by Dave Clegg | Jul 10, 2016 | News
Charles Alan Murray, “A Guaranteed Income for Every American”
A column in the Wall Street Journal on June 3, 2016 by Charles Alan Murray an American libertarian political scientist, author, columnist, and pundit suggests that “replacing the welfare state with an annual grant is the best way to cope with a radically changing U.S. jobs market—and to revitalize America’s civic culture”.
See the full story here: Charles Alan Murray, “A Guaranteed Income for Every American” Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2016.
by Kate McFarland | Jul 8, 2016 | News
From July 8-10, hundreds of progressive activists will convene in Buffalo, NY, for CommonBound, an international conference organized by the New Economy Coalition (NEC).
Among its many workshops, the conference will include one on basic income: Basic Income as a First Step Toward a Care-Centered Economy, led by Liane Gale and Ann Withorn, coordinators of the Basic Income Women Action Group.
The organizers describe the basic income workshop, which will be held on the morning of Sunday, July 10, as follows:
The concept of Basic Income has much potential as an element of a feminist and post-patriarchal economic system that values contributions to society by everyone. This workshop seeks to explore the various dimensions of how bringing together the concepts of a Basic Income and a Care-Centered Economy solidifies the vision of a new economic system, where caring for self, each other, and the planet is the primary focus. We are also committed to providing space for spontaneous relationship-building and horizontal decision-making processes as means of arriving at grassroots-formulated strategies and solutions to global issues and problems.
The workshop will incorporate the views of scholars and researchers such as Riane Eisler, Ina Praetorius, Elfriede Harth, and Ann Callie Manning, who were interviewed in the video Basic Income and the Care-Centered Economy, originally presented by Liane Gale at the 2016 North American Basic Income Guarantee (NABIG) Congress.
The NEC is a network of more than 100 organizations in the United States and Canada that share a commitment to building a better world through democratic governance, community ownership, and racial, economic, and climate justice (as paraphrased from the NEC’s vision statement).
Thanks to my supporters on Patreon. (To see how you too can support my work for Basic Income News, click the link.)
by Kate McFarland | Jul 8, 2016 | News
Jason Furman, President Obama’s top economics adviser, rejected the idea of a universal basic income in remarks made on Thursday, July 7, at a White House workshop on automation.
The last of four workshops on automation co-hosted by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy was held on Thursday, July 7 at New York University in New York City, New York.
At this workshop, Jason Furman, an economist who has served as Chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers since June 2013, present prepared remarks entitled “Is This Time Different? The Opportunities and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence“.
Furman’s main message was that we should not fear the rise of artificial intelligence; on the contrary, we should do what we can to further the development of AI. On Furman’s view, we need more AI, not less.
Although it was not his primary focus, Furman also spoke at some length about universal basic income (defined as “a regular, unconditional cash grant to every man, woman, and child in the United States”) — which he rejected as a viable solution to the economic worries posed by AI.
In his remarks, he promoted job training and job creation as alternative policies, and characterized UBI as “giving up” on the possibility of full employment:
The issue is not that automation will render the vast majority of the population unemployable. Instead, it is that workers will either lack the skills or the ability to successfully match with the good, high paying jobs created by automation. While a market economy will do much of the work to match workers with new job opportunities, it does not always do so successfully, as we have seen in the past half-century. We should not advance a policy that is premised on giving up on the possibility of workers’ remaining employed. Instead, our goal should be first and foremost to foster the skills, training, job search assistance, and other labor market institutions to make sure people can get into jobs, which would much more directly address the employment issues raised by AI than would UBI.
He went on to complain that UBI would increase, rather than decrease, inequality (without substantial increases in taxation, which he seemed to presuppose to be off the table):
Even with these changes, however, new technologies can increase inequality and potentially even poverty through changes in the distribution of wages. Nevertheless, replacing our current antipoverty programs with UBI would in any realistic design make the distribution of income worse, not better. Our tax and transfer system is largely targeted towards those in the lower half of the income distribution, which means that it works to reduce both poverty and income inequality. Replacing part or all of that system with a universal cash grant, which would go to all Americans regardless of income, would mean that relatively less of the system was targeted towards those at the bottom—increasing, not decreasing, income inequality. Unless one was willing to take in a much larger share of the economy in tax revenues than at present, it would be difficult both to provide a common amount to all individuals and to make sure that amount was sufficient to cover the needs of the poorest households.
Lastly, Furman conceded that “some of the motivation for UBI has nothing to do with future technological developments” — pointing out, specifically, that “some UBI proponents have put forward the argument that it would be simpler, fairer and less distortionary than the social assistance system we have today.” However, he also rejected these arguments for UBI:
This is not the space to go into great detail on this, but suffice it to say that today’s system could be improved, and the President has proposed a number of improvements to social assistance programs (OMB 2016). But at the same time, a wave of recent research has found that many of the common criticism of these programs—for example, that they discourage work, or that they do little to reduce poverty—have been greatly overstated, and a number of programs—including nutritional assistance, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)—have important benefits for the long-run earnings, health and educational attainment of children who grow up in recipient households.
Furman did not address the full range of pro-UBI arguments raised by Robin Chase and Martin Ford during a White House roundtable discussion held just two days earlier.
Read Furman’s full report here.
For additional commentary on Furman’s comments about UBI, see the following short articles published yesterday:
Joseph Lawler, “Obama adviser warns that robots could worsen inequality,” Washington Examiner, July 7, 2016.
Jeffrey Sparshott, “Jason Furman Says New Technology Creates Challenges, But a Universal Income Isn’t the Solution,” The Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2016.
Myles Udland, “Obama’s top economic adviser doesn’t like the idea of giving people money not to work,” Yahoo! Finance, July 7, 2016.
Photo of Jason Furman (December 2013) CC Third Way Think Tank
Thanks to my supporters on Patreon. (To see how you too can support my work for Basic Income News, click the link.)
by Kate McFarland | Jul 7, 2016 | News
On July 5, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough hosted a roundtable conversation on automation, featuring panelists Robin Chase, co-founder of Zipcar, and Martin Ford, author of the popular books Rise of the Robots and The Lights in the Tunnel. Both Chase and Ford have previously spoken in favor of a universal basic income — a topic that came to loom large in the conversation.
The conversation began with a general discussion of the effects of new technologies on the economy. While both panelists emphasized that deep-learning, autonomous vehicles, and other new technologies promise myriad benefits to society, both also stressed that, without policy changes, these innovations will lead to widening social and economic inequality.
This theme eventually segued into a discussion of universal basic income.
McDonough, acting as the mouthpiece for the White House, stated that the federal government does not see a need for United States to adopt a UBI.
Instead, according to McDonough, the focus should be on expanding and improving the nation’s existing social safety nets — “We can build on things that work, and we’ve seen that they work,” as he puts it — and on reforming educational curriculum (e.g., to include more computer science components integrated throughout various classes).
As might be expected, however, Chase and (to a lesser extent) Ford expressed much more enthusiasm about UBI.
Ford described himself as a supporter of introducing a guaranteed income “eventually” (i.e., when it becomes necessary due to automation), although he consented that it is “pretty much off the table” in the current political climate in the US.
Chase, in contrast, spoke strongly in favor of a basic income in the immediate future — presenting a string of arguments in response to McDonough skepticism of the need for such a policy. For one, she argued that the country’s current safety nets are not adequate to a society in which many people are freelancing or working in multiple part-time jobs or contracting ventures. (To use a line she quoted, “My father had one job in his lifetime, I had six jobs in my lifetime, and my children will have six jobs at the same time.”) In contrast, as Chase emphasized, a guaranteed basic income would enable individuals to diversify their work opportunities by “building more resilience” into their incomes.
Another major talking point for Chase was the need for a basic income to enable more people to pursue their “passion jobs” (jobs which, as she and Ford both stressed, might not always be financially profitable). Early in the conversation, Chase made the point that much labor presently done by humans not only can but should be automated, in order to unlock the creative potential of those who are currently trapped in jobs that simply don’t need to be done by humans.
Later, she added that the jobs and tasks we’re able to automate today might be what “rich white men thought were great things” — and that there exists a potential for great social and cultural innovation as people are freed from automatable “crummy jobs” and have more time to engage their own interests and creativity.
At this point in the conversation, Ford intervened, making explicit the connection to the demand for a universal basic income:
A lot of those opportunities are not income-generating; they’re not necessarily things that someone would pay you to do. One of the best arguments for a basic income is that it would open up these possibilities for people to do things that count, that right now our society does not reward.
Chase agreed, and eagerly expanded on Ford’s point. She described a previous project in which she had interviewed people about their passion jobs — from a cab driver who wrote music that made autistic children happy, to a computer programmer who slept on friends’ couches while writing open source software for 3D printers. Many of her interview subjects were unable to pursue socially valuable and personally gratifying projects, simply because these projects were not financially lucrative.
Although McDonough himself appeared to be unmoved by the arguments of Chase and Ford, this passionate discussion of basic income at a White House roundtable should register as a breakthrough for the movement in America.
A video of the White House Conversation on Automation is available to view at the website Futurism. (The conversation starts at 4 min, 27 sec. Discussion of basic income in particular begins at around 20 minutes.)
Additional commentary on the roundtable with particular attention to the discussion of basic income:
Samantha Ehlinger, “White House: U.S. wants to be the forefront of automation policy,” Fed Scoop, July 5, 2016.
Nickalous Hines, “When Technology Eliminates Jobs, We’ll Want a Basic Income,” Inverse, July 5, 2016.
Nissan “Autonomous Drive” photo CC Norbert Aepli
Thanks to Dawn Rozakis for proofreading a draft of this article.
Thanks to my supporters on Patreon. (Click the link to see how you too can support my work for Basic Income News.)
by Kate McFarland | Jul 6, 2016 | News
A recent survey of economists at leading institutions purports to show that 58% oppose a universal basic income, while only 2% support it. However, the survey asked specifically about a UBI that replaces all other social insurance programs and is paid only to adults over 21. Many opposed these qualifications, not UBI itself.
On Tuesday, June 28, the IGM (Initiative on Global Markets) Forum released the results of a survey on “universal basic income” distributed to the Economic Experts Panel — a panel consisting only of “senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States” chosen to be diverse in their specializations, locations, and political orientations.
Out of these economics experts, 58% either “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with a description of a specific universal basic income policy, while only 2% “agreed” and none “strongly agreed”. (The remainder were either “uncertain” or had no opinion on the matter.)
At first blush, such results are apt to shock and disappoint supporters of basic income. However, as with any survey, attention to the detail is key: what, exactly, were respondents asked?
In this case, respondents were asked to rank their opinion on the following statement on a five-point scale (or declare no opinion):
Granting every American citizen over 21-years-old a universal basic income of $13,000 a year — financed by eliminating all transfer programs (including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing subsidies, household welfare payments, and farm and corporate subsidies) — would be a better policy than the status quo.
Presumably, this particular policy proposal comes from Charles Murray, who endorsed exactly this in a recent Wall Street Journal feature.
Even before looking at the survey responses, we should take pause here: Charles Murray is a controversial figure even among — perhaps especially among — supporters of UBI. Left-leaning advocates tend to regard Murray and his proposals as “downright undesirable”, to use the phrase wielded by Daniel Raventós and Julie Wark in their June 15th article in CounterPunch.
Last January, to give another example, an article in Jacobin argued that a UBI “could do little to achieve egalitarian objectives — or even backfire badly” if the policy poorly designed. The author presented Murray’s proposal as an example of “non-liveable” basic income, due to its low amount and concurrent elimination of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
With this in mind, then, it should not be too surprising that several economists in the IGM Forum also took issue with the proposed elimination of all other benefits — but not UBI per se — when explaining their votes of “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree”. Some even expressed support of policies closely related to UBI. For instance, Richard Schmalensee (MIT) said, “A properly designed negative income tax could be part of a better policy, but replacing everything is a bad idea.” Similarly, Eric Maskin (Harvard) replied, “A minimum income makes sense, but not at the cost of eliminating Social Security and Medicare.” And Christopher Udry (Yale) opined that UBI could work if “coupled with universal health care and tax reform … but we are far from that.”
Larry Samuelson (Yale), who responded as “Uncertain”, stated, “There is much to recommend a universal basic income, but specifically a 13k income while ending all other transfers is difficult to assess.”
The proposed restriction of the UBI to adults over 21 worried other economists — such as William Nordhaus, who said, “And the children get nothing? The basic idea is sound but too simplistic as stated.” Likewise, Robert Hall (Stanford) simply offered, “Limitation to people over 21 can’t be the right answer.”
This is not to suggest, of course, that all of the economists surveyed were inclined to support a basic income (but just not Charles Murray’s version). Some did express opposition to UBI itself, and for reasons that we might expect: it’s too expensive, it might discourage work, it’s not necessary given current welfare programs, and “Bill Gates would get 13k, which is crazy.”
Nonetheless, it’s striking that many explanations of “Disagree” responses did not criticize UBI per se, and were sometimes even implicitly (or explicitly!) supportive.
Not all respondents gave explanations of their answers. However, looking through the list of economists surveyed, it’s further notable that the Murray-inspired UBI proposal elicited disagreement and uncertainty from some others who have previously expressed support of basic income. For instance, the Nobel Laureate Angus Deaton voted “Disagree”, despite having recently come out in favor of “basic income grants”. Even distinguished MIT Professor Abhijit Banerjee — who is an advisor for GiveDirectly’s basic income pilot and recently wrote a compelling case for UBI in The Indian Express — voted “Uncertain”.
Thus, supporters of UBI — and especially those on the left-side of the political spectrum — should not be discouraged by this particular poll, despite its purportedly showing that only 2% of a forum of economics experts “support a universal basic income”.
If there’s anything to concern us about this survey, it should be the implicit conflation (in its headline) of the general idea of UBI with Charles Murray’s specific, and very controversial, proposal.
On the other hand, the economists themselves do not make this conflation — and, indeed, their responses serve as a reminder of the danger of tying the idea of UBI to any one particular policy implementation.
As basic income researcher Jurgen de Wispelaere writes in a recent blog post,
Agreement at the level of the general idea amongst opposing political factions is often hailed as a virtue of the basic income proposal. However, once we move from idea to policy implementation, persistent disagreement may return with a vengeance.
This is an important message, and one which the IGM Forum survey illustrates well.
Reference:
“Universal Basic Income,” IGM Forum, Chicago Booth, June 28, 2016.
Thanks to Asha Pond for reviewing a draft of this article.
Thanks to my supporters on Patreon. (To see how you too can support my work for Basic Income News, click the link.)
