It has been several weeks since Valerie suffered a nightmare. After falling asleep, instead of suddenly finding herself at a grocery store checkout counter with no money, as happened so often in the past, or under arrest for crossing state lines to find shelter with her children, she has dreamt simply of flying, traveling, being alone in quiet fields, and reading.

Last month, Valerie caught up on her electric bill. She paid off some debt, tipped generously for grocery delivery and, for the first time in six years, deposited money into a savings account. In June, she gave her son the best birthday of his life, sparing no expense for a dart board, an indoor mini-trampoline, a box of kinetic sand, and Lego Minifigures for him and his brother.

At age 48 and recently divorced, Valerie, who wished to remain anonymous for this article, is raising her two sons alone on a declared income of $19,270 per year in a small city in the Mid-Hudson Valley, one hour north of New York City. She is one of some 39 million people in the United States who lost their livelihoods to the Covid-19 pandemic this spring. She could afford her expenses and the gifts for her children because the federal government did something rare and wonderful: In response to mass unemployment caused by the pandemic, it gave those who lost their jobs an additional $600 in weekly financial support to stay home and help them cover living expenses.

This week, however, the four-month period of Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation stipulated in the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security) will expire and those payments will stop. Republican lawmakers have publicly considered reducing the benefits to between $200 and $400 per week, and sending another round of $1,200 stimulus checks to taxpayers. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has shown no urgency for people like Valerie, who stand to lose between 50 and 85 percent of their income.

I have no idea what Im going to do, she told me over the phone in mid-July. Im terrified to start cleaning AirBnBs again. I dont really have the energy and Im nervous to be in spaces where people from New York City have been. Im scared to bring the virus home to my children.

Valerie does not have to imagine what it is like to contract COVID-19. Though she was careful to keep her distance from people, to wash her hands and avoid touching her face, she says she caught the virus somehow in April. As she waited to recover, her boys, ages 11 and 12 took care of their mother and each other. Her generosity on her sons birthday was also a thank-you to both of them for stepping up when she could not maintain their home and her future was uncertain.

My 12-year-old cooked and took care of the cleaning as best he could, she said. He kept us afloat. Children shouldnt have to take on that kind of responsibility, but they did. They were terrified and they never let it show until after I was well.

Twelve years ago, Valerie quit her job in IBMs intellectual assets and property division to take care of her first child, who was born with autism and four genetic diseases, three of which are shared by his younger brother. The boys can have allergic reactions to perfume and their own sweat, she says. Valerie homeschools the boys and spends between five and six hours each day preparing food that will not hurt them. She regularly monitors them for reddened lips and other indications that a kind of silent anaphylaxis is underway in their bodies.

The boys know that their circumstances are fragile. Since the pandemic began, they have had nightmares that they did not have before, including about the end of the world.

Theyre the healthiest kids that doctors who treat these disorders have ever seen, so Im doing something right, she beamed proudly. Im constantly looking out, but now I havent worked a proper job since 2007, so Im basically unemployable.

The boys know that their circumstances are fragile. Since the pandemic began, they have had nightmares that they did not have before, Valerie says, including about the end of the world.

My big guys not talking to me as much, Valerie said. He says: There are some things I need to keep just for me and I completely agree with that. My little one has never been terribly articulate verbally, but hes more emotional and needy. Hes requesting to spend a lot more time cuddling and reading, and pretending to fall a lot. Its just not like him to do that.

Valerie lives in one of many places in the United States where people have self-organized in beautiful mutual aid operations to help each other survive through the pandemic. She has called upon the group to get deliveries of prescription medications, medical supplies and health services, but before the pandemic, she rarely sought help from her neighbors.

I dont bother people, she said. I just figure that everyone is going through their own shitshow and I try to get through every day as best I can. When she really needs someone to talk to, she calls her father, an incredibly bright, intuitive and insightful retired blue-collar worker who lives in the Midwest and whom her boys adore. Custody rules prevent her from traveling the distance that would be required to live with him or her sister, hence her recurring nightmares about getting arrested for crossing state lines.

In the absence of a safe way to work and earn money, Valerie and her boys need the weekly $600 federal payments or some large portion of them to be renewed in order to survive.

I dont think theres a hope in hell of it happening, she said. But I do think that they should extend it to at least the end of January 2021. Im not up on all the proposals for what could happen. I skim the news very gently and from very specific sources. I think they should give everyone a universal income; $40,000 is an insane cap that I saw being thrown around randomly, but in New York thats nothing. Especially for single family households. I would like to see our tax money going towards supporting people to be able to make choices about savings, and not having to panic with a calculator at the grocery store. Or to be able to treat their kids to something in these extraordinary times.

I have to think theyre completely out of touch and not actual demons. Because it feels like they might be demons.

The kids should not be going back to school, she continued. I cant even go to the Social Security Administration office and get the name on my Social Security card changed back to my maiden name. I thought, I must be able to do this. The bars are open. But I cant. Theyre not letting us have access to Social Security Administration employees for urgent business because theyre protecting those employees. But theyll send children back to school like sacrificial lambs so the parent worker bees can work again and make the gazillionaires richer. Its appalling.

I have to think that these politicians dont understand the implications of their actions because theyre of such privilege at this point, she concluded. Theyve been making over $100,000 a year and getting kickbacks from everywhere, and they have great jobs lined up for after their time in Congress. I have to think theyre completely out of touch and not actual demons. Because it feels like they might be demons.

In late March, shortly after the pandemic erupted in the United States, my friend Peter Frase published an article in Jacobin warning that the bipartisan ruling elite would sooner sacrifice the lives of working people than allow a government response to the pandemic to diminish their power to profit. Four months later, the Trump administration has not just failed to end the pandemic; rates of COVID-19 infection and deaths are spiking as states and businesses reopen and close again, and frightened, vulnerable people are being forced back to work.

In addition to helping people pay their bills and stay safe by staying home, the $600 weekly Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation has been a lifeline for U.S. businesses too. Consumer spending the cash we spend on food, energy, entertainment and tchotchkes, etc. is a key driver of the nations economy. For every three dollars consumers spent before the pandemic erupted, they spent just two dollars under lockdown. Corporations and businesses panicked and the government took action. It passed the CARES Act, which among other things simply put cash into the hands of tens of millions of jobless people. By late June, consumer spending returned to within a few points of pre-pandemic levels. (Predictably, poorer people who must spend their money to stay alive are spending closer to pre-pandemic levels than wealthier people.)

As a general stimulus then, the $600 weekly pandemic unemployment payments were not just a lifeline to people in need. They kept businesses afloat as people spent their benefits into the economy.

With characteristic cruelty, Republicans tried to prevent these benefits from reaching unemployed people. As if the fabric of society were not coming apart, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham complained that modestly high unemployment payments would give people the freedom to refuse to report to life-threatening jobs in exchange for poor wages, and called for the payments to be reduced. Ignoring the fact that unemployment laws prevent people from collecting benefits if they turn down a job because of low pay, Grahamlater rationalized:If you pay someone $23 an hour not to work, theyre going to take you up on it You shouldnt be paid more in unemployment than you do at work.

But Senator Bernie Sanders fought for the unemployed, using his bully pulpit to publicly shame Republicans like Graham and threatening to halt passage of the CARES Act. Business owners and capitalists can thank the socialist for their recovered revenue.

Instead of preserving this vital support, the Trump administration and the conservatives in Congress are ready to pull it out from underneath people and businesses that are barely standing. The economy going back into recession is likely if we cold-turkey cut the extra unemployment insurance benefits, Moodys Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi told Fortune in late June. Additionally, conservative politicians and pundits are whining over some kind of imagined unfairness because two-thirds of the 25 million people receiving the $600 weekly payments are getting more money than their employers paid them 34 percent more, on median. (Personal income rose [more than] 9 percent in April and May from a year earlier, wrote the economics analyst Doug Henwood.)

These politicians are pissed that the unemployment program is actually helping people in need. And its not just Republicans who are the problem. In Colorado, Democratic Governor Jared Polis justified his decision to allow landlords to evict jobless people during the pandemic by simply asserting that, People should generally be back at work and earning money despite the fact that unemployment is rising in the state.

Conservatives are not just seeking to slash unemployment benefits. They are also working to shield employers from the threat of lawsuitsfiled by workers who get sick with Covid-19. Two Congressional Progressive Caucus staffers warned that the new policy would make it nearly impossible to sue corporations for Covid-19-related legal claims by workers [and] give employers a free pass to flout worker safety laws.

Being unemployed is not simply a vacation, free of onerous requirements, legal hazard and threats of punishment from the state. As the journalist David Sirota wrote recently, jobless workers can be harshly sanctioned for trying to collect benefits if they dare turn down any job, no matter how poorly paid or dangerous. In many cases, unemployment systems are now set up to deny benefits at every opportunity, says Michele Evermore of the National Employment Law Institute with the rate of erroneous benefit denials nearly doubling over the past decade.

According to Michigan Public Radio, Michigans automated computer system falsely accused more than 40,000 people of fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits between 2013 and 2015. After Republicans took control of the state in 2011, people accused of collecting benefits after refusing a job offer can be forced to repay four times the amount of money they received, plus 12 percent interest.

The chief scholarly justification for ending the payments comes from a trio of University of Chicago economists academics who decided that the most important contribution they could make to the general welfare in this time of danger was to scrutinize the amount of money being used to help poor people. Claiming twice in their May paper that they take no stand on how much support the involuntarily jobless should receive, they nonetheless provided anti-worker politicians and pundits with academic cover to lecture the public as if the main problem with the governments pandemic-economic response is that poor people have a little money with which to make their lives tolerable.

By contrast, these servants of the rich are not motivated to quibble with the hundreds of billions of dollars that the CARES Act shoveled toward corporations, millionaires and billionaires; nor do they question the Federal Reserves policy of providing incessant support to Wall Street but not working people and the institutions that benefit them.

To defend the $600 unemployment payments as both morally and economically necessary is not to suggest that the CARES Act is a sufficient solution to our economic problems. Nor, says Pavlina Tcherneva, Associate Professor of Economics at Bard College and a Research Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute and advisor to Bernie Sanderss 2016 presidential campaign, is the Democratic-led HEROES Act, which would extend the payments through January 2021 if Senate Republicans and the Trump administration would support it

What is happening to Valerie and tens of millions of other people fired, laid off or losing benefits, healthcare or housingis not simply natural it is the predictable and preventable consequence of established government policy. Alternatives are known, and working people, organizers, activists and voters must discover them and force them upon politicians and government if society and life are not to further deteriorate under pressure from the pandemic, a rigged economy and worsening, generalized fear.

Dr. Tcherneva studies the impact of unemployment on growth, income inequality and public health, and saving people from the hardship that awaits Valerie is the focus of her work. In The Case for a Job Guarantee, which she published this summer, Tcherneva explains how the federal government could provide a living-wage job to anyone who wants one.

What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation about what the pandemic unemployment payments meant for the economy and how the United States could enact a Job Guarantee.

Everybody is focused on how the unemployment insurance program is providing greater income for a lot of people, and the debate is whether we should retain it or not. But the real problem is not unemployment insurance. The real problem is the low wages in our economy. The fundamental issue is jobs and how poorly paid they are.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

Roughly half the workers in the United States earn less than $15 an hour. That is a very, very low level of income generation. The floor is really rock bottom. Unemployment insurance is inadequate and the job losses already caused by the pandemic would cause additional layoffs and other ripple effects. Im talking about bankruptcies, people not being able to pay their bills, storefronts shuttering, etc.

To stop these things from happening the government decided to use this one-time boost of $600 weekly payments, and it was the right thing to do. Its a really good policy. In fact, it tipped the scales toward the least advantaged workers! Thats a benefit, not a shortcoming. You have to appreciate that the market is already so skewed and that we already have such runaway inequality, so using the average workers income to calculate how much we should give to each unemployed worker as a supplement was a tiny rebalancing. I dont want to oversell it. The federal unemployment insurance is really just a Band-Aid, a patch.

Okay. So now we have to decide what to do next. The major proposals are problematic.

First, Democrats want to renew the unemployment insurance boost. Thats all well and good. But they dont really have anything else to offer. Remembering that the real issue is jobs and wages, lets think back to the Great Depression. FDR put a minimum wage in place and a few years later Truman doubled it. This is the sort of thing we have to think about doing now. If our federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, we have to at least double it to $15 per hour. But thats still not going to be enough. Well still have mass unemployment. So we need a policy that creates jobs. Democrats should defend continued unemployment insurance, but they have to offer something else as well.

FDR put a minimum wage in place and a few years later Truman doubled it. This is the sort of thing we have to think about doing now.

Now, Republicans on the other hand insist that we have to remove the unemployment payments because they disincentivize people from working. This, of course, is a cruel way of dealing with mass unemployment. It says: Lets just take away the little support that folks have so that they can go out and look for jobs that arent there. It doesnt matter how many incentives they try to create or how much they attempt to flog people into submission: People wont find jobs that arent there and the jobs that are there wont be well-paid.

Yes. They say the distribution of payments is problematic. They imply that the program is more unequal because lower-income folks are getting a little bit more money. But they dont recognize that income today is already extremely skewed to the top. You cant argue that the program unfairly distributes income without recognizing that the economy has been distributing income unfairly for a very long time.

I think its disingenuous when economists pretend that they dont have a moral position. Several times in that paper the authors claim: We take no stand on how one should weigh these pros and cons. Of course they take a stand! Their stand is the following: These payments create moral hazard, which is economist-speak for they would make people lazy, they would discourage them from working. This is a value judgment. Calling unemployment insurance a disincentive is a moral claim, not an economic claim. These people are fighting for their survival. If you suddenly get $600 more every week and youre able to pay your mortgage and youre not defaulting on your credit card, thats an aid in your fight for survival. These are the kinds of blinders that I think really need to be exposed. Economists pretend to have a neutral way of talking about issues. But moral claims and assumptions underlie every one of our models, and we have to expose them.

Right. But you dont have to be an expert to understand this. A lot of folks are saying that unemployment insurance is bad because it gives people more money. This has become a conventional talking point. You can look at this on the surface and say, Hey! Somebody is getting more money than they got before! It feels unfair on its face, I guess. But if you drill deeper and ask why, well then you can see that an extra $600 per week is not that much money. Just compare that to what rent costs each month in New York City. The $300 average that people normally get from state unemployment programs is not replacement income. Its not nearly adequate. If the $600 per week extra puts some people on top, then that really exposes how poorly some people are getting paid. Like I said before, less than half of American workers make roughly $15 per hour. And a whole lot of them earn even less.

Even if you dont approach the issue of unemployment payments from the cruel perspective, even if you approach it from the desire to help people, we still have to drill deeper. At the individual level, there are real consequences to these programs. For employers, too. And we cant overlook them.

For instance, I have a friend who manages a gym. He told me: I have to reopen the business and need to figure out who to bring back from the furloughed workers. On the one hand, I dont want to bring some workers back who were paid so little because theyll lose the $600 per week. But if I dont bring them back, then theyll become permanently laid off. I cant reopen my business with 100 percent staff capacity.

So, someones going to get cut, and its the low wage-folks. And they will become the long-term unemployed who have the hardest time getting jobs afterwards. There is a Catch-22 here: Low-income folks might not want to go back to work because right now they can have the $600 extra. But if they want to go back to work, say at the end of this yeardepending on when their benefits endthe economy wont bounce back to create enough jobs by then, and they will become the long-term unemployed and face higher barriers to re-enter the workforce.

We want to raise wages, but from the perspective of a business owner, theyre operating on razor-thin margins. Many businesses simply cant afford to pay double wages or match the benefits of the person who doesnt want to come in. On the other hand, there are so many unemployed people that, if employers want to hire, there will be many more people desperate for those few jobs, and firms will not feel the pressure to offer better pay.

What most people probably dont realize is that the government is essentially supporting the economy almost in its entirety. The CARES Act was $2.2 trillion. It was distributed very inequitably, but it was an enormous chunk: 10 percent of our economy. The private sector is on life support because the government is supporting it. The Federal Reserve is providing loans. Congress is appropriating more loans. And theres unemployment insurance. Theres going to be spending on COVID and crisis control. But theyre doing it in a way that props up a very unequal system, a system that is going to endure mass unemployment and mass devastation. When we shake off our phobia about spending, then we can start to ask better questions, starting with the question of what the government should spend its money on.

During the Great Depression, the U.S. rethought the foundations of the economy with the New Deal. We committed to stronger wages, stronger employment, better working conditions and stronger protections for workers. Today, the economy does not provide comparable economic security. We dont have universal healthcare amid a pandemic. In fact, millions of people who had health insurance lost it because it was tied to their jobs!

When we shake off our phobia about spending, then we can start to ask better questions, starting with the question of what the government should spend its money on.

So there is much to do. But we need to keep our eye on the ball abundant and better-paid jobs. I would like to see the government create big and bold investment and employment programs to address all the neglect in our communities, including improving our infrastructure and greening the economy. To me, the Green New Deal is the clearest articulation of what the future society should look like. It rebalances how we produce things. It focuses on local sustainable practices. It has a social component, which means were not going to just allow people to live in weatherized homes, were actually going to ensure that every person has a home; its not going to be a world of homelessness with some solar panels. The government will be spending enormous resources to deal with this crisis. We can choose to use those resources to pursue a green agenda that restructures both our economy and society and provides the employment security and jobs that we need right now.

So, I work on the federal Job Guarantee. For me that is a critical piece of the employment safety net. If youre an unemployed person, you will go into a public employment office and get a public service job. We will help you find work in your community. The Job Guarantee is a critical safety net and a critical component of the Green New Deal, which ensures that if we pursue this new world, everybody will have a place in it. We wont leave behind people in mining communities and towns dependent on fossil fuel extraction. Well clean up and rebuild our communities.

Contrary to what some politicians and private employers say, people want to work. But the private sector doesnt provide adequate jobs. So, the Job Guarantee steps in to fill the void.

Say youve been a stay-at-home parent for a long time now. Your kids are off to college and you want paid work. But where do you start? Your resume is blank. You could do some good community work locally through the Job Guarantee. In reality, people already organize themselves to work. In the mutual aid groups that have emerged in the pandemic, people are already doing work on the ground to address their communitys needs. You can make that the engine of job creation for the Job Guarantee. And the nature of work the forces that motivate it are fundamentally different from most of the jobs we have now. In the private sector, the profit motive ensures cost-cutting and leads to precarious pay and working conditions. With the Job Guarantee, the terms on which work is offered is for public purpose and the public good.

Now, lets step back. The Job Guarantee might sound daunting. The obstacles might seem insurmountable given todays politics. We are dealing so poorly with COVID, let alone other crises. But the thing is that nearly 100 years ago, in the midst of really desperate times during the Great Depression, we rethought the purpose of government in radical ways. This took leadership. I dont know if were going to get it now or if well have to wait longer, but this is the kind of moment were living through. It calls for the same kind of re-thinking and bold action.

I dont have a crystal ball to know what will happen, but I keep thinking of the years that led up to the New Deal. This kind of rethinking, activism and work on the ground was thriving for decades before FDR was elected president. From the early 1900s, even the late 1800s, this push for better working conditions was strong, it came from many corners of civil society and the work coalesced. Now, we have environmental problems and its a crisis that will only get worse. I see people once again challenging conventional wisdom.

I thought 2008 might be the moment to transform government policy and remedy the inequities in our economy. But our failure to do that has brought us here, more unprepared to tackle this crisis and the hardships it will bring. Simultaneously, rightwing governments are seizing on the economic pain. We need democratic solutions and hopefully we wont miss this chance.

There are many different versions of the UBI, so we really need to be very careful of what were talking about. I object to the UBI that just gives everybody $30,000 or $35,000 per year, rich or poor. Now, there are people who cannot work and should not work, and they need basic income. Thats different from UBI. In the Green New Deal and the Job Guarantee, there is income support for those who should not be working. If youre a student, for example, tuition-free college is a type of basic income. If we have universal healthcare, thats a kind of basic income.

In my Job Guarantee proposal, I argue that it should be coupled with universal childcare and universal child allowance, along with basic income support for veterans or people with disabilities. The point is that the income is targeted to the specific dimension of insecurity that a person is experiencing.

Silicon Valley advocates of UBI, not to mention rightwing supporters, are pushing it as a replacement for the existing safety net. Andrew Yang explicitly funds his $1,000 per month Freedom Dividend by having recipients opt out of Social Security! This should worry people very, very much. To me, UBI is a Trojan Horse and a false promise. It says, Ill just give you income. Go out and find affordable rent. Go find affordable childcare. People who have decent salaries today already cant find these things!

So UBI does not solve these other problems that we face. It always resonates more with upper middle class individuals. Working folks who are juggling two or three jobs want to work, and they want stable, good work. But the hate mail I get is usually from some college-educated person who tells me: I would like to spend my life gardening. Why are you against universal basic income? And Im thinking, Well, I dont want to lose our hard-fought-for social safety net, and I want an economy that provides jobs for those who want them.

To me, [Universal Basic Income] is a Trojan Horse and a false promise. It says, Ill just give you income. Go out and find affordable rent. Go find affordable childcare. People who have decent salaries today already cant find these things!

I think weve been doing a pretty good job of debunking the myth that the government cant afford these programs. Remember, in response to COVID we passed an enormous budget overnight. We did the same thing during the 2008 financial crisis. In these moments of crisis, the government musters the public resources, the fiscal power, and they pass a budget. I think we should always reject the question of But how we will pay for it? It is quite clear that when a policy is a priority, there is no problem funding it.

So first we must recognize that the federal government is self-funding. It already has the financial resources. It pays for the Job Guarantee or the Green New Deal the way it pays for everything else: by appropriating budgets which the Treasury and the Federal Reserve coordinate to fund. Unlike state governments, the federal government does not depend on tax revenue to spend. It is the issuer of currency. It has a public monopoly, and if you have the monopoly on issuing dollars, how can you possibly run out of them? Most people just dont focus on this very basic fact of life. The government issues the dollar, and every expenditure it appropriates through Congress results in an injection of new dollars into the economy. Tax payments represent the retrieval of those dollars. Taxes are not a funding mechanism.

So think of it like this: Votes fund programs. As long as you can muster up the votes, then the sovereign monetary institutions of the government the Treasury and the Federal Reserve coordinate to make all payments. Again, the government will be paying for the crisis one way or another. The question is: Will it spend and use resources in reaction to mass immiseration and environmental destruction? Or will it spend them for prevention and the rebuilding of our economy?

Yes. Frankly, I find the positions of some people on the left baffling. Look, there are two things that conservatives have no problem doing. One, they never hesitate to use the power of the public purse to pursue their reactionary agenda. Never. And they have been extremely clear, from Reagan to Cheney to Trump: the deficit doesnt matter. We print our own money. But many on the left refuse to acknowledge this basic fact and hide behind a fake respectability. By clinging to sound finance they cripple their own policy agenda. So, what kind of fight are you fighting when you dont have all the tools in the arsenal?

The other issue is jobs. In desperate times, the right will have no trouble launching punitive workfare programs. For the unemployed, these programs will still be considered better than no jobs at all. What is the lefts alternative? In my view, it is the Job Guarantee. That is the alternative to workfare: a voluntary, decent public option for jobs.

But many on the Left cling to universal basic income and some are clearly opposed to the Job Guarantee. They might as well raise the white flag. One cannot strengthen the position of labor by providing income alone when the threat of unemployment is perennial. In fact, in a market economy, income assistance is a wage subsidy for the employer. Why demand living wages from firms when the government has promised checks? And, of course, these checks will come at the cost of other benefits.

Once upon a time, the left was steadfast in their belief that decent employment is a basic human right. Today, there is a kind of surrender to the idea that jobs are forever gone, either because of robots or trade. But there is nothing inevitable about unemployment. Of course, we can create jobs. Of course, they can be good and well-paid jobs. Government guarantees all sorts of things in the economy, from bank deposits, to education, to certain types of loans or profits for government contracts. Guaranteeing employment is in fact not a radical proposition at all. The right has no trouble promising jobs. (Much of it is false, of course. Trump wont bring back manufacturing jobs).

But what does the left have to offer a community that has suffered mass unemployment? Subsidies for firms? Training programs for jobs that never come? Why not a Job Guarantee that creates decent, well-paid employment opportunities that are not punitive and dont make existing benefits conditional on working? A program that creates useful projects that serve the public purpose? Democrats need very quickly to develop a very credible message and a plan for jobs, one that instills confidence that the government will take the necessary bold actions to create opportunities in every corner of the nation. We did it in the 1930s. We can certainly do it again.

So, overall, money has to be rethought. Government policies, and specifically employment policies, have to be rethought as well. How will we engage the power of the public purse? How will we use it to rebalance our economy? How will we clean up the environment, provide care, guarantee healthcare and decent employment opportunities for all? All of these issues go hand-in-hand: sovereign spending, public investment and economic security.

Read more:

Heres How We Remake the Economy - Common Dreams

Manageable deficit

An $853-million deficit for Nova Scotia in 2020 looks terrifying. That is, until you examine long-term borrowing costs. A 30-year government of Canada bond costs the lender just one per cent interest. Long-term Nova Scotia government bonds can be sold for two per cent. So if the Nova Scotia government scraps the Yarmouth-Maine ferry, it can finance the $853-million deficit and have its liabilities pretty well unchanged.

How hard is that?

Michael Poulton, Halifax

Jim Vibert speaks about the health-destroying impact of poverty on Nova Scotians (July 29 column). A basic income for all would save tax dollars in the long term and transform lives in the process.

Its time to get serious about a basic income guarantee. I encourage all of us to learn more about it and weigh in. Political will for change will follow the will of voters.

Greg Hubbert, Berwick

Stephen McNeil, please note: Australia, Israel, Japan and Lebanon appeared to have brought the coronavirus contagion to heel in May. In July, after opening up, they all experienced alarming rises in cases, as have other countries.

Youd be inviting the same kind of virus invasion into Nova Scotia if you allowed in travellers from outside the Atlantic bubble. For all our sakes, keep the bubble closed. You once told us to stay to blazes home. We did that; we have contained the virus. Lets keep it that way. Can you not now tell outside travellers to stay to blazes home?

Errol Sharpe, HRM

Despite frequent advisories, many people still are not wearing a mask when out of their homes. Some are even openly resisting attempts to encourage mask-wearing, citing personal rights and freedoms.

Facial masks are simple measures that offer quite good protection from COVID-19. The beauty of this measure is that it is an act of personal concern for others more than oneself. As a recent ad stated, I wear a mask to protect you. You wear a mask to protect me. This reflects the fact that other people can be infected by the tiny droplets exiting our mouths or noses when we breathe, speak, sneeze or sing. A mask will catch the droplets so that they cannot infect another person.

Since even people who may not know they are infected can spread the virus, it behooves us all to be proactive in preventing further spread of this terrible virus.

I find wearing a mask not at all uncomfortable or limiting. I cannot understand why anyone would resist such an easy and effective way to avoid causing others great harm.

The Good Book asks that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Please think of others and wear a mask when out of your home.

Orland Kennedy, Brookfield

Read more:

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE July 31, 2020 - TheChronicleHerald.ca

North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit

Len Gillis, Local Journalism Initiative

Food insecurity has been identified as a public health issue in some parts of Northern Ontario for a few years now, and the COVID-19 pandemic has made it worse.The issue has prompted the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit to ask the prime minister to support the idea of creating a universal basic income for all Canadian families enough that they can afford to buy groceries.Kendra Patrick, a public health dietitian with the health unit, says food insecurity refers to a household that does not have enough money to buy healthy food.Oh yeah, it is an ongoing issue for sure, Patrick says from her office in North Bay.We know this is a public health issue. It causes lots of other health effects. For instance, it can lead to higher rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, and even mental health issues like anxiety and depression.And we know that in our district one in seven households are food insecure. Thats quite a big proportion of the population.Patrick was quoting a health unit report tabled in February 2019. While it was not able to gather statistics for a followup report this past spring, Patrick says she was able to provide newer information from PROOF, a Canadian research organization that monitors household food insecurity.Some research was done by Statistics Canada in May, Patrick says. They showed that Canadians who were absent from work due to COVID-19 were almost three times more likely to be food insecure than those who werent.So that is really significant. Unfortunately, we dont have local data to show, but I think we can expect the trend in Canada would also apply to our area.Patrick says the most recent statistics from PROOF revealed that 13.1 per cent of Ontario residents have food insecurity, whereas the rate in Nunavut is 57 per cent. In other parts of Canada, the rate runs from 12 to 21 per cent.Food insecurity is caused by inadequate income, Patrick says. We know that in general, ones income is a huge social determinant of health. So we know that folks who are earning less income are more likely to have lots of different chronic diseases, even infectious diseases. So there is a pretty well established correlation between income and health.This is not something the health unit regards lightly, she says.We encourage our residents to be vocal about these issues.Patrick says she is a member of a group known as Ontario Dietitians for Public Health (ODHP), which encourages civic action, such as letter writing in support of a universal basic income.Like our health unit, we have been advocating for this for a few years, she says.Patrick says the federal government has implemented several income-support programs during the pandemic. She says ODPH has asked the federal government to continue with income-support programs to continue even after the pandemicAbsolutely. We at the health unit actually did send a letter to the prime minister in early June. And so basically in that letter we are calling for a basic income now and after the pandemic, she says.The letter, which is signed by North Bay-Parry Sound medical officer of health Dr. Jim Chirico, says the idea of a universal basic income is winning support across Canada.We join the many provincial and national health organizations calling for immediate action to enact legislation for a basic income guarantee that protects and promotes the health of working-age citizens in our communities, the letter states.Even though the health unit was not able to go out and survey grocery prices this spring like it has in past years, Patrick says the important thing is that too many instances are occurring where ordinary people are not able to afford the price of healthy food because of their limited incomes.She says this tasks it from being a financial issue to a public health issue and thats why action is needed.

Len Gillis is a Local Journalism Initiative reporter with Sudbury.com. The Local Journalism Initiative is funded by the Government of Canada.

Read the original post:

Health unit calls for universal basic income - The North Bay Nugget

While an all-party committee on poverty is reviewing what a basic income guarantee could look like on P.E.I., a suggestion by a Charlottetown social justice group is going one step further with a job guarantee program.

A member of the MacKillop Centre for Social Justice pitchedmembers of P.E.I.'s special committee on poverty on the idea that a job guarantee program would do more than a basic income guarantee to combat the root causes of poverty.

Pavlina Tcherneva is an associate professor of economics at Bard College in New York, who recently published a book titled, The Case for a Job Guarantee.

She says a job guarantee program is essentially an employment safety net a federal employment program administered locally that provides basic job opportunities, with wages and benefits, to those seeking a job that would be more beneficial than basic income.

"In my view, the job guarantee is better, but it certainly coexists with some basic income for people who cannot work for one reason or another but income alone doesn't create the job opportunities that are already missing," she said.

"We really need a transitional program, we need some sort of guarantee that folks that are searching for work can find it. And while basic income may be temporary assistance, folks who receive basic income report that they still need work, they are looking for work and they just cannot find it. So the job guarantee is that mechanism."

People who are out of work, for whatever reason, have a "terrible time" finding employment, Tcherneva said and have a harder time finding work than someone already employed.

"In fact, firms do not like to hire the unemployed, and then they slip into long-term unemployment, and they suffer enormous social and economic costs. So by comparison, the job guarantee will provide first employment opportunity, also the on-the-job training, as well as all of the other support services that unemployment offices provide," she said.

"By comparison with being faced by mass unemployment, having a job is actually really better from the point of view of the employer, but also the program itself will help with placement."

A federally-funded job program also serves to stabilize the economy, Tcherneva argued, ensuring people are able to continue to earn money and, therefore, spend money.

"As we are acutely aware, the economy goes through these cycles, ups and downs, and usually the collateral damage are people they lose their jobs," she said.

"It's that very expenditure that will provide the stimulus to the economy to kick-start private sector activity and employment. As that recovers, then people transition back into private sector jobs, and the public role shrinks, so it is an automatic stabilizer."

Tcherneva said there is often opposition to a job guarantee program, which she believes stems from an ideological bias, but some of the scrutiny that kind of proposal would face may be minimized, given the economic realities created by the COVID-19 pandemic.

"I think also there is this tacit assumption that somehow unemployment is unavoidable and that perhaps unemployment is even necessary to stabilize the economy I think that we really need to question these very deeply," she said.

"We have found occasions in our historical past where we know the government can guarantee employment. Unfortunately, that has happened during wartime but we certainly can do this for civilian purposes. I think it's just the shift of perspective and just realizing that the costs are there and we just can spend our resources in much more fruitful ways."

Meanwhile, P.E.I.'sspecial committee on poverty has asked for a five-month extension until November to decide whether to recommend a basic income guarantee for the province.

Read more:

Job guarantee program could bolster economy more than ...

Every Monday morning, Artnet News brings you The Gray Market. The column decodes important stories from the previous weekand offers unparalleled insight into the inner workings of the art industry in the process.

This week, discussing a different kind of art-market guarantee

On Thursday, a coalition of more than 300 Canadian artists, arts workers, and institutions publicly released a letter addressed to prime minister Justin Trudeau and other high-ranking officials urging the creation of a permanent basic-income guarantee nationwide. And while the letter from our friends in the North technically only addresses the plight of their own population, its timing and its cogent framing of the larger issues also show why artists and arts workers everywhere should care.

Authored by artists Craig Berggold, Zainub Verjee, and Clayton Windatt, the letter continues a recent surge of momentum at the highest levels of Canadian politics for universal basic incomein its most utopian form, an unconditional regular payment that would be made to citizens, regardless of their employment status, to guarantee a minimum standard of living.

CanadianArt notes that the Parliamentary Budget Office released a report on national universal basic income (UBI) on July 7, largely in response to British Columbia senator Yuen Pau Woos advocacy for the relief it could provide Canadians buffeted by the grand shutdown of 2020. More than 1,200 residents, including many artists, also backed a pro-UBI petition sent to the Canadian House of Commons last month.

Although artists have been a major power source for UBIs propulsion into the Canadian consciousness, the brilliance of the new letter lies in its erasure of the boundaries separating art-world problems from wider-world problems. Its authors argue that UBI is needed to counteract the rise of a two-headed serpent: the worsening insufficiency of social-welfare programs at all levels of government, and the growing dominance of gig work such as driving for ride-share startups and food-delivery services. Heres the key passage for my money:

The gig economy is undermining decades of worker protections. As participants, many arts-and-culture-sector workers are subject to precarious short-term contracts, without access to benefits, paid sick leave, or even employment insurance. Today, the world of general labor is looking a lot like the way art labor has looked for decades.

In other words, these problems have been slowly metastasizing over many years, but the lockdown and its effects on the economy have accelerated them to a dire new degree. Establishing UBI, the letters signatories say, is exactly the kind of radical response necessary to solve such an insidious problem.

Yet Canada and its art industry are far from the only places on the globe under this same malicious strain. And this reality became clear by way of multiple distressing announcements from elsewhere in the art world this week.

Sabine Hornig, La Guardia Vistas (2020). Photo by Nicholas Knight, courtesy of the artist; LaGuardia Gateway Partners; Public Art Fund, NY; Tanya Bonakdar Gallery, New York/Los Angeles. Sabine Hornig and VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn Germany.

Lets start with the cold winds blowing out of arts institutions in New York City. On Thursday, my colleague Taylor Dafoe laid out the findings of a new report by Southern Methodist Universitys DataArts initiative: after combining lost revenue and shutdown-related expenses, New York cultural institutions have hemorrhaged a knee-buckling $500 million since March. Their laborers took arguably the most direct hit, as the shutdown vaporized over 15,000 jobs totaling about 21 percent of the overall cultural workforce.

The survey compiled responses from 810 of the almost 1,300 nonprofits given funding by the citys department of cultural affairs. Not surprisingly, the results showed the financial damage was disproportionately weighted toward smaller organizations; major museums suffered the least. Daniel Fonner, who spearheaded the study, summed it all up by saying, What was difficult about this project, in a way, is that a lot of it is just bad news.

British cultural institutions can relate. Also on Thursday, after being prodded by a skeptical, data-backed inquiry from the Art Newspaper, the Creative Industries Federationan organization with members from across the spectrum of UK arts professionsdramatically revised its mid-June estimate of the losses likely to be faced by the museums, public galleries, and libraries in its constituency. Instead of a nine percent, roughly 743 million ($934 million) decline, the federation is now anticipating a demon drop of 45 percent, or more than 3.7 billion ($4.7 billion) in losses. Cue an organ blast from a vintage horror movie.

A Creative Industries Federation spokesperson called the original projection an honest mistake at a time when many of our partners were incredibly stretched and thinly resourced. Which, if true, kind of just drives home the point here, doesnt it? When the arts sector doesnt have enough money, time, or staff to do its work properly, the end product will probably suck. Its just as true in London or New York as it is in Toronto or Vancouver. This would make a universal basic income well, universally valuable to arts workers around the world.

But the benefits are about more than just boosting the quality of cultural production, of course. Its also just a simple matter of quality of life. No other news clarified this concept as forcefully as still another reportthis one from outside the art world, published two days before the Canadian UBI letter and the two art-industry studies I mentioned above.

Visitors look at Do Ho Suhs site-specific work Home Within Home at the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Korea in Seoul. Photo Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images.

On Tuesday, the National Low Income Housing Coalition released its annual Out of Reach report, which crunches numbers on the affordability of home rentals for the lowest-earning laborers in all 50 American states. The results are so grim that they might as well have been handed over by a skeleton in a hooded black robe.

As CNBC broke down, the study found that a full-time employee earning the local minimum wage nets too little to responsibly afford a one-bedroom apartment in 95 percent of counties across the US and, for the second consecutive year, too little to afford a two-bedroom anywhere in the nation.

The findings are based on allotting no more than 30 percent of annual income for housingthe maximum advised by a wide swathe of budgeting experts, including US government officials, since the 1980s. (Except in certain special situations, minimum wage in the US currently ranges from $7.25 to $14 an hour, depending on the state.)

How many hours would a single minimum-wage laborer need to work on average to budget for these two types of homes? The answers are roughly 79 hours a week for a one-bedroom, and 97 hours a week for a two-bedroom. Which means this slice of the labor marketone that, perversely, happens to include millions of workers labeled essential during the shutdown, such as grocery-store staffers, delivery drivers, and food-service employeescould only manage to do so by either working a second full-time job, and/or taking on exactly the kind of gig work the 300-plus signatories of the Canadian letter identified as a central reason UBI is needed.

Yet many artists and arts workers arent much better off than minimum-wage earners, if they are better off at all. Yes, the growing ranks of laborers unionizing (and attempting to unionize) at US cultural institutions are, in a very real sense, rallying around deeper structural issues. But the fight for fair wages has pounded out a consistent drum track to their efforts, especially in arts hubs where, as more-on-point-than-he-was-given-credit-for New York gubernatorial candidate Jimmy McMillan noted, the rent is simply too damn high.

(Fun fact: When I see Andrew Cuomo, who has slurped up more money from New Yorks real-estate lobbyists than any other donor, laughing like a suited gargoyle after McMillan says his peace in that clip, my entire body momentarily ignites like the Human Torch.)

As much as I hate to say it, the situation is poised to get even worse for the rank-and-file American art world. Heres a bit of marrow-chilling context from the CNBC summary of Out of Reach:

With all of that as the backdrop, housing experts forecast a coming housing apocalypse at the end of July: Eviction bans put in place at the start of the pandemic are lifting, just as enhanced unemployment benefits expire. That could lead millions of households to face eviction and potentially homelessness as they choose between covering rent and basics like food and medicine.

All of which illustrates the point made by the 300-plus signatories of the pro-UBI letter to Canadian officials: the world of general labor is looking a lot like the way art labor has looked for decades. From Canada to New York to the UK and beyond, too many of us are all facing the same structural peril for the same structural reasons. Arts workers rights are human rights, just channeled through one particular prism.

Im not sure if universal basic income is the only, or the best, skeleton key to get the art industry out of this dungeon, but I am sure about this: the sooner artists and arts workers in one location can connect their local concerns to their counterparts elsewhere, as well as to those of the broader labor force suffering under the same injustices, the more achievable genuine transformation should be. Canadas art world sees it. Hopefully others will, tooand soon.

[Ontario Basic Income Network | CanadianArt]

Thats all for this week. Til next time, remember: fairness is simultaneously the simplest ask and the most complicated one of all.

Read more here:

The Gray Market: Why the Entire Art World Should Back Canadian Arts Workers Push for Universal Basic Income (and Other Insights) - artnet News

MADISON (WKOW) -- When millions of Americans began losing their jobs in March the federal government stepped in to provide a lifeline, $600 a week in extra unemployment benefits but now those payments are set to disappear.

Supplemental checks through the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation program expire at the end of the month. But because of when these payments are issued and how the calendar falls in July, workers in Wisconsin wont qualify anymore after this weekend.

This means peoples employment benefits will be reduced and for some cut in half.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress continue to disagree on how to move forward with the program. The White House and Senate Republicans continue to but-heads in finding a way to scale back the program without overwhelming state unemployment agencies.

This is leaving many Wisconsinites worried about their financial stability.

For Sadie Tuescher the extra $600 and being enrolled in the Workshare Program allowed her health insurance business to stay open and avoid laying off workers.

I was then able to know my employees were happy and safe and were able to meet their basic needs at not go find jobs elsewhere, she said.

Workshare allows employers to keep workers at reduced hours and avoids businesses from closing.

On top of the program, Tuescher and her employees were also getting the additional $600 a week in benefits.

But without a guarantee of those funds, she worries some of her employees wont be able to afford basic needs.

Citizen Action of Wisconsin said once these extra funds expire the state will see a ripple effect because those payments will no longer be funneled into the economy such as paying for groceries or rent.

They'll be facing foreclosures, eviction, food insecurity and everything else that comes with your income plummet, said Robert Kraig, executive director of Citizen Action.

Republicans argue enhancing unemployment benefits could deter people from going back to work.

As lawmakers continue to negotiate a new deal the uncertainty weighs on peoples livelihoods.

See original here:

Extra $600 unemployment benefits set to expire this weekend - WKOW

Amy Rawe | July 25, 2020 | Energy Justice, Tennessee, Utilities Take action in Knoxville at ACTonKUB.org/action.

We all can relate to the feeling of dread when we receive our latest utility bill and wonder, Is this right? Am I actually using this much electricity, or water, or gas? I thought I did a decent job of trying to use less this month so I could save money.

These are valid questions, so lets break down why, no matter how hard we Knoxvillians try to conserve, were still paying large fees on our monthly utility bills regardless of how much electricity, water, or gas we use. Lets also take a look at how, with a potential vote this fall, you could help change the structures in place that have led Knoxvillians to face unaffordable utility bills that force too many residents to choose between putting food on the table or keeping the lights on.

Every month, Knoxville residents pay our local power company, KUB (Knoxville Utilities Board), for utilities. Services provided by KUB include electric, gas, water, and wastewater. If youre a KUB customer, youll find up to $85 in mandatory fixed fees, or basic service charges, you are required to pay each month. Thats $85 before you even use a drop of water or a single unit of electricity or gas.

Breaking those basic service charges out, KUB customers pay a set fee of $20.50 for electricity, $10.90 for gas, $18 for water, and $35.90 for wastewater.

If youre wondering whether this is just the norm for similar-sized utility providers, know that its not. KUBs fixed fee for electricity alone is 50-90% higher than most of their peer utilities serving the largest cities in the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) service territory, including Memphis, Chattanooga, and Huntsville. Why is that?

For one thing, in 2010, KUB started a damaging trend of increasing basic service charges on customers bills on what appeared to be unjustified grounds, rather than being based on facts, data, and utility industry best-practices. For example, the basic service charge for electricity has more than tripled, from $6.09 in 2010 to $20.50 today. This negligent rate-making that severely impacts low-income, fixed-income, and single-resident customers prompted groups in Knoxville, including us at SACE, to launch the Freeze the Fees campaign in early 2019, which thanks to the thousands of Knoxvillians who spoke out in opposition of unjustified fixed fees, prompted KUB to temporarily halt fee increases on customers bills.

This was a win for Knoxvillians, but the fact remained that the fee freeze was temporary, agreed to for only at least two years. There is no guarantee KUB will not impose future fixed fee increases on customers bills that arent grounded in industry best practices.

Shouldnt KUB customers be aware of why their utility bill fixed fees are increasing? And shouldnt the KUB Board of Commissioners, who approve increases to fixed fees, be held accountable to being transparent about the process for determining these fees?

We believe so, which is why SACE is part of a grassroots coalition of several Knoxville-based non-profit organizations, community leaders, elected officials, and candidates* proposing the ACT on KUB initiative that would enact basic reforms to KUB through an amendment to Knoxvilles City Charter.

ACT stands for Accountability, Cost-Savings, and Transparency, which would be realized through our proposed charter amendment that would shorten the lengthy terms of KUBs Board of Commissionerswho oversee the utility rates and feesand revise the process of their election to ensure the community is better represented and connected to our publicly-owned utility.

Currently, the City Charter establishes that KUB commissioners serve seven-year terms, with a limit of two terms, for a total of up to 14 years. Seven-year terms are longer than the terms for utility board members of any of the other five largest cities in the TVA service territory, which range from 3- to 5-year terms, and are longer than terms of TVA board members (5 years), the Governor (4 years), and even the President of the United States (4 years). The excessively long terms for KUB board members currently authorized by the charter hinder accountability to the people KUB is meant to serve.

In addition, the City Charter currently authorizes the KUB board to self-select new board members by screening applicants and advancing only its preferred candidates to be considered for nomination by the mayor. We think that if the mayor were to receive all applications for board membership without the boards initial screening process, it would allow a broader slate of community members to be considered for nomination.

A charter amendment is the right vehicle for these reforms for two reasons:

KUB was established by the City Charter and is ultimately governed by the charter. The charter clearly states that for the KUB Board of Commissioners, The term of office shall be for a period of seven (7) years and no commissioner shall be elected or serve for more than two (2) such terms, or a maximum of fourteen (14) years [] Since this is in the charter, it cannot be trumped by any act of the Board, City Council, or the Mayor. To shorten Board members terms it must come in the form of a charter amendment to be binding.

In response to the ACT on KUB proposed amendment changes, KUB and Mayor Kincannon have offered some voluntary commitments to address issues identified by the campaignhowever, they are limited in both their scope and their permanency. Because the Mayors resolution is only an Executive Action and not a lasting City Charter amendment, there is no guarantee that her commitments would be continued after she is no longer in office. Unless changes are made to the City Charter, as the ACT on KUB amendment proposes, theres no lasting guarantee that KUB will be held accountable to serving Knoxvillians as fairly as possible.

[See more on why a charter amendment is necessary in this Knoxville News Sentinel Op-Ed: Fixed fees, makeup of KUB Board at heart of proposed amendment | Opinion]

The bottom line is that Knoxville needs City Council to step up and ensure proper oversight over our publicly-owned utility and show that they can operate independently of the Mayor to do whats right to bring lasting changes proposed in the ACT on KUB charter amendment to Knoxvillians. Anything less than that, such as the resolution Mayor Kincannon is suggesting, would be only a temporary change, allowing future KUB Board members or Mayoral administrations to easily undo the reforms. When that happens, Knoxville residents will once again be left paying the price.

Ultimately, when it comes to this very narrow and focused set of proposed reforms, there is virtually no reason why Knoxvillians shouldnt be given the peace of mind and assurance that placing these common-sense reforms in the charter would provide.

In order for the changes recommended in the ACT on KUB proposed amendment to take effect, the amendment needs to be placed on the November 3 ballot for Knoxville voters to approve as a change to the City Charter.

However, in order for Knoxville voters to have the chance to vote on the amendment on November 3rd, the Knoxville City Council must first pass the proposed amendment at their July 28 and August 11 meetings in order to allow it to be included on this falls ballot.

If you, too, are ready to bring more Accountability, Cost-Savings, and Transparency to KUB, now is the time to ask City Councilmembers to support ACT on KUBs proposed charter amendment, so Knoxville city voters can decide whether or not to approve it this November.As ACT on KUB coalition member Reverend Calvin Taylor Skinner, Co-Founder and Convener of One Knox Legacy Coalition, said during a virtual town hall held to discuss the amendment,

This is an issue that resonates with a lot of people, not just people in a particular income bracket. The issue of rates and transparency really transcends class and economicsAnd we know the power is with the people.

Its up to us to take a stand for Accountability, Cost-savings, and Transparency from KUB. As Reverend Skinner said, the power of this campaign really IS with the people.

CONTACT KNOXVILLE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AND ASK THEM TO SUPPORT THE ACT ON KUB CHARTER AMENDMENT

*Supporters of the ACT on KUB proposed charter amendment include:

Excerpt from:

Why Now is the Time to ACT on KUB - SACE - Clean Energy News

Basic Income, often refered to as Universal Basic Income or a Basic Income Guarantee is a system in which all of the citizens of a country get a certain amount of income from the government -- unconditionally. This income would be received regardless of other income from work or any other limitations.

Basic Income would, in theory, allow for the removal of many other government support programs which would no longer be necessary. It would also give citizens the ability to survive without work. In turn, those who do continue to seek employment would earn a living at a standard above the minimum.

This system is a more efficient option than having a variety of cluttered, complicated, and bloated welfare and assistance programs. The goal would be to spend a similar amount of money in total, but with a far more efficient result. The amount given each individual would need to be enough for a single person to survive. Consequently, this would result in a lower homeless rate, and less people without enough money to eat or pay rent. At the same time, it allows those who can and do work to have free income to spend on things that aren't bare necessities, fueling the economy.

Follow this link:

What is Basic Income? | Guaranteed Universal Basic Income

(July 23, 2020).- The Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Alicia Brcena, urged the regions countries to implement urgent cooperation beyond the pandemic and foster greater productive, trade and social integration, during a virtual conference held today under the organization of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the regional office of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) for Latin America and the Caribbean.

Other participants in the webinar entitled Multilateral Action to Prevent the Health Crisis from Becoming a Food Crisis included Marcelo Ebrard, Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, in its capacity as President Pro Tempore of CELAC; Joseph Cox, Assistant Secretary-General of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM); Vinicio Cerezo, Secretary-General of the Central American Integration System (SICA); and Julio Berdegu, FAOs Regional Representative for Latin America and the Caribbean. Serving as moderator was Camila Zepeda, Director General for Global Issues at the Secretariat for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico.

During her presentation, Alicia Brcena emphasized that the region is at risk of experiencing a true food crisis. She specified that more than 96 million people will be living in extreme poverty 11.8% of all people living in cities and 29% of the residents in rural areas.

This is a huge warning, the income of households is declining along with their access to the food basket. It is not that there is a shortage of food, it is that people do not have the resources to be able to acquire it. This comes on top of the low nutritional quality that people are experiencing, above all the poorest families, she warned.

She added that in the region, we are in a lost decade in social and economic terms.

This downturn will lead us to the worst crisis in a century: GDP will fall -9.1%, poverty will affect 37.3% of the population, and unemployment will reach 13.5%. In Central America and Mexico, the drop in GDP will be 8.4% with a big impact from the recession and unemployment in the United States. South America, meanwhile, will be the subregion most affected by the fall in international prices (-9.4%) due to its specialization in the production and exportation of commodities, she said.

With regard to Caribbean countries, she indicated that while they have managed the pandemic crisis better in relative terms, they are experiencing a great plunge in tourism and have high external debt (68.5% of GDP). The GDP of the Caribbean will fall by -5.4%, she added.

ECLACs most senior representative added that governments have taken important measures, but they are not enough to account for the magnitude of the gap.

She explained that to confront the crisis, ECLAC proposes implementing an emergency basic income equivalent to one poverty line ($147 dollars) for six months, at a cost of 1.9% of GDP, along with an anti-hunger grant equivalent to 70% of one extreme poverty line ($57 dollars), which would cost 0.45% of GDP. The Commission also recommends longer repayment periods and grace periods for credits to Micro, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) and partial co-financing of the payroll; conditional support for at-risk big companies in strategic sectors; expansive and progressive fiscal and monetary policies; and cooperation for financing under favorable conditions.

It also proposes a political compact for a welfare State and universal, progressive and distributive social policies aimed at dismantling the culture of privilege.

Alicia Brcena noted that to prevent the health crisis from becoming a food crisis, ECLAC proposes (in addition to complementing the emergency basic income with the provision of an anti-hunger grant) the granting of subsidies, debt restructuring and/or liquidity provision for agricultural and food-related SMEs and for family businesses, to guarantee the production and distribution chain.

Furthermore, she called for deepening regional integration through greater resilience in production networks, diversifying suppliers in terms of countries and companies, favoring locations that are closer to final consumption markets, and relocating strategic production-related and technological processes.

The senior United Nations official warned about the fragility of multilateralism and its exacerbation with the unilateral restrictions placed on the exportation of medical supplies in more than 60 countries. She also explained that in the post-pandemic period, globalization will not be rolled back, but there will be a more regionalized global economy organized around 3 poles: Europe, North America and Asia Pacific.

Finally, ECLACs Executive Secretary highlighted the importance of CELAC for expressing the regions needs and urgencies, with a single voice, on the international stage, primarily in areas such as the search for financial support for middle-income countries under flexible conditions and guaranteeing the unfettered movement of food, medicine and goods.

Continue reading here:

ECLAC calls for urgent regional cooperation beyond the pandemic to foster more integration and avert a food crisis - Dominican Today

While the coronavirus itself might be indiscriminate, its economic impact has certainly hit young people the hardest.

Youth unemployment has risen to 16.4%, more than double the headline rate, with government forecasts pointing to more pain ahead.

As Treasury presented its budget update inside Parliament House on Thursday, young Australians marched outside to demand genuine reform.

Young people all over the country are being left behind. We need an approach to recovering from this crisis that puts people first and creates good jobs and a society that works for all of us, protest organiser Bella Himmelreich said.

The demonstration is part of the Tomorrow Movement, a relatively new national grassroots group led by volunteers rallying for major economic and climate reforms.

With Australia headed for its first recession in three decades, they are urging policymakers to look for new economic solutions rather than returning to policies that the group say have failed time and time again.

Young people were already suffering before the coronavirus crisis [with] high unemployment, unaffordable housing and a climate crisis. We refuse to go back to a world that didnt work for all of us, Himmelreich said. Thats why well keep fighting for a recovery that puts people first.

To put the country back to work and kickstart a genuine recovery, the group proposes policymakers adopt whats known as a job guarantee. It would essentially see the government unconditionally hire all Australians who are looking for work in full-time minimum wage positions.

If we want to get people back into jobs, theres no shortage of meaningful work to be done in public housing, public health, aged care, climate, the arts and so many other areas, communications lead James Clark told Business Insider Australia. Why not put the country to work to meet the shortages we know we have?

We have to rebuild the economy but theres no point rebuilding it the way it was before because it simply wasnt working for most people, and it was especially failing the young, he said.

The idea, while extreme for a Coalition government, has been endorsed by union groups including the United Workers Union as well as GetUp.

These arent radical ideas. In a country as wealthy as Australia, theyre common sense and basic decency, GetUp organisers said, outlining the policy as part of their proposed economic blueprint.

While the policy has been floating around for some time, progressive campaigners see the current coronavirus crisis as the perfect opportunity to be bold. Take Spain, which this month embarked on the worlds largest experiment with a universal basic income for 850,000 of its citizens. Even Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), the idea that governments like Australia can essentially print money without restraint, has become a mainstay of the news cycle.

However, while there might be growing public appetite for progressive solutions, the Morrison government is going in the other direction. It revealed it will take a knife to wage subsidies and welfare in September, a move Himmelreich and others naturally oppose.

Pushing people into poverty doesnt create jobs, it just makes it harder for hundreds of thousands of people to survive. The government must keep the rate of all social security payments above the poverty line, Himmelreich said.

The government will cut $300 from the fortnightly payment in September, with most of the 1.6 million recipients to be reduced to $815. Modelling from the Australia Institute shows the move will push 375,000 Australians, including 80,000 children, below the poverty line.

With the current coronavirus supplement due to end entirely in December, unemployed Australians will then have to make do with just $282 a week.

The Morrison government justifies the cuts on the premise that heightened welfare discourages Australians from finding work. From August, recipients will again be required to meet mutual obligations, requiring them to apply for a determined number of positions in order to qualify for payments.

However, with hundreds of thousands more Australians expected to lose their jobs over the next six months, the activists at the Tomorrow Movement arent buying it.

Young people are looking around and they know there are no jobs. Now theyre being told they need to go and apply for jobs that dont exist, Clark said. If youre in Melbourne and all of your experience is in hospitality or retail, how on earth are you meant to find a job at the moment?

Part of registered charity Young Campaigns, the Tomorrow Movement is planning a series of protests against the cuts. Itll see young people take action on 18 September to warn theres no turning back.

The group is rallying for something akin to Americas Green New Deal, promoting the idea that twin economic and climate crises can be addressed collectively, through targeted public spending and the rapid growth of sustainable industries. Its this idea that forms the very core of the movement.

A lot of young people dont really see much point in getting through the pandemic only for climate change to ruin their lives in 20 years anyway, Clark said.

Our mission is to help them find their voices and mobilise to fight for the future.

Site highlights each day to your inbox.

Follow Business Insider Australia on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram.

Go here to read the rest:

'A recovery that puts people first': A group of young Australians is demanding a government job guarantee to fight both soaring unemployment and...

In the long list of unexpected news stories from 2020, theres this: A fight over funding Idaho public schools has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

But lets take a break from writing about the legal maneuvers in the Reclaim Idaho K-12 voter initiative lawsuit.

Its big picture time. It comes down to two fundamental questions: How much should Idaho spend on public schools, and who ought to dig into their pockets to pay? This is a fight we all could have seen coming. Because its a fight weve been having for years.

The Reclaim Idaho Invest in Idaho initiative is, in essence, a reassignment of the education investment. If Reclaim Idaho succeeds in getting the initiative on the November ballot, if it passes, and if the 2021 Legislature enacts it more or less intact three separate and big ifs the K-12 funding picture changes significantly.

Corporations and wealthy Idahoans would pay directly into a fund for K-12, to the tune of $170 million to $200 million annually. The higher income taxes would affect only Idahoans making more than $250,000 or couples making more than $500,000 so Reclaim Idaho argues that it is proposing a tax increase for just 5 percent of the population.

The income taxes are somewhat but not exactly aligned with Idahos ever-growing supplemental property tax levy bill. Idahoans have a proven history of voting for taxes for schools, and the supplemental levies prove it. In 2019-20, Idahoans paid $214 million in voter-passed supplemental levies, nearly twice as much as they paid a decade ago.

So, will the new income taxes replace these property taxes, reducing the reliance on a tax Idahoans have long reviled? Not necessarily.

Its possible that property taxes will go down in some districts and that some districts may decide not to run supplemental levies, Reclaim Idaho says on its own website. However, there is no guarantee. Districts may decide to continue to raise local levy dollars in order to supplement new state dollars.

Of course, theres no way to guarantee what will happen with supplementals, which are on the books in 92 of Idahos 115 school districts. Theres no guarantee that the long list of possible uses for the new income taxes everything from teacher salaries and full-day kindergarten to special education services and art, music and drama programs would line up with what districts say they need, and what local voters are willing to finance.

And, of course, Reclaim Idaho cannot (and does not) promote its initiative as both a tax shift and a K-12 funding boost. In its Supreme Court filing Tuesday, Reclaim Idaho cited a recent National Education Association report that found Idaho dead last in the nation in per-pupil funding. As Reclaim Idaho Bonner County volunteer leader Linda Larson said in a June 6 court statement, My team of volunteers understood that the current level of funding for education in Idaho is a crisis.

And that message was resonating, Reclaim Idaho leaders say.

Before mid-March, and before the group suspended face-to-face petitioning, Reclaim Idaho said it was tapping into a growing cadre of volunteers. The group started in October with 143 volunteers. By March 10, the number had swelled to 546 volunteers, field director Ashley Prince said in a June 5 court statement.

From the middle of February to March 12, Reclaim Idahos signature count doubled from 15,000 to more than 30,000, co-founder Luke Mayville said in a June 5 court filing. That left the group more than halfway toward its goal, with an April 30 deadline. As Reclaim Idaho describes it, the only thing that halted the initiative was a global pandemic, which put an end to the signature drive and started a legal battle that has unfolded across three levels of the federal judiciary.

Maybe, indeed, momentum was on Reclaim Idahos side. The states lawyers have spent some of their time castigating Reclaim Idaho saying the groups own procrastination led to the initiatives demise. But Reclaim Idaho has already shown it knows how to get an initiative on the ballot, as it did with its successful 2018 Medicaid expansion drive. If group leaders say they were right on schedule, whos to say theyre wrong?

And maybe, once again, Reclaim Idaho had managed to tap into a reservoir of public frustration. After seven years of waiting for the Legislature to move on Medicaid expansion, Idaho voters were more than ready to do it themselves. Are voters just as frustrated about how much Idaho pays for schools and who pays the taxes that support K-12?

The Reclaim Idaho initiative challenges some very basic notions the Legislature holds about school funding and tax policy. While the Legislature has steadily increased K-12 funding in recent years, lawmakers have turned a blind eye to the increasing reliance on supplemental levies. And many lawmakers including House Majority Leader Mike Moyle, perhaps the Legislatures most powerful voice on tax policy contendthat the states corporate and personal income tax rates should be lower, not higher.

Right now, the state and Reclaim Idaho are arguing about the mechanics of online signature gathering, and the First Amendment implications of suspending an initiative during a public health crisis.

But lets not lose sight of the big-picture issue. The Reclaim Idaho initiative wont settle the debate over how we pay for schools. But it could put the question into sharper focus.

Each week, Kevin Richert writes an analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for it every Thursday.

Senior reporter and blogger Kevin Richert specializes in education politics and education policy. He has more than 30 years of experience in Idaho journalism. He is a frequent guest on KIVI 6 On Your Side; "Idaho Reports" on Idaho Public Television; and "Idaho Matters" on Boise State Public Radio. Follow Kevin on Twitter: @KevinRichert. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

More here:

Analysis: Behind the legal maneuvering in the Reclaim Idaho initiative - Idaho EdNews

The effectiveness of the CERB as an emergency income support has led many people to wonder whether it is time to consider a more permanent solution, such as a basic income guarantee, the report said.

Among other things, the committee also made recommendations for restructuring CERB as a declining benefit, based on income, and improving access to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS).

While the committee lauded the governments response to the pandemic including federal financial support programs, such as CERB and CEWS, noting that these likely prevented a more severe economic crash it also said that the government has used extraordinary powers to introduce these measures.

On March 24, Parliament passed legislation that granted the government greater spending power and exempted it from requiring Parliaments approval to expand its borrowing.

The report noted that the threat of Covid-19 shows no sign of abating in the near term, and, as a result, it recommended a return to traditional parliamentary procedures for government spending.

Parliament has a fundamental role in reviewing and approving government spending, the report said.

The committee also recommended that the government provide quarterly financial updates throughout the crisis, so that policymakers, lawmakers and Canadians have accurate information about the countrys financial health.

While the government and public service acted with commendable speed in implementing crucial financial supports, public and parliamentary scrutiny of spending measures will be crucial for Canadas economic recovery, said Senator Percy Mockler, chair of the committee, in a statement.

Looking ahead, the committee said that it will focus on recovery strategies when it resumes meeting in the fall and make recommendations for building a fairer and more sustainable economy.

We hope that our study will lead to improved programs and services that will see all Canadians share in the economic recovery. We look forward to laying out a vision for this recovery when we continue our study, said Senator David Richards.

Link:

In the wake of Covid-19, time to consider basic income: Senate report - Investment Executive

Prince Edward Island has one new COVID-19 case,an essential worker in his 30s who travelled internationally recently. He has been self-isolating since his arrival on P.E.I., says Dr. Heather Morrison. This case is not related to the twomost recent cases, she said at her regular Tuesdaybriefing.

Contact tracing and testing is underway on the previousnew case of COVID-19, a man in his 40s who is a health-care worker in the emergency department at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Charlottetown. More than 200 staff and patientshave been identified for testing.

About 20 people gathered in Charlottetown to draw attention to the struggle of seniors in P.E.I.'s long-term care facilities throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Small businesses are making adjustments asmask recommendations change, setting protocols for employees, seeking suppliers, and even offering discounts to mask-wearing customers.

P.E.I. Premier Dennis King says he is comfortable with Islanders travelling around Atlantic Canada and vice versa, but he is not seriously considering expanding beyond that yet.

Fishermen on P.E.I. are hoping the lobster industry will be better in the fall than it was in the spring.

P.E.I.'s tourism industry lost more than $27 million in direct earnings with the cancellation of the cruise ship season this year,the CEO of Port Charlottetown estimates.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown what can be possible with regard to a basic income guarantee on P.E.I., says the chair of the legislative committee on poverty.

Health PEI told employees in an email earlier this week thatall staff who come in contact with patients and who aren't able to physically distance must now wear medical masks.

Follow this link:

COVID-19 on P.E.I.: What's happening Tuesday, July 14 - CBC.ca

Contact tracing on a new case of COVID-19 announced on P.E.I. Sunday has uncovered a new case, a man in his 40s who is a health-care worker at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Charlottetown.

The man was tested Sunday and results came back positive Sunday evening.

The testing station for COVID-19 is back up and running again at Confederation Bridge, after complaints from truckers.

A second round of tests at Whisperwood Villa have all come back negative.

Many small businesses are now asking employees to wear a mask while at work.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown what can be possible with regard to a basic income guarantee on P.E.I.

The Downtown Farmers' Market returned to Charlottetown with COVID-19 precautions in place.

Health PEI told employees in an email earlier this week thatall staff who come in contact with patients and who aren't able to physically distance must now wear medical masks.

Read the original here:

COVID-19 on P.E.I.: What's happening Monday, July 13 - CBC.ca

Imagine an American democracy remade by its citizens in the very image of its promise, a society where the election system is designed to allow citizens to perform their most basic civic duty with ease. Imagine that all could vote without obstruction or suppression. Imagine Americans who now solemnly accept their responsibilities to sit on juries and to defend our country in a time of war taking their obligations to the work of self-government just as seriously. Imagine elections in which 80 percent or more of our people cast their ballotsbroad participation in our great democratic undertaking by citizens of every race, heritage and class, by those with strongly-held ideological beliefs, and those with more moderate or less settled views. And imagine how all of this could instill confidence in our capacity for common action.

This report is offered with these aspirations in mind and is rooted in the history of American movements to expand voting rights. Our purpose is to propose universal civic duty voting as an indispensable and transformative step toward full electoral participation. Our nations current crisis of governance has focused unprecedented public attention on intolerable inequities and demands that Americans think boldly and consider reforms that until now seemed beyond our reach.

Our purpose is to propose universal civic duty voting as an indispensable and transformative step toward full electoral participation.

We see voting as a civic responsibility no less important than jury duty. If every American citizen is required to participate as a matter of civic duty, the representativeness of our elections would increase significantly and those those responsible for organizing elections will be required to resist all efforts at voter suppression and remove barriers to the ballot box. Civic duty voting would necessarily be accompanied by a variety of legislative and administrative changes aimed at making it easier for citizens to meet their obligation to participate in the enterprise of self-rule.

Our intervention reflects a sense of alarm and moral urgency, but also a spirit of hope and patriotism. Members of our working group undertook this work to fight back against legal assaults on voting rights guarantees and the proliferation of new techniques and laws to keep citizens from casting ballots. We did so mindful of the publics declining trust in our democratic institutions. We joined together to end a vicious cycle in which declining trust breeds citizen withdrawal which, in turn, only further increases the sense of distance between citizens and our governing institutions.

It would, however, be a great mistake to see only negative portents in our current situation. If some states have engaged in voter suppression, others have enhanced voting rights through automatic voter registration, same day voting, increased opportunities for early voting, and mail ballots. These reforms have had a measurable and positive impact on participationand enjoyed enthusiastic citizen support.

Our nations struggle to realize the fullness of the franchise began in the battles for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution after the Civil War that constituted our nations Second Founding.1 It continued with the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Native Americans were not granted full citizenship until the passage of the Snyder Act in 1924 and were not fully granted voting rights until Utah did so in 1962, the last state to formally guarantee the franchise to indigenous peoples. Nearly a decade later, amidst the Vietnam War in which the youngest Americans were drafted but could not vote, the 26th Amendment extended the franchise to 18-year-olds.

In calling for what has been known as mandatory attendance at the polls (the phrase makes clear that no citizen would be forced to vote for anyone against his or her will), and might now, with the spread of mail voting, be called mandatory participation in elections, we hope to underscore that rights and duties are intimately related. During Reconstruction and the Civil Rights eras, few reforms were more important or more empowering than the right of Black Americans to sit on juries. They demanded that they be included in the pool of those who might be required to sit through trials because their own liberties depended upon being included in the process of judging whether a fellow citizen would be jailed, fined, or set free. In the case of jury service, the right and the duty are one in the same. The same can be said of voting. The franchise, said a voting rights advocate of the Reconstruction era, is an essential and inseparable part of self-government, and therefore natural and inalienable. W.E.B. Du Bois saw voting as central to the larger aspiration of being treated as an equal, a co-worker in the kingdom of culture.2

We also believe our proposals would pass constitutional scrutiny. Our report includes a careful and detailed legal analysis because the issue of the constitutionality has regularly arisen in debates over the idea. Knowing that it would face legal challenge if adopted, we examine the constitutional implications of various implementation and enforcement policies at every level of government. Universal civic duty voting, we argue, should survive legal challenges. It is consistent with our Constitutions guarantees of free speech, robust forms of collective action, and effective government.

A large majority of Americans share our view that voting is both a right and a duty.

In the course of our report, we present public opinion data, gathered explicitly for this study by the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape Project. We freely acknowledge thatfor nowthere is far more opposition than support for the idea of requiring everyone to vote. At the same time, a large majority of Americans share our view that voting is both a right and a duty. Our conclusion from the data is that while nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose mandatory electoral participation, about half the country is at least open to persuasion, a significant opening for a novel concept that has never been advanced in an organized and energetic way. To begin this process, this report seeks to answer legitimate criticisms and practical objections. We propose, for example, that all who have a conscientious objection to voting and all who present any reasonable excuse for not doing so would be exempted from the obligation and any penalty. Voters would be free to return a blank or spoiled ballot, and a None of the Above option would also be included.

We also address equity concerns related to penalties. Even small fines could be discriminatory against poor people, and immigrants rights activists raise legitimate concerns that inadvertent voting by noncitizens could subject them to unfair penalties. These concerns shaped our recommendations which make clear that the fine for not voting be very small and be set aside for those willing to meet a very modest community service requirement. The fine would be limited to no more than $20, it could not be compounded over time, nor would civil or criminal penalties be imposed for not paying the fine. If the experience in Australia and other nations with versions of compulsory voting can be taken as a guide, most nonvoters would never face a fine. We also detail protections for noncitizens to prevent exploitation of the system by public officials hostile to immigrants.

Our emphasis is not on imposing sanctions but on sending a strong message that voting is a legitimate expectation of citizenship. Nations that have embraced carefully implemented versions of universal civic duty voting have enjoyed dramatic increases in participation. Compulsory voting makes democracy work better, concluded Lisa Hill of the University of Adelaide, enabling it to function as a social activity engaged in by all affected interests, not just a privileged elite.3

Nations that have embraced carefully implemented versions of universal civic duty voting have enjoyed dramatic increases in participation.

The countrys politics typically places the interests of older Americans over the interests of the younger generationswhich, by definition, makes our system less forward-looking. This problem is aggravated by the under-representation of the young in the voting process. Their participation is held down by rules and requirements that are easier for older and more geographically settled Americans to follow and to meet. As part of our proposal to declare that all adults are required to vote, we propose many ideas, beginning with election day registration and an expansion of voting opportunities, that would welcome the young into full participation. Since the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is placing particular burdens on young Americans, especially those just entering the workforce, their engagement in the democratic project is more vital than ever.

Universal civic duty voting would also help ensure increased political participation in communities of color that have long confronted exclusion from our democracy. With the reforms that would necessarily accompany it, civic duty voting would permanently block voter suppression measures. The reprehensible police killing of George Floyd shocked the conscience of the nation and forced its attention to entrenched racial injustice. Floyds death, and those of Rayshard Brooks and Breonna Taylor, called forth large-scale protests around the country against police violence that has long been an enraging fact-of-life in Black neighborhoods. The new movement is demanding a thoroughgoing overhaul of policing but also a larger confrontation with racism. The demand for equal treatment has been reinforced by unequal suffering during a pandemic whose costs to health, life, and economic well-being have been borne disproportionately by communities of color. Voting rights, equal participation, and an end to exclusion from the tables of power are essential not only for securing reform, but also for creating the democratic conditions that would make social change durable. Police brutality, as an expression of systemic racism, is not merely about how Americans are policed but whose voices are heard on policing. Universal voting could amplify long voter-suppressed voices so that long-denied solutions to systemic racism are represented in the voting booth and enacted in legislatures.

Universal civic duty voting would also help ensure increased political participation in communities of color that have long confronted exclusion from our democracy.

Give us the ballot, Martin Luther King Jr. declared in 1957, and we will transform the salient misdeeds of bloodthirsty mobs into the calculated good deeds of orderly citizens.4 As our nation opens its mind and its heart to forms of social reconstruction that were far removed from the public agenda only months ago, we believe that transformative adjustments to our voting system are now in order.

The new activism points to the need for a renewed civic life, and universal voting would assist in its rebirth. Citizens, political campaigns and civil rights and community organizations could move resources now spent on protecting the right to vote and increasing voter turnout to the task of persuading and educating citizens. Media consultants would no longer have an incentive to drive down the other sides turnout, which only increases the already powerful forces working to make our campaigns highly negative in character. Candidates would be pushed to appeal beyond their own voter bases. This imperative would raise the political costs of invoking divisive rhetoric and vilifying particular groups. Low turnout is aggravated by the hyper-polarization in our political life that is so widely and routinely denounced. Intense partisans are drawn to the polls while those who are less ideologically committed and less fervent about specific issues are more likely to stay away. Of course, democratic politics will always involve clashes of interests and battles between competing, deeply held worldviews. But by magnifying the importance of persuasion, universal voting could begin to alter the tenor of our campaigns and encourage a politics that places greater stress on dialogue, empathy, and the common good.5 And some citizens, initially empowered by their votes, would be drawn to deepen their participation in other aspects of civic life.

To say that everyone should vote is the surest guarantee that everyone will be enabled to vote. Stressing the obligation to participate will, we believe, expand the freedom to participate. As we will detail in these pages, civic duty voting must be accompanied by other voting reforms. They include automatic voter registration at state agencies; restoration of voting rights for citizens with felony convictions; early voting; expanded mail-in voting; and no-excuse absentee voting.

But we also need to recognize the disparities in American society that affect participation. This has been put in sharp focus in the 2020 primaries. The high turnout and willingness of voters to adapt to the changes in elections in the face of the pandemic deserves to be celebrated. But we must also recognize that barriers to voting were often concentrated in lower income and Black or Latinx communities, where turnout was suppressed by dramatically curtailed opportunities for in-person voting and distrust of voting by mail. Long lines are voter suppression in action, election lawyer Marc Elias observedone reason the 2014 bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration insisted that no voter should have to wait more than 30 minutes to cast a ballot.6

And while the polemics around easier voting have often taken on a partisan castthe recriminations around the April 2020 primary and State Supreme Court election in Wisconsin in the midst of the pandemic are an unfortunate examplewe would note that a number of Republican secretaries of state and many conservatives support mail ballots and other reforms to ease access to voting. Writing in National Review in support of broad participation through no-excuse absentee and drive-through voting during the pandemic, Rachel Kleinfeld and Joshua Kleinfeld warned: The United States is already at high levels of polarization and historically low levels of trust in government and fellow citizens. We cannot afford an election our people dont believe in.7 This captures the spirit behind our proposals.

[Civic duty voting is] a full embrace of democracy: It insists that every citizen has a role to play in our nations public life and in constructing our future.

Essential as these various enhancements and repairs to our system are, we believe that civic duty voting itself is the necessary prod to the changes we need because it would clarify the priorities of election officials at every point in the process: Their primary task is to allow citizens to embrace their duties, not to block their participation. We see it as a message to political leaders: It will encourage them to understand that their obligations extend to all Americans, not just to those they deem to be likely voters. And we see it as a full embrace of democracy: It insists that every citizen has a role to play in our nations public life and in constructing our future.

Our hope is that this report will spur national discussion in two spheres: the need to make our system more voter-friendly, and the obligation of citizens themselves to embrace the tasks of self-government. Ultimately, we hope our country as a whole can embrace this idea as a decisive step in our long struggle to ensure that all Americans are included in our Constitutions most resonant phrase, We, the people.

This report was authored by the Universal Voting Working Group. The members of our Working Group have participated in meetings, conference calls, drafting, and editing in an 18-month path to this final report. While we may not all agree on every word in the report or every item in the recommendations section, we are all in agreement that the concept of making voting a universal civic duty in the United States would significantly enhance our democracy by broadening civic participation in all communities. We believe it is worthy of a broad public discussion, which we hope to initiate with this report. (Organizations are listed for identification purposes only.)

An asterisk denotes organizations that contributed financial support.

Brookings, Harvard, and the working group members are grateful for the financial support provided for this project bythe Carnegie Corporation, the Resilient Democracy Fund, and the Blue Haven Initiative. This report reflects the views of its authors and not those of the Brookings Institution, the Ash Center, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, or Harvard University.

Go here to see the original:

Lift Every Voice: The Urgency of Universal Civic Duty Voting - Brookings Institution

Colombias capital Bogota and the countrys second largest city, Medellin, will reinstate partial lockdowns as COVID-19 is threatening to collapse healthcare.

In Bogota, Mayor Claudia Lopez said Saturday that she will reinstate a rotating lockdown starting Monday in the hope that a reduction of people in the street will prevent a collapse of the capitals healthcare system.

The mayor said she will maintain this partial lockdown until after the projected peak in Bogota has passed at the end of August. Residents in areas under lockdown will not be allowed to go to work.

Lopez said she would guarantee a universal basic income and food distribution in the locked down parts of the city.

Medellin Mayor Daniel Quintero said Saturday he will lock down the center of the city and change the so-called pico y cedula system that allows people to go outside based on the last number of their ID card.

Economic activity outside the central 10th District will continue after Monday until further order, according to the mayor.

Both cities have seen alarming increases in COVID-19 infections after the government of President Ivan Duque gradually began reopening the country, spurring an acceleration of the the pandemics spread.

While the hospitals in Colombias third largest city, Cali, are close to collapsing, Mayor Jorge Ivan Ospina ruled out a second lockdown in his city.

His health secretary, Carlos Rojas, said the city hall may impose similar measures as in Bogota and Medellin if necessary.

The reversal of the relaxations of a lockdown that was initially called on March 25 is a setback for Duque who has been trying to reactivate the economy since late April.

The lockdown and the relaxations have increased tensions with Congress that wants the president to implement a universal basic income to prevent widespread hunger.

Colombias largest healthcare organizations have said to have no confidence in Health Minister Fernando Ruiz for failing to provide personal protection equipment to hospital personnel.

The National Health Institute (INS) reported 6,803 infections and 211 deaths on Saturday, the highest numbers since the first infection was confirmed in March.

While the pandemic is projected to reach its peak in Bogota in late August, in other parts of Colombia the peak is expected in September, according to INS director Martha Ospina.

View original post here:

Largest cities in Colombia reverse reopening as coronavirus threatens to collapse healthcare - Colombia Reports

Earlythis month, former Telstra boss David Thodey released a draft review of the NSW revenue system as it relates to federal funding. The review was commissioned by the NSW Treasurer, and the centrepiece of its recommendations was an increase in the GST.

The rationale is clear: It'sfar easier to raise the GST than undertake politically-difficult reforms to corporate taxation and incentives targeting renewable industries and R&D.

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull devoted considerable time to a lower corporate tax regime, arguing Australias company tax was internationally uncompetitive. He was right tax competition is a global sport. The winners reap rivers of gold. The losers you and I merely pay more tax.

Read more: Australia needs a GST holiday

If Amazon shares hit US$5000, CEO Jeff Bezos becomes the worlds eighth-largest economy. And he owes it all to you. Because Amazon pays very little tax. Veteran investor Warren Buffet knew the tax code was slanted against income taxes versus capital gains when he discovered his secretary paid more tax than he did, leading to the "Buffet rule" upper and high-income earners should not pay less tax than lower-income workers.

That hasn't happened. Instead, corporations stash revenues in off-balance-sheet special purpose entities (SPEs), by using special tax jurisdictions and trusts located in the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Ireland, among others.

In 2016, the EU Commission ordered Apple that pay 13 billion ($A19.2 billion) in taxes to Ireland on the basis that the EU arm of the company, headquartered in Ireland, had received "state aid"(that is, untaxed benefits), which is unlawful in the EU single market. Apple appealed the decision in 2019. I asked some G20 sherpas staff about SPE reform during the 2014 Brisbane G20 summit; they refused to even discuss it.

The Bush administration introduced a tax holiday for US firms in 2004, allowing multinational corporations to repatriate overseas earnings, but the scheme was abruptly abandoned once it was realised it raised little federal revenue. The Trump administration also bowed to the pressure of a corporate tax holiday, permitting Apple, Google and Amazon, among many others, to repatriate more than US$1 trillion held in foreign jurisdictions and SPEs. Nevertheless, the Trump tax repatriation still fell well short of the US$4 trillion the administration predicted.

... the GST is a lazy, regressive, blunt instrument that operates as a substitute for taxation reform across the spectrum, instead of reforming vested interests targeting financial and property speculation, as well as resources profits.

What did US corporations do with this windfall? In many cases, they undertook share buybacks, which boosted their stock prices, thus further enriching both investors and corporate executives with stock options. This does little to repair fiscal imbalances.

The bottom line is that there are only three ways to raise taxes: income, corporate and indirect. Corporations pay the least by far, and few governments have made serious inroads into increasing corporate contributions to the taxation base. Indeed, under Trump, business tax repatriation is a retrograde step, while Trumps tax cuts have also eroded the US fiscal base.

Despite myriad promises during successive G20 summits, one-third of Australian corporations pay zero tax. But at least we have stopped giving drug dealers a tax deduction.

Globally, slow or low growth in the post-COVID economy will result in cuts in government services and subsidies as taxation revenues decline. In the absence of stable economic growth, governments will be compelled to either print money, go further into debt, or raise taxes to maintain services provision.

The first two options are not long-term revenue strategies. Consequently, governments will rely on taxation to repair the fiscal damage wrought by the pandemic. As ABS data shows, Australian tax per capita has increased every year since the 2008 GFC, rising 4.4 per cent overall in 2018-19.

GST is frequently regarded as a regressive tax. It places considerable imposts upon low-income-earners, who are given little compensation and save little of their income; thus, virtually all their expenditures are taxed. For higher-income classes, the GST isn't a barrier to consumption, whereas a 10% tax added to replacing a house roof or to dental work represents a considerable financial burden. But even if Australia introduced a universal basic income (UBI), governments would immediately claw back at least 10% in consumption taxes.

Australia has high income taxes compared to the OECD average, but a relatively low GST rate. However, indirect taxes, excluding GST, exceed those of comparable countries on average (below).

The NSW Treasurers campaign to increase the GST is backed by a carefully-orchestrated PR campaign to soften the voters. Inevitably, this brought the usual suspects out of the wood rent-seekers.

Unsurprisingly, business campaigns for GST increases because it doesnt pay for it; the consumer does. More to the point, this takes the heat off corporate taxation as well.

States campaign for GST increases because indirect taxes give them a bigger share of the national tax cake. Moreover, the political damage associated with GST rate increases are borne predominantly by federal governments. The author of the 2008 tax review, former treasury secretary Ken Henry, also supports a higher GST rate.

GST increases are a distraction from the main game corporate and resources taxes.

My argument is that the GST is a lazy, regressive, blunt instrument that operates as a substitute for taxation reform across the spectrum, instead of reforming vested interests targeting financial and property speculation, as well as resources profits. The GST base could be expanded to hit, say, basic food or private school education, or this list. GST hikes allow governments to eschew carefully-targeted tax incentives directed at future key employment sectors, such as green jobs, carbon pricing, digital economy, and manufacturing and innovation R&D.

Here's what we should be doing:

The digital economy has proven notoriously difficult to tax. The rise of the gig economy is also hard to police. Workers may fall below the GST reporting threshold; the informal or "shadow"economy leads to regulatory avoidance, while workers use cash and cryptocurrencies. Unregulated digital services allow international labour to displace domestic workers across borders (I could pay offshore Indian graduates to grade papers but I dont). The EU shadow economy is valued at 2.4 trillion ($A3.89 trillion), while the global informal economy is estimated at nearly $US10 trillion bigger than Chinas GDP.

The French government has sought to deal with both corporate tax evasion and the digital economy by imposing a 3% tax on revenues. In 2020, Paris postponed the tax, as Trump threatened tariffs on French exports, due to allegations of harm to the US tech sector. Verdict: Its complicated.

Kevin Rudd tried, and failed, to implement a Resources Super Profits Tax (RSPT). An aggressive campaign waged by the resources industry 83% foreign-owned cost Rudd his job. The Gillard government implemented the tepid Mining Resources Rent Tax, which collected virtually no revenue until it was repealed by the Abbott government.

In contrast, the UK introduced a petroleum super profits tax in 1975, until the Cameron-Clegg government abandoned the tax in 2016. For 40 years, North Sea oil revenues funded everything from the NHS to mortgage tax relief. The UK deserves plaudits for reducing VAT to zero under COVID-19 for eBooks and online journals. It also charges no VAT on food, except for junk foods and alcohol.

Sensibly, Norway has locked oil and gas tax revenue into a sovereign wealth fund worth more than US$1 trillion. The Australian state and federal governments should be doing precisely this, with taxes on resources super profits, including iron ore, coal and gas.

If you're an investor on the domestic or foreign exchanges, you pay GST to your broker, but you can claim it back as an expense. Your broker pays zero GST on every trade. The ASX already collects a small levy on transactions, but this could easily be extended to a "Tobin tax", as the Australia Institute has argued, without imposing a significant burden on business.

State governments saw the writing on the wall in 2018-19, when property prices slumped, despite a pre-COVID recovery. Inflated real estate prices meant Victoria alone expected state coffers to swell by $6 billion annually. A substitute land tax would require an estimated $4000 impost on every household.

Inevitably, the states will transition to land taxes to avoid the peaks and troughs of real estate booms and busts. Moreover, land taxes guarantee revenue in perpetuity. But the longer the national cabinet delays reforms to the tax revenue base, the longer states will depend upon duties, licensing fees and royalties. Impoverished state revenues from a shrunken GST cake in a recessed post-COVID economy will place further financial pressure on essential services, such as health, social services and education.

As for negative gearing and the capital gains concession, neither major party wants to revisit this, given the ALPs reforms have twice been rejected in federal elections.

There's no such thing as a neutral tax policy; revenue-neutral tax changes, yes. But in the post-COVID environment, governments will be left with an unpalatable choice between either increasing income taxes, or boosting less conspicuous indirect taxes to fill budget black holes. Governments will inevitably choose the latter, as consumption taxes like GST are less easily understood, apply across the board, and slug everyone from students and pensioners, to tourists and the homeless. Except corporations and sole traders, which merely act as GST tax intermediaries.

Every single country bar Australia that has introduced a GST/VAT has increased the rate. Rates rose appreciably after 2008. In 2010, New Zealand raised its GST from 12.5%to 15%. Australias GST rate will exceed 10% by 2030, irrespective of the federal governments protestations to the contrary. With higher unemployment, combined with lower corporate and income tax revenues, indirect tax increases are a mathematical certainty.

The moral? Never stand between a state treasurer and a swag of GST revenue.

Continue reading here:

GST: The increase Australia doesn't have to have Monash Lens - Monash Lens

Bogot Mayor Claudia Lpez placed the Colombian capital under Orange Alert given the spread of coronavirus and announced that the citys 10 million inhabitants will return to strict quarantine based on localities, divided in 3 groups. The strict quarantine will be enforced by an additional 850 members of the National Police. A liquor sale ban is in effect in all localities during the strict quarantine.

Lockdown starts Monday, July 13, and ends August 23.

Group 1: Starts July 13 and ends July 26. Localities: Ciudad Bolvar, San Cristbal, Rafael Uribe Uribe, Chapinero, Santafe, Usme, Los Mrtires and Tunjuelito.

Group 2: Starts July 27 and ends August 9. Localities: Bosa, Kennedy, Puente Aranda and Fontibn.

Group 3: Starts August 10 and ends August 23. Localities: Suba, Engativ and Barrios Unidos.

During each of the respective 14 days, localities will have total restriction on mobility and all shops must close, except supermarkets and pharmacies for basic necessities.

All residents must be inside their homes from 8 pm to 5 am.

Essential errands can only be done by one member of the household from 5 am to 7 pm.

Those exempt from mobility restrictions are health workers and elderly care personnel.

The strict quarantine was presented to the government of President Ivn Duque and approved for the district capital. Mayor Lpez also announced during a virtual press conference that 550,000 poor and vulnerable families will receive money from Bogot Solidaria en Casa in order to guarantee a basic income during the peak of the pandemic. Families in need will receive $240,000 pesos and resources that will be covered jointly between Bogot and Nation. The district will also deliver 150,000 food markets. Families in these localities who need to access these benefits and are not registered in the database can apply with the Bogot Caregiver App.

Together we are going to take care of ourselves to pass the peak of contagion. We are no longer going to postpone it, we are going to face it and we are going to achieve it, it is at this moment that we need the unity of all citizens, said Lpez.

Read more:

Bogot returns to strict quarantine based on rotating localities as of July 13 - The City Paper Bogot

Imagine society as a ladder. At the top, youll find wealth and status. At the bottom, poverty and discrimination.

Where we start life on the ladder is largely a function of the ovarian lottery.

For almost everyone, there are rungs above you representing people with more wealth and status. There are also almost always rungs below you too.

People on lower rungs might be willing to trade positions with you in a heartbeat if it was an option.

Some people climb the ladder of society toward wealth and status with ease. Others struggle just to stay in the same spot, fighting not to slip down several rungs.

Meritocracy believers would say people who progress up the ladder do so thanks to talent, hard work and their performance. Some will tell you poverty is a personality defect.

Those who say meritocracy is a myth suggest human biases and our personal networks play a significant role in any movement on that ladder. Theyre more inclined to say poverty comes from a lack of cash, not a lack of character.

Whichever your opinion, it turns out the length of that ladder the distance between the top and bottom rungs matters.

It impacts your happiness. And perhaps not in the way youd think.

You might suppose that the more rungs there are the larger the gap between the top and bottom the happier youd be if youre near the top.

After all, the top of a longer ladder means youre better off, relatively speaking, than more people. Surely thats a little buzz of satisfaction?

If were measured against the metaphorical top rung which by most metrics in Australia would be a white man then that demographic must be happy as pigs in the proverbial, right?

Nope. At least, not as happy as they could be.

It turns out the inverse is true. A bigger gap means less happiness, not more.

The gap between the top and bottom rungs of that metaphorical ladder represents equity.

The smaller the gap, the more equity citizens enjoy. As the gap widens, a society becomes less equitable. And everyone in that society is less happy as a result.

Thats right: inequity is making you unhappy. Yes, you. Whoever you are.

That may seem a bold claim, but I dont need to know you for this to be true. Its that universal.

Whether youre on the uppermost rung which tends to be occupied by members of majorities or clinging to the very bottom, the more inequity in your community, the less happy youll be.

Those at the top are probably happy, or at least more comfortable in their misery. But theyre still missing out, because they could be happier.

Happiness is not a finite resource there arent limited units of happiness in the world. If you become happier, I dont have to give up some of my happiness.

In short, a more equitable society is in everyones interests. We all stand to gain from it.

This is no small task.

Listening to the Black Lives Matter movement in recent weeks, I gather the answer may include:

In short, its clear its time for some big changes.

Even if some of us are in denial (Im looking at you, Mr There was no slavery in Australia Morrison) it seems inevitable that change must come.

Yet, I find myself sceptical that lasting change can be achieved because Western societys track record for such change isnt great.

I hope Im wrong, but my fears are not unfounded.

For example, its been more than half a century since the womens rights movement began, yet the gender pay gap is 22% where I live in Western Australia and the gender retirement gap was 52% in 2013/14 in Australia. Weve had at best glacial progress in recent years.

Then theres racial inequity. As a white woman, I might earn less on average than a man but Im still a heck of a lot better off than an Aboriginal woman in WA. She can expect to earn 30% less than me. And thats 12 years after Kevin Rudd said sorry.

She can also expect to earn 30% less than an Aboriginal man, as it turns out non-Indigenous women and Indigenous men have similar earning expectations in WA4. The gender gap applies regardless of race.

I take from this that systemic change is bloody hard, to achieve and to maintain.

Machiavelli captured why beautifully in The Prince:

It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.

Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.

This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.

But does that make it impossible?

No.

When faced with a massive obstacle, you can chip away at it slowly or you can blow it to pieces. The former takes a long time; the latter risks collateral damage.

or you can look for a lever.

If we want swift systemic change that improves equity without risking collateral damage, we need to find a lever: the smallest change we can make to have the biggest impact in the shortest time.

And I reckon that lever is universal basic income (UBI).

The concept of UBI is:

Thats right. No exclusion questions. No maze of paperwork to get it. No threat of it being withdrawn at short notice.

Automatic handouts based on your age and your citizenship.

The aim: no one falls below the poverty line.

In Australia, thats an income of $23,764 a year for a single adult. In theory, thats enough to afford basic housing and food even if you didnt go to work. If that doesnt sound like much, please remember its about what age pensioners live on right now.

Was your first thought

Chalk that up as a point for capitalist brainwashing, but its not true.

I wont regurgitate all of Rutger Bregmans collated research findings on UBI in Utopia for Realists here. Suffice to say its well worth a read. He found most people still continue to work and earn an income when a UBI is in place.

In summary, his other findings were:

If youre curious about the stats, read chapters two to four of Utopia for Realists.

The upshot is that the free market model we base our economy on has reached its limits. The marginal good more can do our citizens and country is diminishing.

Weve got enough wealth. Now we need to improve access to it.

Which is why some people like the exceptional Eva Cox prefer the term social contract to UBI. This is about progressing as a society so no one need live in poverty. In a country as rich as Australia, that seems a total no-brainer.

I reckon UBIs got massive flow-on potential for race and gender equity because when your basic living costs are covered, you dont have to choose between a roof over your head and your morals.

In short, you can afford not to put up with inequitable treatment.

For example, you can leave an employer who doesnt behave ethically. You may be able to escape an abusive relationship. You can report discrimination. Because you wont end up completely broke if someone with more relative power decides to cut off your money supply whether thats a wage, an allowance or through damage to your reputation.

If more people felt secure enough financially to do these things, might we not see societal change as a result? I think so.

Even if you can do all of the above already, UBI can still benefit you.

My basic income has meant:

I did it the capitalist way.

I saved, bought assets, and now derive income from them.

Which is the premise of the Financially Independent, Retiring Early (FIRE) movement.

Or Financially Independent, Time Rich (FITR) as I prefer to call it, because indefinitely retiring early turned out to be good in theory only.

Anyone aiming for FI is doing the same thing. Theyre putting a floor under their income. No matter where they are, no matter what theyre doing, their living costs are provided by their assets, not their wages.

Like a proper capitalist, Ive played the hand Ive got at the metaphorical poker table of life. I chose a high-paying profession so I could get to FI quicker, and I spent less than my mates to add further speed.

But I had to do it myself.

A basic income guarantee is like a socialist version of FIRE or FITR.

Instead of having to go through the process of earning, saving and investing to generate enough income to cover basic living costs, its a gimme.

This can help level the playing field from age 18 on, bringing us closer to an equitable society.

So, how much will this cost?

As of September 2019, Australias population included 19,754,496 adults, ages 18 or over. Lets call it 20 million.

The official poverty line is $23,764 lets call it $24k5.

$24kpa multiplied by 20 million people = $480 billion each year.

So yes, this is expensive.

But you dont actually fork out $480 billion a year to achieve it.

You use tax exemptions and deductions to deliver the UBI to those earning above that $24,000 limit. In practice, that means raising the tax-free threshold from $18,200 to $24,000. That portion of the UBI becomes foregone tax revenue as opposed to cash you have to find. Remember: most people keep working. Income from wages dropped less than 5% in one long-term UBI study6.

Anyone who earns less than $24,000 gets topped up to that level. Hence the idea of a guarantee.

And we havent yet counted cost savings, remembering that UBI has delivered a net economic gain in its experiments and case studies. Cash handed out is offset by:

There are many other benefits with long-term upside for society, such as high school completion rates rising and teen pregnancy rates dropping. For the full rundown, again I recommend chapters two to four of Utopia for Realists6.

Do we really believe COVID-19 is our last lockdown?

Do we really believe we wont need JobKeeper, JobSeeker, and early super access plans if another pandemic happens?

If everyone had a basic income guarantee before COVID-19, perhaps we wouldnt have needed economic stimulus of such magnitude. We might not have seen 1.3 million people taking money out of superannuation early.

You could see a UBI as mitigating future potential losses. The risk of such losses seems quite high at the moment.

UBI is an idea whose time has come. Will we have the guts to consider it? I hope so.

We wont be the first, but we can be next.

More:

Why a Universal Basic Income is the solution to inequity - Women's Agenda

LONDON, June 22, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --To educate Crypto-enthusiasts and prepare them for upcoming market conditions, a group of well-respected crypto experts brought together by Investoo Group has expressed their thoughts on the recent COVID-19 crisis, and its effect on the global crypto markets.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on our daily lives, our ability to interact and our financial structures and security. Blockchain technology has been around for over a decade, and there are now thousands of projects that seek to utilize its limitless potential to solve some of the world's most pressing issues.

Coin Journal has assembled a veteran team of experts in the field of cryptocurrency and financial technology, to gain some valuable insights into what the world may look like after the COVID-19 pandemic has passed. Globally, we can only hope that containment of this danger is now within our grasp, but we can only speculate to the long-term impact that it will leave in its wake.

Heavyweight Opinion

The panel is headed by Yoni Assia, the CEO of the world's largest social investment network, eToro. Yoni also brought his market analyst and renowned crypto expert, Simon Peters to the table. The next to join the team, Ciara Sun, is currently employed as the Head of Global Markets at Huobi Group, a global blockchain financial asset service provider.The panel also has the founder of virtual currency platform, Coincurve, and CEO of Interlapse, Wayne Chen. Finally, the panel would not be complete without the 15-year veteran of Wall Street technology and CEO of BSV blockchain service provider, TAAL; Mr. Jerry Chan.

They discuss the potential effects of unlimited quantitative easing, the need for a Universal Basic Income (UBI), and how blockchain technology can be a tool for research teams to interact with transparency on a global scale. The team reveals evidence that shows how cryptocurrency stands resilient against the economic downturn caused by social distancing measures and the closure of businesses that have succumbed to the strain.

Article Excerpts

Speaking exclusively to Coin Journalon the idea of Bitcoin as a 'safe haven' asset, eToro CEO Yoni Assia noted that crypto and fiat markets moved in tandem at the start of the COVID-19 panic. Market Analyst Simon Peters then noted a shift, which he describes below:

"Interestingly, this is backed-up by eToro's platform data, which shows a 77% increase in new registrants whose first action was to invest in Bitcoin. As the price of Bitcoin is traveling in the same direction as gold, you could argue investors view it as a safe haven asset."

Other areas of the article speak about the survival of market segments, and the implementation of blockchain technology, especially across supply chains. TAAL CEO Jerry Chan had thoughts relating to limiting the spread of COVID-19 using blockchain technology:

"Pharmaceutical companies have realised the potential application of a scalable version of Bitcoin blockchain, which can be used to track COVID-19 testing and vaccination records, cross-state and cross-borders, in a way which could be used to corroborate or validate statistics submitted to global health organisations."

The full interview is exclusive to Coin Journal, and interested readers can find the full article containing the detailed discussion of the expert panel here:https://coinjournal.net/news/how-will-bitcoin-perform-after-the-covid-19-crisis-has-passed

Media Contact Details

Contact Name: Chris Roper,Contact Role: Senior Cryptocurrency Editor,Investoo Group

Investoo Group is the source of this content. This Press Release is for informational purposes only. Virtual currency is not legal tender, is not backed by the government, and accounts and value balances are not subject to consumer protections. Cryptocurrencies and tokens are extremely volatile. There is no guarantee of a stable value, or of any value at all.

About Bitcoin PR Buzz:Bitcoin PR Buzz has been proudly serving the crypto press release distribution needs of blockchain start-ups for over 8 years. Get your Bitcoin Press Release Distributiontoday.

Related Images

image1.jpg

SOURCE Investoo Group

Read the original here:

Crypto Experts Reveal Thoughts: How Will Bitcoin Perform After the COVID-19 Crisis Has Passed? - PRNewswire