Why You Be I?
About 97 million more people are living on less than $1.90 a day because of the pandemic, increasing the global poverty rate from 7.8% to 9.1%. Poorer countries are contending with a deeper, longer-lasting crisis that has increased global poverty.
This is increasing the incidence of looting and pillaging globally.
As you would expect, those doing the looting tend to be younger – below 40. This is not only because of the pandemic. The pandemic is just the spark that has ignited the ‘youth bomb’ which has been building for many years. By 2030, the target date for the sustainable development goals, the number of youth is projected to have grown by 7 per cent, to nearly 1.3 billion. Asia will be home to more youth than any other region until around 2080, when it could be surpassed by Africa according to UN projections. In Africa, the number of youth is growing rapidly. In 2015, 226 million youth aged 15-24 lived in Africa, accounting for 19 per cent of the global youth population. By 2030, it is projected that the number of youth in Africa will have increased by 42 per cent. Africa’s youth population is expected to continue to grow throughout the remainder of the 21st century, more than doubling from current levels by 2055.
That is why we need Universal Basic Income NOW. Or, if you prefer, a Permanent Dividend Programme.
As Buckminster Fuller said, 'Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment. . . . Humanity is in "final exam" as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in Universe'.
Naomi Klein: 'We will need to rebuild the public sphere, reverse privatizations, relocalize large parts of economies, scale back overconsumption, bring back long-term planning, heavily regulate and tax corporations, maybe even nationalize some of them, cut military spending, and recognize our debts to the Global South.” She goes on to say that we have very little time to do this.
The above alone should be enough to convince you. If not, consider:
An increased use of AI will likely eliminate more jobs than it creates, a worry that is especially high among the youth and among blue-collar workers.
Some estimate that anywhere between 47 and 80 percent of current jobs could be automated in the next two decades.
If funded through some of the wealth produced by automation, UBI would further enable communities to harness some of the profits of automation to keep a stable and generous income floor across society under conditions of large technological unemployment. a UBI for all could lead to a reduction of working hours among those who still have a job, which could then free up positions for those out of work, thus facilitating job-sharing.
The pandemic has caused a significant trend of economic dislocation and wealth concentration, which may be sufficient to justify UBI as a redistributive measure even without the hypothetical threat to future jobs.
On the other hand, UBI will stimulate advancement of automation. UBI will enable some workers to reject minimum wage, mind-numbing & soul destroying jobs. Thereby forcing an increase in the pace of automation.
I think it is short-sighted to fight automation. Rather we should embrace it, and use the benefits gained to improve the quality of life on earth. Not only for humans.
If UBI impacts labor force participation, for instance by enabling a reduction of hours of formal labor, it may free up citizens’ time to engage in civic participation.
The effect of income on voter turnout is largest at the lower end of the income distribution. If low-income citizens do not participate because of economic barriers, such as the inability to take time off from work or to find childcare on election day, then a significant UBI would help increase opportunities for electoral participation.
There is also some evidence that the children of those who exit poverty are more likely to vote which suggests a robust UBI could have long reaching effects on political participation.
There is some evidence of young adults receiving a basic income replacing workforce participation with education
There is some evidence that cash transfers do improve the standing of women within households, making them more economically independent and/or giving them greater power in household decision-making.
Subsistence, like political participation, is a fundamental democratic right. rights concerning political participation (e.g., enfranchisement, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly) cannot be maintained without the equal protection of rights related to economic independence.
Arguing against universal basic income is like arguing against universal suffrage, that is, it is intrinsically anti-democratic. Free speech, for example, is undermined if your economic dependency means you cannot express political disagreement with your boss.
Across 27 countries polled, a median of 51 percent of people were dissatisfied with the current functioning of democracy in their countries.
‘Universal’ means that everybody gets it, rich or poor.
Economic inequality, such as highly unequal incomes, and social inequality, such as the existence of unequal rewards and opportunities for various social positions, have been found in empirical research to negatively impact social cohesion.
If people have more time for activities in which they engage with others, such as getting an education or participating in volunteer work, they may have wider social networks and thus create more social cohesion.
UBI might also impact the trust that citizens have in the state, which is yet another axis of democratic legitimacy.
An online UBI might even improve perceptions of government legitimacy more, as it removes some possibilities for corruption and micro-domination in service-provision.
Evidence shows that high levels of income inequality lead to crime, bad health, and low population-wide happiness. A UBI could reduce income inequality in at least four ways.
The payment will represent a larger share of an individual’s total income for poorer households than for those who are higher on the income distribution, thus reducing relative inequities.
A UBI could reduce income inequality if its funding mechanism had a gap-reducing effect—for example, if the UBI was funded through a progressive tax, such as wealth taxes (Henry, 2014) and “data taxes”.
A UBI provides income security that may allow individuals to pursue education or to change their employment, thus growing long-term income.
A UBI could reduce income inequality by allowing low-income individuals to invest in crucial property and financial assets that grow in value over time.
Most findings from developing economies show significant positive impact on consumption expenditures in the short-term.
Evidence in four African countries finds that relatively large, regular and predictable unconditional cash transfers significantly increased the quantity and quality of food consumed a significant increase in income-generating activities among recipients of the cash transfers.
At what age should it start? In Kenya, adult labor supply was found to increase, and child labor found to decrease in response to the Cash Transfer Program for Orphans and Vulnerable Children.
Similar boosts in workforce participation and employment were reported for South Africa’s three targeted unconditional cash transfer programs.
In four African countries, for instance, showed that cash transfer helped farmers diversify their sources of income, making them less prone to environmental risks and mitigating their need to migrate out.
Having access to a UBI in one’s own country could decrease the need to migrate to another country. Especially in the light of climate change. A UBI tied to residency could make it harder for migrants to be allowed in the host country in the first place. This is the harsh reality we are facing.
A UBI tied to residency could make it harder for migrants to be allowed in the host country in the first place.
It may then allow for savings and investment of additional income into productive assets.
Savings also act as a safety net for people to participate in productive activities such as education and take up riskier enterprises such as entrepreneurship.
Female heads of household with young children dropped out of work at the highest rate to take longer maternity leaves.
Younger men reduced work hours to remain in school longer.
Economic dependency within the household, scholars and activists argue, is a major source of gender inequality.
It can also limit the dependent spouse’s exit options, which is particularly concerning in cases of domestic abuse
Men and women have fewer egalitarian attitudes in contexts where there is more economic dependency: it contributes to the sense that house- and care-work is “women’s work”.
Potentially leveling intra-household power dynamics and limiting the ways in which current economic and legal systems (e.g., citizenship restrictions and employment discrimination) reinforce one another to trap women in dependent relationships.
The psychological well-being index suggests that women’s well-being is highly correlated with female empowerment.
More women will be given access to financial services.
Resulting in improvements in girls nutrition and increases in girls enrollment in secondary education.
Basic income will likely lead to an increase in private health care use, causing a lower burden on the healthcare system.
Universal income could reduce some of the barriers to accessing necessary medicines and make access to medicine more equitable.
UBI could improve access to preventative health care services thus reducing the incidence of disease and more expensive health care services.
UBI may increase one’s access to dental health services and therefore reduce the risk factors associated with oral diseases and other chronic diseases. Many of the risk factors associated with chronic diseases are also applicable for oral diseases, such as diet and hygiene, smoking, alcohol, risky behaviors causing injuries, and stress.
UBI can help improve mental health and reduce the risk of mental health disorders by improving an individual’s financial security and mobility. Economic insecurity is increasingly cited as one of the key socioeconomic determinants of mental health.
UBI may also indirectly impact wellbeing by reducing workers’ dependence on insecure or low-wage jobs.
A UBI would only have a limited impact in reducing the occupational insecurities associated with outsourcing or the gig economy, but if it were to help transform precocity and unemployment from a state of insecurity to a state of voluntary flexibility, then it could plausibly also improve mental health.
A UBI could possibly give people increased access to housing in neighborhoods with higher quality community services and community participation.
The guilt often felt for receiving and spending ‘free money’ is caused by delusions perpetrated by Christian Protestant brainwashing, for one.1 “...we are, psychologically, back in the 17th century”2, as far as money is concerned.
If a UBI payment were to be more regular and predictable (as opposed to irregular large cash payments or a single lump sum) it may contribute to a reduction in poor outcomes and financial stress, and therefore improved mental health.
Strong evidence suggests that an absolute increase in an individual’s income floor would directly improve health outcomes.
A UBI could possibly minimize the health risks associated with higher rates of chronic disease and illness among adults and children by addressing the underlying socioeconomic and environmental circumstances.
UBI could minimize these risks because it serves as a form of income security or insurance, whether or not an individual works.
If a UBI was funded progressively, it could reduce some of the health inequities among individuals living in low income communities by allowing for increased access to quality services and housing.
A UBI could potentially mitigate some of the consequences of racialized welfare stereotypes.
A UBI, unlike other welfare reforms, normalizes social assistance because it is administered universally to each citizen, regardless of individual financial status, thus making it more difficult to fuel the myth that recipients are disproportionately Black and female.
Turning all residents of a national community into a recipient could alleviate some of the stigma connected with receiving public assistance.
UBI could help challenge the current racial and gendered narratives about the importance of other types of work, including caregiving (such as caring for an older adult, disabled person or child) which is currently largely performed by women of color.
Net-beneficiaries of UBI might still be resented by those who are net contributors, and so patterns of stigmatization and demonization could survive the change. (See 'guilt' above).
Job precariousness:
The introduction of a basic income, in itself, cannot fix the structural problems of today’s labor market, and it is unlikely to have a direct effect on the loss of more secure jobs.
By empowering workers and increasing workers’ independence, it could also help transform unemployment from a state of insecurity to a state of voluntary flexibility, allowing individuals to choose when and how much to work without imposing on them the financial insecurity that is associated with the gig economy.
Note that UBI does not replace the need for workplace regulations that prevent the labor market from becoming too precarious in the first place.
Unemployment:
UBI might help challenge the existing power dynamic by better empowering individual workers than existing safety nets.
By providing a stable source of income that is independent of work, UBI might offer an alternative route to empower workers: through an increased ability to exit unsatisfactory work contract, it could help workers gain more bargaining power and could help weaken the current asymmetry in power between workers and employers.
By increasing workers’ option set, UBI could thus empower individuals to say “no” to bad, lower-paying, degrading, and hazardous jobs.
it could also increase their ability to say “yes” to more intrinsically rewarding work opportunities, even if those are part-time or on a self-employed basis
Even if UBI would not provide all individuals with the freedom to say “no” to any job for any length of time, empirical data suggest that it could allow individuals to take longer periods of time between jobs and to spend more time looking for new jobs, thus increasing their ability to say “no” to bad jobs.
UBI does not directly lessen an employer’s legal prerogatives, nor does it give workers additional power within their firm’s structure.
UBI might increase individual bargaining power, it does not necessarily help empower the working class collectively. This is significant, because without an organized working class, it is hard to envision a world in which the business class would agree to a UBI large enough to allow for deep transformations of the labor market in workers’ favor.
Work beyond jobs:
Despite being essential and meaningful, other forms of work such as caregiving and community work are often undervalued and underpaid.
UBI has the potential to indirectly contribute to a broadening of what counts as productive work.
UBI would provide each individual with a basic income regardless of employment, and so it would increase financial security among unwaged caregivers and reduce their current financial dependence on working spouses.
UBI could transform the labor market by allowing people to shift from seeing jobs as a mere means of acquiring money to seeing them as a way to express personal engagement, interest, and commitment.
Are we convinced yet? If not, here's more:
Reduced malnutrition, across the board.
Might help prevent the collapse of the middle class through the pressure of unending inequality.
Improved relations in labour markets
Streamline the chaotic plethora of state-provided schemes
More individual liquidity leading to less counter-productive bureaucracy and conditions.
Less dependence on poor government sponsored education systems.
‘But where will the money come from?’, I hear you cry. The Institute for Economist Justice in South Africa issued a policy document which goes a long way to showing how it can be done with taxpayers money:
Some of this will apply to your particular country, some not. The point being: even a economically straightened country like South Africa can provide UBI for food, at least.
The Alaskan Permanent Fund Dividend Programme invests half the funds received from oil revenue to keep up with inflation, at least. But recently it has not kept up with inflation. So clearly any fund of this nature must invest for growth, as well as inflation. There are signs that the Alaskan government wants to use the funds for purposes other than basic income. That is why any project like this has to be ring-fenced. Hello, smart contracts!
However, I wouldn’t trust my government to do this, even if it was willing. Statistically speaking, it’s probable that your government is similarly afflicted.
Our old friend Buckminster Fuller: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Whether it’s called UBI or PDP, what if a fund is created to generate stable income via interest rates and/or conservative trading? What if this can happen even when the market is contracting instead of growing, at least to some extent?
It seems to me that we have entered an era where all trading on all markets is dominated by increasingly sophisticated bots, operating in milliseconds or less. I think this is leading towards less volatility, less ‘stampeding’ caused by emotion (in either direction), and therefore more stability in general.
Cryptography is one of the very few fields where adversarial conflict continues to heavily favor the defender. Castles are far easier to destroy than build, islands are defendable but can still be attacked, but an average person’s ECC keys are secure enough to resist even state-level actors. Cypherpunk philosophy is fundamentally about leveraging this precious asymmetry to create a world that better preserves the autonomy of the individual, and cryptoeconomics is to some extent an extension of that, except this time protecting the safety and liveness of complex systems of coordination and collaboration.
In many modern blockchain systems the integrity of the ledger is supported by the Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, rather than the Proof of Work (PoW) protocol used in e.g. Bitcoin. This means that to validate a transaction, one does not need to dedicate an excessive amount of energy and computational power to solve a cryptographic puzzle, to ‘mine’ a coin. Instead, in PoS networks, a validator needs to show that one holds a sufficient amount of the currency (i.e. stake) within the system such that it would be against one’s interest to act maliciously. By lending money to validators, one is allowing them to qualify to do their jobs. This process, sometimes called ‘staking’, means that putting money down for a fixed term can be of intrinsic economic value, as staking is key to the financial efficiency, security, and guaranteed integrity of the blockchain bookkeeping system. As long as a PoS ecosystem is able to derive utility and value with decentralized finance applications, e.g. for trading, there will be demand for staking. As such, savers can be rewarded in a sustainable way, as they support the generation of financial services and products provided by the PoS network - not entirely unlike why bankers and corporate lawyers are paid good salaries in the traditional financial system, even during downturns.
Of course, the proposed UBI or PDP must be run by a non-profit organization, and naturally it will remain open source. Furthermore, it should also use dPoS - Democratic Proof of Stake. dPoS is a more democratic way of choosing who verifies the next block, allowing a more diverse group of people to participate in the process since it’s based on earned reputation as a lawful staker and not overall wealth. Additionally, because there are a limited number of validators, DPoS allows the network to reach consensus more quickly.
Is this complex, or mind bending, or what? But what choice do we have, if we want to maintain civilization at a reasonable level globally? Refer back to Naomi Klein.
Proof of Humanity (as opposed to a bot) offers an interesting solution to the problem of identification. The DAO labelled 'Humans'. NO centralized or even semi-centralized authority. We would all have to vouch for each other. They have already issued a token labelled UBI. Any verified submission on Proof of Humanity can begin accruing newly-minted UBI tokens every second that will get streamed directly to their address. The first 100% democratic DAO built on Ethereum (1 person = 1 vote). Each verified human can accrue 1 UBI per hour = 720 UBI per month. Liquidity is provided by mining.
Which ties in nicely with Liquid Democracy on blockchain...