Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Alternative Medicine
- Artificial Intelligence
- Atlas Shrugged
- Ayn Rand
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Conscious Evolution
- Cosmic Heaven
- Designer Babies
- Ethical Egoism
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom of Speech
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- High Seas
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Longevity
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Life Extension
- Mars Colonization
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- New Utopia
- Personal Empowerment
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Private Islands
- Resource Based Economy
- Ron Paul
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Teilhard De Charden
- The Singularity
- Tor Browser
- Transhuman News
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Zeitgeist Movement
The Evolutionary Perspective
Category Archives: Basic Income Guarantee
Posted: February 22, 2017 at 4:08 am
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 here:
Posted: February 20, 2017 at 7:12 pm
Ben Wray: Why both the right to work and the right not to work can set us free
In a world where the idea of robots taking over our jobs is no longer in the realm of 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:
Posted: February 18, 2017 at 4:11 am
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.
View original post here:
Posted: at 12:10 am
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 from the original source:
Posted: February 10, 2017 at 3:09 am
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.
In the long-run encouraging people to work or acquire skills and training and education is the only way to help people move up in life, Mathur explained, a statement that could comport with a federal jobs program.
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 email@example.com.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
See more here:
Posted: February 6, 2017 at 3:15 pm
(Image credit: Basic Income Canada Network)
The Basic Income Canada Network (BICN) has just passed their goal of signing 10,000 people who support a basic income guarantee in Canada.
This milestone marks the culmination of over a year of collecting supporters. BICN now looks toward its next milestone: reaching the 15,000-person threshold.
BICN is a non-profit organization affiliated to BIEN that advocates for basic income in Canada. It does so by publishing regular news stories as well as annual reports about basic income developments. BICN also disseminates resources for getting involved in the struggle for basic income, in addition to educational sources informing about relevant debates and issues. A central part of this organization is its ongoing petition, open to everyone, which calls for the implementation of a basic income in Canada.
BICNs website was launched in August 2015, when this counter for supporters of basic income began. It has taken BICN almost a year and a half to reach 10,000 supporters, 8,000 of which coming in the last nine months. The 10,000 person threshold was surpassed on December 13th.
This event marks the latest in a series of positive developments for basic income in Canada. Recently, on December 7th, a unanimous decision was reached by the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, Canada, to pursue a partnership with the federal government for the establishment of a universal basic income pilot project. Also, in Ontario, the regional government is moving forward with plans to test a universal basic income. These plans began in early 2016, when Ontario tasked Hugh Segal with an outline paper concerning the C$25m pilot project. The project is set to start this spring.
More information at:
Ashifa Kassam, Ontario pilot project puts universal basic income to the test, The Guardian, October 28th 2016
Austin Douillard has written 1 articles.
Posted: at 3:15 pm
There are studies (such as the Gallup World Poll) which point to a correlation between the unemployment situation and a relative reduction in peoples happiness. At first glance, one might immediately conclude that what we need is to provide jobs for everyone problem solved. However, a rushed conclusion like this under-evaluates the situation, ignores its alternatives and can even become counterproductive.
These studies conclude that, beyond the obvious issue of income, jobs seem to be a source of meaning and self worth for people. This apparently only reinforces the above results, and so it seems that a Job Guarantee (JG) is a policy for the future and that we must implement it as soon as possible.
But lets calm down.
First, lets think awhile on why individuals with jobs show higher relative happiness levels, when compared with unemployed individuals.
Part of the answer lies in the stigma associated with being unemployed. The thing is, in a society so dependent on jobs like ours, being unemployed is, unquestionably, a source of stigma. According to many in society, people are unemployed because he/she is incapable of finding a job, because she has not tried enough, because she not got enough education, because she has deficient social capabilities, or due to a wide range of reasons, real or imagined. Turn it as you like, that person is to blame. If structural unemployment is on a systematic rise due to automation and other factors, if incomes drop so low that people simply give up, if precarity is a daily reality, or if working conditions may be physically or psychologically degradingthose are only considered circumstantial excuses from someone who is lazy, case closed.
However, if proof of this argument is needed, retired people are relatively less unhappy than unemployed people, although they do not have jobs (Clemens Hetschko et al., 2012). Why? Because retirement is socially accepted; it is expected that, after decades of valid contributions to society, through a job, the person can finally rest and became free to spend the rest of his/her life just walking at the park (if so he/she wishes).
And, of course, getting help from the state to ease the income situation does not solve the problem. The reason is because the stigma is still there: now the person has to prove that he/she is factually incapable of gaining his/her own income. Apparently, the unemployment stigma was not enough: on top of that now comes the stigma of receiving a handout in order to survive.
Whats really at stake here, and again beyond the mere income situation, is that we live in a culture based on jobs as a source of meaning and value, and so the lack of a job is seen as a problem. However, the income situation is a major one, since lacking income represents a great source of unhappiness for individuals. So, the unemployeds relative unhappiness when compared to employed individuals is only clear when seen in the context of our present culture, and not necessarily outside it. Basic Income (BI) can and hopefully will create conditions under which that connection does not exist. To guarantee jobs for everyone, in this first sense, does not necessarily generate more happiness for individuals than BI, simply because the cultural environment around work gets totally transformed.
Secondly, it is wrong to assume that people want jobs, as traditionally defined. And, to be clear, that doesnt mean in any way that people do not want to contribute to society through their work. As living proof we observe all those individuals who, despite working in jobs in order to survive, can still (sometimes with great effort and sacrifice) manage to surmount enough energy and time to do voluntary work. That means that, for all those who have trouble believing these people actually exist, jobs are not necessarily a source of meaning and self-worth in humans, which is shown in greater detail in an informal study by Robin Chase (as presented in an article by Kate McFarland).
Thirdly, I think it is not necessary to list the growing quantities of jobs seen as unattractive, monotonous, unchallenging and/or offering no carrier development perspectives, recently labelled as bullshit jobs. Its hardly understandable the point in having people doing jobs that are not interesting to them, from which they do not get satisfaction, that do not allow them to explore their talents and that suck their precious lifetime, only to provide them with an income (which may not even be enough to cover basic expenses). If those jobs are not necessary, then lets have them eliminated. If these are necessary, then lets automate them. If that is not possible, then lets pay more to whoever is willing to accept them.
The JG will only be beneficial to those searching for jobs any job, we can assume in desperation and cannot find them. For those currently and comfortably employed it would be innocuous, and for those who actually choose not to be employed (whether presently employed or not), in order to have time to pursue their passions and talents, it would only cause suffering and would be a waste of time.
On the other hand, BI is beneficial for all those who prefer not to be formally employed, are currently unhappily employed, or are indifferent, such as those individuals who are satisfied with their job at the moment. Moreover, BI will benefit the presently unemployed, offering them the chance to informally contribute to society and/or develop their capacities in order to be fit for jobs they see as more adequate to their profiles and preferences.
On a finer assessment, it seems that BI can be the strategy that will enhance peoples happiness, in respect to their relation to work. Its also worth noting the potentially more complex and policing nature of the EG structure. To guarantee employment, the state will have to create it first, since apparently the marketplace is destroying it; To do that, these jobs must first be invented, and then distributed to people who will, supposedly, be willing to take them. There will have to be an effort to categorize each persons abilities in order to establish a match between them and the jobs being created. It seems to be an enormous task, and a potentially highly bureaucratic one (more than we already have in our present welfare states). Even on the assumption that the state would be able to create all these jobs and to get people on them, it would still be necessary to have some system that would guarantee that the latter would stick to the former. Or at least have a way to generate new jobs for all those who want one or for some other reason had to change jobs. But maybe all this is unnecessary.
Alternatively, because basic income allows everyone to work creates conditions for each person to initiate his/her activity. If, for any reason, that person cannot do it (or does not want to do it that way), BI gives him/her the possibility to pursue education and/or skills to apply for the job he/she really craves. In time, BI will effectively put everyone to work. Thats because, one way or another, everyone wants to contribute to society, given the chance. Unfortunately, our current system prevents many people from working, precisely (and ironically) due to the coercive effect of needing a job any job, even if the person gets actually sick from doing it in order to survive.
To work in something meaningful and aligned with ones values will render a completely different social environment than what we have today. To trust people to do what they think is best for their lives will completely change work, for the better. Unlike the JG, which will only mean more coercion and entrenchment of the present day job culture.
This article draws upon the articles by Kate McFarland:
Kate McFarland, Basic Income, Job Guarantees and the Non-Monetary Value of Jobs: Response to Davenport and Kirby, Basic Income News, September 5th 2016 Kate McFarland, The Greater Happiness for the More Workers: Basic Income vs Job Guarantee Pt 2, Basic Income News, October 21th 2016
More information at: Clemens Hetschko, Andreas Knabe, Ronnie Schb, Identity and wellbeing: How retiring makes the unemployed happier, CEPR VOX, May 4 2012
Andr Coelho has written 111 articles.
Activist. Engineer. Musician. For the more beautiful world our hearts know it’s possible.
Read more here: