Magnify Money and Kalyn Wilson , KHOU 12:10 PM. MDT June 20, 2017

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: Phekthong Lee)

Having a monthly, tax-free, no-strings-attached income that would cover the basics for life may sound too good to be true, but its no fantasy. The idea of universal basic income (UBI) already has been implemented in some regions, such as Canada, Europe, and even Alaska, and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently revitalized discussion about the concept.

Zuckerberg endorsed UBI during his 2017 commencement speech at Harvard University as a means of leveling the economic playing field and opening the doors of entrepreneurship to everyone.

"We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas," Zuckerberg told graduates. Now its time for our generation to define a new social contract.

What Is Universal Basic Income?

Zuckerberg, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and other tech executives, including Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, have turned to this notion in response to the re-emerging concern about unemployment in the tech sector.

But the concept was originally developed hundreds of years ago as a way to lift citizens out of poverty.

Universal basic income (UBI) actually dates to the 16th century and the Renaissance, when the idea of a minimum income guarantee originated as a way to help poor people. Then in the 18th century, the idea of a basic endowment emerged to help alleviate theft, murder, and poverty in Europe.

The concept has changed through the years. When people talk about UBI today, theyre referring to an unconditional cash grant regularly distributed to all members of a community without any means test or work requirements, according to the Basic Income Earth Network. The concept means that everyone receives a set amount of money each period, no matter their circumstances.

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: stevanovicigor, (C)2016 Igor Stevanovic, all rights reserved)

Despite its existence for even centuries, UBI did not take the stage like other social assistance programs, such as Social Security, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, which some critics believe would be outperformed by UBI, if implemented.

Jason Murphy, assistant professor of philosophy at Elms College in Chicopee, Mass., and U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG) coordinating committee member, says UBI would remove the conditions placed on existing social assistance programs that limit who receives help and how. The program would better target communities that are especially vulnerable and overlooked ensuring that no one has to go hungry and everyone starts on equal footing, he adds.

Still, with UBI in place, Murphy says he thinks not only does it give everyone a chance to cover essential needs, but it also opens the door for others to invest, start businesses, and create more jobs for the economy.

Critics argue that UBI could cause inflation, cause people not to work, or be an unfair tax on the rich, but research shows this isnt likely. A study by MIT and Harvard economists found that "no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work" in poor countries and, in some cases, encourage it.

Karl Widerquist, an economist, philosopher, Basic Income Earth Network board member, and visiting associate professor at Georgetown University-Qatar, says he thinks with a decent tax policy, the program would serve as an automatic stabilizer, alleviate income inequality, and help everyone financially.

The average worker is no better off than they were in the 1970s when you adjust for inflation, Widerquist says.

Some Places Are Already Benefiting

Regions around the globe including Ontario, Canada, and Finland, and, in the U.S., North Carolina, and Alaska are putting UBI to the test.

In the late 1990s, a tribe of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina began distributing some of the profits from the tribes casino to its 8,000 members, the New York Times reported. It amounted to about $6,000 per year for each member.

A long-term study on the tribes universal income experiment was published in 2016 by Duke University epidemiologist E. Jane Costello. She found that children in communities with a basic income experienced improvement in the education system, better mental and physical health, lower stress levels and crime rates, and overall economic growth.

Finland began a similar experiment in 2017, promising to give 2,000 citizens $600 per month through 2019. And Alaska has offered a basic income to its residents since the early 1980s.

With these small, pilot projects, social scientists and politicians are observing the effects of a basic income on the economic, social, and personal well-being of residents before launching large-scale programs.

Can UBI Really Level the Playing Field?

With a cushion, Widerquist says people will be less likely to settle for certain jobs and living arrangements, causing employers and property owners to cut better deals and prioritize clients, customers, and employers.

I think it will promote growth, Murphy says.

The rich and well-off may use the extra money to invest, and possibly begin investing in low-income communities, which works in favor of those in both social classes, Murphy says. He also says it could revitalize local economies, because those who rely heavily on the cash grants are more likely to spend locally.

Whats the Catch?

Murphy says the tax reform needed to make UBI a reality must be progressive. That way, it will avoid a major concern for the middle class the upper class will evade taxes, and the middle class will have to fit the bill for the non-workers of the world.

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: utah778)

Widerquist argues that implementing this program requires open minds that are willing to move away from an economic system where the upper class maintains control over the flow of cash through ownership and stringently structured government programs. Instead, he thinks the government and society should first focus on eradicating poverty, and the roads to economic prosperity will follow.

The con is that the devil is in the details, Widerquist says. There are some [programs] that want to redistribute less to the poor that would not be better than the programs we already have.

Is UBI Feasible?

The answer is yes, Widerquist says.

The net cost of a basic income, large enough to eliminate poverty in the United States, is $539 billion a year, Widerquist says. Thats only a fourth of what the government is spending on entitlements.

Although it would be a big item in the federal budget, Murphy says he thinks its even cheaper to implement and maintain than Widerquists projections suggest.

Its going to take a commitment, but some of the calculations that are out there are actually way too high, he says.

With no means testing, Murphy says, there is no need to hire people to interview citizens, which saves money compared to requirement-driven social assistance programs.

The money poured into a basic income program would represent about 3% of the gross domestic product, which would put everyone above the poverty line, Murphy says.

Also, Widerquist and Murphy suggest that while universal basic income is possible without drastically cutting other programs, like unemployment benefits or universal health care, there are other ways to keep costs down. Those include trading UBI for programs like food stamps (since it is a cash grant), or taxing items like pollution, traffic, and electronic financial transactions.

MagnifyMoneyis a price comparison and financial education website, founded by former bankers who use their knowledge of how the system works to help you save money.

MagnifyMoney

Go here to see the original:

Should all Americans receive a guaranteed income? - 9NEWS.com

Magnify Money and Kalyn Wilson , KHOU 11:10 AM. MST June 20, 2017

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: Phekthong Lee)

Having a monthly, tax-free, no-strings-attached income that would cover the basics for life may sound too good to be true, but its no fantasy. The idea of universal basic income (UBI) already has been implemented in some regions, such as Canada, Europe, and even Alaska, and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently revitalized discussion about the concept.

Zuckerberg endorsed UBI during his 2017 commencement speech at Harvard University as a means of leveling the economic playing field and opening the doors of entrepreneurship to everyone.

"We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas," Zuckerberg told graduates. Now its time for our generation to define a new social contract.

What Is Universal Basic Income?

Zuckerberg, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and other tech executives, including Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, have turned to this notion in response to the re-emerging concern about unemployment in the tech sector.

But the concept was originally developed hundreds of years ago as a way to lift citizens out of poverty.

Universal basic income (UBI) actually dates to the 16th century and the Renaissance, when the idea of a minimum income guarantee originated as a way to help poor people. Then in the 18th century, the idea of a basic endowment emerged to help alleviate theft, murder, and poverty in Europe.

The concept has changed through the years. When people talk about UBI today, theyre referring to an unconditional cash grant regularly distributed to all members of a community without any means test or work requirements, according to the Basic Income Earth Network. The concept means that everyone receives a set amount of money each period, no matter their circumstances.

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: stevanovicigor, (C)2016 Igor Stevanovic, all rights reserved)

Despite its existence for even centuries, UBI did not take the stage like other social assistance programs, such as Social Security, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, which some critics believe would be outperformed by UBI, if implemented.

Jason Murphy, assistant professor of philosophy at Elms College in Chicopee, Mass., and U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG) coordinating committee member, says UBI would remove the conditions placed on existing social assistance programs that limit who receives help and how. The program would better target communities that are especially vulnerable and overlooked ensuring that no one has to go hungry and everyone starts on equal footing, he adds.

Still, with UBI in place, Murphy says he thinks not only does it give everyone a chance to cover essential needs, but it also opens the door for others to invest, start businesses, and create more jobs for the economy.

Critics argue that UBI could cause inflation, cause people not to work, or be an unfair tax on the rich, but research shows this isnt likely. A study by MIT and Harvard economists found that "no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work" in poor countries and, in some cases, encourage it.

Karl Widerquist, an economist, philosopher, Basic Income Earth Network board member, and visiting associate professor at Georgetown University-Qatar, says he thinks with a decent tax policy, the program would serve as an automatic stabilizer, alleviate income inequality, and help everyone financially.

The average worker is no better off than they were in the 1970s when you adjust for inflation, Widerquist says.

Some Places Are Already Benefiting

Regions around the globe including Ontario, Canada, and Finland, and, in the U.S., North Carolina, and Alaska are putting UBI to the test.

In the late 1990s, a tribe of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina began distributing some of the profits from the tribes casino to its 8,000 members, the New York Times reported. It amounted to about $6,000 per year for each member.

A long-term study on the tribes universal income experiment was published in 2016 by Duke University epidemiologist E. Jane Costello. She found that children in communities with a basic income experienced improvement in the education system, better mental and physical health, lower stress levels and crime rates, and overall economic growth.

Finland began a similar experiment in 2017, promising to give 2,000 citizens $600 per month through 2019. And Alaska has offered a basic income to its residents since the early 1980s.

With these small, pilot projects, social scientists and politicians are observing the effects of a basic income on the economic, social, and personal well-being of residents before launching large-scale programs.

Can UBI Really Level the Playing Field?

With a cushion, Widerquist says people will be less likely to settle for certain jobs and living arrangements, causing employers and property owners to cut better deals and prioritize clients, customers, and employers.

I think it will promote growth, Murphy says.

The rich and well-off may use the extra money to invest, and possibly begin investing in low-income communities, which works in favor of those in both social classes, Murphy says. He also says it could revitalize local economies, because those who rely heavily on the cash grants are more likely to spend locally.

Whats the Catch?

Murphy says the tax reform needed to make UBI a reality must be progressive. That way, it will avoid a major concern for the middle class the upper class will evade taxes, and the middle class will have to fit the bill for the non-workers of the world.

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: utah778)

Widerquist argues that implementing this program requires open minds that are willing to move away from an economic system where the upper class maintains control over the flow of cash through ownership and stringently structured government programs. Instead, he thinks the government and society should first focus on eradicating poverty, and the roads to economic prosperity will follow.

The con is that the devil is in the details, Widerquist says. There are some [programs] that want to redistribute less to the poor that would not be better than the programs we already have.

Is UBI Feasible?

The answer is yes, Widerquist says.

The net cost of a basic income, large enough to eliminate poverty in the United States, is $539 billion a year, Widerquist says. Thats only a fourth of what the government is spending on entitlements.

Although it would be a big item in the federal budget, Murphy says he thinks its even cheaper to implement and maintain than Widerquists projections suggest.

Its going to take a commitment, but some of the calculations that are out there are actually way too high, he says.

With no means testing, Murphy says, there is no need to hire people to interview citizens, which saves money compared to requirement-driven social assistance programs.

The money poured into a basic income program would represent about 3% of the gross domestic product, which would put everyone above the poverty line, Murphy says.

Also, Widerquist and Murphy suggest that while universal basic income is possible without drastically cutting other programs, like unemployment benefits or universal health care, there are other ways to keep costs down. Those include trading UBI for programs like food stamps (since it is a cash grant), or taxing items like pollution, traffic, and electronic financial transactions.

MagnifyMoneyis a price comparison and financial education website, founded by former bankers who use their knowledge of how the system works to help you save money.

MagnifyMoney

Excerpt from:

Should all Americans receive a guaranteed income? - KPNX 12 News TV

Magnify Money and Kalyn Wilson , KHOU 2:10 PM. EDT June 20, 2017

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: Phekthong Lee)

Having a monthly, tax-free, no-strings-attached income that would cover the basics for life may sound too good to be true, but its no fantasy. The idea of universal basic income (UBI) already has been implemented in some regions, such as Canada, Europe, and even Alaska, and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently revitalized discussion about the concept.

Zuckerberg endorsed UBI during his 2017 commencement speech at Harvard University as a means of leveling the economic playing field and opening the doors of entrepreneurship to everyone.

"We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas," Zuckerberg told graduates. Now its time for our generation to define a new social contract.

What Is Universal Basic Income?

Zuckerberg, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and other tech executives, including Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, have turned to this notion in response to the re-emerging concern about unemployment in the tech sector.

But the concept was originally developed hundreds of years ago as a way to lift citizens out of poverty.

Universal basic income (UBI) actually dates to the 16th century and the Renaissance, when the idea of a minimum income guarantee originated as a way to help poor people. Then in the 18th century, the idea of a basic endowment emerged to help alleviate theft, murder, and poverty in Europe.

The concept has changed through the years. When people talk about UBI today, theyre referring to an unconditional cash grant regularly distributed to all members of a community without any means test or work requirements, according to the Basic Income Earth Network. The concept means that everyone receives a set amount of money each period, no matter their circumstances.

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: stevanovicigor, (C)2016 Igor Stevanovic, all rights reserved)

Despite its existence for even centuries, UBI did not take the stage like other social assistance programs, such as Social Security, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, which some critics believe would be outperformed by UBI, if implemented.

Jason Murphy, assistant professor of philosophy at Elms College in Chicopee, Mass., and U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG) coordinating committee member, says UBI would remove the conditions placed on existing social assistance programs that limit who receives help and how. The program would better target communities that are especially vulnerable and overlooked ensuring that no one has to go hungry and everyone starts on equal footing, he adds.

Still, with UBI in place, Murphy says he thinks not only does it give everyone a chance to cover essential needs, but it also opens the door for others to invest, start businesses, and create more jobs for the economy.

Critics argue that UBI could cause inflation, cause people not to work, or be an unfair tax on the rich, but research shows this isnt likely. A study by MIT and Harvard economists found that "no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work" in poor countries and, in some cases, encourage it.

Karl Widerquist, an economist, philosopher, Basic Income Earth Network board member, and visiting associate professor at Georgetown University-Qatar, says he thinks with a decent tax policy, the program would serve as an automatic stabilizer, alleviate income inequality, and help everyone financially.

The average worker is no better off than they were in the 1970s when you adjust for inflation, Widerquist says.

Some Places Are Already Benefiting

Regions around the globe including Ontario, Canada, and Finland, and, in the U.S., North Carolina, and Alaska are putting UBI to the test.

In the late 1990s, a tribe of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina began distributing some of the profits from the tribes casino to its 8,000 members, the New York Times reported. It amounted to about $6,000 per year for each member.

A long-term study on the tribes universal income experiment was published in 2016 by Duke University epidemiologist E. Jane Costello. She found that children in communities with a basic income experienced improvement in the education system, better mental and physical health, lower stress levels and crime rates, and overall economic growth.

Finland began a similar experiment in 2017, promising to give 2,000 citizens $600 per month through 2019. And Alaska has offered a basic income to its residents since the early 1980s.

With these small, pilot projects, social scientists and politicians are observing the effects of a basic income on the economic, social, and personal well-being of residents before launching large-scale programs.

Can UBI Really Level the Playing Field?

With a cushion, Widerquist says people will be less likely to settle for certain jobs and living arrangements, causing employers and property owners to cut better deals and prioritize clients, customers, and employers.

I think it will promote growth, Murphy says.

The rich and well-off may use the extra money to invest, and possibly begin investing in low-income communities, which works in favor of those in both social classes, Murphy says. He also says it could revitalize local economies, because those who rely heavily on the cash grants are more likely to spend locally.

Whats the Catch?

Murphy says the tax reform needed to make UBI a reality must be progressive. That way, it will avoid a major concern for the middle class the upper class will evade taxes, and the middle class will have to fit the bill for the non-workers of the world.

Photo: Thinkstock (Photo: utah778)

Widerquist argues that implementing this program requires open minds that are willing to move away from an economic system where the upper class maintains control over the flow of cash through ownership and stringently structured government programs. Instead, he thinks the government and society should first focus on eradicating poverty, and the roads to economic prosperity will follow.

The con is that the devil is in the details, Widerquist says. There are some [programs] that want to redistribute less to the poor that would not be better than the programs we already have.

Is UBI Feasible?

The answer is yes, Widerquist says.

The net cost of a basic income, large enough to eliminate poverty in the United States, is $539 billion a year, Widerquist says. Thats only a fourth of what the government is spending on entitlements.

Although it would be a big item in the federal budget, Murphy says he thinks its even cheaper to implement and maintain than Widerquists projections suggest.

Its going to take a commitment, but some of the calculations that are out there are actually way too high, he says.

With no means testing, Murphy says, there is no need to hire people to interview citizens, which saves money compared to requirement-driven social assistance programs.

The money poured into a basic income program would represent about 3% of the gross domestic product, which would put everyone above the poverty line, Murphy says.

Also, Widerquist and Murphy suggest that while universal basic income is possible without drastically cutting other programs, like unemployment benefits or universal health care, there are other ways to keep costs down. Those include trading UBI for programs like food stamps (since it is a cash grant), or taxing items like pollution, traffic, and electronic financial transactions.

MagnifyMoneyis a price comparison and financial education website, founded by former bankers who use their knowledge of how the system works to help you save money.

MagnifyMoney

View original post here:

Should all Americans receive a guaranteed income? - First Coast News

An economic study of Irans Basic Income, which was implemented to make it easier to phase out expensive (and ecologically destructive) fuel subsidies, shows that there have been no negative effects on employment. In the first section, I will summarize the study. In the middle, there is a list of past contributions made by Basic Income News authors. In the final section, I will make a few observations.

Irans Fuel Subsidy Reform and Employment

The unconditional grant program was launched in 2011. The monthly grant amounted to 29% of median household income, or about $1.50 extra per head of household, per day. Around 90% of Iranians are funded through this program. (Wikipedia has a good summary of the program at the time of this writing. It does not include the end of the universal cash grant program.)

Most people in Iran and in the government came to believe that the grant discourages employment. One often hears anecdotes and assertions in national and local Iranian press. The Iranian Parliament called for cuts in the program. (See Tehran Times, April 19, 2016.) After some wrangling, cash subsidies were finally ended in 2016, with funding reserved now for low-income citizens. Costs were cited. It is important to note half of the cuts in fuel subsidies went to business grants and other government expenses. (See Kate McFarland in Basic Income News, Iran: Parliament Slashes Cash Subsidies to Citizens). What is frustrating here is the fact that the program did not undermine work participation at all.

This study shows that some people in their twenties reduced work hours, often to go to school or improve their schoolwork. But this only averaged out to a matter of months (and is likely to yield medium- and long-term benefits.) Many people increased work time a little, especially in the service sector. The authors think that these businesses used the income to find more work opportunities. Empirical evidence contradicts a lot of presuppositions about the impact of an unconditional cash grant.

The study, Cash Transfers and Labor Supply: Evidence From a Large-Scale Program in Iran, is put out by the Economic Research Forum and was authored by the economists Djavad Salehi-Isfahani and Mohammad H. Mostafavi-Dehzooei.

The World Economic Forum posted a summary of the Economic Research Forum study here.

Past Articles on Irans Basic Income

Basic Income News has repeatedly covered Irans Fuel Subsidy Program to make sure it is regarded as a basic income policy. Here is a list of additional articles on the subject:

Djavad Salehi-Isfahani wrote an earlier piece for the ERF. Josh Martin writes about it at Basic Income News here.

Mathieu Ferry writes about Jacques Berthillers piece in Basic Income News here.

The Citizenss Income Trust, based in Britain, wrote this opinion piece for Basic Income News here.

Karl Widerquist wrote four articles early in the programs history. Iran: Basic Income Might Become Means Tested and Iran: Basic Income Gets International Attention. Iran: On the Verge of Introducing the Worlds First National Basic Income and Iran Might Be Moving Toward a BIG

Hamid Tabatabai wrote an article that, very early on, points out that a country that had not been debating a basic income implemented substantial basic income grant.

III. Observations

These are conclusions reached by the author, Jason Burke Murphy, after reading the ERF study and the other articles on Irans program. I wanted to separate them because the first section of this article is meant to review an important study and past contributions by BI News authors.

(1) There was no point at which this program was embraced as a way to promote real freedom or to roll back poverty. Fuel subsidies were just unleashing such strong side effects that something needed to be done. It is amazing to know that a program that raises average income by 29% could be launched in order to solve a problem other than lots of people would be better off with more money. Had this been debated as a basic income guarantee, maybe things would turned out better.

(2) The idea that some people who can work might not work seems to bother people so much that the government ended a program that raises income for a majority of its people and for its least-well-off.

The idea is so powerful that the fact that people are NOT refusing to work cant seem to overcome the fact that many people MIGHT or COULD refuse to work. There is a lot of work to be done here.

(3) Everyone should ask the question: What sort of percentage of people not formally working is even a problem? Most of them will do work for their families, after all. Many will gain expertise with the idea of applying it to future. Some will do work for their communities or as entrepreneurs.

(4) The impact of this grant was likely affected by the fact that it was never been presented as permanent. It also is not large enough to sustain most people at a standard of living that Iranians find decent. This may not serve as the rock-solid proof that a sizable grant wont affect employment.

(5) In the US, an equivalent percentage of support would be around $16,000 a year. Can we assert that the Iranian experience shows that this amount would not trigger a mass refusal to work? Hard to say. Would a small-to-medium dip in job seekers even be a problem? Probably not. Lots of places in the US have average income below $16,000. Can we really say that they would be worse off with this grant just because some of them quit their jobs?

(6) All countries should take a good look at their subsidies, especially ones that benefit the already wealthy. They should cut them and fund an unconditional dividend. We get rid of something bad and replace it with something good. We see how high the dividend would be and think about the next step.

(7) As Basic Income advocates, we need to list Iran alongside Alaska and Macau as regions with a Basic Income. This is difficult because only Alaska has described its dividend as permanent and only there have recipients come to believe it is dependable. In the US, it is a little unusual to say lets do what Iran did but that is our fate as a truth-telling movement.

has written 4 articles.

Continue reading here:

Study of Iran's basic income shows it did not harm employment - Basic Income News

It would cost an extra $15 billion a year to introduce a well-designed basic income guarantee in Canada, a new Northern Policy Institute report suggests.

It's money that would be well spent, Prof. Evelyn Forget said in her report, "Do We Still Need a Basic Income Guarantee in Canada?", published by the Northern Ontario think tank.

"The key is to find the right way to integrate the B.I.G (basic income guarantee) into all of the existing social programs that exist in the country," Forget said in a release. "Now is the time to address, head-on, the challenges and trade-offs that are necessary to create a universal B.I.G. that can meet the needs of Canadians in the 21st century.

"The challenges are real, but so too are the costs of doing nothing."

Forget said the calculating the costs of a basic income guarantee program can be tricky, especially if -- as critics argue -- people are less inclined to work. However, she said the evidence suggests basic income guarantee programs do little to change people's approach to work.

"If a B.I.G. reduces the incentive to work and, consequently, many more people rely on the program than anticipated, the costs will be much higher than calculated," she said. "If, as is more likely, there is little behavioural response for most people, then costs will be much more modest. The behavioural response is something we do not yet know without the results of the proposed experiment."

As the same time, Forget concedes a basic income guarantee program won't solve every social problem, but it can help ease the burden for Canadians struggling with poverty.

"We conclude that B.I.G., like any other social program, can address a variety of issues but cannot independently solve all social problems. If well designed, a B.I.G. can not only deliver a range of benefits, but can do so at a feasible cost."

In "Do We Still Need a Basic Income Guarantee in Canada?", Forget cites shifts in the economy leading to income insecurity and outdated social policies, as reasons why basic income is a much needed policy in Canada for people finding themselves falling between the gaps.

In calculating the costs of basic income guarantee, Forget uses payouts based on the plan the Ontario government will experiment with in three cities, including Thunder Bay. Eligible individuals will receive up to $16,989 per year, less 50 per cent of any income they earn. Couples will receive up to $24,027 per year, less half of any income earned. Ontario residents with disabilities will receive up to an additional $6,000 per year.

As a result, a basic income guarantee program using Ontario's numbers, and "targeted to those between 18 and 64, will cost Canadians approximately $30 billion a year, less the $15 billion we currently pay for income assistance. A net cost of $15 billion annually is not only feasible, it is about 5 percent of federal government expenditure and much less than we currently spend on seniors' benefits.

"We can afford it if we choose to afford it."

For her report, Forget, a University of Manitoba professor, examines Mincome. In the 1970s, Canada tested basic income guarantee in a field experiment in Manitoba called Mincome.

Almost 40 years later, Ontario is preparing for a three-year basic income guarantee pilot based on the model proposed in Hugh Segal's recent discussion paper for the Ontario government. It is through both of these lenses that Forget explores both key design principles for consideration, and estimated costs associated with such a policy at the federal level.

According to her report, key considerations should include:

- Basic income guarantee, or B.I.G., should be targeted and support should be gradually withdrawn as income increases.

- B.I.G should be targeted to adults (18-64 years of age).

- B.I.G should make no one who depends on existing income support programs worse off.

- Costs of a B.I.G should be allocated to those with the greatest capacity to bear the burden

- B.I.G should not be seen as a replacement for all other social programs.

Forget said while experiments with other basic guarantee income programs have been dropped without becoming policy, the changing workplace should compel governments to take a fresh look at the idea.

"Since the 2008 financial crisis, it has become increasingly impossible to ignore the growing numbers of workers who spend many years or their entire careers working on insecure, short-term contracts. Young people just entering the workforce struggle to find secure employment that makes use of their training and offers them anything like the salary, security and range of benefits previous generations took for granted.

"Older workers, displaced by technology, often lack the skills to compete for the jobs that exist. The workplace has never been welcoming to people with invisible disabilities, and support programs offered by the state are under pressure, as struggling workplaces faced with global competition offer even less room for the supports required by these workers. People who leave the workplace because of their own poor health, or to support family members, often do not qualify for any support until a lifetime worth of savings, intended to finance a reasonable retirement, is exhausted.

"B.I.G. offers ways to address some of these policy gaps, but we need to understand the choices involved in turning the idea of basic income guarantee into a specific policy that can be applied in the real world, and integrated with a range of existing and not entirely consistent taxation and social policies. Turning an idea into a policy requires careful choices and some compromise."

The paper is the second of a series that explores the various topics presented at NPI's Basic Income Guarantee conference held in Sudbury last October. Report topics include food security issues, potential models for a B.I.G. pilot, tax implications, and the potential impact on social innovators and First Nations communities.

To view reports, presentations from the NPI's BIG conference and explore comments and feedback from participants, visit http://www.northernpolicy.ca/big.

sud.editorial@sunmedia.ca

. . . .

More info

-- Northern Policy Institute is Northern Ontario's independent think tank. It performs research, collects and disseminates evidence, and identifies policy opportunities to support the growth of sustainable Northern communities. Operations are located in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury.

-- Evelyn L. Forget is a professor in Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba and adjunct professor of Economics at McMaster University and the University of Manitoba. She is director of the Manitoba Research Data Centre and adjunct scientist at the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy. Her most recent work examines the relationships between poverty, inequality, health and social outcomes.

. . . .

What do you think? sud.letters@sunmedia.ca

Here is the original post:

Basic income plan doable: Northern study - The Sudbury Star

ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE

Our friend Robert Romano of Americans for Limited Government (GetLiberty.org) has a great piece up this week detailing the pitfalls of a proposed universal basic income system.

What is universal basic income? Itsa proposal in which the federal government would guarantee that all citizens whether they work or not receive a specified annual income (or basic income guarantee) beginning after their sixteenth birthday.

According to Romano, such a system would mark the end of capitalism as we know it. Specifically, he says adding this new entitlement would crowd out other potential opportunities in the economy. He also says it would dis-incentivize risk-taking and reward complacency wrecking individuals sense of purpose.

Individuals, working less, would transition to simply being consumers, Romano wrote.

Those are all good points and if politicians in the United States were to propose implementing a basic income guaranteeas a supplement toour existing entitlement behemoth, our founding editor Will Folks would most assuredly throw one of his legendary tin-foil hatted hissy fits.

Seriously something like that would completely set him off. And with good reason!

Entitlements are already bankrupting American taxpayers. Does anyone seriously think that our government which is currently$20 trillion in debt can afford to spend $2.5 trillion annually (at least) on a new entitlement program?

Of course not

But what if such a program was not offered in addition to existing entitlements but rather offered as a replacement?

If so, that would seem verysimilar to economist Milton Friedmans negative income tax. Under this plan, individuals below acertain monetary level would not only avoid having to pay income taxes, they would receive direct cash supplements from the federal government money they could spend on whatever they choose.

The goal of the negative income tax? Replacing the perverse, dependency-inducing incentives of the current welfare system and empowering a more consumer-driven benefits system all while eliminating vast swaths of bureaucracy.

We dont necessarily like any form of welfare, but its easy to see how such a system would be infinitely preferable to the current, ever-expanding maze of entitlement, we wrote in addressing this issue back in 2014.

Were hard core limited government libertarians here at FITSNews, but we try not go all in on our ideology or anyone elses ideology, for that matter. We believe in data, and we believe the data proves conclusively that the era of big government in America has been an unqualified economic failure.

In our view, it should be the policy of government at every level to focus on core functions and let the private sector do the rest. To the extent there needs to be a social safety net to provide for the poor, we have no problem with some sort of basic income guarantee or negative income tax so long as this benefit is provided in lieu of existing entitlements, not in addition to them.

Also we would insist upon certain work requirements for able-bodied recipients without children so as not to further perpetuate dependency in our nation.

Loading

Thank you for voting

Your input is appreciated!

Please select an option!

Got something youd like to say in response to one of our stories? In addition to our always lively comments section (below), please feel free to submit your own guest column or letter to the editor via-email HERE or via our tip-line HERE

Banner via iStock

See the original post:

About That Universal Basic Income Idea - FITSNews

'); //-->

With an impending robot revolution expected to leave a trail of unemployment, some Silicon Valley tech leaders think they have a remedy to a future with fewer jobs: free money for all.

Its called universal basic income, a radical concept that would provide all Americans with a minimum level of economic security. The idea is expensive and controversial it guarantees cash for everyone, regardless of income level or employment status. But prominent tech leaders including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Sam Altman, president of startup accelerator Y Combinator, support it.

We should make it so no one is worried about how theyre going to pay for a place to live, no one has to worry about how theyre going to have enough to eat, Altman said in a recent speech in San Francisco. Just give people enough money to have a reasonable quality of life.

Altman is funding a basic income experiment in Oakland, Calif., as the concept gains momentum in the San Francisco Bay Area. Policy experts, economists, tech leaders and others convened in San Francisco last month for a workshop on the topic organized by the Economic Security Project, of which Altman is a founding signatory. The project is investing $10 million in basic income projects over the next two years.

Stanford University has created a Basic Income Lab to study the idea, and the San Francisco city treasurers office has said its designing tests though the department said it has no updates on the status of that project.

Proponents say the utopian approach could offer relief to workers in Silicon Valley and beyond who may soon find their jobs threatened by robots as they get smarter. Even before the robots take over, some economists say, basic income should be used as a tool to fight poverty. In the Bay Area where the rapid expansion of high-paying tech companies has made the region too expensive for many to afford it could help lift those the boom has left behind.

Unlike traditional aid programs, recipients of a universal basic income wouldnt need to prove anything not their income level, employment status, disability or family obligations before collecting their cash payments.

Its a right of citizenship, said Karl Widerquist, a basic income expert and associate professor at Georgetown Universitys School of Foreign Service in Qatar, so were not judging people and were not putting them in this other category or (saying) youre the poor. And I think this is exciting people right now because the other model hasnt worked.

That means a mother living at the poverty line would get the same amount of free cash as Mark Zuckerberg, Widerquist said. But Zuckerbergs taxes would go up, canceling out his basic income payment.

The problem is that giving all Americans a $10,000 annual income would cost upwards of $3 trillion a year more than three-fourths of the federal budget, said Bob Greenstein, president of the Washington-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Some proponents advocate paying for it by cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid. But that approach would take money set aside for low-income families and redistribute it upward, exacerbating poverty and inequality, Greenstein said.

Still, some researchers are testing the idea with small basic income experiments targeting certain neighborhoods and socio-economic groups.

Y Combinator the accelerator known for launching Airbnb and Instacart is giving 100 randomly selected Oakland families unconditional cash payments of about $1,500 a month. Altman, who is footing most of the bill himself, says society needs to consider basic income to support Americans who lose their jobs to robots and artificial intelligence. The idea, he said in his San Francisco speech, addresses the question not enough people are asking: What do we as the tech industry do to solve the problem that were helping to create?

Increased use of robots and AI will lead to a net loss of 9.8 million jobs by 2027 7 percent of U.S. positions, according to a study that the Forrester research firm released last month. Already, the signs are everywhere. Autonomous cars and trucks threaten driving jobs, automated factories require fewer human workers, and artificial intelligence is taking over aspects of legal work and other white-collar jobs.

Proponents of universal basic income have varying ideas of how much money people should get to give them a decent quality of life. Clearly $1,500 a month isnt enough in the Bay Area, but Altman says in a world of robots the cost of living would go down some experts predict that automation would lower production costs. In the meantime, an extra $1,500 still could have a big effect on Oakland residents like Shoshanna Howard, who said the salary she makes working at a nonprofit barely covers her cost of living.

I would pay off my student loans, she said. And I would put whatever I could toward savings, because Im currently not able to save for my future.

Interest in basic income rose in the 1960s and 1970s, when small pilot studies were conducted in states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa and Indiana, and in Canada. Some studies showed improvements in participants physical and mental health, and found children performed better in school or stayed in school longer. But some also showed that people receiving a basic income were inclined to spend fewer hours working. Other data suggested that married participants were more likely to get divorced. Some experts say the cash payments reduced womens financial dependence on their husbands.

Y Combinator plans to expand its experiment to 1,000 families. YC researchers are using the small Oakland pilot to answer logistical questions such as how to select participants, and how to pay them. The researchers have said theyre focusing on residents ages 21 through 40 whose household income doesnt exceed the area median about $55,000 in Oakland, according to the latest Census data. They expect to release plans for a larger study this summer.

Y Combinator announced its Oakland project last spring, but since then has kept many details under wraps. That tight-lipped approach concerns some community members who question whether the group did enough to involve Oakland residents and nonprofits.

Jennifer Lin, deputy director of the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, said her organization reached out to YC about a year ago, but never heard back. It makes me question what Y Combinator has to hide, she said.

Elizabeth Rhodes, YCs basic income research director, said the group is working with city, county and state officials, and has met with local nonprofits and social service providers.

We want to be as transparent as we can, but protecting the privacy and well-being of study participants is our first priority, she wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., is pushing for a plan that has been described as a first step toward universal basic income. Khanna this summer plans to propose long shot $1 trillion expansion to the earned income tax credit that is already available to low-income families. But unlike a basic income, that money would go only to people who work.

Theres a dignity to work, Khanna said. People, they dont want a handout. They want to contribute to the economy.

View post:

Universal basic income: guarantee pay as way to improve quality of life - WatertownDailyTimes.com

Protesters gather outside the Balmoral Hotel on East Hastings Street in Vancouver on May 30 to vent against the living conditions of the tenants. Jason Payne / PNG

Re: BIG idea: How basic income could improve health, Opinion, June 2.

The Basic Income Guarantee is a great way to foster dropping out of school and quitting your job. Or better yet, working under the table and supplementing your cash income with a BIG allowance.

Nowhere does Rosana Salvaterra suggest that this free cash would have a time limit, so why would anyone want to work for anything near minimum wage, even at $15 per hour when they can stay home and get paid, no questions asked?

What these so-called experts who promote the benefits like improved health care under this plan never provide is the answer to who will pay for this when we have several million Canadians sitting at home waiting for their cheque?

I know my health will improve when I can sleep in and then stroll down to the pub and buy a pint with all of that free money rather than putting in a hard-days work. After all, it has been proven that lots of sleep benefits your health.

Perry Coleman,Delta

Action, not crocodile tears, needed to deal with slumlords

Re: Frustrated tenants storm city hall. Disgusting: Residents claim Balmoral Hotel has been declared unsafe, but owners have done nothing to fix it, June 2.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson needs to know people want action, not his crocodile tears pretending he cares. The Sahotas have been allowed to continue running their Downtown Eastside hotels into the ground and treating the people who live there like garbage.

Last time there were stories regarding this family and its pathetic treatment of people, I can remember Robertson saying he would have repairs done and bill them to the Sahota family. So much for that idea.

Robertson is allowing them to run buildings into the ground, so they can be declared unfit, then everyone will he evicted and theyll tear them down and put in more pricey shoeboxes, making that family extremely rich.

Shawn Storey, Surrey

Losers want to change the rules

Here we go again. It seems it doesnt matter if its ping-pong, football or politics, once the competition is over the losers want to change the rules.

Our forefathers left us living in the best province in the best country under our present electoral system. Now, these perennial losers want to change the rules. We cant allow this to happen.

Alvin Towriss, Hope

Prince Rupert a better place for pipeline terminus

The big news of the day now seems to be stopping the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to Burnaby. Everyone Ive talked to agrees that the pipeline is important for Canada, but not to a final destination in Burnaby.

Prince Rupert is the logical place that we all agree on. Cant these government people realize that we already have cargo ships from around the world, cruise ships, local ferries, seaplanes, company and private yachts, tugs with log booms, etc., plying Vancouver Harbour, to say nothing about even more traffic in the Juan de Fuca Strait heading to Seattle as well as Vancouver and up the Inside Passage.

Prince Rupert has a straight outward passage to the open Pacific Ocean.

John Hyndman, Langley

Eviction washeartless

Re: Orphaned Abbotsford siblings given eviction notice, June 1.

The landlords eviction of this family after the year they have endured is despicable and heartless. The rent is being paid, so its hard not to think that their ruthless decision is based on renting it out for more money than concern for their coming family.

Hopefully, with The Provinces coverage of this familys plight, a landlord with heart and soul will come forward with a new place for them to live.

Tom Gray, North Delta

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? Wed like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.

See more here:

Letters: Guaranteed income guarantees sloth - The Province

I support replacing our current mish-mash of income-support programs with a basic-income guarantee.

A basic-income guarantee is the most effective, democratic and competent way to shift the largest number of people from a life of poverty to a life where income is sufficient to meet basic needs. Our current system does not provide enough support to allow anyone to live a life of dignity, free from the fear of how to meet the most modest survival requirements.

The announcement that Guy Caron has entered the race for leader of the federal NDP is great news for basic-income advocates. He has declared that his first policy proposal would be a basic income.

I am so pleased to see that the leader of the B.C. Green Party, Andrew Weaver, is an advocate for basic income, calling for a pilot project in B.C. The government of Ontario, in early 2016, committed to implementing a pilot project for basic income.

Rather than let opponents hijack the conversation, our goal as advocates must be to ensure that the electorate knows what basic income is to allow it to make an informed decision.

Come on, people of Vancouver Island. This is the only part of the country that voted overwhelmingly NDP in the last federal election. Are we going to let Ontario lead on the most progressive way to end poverty?

Now is the time to end poverty in Canada.

Wendy Devlin

Chemainus

The rest is here:

Basic-income guarantee is way to end poverty - Times Colonist

The issue of the basic income, its pros and cons and the feasibility of its implementation have occupied space in media outlets in recent years, mainly due to the visibility it gained after the referendum in Switzerland and the experiment started this year by the Finnish government. However, this discussion has not reached all corners of the planet. Or at least not until recently.

On February 1st of this year, the Argentine conservative-leaning newspaper La Nacin published an opinion piece entitled An universal income that compensates for poverty and unemployment. The author of the article, Eduardo Levy Yeyati, is an economist, writer, and civil engineer, with a PhD in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania. Yeyati introduces the concept of universal income and describes the historical dimensions of this idea, as its discussion has spanned the centuries, from Thomas More, to Martin Luther King, to its contemporary promoters such as the British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the French presidential candidate Benot Hamon.

However, the text mainly discusses three fundamental complications surrounding the idea of basic income. First, despite having multiple detractors and defenders, the basic income is still an idea in search of a design. According to Yeyati, there is a rather classic proposal such as an unconditional basic income (the model advocated by the most ardent supporters of the initiative), a conservative proposal that would be represented by the negative income tax defended by Milton Friedman and a compromise third-way between these more extreme positions that seeks to guarantee a basic salary floor for those who already receive some type of income.

Second, the author identifies two moral dilemmas that must be addressed and answered by any definition and operationalization of the basic income. First, should it be paid only to those who have a registered job, in the style of an addendum and prize to effort, or should it be paid to everybody, even to those who have no intention of working? Second, should the person who has a lower income receive more money, should everybody receive the same amount or should the person who works the most receive more? For many advocates of this initiative, a basic income basically implies answering these dilemmas in the most generous way: it should be paid to everybody and everyone should receive the same. In this sense, it seems that Yeyati uses the term more broadly than a lot of speakers in other countries, not compromising to any of the possibilities.

Finally, the author ventures one last idea in which he discusses the feasibility of thinking and discussing the implementation of a basic income in Argentina today. And despite some pessimism on his behalf and considering that it would take several years of political maturation to reach the appropriate level of discussion, Yeyati does believe that it is possible to move towards the realization of a basic income today through the design and implementation of a Finnish-style pilot in Argentina. Basically, the author argues that this would not be very costly, that the twin challenges of poverty and unemployment will dominate the development agenda in the coming years and that, in order to move forward, this debate needs information that we do not currently have. In this sense, despite the fact that this issue it not yet in the agenda in the Latin American and Argentine context, at least there are people who are encouraged to discuss its implications and there are media outlets, however conservative they may be, willing to publish them.

Featured Image CC Mike Ramsey (via flickr, Scott Santens)

Gonzalo Ibez Mestres has written 1 articles.

Read the original here:

Basic Income in Argentine News - Basic Income News

New Delhi, Mar 8 () On the International Women's Day, industry body Assocham advocated for introduction of universal basic income for women, saying it can lead to a significant transformation in India's socio-economic landscape.

The chamber drew the idea from the Economic Survey 2016-17, which had said: "A UBI for women can not only reduce the fiscal cost of providing a UBI (to about half) but have large multiplier effects on the household.

"Giving money to women also improves the bargaining power of women within households and reduces concerns of money being splurged on conspicuous goods," it said.

The Economic Survey 2016-17 was tabled by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in Parliament on January 31.

"While India may not be ready for an all encompassing UBI, given the country's scale of development where the difference between the rich and poor remains quite wide and it may not be an equitable thing to extend similar benefits across all strata of the economic paradigm, the women-only UBI can be considered favourably," Assocham said.

It argued that if women have money in their accounts, their economic and social status would see a tremendous uplift. In the long run, this would also bring in corrections in the adverse sex ratio as the society would see women as an empowered lot.

The concept of universal basic income entails a fixed amount being transferred to the accounts of beneficiaries irrespective of their economic or social status. It is premised on the principle that an equitable society should guarantee a minimum income to each individual for access to basic needs.

"The issues of child mortality, infant mortality and even nutrition during pregnancy can be addressed if UBI is extended to women.

Read more here:

Industry body bats for universal basic income for women - Times of India

In a recent article for Public Discourse, Dylan Pahman, a research fellow at Acton, examines the ineffectiveness of trade protectionism and universal income guarantees. Pahman argues that regulating wages and restraining free trade will do more harm then good to the success of business. Pahman begins his critique by responding to Trumps stance on protectionism. During his inaugural address, Trump said:

One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world. . . .

We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

While there are certainly grains of truth in these words, Pahman points out that the loss in manufacturing jobs has largely do with automation rather than outsourcing. He says:

But as many others have pointed out, manufacturing jobs have declined in the United States largely due to automation, not international trade. This trend will not be halted through protectionism. For Trump to claim that he will bring those jobs back would be as ludicrous as if President Calvin Coolidge had promised blacksmiths that he would protect their jobs from foreign trade.

Additionally, Pahman sees basic income guarantees as problematic. He discusses both the economic and spiritual issues at play:

When income is procured through the threat system of taxation and redistribution, no wealth is created The unproductive consumers are merely a conduit for funneling what was taken back to those who produced it in the first place. It is like trying to increase your bank account by writing yourself a check. And unless the receivers are required to spend 100 percent of the BIG [Basic Income Guarantee], the result will not even be zero-sum. It will be negative-sum.

According to Christian tradition, lack of workespecially manual laborengenders acedia: a spiritual listlessness that pushes us to seek unhealthy distractions. Absent the virtues of labor, the vices of idleness multiply and erode our moral culture.

Thus, even if a BIG could successfully overcome the cannibalistic circularity outlined above and counteract income losses, we would still stand to lose in other ways by subsidizing such large-scale unemployment. People need work in order to find meaning in their lives. Work helps to socialize us and promotes more virtuous living. A BIG might be an improvement over our current safety net, but we should be cautious about expanding it beyond that function, both economically and spiritually.

Pahman concludes by stating his support for free trade:

If exchange between economically productive actors is what creates wealth, international trade should be given high priority. If a nation lacks a sufficient supply of productive market actors to sustain itself, the easiest solution would be to expand ones neighborhood to seek out such actors all over the world. Indeed, given the inherent economic problem outlined above, a BIG of such a massive scale would probably require international trade. Unfortunately, this means that in the short run our president, as well as trade opponents on the left such asVermont Senator Bernie Sanders, will only end up making us less prepared for the change to come.

To read the original article from Public Discourse, click here.

Featured Image: Free Trade and Protection from Wikimedia Commons

View original post here:

A guaranteed income isn't the solution to widespread unemployment - Acton Institute (blog)

Universal basic income -- or #UBI -- has been gaining traction in recent years as a utopian alternative to the punitive, stigmatising and declining welfare state in neo-liberal societies. The confluence of increased automation, declining wages and under-employment has been seized by the Left as a powerful reason for the establishment of a basic income (although interestingly, the UBI has always had supporters on the Right who want to do away with big government).

For women as mothers, however, the UBI opens up the possibility of a hitherto unseen equality that includes freedom from dependence on a male wage.

A basic income is a sum of money sufficient to live on, paid to all citizens unconditionally by the government. Basic income scholar Phillipe Van Parijs defines it as "an income paid by a political community to all its members on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement".

There are other definitions, including a basic income that operates as a supplement but is insufficient to live on, also called a 'non-liveable basic income'; a negative income tax whereby all those who earn below a minimum threshold are reimbursed by the government (up to a minimum standard); and basic capital, sometimes referred to as stakeholding, which is a lump sum paid at the onset of adulthood.

I am concerned here with the first definition -- that is a regular income paid to all citizens without conditions at a frugal but functional standard. This is also referred to as a Basic Income Guarantee or BIG.

UBI research and commentary has gained momentum over the past decade with an increasing focus on the social problems associated with declining employment resulting from automation and digitisation (think tram conductors and bank tellers); the declining welfare state resulting from neoliberal austerity policies -- the so-called 'welfare to workfare' regimes; and as a result of increasing income disparity in late capitalism.

For example, in Australia over the past 15 years, incomes of the top 10 percent have grown 13 percent higher than the bottom 90 percent, while incomes of the top 1 percent have grown 42 per cent higher.

Former Greek finance minister and economics professor, Yanis Varoufakis argues, somewhat polemically, that 'capitalism died in 2008' and was replaced with what he calls 'bankruptocracy'-- a system in which financialisation trumps labour deflating wages and undermines extant systems of social welfare (or, in other words, the conventional forms of redistributing income).

He notes that the original bargain struck between capital and labour altered after the financial crisis of 2008 and that the working class -- a broad term that ultimately includes anyone who works for wages -- no longer has the capacity to insure itself, producing a situation of deep economic precarity.

Wage-labourers have to increasingly accept the parsimonious terms of capitalism, generating the well-known situation of falling wages (relative to profits),less job-security and a widening income gap. As political theorist Kathi Weeks says, "Today's 'jobless recovery' is perhaps the most obvious sign that the wage system is not working." While profits are increasing, jobs and wages are not keeping apace and are indeed falling.

This divergence, also referred to as the 'productivity wedge', shows the growing gap between productivity and wages (or GDP and wages) and, in turn, the monopolisation of profits by the 10 percent and, more still, by the 1 percent. Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of the neo-liberal era has been the divergence between real wages growth and productivity growth.

Automation and digitisation will greatly exacerbate this process in the coming decades leading to further massive job losses.

Australia is no exception to this pattern. According to the Committee for Economic Development Australia (CEDA)'s 2015 research report, Australia's Future Workforce -- somewhat ominously titled with a question mark -- we are on the cusp of a 'very different industrial revolution'.

Indeed, according to CEDA's Chief Executive Professor Stephen Martin, "More than five million jobs, almost 40 percent of jobs that exist today, have a moderate to high likelihood of disappearing in the next 10 to 15 years". While "...in some parts of rural and regional Australia there is a high likelihood of job losses being over 60 percent".

UBI is proposed as a utopian alternative to this confluence of technological, economic and social change because it offers a viable alternative for the redistribution of wealth; something the nexus of capitalism, waged labour and the (declining) welfare state is no longer achieving.

Basic income has become a very hot topic over the past year with a number of pilot programs being developed in Finland, the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, and California, a referendum in Switzerland, a lengthy parliamentary debate on the topic in France (resulting in this recent report), a parliamentary report in Australia as well as a discussion paper by Australian think-tank the Greens Institute. In a 2016 report, the Australian Productivity Commission stated: "While Australia's tax and transfer system will continue to play a role in redistributing income, in the longer term, governments may need to evaluate the merits of more radical policies, including policies such as a universal basic income."

What I find interesting immersing myself in the basic income literature -- including academic and journalistic articles alike -- is the assumption that this precarious access to employment is something new.

Certainly, on a mass scale it is for most (though not all) men and the spectre of middle class professionals losing their jobs -- something already happening in fields such as journalism and academia and likely in the health sector next -- a very significant social and economic change; but for all but the most privileged women this economic precarity is the historical and contemporaneous norm.

While a full-time, well-paid job over a lifetime is the route to economic security, notwithstanding the rhetoric of gender equality, very few women have ever had such jobs.

So, my argument isn't just that basic income is the only viable macro-economic answer to increasing economic inequality -- specifically, the decline of full-time, secure jobs -- but that it is a crucial answer to the as yet unresolved issue of gender justice under capitalism.

While I support a UBI for everyone -- that is, I support the 'U' in 'UBI' -- why, you may ask, am I singling out mothers in particular?

I think it is important to identify the specificity of mothers in this debate, given both the tendency to ignore the centrality of gender justice and the extent to which gender is centred around motherhood. My view is we need to make the socio-economic impact of becoming a mother and of mothering work explicit.

But first, a word on the 'standard female biography': one of the reasons a 'matricentric feminism' -- to use Andrea O'Reilly's excellent term -- is required is that we can no longer conflate the categories of mother and woman given delayed and declining fertility, and the increasing numbers of childless women.

Women who are not mothers, not-yet mothers, or long past actively mothering dependent children are all in quite different socio-economic positions (although of course the structural effects of mothering last a lifetime). It's not that gender doesn't matter; it's just that motherhood matters more.

We can look at this more demographically variegated landscape by looking at the gender pay gap, and then looking at how motherhood impacts this.

In Australia as of March 2016, women's full-time wages were 82.8 percent of men's, with a wage gap of 17.2 percent. The gender pay gap has grown over the past decade from 14.9 percent in 2004, to a record high of 18.8 percent in February 2015 before falling slightly again in 2016.

As a result, women are earning less on average compared to men than they were 20 years ago.

However, this figure is calculated without including overtime and bonuses, which substantially increase men's wages, or part-time, which substantially decreases women's wages. In other words, '83 cents in the dollar' substantially overstates wage parity.

When this difference is factored in, the pay gap widens to just over 30 percent. And in the 'prime childrearing years' between ages 35-44, this gap widens to nearly 40 percent.

A more realistic figure is gained by looking at full-time versus part-time earnings, as well as average male and female earnings directly. Here we see the pay gap more clearly.

For example, in 2016, average weekly earnings were $1,727.40 for male employees and $1,010.20 for female employees (a difference of close to $720 per week). However, most mothers work part-time which exacerbates this pay gap yet again.

If we consider full-time and part-time work, the wage disparity widens further: average weekly full-time earnings were $1,727.40 for full-time male employees and $633.60 for part-time female employees; now we have a gap of over $1100 per week!

Close to half of all Australian women worked part-time in 2015-16 -- 44 percent (double the OECD average). However, this figure rises to 62 percent for mothers with a child under 5, and almost 84 percent for those with a child under 2.

Close to 40 percent of all mothers worked part-time regardless of the age of the child, while only 25 percent worked full-time.

The remainder, it needs to be remembered, were out of the workforce altogether. As the ABS put it:

"Reflecting the age when women are likely to be having children (and taking a major role in child care), women aged 25-44 years are more than two and a half times as likely as men their age to be out of the labour force."

Age of youngest child is a key predictor of women's labour force participation, although it has almost no bearing on men's labour force participation and when it does it is in the opposite direction: fathers of younger children typically undertake more paid work.

Moreover, a quarter of all female employees work casually and their average weekly earnings were just $471.40.

Think about that -- a quarter of all working women earn less than $500 a week! These days that barely covers the rent, let alone food, bills, educational and commuting costs.

Occupational segregation and motherhood wage penalties also kick into this mix. If we look at labour force participation we see that coupled mothers have higher rates of participation than single mothers given the additional support they receive with childcare and income.

As the government report, 'Parenting, Work and the Gender Pay Gap' points out:

"Economists have reported that raising children accounts for a 17 percent loss in lifetime wages for women. Many women move into 'mother-friendly' occupations when they have children. These occupations may be lower-paid than the work a mother may have done prior to having a child, and often do not reflect the woman's abilities, education level or work experience ('human capital')."

Given the average full-time male wage is significantly higher than the average female wage and, moreover, that women carry the overwhelming share of unpaid care and domestic work and thus typically work part-time in their key childrearing years -- and, we should add, fully a quarter do not work at all -- this is not simply a matter of two incomes being better than one (which is of course true), it is that access to a share of male monopolised wealth -- that is, to put in in stark terms, access to a husband -- is essential for mothers to avoid poverty.

I'm not talking about the small number of high-earning, professional mothers, but the great majority of women. In broad terms, the closer we are to mothering dependent children, including especially infants and pre-schoolers, and the further we are from access to a male wage, the poorer we are as women.

Never married single mothers with dependent children are the worst off and it moves progressively from there with young, educated, urban, never-married, childless women in fact outstripping average male wages. This contrast gives us a sense of the variegated nature of women's socio-economic position and again highlights that mothers are a distinct group and, more fundamentally, that the life course transitions of marriage and motherhood continue to negatively affect women's (independent) socio-economic status.

As a recent government report, Parenting, Work and the Gender Pay Gap put it:

"Women's disjointed career trajectories are mirrored in the way the gender pay gap changes over the life course.

The gender pay gap exists from first entry to the workforce and increases substantially during the years of childbirth and childrearing, a time when many women have reduced their engagement with paid employment to take on family care work.

The gap then stabilises and narrows slightly from mid-life, when many women increase their paid work and sometimes develop new careers after their children have grown up. The pay gap narrows further in the years leading up to retirement with a substantial drop during retirement when men's income is usually reduced."

So, often when we're talking about women's lower labour force participation and lower earnings, we're actually talking about mothers' lower labour force participation and lower earnings and, more specifically again, we're talking about mothers with dependent children; although the lasting effects of caring labour means women across the spectrum have reduced earnings, assets and retirement savings if they have mothered.

To highlight this point, Australian sociologist and time use scholar Professor Lyn Craig has shown that many of the socio-economic disadvantages affecting women are, in fact, specific to mothers. As she says:

"An implication of this is that the marker of the most extreme difference in life opportunities between men and women may not be gender itself, but gender combined with parenthood. That is, childless women may experience less inequity than women who become mothers."

Another important reason we need to differentiate mothers from women is that over the past 40 years, the standard female biography has changed significantly. Whereas once adulthood was by and large synonymous with marriage and motherhood for women, on average women now have a long stretch of adulthood -- from the late teens to around age 30 -- before they have a first child.

For educated and/or unpartnered women, the birth of a first child is often later again into the 30s, and sometimes up to age 40. Moreover, while only around 10 percent of women did not become mothers in the mid and later twentieth century, this has now risen to 24 percent. So, not all women are mothers, and many women experience a large chunk of adulthood before they become mothers and after they are actively mothering dependent children.

So, to clarify my point, there are structural and individual injustices that are specific to mothering dependent children including an unequal division of domestic labour, unequal access to jobs given the unpaid work load at home, employment built on an implicit breadwinner model that is incompatible with parenting (including school hours, school holidays, sick kids and the like), discrimination in the workplace and, in the event of unemployment and/or divorce, an increasingly punitive welfare state and a high risk of poverty.

Single mothers and their children make up the bulk of those under the poverty line in the western world. In Australia, of all family groups, single parents constitute the largest single group of those living in poverty (proportionally).

Marriage is no longer the safety net (or gilded cage) it once was, with just over 30 percent of marriages ending in divorce in Australia and predicted to rise to 45 percent in the coming decades.

Additionally fewer people are entering into marriages and cohabiting relationships have even higher rate of relational breakdown than marriages.

This means a large and growing number of women who are mothering children -- the next generation no less -- are caught in this literal economic no-man's land without adequate access to waged employment, a breadwinner husband or welfare. I am not suggesting that access to a husband is a right; I am suggesting that the liberal dissolution of the institution of marriage has not been followed with any viable economic alternatives.

Mothers undertake the bulk of unpaid care work, without which our society would cease to function. To turn this around: is it acceptable that as a society we free-load on this care?

Mothers' economic autonomy -- that is the very foundation of their citizenship and their liberty -- is undermined by the extant intersection of the institutions of marriage, employment and welfare. It is on this basis that I am identifying mothers, and more still single mothers, as a specific socio-economic and political group in urgent need of basic income. This is a human rights crisis given that lone parent families are one of the fastest growing family forms in western societies and, moreover, that women head 80-90 percent of these families.

Unlike the contemporary issues put forward for basic income -- namely, mass unemployment from automation and digitisation -- the issues facing mothers are not new.

Indeed they have been with us since the very inception of capitalism and the waged-labour system. Moreover, they are among the most compelling given that women and their dependents comprise the majority of the poor.

With the liberalisation of markets and marriage, a large and growing body of women and children are being left out of the social contract. Basic income is the critical policy answer to this problem.

______________

This blog first appeared here.

If you would like to submit a blog to HuffPost Australia, send a 500-800-word post through to blogteam@huffingtonpost.com.au

ALSO ON HUFFPOST AUSTRALIA

See original here:

Australia Needs A Universal Basic Income, And We Should Start ... - Huffington Post Australia

Sandhya Anantharaman, data scientist and co-director of the Universal Income Project, spoke on basic income at the tenth annual Meeting of the Minds summit.

In a 10-minute talk, Anantharaman argues that the United States needs a new social contract in the form of a basic income.

Setting out the problem, she explains that increases in productivity over the past half-century have not been matched by increases in income for the majority of Americans. Income inequality has risen, and a growing number of people are juggling part-time and contract jobs.

According to Anantharaman, the best solution is to guarantee all Americans an income floor sufficient to meet their basic needs. She contends that the economic security provided by a basic income would, for example, allow individuals to develop the skills and training needed to pursue new careers, promote entrepreneurship, and allow scientists to carry out research for its own sake, without worrying about how to commercialize it. It would, moreover, permit people to devote their time to caregiving, parenting, volunteer work, and other endeavors not traditionally compensated with wages.

Following Anantharamans presentation, the host of the event issued a prediction that the accompanying video (posted below) was one of the most likely to go viral.

Meeting of the Minds 2016 was held October 25-27, 2016 in Richmond, California. The event brought together 480 participants from the public and private sectors, non-profit organizations, and academia, with 23 countries represented.

The Meeting of the Minds network states that its mission is to bring together a carefully chosen set of key urban sustainability and technology stakeholders and gather them around a common platform in ways that help build lasting alliances.

Reviewed byMadhumitha Madhavan.

Cover photo: Still from YouTube video.

Kate McFarland has written 366 articles.

Kate began reporting for Basic Income News in March 2016, joined BIEN's Executive Committee in July 2016, and was appointed Secretary of BIEN's US affiliate (USBIG) in November 2016. She has received funding from the Economic Security Project and Patreon for her work for as a basic income news reporter.

Read more:

VIDEO: Basic Income presentation at Meeting of the Minds Summit - Basic Income News

CommonSpace

Ben Wray: Why both the right to work and the right not to work can set us free CommonSpace In a world where the idea of robots taking over our jobs is no longer in the realm is sci-fi, basic income is usually proposed as an alternative to the guarantee of employment. The logic of this is simple: the guarantee of an income replaces the ...

See the original post here:

Ben Wray: Why both the right to work and the right not to work can set us free - CommonSpace

Basic Income and Jobs

The debate about the effectiveness of a universal basic income (UBI) program has been fueled by concerns over job displacement due to increased automation. Several studies have shown that a number of jobs from several industries including transportation, manufacturing, finance, law, and even ITare going to be affected by this trend. This has generated support for UBI from a number of economic experts and tech industry giants, including Elon Musk.

Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) proponents also see UBI as a better alternative to current social welfare programs. Brad Voracek, who holds a degree in Applied Mathematics in Economics and Computer Science from the University of California, Berkeley, and a masters in Economic Theory and Policy from the Levy Institute at Bard College, shared his thoughts on how proponents of BIG and Job Guarantee (JG) shouldnt be at odds with one another.

Supporters of either of these policies should be working together to get either one implemented and we can debate adding the other later,Voracek writes in The Minskys.Today, we need to move beyond our current disjointed welfare system to one that will help Americans, and either policy (or both!) seems like a step in the right direction.

In the article, Voracek also tackles several of the arguments against UBI.

Contrary to what some critics say, he doesnt seeUBI as incentivizing not having ajob. I havent seen any proof an income stops people from working, he writes. Its all speculation. He also points out that many of the jobs that are available to those who qualify for the current welfare system arent beneficial to society.

We have to keep abject poverty as a social option so that people keep working at McDonalds making the McObese, and keep stocking the Wal-Mart shelves so that Wal-Mart can pay starvation wages which allow people to be eligible for the [welfare] in the first place, says Voracek. Im not really sure those are the jobs that need to be done.

Voracek has a plan on how we should pay for a new system as well. He argues that the total cost of the welfare programs currently in place is higher than the potential cost of UBI, so we could get rid of all of those programs (with the exception of the complicated Medicaid) and apply all of that money to a singular UBI program.

At the moment, its all about trying it out. Lets see what happens when everyone has some cash on hand, Voracek writes. BIG and JG proponents, lets not quibble. Were on the same side. Theres work to be done. Get organized. Make it happen.

Go here to read the rest:

Expert: We Can Have Universal Basic Income and Jobs - Futurism - Futurism

In January, Apolitical published an exclusive interview with two leaders behind the planning of a pilot study of a basic income guarantee program in Ontario, Canada: Helena Jaczek, Ontarios Minister of Community and Social Services, and project advisor Hugh Segal.

Earlier this month, the interview was republished in the official blog of the World Economic Forum, the Switzerland-based organization responsible for the prestigious annual Davos meeting (which this year held a panel discussion and debate on basic income: dream or delusion).

In the interview, Jaczek and Segal explain the reasons for their interest in and optimism about basic income. Jaczek sees the program as a means to provide economic security to allow individuals to contribute to society. Segal supports basic income as a way to avoid the poverty trap that occurs when poor individuals lose benefits after taking a job, as well as a way to empower the poor to make decisions on their own behalf.

The Government of Ontario has recently completed public consultation hearings on an initial proposal for the pilot study, and will release its final plan in Spring 2017. As proposed, the pilot will consist of both a randomized control study in a large metropolitan area (in which randomly selected individuals receive the basic income guarantee) and several saturation studies (in which all members of a small city receive the basic income guarantee). If Segals initial recommendations are followed, subjects will be eligible to receive an unconditional cash transfer of up to 1,320 CAD (about 1,000 USD) per month, gradually tapered off with additional earnings, which would replace existing unemployment programs in the province.

Read more:

Exclusive: Inside Canadas new basic income project, Apolitical, January 4, 2017.

Canadas basic income experiment will it work? World Economic Forum blog, February 2, 2017.

Reviewed by Danny Pearlberg

Photo (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) CC BY 2.0Brian Burke

Kate McFarland has written 359 articles.

Kate began reporting for Basic Income News in March 2016, joined BIEN's Executive Committee in July 2016, and was appointed Secretary of BIEN's US affiliate (USBIG) in November 2016. She has received funding from the Economic Security Project and Patreon for her work for as a basic income news reporter.

See original here:

World Economic Forum blog: Canada's basic income experiment will it work? - Basic Income News

Tuesday, February 14, 2017 Regional | by Claire McCormack

Queens Park looks at a pilot project, which is supported by the Bruce Grey Poverty Task Force.

The Bruce Grey Poverty Task Force supports the Ontario Government's pilot project of a basic income guarantee, but says the province needs to realize poverty isn't just an urban issue.

Task Force Co-ordinator Jill Umbach says the idea is to provide a government subsidy for low income people that would go right to them in a similar way to the Ontario Seniors' Benefit Program.

Umbach says the plan is to have income information go to the government at tax time and if someone qualifies, the rest would be automatic.

The Task Force likes the idea of enabling low income people to receive the money they need in a more dignified way without being micro-managed by the province and regularly required provide documentation about how much money they've made.

The program began to take shape in June 2016 with a discussion paper from the province called Finding a Better Way: A Basic Income. Consultation sessions followed and the Bruce Grey Poverty Task Force attended a number of them.

Umbach says they made sure the rural perspective was clearly conveyed to others during the consultations which all took place in urban centres.

She notes rural issues cannot be ignored, and believes more robust economic development and local investment will reverse the rise of precarious work, loss of benefits to families and out-migration of young people and families from the community.

Umbach says the pilot would be rolled out in just a few communities within the province for a span of three years. It would replace Ontario Works subsidies in those instances.

Read more:

Guaranteed basic income proposed. - Bayshore Broadcasting News Centre

5473153

Following a devastating election cycle where the American voting public sent a sharp rebuke to the status quo and policies of the Obama Administration, the left is now preparing to push for a universal basic income (UBI).

Left-leaning Americans are largely opposed to President Donald Trumps cabinet picks, all the way from Attorney General Jeff Sessions to the presidents pick to lead the Department of Labor: fast food executive Andy Puzder. (RELATED: Big Labor Curtails Spending As It Braces For Trump Presidency)

Labor unions have blasted Puzder for past comments about the future of low-wage workers in the fast food industry. Puzderwarned that the fight for a $15 minimum wage will hurt low-wage workers more than it can help, arguing that a better policy would be to encourage the private sector to create more middle class jobs.

Professors Mark Paul and William Darity, Jr. from Duke University, along with Darrick Hamilton from the Milano School of International Affairs, argued that the country needs a federal jobs guarantee in an article published recently in Jacobin Magazine, a self-proclaimed leading voice of the American left.

Supporters of a UBI argue that a government-subsidized wage guarantee to all citizens would stave off job loss from automation and advancements in technology.

Why We Need a Federal Job Guarantee, theorizes that giving everyone a job is the best way to democratize the economy and give workers leverage in the workplace.

Paul, Darity, and Hamilton argue that a UBI could successfully cover workers who have lost their jobs due to technological advancements. Existing social insurance programs are insufficient, the professors write. They offer five reasons in support a federal jobs guarantee, including the notion of preempting the problem before it is widespread. Robots havent taken over yet, they write, suggesting that getting ahead of the problem will reduce the number of poor Americans.

A UBI would redefine the relationship between individuals and the state by giving government the role of provider, said Orin Cass, domestic policy director for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romneys 2012 presidential campaign, inJune, 2016.It would make work optional and render self-reliance moot, he continued.

An underclass dependent on government handouts would no longer be one of societys greatest challenges but instead would be recast as one of its proudest achievements, Cass warned in a piece published by the National Review.

Labor experts seriously question free cash as sound economic policy, but some experts, including those who do not identify left, are not completely opposed to a jobs program.

Giving people cash is not the solution to improving opportunity, Aparna Mathur, a labor policy expert with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Mathur did not rule out the idea of a federal jobs program but warned against unconditional handouts.

If cash transfers are conditional on work or job training, they are much more likely to be effective in improving mobility than if we simply give everybody an unconditional cash transfer, she told TheDCNF, refusing to rule out the idea of a federal jobs guarantee completely.

The professors said that a federal jobs guarantee could build an inclusive economy, and that it could provide socially useful goods and services.

The language fails to take into consideration the additional benefits that may compel a company to install automation for certain jobs.

Some jobs dont produce enough economic value to bear the increase [minimum wage], Puzder said to theWall Street Journalin 2014.

If we gave people the money without making it conditional on work, it might reduce their incentive to work, Mathur concluded.

Finland experimented with a UBI, with some unemployed Finnish citizens taking home a salary regardless of whether or not they are working.

The nations largest labor union, The Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), said that the policy might reduce the labor force. SAK also asserted that aUBI makes it easier for potential prospects to turn down unpleasant jobs, opting to just take the government handout instead.

Follow Ted on Twitter

Send Tips to ted@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Read more here:

Left-Wing America Steps Up Calls For Free Money, Jobs Guarantee - Daily Caller

A basic income guarantee (B.I.G.) would transform the current social welfare system and policies to a system based on human rights and basic needs. Why is basic income especially important for people with disabilities?

A basic income guarantee would be a move away from determining a persons value based on their work. It would eliminate the discriminatory attitudethat people with disabilities are takers, not contributors, and challenge the harmful idea that wealth is for the blessed.

Disability and poverty are interlocking. Today, 70 per cent of people born with a moderate to severe disability will live their whole lives in poverty. The current social assistance system designed to support impoverished people is not working, and it is discriminatory in its effects. The statistics are astonishing: two-thirds of households in which social assistance is the main source of income are headed by people with disabilities, and almost three-fifths of persons with disabilities are unemployed or under-employed. The vast majority of Human Rights challenges on P.E.I. are related to disability and work.

When Islanders with disabilities talk about their experience, they say that many people with disabilities don't have enough to live on. Healthy food isn't affordable for people. Isolation is also something many people with disabilities face and housing is a huge issue. Too many people are living in unhealthy places, and this is making people sick. A basic income guarantee would allow people to live in healthier, safer places.

People with disabilities don't have equal access to jobs. Many are unemployed or underemployed. When people with disabilities do get jobs, they often have to be more qualified than other job-seekers in order to be hired. In the workforce, people with disabilities are often paid very little. Social Assistance rules claw back earnings above $75 per month, and this is unfair. People with disabilities, especially people with intellectual challenges, are sometimes expected to work for free.

A basic income guarantee would reduce discrimination against people with disabilities. If every Islander received a basic income guarantee, it would be a step towards true equality among people with different abilities. A basic income guarantee recognizes what people contribute to society just by being human as people who are valuable for themselves, valuable for their relationships and connections, valuable whether their contribution looks like a traditional job or not, valuable whether what they do is paid or unpaid in the workforce.

A basic income guarantee designed to meet peoples real day-to-day needs would, of course, need to recognize that the basic needs of a person with a disability may be different from others basic needs. A basic income guarantee could replace social assistance, for instance, but would not replace disability supports. For example, for some people with mobility issues, a wheelchair is a basic need. Disability supports are basic needs, not extras.

A basic income guarantee would promote inclusion, about including people better in society, and it is about equality and being treated fairly. A basic income guarantee could reduce isolation (make it more possible to use transit for instance) and make it easier to have a social life which is good for individuals mental health and good for all of society.

A basic income guarantee would celebrate all of our uniqueness, instead of pressuring people with different abilities to be normal. By valuing people as people, rather than just as earners, a basic income guarantee would help normalize differences.

- Marcia Carroll represents the P.E.I. Council of People with Disabilities and Leo Garland represents P.E.I. People First on the P.E.I. Working Group for a Livable Income.

Originally posted here:

OPINION: Human rights, basic needs - The Guardian