by Kate McFarland | Oct 19, 2016 | News
Economist Michael Ash (Professor at University of Massachusetts, Amherst) spoke about public debt and basic income on the September 22 episode of The Benjamin Dixon Show, a progressive news talk show.
In the program, Professor Ash talks about both the short- and long-term benefits of basic income. In the short term, he maintains, a basic income would stimulate spending and boost economic growth. Thinking longer term, he believes that a basic income is further necessary to increase the bargaining power of workers and free people from the “tyranny of bad work”. To these ends, he suggests combining a universal basic income with shorter work weeks and living wages.
In subsequent comments to Basic Income News, Ash remarks on an additional argument in favor of basic income:
In the interview, I did not mention an important aspect of Basic Income as a form of compensation for unpaid labor. There is excellent work in feminist economics (see for example the research of Nancy Folbre or Diane Elson) on the many ways that our capitalist economic system free rides on unpaid domestic or family labor, without which the wheels simply wouldn’t turn. The next generation of workers, i.e., the reproduction of the working class, is essentially a “donation” from this unpaid family or domestic labor to the economic system. An additional case for Basic Income is that this labor should be recognized and compensated, if not with a direct wage (which is also a reasonable case) then at least with a Basic Income. The Basic Income would be both fair — rewarding those who do the work — and efficient — permitting the next generation to be raised in a healthier environment more supportive of their full development as human beings.
Watch the full interview below:
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
by BIEN | Oct 18, 2016 | News, Testimonies
André Coelho (credit to: Ann-Kathrin Anthon)
What made you become an activist for basic income, and devote so much time to it?
A revolution is taking place here and now, and each person has a choice: to be an active part in that revolution (to work for it to succeed), to be a passive part in it (to let it happen, if it must), or to fight against it. For me, the latter is just plain nonsensical. To be passive does not quite go along with my character, so I guess I could only go with the first one.
I identify with this revolutionary course – the implementation of basic income – because it’s about recognizing the humanity in us all, of our birth right to a decent living, and enough freedom to actually pursue happiness in this life.
What are other terms or phrases for ideas associated with, but not the same as, Basic Income (BI)? What characterizes them?
In most welfare states there are social benefits in place, paid in cash or in the form of tax credits. However, all of them are conditional, usually on income and/or willingness to take up a job. In Portugal, for instance, there is a minimum insertion income (RSI), which is only given to people who clearly show they have no other source of income.
There are also, for example, child benefits, disability benefits, income assistance…a whole set of income redistribution schemes, which always entail some conditionality. The only exceptions I know of, other than basic income pilot projects, are the Alaska and the Macau dividends. The latter two dividends, although unconditional, are not basic (not enough to cover basic expenses).
What makes the BI plan of action unique?
If I can put my finger on one main feature, I would say it is its unconditional nature. That’s what makes people roll their eyes around. What? Now we’re giving all this money to people, even if they don’t work? That’s just plain unfair.
Well, of course this is a short sighted opinion at best, and a plain lie at worst. It’s a limited view on our humanity. Usually people view themselves as active and willing to contribute with their work, but then are suspicious that their neighbours will do the same.
Of course that if everyone thinks this way we’ll arrive at an impossible proposition: that everyone is active and willing, while not being active nor willing, at the same time. But apart from our personal sensibilities, results from basic income pilot projects show that people contribute as much or more to society with their work, while receiving a basic income.
And even when slight decreases are observed, these are coupled with investments in education.
What are the most common success stories of BI or similar programs? Any failures?
The basic income pilot projects I usually cite are the Namibian, Indian and Canadian experiences. The first two were experiments in very poor, rural contexts, while the Canadian one was both urban and rural, involving the entire local population.
In all these cases, people receiving the basic income did not stop working (clearly the opposite in the Namibian and Indian cases), health conditions improved, as well as education indicators. There were also other benefits, such as reduced crime rates (in Namibia and India).
I think that, in the context of basic income experimentations, there cannot be ‘failures’. If done properly, these experiments aim to widen our knowledge, while temporarily helping the populations in question.
Of course that, as it was the case in the United States experiments, the results can be “spun” in different ways for political purposes. But that is always a risk attached to any experiment, especially those related with social behaviour.
What country seems the most progressive and forward thinking in implementation of BI?
According to news information around these days, Finland seems to be the part of the world most willing to formally take up the idea of trying basic income. Finnish officials and partners are developing an experiment, which is setup to start in 2017.
However, I would not say that translates necessarily into greater progressiveness than other regions of the world. The Finish experiment is already plagued by several shortcomings, even before it has started (although I still think it’s worth it).
The Canadian central and regional governments, and particularly the latter, are also seriously considering experimenting with the basic income. As well as regional Dutch officials, who are already developing their own basic income experiments (similar to Finland’s experiment).
Let’s also not forget the Swiss case, that recently held a national referendum on the subject. And also Spain, particularly in the Basque region. However, the interest in basic income is growing quickly around the world, so who knows who will implement it first?
Activist networks for basic income are also spreading. At this moment, BIEN already has 30 national and regional affiliates, and this is expected to rise in the next few years.
What is your work on BI?
At Basic Income News, I do writing, editing, training and coordinating. I also represent BIEN, on occasions, as an advocate for basic income in international meetings (up until now, related to the CO-ACTE project).
Locally, I also participate in some actions for our activist network in Portugal, by writing articles, speaking at venues and organizing events.
Any advice for would-be policy makers or activists about strategies for the implementation of BI?
I guess that if I could choose one piece of advice it would be not to consider basic income as a ‘miraculous’ cure for all social problems. Basic income is a helpful tool, even a crucial one, but cannot replace a “systems approach” thinking about society, a holistic view.
Also I would recommend to self-analyse and make clear why each of us is defending basic income, and how we think it should be implemented. Because the devil is in the details, and basic income can get “dirty” when analysed in its implementation depth.
I have been, more than once, challenged by the possibility of a “right-wing” basic income, which would come as a replacement of all other social benefits and welfare state public systems, including health and education.
This approach to basic income is common among the “right-wing” side of the political spectrum. It is dangerous and a real possibility which all activists should be aware of if they really care about the wellbeing of present and future society.
Thank you for your time, André.
by Kate McFarland | Oct 16, 2016 | News
Margaret Flowers, Green Party candidate for the United States Senate from Maryland, recently raised the issue of basic income during a debate of Senatorial candidates.
In the debate, she expressed her support of a “Green New Deal, which is a full scale mobilization to deal with the climate crisis that will create 20 million living-wage, healthy jobs”. She immediately added that “as we do that, we need to see that as investment that has a public return so that we can create a basic income for everyone and immediately eliminate poverty”.
Flowers is a long-time supporter of basic income. In 2013, she co-authored the article “Time for an Economy Of, By and For the People” (published by Global Research), which argued in support of a UBI.
Basic income advocate Matt Orfalea recently interviewed the Senatorial candidate about her views on basic income (see “Dr. Margaret Flowers for Senate (MD) supports Universal Basic Income“). In this interview, she explains that she supports the policy because it would “immediately eliminate poverty”, “eliminate the need for poverty programs”, and “immediately stimulate the economy from the bottom up”, in addition to providing support to workers displaced by technology. She also adds that the government should begin pursuing a basic income now–in response to question about whether or not she, like Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein, sees basic income only as a long-term visionary goal.
For more about Flowers’ campaign and platform, see her website “Flowers for Senate“.
by Kate McFarland | Oct 13, 2016 | News
United States President Barack Obama addressed universal basic income in a question in an October 12 interview with Wired Editor-in-Chief Scott Dadich and MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito.
The interview covers a plethora of issues surrounding the political, economic, and ethical implications of artificial intelligence. After discussing regulation, funding, and cyber security, among other topics, it is Obama who turns attention to the economic implications of AI and, in particular, the specter of technological unemployment:
One thing that we haven’t talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren’t spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about “Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?”
He then expresses optimism regarding the possibility for continued job creation in the face of technological progress (“historically we’ve absorbed new technologies, and people find that new jobs are created, they migrate, and our standards of living generally go up”); however, he proceeds to warn that the government must do what it can to ensure that the gain do not simply go to a “small group at the top”:
Low-wage, low-skill individuals become more and more redundant, and their jobs may not be replaced, but wages are suppressed. And if we are going to successfully manage this transition, we are going to have to have a societal conversation about how we manage this. How are we training and ensuring the economy is inclusive if, in fact, we are producing more than ever, but more and more of it is going to a small group at the top? How do we make sure that folks have a living income? And what does this mean in terms of us supporting things like the arts or culture or making sure our veterans are getting cared for? The social compact has to accommodate these new technologies, and our economic models have to accommodate them.
Following up on Obama’s remarks, Ito broaches the topic of UBI:
… I don’t know what you think about universal basic income, but as we start to see people getting displaced there’s also this idea that we can look at other models—like academia or the arts, where people have a purpose that isn’t tied directly to money. I think one of the problems is that there’s this general notion of, how can you be smart if you don’t have any money? In academia, I see a lot of smart people without money.
In reply, Obama acknowledges that the debate over UBI would continue over the coming decades and, moreover, highlights another influential argument often given in its favor–recognition of the value of unpaid (and underpaid) labor:
[W]hether a universal income is the right model—is it gonna be accepted by a broad base of people?—that’s a debate that we’ll be having over the next 10 or 20 years. You’re also right that the jobs that are going be displaced by AI are not just low-skill service jobs; they might be high-skill jobs but ones that are repeatable and that computers can do. What is indisputable, though, is that as AI gets further incorporated, and the society potentially gets wealthier, the link between production and distribution, how much you work and how much you make, gets further and further attenuated—the computers are doing a lot of the work. As a consequence, we have to make some tougher decisions. We underpay teachers, despite the fact that it’s a really hard job and a really hard thing for a computer to do well. So for us to reexamine what we value, what we are collectively willing to pay for—whether it’s teachers, nurses, caregivers, moms or dads who stay at home, artists, all the things that are incredibly valuable to us right now but don’t rank high on the pay totem pole—that’s a conversation we need to begin to have.
Last June, President Obama was asked about universal basic income in a Bloomberg Businessweek interview. Specifically, the interviewers asked about Obama’s view on UBI as a possible solution to economic disruption caused by globalization, and Obama replied by explaining that automation would likely produce even greater disruption (perhaps deliberately courting UBI supporters), while not taking a firm stance on–or even explicitly mentioning–UBI.
Obama’s recent remarks, then, may represent his most direct–and most sympathetic–comments on UBI to date.
On November 8, Americans will vote on the next President, to be inaugurated on January 20. Frontrunner Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken about basic income rarely, and has not expressed support. In an interview with LinkedIn’s Daniel Roth (“From bots to Brexit: Hillary Clinton explains how she’ll manage this uneasy economy”), published on June 28, she directly rejected the policy –saying that she’s “not ready to go there” and instead focusing on job creation and expansion of the earned income tax credit.
References
Davey Alba (October 12, 2016) “We must remake society in the coming age of AI: Obama,” Wired.
Scott Dadich (October 12, 2016) “Barack Obama, Neural Nets, Self-Driving Cars, the Future of the World,” Wired.
Reviewed by Ali Özgür Abalı
Photo: “President Barack Obama observes the Cybernetic Human Robot” CC BY-ND 2.0 U.S. Embassy, Jakarta
by Kate McFarland | Oct 12, 2016 | News
Joel Dodge is an attorney and writer based in New York City. Recently, he has been writing articles on the topic of universal basic income, several of which have been published in the online news publication Quartz.
Dodge’s interest in UBI stems in part from his attraction to the idea of a child allowance–a policy he encountered in the Netherlands while studying Dutch social programs. He cites the journalist Russell Shorto, an American expat living in Amsterdam, as an influence. In Dodge’s words, Shorto wrote about “the refreshing surprise of the Dutch government depositing money in parents’ bank accounts to help out with the cost of school books, diapers, and raising kids generally.” Commenting on the origins of his interest in UBI, Dodge explains, “The charm and user-friendliness of the policy stuck with me–how government wanted to be there to help out for the big moments in life, and it did so through simple automatic cash infusions.”
Read more: “The best way to fix child poverty in the US is to give poor kids free money”
With UBI’s recent increase in publicity and popularity, Dodge began researching earlier discussions of basic income guarantee programs in US politics — especially circa 1970, when the US federal government nearly passed a basic income guarantee in the form of President Richard Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan, and Nixon’s challenger, George McGovern, developed his own basic income proposal (the “demogrant”).
Dodge says, “Part of learning about UBI has been excavating our past political debates, which is exciting. So it’s both an old idea and an extremely cutting edge, even revolutionary one.”
Read more: “When Basic Income Was Almost an American Reality“
In his most recent writings on UBI, Dodge has explored some of the main objections from both Right and Left. He dismisses the contention that it will “make people lazy” — pointing that, insofar as people do stop working, they might make other valuable social contributions (as did such “gentlemen of leisure” as Charles Darwin and Rene Descartes).
Read more: “Universal basic income wouldn’t make people lazy–it would change the nature of work”
The major worry from the left — that a basic income would disrupt the welfare state in a way that leaves many worse-off — is one that Dodge finds more pressing. In communication with Basic Income News, he describes motivation for writing “The progressive case against a universal basic income“:
I was motivated to write [it] for two principal reasons. First, I think some of the hype surrounding the cross-ideological embrace of UBI is overstated. The right and left have very different ideas about how UBI would interact with the current welfare state, and I wanted to draw attention to that disagreement.
I also saw certain influential liberal policy figures like Larry Summers, Jason Furman, and Jared Bernstein rapidly coalescing around the same critique of UBI in recent months: namely, that funding a UBI would inevitably come at the expense of other social welfare programs. And I think it’s an important critique. Those who advocate for UBI on the left need to come up with a clear and plausible way to fund a UBI while merging it with our existing social welfare regime.
Scott Santens and some other UBI advocates support retaining government healthcare programs and adding on certain UBI supplements, such as disability benefits. They point to the holes in our social safety net, but that’s really an argument for just plugging in these holes to keep people from falling through the cracks–a much more practical near-term project in our political tradition than a UBI, frankly.
And the reason progressives support certain in-kind benefits like food stamps, housing support, and public healthcare is because we think these are essentially fundamental rights that everyone should be entitled to. Would we really go back on those basic instincts if we replaced the welfare state with a UBI? That is, if someone exhausted their UBI, would we support the hard-line Charles Murray-style position that they are out of luck and must depend on charity? I doubt it, and certainly hope not. So I think UBI needs to be structured in a way that adapts to the moral imperative of guaranteeing that certain targeted, basic needs will be met, understanding that there’s social value to providing more than just cash benefits in some circumstances.
Overall, Dodge describes himself as “deeply curious about UBI” but, at the same time, cautious. He believes that it’s important to wait for the outcomes of upcoming studies of basic income before adopting such a policy. Meanwhile, he maintains that progressive reforms should be approached in an incremental manner. As he relates in other remarks to Basic Income News:
I’m deeply curious about UBI. I admire the ambition, simplicity, and utopian instinct of UBI. But it’s also important to pay attention to how basic income works in practice in the experiments that are just gearing up. The best data we have now are from experiments conducted more than 40 years ago, so we need to see how UBI works today.
I also tend to be an incrementalist when it comes to progressive reform. So I try to harness some of the energy surrounding UBI toward smaller scale reforms. Some of our refundable tax credits could be transformed into direct periodic payments from the government to help out families year-round. There are good fiscal and efficiency arguments to back this up, so the political path is clearer. And if we enact UBI-lite policies today, it could pave the way toward bigger and bolder UBI-style reforms tomorrow.
Bibliographical Summary: Joel Dodge on UBI
“The best way to fix child poverty in the US is to give poor kids free money” (August 19, 2016) Quartz.
“Universal basic income wouldn’t make people lazy–it would change the nature of work” (August 25, 2016) Quartz.
“When Basic Income Was Almost an American Reality” (August 30, 2016) Medium.
“The progressive case against a universal basic income” (September 23, 2016) Quartz.
See also J. DODGE blog.
Photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Zoriah
