Windsor Independent - May 2016

BASIC INCOME?
BY ALEX DENONVILLE
The recent announcement that the provincial
government will fund a basic income pilot project
had Windsor’s politicians clamouring to make the
case that our city, struggling with chronically high
unemployment and persistent poverty, was the
perfect proving ground for a seemingly radical
approach to public spending.
While pushing for the pilot project was an
opportunity any elected leader would take, it’s
perhaps a signal that their oftentouted
dedication to creating jobs
and reducing unemployment is at
odds with the trends of a changing
world.
It was the auto industry that
made Windsor what it is
today, a manufacturing
haven heavy on blue collar
workers. But nowadays
those assembly lines have
taken on an increasingly
robotic look, with companies
pushing to increase the bottom
line through automation.
And it’s not just on the line. Many facets of
production are trending towards removing
humans from their equation. From Japan’s firstever
robotic farming operation all the way to
grocery stores and fast food chains offering selfordering
and checkout systems.
It was that trend which brought Scott Santens, a
freelance writer based in New Orleans, to the idea
of a basic income.
One day he came across a Reddit post about the
future of technology and trends of automation.
That had him searching for answers to a world
where it will be increasingly difficult to sell your
labour and make enough money to make ends
meet. He landed on guaranteed basic income, a
policy which sees all citizens given enough money
to cover the cost of living.
He became dedicated to advocating for basic
income policies around the world, writing on
the topic and moderating Reddit’s basic income
community.
He even started a campaign to show what it’s
like to live with basic, engaging over 200 donors
giving a few dollars each. He gets a total of $1,000
per month, just below the federal poverty line in
the USA.
“It’s the foundation of my income,” he says. “It
reduces the stress, even if it’s not enough to cover
everything, it’s lifting a weight off your shoulders.”
And he wants everyone to have that feeling of
relief in knowing there’s enough to cover the bare
necessities.
So, while our political class seems dead set
on maintaining the drive to achieve “full
employment,” proudly cutting ribbons at call
centres paying $11 an hour, Santens argues for a
re-thinking of what we, as a society, are working
towards.
“We can’t go for this idea of full employment any
more, that’s a 20th century idea, and it’s just not
possible... Even when we create new jobs it’s not
going to keep up with the pace that technology is
eliminating them.”
With the trend of more robots doing human
jobs, he says, there needs to be a shift in what’s
considered work, and how we’re paid for it.
“Why is it
considered
work when
someone
is paid
to watch
somebody’s
kid, but it’s
not work
to watch
your own
kid?,” he asks. “Why is
it work to be a nurse, to take care
of someone who’s 80 years old and needs
assistance, and why is it not considered work
when it’s your family member?”
What we really need is to break the link between
work and income. Give all people the ability to
make ends meet, and we’ll all be better off.
The list of positive benefits is lengthy. In contrast
to the current bureaucratic “means testing” and
bureaucracy of our social welfare system, a basic
income would cost less money to administer
while reducing the stigma of receiving public
dollars.
It also gives people the opportunity to take risks,
like starting a small business. When money is
scarce, people are effectively prevented from
participating in those economies.
“There’s
actually a
very high
barrier
to entry for
work. You
can’t become a
baker if you don’t
have the money to buy an oven, the flour and the
yeast,” he explains, referring to a basic income
project in Namibia which saw a 300 percent jump
in self employment.
With so many people struggling to make ends
meet, that type of freedom to take a risk would do
wonders in Windsor. It’s also a response to one of
the major criticisms of basic income programs.
So often you’ll hear that if you give people “free”
money, they won’t want to work.
“It implies that in order for people to do any
work... you have to threaten them with poverty,
starvation and homelessness,” Santens says. “Of
course, when it comes to actual human behaviour,
we all want to work.”
In fact, a basic income experiment from our own
country determined that employment numbers
weren’t drastically affected by a basic income.
Known as mincome, it’s Canada’s contribution
to the bulk of evidence supporting basic income
programs. Introduced in the 1970s the program
saw citizens of a Manitoba town receive a
minimum income every month until the program
was cut in 1979.
No report was officially released, but economist
Evelyn Forget conducted an analysis in 2011,
which lends credence to a renewed look at basic
income.
“She found things nobody was looking for,” says
Sheila Regehr, chair of the Basic Income Canada
Network, a non-profit, non-partisan group
pushing the discussion on basic income policies.
“The people who reduced their work were
students who got to stay in school longer and
improve their economic prospects going forward,
and women who were able to stay home a little bit
longer with children when they gave birth,” she
explains.
There were also noticeable impacts on public
health. Hospital visits dropped by 8.5 percent,
along with fewer work-related injuries and
psychiatric hospitalizations.
Forget’s study concluded that there was a
correlation between positive health impacts and
the basic income program, even for those citizens
who hadn’t received any of the funding.
By investing in basic income as “an ounce of
prevention,” we’d save public dollars on healthcare
spending well into the future.
That’s one of the biggest takeaways from Canada’s
mincome experiment, says Regehr, and the
findings add to the chorus of health professionals
that are part of the network.
“There are a strong group of doctors [who] work
with a lot of low income people and they realize
that the prescription they really need to write for
these people is for more income and they can’t do
that,” she says.
Even when we create new jobs
it’s not going to keep up with
the pace that technology is
eliminating them.
But it’s not just doctors pushing for a
conversation on basic income, it’s
the very people that are part of
what she calls the “new precariat.”
“There’s a whole new generation
of young people coming up
with an extremely different
relationship with the labour
market than what we used
to have and they’re worried,”
she says.
With an entire swath of the
population staring down
fewer jobs, increasing income inequality and
little hope of achieving the financial success of
the previous generation, we should be ripe for
change.
Twenty years down the road, we don’t know how
our economy will look. We don’t know which jobs
will still exist and which will be made obsolete by
new technology.
“Those are all really tough things, and they’re
going to take a while to work out. In the
meantime people will continue to need to eat and
put a roof over their heads and raise their kids
and keep going,” Regehr says.
“[Basic income] is a policy that, despite some of
it’s complexities, is much simpler, much quicker,
and much more effective and efficient to do, that
will help keep people going while we figure out all
of these other problems.”
Santens is convinced that basic income will soon
be the norm. Switzerland is heading to a national
referendum on the issue in early June, and a
major charitable organization just dedicated $30
million to run and gather data on basic income in
Kenya and Uganda.
With growing economic inequality and fewer
job opportunities, there’s no other alternative.
As companies aim to increase their bottom line
through automation and outsourcing, politicians
shouldn’t be dedicated to bridging that everwidening
gap.
“If we get machines to do all that work, then we
should be better off from that,” he says. “Basic
income is an important next step for humanity...
not just because of technology, but as a big step
forward for progress.”
Scott
Santens>>
Writer and
advocate of
basic income
8
MAY 2016 Vol. 04 | Issue 05