Category Archives: Basic Income Guarantee

Kingston documentary focuses on BIG local and global movement http://www.kingstonregion.com/ You could say Kingston is something of a leader in Canada when it comes to advocating for a basic income guarantee (BIG). In December 2015, Kingston City Council became the first municipality in Canada to endorse the idea, and did so unanimously.

See the article here:

Kingston documentary focuses on BIG local and global movement - http://www.kingstonregion.com/

In BriefThe immediate need for basic income in recognition of theeffects of chronic stress and the importance of improvingenvironments. Eliminating huge stressors like worrying about beingable to afford food and shelter can do wonders for the potential ofhumanity. Biological Case for UBI

At the end of 2015, after a year-long journey, I achieved the realization of an idea with the help of about 140 people that has already forever changed the way I look at the very foundations or lack thereof upon which all of society is based. I now firmly believe we have the potential through its universal adoption to systemically transform society for the better, even more so than many of those most familiar with the idea have long postulatedbecause, for me, the idea is no longer just an idea. Its not theory. It is part of my life. Its real. And the effects are undeniable for someone actually living with it.

The idea of which I speak goes by the name of basic income but is best understood not by name, but by function, and that function is simply to provide a monthly universal starting point located above the poverty line as a new secure foundation for existence. Its an irrevocable stipend for life. In the U.S. it would be something like $1,000 for every citizen every month. All other income would then be earned as additional income on top of it so that employment would always pay more than unemployment.

This may sound overly expensive, but it would save far more than it costs. It would also really only require an additional net transfer of around $900 billion, and thats without subtracting the existing welfare programs it could replace, and also without simplifying the tax code through the replacement of all the many credits, deductions, and subsidies it could also replace. Basically, were already handing out money to everyone, rich and poor alike, but in hundreds of different ways through thousands of government middlemen who only serve to disincentivize employment by removing government supports as a reward for working.

Odds are this idea is new to you, but its not a new idea. Its been considered for hundreds of years from as long ago in the U.S. by founding father Thomas Paine in the 18th century, to Richard Nixon, Martin Luther King, Jr., and free market-loving Milton Friedman in the 20th century, to a quickly growing list of new names here in the 21st century. Its advocates know no ideological lines. Supporters include Nobel prize-winning economists, libertarians, progressives, conservatives, climate change activists, tax reformers, feminists, anarchists, doctors, human rights defenders, racial justice leaders, and the list goes on.

For such an old idea thats been endorsed by so many for so long and yet has obviously never yet come to be, you may be thinking, Why now? The answer to such a question has economic reasoning rooted in the globalization of labor and the exponential advancement of technologies capable of entirely replacing labor, but as important as this particular discussion is to have, its centered more around the idea of a future problem and less a present one.

However, our problems are very much in the present and to see why, we need to go deeper, much deeper, beyond technology and economics, and into human biology itself. To do that, well first need to look at what we as humans have learned from some animals in the lab and in the wild, because I think doing so pulls back the curtain on our entire social system.

As is true with many scientific discoveries, they tend to be accidental, and the story of Martin Seligman and some dogs back in 1965 is no different. Seligman wanted to know if dogs could be classically conditioned to react to bells in the same way as if theyd just been shocked, so he put them in a crate with a floor that could be electrified, and shocked them each time he rang a bell. The dogs soon began to react to the bell as if theyd just been shocked. Next however, he put them in a special crate where they could leap to safety to avoid the shock, and this is where the surprise happened.

The dogs wouldnt leap to safety. It turns out theyd learned from the prior part of the experiment that it didnt matter what they did. The shock would come anyway. They had learned helplessness. Seligman then tried the experiment with dogs who had not been shocked and they leaped to safety just as expected. But the dogs who had learned helplessness, they just sadly laid down and whimpered.

Fast forward to 1971 where a scientist named Jay Weiss explored this further with rats in cages. He put three rats into three different cages with electrodes attached to their tails and a wheel for each to turn. One rat was the lucky rat. No shocks were involved. Another would get shocks that could be stopped by turning its wheel. The third was the unlucky one. It would get shocked at the same time as the second rat, but it could do nothing about it. The third rat would only stop getting shocked when the second rat turned its wheel. Can you guess what happened?

Even though the two rats that were shocked got shocked at the same time and for the same duration of time, their outcomes were very different. The rat who had the power to stop the pain was just a bit worse off than the rat who experienced no pain at all. However, the rat who had no control whatsoever, stuck with a lever that did nothing, became heavily ulcerated. Like the dog, it too had learned helplessness. The cost of this lesson was its health.

Of course, humans are not dogs or rats. Theres a bit more complexity when it comes to us and our physiological responses. For us, perception is a key factor. This is where something called attribution comes into play, of which there are three important kinds that lead to humans learning helplessness: internal, stable, and global.

Think back to when you first started school and try to remember your first math test. What if after taking that first test you did poorly on it, and instead of all the other possible reasons for why that could happen, you decided it was because you sucked at math? Thats an internal attribution. Now imagine you applied that attribution to all math tests. Thats a stable attribution. Its not a one-time thing. Now imagine you applied it beyond math to all classes. Thats a global attribution. Consider the results of such perceptions.

Maybe that first math test was simply too hard for everyone in the class. Maybe it wasnt just you. Maybe your poor grade was due to not studying hard enough, or because you were too hungry or too tired. But instead, because you decided it was your fault and it meant you were stupid, your entire life went down a different path. Even though at any point along the way, you could have escaped that path, just like Seligmans dogs could have escaped the shocks, what if you had learned helplessness from that first math test?

We can learn to be helpless in an environment that actually offers us control, and the feeling itself of control can be the difference between a life full of unending stress, and a relatively stress-free life.

Its even been shown that we only need to be told theres nothing we can do in order for us to feel theres no point in trying. Its like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tell everyone theres no point in voting, and fewer people will vote.

What all of this shows is two-fold and extremely important to remember. We can learn to be helpless in an environment that actually offers us control, and the feeling itself of control can be the difference between a life full of unending stress, and a relatively stress-free life.

Stress is more than a feeling. Stress is a physiological response, and it has important evolutionary reasons for being. Back in the day, many thousands of years ago, our ancestors who could shift into a kind of emergency gear where long-term higher-order creative thinking shut down, and the body was enabled to think faster, react quicker, be stronger, move faster, run longer, and think only about survival those were the humans who survived.

We call this now the fight-or-flight response, and where this once incredibly important response was evolutionarily adaptive, it is now maladaptive. We dont live in that same world anymore where it made so much sense. We arent being chased down by lions or being eaten by wolves while sitting in front of our computers in our air-conditioned offices, and yet our fight-or-flight responses are still being activated. In fact, for far too many, daily existence is nothing but fight-or-flight. Long-term stress is a real problem, and I would argue, its not just a health problem. Its a problem for human civilization.

One of the most knowledgeable scientists in the world in this area is Robert Sapolsky, a pioneering neuroendocrinologist and professor at Stanford University who has spent more than thirty years studying the effects of stress on health, of which there are many. Over the years, Sapolsky has found that long-term stress increases ones risk of diabetes, cardiac problems, and gastrointestinal disorders. Stress suppresses the immune system. It causes reproductive dysfunction in men and women. It suppresses growth in kids. In affects developing fetuses. Newer evidence even shows it causes faster aging of DNA. But potentially worst of all is what it does to the human mind.

Prolonging fight-or-flight into a chronic condition means that neurons in the brain related to things like learning, memory, and judgment all suffer the consequences thanks to the wide-ranging effects of our double-edged sword stress hormones called glucocorticoids. Recent research has even shown this response made chronic is a self-perpetuating cycle. A constantly stressed out brain appears to lead to a kind of hardening of neural pathways. Essentially, feeling chronic stress makes it harder to not perceive stress, creating a vicious cycle of unending stress.

On top of this, and related back to Weisss rats and human attribution theory, is the coping responses of those who are stressed out. Think of the off-lever in the second rats cage. There are many such levers around us and although they can be effective in reducing our stress levels, many of them are arguably pretty bad off-switches. These responses include acting out against others, otherwise known as displacement aggression or bullying.

Yes, bullying is an effective coping mechanism. As the saying goes, shit rolls downhill, and theres actually a scientific reason for that other than gravity. In a hierarchy, it is healthier after a loss to start another fight with someone you can beat, than to mope about the loss. The former is the abdication of control, a form of learned helplessness, and the latter is the creation of control, a kind of learned aggressiveness.

A society full of unhealthy people getting sick more than they otherwise would be, saddled with difficulties learning and remembering, suffering from weakened judgment and short-term survival thinking, and violently turning on each other as a means of coping is not a recipe for success. Its a recipe for disaster.

Life in the 21st century is full of both. On the learned helplessness side, there have been an estimated 45,000 suicides per year since 2000, with a sharp rise since 2007, that can all be attributed to the stresses surrounding the economic insecurities of unemployment and underemployment. The U.S. is even confounding the world, with a mysterious and dramatic rise in mortality rates among middle-aged white men and women, who all appear to be drinking and overdosing themselves to death.

On the displacement aggression side, we see bullying of traditionally marginalized groups and a global and marked increase of anti-immigrant sentiment which has already led directly to the election of Donald Trump and as a result, cries for border walls and travel bans. We are seeing a rise in authoritarianism, which is fundamentally a cry for more control and predictability.

A society full of unhealthy people getting sick more than they otherwise would be, saddled with difficulties learning and remembering, suffering from weakened judgment and short-term survival thinking, and violently turning on each other as a means of coping is not a recipe for success. Its a recipe for disaster, especially faced with species-endangering challenges like climate change that demand long-term thinking. But there is hope, and that hope springs from the same well as our problems.

There is an animal out there, one of our cousins actually in the primate family, who lead somewhat similar lives to us. They are high enough in the food chain to generally not be bothered and smart enough to be the primary cause of each others problems. Or as Sapolsky has described it: Theyre just like us: Theyre not getting done in by predators and famines, theyre getting done in by each other. That animal is the baboon and its the animal Sapolsky has been studying for decades. In doing so, hes found three primary factors in predicting stress levels.

The first predictor is the social hierarchy itself. Those at the top tend to live the most stress-free lives thanks to having more control, and those at the bottom tend to live the most stressful lives, thanks to having less control. There is however an important caveat to this. The stability of the social hierarchy matters. If the top baboon faces what is effectively a baboon revolution, that can be pretty stressful. In other words, more unequal societies lead to more stress, for everyone.

The second primary factor is personality. Just as primates are smart enough to be stressed where other animals wouldnt, theyre also able to not be stressed where others would. A baboon who worries for his life every time another baboon walks by is going to be far more full of stress hormones than a laid-back baboon. Personality is therefore a factor that can override ones position in the hierarchy for better or worse. It can even strongly predict ones rank.

The third primary factor actually trumps all. It turns out that stress-related diseases are powerfully grounded in social connectedness. At the bottom of the social hierarchy and prone to stressing out based on your personality? That can still be okay for your health and well-being as long as you have strong social supports friends, family, and community to override it all. Sometimes all we really need is to know we are not alone.

This social trump card even helps explain the prevalence of religion in human societies. Its the creation of a perceived control lever that reduces stress across all factors including the all important social support factor. The result is that attending religious services regularly is actually surprisingly good for human health.

All of this goes a long way toward explaining a great deal of human behavior. The construction of a social hierarchy is a naturally emergent phenomenon of our biology. Being above someone else in rank offers a level of control and predictability. Our personalities help determine our ranks and also how we cope with a lack of control and predictability. Our social relationships help put our lives and the world around us into perspective. However, this is no meritocracy and much depends on the circumstances of birth.

Because our personalities are greatly determined by our environments, especially as kids, a positive feedback loop can emerge where those born and raised in high stress environments full of impoverishment and inequality are unable to escape those environments. This can then become self-perpetuating through each successive generation that follows. We see this happening right now. For all those born into the bottom fifth of American society, about half remain there as adults. The same is true for the top fifth. Meanwhile, the middle 60% are twice as mobile as either one. If we care about the American Dream, we should consider the implications.

Whats the result of such generational stratification of little social mobility? One need look no further than our coping mechanisms the levers of control we create to understand why so many things we dont want, emerge from highly unequal societies. Remember displacement aggression? A 1990 study of 50 countries concluded economic inequality is so significantly related to rates of homicide despite an extensive list of conceptually relevant controls, that a decrease in income inequality of 0.01 Gini (a measure of inequality) leads to 12.7 fewer homicides per 100,000 individuals. Simply put, and this is a robust finding, growing inequality leads to growing violence. A meta-analysis of 34 separate studies even found 97% of the correlations reported between social inequality and violent crime to be positive, meaning as one got bigger or smaller, the other got bigger or smaller.

Addictions are another result. Drug use is a lever of control that is also an escape. We may not be able to control anything around us, but we can control an entirely personal decision that is as simple as drinking that vodka or smoking that cigarette. It can function as the middle finger to everything and everyone around us as a way of saying, I may be stuck in this cage, but you cant stop me from using this to feel like Ive escaped, if only temporarily, and if even only an illusion. This is me controlling the one thing I can control myself. Consider again the mysteriously growing mortality rates of middle-aged white people due to overdoses and liver disease.

As economic inequality increases, other scientifically correlated effects include: reduced trust and civic engagement, eroded social cohesion, higher infant mortality rates, lower overall life expectancy, more mental illness, reduced educational outcomes, higher rates of imprisonment, increased teen pregnancy rates, greater rates of obesity, and the list continues to grow as inequality-related research grows.

Additionally, if you look closely at such a list of effects, it shows the erosion of social supports. If you are less likely to trust your neighbor, if you arent as involved in your community, if you or those you interact with are more aggressive, if you are depressed and just want to be alone, that means the all important trump card for handling stress social connectedness vanishes. This too is its own feedback loop. Less social connection means more stress which means less social connection. Its an unending cycle for human misery.

Its also exactly what weve been observing in the United States for decades. Robert Putnam wrote an entire book about it back in 2000 titled Bowling Alone. The title originated from the statistic that although more people are bowling, less people are doing it in leagues. As observed by Putnam:

Community and equality are mutually reinforcing Social capital and economic inequality moved in tandem through most of the twentieth century. In terms of the distribution of wealth and income, America in the 1950s and 1960s was more egalitarian than it had been in more than a century Those same decades were also the high point of social connectedness and civic engagement. Record highs in equality and social capital coincided. Conversely, the last third of the twentieth century was a time of growing inequality and eroding social capital The timing of the two trends is striking: somewhere around 196570 America reversed course and started becoming both less just economically and less well connected socially and politically.

Viewed through Sapolskys decades of scientific investigation into the physiology of stress, and backed by everything weve observed since theGreat Decoupling in 1973 where national productivity has continued to grow but wage growth has been non-existent, it becomes disappointingly clear that all of this is actually of our own making. Through the policy decisions weve made to increase inequality in the blind pursuit of unlimited growth through the cutting of taxes and subsidizing of multi-national corporate interests, and through the pursuit of globalization without regard for its effects on the middle classes of developed nations such that 70% of households in 25 advanced economies saw their earnings drop in the past decade, weve created a societal feedback loop for chronic stress. And were paying the price.

But it doesnt have to be this way. Just as we know more about why things are the way they are because of some rats in cages and some baboons in East Africa, those same animals point the way forward.

In what was a sad day for Sapolsky but a remarkable day for science, he discovered back in the mid-1980s that the very first baboon troop hed ever studied had experienced a die-off. Half of the troops males had died of tuberculosis from eating tainted garbage. Because those at the top did not allow weaker males and any of the females to eat their prize trash, all of them died. The result was a truly transformed society of baboons.

A greater sense of egalitarianism became the new rule of the jungle, so to speak. Bullying of females and lower males became a rarity, replaced with aggression limited to those of close social rank. Aggressive behaviors like biting were reduced while affectionate behaviors like mutual grooming were increased. The baboons got closer, literally. They sat closer to each other. Stress plummeted, even among those at the very bottom of the new hierarchy. Even more amazingly, this happier more peaceful society of baboons has lasted over the decades, despite members leaving and joining.

In what appears to be a transmission of societal values, new baboons are taught that in this particular society, bullying is not tolerated and tolerance is more the general rule, not the exception. Essentially, a new feedback loop was created, where the sudden reduction in inequality led to less stress and greater community, which led to a new normal of less stress and greater community. As Dr. Frans B. M. de Waal, the director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center of Emory University put it in a 2004 interview with the New York Times about the baboon findings, The good news for humans is that it looks like peaceful conditions, once established, can be maintained.

As much as the story of these baboons have to reveal about the importance and the hope of a less stressed-out, more peaceful society, there is another animal story that in my opinion shows the most potential for mankind of all.

In what has become a very well-known and discussed kind of study, rats were put into cages and given the opportunity to press a lever to self-administer drugs like cocaine. They medicated themselves to death and thus went down in history as the kind of experiment to point to that reveals the helplessly addictive dangers of drugs and how we must be protected from their usage for our own good. This is the ammunition for the War on Drugs in a nutshell.

Meanwhile, in what has become a far too little known variation of this study, but I consider to be one of the most important ever devised, a new kind of experiment was run in an entirely different environment called Rat Park.

Hypothesizing that perhaps having nothing to do but just exist alone in a cage may have something to do with drug usage, a psychologist namedBruce Alexander decided to create a kind of rat heaven before offering rats drugs. Instead of a cage, rats were given a huge space to roam between tree-painted walls and a forest-like floor, full of toys and other rats to play and mate with, food to eat, obstacles to climb, tunnels to traverse, etc.

Within this paradise for rats, morphine-laced water was introduced. The rats could drink as much of it as they wanted. Incredibly, the rats didnt care for it, opting for plain water instead. The morphine-water was then made sweeter and sweeter until eventually the rats finally drank it, but only because it apparently tasted so good, not for the narcotic effects. This was even confirmed by adding a drug to the water, Naltrexone, that nullified the effects of the morphine, which resulted in the rats drinking more of the water. All of this was in strong contrast to solitary rats in cages given the same choices, who took to the morphine-water immediately and strongly.

In fact, its even been found that solitary existence within a cage actively prevents neurogenesis the growth of new neurons within the brain. It turns out neuroscientists for decades thought it impossible for adults to grow new neurons because they were studying solitary animals in cages the whole time. Its therefore only recently that weve learned that impoverished environments actively limit brain development.

Building a paradise for humans is up to us, where because everyone has enough, and inequality is low enough, we wont reach for those levers of control that end up being against our better interests.

What this all reveals is more than the great lie of the Drug War. It reveals the vast importance and great differences of living alone in a cage, and living in a world of abundance and social bonds. Viewed in the context of everything else discussed, it shows the importance of constructing an environment for the purpose of bringing out the best in us, instead of the worst in us. Building a paradise for humans is up to us, where because everyone has enough, and inequality is low enough, we wont reach for those levers of control that end up being against our better interests. So how do we build Human Park?

It is only in my studies of the idea of basic income that Ive seen glimpses into this idea of a Human Park. Like a bunch of puzzle pieces that can be collected to form into a picture, the evidence behind simply giving people money without strings forms a profound image of a better world that can exist right now, if we so choose. Remember the three primary factors that determine our levels of stress?

Creating a less unequal society is step one. There exists in the world today, and has since 1982, something as close to a fully universal basic income as anything yet devised. Its the annual Alaska dividend where thanks to every resident receiving a check for on average around $1,000 per year for nothing but residing in Alaska, inequality is consistently among the lowest of all states. Not only that, but we see what wed expect to see in lower stress populations, where Alaska is also consistently among the happiest states.

In Gallups 2015 ranking of states by well-being, Alaska was second only to Hawaii. This annual ranking is a combined measure of five separate rankings: purpose (liking what you do each day and being motivated to achieve your goals), social (having supportive relationships and love in your life), financial (managing your economic life to reduce stress and increase security), community (liking where you live, feeling safe and having pride in your community), and physical (having good health and enough energy to get things done daily). Alaska scored 5th, 5th, 1st, 7th, and 6th respectively in each of these measures.

In other words, in the only state in the U.S. to provide a minimum amount of income to all residents every year, such that no one ever need worry about having nothing, they feel the greatest amount of basic economic security and the least amount of stress than any other state. As a result theyre also among the most motivated, the healthiest, and have strong family, friend, and community social supports. Alaska is essentially a glimpse at Human Park, but only a glimpse because even the $2,100 they all received in 2015 is not enough to cover a years worth of basic human needs.

Some more of the best evidence we have in the world for what happens in the long-term when people are provided something that looks even more like a basic income than is found in Alaska, can again be found in the U.S., in North Carolina.

In 1992, the Great Smoky Mountains Study of Youth began with the goal of studying the youth in North Carolina to determine the possible risk factors of developing emotional and behavioral disorders. Because Native Americans tend to be underrepresented in mental health research, researchers made the point of including 349 child members of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation. About halfway into the ten-year study, something that is the dream of practically any researcher happened as a matter of pure serendipity. All tribal members began receiving a share of casino profits. By 2001 those dividends had grown to $6,000 per year. By 2006, they were $9,000 per year. The results were nothing short of incredible.

The number of Cherokee living in poverty declined by 50%. Behavioral problems declined by 40%. Crime rates decreased. High school graduation rates increased. Grades improved. Home environments were transformed. Drug and alcohol use declined. Additionally, the lower the age the children were freed of poverty, the greater the effects as they grew up, to the point the youngest ended up being a third less likely to develop substance abuse or psychiatric problems as teens.Randall Akee, an economist, later even calculated that the savings generated through all the societal improvements actually exceeded the amounts of the dividends themselves.

However, the most powerful finding of all was in personality effects. These changes were observed as a result of better home environments that involved less stress and better parental relationships. Incredibly, the children of families who began receiving what we can call something very close to a basic income, saw long-term enhancements in two key personality traits: conscientiousness and agreeableness. That is, they grew up to be more honest, more observant, more comfortable around other people, and more willing to work together with others. And because personalities tend to permanently set as adults, these are most likely lifelong changes.

If we remember how important personality is to the perception of stress and ones location within social hierarchies, these children will end up far better off, and as a result, their own children likely will as well. This is another glimpse into a basic income-enabled Human Park.

Although whats been happening for years in both Alaska and North Carolina are close to universal basic income in practice, they are not actually UBI. UBI requires regularly giving everyone in an entire community an amount of money sufficient to cover their basic needs. This has been done in three places so far: the city of Dauphin in Canada, the Otjivero-Omitara area of Namibia, and the Madhya Pradesh area of India.

Its in these areas that humanity has achieved whats closest to creating Human Parks. As a direct result of guaranteeing everyone a basic income in Dauphin, hospitalization rates decreased 8.5% and high school graduation rates surpassed 100% as dropouts actually returned to school to finish. In Namibia, overall crime rates were cut almost in half and self-employment rates tripled. In India, housing and nutrition improved, markets and businesses blossomed, and overall health and well-being reached new heights. But if its one thing I find most interesting across all experiments, its the improved social cohesion a proliferation of new and strengthened social supports.

In Namibia, a stronger community spirit developed. Apparently, the need to ask each other for money was a barrier to normal human interaction. Once basic income made it so that no one needed to beg anymore, everyone felt more able to make friendly visits to each other, and speak more freely without being seen as wanting something in return. In India, where castes can still create artificial social divisions, those in villages given basic income actually began to gather across caste lines for mutual decision-making. And in Canada, the basic income guarantee had a notable impact on caring, with parents choosing to spend more time with their kids, and kids spending more time with each other in schools instead of jobs.

Remember, social supports are the trump card of societies with less stress, and it appears that providing people with UBI strengthens existing social supports and creates new ones. Freed from a focus on mere survival, humans reach out to each other. This is also something that makes us different from every other animal on Earth our ability to reach each other in ways unimaginable even to ourselves until only recently. We as humans are entirely unique in our ability to belong to multiple hierarchies, and through the internet create connections across vast distances and even time itself through recorded knowledge.

Our place in a hierarchy matters, but we can decide which hierarchies matter more. Is it our position in the socioeconomic ladder? Is it our position in our place of employment? Or is it our position in our churches, our schools, our sports leagues, our online communities, or even our virtual communities within games like World of Warcraft and Second Life?

No other policy has the transformative potential of reducing anywhere near as much stress in society than the lifelong guaranteeing of basic economic security with a fully unconditional basicincome.

We as humans have incredible potential to create and form communities, and realize world-changing feats of imagination, and this mostly untapped potential mostly just requires less stress and more time. If all were doing is just trying to get by, and our lives are becoming increasingly stressful, it becomes increasingly difficult to think and to connect with each other. Its the taxation of the human mind and social bonds. Studies even show the burden of poverty on the mind depletes the amount of mental bandwidth available for everything else to the tune of about 14 IQ points, or the loss of an entire nights sleep. Basically, scarcity begets scarcity.

On the other hand, if we free ourselves to focus on everything else other than survival, if we remove the limitations of highly unequal and impoverished environments, then were increasingly able to connect with each other, and we minimize learned helplessness. As a result, our health improves. Crime is reduced. Self-motivation goes up. Teamwork overtakes dog-eat-dog, and long-term planning overtakes short-term thinking. Presumably, many an IQ jumps the equivalent of 14 points. A greater sense of security has even been shown to reduce bias against out groups, from immigrants to the obese. And if we take into account the importance of security in people deciding to invest their time and resources in bold new ventures, innovation also has the chance of skyrocketing in a society where everyone always has enough to feel comfortable in taking risks without fear of failure. Basically, abundance begets abundance.

If what we seek is a better environment for the thriving of humans a Human Park full of greater health and happiness then what we seek should be the implementation of basic income, in nation after nation, all over the world. There is no real feeling of control without the ability to say no. Because UBI is unconditional, it provides that lever to everyone for the first time in history. No other policy has the transformative potential of reducing anywhere near as much stress in society than the lifelong guaranteeing of basic economic security with a fully unconditional basic income. Plus, with that guarantee achieved, the fear of technological unemployment becomes the goal of technological unemployment. Why stress about automation, when we could embrace it?

No more fight-or-flight.

Its time for live long and prosper.

Go here to see the original:

Evidence Indicates That Universal Basic Income Improves Human Health - Futurism

The UK think tank Compass, which published the 2016 report Universal Basic Income: An idea whose time has come? by Howard Reed and Stewart Lansley, recently launched the blog series on the topic of basic income (Universal Basic Income: Security for the Future?).

Two pieces in the series are Coming off the fence on UBI? by Ruth Lister (chair of the Compass Management Committee and Emeritus Professor at Loughborough University) and, in reply to Listers contribution, Basic Income and Institutional Transformation by Louise Haagh (co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network and Reader at the University of York).

Lister expresses much sympathy toward UBI, in part due to its challenge to the contemporary fetishisation of paid work. At the same time, however, she questions the total lack of conditionality on benefits on grounds of both ethics (is it fair to subsidize the right to be lazy?) and feasibility (would the idea garner enough political support?) and notes a participation income, as defended by the late Tony Atkinson, as a potential compromise. In the end, though, she states that for all my ambivalence, I am coming round to the idea of a UBI as a means of ensuring everyone a modicum of basic security in an increasingly insecure world.

Haagh, writing in part in response to Lister, argues for UBI as a way to fundamentally reconceptualize the relationship between citizens and the state. She emphasizes that removing conditionalities on a basic level of economic support does not entail a general separation of income from work (since monetary remuneration for work would continue to exist). Neither, in her view, should a basic income be seen as a challenge to the work ethic. Instead, according to Haagh, the removal of conditionalities should be seen as a way to enable individuals to think and plan for the long term. Conditional income support, as she puts it, aims to motivate people in the short-term, with a heavy dose of stick. For example, beneficiaries risk losing their most basic support if they do not take the first job offered regardless of the job. The punitive nature of conditional benefits encourages short-term thinking aimed at mere self-preservation. In contrast, an unconditional basic income provides a floor on which individuals can engage in long-term strategizing.

Reviewed by Russell Ingram

Photo: Welfare Office CC BY 2.0Jacob Norlund

Kate McFarland has written 394 articles.

Kate began reporting for Basic Income News in March 2016, and joined BIEN's Executive Committee in July 2016. She is also Secretary of BIEN's US affiliate, the US Basic Income Guarantee Network.

View original post here:

Compass Blog Series: "Universal Basic Income: Security for the ... - Basic Income News

Financing Basic Income: Addressing the Cost Objection, edited by Richard Pereira (University of Birmingham, UK), is the latest addition to the Palgrave Macmillan series Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee.

Contributors include Pereira, Albert Jrimann (Basic Income Earth Network, Switzerland) and Gary Flomenhoft (University of Vermont, USA; University of Queensland, Australia).

Publishers summary

This Palgrave Pivot argues that basic income at a decent level is, in fact, affordable. The contributors approach the topic from the perspectives of three different countriesCanada, Switzerland, and Australiato overcome objections that a universal program to keep all citizens above the poverty line would be too expensive to implement. They assess the complex array of revenue sources that can make universal basic income feasible, from the underestimated value of public program redundancies to new and so far unaccounted publicly owned assets.

Contents

1. Introduction by Richard Pereira

2. Foundations for a Basic Income Guarantee: Affordability through Program Redundancies by Richard Pereira

3. Cost Feasibility of Basic Income in Europe: A Financing Case Study from Switzerland by Albert Jrimann

4. Building up BIG: Land Rent in Australia as a Significant Financing Source by Gary Flomenhoft

5. Conclusion by Richard Pereira

Photo: CC BY 2.0FuFu Wolf

Kate McFarland has written 393 articles.

Kate began reporting for Basic Income News in March 2016, and joined BIEN's Executive Committee in July 2016. She is also Secretary of BIEN's US affiliate, the US Basic Income Guarantee Network.

See the article here:

NEW BOOK Financing Basic Income: Addressing the Cost Objection - Basic Income News

Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian says India can afford it only if a few of the existing welfare programmes are phased out

Kochi, March 14:

Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian sought to allay the fears on Universal Basic Income (UBI), saying the scheme will not replace the basic responsibilities of the government in extending healthcare facilities and education.

It is the responsibility of the government to provide the services in these sectors to its citizens. The UBI will be feasible only if it replaces some of the government programmes such as fertiliser subsidies, employment guarantee scheme etc, he was responding to a question posed at the 15th Federal Bank KP Hormis Commemorative lecture here on the topic Surprises of the Indian Economy.

The resources for the UBI can be mobilised from the buoyant tax collection under the GST regime. In principle, it will be a universal basic income, but the target will be the poor and deserving, excluding the under-serving ones.

The UBI will be a better option than other welfare schemes rolled out by the government. The Centre alone has 950 such programmes, whereas States have its own welfare schemes. On evaluation, we find that India can afford it only if a few of the existing welfare programmes are phased out, he added.

The CEA also emphasised the need to give prominence to creating health and education infrastructure in the country, where its greater part is currently witnessing time lags in these sectors. There is no competitive dynamics in health and education in India and even political parties are not interested in taking these issues in election campaigns while canvassing for votes, he said.

According to him, 2016 will go down in history as the year in which several advanced economies such as the US and Europe decided to change its development model by becoming more inward looking, retreating from open market and globalisation.

If the world becomes more protectionist, there could be a big impact on Indian economy, affecting our exports and growth rate, he said, and recommended open market for India, like the Chinese way. There is also a need to mobilise a coalition of middle-income countries, he added.

According to Subramanian, large-scale migration is happening in the country, as there exists two India. It is estimated that around 8-9 million people migrate within the country annually. However, South Indian States such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and West Bengal are ageing populations and relate to slow growth. But hinterland India is actually young, especially in States such as UP, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Jharkhand. Migration, therefore, happens from India to older India, he said.

(This article was published on March 14, 2017)

Please enter your email. Thank You.

Newsletter has been successfully subscribed.

Visit link:

Universal Basic Income plan won't end govt's responsibilities: CEA - Hindu Business Line

The Ontario government is moving forward with a basic income pilot project afteritreleased a report that summarizes all the feedback from the public on how to design and deliver the pilot project.

The province is looking to create a pilot that would test how basic income might benefit people living in low income situations, including those who are working.

From November 2016 to the end of January, the province visited14 different communities, including Kitchener, where 1,200 peopleshared their ideas on the pilot project. Those suggestions includedwho should eligible, which communities to include, how it should be delivered and how the pilot should be evaluated during consultations.

"When the ministry came to Kitchener, the minister, Chris Ballard who is responsible for poverty reduction, I think he was impressed and overwhelmed by what he saw and what he heard," Kitchener Centre MPP Daiene Vernile told CBC K-W's The Morning Edition on Monday.

More than34,000 people also filled out an online survey and writtensubmissions from 80 community organizations with experience infighting poverty were also sent to the province.

When Kitchener held their public consultation on January 13, about 145 people came to share their ideas in small group discussions on five main areas relating to the pilot.

Overall, thecommunity felt those eligible should be people experiencing low income who are in need, not just those on social assistance, the report found.

The community feltthe project's location should be representative of the province, to include communities with various population sizes, Indigenous communitiesand communities with multiple ethnicities as well.

The basic income pilot project should be delivered efficiently and needs be high enough for people to meet their needs, but how much the individual should received was debated.

The community also feltthe project should be studied and for the province to keep track of those who use it.

The goal of the project is to guarantee people a monthly payment to lift them out of poverty, with long term improvements to their health, employment and housing,Vernile said.

"It's an unconditional payment to a person or a family, no strings attached," she said. "They would get a payment once a month and the idea is that this would help them deal with life's needs."

However, it's still being worked out whether the basic income should be an added element to additional social assistance like Ontario Works or if itshould replace them.

Vernile said a decision should be made in the spring as the province is looking to implementing the pilot project in three different communities, one in northern Ontario, a second in southern Ontario and a third one in an Indigenous community.

See original here:

What Kitchener said about Ontario's basic income pilot project - CBC - CBC.ca

In a recent article for the popular left-wing magazine Jacobin, economists Mark Paul (Duke University), William Darity Jr. (Duke University), and Darrick Hamilton (New School for Social Research) argue that the United States government should provide a Federal Job Guarantee (FJG) for all Americans who want to work.

Before laying out their arguments for an FJG, however, Paul, Darity, and Hamilton describe the rising popularity of Universal Basic Income (UBI), which they claim makes sense, especially in the given the threat that automation poses to many jobs. Despite this, the authors provide five reasons to prefer an FJG to UBI:

1. An FJG would lead to greater immediate economic gains for the least well off, since minimum earnings from a full-time job under the program would exceed those of the most common basic income proposals.

2. An FJG would help fill existing demands for workers. (As the authors note, The robots have havent taken over yet.)

3. Jobs can offer benefits beyond income such as social structures and sense of purpose and meaning that a UBI alone cannot guarantee.

4. The authors point out that while a UBI would create the financial freedom to volunteer, to care for sick relatives, to start small businesses, or to stay at home and engage in care work, jobs created under the FJG could provide important goods and services. They offer such examples as repairing Americas crumbling infrastructure, developing cleaner energy sources, or providing high-quality childcare and elder care.

5. An FJG would provide greater economic stabilization effects: During economic downturns, it would expand and hire more people; it would then shrink during economic boom periods as people move from public to better-paying private employment. A UBI, in contrast, does not possess such counter-cyclical features. (During an economic downturn, as the authors put it, basic incomes provide no automatic stabilizers to right the sinking ship.)

Paul, Darity, and Hamilton conclude,

Not only would a federal job guarantee 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. Finally, it would reverse the rising tide of inequality for all workers. By strengthening their bargaining power and eliminating the threat of unemployment once and for all, a federal job guarantee would bring power back to the workers where it belongs.

AUBI, they claim, has no comparable benefit.

Read the full article:

Mark Paul, William Darity Jr., and Darrick Hamilton, Why We Need a Federal Job Guarantee, Jacobin, February 4, 2017.

Reviewed by Russell Ingram

Photo CC BY 2.0Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York

Kate McFarland has written 387 articles.

Kate began reporting for Basic Income News in March 2016, and joined BIEN's Executive Committee in July 2016. She is also Secretary of BIEN's US affiliate, the US Basic Income Guarantee Network.

See the original post here:

Paul, Darity, and Hamilton, Why We Need a Federal Job Guarantee - Basic Income News

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

Read more:

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 more:

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.

More here:

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