UBI Guide

 

Below are four non-affiliated websites dedicated to better understand Guaranteed Income.

1. https://economicsecurityproject.org/work/guaranteed-income/

and https://nataliefoster.me/about/

"Nancy Foster is the leading architect of the movement to build an inclusive and resilient economy that works for all." Her timely and important new book about guaranteed income is called The Guarantee.

==========

2. A Guide to Understanding Universal Basic Income | UpToUs (itsuptous.org) 

==========

3. Guaranteed Income Pilots Dashboard

The Stanford Basic Income Lab and Center for Guaranteed Income Research have partnered to visualize data from evaluations of 30+ guaranteed income pilots across the United States. New demonstrations are added as their data becomes available. 

==========

4. Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN)

The Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), formerly known as the Basic Income European Network until 2004, is a global network that brings together academics and activists who share an interest in the concept of basic income. Here are some key points about BIEN:

Definition: A basic income is a regular cash payment provided unconditionally to every individual, without means-testing or work requirements.

Mission: BIEN aims to educate the wider public about alternative arguments, proposals, and challenges related to basic income as an idea, an institution, and a public policy practice12.

Activities

Conferences: BIEN organizes public conferences worldwide on an annual basis, fostering informed discussions about basic income.

Research Repository: It serves as a repository for published research on basic income.

Recent Developments:

Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program: Somerville, Massachusetts, Mayor Katjana Ballantyne announced a guaranteed basic income pilot program, although it is means-tested and does not meet BIEN’s strict definition of basic income.

==========

Annie Lowery, an American journalist who writes on politics and economic policy for The Atlantic, published her first book in 2018. The name of the book is titled: Give People Money: How a Universal Basic Income Would End Poverty, Revolutionize Work, and Remake the World. (Note: This book is not affiliated with balancedcapitalism.org.)

==========

The below article appeared in the Los Angeles Magazine on 12/20/2023. 

How Giving $750 a Month to L.A.'s Homeless Proved Basic Income Works

Recipients of the income mostly spent their money on food, housing and transportation.

By Julius Miller

December 20, 2023

The solution to L.A.'s homeless epidemic may lie in a buzzy, divisive, social welfare proposal: universal basic income.

Roughly 100 unhoused individuals across Los Angeles County and parts of San Francisco were given $750 a month over a year. The money came in the form of an unconditional payment—no strings attached.

Los Angeles Times, which originally reported the findings, was told by the study's founder, Ben Henwood, that "it dispels this myth that people will use money for illicit purposes."

The study eerily reflects a plethora of other basic income trials conducted across the state. The trend to conduct such experiments was catalyzed by a nationally-watched trial in Stockton, which began in 2019 and paid 125 residents $500 a month on the same premise as the Miracle Money study: no strings attached.

According to a 2021 from NPR, the study paid off, providing an increase in employment and productivity, increased well-being, decreased stress, and the money was spent on necessities rather than drugs.

However, the only occasion that a basic income experiment was conducted on a national scale was in Finland over two years from 2017 to 2018. To date, it is Europe’s first and only national, government-backed basic income experiment. 

The country supplied a randomly chosen group of 2,000 initially unemployed individuals in the country with a guaranteed, unconditional, cash payment of 560 euros per month (~613 USD p/m). Results saw a small increase in employment rather than passive consumption, a boost to well-being, and an added trust in institutions.

"Better feelings of health, happiness, cognitive abilities, and financial security seem to have instilled a sense of confidence that encouraged the recipients to branch out and to seek more expansive opportunities: unpaid work, training, or employment," they wrote.

"At a societal level, Finland’s basic-income experiment promoted another interesting virtuous cycle, around trust. Trust in others and institutions is a fundamental building block of well-functioning societies."

The number of basic income experiments continues to rise, and the results along with them. As for California, CalMatters confirmed just two years after the Stockton trial that more than 12,000 state residents would be receiving basic income payments as part of widespread, similar experiments.

UNHOUSED UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME USC HOMELESS

==========

A reasonable case may be made that a UBI program may reduce the strain experienced by individuals in the lower and middle class.  And lead to the reduction of criminal behavior and terrorism in society. See breakdown below. 

The below definition thread is copied from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which we redacted here for brevity.

General Strain Theory (GST) is a theory of criminology developed by Robert Agnew.[1][2][3] General strain theory has gained a significant amount of academic attention since being developed in 1992.[4] Robert Agnew's general strain theory is considered to be a solid theory, has accumulated a significant amount of empirical evidence, and has also expanded its primary scope by offering explanations of phenomena outside of criminal behavior.[5] This theory is presented as a micro-level theory because it focuses more on a single person at a time rather than looking at the whole of society.[6]

Agnew recognized that strain theory, originally put forward by Robert King Merton, was limited in terms of fully conceptualizing the range of possible sources of strain in society, especially among youth. According to Merton, innovation occurs when society emphasizes socially desirable and approved goals but at the same time provides inadequate opportunity to achieve these goals with the legitimate institutionalized means. In other words those members of society who find themselves in a position of financial strain yet wish to achieve material success resort to crime in order to achieve socially desirable goals. Agnew supports this assumption but he also believes that, when dealing with youth, there are other factors that incite criminal behavior. He suggests that negative experiences can lead to stress even when they are not financially induced.

Agnew described four characteristics of strains that are most likely to lead to crime: 1) strains are seen as unjust, 2) strains are seen as high in magnitude, 3) strains are associated with low social control, and 4) strains create some pressure or incentive to engage in criminal coping.[7]  

General Strain Theory of Terrorism

In 2010, Robert Agnew published a research paper applying Strain Theory to Terrorism.[11] He finds that terrorism is most likely when people experience 'collective strains' that are:

  • high in magnitude, with civilians affected
  • unjust
  • inflicted by significantly more powerful others, including 'complicit' civilians

==========

Following this General Strain Theory of Terorism thread theorizing that terrorism is most likely when people experience 'collective strains', and our posited theory thread that UBI is a potential solution to reduce terrorism, we asked AI co-pilot Bing to delve into some detailed arguments to support the theory as it relates to the Israeli-Gaza conflict. Here is Bing’s response on 4/1/2024.

Bing...Certainly! The concept of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a potential solution to the Israeli-Gaza conflict is both intriguing and worthy of exploration. Let’s delve into some detailed arguments to support this theory:

Promoting Social Cohesion and Mutual Respect:


    • A shared UBI program across troubled landscapes like Palestine and Israel could foster a sense of shared belonging and equality. By providing a basic income that does not discriminate between Palestinians and Israelis, it asserts a human right to live with dignity.
    • Such a policy might promote mutual respect, regardless of religious, cultural, or ethnic differences. It necessitates a cooperative approach from both sides, forging a partnership necessary to make UBI a success.

Enhancing Security and Reducing Violence:


    • A harmonious social connection, coupled with non-discriminatory policies, could enhance security and decrease instances of violence. Acknowledging the human rights associated with UBI could demonstrate to even the most radical factions the shared humanity of all residents.
    • By providing genuine opportunities through UBI, particularly to those in Gaza and the occupied regions, we could disrupt the status quo and increase societal contributions.

Economic Development and Resilience:


    • Investments into UBI could foster development and societal contribution. When accompanied by comprehensive security measures and advancements in healthcare and education, UBI becomes a powerful tool.
    • Contrary to critics, such a program may not be prohibitively costly. With successful implementation and accompanying reforms, reductions in military and security spending could offset the costs, making it sustainable.

Breaking Cycles of Violence and Improving Lives:


    • The benefits of UBI in terms of lives preserved and cycles of violence broken are invaluable. Providing Palestinians and Israelis with genuine opportunities could lead to positive disruptions.
    • The current situation in the region, marked by loss, radicalization, and animosity, is untenable. UBI offers a novel approach to address one of the oldest conflicts of mankind.

Bing...Remember that UBI is not a panacea, but it could be a crucial step toward a more equitable society. Scholars like Diana Bashur have researched its influence in conflict-ridden areas, emphasizing its potential to improve social cohesion, peacekeeping, and community resilience. Consider these arguments seriously as you develop your theory.12

=======================================

The below story was originally featured on Fortune.com.

I’m a venture capitalist, and here’s why I believe we need to guarantee everyone’s basic needs: The social floor is actually a trampoline that can propel our economy.

Story by Roy Bahat‎

For decades, politics in many countries—and especially in the U.S.—have been in an endless tug of war between two camps: one that believes we need to be more generous to people who are struggling, and another who believes that the taxes and regulations that create that generosity suffocate the very growth on which that generosity depends.

What if these two camps should actually be pulling in the same direction? What if raising the floor—of social benefits like income, health care, housing and more—might actually accelerate our economic growth?

When we invest in programs that reduce economic fear, we allow more people to participate in the economy and society—to invent, care, serve, and thrive. The safety net becomes a trampoline.

We have new evidence this is already happening, detailed in the just-released book The Guarantee, by policy advocate Natalie Foster. Over the last few years, the U.S. has embarked on a sweeping set of new programs and experiments—everything from a child tax credit during Covid to cities trying to provide their least fortunate with a guaranteed income to states expanding Medicaid.

These programs—which raised the floor for people in areas like family care, education, housing, income, wealth, and more, and more closely model how other Western countries operate—arrived on the back of a wave of working peoples’ anger. Millions of people have long felt that even if they play society’s game by the rules (work hard, get an education, stay out of trouble), they still can’t provide for a decent life for themselves and their families. That is a system in crisis.

More and more young people, including college-educated young people, are entering the working class. The fears of artificial intelligence pulling the rug out from workers cuts across many socioeconomic classes, from delivery drivers to Hollywood writers to lawyers. Workers in industries everywhere are organizing and going on strike.

Amid this, many corporations continue to thrive (in profits, stock value, and otherwise). Yet the American economy as a whole seems to be stuck in low gear. New business formation in the U.S. has declined by nearly 50% since the 1970s, while research suggests that scientific progress has slowed significantly in the last few decades. More people remain stuck, geographically, in the place where they’re born and that birthplace often limits their economic prospects.

What if the issue is that too few people are actually contributing to our economic vitality, because the system holds them back?

Economic “precarity”—the complicated word for people feeling fear—prevents them from participating in our economy. If you’re worried about housing, you’re unlikely to be a person who invents a new cure for a disease. If you’re unable to find childcare, you’re less likely to invest in yourself and learn new skills for a new career, spend time finding a better job, or take a chance starting a business. If you’re sick, you miss work. If you are short on money, you’re not buying the goods or services that employ others. You’re also more likely to let your valid rage at the system bubble into more destructive and violent forms of change.

Enabling innovation

Imagine how people might participate differently in the economy if the society guaranteed their basic needs—the world The Guarantee book describes.

If all people have their basics covered, some will contribute the extraordinary. More people would have the opportunity to be the next Einstein, Marie Curie, or Katherine Johnson. One study estimates that we would have four times as many innovators, if everyone had the socioeconomic background to pursue innovation—imagine all those "Lost Einsteins."

In my occupation, investing in technology startups, people often see how a founder’s second startup—in part emboldened by the safety of their personal economic comfort—outshines the first. Look at Reed Hastings’ second act, Netflix. Or Evan Williams’ second act, Twitter. The founder of a well-known Silicon Valley startup accelerator told me that the best founders come from rich families; they can afford to go without an income until they raise capital.

The worry about losing creators goes beyond science and technology—think of all the lost Lin-Manuel Mirandas, Octavia Butlers, Maya Lins, and Taylor Swifts whose creative gifts suffocate in the chokehold of economic necessity. By providing a foundation of economic stability, we can enable a new generation of innovators and creators across every field.

If everyone felt economic safety, then more people could invest in their education and skills, and take chances on a better career. In Stockton, California, where an experiment offered a group of low-income residents a guaranteed income of just $500 per month, recipients were more likely to find full-time jobs.

A higher social floor

Risks come from feeling safe enough to take them, not (as many believe) from forcing yourself to take a risk out of fear. At a time when technology seems to be advancing in unpredictable ways, we need more than ever for people to feel confident enough to adapt.

When people feel underpaid, they sometimes go on strike, and we end up as a society with risks to needed services, and companies lose revenue. Poverty also imposes a direct cost on the rest of the economy, estimated at $1 trillion in the U.S. per year in lost work, health care costs, crime, and more.

Opponents of guarantees often make classist, and sometimes racist, arguments: that poor people “can’t be trusted.” To some extent, the debates to come over guarantees will turn on your view of human nature: if you give people free things, what do they do with their freedom? I believe people want to be productive—we all build our dignity from bricks of purpose, creativity, and contribution. We all yearn to feel needed, to have an impact, to leave a mark on this world in the short time we’re here. It’s ironic that many advocates for personal freedom seem to believe that people, given freedom, will just freeload (especially if they’re poor).

Of course, there will be enormous cost to these guarantees. The question is whether there will be a return worth justifying that cost. Usually, commentators cast a higher social floor as a tradeoff: if we provide guarantees, we’ll slow the economy because taxes will give people less incentive to innovate. It seems like the incentives for the most privileged members of our society to innovate are strong enough. We need more people to participate more than we need a stronger incentive for the rich to make more money on investments (which happens to be my own occupation). The anxiety over AI might just create a pretext for us to do more now. And, with a divided U.S. Congress in near paralysis, policies that can both boost growth and take care of those in need might be the only ones that can pass.

If we see the guarantees described in The Guarantee as a safety “net,” we’ll forever worry about people getting tied up in that net and never emerging. If we see these benefits as a floor, then they can lift people up. Best, though, might be designing a higher social floor as a trampoline: to bounce people upward into the dignity of inventing, of caring, and of serving our society’s needs.

"The Guarantee: Inside the Fight for America's Next Economy," by Natalie Foster.© Provided by Fortune

Roy Bahat is the head of venture capital firm Bloomberg Beta, and the chair of the Aspen Institute Business Roundtable on Organized Labor.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

 


Query to Bing Co-Pilot:

Which ways besides taxation (and BalancedCapitalism.org's Plan) may fund proposed UBI programs?

Bing Copilot:

Certainly! Besides taxation, there are several other ways proposed to fund Universal Basic Income (UBI) programs. Let’s explore some of these alternative funding mechanisms:

  1. Resource Dividends: Allocate a portion of revenue generated from natural resources (such as oil, minerals, or land) directly to citizens. For example, Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend distributes a share of oil revenue to Alaskan residents annually.
  2. Seigniorage: Seigniorage refers to the profit made by a government from issuing currency. Central banks create money, and the difference between the face value of currency and its production cost is seigniorage. Some propose using a portion of seigniorage revenue to fund UBI.
  3. Financial Transaction Taxes (FTT): Implement a small tax on financial transactions (such as stock trades, currency exchanges, or derivatives). The revenue generated from FTT could contribute to UBI funding.
  4. Data Dividends: In the digital age, personal data has significant value. Some suggest that individuals should receive compensation for sharing their data with corporations. Data dividends could be used to fund UBI.
  5. Lottery or Gambling Revenues: Allocate a percentage of lottery or gambling revenues to UBI programs. This approach leverages existing entertainment and gaming industries.
  6. Carbon Pricing and Environmental Taxes: Tax carbon emissions or other environmental pollutants. Use the revenue to fund UBI and promote sustainable practices.
  7. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): Collaborate with private companies to fund UBI initiatives. For instance, a portion of profits from public infrastructure projects could be directed toward UBI.
  8. Crowdfunding and Donations: Encourage voluntary contributions from individuals, philanthropic organizations, and businesses. Crowdfunding platforms could facilitate UBI funding.
  9. Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs): Create or expand SWFs that invest in various assets (such as stocks, bonds, real estate, or infrastructure). The returns from SWFs can contribute to UBI.
  10. Robot or Automation Taxes: Tax companies that use automation or AI technologies to replace human labor. The revenue could support UBI for displaced workers.

Remember that the feasibility and effectiveness of these funding methods depend on various factors, including economic conditions, political will, and societal priorities. Each approach has its advantages and challenges, and policymakers must carefully consider the trade-offs when designing UBI programs.