Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[washparkhorn 9968]

Universal Basic Income - 

The Rise of Unconditional Cash

Although the idea goes as far back as at least the 16th century when Thomas More argued for a guaranteed income in his sociopolitical satire Utopia, universal basic income really entered the realm of policy in the late 1960s. Of all people, Richard Nixon actually floated the idea of giving every family in the United States $1,600 a year — which would be the equivalent of $10,000 today. The proposal didn’t have a very long political life, but there were a series of smaller pilot programs implemented throughout North America around that time that did end up having a lasting impact.

Perhaps the most well-known example was the Mincome project that came out of Canada in the 1970s. Mincome was a form of universal basic income known as a negative income tax — which is basically a top-up if your income dips below a certain amount. The experiment occurred in a few towns in Manitoba, including the town of Dauphin, where lower-income households were guaranteed a minimum income regardless of whether the residents worked or not. The data from the experiment were actually lost for decades until Dr. Evelyn Forget of the University of Manitoba came across the data in a stack dusty boxes. At the time, Dr. Forget was conducting research on the area of health and poverty, and up until she stumbled across the data from Mincome, the results had only been published in a labor market analysis that did not gain much attention. Initially, the results weren’t all that surprising — Mincome was giving people the space to engage in necessary activities that most workplaces don’t provide.

“People used the Mincome stipend to buy themselves longer maternity leaves, longer parental leaves. Teenage boys also reduced the number of hours they worked,” Dr. Forget told Truthout. At the time, many adolescent boys from low-income families were under quite a bit of family pressure to enter the workforce so that they could earn money — taking the burden of support off of the rest of the family.

“When Mincome came along, some of those families decided that they could support their sons in high school a little bit longer,” Forget said. “So those boys were working fewer hours, because instead of leaving school at the age of 16 and taking a job, they were staying in high school and some of them were graduating during that period.”

Some of the results from the Mincome experiment served to contradict many of our societal assumptions about welfare and work, demonstrating that providing individuals with unconditional cash could actually lead them to work more, not less. Many low-income individuals and families used their stipend to provide themselves and their families with opportunities that would not have been available to them otherwise — opportunities that privileged individuals like Ivanka Trump often seem to take for granted.

Dr. Forget relayed the story of a single mother of two who decided to use her Mincome stipend to pay for job training at a local community college: “When I spoke to her, she had just retired after many years as a district librarian in the public system,” Forget said. “She was incredibly proud of having modeled a different kind of a life for her daughters, and she was very grateful to Mincome for giving her that opportunity.”

The Mincome project, along with many other experiments, dispels the myth that giving money to people results in laziness or a lack of motivation. In fact, it turns out the opposite is true — receiving some form of universal basic income actually frees people up to pursue opportunities that ultimately allow them to contribute to society in more effective ways.

The Mincome project ended somewhat abruptly after a new conservative administration took power in Canada and cut the funding, and universal basic income faded from the political conversation in North America in a more general way until relatively recently. But the looming threat of mass unemployment as a result of job automation has brought the topic back into the fray, and it’s being discussed prominently in the tech sector, where Silicon Valley billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk have actually come out in support of some form of universal basic income.

Meanwhile, the activists and academics who have been pushing for the idea for years, such as Kathi Weeks and the late Erik Olin Wright, have made huge contributions in exploring how universal basic income could be a key component in advancing all sorts of movements, from Marxism to feminism. Organizations like Basic Income Earth Network have been working since the 1980s to offer education to the wider public about universal basic income by organizing public conferences and promoting research. So now that the public debate is beginning to take shape again in a major way, there’s a strong foundation already in place.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Although economists disagree on the severity of potential unemployment due to automation,

it is precisely around the issue of jobs that universal basic income and climate change overlap. One of the aspects of the Green New Deal that sets it apart from the more neoliberal brand of climate policy is its focus on a “just transition” – something glaringly absent from most climate change policies to date. For example, when French President Emmanuel Macron imposed a gas and diesel tax on French consumers last year, the result was an eruption of protests, demonstrations and riots which seized the city for months and ultimately forced the administration to reverse its policy. The response by the French public demonstrated that any policy aimed at reducing carbon emissions cannot put a disproportionate burden on the backs of the poor and working classes.

Any policy aimed at reducing carbon emissions cannot put a disproportionate burden on the backs of the poor and working classes.

The Green New Deal, in contrast, has a whole set of proposals that are explicitly designed to benefit low-income and traditionally marginalized communities in the transition to a fully decarbonized economy — and a universal basic income is one of these progressive proposals.

Although it raised a lot of eyebrows when it was included as part of a comprehensive Green New Deal, a progressive universal basic income would make a whole lot of sense as part of a broader climate policy. As last year’s landmark report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned, “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” A transition of this scope must include specific policies that address the stability and security to those affected.

“What we’re aiming to undertake here is a radically ambitious transition of our entire economy,” Jim Pugh told Truthout. Pugh is co-founder and co-director of the Universal Income Project, an organization that works to raise awareness and support for universal basic income by, among other things, hosting “create-a-thons” that bring together artists and community members to create content and media around the theme of universal basic income. The group is putting together a create-a-thoncentered on the Green New Deal this month in Oakland, California. “It’s a necessary transition, but as with any systemic reform, it’s going to really disrupt a lot of people’s lives who are engaged in work that may not make sense anymore or that will look very different than it did before,” Pugh said.

This transition would include, of course, a complete dismantling of the fossil fuel economy — including all of the jobs that this sector currently provides. But it’s not just the fossil fuel sector — any transition this large is bound to have far-reaching effects that are difficult to understand this early on in the process.

“There are different ideas for what the best policy might be,” Pugh said. “But if we just try to pick and choose targets, we’re going to end up missing some groups — we’ve seen that again and again when we attempt to do these targeted approaches. A particularly simple option would be to provide a guaranteed income to everyone in the country, that way we can ensure that during this massive transition, we are keeping everyone up above a certain level — that we’re not letting people fall into poverty in the process.”

Universal basic income might make more sense than something like a federal jobs guarantee (which is also part of the Green New Deal proposal) because it would reduce the amount of unnecessary work that takes place in society — what anthropologist David Graeber has referred to as “bullshit jobs.” From getting people out of their cars during rush hour to reducing the incentive for individuals to engage in environmentally harmful work, a universal income could have a significant impact on carbon emissions by decoupling work from wages.

A universal income could have a significant impact on carbon emissions by decoupling work from wages.

It’s important to note that there isn’t just one version of universal basic income. In fact, the idea can become vastly different — and even quite regressive — depending on how it is implemented. For example, if the amount given through a universal basic income is not high enough to survive on, it could end up serving as a subsidy for low-wage employers who could avoid paying a living wage because their employees would be receiving government cash transfers. Instead of reducing inequality, this form of universal basic income could actually lead to higher levels of inequality, especially if the funding for this unconditional cash is coming from a regressive form of taxation, like a sales tax, that would disproportionately put most of the burden of funding a universal basic income onto the backs of the already poor. In this kind of scenario, universal basic income might provide a floor under which individuals couldn’t fall, but it would do nothing to stem the vast accumulation of wealth and power that is concentrated at the top.

Depending on what form it takes, universal basic income also threatens to serve as a sort of Trojan horse for libertarians who have their sights set on dismantling public services entirely and replacing them with cash transfers that individuals would use to purchase services through private markets. Things like welfare programs, public housing, health care, and in some extreme cases, even public education spending would be cut entirely and replaced by a basic income.

As we’re already seeing, the further privatization of essential services such as health care and public education would have devastating consequences, and any form of universal basic income that replaces state programs is a non-starter for most on the left.

But if done correctly, a universal basic income could play a key role in not just facilitating a just transition to a carbon-free economy, but in providing real economic security for many marginalized communities in the United States.

“I think it’s important in this moment to really think boldly about where we’re going,” Pugh said. “Universal basic income, the Green New Deal and some of these other proposals that people are starting to float out there really get at some of the underlying systemic changes in a big way. There’s an alignment across a number of issues that recognizes the status quo is not doing what it needs to be doing, and so I think that it’s a very natural thing to be bringing these efforts together in solidarity.”

https://truthout.org/articles/ivankas-attack-on-aoc-reveals-ignorance-about-universal-basic-income/

 

[washparkhorn 9968]

Rest assured - these are market solutions that provide plenty of opportunities for innovators to profit. 

And after all, the United States was revered as the birthplace of innovative ideas. We thrived when we innovated. It is not our destiny to follow. The United States is at her finest when she leads through innovation. 

[jimmyjazz 46988]

I'd love to see an economic study of the effects on $10K per family per year on metrics like inflation.  How badly would that amount be effectively diminished?  Obviously, it would be a great boon to those at or below the poverty level, and theoretically I would tend to support some kind of financial break beyond what exists at the moment for those families, but it would be nice to see assessments of the overall impact of such a policy.

[washparkhorn 9968]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'd love to see an economic study of the effects on $10K per family per year on metrics like inflation.  How badly would that amount be effectively diminished?  Obviously, it would be a great boon to those at or below the poverty level, and theoretically I would tend to support some kind of financial break beyond what exists at the moment for those families, but it would be nice to see assessments of the overall impact of such a policy.

https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/publications/467_The-Price-Effect-of-Cash-versus-In-kind-Transfers_July 2017.pdf

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34084]

7 hours ago, Incredulity said:

90% income tax rate

elimination of fossil fuels industry 

single payer healthcare 

 

So, you're a billionaire? I have some business proposals I need some capital for. Can you hook me up?

You also hate cheap, renewable energy? And jobs? Weird.

You really, really hate good healthcare? I mean, 2000 doctors just came out this week saying they support M4A. 

weird list.

[elfenix 34662]

Wait, we have a billionaire here? I have a business proposal that is not totally bullshit and, if it works, solves our aggy problem.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34084]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Wait, we have a billionaire here? I have a business proposal that is not totally bullshit and, if it works, solves our aggy problem.

hey man, my proposals are legit. they just don't involve aggy.

[Enchubben 5598]

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

And what about the Green New Deal do you dislike?

That it's a non-binding resolution?

That it was modeled after FDR's New Deal?

That it lays out a vision for the country to address climate change in the next decade?

Some specific objections from you would help foster a discussion. Thanks in advance. 

vvvvv

8 hours ago, Incredulity said:

90% income tax rate

elimination of fossil fuels industry 

single payer healthcare 

also vvvvv

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

Lmao.  Retrofitting every single building in America, universal basic income (and making that a precondition to the supposedly urgent bill to save the world from climate change destruction), no fossil fuels by 2030, among a myriad of others 

 

[Biff Tannen 46064]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for this response.

 

7 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

vvvvv

also vvvvv

 

[wildcat09 29563]

It'd be really nice if we could find a way to impose all of the costs that will come from doing nothing about climate change on only the people who fight every proposed policy to combat climate change and mitigate its effects with cries of "HOW ON EARTH COULD WE POSSIBLY AFFORD IT?!" 

[High Plains Drifter 11162]

2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

Lmao.  Retrofitting every single building in America, universal basic income (and making that a precondition to the supposedly urgent bill to save the world from climate change destruction), no fossil fuels by 2030, among a myriad of others ... you seriously think people can’t make specific objections to that piece of marketing nonsense posing as policy?

 

Both of these would go a long way to alleviating climate change. Both would act to spur the economy, put a lot of people to work, lead to technological advances.Climate change aside, both would result in cleaner air and other ecological benefits. Both would pay for themselves in the long term. There really is no long term negative to either of those goals. 2030 may be a little optimistic but the sooner we get started, the sooner we get them done.

Or we could just keep doing what we are doing now, which is nothing but giving tax breaks and lowering environmental standards. Both of which do the exact opposite.

I agree it might be better to take out the universal income. That would be a compromise I'm willing to make.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34084]

7 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Both of these would go a long way to alleviating climate change. Both would act to spur the economy, put a lot of people to work, lead to technological advances.Climate change aside, both would result in cleaner air and other ecological benefits. Both would pay for themselves in the long term. There really is no long term negative to either of those goals. 2030 may be a little optimistic but the sooner we get started, the sooner we get them done.

Or we could just keep doing what we are doing now, which is nothing but giving tax breaks and lowering environmental standards. Both of which do the exact opposite.

I agree it might be better to take out the universal income. That would be a compromise I'm willing to make.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20844]

Remember when the guy at Barstool sports got into a Twitter fight with AOC over labor law and wanted to debate her? Turns out he was wrong, she was right ... and it's going to cost him.

LOL

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/businessman-who-challenged-aoc-to-debate-him-on-union-law-agrees-to-settle-with-labor-board-for-violations/

[elfenix 34662]

1. never get into a land war in asia

2. never go against a sicilian when death is on the line

3. never go against aoc or wendys on twitter

[Longhorn_Fan68 34084]

it kinda amazes me that there are people out there that think she's dumb

[safe sex 11915]

I mean, she's not white and she's not a man, sooo..

[Post Oak 20551]

On 1/22/2020 at 2:16 AM, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Remember when the guy at Barstool sports got into a Twitter fight with AOC over labor law and wanted to debate her? Turns out he was wrong, she was right ... and it's going to cost him.

LOL

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/businessman-who-challenged-aoc-to-debate-him-on-union-law-agrees-to-settle-with-labor-board-for-violations/

As someone who checks out Barstool, I know Portnoy is a Mount Rushmore level troll.  He cares about clicks and people talking.  I'm not sure this is that big of deal to him but congratulations to their employees.  

Also, AOC is smart.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

55 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

it kinda amazes me that there are people out there that think she's dumb

Oh she's smart,  no doubts about that, but so many of her comments are such blatantly, wide brush strokes, of alleged reality.  

[Tom 2960]

On 1/24/2020 at 3:33 PM, trauma babe said:

I mean, she's not white and she's not a man, sooo..

 

Don't forget she's also just a bartender.  Only attorneys and c-list celebrity game show hosts are qualified to govern.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

41 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

 Only attorneys and c-list celebrity game show hosts are qualified to govern.

And accused rapists, but that's not an either/or qualification I suppose.

[jimmyjazz 46988]

On 1/24/2020 at 4:19 PM, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh she's smart,  no doubts about that, but so many of her comments are such blatantly, wide brush strokes, of alleged reality.  

. . . and this sets her apart from the rest of Congress how exactly?

[safe sex 11915]

Her comments are certainly more grounded in reality than anything that comes out of the mouth of the President of the United States.

[High Plains Drifter 11162]

 

On 1/24/2020 at 4:19 PM, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh she's smart,  no doubts about that, but so many of her comments are such blatantly, wide brush strokes, of alleged reality.  

 

Please show me one post where you have criticized the current DOTARD for the same.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

Please show me one post where you have criticized the current DOTARD for the same.

This is about her not Trump. Go hump someone elses leg.  Trump says stupid shit all the time.  Her comments are taken as gospel by you boneheads in the cabal.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

. . . and this sets her apart from the rest of Congress how exactly?

Because she says something, and you all go weak knee'd.  Go white Knight yer mom she needs it worse.

[washparkhorn 9968]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

This is about her not Trump. Go hump someone elses leg.  Trump says stupid shit all the time.  Her comments are taken as gospel by you boneheads in the cabal.

It will be okay. Seriously. She has fresh ideas. She has a broad support with those younger than you, people of color, the working class and even some in the middle class. This is a country that thrived with innovation. Innovative ideas need to be explored. As said by someone smarter than me, neglect the soil and the plant dies. Wouldn't you agree?

[jimmyjazz 46988]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Because she says something, and you all go weak knee'd.  Go white Knight yer mom she needs it worse.

a)  Mom is dead

b)  thanks for your kind thoughts

c)  please cite any evidence of me going "weak knee'd" over anything AOC has said.

[workswithseed 2201]

Not one of her finest moments.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

This is about her not Trump. Go hump someone elses leg.  Trump says stupid shit all the time.  Her comments are taken as gospel by you boneheads in the cabal.

She's 30 and only in the public eye for a couple years.  At this rate, you'll match your full Hillary level of hatred before she is even old enough to run for President. 

[washparkhorn 9968]

24 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Not one of her finest moments.

Why? Amazon treats its workers horribly. Why should Amazon receive corporate socialism to abuse workers? 

[High Plains Drifter 11162]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

This is about her not Trump. Go hump someone elses leg.  Trump says stupid shit all the time.  Her comments are taken as gospel by you boneheads in the cabal.

 

I just think its odd that you criticize a brown, young woman in Congress for dishonestly, and ignore the far worse dishonesty of the old, white man in the presidency.

Or maybe its not odd?

[workswithseed 2201]

5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Why? Amazon treats its workers horribly. Why should Amazon receive corporate socialism to abuse workers? 

I agree, but the city didn't have 3bill to give. They just weren't going to take 3bill that others would have paid. 

 

[washparkhorn 9968]

The 3 bill would have been easy to raise in a municipal bond deal. But I understand your larger point. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 1/28/2020 at 4:58 PM, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I just think its odd that you criticize a brown, young woman in Congress for dishonestly, and ignore the far worse dishonesty of the old, white man in the presidency.

Or maybe its not odd?

To be fair, he has irrational hatred for Hillary too and she's white.  Seems to be more of a misogynistic thing than a racist thing.

[tx 3 putt 78480]

She can run in 2024 or 2028 ?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 1/28/2020 at 5:01 PM, workswithseed said:

I agree, but the city didn't have 3bill to give. They just weren't going to take 3bill that others would have paid. 

 

It's not exactly that.  About 500 million was a discretionary grant payable over 15 years.  She's right about that part. But she's actually even more wrong than that on the rest of the deal.  It isn't an Amazon only credit. It was the excelsior tax credits that are available to any firm that creates new jobs in NY and meets certain criteria which Amazon meets anyway. The only change would have been a raise on the cap which will probably end up being raised anyway. NYC tax credits and tax abatements were also included in the total number and are also available to every firm meeting the same criteria so also not a special deal for Amazon.

The rest was crap to allow NY State to bypass NYC planning laws. While this is BS, it's also not just for Amazon.  The state actually does it quite often. The area around Atlantic Terminal was redeveloped this way too and includes Barclays Center. 

Undoubtedly, that waterfront parcel will end up being luxury condo or rental towers with a waterfront park rather than Amazon.  A large employer was a better option. If AOC cares about accessible parkland and affordable housing, she shouldn't be asking for it there. The waterfront already has a massive park right next to that parcel. Queensbridge projects have one too. She should be fighting for parks in park starved areas where working class people actually live. The state could sell that parcel at market rate and buy 10 similar sized underutilized parcels elsewhere and convert them to parks and build affordable housing at pretty much break even. That should be what everyone is pushing for. 

[workswithseed 2201]

35 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

She can run in 2024 or 2028 ?

I'd say depends on how Sanders win/lose.

If he loses general again 2028, if he wins then 2024.

[tx 3 putt 78480]

Love or Hate her, she’s going to be a force. 

[Pato del Muerto 53347]

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'd say depends on how Sanders win/lose.

If he loses general again 2028, if he wins then 2024.

So she turns 35 a couple weeks before the 2024 election. I guess you only have to be 35 by Inauguration Day?  Even so, you want a 35 year old as potus?  The dems would back a 34 year old candidate?

[tx 3 putt 78480]

3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So she turns 35 a couple weeks before the 2024 election. I guess you only have to be 35 by Inauguration Day?  Even so, you want a 35 year old as potus?  The dems would back a 34 year old candidate?

I can see her bringing out the young vote like no other. Not sure she’ll set settle for being #2 on the ticket 

[jimmyjazz 46988]

From a practical standpoint, a 35 YO POTUS would be a disaster.

Of course, Donald's a disaster, so who cares?

[Pato del Muerto 53347]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

I can see her bringing out the young vote like no other. Not sure she’ll set settle for being #2 on the ticket 

I hope she runs for a senate seat the next time one is up. I’m interested in seeing how she would perform in a statewide primary against either NY senator. Would dnc allow it?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

I can see her bringing out the young vote like no other. Not sure she’ll set settle for being #2 on the ticket 

She should run for Senator first.  

[Pato del Muerto 53347]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

From a practical standpoint, a 35 YO POTUS would be a disaster.

Of course, Donald's a disaster, so who cares?

“Hey our side can also have a disastrous president!” isn’t really the backlash I’d like to see. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

I hope she runs for a senate seat the next time one is up. I’m interested in seeing how she would perform in a statewide primary against either NY senator. Would dnc allow it?

They would have no choice. They can't prevent a primary challenger.

That being said, I don't think she would win.

[bad_teammate 13482]

She should run for Senator first.  

Take Schumer's scalp.

[Pato del Muerto 53347]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

They would have no choice. They can't prevent a primary challenger.

That being said, I don't think she would win.

They can make sure she has no funding. 

[workswithseed 2201]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So she turns 35 a couple weeks before the 2024 election. I guess you only have to be 35 by Inauguration Day?  Even so, you want a 35 year old as potus?  The dems would back a 34 year old candidate?

Probably not, I probably won't even vote for someone with her policies.

If I had those 2 choices well that's how I would .

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

They can make sure she has no funding. 

No they can't. The DSA are capable fundraisers and Bernie's fundraising apparatus would be behind her also. 

But I'm sure the establishment D donors would rather be spending their money in swing states rather than trying to protect Schumer. I think primarying a Dem Senator in NY would ultimately be a bad move if you want a majority in the Senate. 

Edited February 1, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[bad_teammate 13482]

If the goal is to simply have a majority in the Senate, they wouldn't spend a penny defending Schumer from a primary challenger.

But that's not their goal.