The Case for Basic Income
These days, advances in technology are allowing us to do new and amazing things. But these advances can come with a cost: as technology is used for more and more purposes, it can disrupt the traditional labor model and put people out of work by automating their jobs. If this trend continues, we could be looking at wide-scale unemployment and drastic increases in inequality in the near future.
Universal basic income (or just “basic income”) is a simple idea that could have a radical impact on our society: give every American enough money to meet their basic needs.
While that may not appear too radical at first glance, there are a few key differences between basic income and traditional social programs that set it apart:
- Basic income is universal: Everyone would receive basic income, regardless of age, employment, or financial situation. It would be a fundamental right, rather than a form of welfare, removing any stigma that might exist for programs that are designed specifically for those in need.
- Basic income is simple: Everyone would receive the same amount of money through basic income, making it much simpler to administrate and leading to less bureaucracy than traditional means-tested programs.
- Basic income ends poverty: People are poor because they don’t have enough money to get by. If we provide everyone with enough funds to meet their basic needs, we can effectively eliminate poverty.
With a universal basic income, tech-driven unemployment wouldn’t be such a disaster — even if you lose your job, you can be sure you’ll be able to make ends meet, and will have time to figure out what’s the right next step for you, whether that’s doing part-time work in the gig economy, training to learn new skills, starting your own business, spending more time with your family, or whatever other pursuit you decide is best.
Advocating for a radical idea
While basic income has been receiving more attention in the last year, most people in the United States still have never heard of the concept. And because getting money without having to work for it is a very foreign concept in this country, it often takes more than traditional advocacy tactics to get people to seriously consider the idea and bring them on board.
A similar challenge was faced by campaigners for basic income in Switzerland — when they launched their efforts in 2013, support was very low, and many were dismissive of the idea. In order to raise awareness, the Swiss employed creative approaches, kicking off the campaign with a truck dumping 8 million coins in front of Parliament and rallying supporters to crowd-fund the creation of the biggest poster in the world. These tactics helped generate media attention and encouraged people to think about basic income in new and different ways.
While the Swiss vote for basic income ultimately failed to pass, the campaign managed to increase support by an impressive margin — polling in December 2015 showed only 11% planned to vote for basic income, but the vote in June saw 23% voting “yes.”
Harnessing the creativity of supporters
What would it look like to tap into the creativity not just of grasstops campaigners, but grassroots advocates as well? That’s what the Universal Income Project aimed to find out in late 2015. Our goal was to engage a larger group of supporters through a weekend of action in San Francisco that focused on collaborative, creative projects with the aim of raising awareness and support for basic income. We opted to call the event a Basic Income “Create-a-thon.”
Our intention was to democratize advocacy for the idea by allowing grassroots activists to use their skill sets and passion to inform what projects they worked on. Participants pitched their own ideas for these projects and then self-organized into groups that spent the weekend turning the ideas into reality.
The event was chaotic — there were tons of ideas pitched, some of which sounded pretty crazy to us, and the process of forming groups took several hours, with people adjusting their plans, hopping between groups, and merging similar projects together.
But giving people the opportunity to channel their creativity towards advancing basic income was a real motivator for supporters. By the end of the weekend, we’d ended up with a number of impressive, creative projects being produced (including some of the ideas that initially sounded crazy to us). These ranged from videos to web applications to policy analyses to crowdfunding campaigns.
Many participants from the San Francisco Create-a-thon have continued work on their projects even after the event, and we’ve since followed up with a Create-a-thon in Los Angeles, connecting and engaging supporters there. We’re now looking at organizing other Create-a-thons in cities around the country.
The conversation around basic income is just beginning, and people across the United States are starting to get involved. We’re eager to see what creative ideas people come up with in the months and years ahead.
About the Authors
Jim Pugh is a co-founder of the Universal Income Project, and has a Ph.D. in Distributed Robotics from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. He is also founder and CEO of ShareProgress, a social-good technology startup, and lives in San Francisco.
Sandhya Anantharaman is a Co-Director of the Universal Income Project. She is an Obama alum, has a background in grassroots organizing in the South, and holds a degree in biomedical engineering from Georgia Tech. She currently works as a Data Scientist at ShareProgress.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Read more from the Meeting of the Minds Blog
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
MaaS has a lot to offer to public transit and it’s time to take a closer look at those benefits. Contrary to a common misconception, integration of third-party transit services into the wider public mobility offering doesn’t hurt transit, it actually encourages wider use of public transit, maintaining and even actively increasing ridership. Alternative transit services can address first/last mile problems as well as serve routes that are typically very costly and require a high level of government subsidy (e.g. paratransit), not only increasing revenues for transit agencies but also helping to direct funding and investment back to core transit services.
From June 26th to 28th 2018, urban transport and development practitioners, activists, and researchers from cities around the world convened in Dar es Salaam for the 3rd annual ITDP Mobilize summit. Themed “Making space for mobility in booming cities,” the event...
It is no surprise to those of us in the walking advocacy world that making bus stops accessible and linked to neighborhood sidewalks can increase bus ridership and reduce the number of para-transit trips that are called for. This is a logical outcome of thinking about how people make real life choices about how to get around. What this research demonstrates is an amazing win-win-win for walking and transit advocates. It shows how we can shift trips from autos to transit; give more people more independence by making it possible for them to use regular bus service rather than setting up special, scheduled para-transit trips (some of which require appointments to be made at least 24 hours in advance and only for specified purposes); and save money for transit systems over the long run.