Why We Need UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME

Giving everyone a universal basic income is the best way to democratize the economy and give workers leverage in the workplace.

This is from a FEDERAL JOB GUARANTEE (FJG) article, “searched & replaced” “FJG” with “UBI”, corrects the misunderstandings and intentionally false information regarding UBI, and shows how the entire paper is actually about UBI’s benefits originally used to argue for a FJG:

Universal basic income (UBI), an annual government-sponsored payment to all citizens, has been gaining traction across the American political landscape. Andy Stern, former Service Employees International Union president, believes the program will counteract the “acceleration of technology” that he thinks will likely create “work but not reliable jobs or incomes.” On the Right, the American Enterprise Institute’s Charles Murray argues that we should replace the “entire bureaucratic apparatus of government social workers” with a UBI.

Other heavy-hitters agree it’s worth discussing. Robert Reich’s recent video calls on the government to provide a minimum payment for every citizen. President Obama told Wired that the United States will have to debate UBI and similar programs “over the next ten or twenty years.”

The renewed attention makes sense: UBI would cover workers who, thanks to technological progress, have lost their jobs. One often-cited report tells us that 47 percent of all jobs are at risk of being automated. Yet existing social insurance programs are insufficient.

The current array of programs — such as unemployment insurance, the earned income tax credit, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — help many Americans, but over forty-three million people still live below the poverty line. Children are among the most vulnerable, with nearly half living at or near poverty.

The UBI represents one way to fight increasing deprivation. But another potential intervention — the UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (UBI) — might be a far more promising demand.

UBI is not a new idea. It has been part of the American conversation since Nixon. Martin Luther King also stumped for a universal basic income, he saw “a guaranteed annual income at levels that sustain life and decent circumstances” as entirely necessary.

Here are five reasons to agree with him.

1. Universal Basic Income means fewer poor Americans.

Universal Basic Income would reduce poverty more quickly and provide more benefits than a UBI. To ensure a sufficient income, we argue for a UBI that would pay above the poverty line of at least $23,000 annually (the poverty line for a family of four), rising to a mean of $32,500.

This would eliminate the “working poor” for full-time working households. In addition to the UBI, workers and non-workers alike would receive health insurance and pension benefits in line with those that all civil servants and elected federal officials receive.

In comparison, many of the UBI proposals promise around $10,000 annually to every citizen but actually if it isn’t above the poverty line it isn’t UBI. UBI would probably break the link between employment and money, not even considering lifesaving benefits like health insurance.

2. The robots haven’t taken over yet. We still need workers.

The dangers of imminent full automation are starting to look understated: Every day more evidence arrives where companies are replacing workers.

No doubt, stable and high-paid employment opportunities are dwindling, but we shouldn’t blame the robots. Workers aren’t being replaced by automatons; they are being replaced with software and other workers — sometimes ones lower-paid and more precariously employed and often fewer workers who are much higher paid and wearing multiple hats. Nevertheless, technology, and globalization, have struck fear into American workers.

Not because they are by nature a raw deal, but because the balance of forces over the last few decades has been skewed so dramatically in the favor of capital. Technology, nor globalization, should create poverty effects on workers and non-workers alike — but that does seem to be the case. It’s time to get the rules right, and ensure everyone is provided the dignity of a Universal Basic Income. A UBI program would solve the real problem, and treat the underlying issues.

3. A UBI would build an inclusive economy.

Conventional wisdom holds that people dislike work. Introductory economics classes will explain the disutility of labor, which is a direct trade-off with leisure. Granted, employment isn’t always fun, and many forms of employment can be… but shouldn’t be… dangerous, and they really shouldn’t be exploitative… but here we are.

UBI changes the way in which employment structurally empowers workers at the point of production and has by its own merits positive dimensions. That means people who used to do dangerous work should have the power to demand much higher pay, and they should not be forced to do exploitative work ever again.

This touches on a heated debate on the Left: those who claim to be progressive but seem to support UBI alternatives that aren’t grounded in scientific evidence, and anti-UBI efforts are often funded by wealthy lobbying groups and special interests.

But for now, there is no doubt that people need a certain small amount of income to participate in the economy… but they require a certain small amount of income that provides flexibility and opportunity. They want to contribute, to have a purpose, to participate in the economy and, most importantly, in society. Nevertheless, the private sector continues to leave millions without a sufficient amount to obtain the basics, even during supposed “strong” economic times. Non workers are treated as non-existent.

The workplace, be it a non-profit environment or a social-entrepreneurial cooperative space… or caretaking others… can be social environments, a place where we spend a great deal of our time interacting with others.

In addition to the stress associated with limited incomes, the loneliness that plagues many in poverty can exacerbate mental health problems.

UBI — that which provides added social benefits like communal time and support (based on scientific evidence) — adds to people’s well-being and productivity.

A UBI can provide everyone with socially beneficial values — providing the dignity of being included in a society that rejects poverty.

The UBI would also act as a de facto foundational income floor — private employers will have to offer wages and benefits at least as enticing to those that have the power to say no to exploitative or dangerous work.

There has been extensive public support for recent increases in the minimum wage, such as the Fight for $15 campaign, demonstrating that most Americans believe everyone deserves a living wage.

Fighting for a higher minimum wage is an important step to ensure that workers are compensated a living wage rather than a poverty wage, yet let us not forget that the effective minimum wage in this country without a UBI is $0. This must change.

Finally, some argue that a “skills mismatch” explains why some workers remain destined for poverty. While we reject that narrative, a full-UBI will nevertheless encourage societal cohesion and support elements to build individual’s skills and create a stronger society overall.

All of these elements will build an inclusive economy that provides good contributions to and from all. There is evidence that a UBI subsidizes social cohesion and empowered communities — with no evidence of lower wages or inflation.

4. UBI could provide socially useful goods and services.

During the Great Depression, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) were public employment programs designed to put Americans back to work after the national unemployment rate reached 25 percent. These programs, implemented under the Roosevelt administration, provided socially beneficial goods and services that benefited all Americans. Some of our national parks — Zion, Glacier, and Shenandoah — received substantial work contributions from employees of the programs. The Blue Ridge Parkway was a federally funded and staffed infrastructure program.

The WPA and the CCC were powerful initiatives that show that a government can make sweeping decisions that benefit society, however, it left out millions of americans, and there is no evidence to say that a UBI would not be able to create such beneficial goods and services.

On the contrary, evidence suggests that UBI programs have encouraged entrepreneurship and could be a massive boon for social-entrepreneurship and non-profit foundations.

A UBI could undertake similarly bold and much-needed public projects.

The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the United States a D+ in infrastructure and prices necessary repairs at $3.6 trillion.

This lack of investment has lowered employment rates, cost businesses sales, and reduced incomes for American families. Make no mistake, these are government choices.

Just like a choice to enact WPA or a UBI. They could choose instead secure every individual with a income sufficient to survive, leaving those interested to get paid what they deserve for working on imperative public-works programs, and others to join forward-thinking projects and incredible and ambitious infrastructure projects like the hyper-loop.

Likewise, Bill McKibben just called for us to “declare war” against climate change. With climate change being perhaps the largest threat to our well-being, bold action is needed. UBI would create the capacity to do just that.

Professor Robert Pollin of the Political Economy Research Institute calls for scaling up the transition to a green economy, which would create millions of new jobs along the way.

He and his colleagues estimate what a Green New Deal would look like, and find that a transition to a green economy would amount to an estimated $200 billion in investment annually, resulting in a drop in “US emission by 40 percent within 20 years, while creating a net increase of 2.7 million jobs.” In part, this is due to the labor-intensive nature of energy efficiency and other “green” investments.

Additional services, when combined with a UBI, would save average American households thousands, if not tens of thousands, a year. According to the Economic Policy Institute, for example, tuition-free and universal child care and education — staffed by people that love to work in such fields — would trim an average of $22,631 annually from families’ budgets in expensive places such as DC while saving households in places like Arkansas a more modest $5,995 on average.

To be sure, a UBI would free up time to volunteer, to care for sick relatives, and to start small businesses, among millions of possible opportunities not even considered.

Additionally, the UBI would finally provide greater financial freedom to those that choose to stay at home and engage in care work. However, the UBI also has the ability to provide high quality services, such as child care and elder care, that would greatly reduce the care burden, providing more choice while building on the current social safety net.

5. UBI will stabilize the economy.

A UBI would bring us much closer to actual zero poverty, in fact it could eradicate poverty entirely. There should be no such thing as full employment, because some work such as intellectual work should not be motivated by profit.

By full employment, we mean simply that everyone seeking a job gets one. How the government system to enable such a nightmarishly complex system could possibly function efficiently, along with the massive potential of abuse between corporations and government swinging-doors, we allow that best left to your imagination.

We’d wager that if you asked the average American what full employment means to them, they’d give you a similar answer — a job for all. Indeed, a plurality of Americans will also tell you they support a UBI.

Some claim that a UBI would likely still leave a substantial segment of the population in poverty- but that reflects a misunderstanding of what UBI is.

If it is not set above the poverty line, it is not UBI — it is something else, something crippled intentionally.

As Belgian philosopher Philippe Van Parijs, one of the most prominent UBI advocates, acknowledged, even a large payment through the UBI won’t necessarily secure a comfortable living for all citizens. That’s exactly the point. Some will find comfort, others will seek luxurity, others yet still will be fine without what some consider comfort.

People are different and have different tastes and needs.

How about those without jobs, or those who earn below subsistence wages? Of course, a UBI coupled with a non-poverty wage option and strong unionization could seriously combat poverty. We are talking complete eradication of poverty. Imagine what that would be like.

The UBI would eliminate the effective minimum wage of $0 currently offered in the United States. Employers would be forced to offer wages that respect those that they attempt to hire. People who don’t fit at one company, would be free to move to a different, better fit— or be free to start one of their own.

At that point, people would be free to create the life that they would love to lead — a crucially underappreciated side of such a program.

A UBI is a sound mechanism to combat structural inequalities, for instance through reducing traumatic and abusive sitiations experienced by stigmatized groups who face continued discrimination. It’s not just a statement either, there are now studies to support these claims available.

Further, the UBI will have a strong macroeconomic stabilization effect. Evidence suggests that it would have a stabalizing effect on the economy. Further evidence suggests it could create economic booms, such as periods when the Alaska PDF checks are sent out and local businesses take advantage of through unique sales. Business would expand and hire more people.

People that argue that policies like the UBI have no counter-cyclical features are ignoring the stabalizing effects observed in multiple studies.

This is good for the economy as a whole. Rather than focusing and targeting people with jobs for the sake of jobs, UBI would allow people far more choice regarding their own destiny, and allow them to work and moderate the business cycles with the respect they deserve for contributing to society and the economy.

UBI will increase demand, which will increase economic growth. Many economists agree that today’s secular stagnation — insufficient demand — is contributing to continued “lackluster” growth after the Great Recession. Only modest upticks in growth for the foreseeable future will come if we continue the status quo.

Finally, as a less costly program a UBI might be easier for a truly progressive government to enact. UBI has friends on all sides of the spectrum.

Some estimate that basic income could easily cost more than $3 trillion, however, they are not taking into consideration the excessive trillions in costs of not providing a foundational income floor.

We want to build an inclusive economy and society. UBI will build a society and economy that serves everyone more efficiently and effectively than anything that has come before.

The benefits will be immediately and broadly distributed. UBI will not target innefficiently, but instead eradicate poverty at the root. By providing universal basic income, it will also counteract employers’ systematic discrimination against ex-offenders, recent military veterans, and certain racial groups.

Furthermore, through providing a universal basic income, workers will be emboldened to take new actions in the private sector and the social entrepreneurship space, as well as the non-profit and educational sectors, as well as the science and research sectors.

This could be just the policy to reinvigorate society, spurring unionization drives to improve working conditions. These benefits will result in everyone staying above the poverty line. The UBI makes that guarantee.

Not only would a universal basic income bring justice to the millions who desire work, but it would also address the long-standing unjust barriers that keep large segments of stigmatized populations out of the labor force.

It would also break down barriers to entry for startups and non-profit startups alike.

Finally, it would reverse the rising tide of inequality for all. By strengthening everyones bargaining power and eliminating the threat of poverty once and for all, a universal basic income would bring power back to the people, where it belongs.