade unions represent a certain kind of vision about work which is declining. In the USA, in the last fifty years, trade union membership has declined from around 33% (of all employees) to about 10% nowadays (Planet Money, 2015). Also in the UK, the number of registered union members has sharply declined in the last 35 years, from 13 million in 1979 down to 6.4 million as of 2014. A moderate to strong reduction in trade union membership has occurred in most other European countries as well, including Finland (Henrique de Sousa, 2015). At the same time, self-employment has been on the rise in several countries (e.g.: Austria, Belgium, Ireland, UK, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Finland)– although, in the European Union overall, it has stabilized around 16.7% since 2008 (World Bank). The vision of work that the trade unions represent includes fixed working periods, clear employer/employee relations, fixed negotiated incomes (collective bargaining), and holiday arrangements. All of these are getting less relevant as the time goes by. This comes with the acute rising of work flexibility, uncertainty over work periods and earnings, and the increase of precarious working conditions (Guy Standing, 2011). Precarity, unions’ number one enemy, does not necessarily represent a problem if a full basic income is in place. Unions were formed to give workers collective bargaining powers over wages and working conditions; in their absence, the threat of destitution was constantly used by employers to retrain and control workers. The employers could push less favourable deals onto workers, who were forced to choose between a bad deal and poverty. But this relationship, based on employees’ fear and employers’ abuse of power, need not exist – and, under a full basic income, would not exist. This makes sense because individual workers would have the personal bargaining power that a full basic income brings. Being part of a trade union would thus cease to be a necessity, and turn into a mere preference. So, reduced unionization is no grounds for rejecting implementing a full basic income, let alone merely experimenting with one.
Kela is rejecting a full basic income out of fear. This is an experiment. Of course there are issues, but that is exactly why the experiment is needed in the first place: to look at the extent of the consequences, within a controlled setup, before any full implementation. And experiment is needed to study the effects, expected or not. And to observe changes in people’s behaviours, when they are able to enjoy (during the experiment’s limited timeframe) a larger degree of freedom that they have never experienced before. I, for one, think that it’s entirely worth it. For the future of Finland – and of humanity.
More information at:
In Finnish:
Olli Kangas & Ville-VeikkoPulkka (eds.), “Preliminary report on a universal basic income”, Prime Minister’s Office, March 30th 2016
In English:
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, “Ministry of Social Affairs and Health requests opinions on a basic income experiment“, Sosiaali-Ja Terveysministeriö; August 25th 2016
Planet Money, “50 years of shrinking union membership, in one map”, February 23rd 2015
Department for Business Innovation & Skills, “Trade Union Membership 2014 – statistical bulletin”, June 2015
OECD Data, Self-employment rate (% of employment, 1990 – 2015)
World Bank, Self-employed, total (% of total employed)
Guy Standing, “The Precariat: the new dangerous class”, Bloomsburry Open Access / Creative Commons, 2011
In Portuguese:
Henrique de Sousa, “Sindicalização: a vida por detrás das estatísticas [Unionization: thelifebehindthestatistics]”, WorkingPaper, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, September 2011
Article reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı, Kate McFarland and Tyler Prochazka.
