Universal basic income doesn't work. Let's boost the public realm instead

[brooklynite]

The Guardian

A study published this week sheds doubt on ambitious claims made for universal basic income (UBI), the scheme that would give everyone regular, unconditional cash payments that are enough to live on. Its advocates claim it would help to reduce poverty, narrow inequalities and tackle the effects of automation on jobs and income. Research conducted for Public Services International, a global trade union federation, reviewed for the first time 16 practical projects that have tested different ways of distributing regular cash payments to individuals across a range of poor, middle-income and rich countries, as well as copious literature on the topic.

It could find no evidence to suggest that such a scheme could be sustained for all individuals in any country in the short, medium or longer term – or that this approach could achieve lasting improvements in wellbeing or equality. The research confirms the importance of generous, non-stigmatising income support, but everything turns on how much money is paid, under what conditions and with what consequences for the welfare system as a whole.

From Kenya and southern India to Alaska and Finland, cash payment schemes have been claimed to show that UBI “works”. In fact, what’s been tested in practice is almost infinitely varied, with cash paid at different levels and intervals, usually well below the poverty line and mainly to individuals selected because they are severely disadvantaged, with funds provided by charities, corporations and development agencies more often than by governments.

Experiments in India and Kenya have been funded, respectively, by Unicef and Give Directly, a US charity supported by Google. They give money to people on very low incomes in selected villages for fixed periods of time. Giving small amounts of cash to people who have next to nothing is bound to make a difference – and indeed, these schemes have helped to improve recipients’ health and livelihoods. But nothing is revealed about their longer-term viability, or how they could be scaled up to serve whole populations. And there is a democratic deficit: people who get their basic income from charities or aid agencies have no control over how payments are made, to whom, at what level or over what period of time.

Anna Coote is principal fellow at the New Economics Foundation and co-author of Universal Basic Income: A Union Perspective (Public Services International) with Edanur Yazici

[bitterross]

1. I think the jury is still out on this.

The attempts to date have had varied results. This is true. The one in Finland, from what I've read, was working well but it got bad reviews from politicians.

This is not something that is going away. We are rapidly approaching an era where the ability to substantially, not even fully, employee people with actual work is becoming impossible.

[Sherman A1]

3. I agree the jury is still out

and we need to factor in the effects of the AI, automation revolution and jobs disappearing of which we find ourselves squarely in the middle of at that time before we discount this idea.

[marble falls]

2. I think this is BS. A livable wage for everybody at least gets people safer economically right ...

now and puts a lot of money into the local economy rather than the 1%ers' pockets.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

4. Abso-fuckin-lutely!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[brooklynite]

5. But does it?

When you inflate the money supply, economics dictates that increased demand leads to increased prices.

[marble falls]

6. RWers don't think so either. Iflation is also growth. Hyper inflation is when they start ...

adding zeros to to currency. A guaranteed income will not even begin to bump tha economy when stacked against what we now spend on giving the richest 5% a guaranteed income from the defense industry alone.

Spending on rent, groceries, child care, local expenses will not bring us to our knees economically. What a few less F-35, nuclear missiles subs or aircraft carriers going do to our economy???? Make some people less rich.

[brooklynite]

7. " What a few less F-35, nuclear missiles subs or aircraft carriers going do to our economy????"

UBI has no relationship to what other items the Government chooses to spend money on.

[marylandblue]

8. Since UBI would presumably be paid from taxes, money supply will not increase.

If poor people spending on basic needs causes demand to increase, then production will shift to those items causing prices to stabilize.

[ret5hd]

10. HEY!!! The 1% says it doesn't work...So It Doesn't Work! Got it? OK.

Now mind your manners and don't forget your place. Don't make me remind you again.

[leftstreet]

9. Yes. Get rid of Social Securty and Medicare, too

They're so unsuccessful

[Merlot]

11. So I get $XX from UBI, then my insurance premium goes up by $XX

Because the insurance company knows that I'm getting $XX.

Or the rent goes up, because the landlord wants their cut of my "free" money.

Banks raise fees on the deposit and handling of my "free" money because they want a cut.

Better to have universal health care, low cost higher education, and local non-profit banks.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

12. The Folks In Alaska Seem To Like It

Their State government writes them a check just for living there (courtesy of all the oil money flowing into Alaska). And Alaska has one of the most robust economies of all the States. The other countries that use it seem to be doing pretty well economically as well. So if we're starting from the premise that "Universal Income Doesn't Work," I'm afraid I'm going to find issue with the result. The premise is flawed. Why are we just accepting the RW talking point ("Soshulism BAD!!!&quot as gospel?

[ismnotwasm]

14. $1600 a year isn't going to pull anyone out of poverty

Although, I must say I wouldn’t turn it down

[ismnotwasm]

13. It's a horrible idea except for the poor

Humans are innovative and energetic, we are literally wired for reward. We like to be active to some degree. It’s too bad we seem to be moving into a cyberpunk corporate dystopia

We do have welfare to look at. Giving poor people money to sustain them is absolutely necessary, ALTHOUGH I was on Welfare for a long time. I drank and drugged my way through it, sold my food stamps for money, raided food bank and was generally a criminal burden to society. With two kids. Sorry about that taxpayers. You wouldn’t have liked me.

So a basic income for the impoverished who have no history of generational wealth, and no idea of long term satisfaction versus instant gratification, would require a careful network of education offers, preventative health care at the least, and community acceptance and reinforcement.


Communities are rejecting homeless camps left and right. What would happen if we did a basic income experiment right there? What would the amount be, would it be a living wage, enough for food? Do we monitor what they spend it on?

Because I didn’t starve to death, because I had public housing and because I have the benefit of being white, and because I was lucky I was able to pull myself out of that and get an education. Being on welfare used to be the larger part of my life’s experience, now it’s part of the distant past.

[emmaverybo]

15. Public works projects for those able to work

And these jobs could be like internships for younger people.So much work could be done in the area of human services, the environment, education, animal welfare, infrastructure...

We already have basic income in the form of welfare, which can keep people poor for generations, stop the able bodied from seeking work, and when not accompanied by job training, reinforces powerlessness and apathy.

Of course the welfare to work programs didn’t work because they were not full programs, just cuts.

Effective programs include access to childcare, mentoring support, tuition support, job preparation skills...

We could, with affordable access to community and four year colleges, public works programs located in communities, extensive job training (to include fed programs for teens), small business loans, and childcare support, keep Americans productive and contributing, while also putting them on a course of financial independence. AI will not be able to replace humans in caring for the elderly, disabled, and ill. AI will not be able to provide all the upkeep, protection, cultural enrichment that communities need.

A federally subsidized training and works program would mean serious investment and must include training for jobs for the future.

Much job training can go on at the community colleges, but right now, even in California, which had the best system, programs are cut while limited access to those existing means students resort to for profit education, thus incurring huge debt in exchange for entry level salaries.

There are so many options other than subsidizing people to sit it out, and too much need to provide services for vulnerable populations without the ability to work.

Obama’s job acts program is worth reevaluating.

It just didn’t go far enough. I’d also include senior citizens needing supplemental income. They now fill the ranks of volunteers. They could be earning some share of that basic income for the work they do in mental health. Non profits, education, hospitals, animal shelters.

[ismnotwasm]

16. It's like "Oh that program works"?

Let’s cut it.

[emmaverybo]

18. I wish we had "likes" as I like your post nt

[KG]

17. I lulz'd

[H2O Man]

19. gosh

[ZWQ]

20. Not true.

You can have socialism for bankers and the 0,001% (QE to infinity) but not for the people. Riiiight.