radiofree.asia

Author: esoperations

  • Explosive court ruling on SRD grant in South Africa

    By Marecia Damons

    See original post here.

    Government ordered to “progressively increase” the grant and income threshold, and allow in-person applications.

    • The Pretoria High Court has declared some Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant regulations unconstitutional.
    • This included the online-only application requirement, the R624 monthly income threshold, and the grant’s value.
    • Judge Leonard Twala ordered the government to progressively increase the grant to align with inflation and the cost of living.
    • The judge said that gifts and once-off payments must be excluded from the income threshold.
    • Advocacy groups IEJ and #PayTheGrants welcomed the judgment, calling it a victory for South Africans and activists who tirelessly fight for better social assistance policies.

    Regulations limiting the access to the R370-a-month Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant are unconstitutional and invalid, the high court in Pretoria ruled on Thursday. The court also ordered the government to increase the grant amount and the income threshold to qualify for it.

    Introduced in 2020 as an emergency response to the Covid pandemic, the SRD grant was initially set to last six months but has been extended annually. The value of the grant was raised from R350 to R370 in April 2024. The grant is available to people who get less than R625 per month, with SASSA conducting monthly checks on applicants’ bank accounts to ensure they continue to meet this criteria. This often means millions of people receiving financial donations or assistance from friends and relatives, are excluded from receiving the grant.

    In October 2024, the #PayTheGrants campaign and the Institute of Economic Justice (IEJ) challenged the government’s SRD grant regulations, arguing that these rules exclude millions of potentially eligible South Africans.

    Among the issues raised were the exclusive reliance on online applications, the definition of income and financial support, and the reduction of the income threshold for eligibility. They also asked the court to declare that SASSA’s failure to pay successful applicants the SRD grant, timeously or at all, is unconstitutional and unlawful.

    The case was heard by Judge Leonard Twala. Advocate Jason Brickhill from the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI), for the applicants, argued that the SRD grant’s regulations created significant barriers for vulnerable groups, particularly by restricting applications to online submissions. He said this excluded many people without access to smartphones, computers, or the internet. He said that SASSA’S R624 income threshold test included “any income”, meaning those who receive another grant on behalf of the beneficiary like the child support or disability grants, were automatically disqualified.

    Advocate Gilbert Marcus, representing the National Treasury, argued that adjusting the SRD grant for inflation could impact the other seven social assistance grants. He said the SRD grant was meant to be temporary and cautioned that expanding it could undermine broader poverty reduction strategies focused on economic growth and job creation.

    Marcus emphasised the government’s fiscal challenges, adding that expenditure exceeds revenue by R322-billion.

    Read the judgment here.

    After the National State of Disaster ended in April 2022, the grant was moved from the Disaster Management Act to the Department of Social Development’s (DSD) Social Assistance Act (SAA). New regulations reduced the monthly income threshold from R595 to R350, and limited applications to online submissions. Bank verification was also used to assess applicants’ financial means each month.

    In his ruling, Judge Twala noted that the shift in regulations led to a sharp drop in successful applicants. From March to April 2022, applications decreased from over 15.8-million to 8-million, and approvals fell from about 11-million to 5.6-million.

    The number of successful applicants continued to decrease, with only about 8-million of 14-million applicants approved by March 2023. This reduction resulted in Treasury cutting its budget for the SRD grant from R44-billion to R36-billion in 2023/2024, the judgment read.

    Twala agreed with the government that when public money is used to provide benefits to citizens, procedural safeguards are necessary. But he said that these must be “reasonable and fair”.

    He said there was “no reasonable justification” to subject potential beneficiaries, “who are mainly poor and vulnerable members of society, to a solely online application process”. He agreed with the applicants that the majority of people with insufficient means to support themselves and their dependents do not have smartphones, access to computers and the internet.

    Judge Twala noted that up to 15% of successful applicants do not receive their grant payments each month. “The respondents offered no defence for the non-payment of the SRD grant to successful applicants except to say that the system experienced some teething problems and that some of the successful applicants failed to furnish their correct banking information and cellphone numbers.”

    “The SRD grant is meant for poor people and to alleviate hunger. For this group of society to not receive the grant timeously or at all has dire consequences,” Twala said.

    Activists welcome ruling

    In his ruling, Judge Twala declared that the regulation restricting applications to an online platform is unconstitutional and must be amended to allow in-person applications.

    He also ordered that the definition of “income” be changed to include only regular payments from formal or informal employment, business activities, or investments, excluding once-off payments or gifts. (SASSA’s system is not currently implemented in a way that can differentiate between these categories and it’s unclear how this can be done. – Editor)

    Judge Twala ruled that the fixed income threshold of R624 per month was “unconstitutional and invalid”. He directed the government to “progressively increase the threshold” in a manner that takes into account “the right to social assistance, inflation, and the cost of living”.

    The ruling also found the grant value to be insufficient.

    Twala ordered the Social Development minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to “devise and implement a plan to redress the retrogression in the value of the SRD grant and income threshold and progressively increase the value of the SRD grant”. This plan must be delivered to the court in four months.

    This ruling has been welcomed by Gilad Isaacs of the IEJ, calling it a crucial victory for vulnerable South Africans. “The judgment refuses to allow the National Treasury to justify indignities visited on the most vulnerable by claiming that the enjoyment of our rights is unaffordable,” he said.

    Elizabeth Raiters, deputy chair of #PayTheGrants, said, “This is a great day not only for beneficiaries but also for the activists of #PayTheGrants who have been working tirelessly with no funding, no proper resources, only maybe a broken cellphone in their hands and some data,” Raiters said. “I hope the government can start working together with NGOs like #PayTheGrants … Hand in hand these issues can be solved.”

    In a brief statement the Department of Social Development said: “The Department is studying the judgement and will respond in due course.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Wealth inequality risks triggering ‘societal collapse’ within next decade, report finds

    By King’s College London

    See original post here.

    The warning comes from an expert roundtable led by researchers from King’s and the Fairness Foundation

    Growing wealth inequality in the UK could be a “major driver of societal collapse” within the next decade, according to a new report.

    The warning comes from an expert roundtable of senior figures from politics, government, academia, business and civil society, which concluded the country is currently on a trajectory of decline, with wealth inequality undermining social cohesion and a risk of further deterioration without intervention.

    The report, by the Fairness Foundation and the Policy Institute and Department of War Studies at King’s College London, also looked at public attitudes, finding two-thirds (63%) of Britons now think the very rich have too much influence on politics in the UK – far higher than the share who say the same about businesses (40%), religious organisation (40%) or international organisations like the EU and UN (38%).

    Teetering on the brink

    The participants identified a negative feedback loop, whereby the government’s failure to tax wealth effectively means it lacks sufficient revenue to uphold the social contract by which strong public services, an effective social safety net and a healthy economy provide people with decent living standards.

    Trust in politics then declines further, politicians avoid honest discussions of the underlying problems and what to do about them, and the system’s legitimacy is increasingly questioned as the social contract collapses.

    A range of possible triggers

    The roundtable identified multiple possible triggers for societal disintegration linked to, or exacerbated by wealth inequality.

    These range from economic crises (such as runaway inflation and currency collapse) to climate events (such as a catastrophic failure of the Thames Barrier, or crop failures elsewhere in the world) and technological disruption (such as AI-linked mass unemployment and advances in quantum computing ending privacy as we know it).

    The participants also highlighted several theoretical frameworks identify rising wealth inequality as a driver of societal disintegration and collapse.

    For example, the scientist Peter Turchin collates historical evidence to argue that growing poverty, combined with wealth inequality and “elite over­production” – where too many people compete for too few top jobs or positions in society º tends to result in societal collapse in the absence of determined action to avert it.

    James Perry, who participated in the roundtable and is a member of Patriotic Millionaires UK, said:

    “Wealth inequality presents a strategic risk to the UK’s economy, society, democracy and environment. The workshop organised by the Fairness Foundation and King’s College London clearly showed the breadth and depth of concern not only about the negative impacts of wealth inequality that we are already seeing, but also about the risks that these impacts could spiral out of control over the coming years. Urgent action is required”.

    Katie Barnes, Executive Director of the National Preparedness Commission, said:

    “The UK’s capacity to respond, cope with and recover from a range of complex risks relies on the individual and collective resilience of our citizens. That means healthy, fit and happy people with a sense of engagement in their community and wider society. Growing inequality presents a genuine risk to that resilience, acting as both cause and amplifier of multiple societal challenges. Adding ‘growing inequality’ as a chronic risk on the Government’s national risk register would be a pragmatic first step towards tackling this problem”.

    Will Snell, Chief Executive of the Fairness Foundation, said:

    “We didn’t expect a diverse group of senior people drawn from government, business and civil society to unanimously recognise the growing risks of wealth inequality in the UK. And yet the consensus in the room was that the risks were so grave that a catastrophic scenario like societal collapse was feasible within the next decade. One of the factors that undermines social cohesion is the public losing faith in democracy, and we are seeing the warning signs of that today, with our new polling showing that two in three Britons think that the very rich have too much influence on UK politics”.

    Dr Jeni Mitchell, Director of the Future Threats Lab at King’s College London, said:

    “It was troubling to see how quickly our workshop participants were able to construct scenarios in which wealth inequality contributed to spiralling societal breakdown in the UK. The day was not entirely without hope: our discussions also generated an impressive range of measures that could help alleviate this crisis. Yet there is little sign that such measures might be considered or pursued anytime soon, making it more likely that wealth inequality will deepen and become even more intractable. We must face the uncomfortable fact that, left unchecked, wealth inequality will threaten the stability and security of this country”.

    Suzanne Hall, Director of Engagement at the Policy Institute, King’s College London, said:

    “This work shows that we need urgent action on wealth inequality. The consequences of doing nothing are simply too grave. It is, however, the cause of some hope that these stakeholders were able to identify a number of practical policy changes and other interventions we can make to avert the risks posed by growing inequality. This study also demonstrates that when you bring people together from diverse backgrounds – in this instance senior leaders from across the political divide and a range of business sectors – to deliberate on a complex problem then people are able to work together to solve it. These approaches need to be mainstreamed if we are to tackle the intractable social problems society faces today”.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Top AI Investor Says Goal is to Crash Human Wages

    By Frank Landymore

    See original post here.

    What a Noble Vision

    Marc Andreessen, cofounder of the massive venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz — which has its fingers in pretty much every pie in tech — has revealed an eyebrow-raising detail in his “techno-optimist” vision of the future.

    In a recent tweet, the American billionaire investor casually proclaimed that AI must “crash” everyone’s wages before it can deliver us an economic utopia — one that’ll definitely happen, and certainly not create a permanent underclass of have-nots.

    “A world in which human wages crash from AI — logically, necessarily — is a world in which productivity growth goes through the roof, and prices for goods and services crash to near zero,” Andreessen wrote. “Consumer cornucopia. Everything you need and want for pennies.”

    So fret not, lowly laborer: you may be destined for financial ruin, but paradise is right around the corner. Pinky promise.

    Suck It Up

    Andreessen’s tweet is a revealing example of the ruthless economic logic that underlies tech moguls’ utopic visions of the future, in which progress is a foregone conclusion, rendering everyone’s economic suffering in the interim merely a means to an end. Like overzealous fitness instructors, they always choose to emphasize the need for pain to achieve anything.

    The author of “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto,” Andreessen also embodies how these brutal economic paradigm shifts are dressed up in benign rhetoric. AI-induced wage collapse is a consequence that happens “logically” and “necessarily,” according to the billionaire.

    Somehow, none of these AI evangelists’ “optimistic” visions involve immediately improving people’s lives in a meaningful way, or foreground measures to mitigate the tech’s massively disruptive potential to the job market, except perhaps with broad gestures to a universal basic income — an idea that Andreessen, ever the unapologetic capitalist, happens to hate. (Per his manifesto, it would turn us all into “zoo animals.”) 

    Bow Down

    Above all, many of these ultra-rich tech types like Andreessen can’t help publicly fantasizing about punishing the poor.

    Larry Ellison for instance, cofounder of the software outfit Oracle, drooled about how AI would supercharge the surveillance state, ensuring that “citizens will be on their best behavior.”

    When asked in an interview about AI killing creative jobs, OpenAI’s former chief technology officer Mira Murati glibly suggested that those jobs “shouldn’t have been there in the first place.”

    Andreessen seems to justify his disdain towards workers by claiming that many of them are “America-hating communists” who are infiltrating his companies and destroying them from the inside out.

    With such seething contempt towards their employees, it makes sense why all the richest people in the world are suddenly throwing ungodly amounts of money at technology to automate the jobs of the rank and file.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The Freedom From Want and Basic Income

    By Karl Widerquist

    See original post here.

    AUTHOR’S NOTE: this is an early draft of a section in a book I’m working on. I’m interested in any helpful feedback.

    – Karl Widerquist, Al Najada Hotel Apartments, January 24, 2025

                In 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered his famous, “Four Freedoms Speech,” which came to be seen as America’s ambition for a post-war world. These four freedoms, he declared, should be guaranteed to everyone around the globe. His list included the familiar freedoms of religion and expression and two less-familiar concepts: the freedom from fear and the freedom from want. He defined freedom from fear as the freedom from the threat of violence and the freedom from want as a decent standard of living.[i]

                A few years later, without referencing Roosevelt’s speech, the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” elaborated on what could be called the freedom from want, here conceived as a right rather than a liberty: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.”[ii]

                Neither Roosevelt’s speech nor the “Declaration” discussed why these freedoms are so important. I want to explain why these two liberties—most particularly the freedom from want but both in connection—should be understood as fundamental to the exercise virtually all of our other rights and freedoms. From that point, I’ll argue that UBI is the best way—in fact, the only truly effective way—to establish the freedom from want in the modern economy.

                Human beings are not game pieces. We are not theoretical abstractions. We are animals. And like all animals we have needs that must be met or we will suffer greatly and die. A person who lacks secure access to the goods they need to survive or to the resources with which they could produce those goods themselves is in a state of fear, duress, and desperation.

                The costs of poverty to physical and mental health and wellbeing are staggering and well-documented. But I don’t want to talk about the very poor just yet. I want to talk about how the fear that we could end up in a state of want affects all of us.

                When Roosevelt talked about the freedom from fear, he focused on the fear of violence, but we should think about it more widely and in conjunction with the freedom from want. Even if you’re not in a state of want at the moment, if the threat of economic destitution hangs over your head, you’re not really free from want. The fear of it will be in your thoughts and will affect your behavior.

                When our needs or the needs of our loved ones are under threat, we will be driven to do desperate things. Amartya Sen tells the story of Kader Mia, who left home during a riot when he knew people of his ethic group were being targeted. He was unfree to stay home because he needed to find work to feed his family. He was targeted and stabbed. He died in front of a very young Amartya Sen.[iii]

                Most people have not faced the level of acute desperation that Kader Mia did, but economic destitution has driven people to beg, to steal, to sell themselves into slavery, to prostitute their bodies, to accept exploitation, to endure sexual harassment, to risk their lives, or to sacrifice their long-term health for a decent living in the short term. The ever-present reality that the alternative to the labor market is economic destitution regularly drives many millions or, more likely, billions of people to accept lower wages and harsher working conditions than person who was genuinely free from want would reasonably accept. Observations like these lend Jean-Jaques Rousseau to argue, “[I]t is impossible to enslave a man without first putting him in a situation where he cannot do without another man.”

                Yet we live in a world where the vast majority of us spend our working lives with the fear of economic destitution constantly in the background. We pass homeless people and beggars on the streets, and we know that, if we failed to keep working, to keep money coming in, someday that would be us. Only the very wealthy, perhaps the top 1% or less, go through their entire working lives without the realistic possibility that they might end up destitute if they don’t keep working for bosses, clients, landlords, and banks.

                We might not think about it very much, but most of us, especially when we’re young, are only a few paychecks away from losing our homes. And that fact affects our behavior. We stay at jobs where we’re mistreated, underappreciated, and underpaid. We leave bad jobs, only when we’re confident we can find another quickly enough or when we have another option to cushion the blow. Education and retraining to improve our lives are dependent on fundraising, years of savings, or the ability to fit it in around our jobs. We accept extended hours when we might rather stick to the 40-hour work or negotiate a 30-workweek—if negotiation were possible for ordinary employees. We accept the mandated two weeks of vacation when we might rather have four weeks or more like people do in other countries.

                The fear of deprivation harms everyone who works for a living well up into the middle class. We, the 99%, accept a lot of crap that we wouldn’t accept if the fear of want wasn’t hanging over our heads. And accepting crap on the job is only way the lack of universal freedom from want negatively affects us all.

                Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, in their book, the Sprit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, present an enormous amount of evidence showing that inequality negatively affects everyone, not just the people at the bottom. It is associated with reduced life expectancy, poorer educational outcomes, higher crime, higher incidences of mental health problems, increased drug abuse, greater obesity, more unhappy children, increased bullying behavior, more social distrust, more suspicion, reduced economic growth, and greater distrust of fellow citizens.[iv] I discussed the ramifications of Wilkinson and Pickett’s findings in an earlier book:

    According to Wilkinson and Pickett, the reason inequality affects everyone is that the more a society is divided into haves and have-nots, the more mental, physical, and economic capital everyone has to expend to protect or improve their position. Every child grows up with more stress and fear about their future. Everyone spends more on “positional goods” that help them move up or maintain their place in the hierarchy. These goods don’t just include showy luxuries; they also include social necessities, such as entrance into the top schools at all levels of education. In societies with low levels of inequality and in which good quality education is available to all, parents don’t stress over getting their children into an elite elementary school.
                Of course, people at the top do get some benefits from living in a highly inequal society, but at some point, the additional benefits come down to easier-and-easier access to more-and-more luxuries, no amount of which can make up for the physical and psychic cost of living in a fearful and antagonistic society.[v]

                In this way, the negative effects of economic deprivation reach even the most privileged of us. But it harms some of us a lot more than others. As I discussed in my earlier book:

    According to the Poor People’s Campaign, 250,000 Americans die of complications of poverty and inequality every year. Child poverty alone costs the United States more than $1 trillion per year in lost economic productivity, health, increased crime and incarceration. Hunger costs $178.8 billion per year in health care expenses and educational outcomes. These figures ignore nonmonetary human costs. How much money is the death of a human being worth? What is the monetary value of building a society in which no child is forced by financial necessity to experience periods of hunger, malnutrition, and homelessness?
                The Poor People’s Campaign also provides evidence of how hunger, food insecurity, homelessness, and housing insecurity scar children in ways that are costly to them and to society as a whole throughout their future lives. Children who grow up in poverty complete two fewer years of schooling than average for all children; they work less; and they end up in worse health throughout their lives. Children and teenagers who experience poverty and homelessness are more vulnerable to physical maltreatment and sexual exploitation. Infant and childhood mortality are closely correlated to poverty.[vi]

                We would all benefit if we free ourself from the fear of economic depression, and we can do it, as Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in 1968, “I am now convinced that the simplest solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a new widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.”[vii] (“Guaranteed income” is a close cousin of UBI.[viii])

                For our purpose, the most important aspect of King’s words is the recognition that poverty is something that can be directly abolished. Poverty might seem like an intractable economic problem that many societies have tried over-and-over again to eliminate without success, but when you understand what poverty is, you can understand it in the way Nelson Mandela described, “Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is manmade, and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.”[ix] But as I will argue only a universal and unconditional program, like UBI, can do so.

                Poverty is the lack of the legal right to access the resources you need to survive and to live a decent life. It is not misuse of the money you have. People with money can live squalor, but they cannot live in poverty. Subsistence farmers, fishers, hunters and gatherers might not live well, but they do not experience the poverty propertyless people experience in a market economy. They do not experience what homeless people in the United States experience, when although they are perfectly capable of erecting a shelter, they have no place they can legally do it. They do not experience what people experienced during the Bengal famine when people starved to death in front of cake and pastry shops because they did not have money to buy food.[x]

                That poverty is a monetary phenomenon can be seen in the fact that every major famine in the last two centuries was caused not by a lack of food, but by a collapse of entitlements. Transportation lines that could be used to relieve food shortages have been used instead to move food out of famine areas because, when starving people have no money to buy food, the market sends food elsewhere.[xi] The cause of the Irish potato famine was not that people couldn’t eat potatoes, but that they had no potatoes to sell and no one wanted to buy their labor.

    These examples illustrate not only poverty but also market dependence. For most people in the world, the only means of survival is to buy goods in the market. Today, most of us have grown up dependent on the market. It seems so natural that our language doesn’t have a widely recognized term for it. But it is highly unnatural.

                In fact, market dependence is a very recent phenomenon created by the movement of peasants off the land during the colonial period. In early American history, most Americans were farmers who were capable of growing nearly everything they needed themselves. Before the arrival of White people in North America, few if any people north of the Rio Grande lacked the freedom from want. Few of them had any realistic fear that they would ever be unable to meet their basic needs for more than a day or two.[xii]

                No one disputes that the market has great advantages, but we could have established a market economy without taking away everyone’s freedom from want and the fear of it. We could reestablish the freedom from want by introducing a UBI high enough to live on.

                Despite what market propagandists say about low-income people “lacking opportunity” rather than “freedom,” the freedom from want is freedom. We are market dependent because aggressive governments seized land mostly from people who treated it as an equal-access commons and then made laws privatizing the Earth and its resources without making provisions to ensure access to the resources necessary to secure the freedom from want for everyone. If you have no money, wherever you go, someone will interfere with any attempt you make to use the Earth and its resources to meet your own needs. That is profound unfreedom in the most negative sense of the term.

                For those of us in the 99%, dependence on the market in general implies dependence on the labor market in particular. And labor market dependence implies that the freedom from want is never fully secure. The default position in our economy is homelessness. When you come of age, if you fail to work, fail to qualify for any government program, and fail to receive sufficient gifts of wealth from your family or anyone else, you will be destitute. Throughout your working life, as long as you fail to become independently wealthy, you will eventually return to that default if you, for whatever reason, stop working, fail to qualify for a sufficient government program, and fail to receive gifts.

                You might enter the labor market because you have great opportunities, but whether your opportunities are great or terrible, you will enter the labor market because the default position for someone who refuses is begging, eating out of dumpsters, and sleeping on the sidewalk. We do not need to be that cruel. A system where the fear of want cruelly hangs over the heads of the 99% as they enter and spend their lives in the labor market is a cruel system with no claim to call itself “free trade.”

                Labor market dependence neither follows from nor promotes freedom as we can see clearly from the discussion above. Yet, it is fact of life for most Americans for most of their lives.

                I don’t know how to eliminate market dependence in a world of 8 billion people, but I do know how to eliminate labor market dependence and the poverty and fear of economic destitution that are inherent to it. Introduce UBI: put a floor under everyone’s income large enough to meet their basic needs.

                If you’re serious about eliminating poverty and economic destitution, “abolish it directly” as Martin Luther King advised. More and more, progressives are coming to the realization that UBI is what we need to fight for. It’s no panacea, but it makes most of our other social and economic problems easier to solve. It makes things enormously better for the people who need it most, and helps people right up the scale.

    [i] Roosevelt, “President Franklin Roosevelt’s Annual Message (Four Freedoms) to Congress (1941).”

    [ii] United-Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

    [iii] Sen, Development as Freedom.

    [iv] Wilkinson and Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better.

    [v] Widerquist, Universal Basic Income: Essential Knowledge.

    [vi] Widerquist.

    [vii] King, Where Do We Go from Here : Chaos or Community?

    [viii] For the technical differences see Widerquist, Universal Basic Income: Essential Knowledge.

    [ix] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/feb/03/hearafrica05.development

    [x] Sen, Development as Freedom.

    [xi] Sen.

    [xii] Widerquist and McCall, The Prehistory of Private Property: Implications for Modern Political Theory; Widerquist and McCall, Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Women to get $20,000 each from new-mom program investing $10M in Appalachia

    By Sierra Marling

    See original post here

    A New York-based initiative called The Bridge Project that gives no-strings-attached cash to pregnant women is expanding to Appalachia, promising a $10 million investment for families in West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio over the next three years.

    Justine Daros lives with her husband and their son, Attilio, in North Carolina as a stay-at-home mom. She recalled the help she received from The Bridge Project, and credits it with making her a better parent.

    Daros said the program empowered her to be a more informed first-time mother in New York City. She was 32 when she gave birth to Attilio. Then, when the COVID lockdowns came, she was even more on edge as a security guard, especially since she was classified as an essential worker.

    She kept working and joined local programs to try to improve her life and transition to motherhood. That’s how she found The Bridge Project, which allowed her to work less and spend time with Attilio.

    The guaranteed cash also helped alleviate daily financial stresses.

    “Having the autonomy to make the choices that I deemed appropriate for my family was liberating,” she said. Other programs, like SNAP and WIC, have strict income limits and may not fit every family’s needs. Doras said The Bridge Project funds kept her from taking food from the table to pay for child care or other expenses.

    “I also had a little more leeway when it came to what I could do for myself. Because you always have to take care of yourself.”

    She said she especially valued the educational resources from the program, which taught her budgeting and other essentials that kept her family on its feet. The program’s community also connected her with other new mothers in similar situations.

    “I didn’t have any friends who had kids, so it was good to find people who had children,” she said.

    Building a Bridge

    Funded by a private family foundation called The Monarch Foundation, The Bridge Project will provide financial support to 1,250 Appalachian mothers, while researching the effects of direct cash payments on maternal and child health. 

    “Our founders really cared a lot about supporting infants during the early parts of the COVID crisis,” Executive Director Laura Clancy said. The realization that direct cash was more efficient than material donations inspired the initiative.

    The program has supported mothers in New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Milwaukee and statewide in Connecticut. Its expansion into Appalachia will target 1,250 participants, with 500 in a “high cash” group receiving the typical program benefits and 750 in a “low cash” group compensated for participating in research surveys and interviews.

    The initiative’s expansion aims to address systemic poverty in Appalachia. To that end, the Appalachian Regional Commission reports:

    • 19% of children in Appalachia live in poverty
    • Food insecurity affects one in six
    • Infant mortality rate in the Appalachian region exceeds the national average by 16%

    Supporters and detractors

    According to Clancy, The Bridge Project contributes to work already being done in the region by partnering with regional organizations and connecting new moms to already available resources. Clancy said they hosted webinars to gauge interest and more than 300 prospective partners took part.

    “We try and do our best to connect moms to the resources in their communities,” she said. “So the fact that 370 [Appalachian-focused] organizations came to our webinars also means that we have 370 organizations that are cheering our moms on.”

    Lida Shepherd — who serves as program director for the West Virginia Economic Justice Project, which is part of the Quaker organization American Friends Service Committee — is one of the partners moving forward with The Bridge Project.

    She said she believes that the project aligns with West Virginia’s culture and history of providing mutual aid to friends and neighbors as well as AFSC’s focus on influencing policy around economic justice and issues affecting poor and low-income populations.

    Plus, these programs work to help low-income and disadvantaged Americans, she said, citing a decreased level of child poverty rates when the Child Tax Credit was expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic and more-than-doubled when the rate returned to normal. 

    That’s why they hope to partner with The Bridge Project to influence policy for guaranteed income and grow the number of organizations helping offer it.

    “We have a very rich and celebrated history of not just hard-working people, but really looking out for one another. That’s the beautiful thing about West Virginia. The reality, too, is that we have a lot of people who are living on the brink and kids slipping into poverty. Programs like this … just really create economic opportunity for people and give families in Appalachia the financial freedom they deserve,” she said.

    Clancy noted that guaranteed income plans, including expanding the child income tax credit,  have also seen supporters on both sides of the political spectrum.

    She said, in the case of The Bridge Project, “People understand that babies haven’t done anything wrong. Babies need food, and shelter, and clothes and diapers, and moms make really good decisions.”

    However, the West Virginia legislature has historically been wary of such guaranteed cash programs.

    In the 2024 legislative session, Delegate Evan Worrell, R-Cabell, introduced House Bill 5375, which died in committee. 

    The purpose of this legislation was to prohibit government entities from enacting their own universal basic income programs like The Bridge Project.

    In an email to the Gazette-Mail, Worrell said, “With one of the lowest workforce participation rates in the country, West Virginia needs to focus on putting people to work by providing opportunities through economic development and growth. A universal basic income entitlement program goes against these priorities and is an insult to the hardworking men and women in West Virginia who work to provide for their families.”

    While he also noted he has not finalized his legislative priorities for the upcoming session and that he is not familiar with The Bridge Project, he stated, “I can say with certainty any ‘guaranteed income’ entitlement program will not be welcomed in West Virginia.”

    What the data says

    Research shows the importance of early childhood development in determining long-term success in life, including Nobel Prize winner James Heckman, whose work demonstrates that child development yields higher long-term societal benefits compared to investing in older populations.

    “There’s a lot of [medical, economic and workforce] research … that shows that pregnancy and the first 1,000 days of life are incredibly important, formative times in women’s lives and in their babies’ lives,” Clancy said. “And there’s a lot of research about how early adverse experiences of not having enough food and stable housing have bad negative long-term impacts on a baby.”

    Data gathered from The Bridge Project’s previous cohorts has shown the following benefits of providing unconditional cash:

    • Moms could better afford child care
    • Participants could build up emergency savings
    • Decreased stress 
    • Increased harmony within the household
    • Positive effect on employment

    Clancy said that data gathered from the Appalachian cohort’s randomized control trial will be available to inform future policy efforts on providing unconditional cash.

    How it works & eligibility

    Eligible pregnant women receive a monthly cash transfer to be spent flexibly to cover basic needs and expenses, allowing families to use the funds as they see best for their circumstances. Participants receive between $375 and $750 monthly, with participants receiving over $20,000 over the course of the program. Participants can set up direct-deposit or receive a reloadable debit card. 

    Participants receive:

    • $1,125 one-time, upfront prenatal stipend
    • $750 per month for the first 15 months of program participation
    • $375 per month for the remaining 21 months of program participation

    Applicants must:

    • Live in the ARC-designated Appalachian counties within the states of Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia — includes all of West Virginia, 54 central and eastern Kentucky counties, and 32 eastern Ohio counties
    • Be 18 years or older
    • Have an annual household income of less than $44,000
    • Be 14 weeks pregnant or less, but must be pregnant

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Port Moody calls on province to trial universal basic income in its poverty plan

    By Patrick Penner

    See original post here.

    Port Moody is advocating for the province to test universal basic income (UBI) as a way of tackling poverty.

    On Tuesday, council endorsed a wide-ranging list of requests to be sent to B.C. Premier David Eby as well as the minister of housing, the minister of social development and poverty reduction, the Lower Mainland Local Government Association, and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

    The motion, introduced by Couns. Amy Lubik and Samantha Agtarap, contended the province’s current poverty reduction strategy lacks concrete plans to reach its lofty targets.

    Lubik said that, while Port Moody does not hold the levers of power, the least it can do is advocate for change.

    “Wealth inequality manifests as health inequities and also costs us a great deal on human suffering level, but also on the health care system,” she said. “This is something that we think needs to be at least tested in B.C.”

    The BC NDP introduced its poverty strategy in 2019, which has expanded welfare, child care, tax credits, and increased the minimum wage. In March, 2024, it set new targets of reducing poverty by 60 percent, child poverty by 75 percent, and seniors’ poverty by 50 percent over the next decade.

    However, the motion states that child poverty, at-risk seniors, homelessness, and the reliance of foodbanks is increasing.

    The motion calls for social and disability income assistance to be raised to a minimum of 75 percent of the poverty line to target “deep poverty,” which impacts 50 percent of citizens living in poverty.

    Lubik said that one in 10 residents live in poverty, and those on basic assistance are often below the 50 percent poverty line threshold

    Her motion, quoting BC Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), stated that the rates for social assistance remain well below the poverty line, where people have to navigate clawbacks and restrictions which make escaping poverty “nearly impossible.”

    Other requests in the motion include reinstating poverty-reduction grants for local governments; eliminating welfare restrictions; timelines to reduce deep poverty; food security strategies; and Indigenous and senior-specific strategies.

    B.C.’s poverty strategy is currently lacking any financial support for local municipalities, but past grants have demonstrated significant benefits. 

    Lubik pointed out its previous grants, now discontinued, enabled food security coordination work through Tri-Cities Food Council.

    “Poverty looks different in every community, and local governments are closest to the people, so we know where the gaps are,” she said. 

    All these recommendations have been advocated for by the CPA, the Poverty Reduction Coalition, the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, as well as health professionals, according to Lubik, noting they are policies which have been shown to work.

    Lastly, the motion also called for the province to introduce a basic income pilot program into the strategy, calling it a quick way to address food insecurity and entrenched poverty.

    Lubik said that many peer-reviewed studies on UBI, in Canada and abroad, have demonstrated it can be effective.

    While she said detractors argue it will encourage laziness, studies have shown it healthy and stabilizing for an economy, helping residents secure better jobs and become more entrepreneurial.

    Agtarap added there are financial benefits too, such as relieving cost pressures related to homelessness and healthcare.

    She said that while poverty reduction is the province’s wheelhouse, local governments are dealing with the immediate effects of poverty.

    “We need to do something,” Agtarap said. “It’s sad to me that we’re even in this position of having to ask.”

    Couns. Kyla Knowles and Callan Morrison were hesitant about Port Moody stepping outside its jurisdiction, but were generally supportive of the motion.

    Morrison, however, voted against the inclusion of UBI in the request, stating it was a separate topic to the other policy recommendations.

    “The basic income thing is a huge discussion, I believe, and it doesn’t just encompass this one scenario,” Morrison said. “If that goes down that road, it’s going to be far more than just the Poverty Reduction Strategy that would be involved.”

    The resolution was also forwarded to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for inclusion in its 2025 conference, the Federal Minister of Families, Children, and Social Development requesting a federal review, and Port Moody MP Bonita Zarrillo.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Universal basic income vs. welfare: Here’s what UBI could mean for America’s safety net

    By Allie Kelly

    See original post here.

    As America’s cities look to alleviate poverty, universal basic income has been proposed by local leaders as a complement to existing welfare.

    With a housing-affordability crisis and high healthcare costs, more Americans are leaning on government aid than in previous decades. Government transfers of funds from safety nets such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid accounted for about 18% of total personal income in the US in 2022, a 9-percentage-point increase from 1970, the equivalent of $3.8 trillion, per an Economic Innovation Group analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census data between 1969 and 2022.

    Giving people no-strings-attached cash has been piloted in over 100 areas, including Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Chicago, as a supplement to existing aid programs. It offers participants cash to spend on whatever they choose, rather than being restricted to a specific category, as with SNAP and Medicaid.

    Some economic-security advocates have told Business Insider that recurring cash payments give families a financial boost to pay bills and land stable work, and tech leaders like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman have suggested that basic income might become necessary as artificial intelligence disrupts the job market.

    With Republicans set to hold a majority in Congress and President-elect Donald Trump about to return to the White House for his second term, the country’s budget and policy priorities for welfare programs could change, shaping how benefits are funded and who qualifies.

    BI looked at the distinctions between basic income and welfare, and what it means for future benefit programs.

    How does UBI differ from welfare?

    The US’s welfare system — also known as the social safety net — consists of a series of federally funded programs that help lower-income people afford essentials. This includes SNAP for food, Medicaid for healthcare, housing vouchers, Social Security, and various programs for families with young children.

    Largely, welfare is part of the federal budget, though most states have localized programs, too. Beneficiaries must have a household income near the federal poverty line and are restricted in where they can spend the benefit money. SNAP, for example, covers most food at the grocery store but cannot be used to buy personal-hygiene items like toothpaste or soap.

    Basic income, by contrast, is a set of recurring cash payments that can be spent however participants choose. There are two main types of basic income: universal basic income and guaranteed basic income. UBI programs give payments to all members of a population, regardless of income, and don’t have an end date. GBI programs give payments to a specific group of the population — such as people experiencing homelessness, single parents, or low-income artists — for a set period of time, typically one to five years. Most of the basic-income pilots in the US have been short-term GBI, not UBI. Other countries have also run GBI pilots.

    Could UBI replace welfare?

    Basic income is unlikely to replace the existing safety net because of funding and political challenges.

    US GBI pilots are financed through a combination of government funds and philanthropy. Still, most of those programs are limited to a couple hundred people for a set period, meaning they cost funders a few million dollars.

    Sustaining UBI across the country would require more significant funding through a value-added tax, a progressive tax system based on wealth, or a tax on resources, like a carbon tax. The Alaska Permanent Fund, for example, gives residents an annual stipend that’s drawn from the state’s oil revenue.

    True UBI hasn’t been implemented in the US, but some politicians have introduced basic-income policies. During his campaign for the 2020 Democratic primaries, the former presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposed a “Freedom Dividend,” which would’ve given $1,000 monthly to every American over the age of 18. The 2020 census found there were about 258 million Americans over 18, which would’ve made the total gross cost of that plan more than $3 trillion each year. Yang suggested the dividend be funded through a value-added retail tax.

    For comparison, the Social Security Administration reported in 2024 that the benefits cost $1.5 trillion annually. The average monthly payments were $1,788 in November and are largely funded through payroll taxes. Seventy-two million older adults and people with disabilities currently receive benefits.

    Any federal change to the social safety net would also need congressional approval. Many Republican leaders have opposed implementing ongoing basic income, arguing that it’s not financially sustainable and gives people “free money.”

    “We were never designed to have the federal government supply a salary,” Rep. John Gillette of the Arizona House of Representatives previously told BI.

    Is UBI a better alternative to welfare?

    In most of America’s basic-income pilots, cash aid is seen as a supplement to welfare programs, not a replacement. GBI pilot leaders often consult with participants to ensure their basic income will not disqualify them from means-tested programs like SNAP or Medicaid.

    Basic-income participants have told BI that the cash helps them afford essentials that might not be covered by traditional safety nets: such as a new crib for their baby, school supplies for their kids, steady childcare, and car repairs.

    “Anyone who’s had a child knows that this is not like a luxury income,” a new mom in Michigan receiving $500 a month previously told BI. “This is just assisting us in our time of need.”

    Some Republicans and economists have argued against basic income, calling it a “welfare trap” and an “unconstitutional” use of public money. This has led to states such as Iowa and Arizona introducing basic-income bans and lawsuits against GBI programs in Missouri and Texas.

    Research from recent GBI pilots suggests that basic income can help lower rates of domestic violence, aid participants in landing higher-paying jobs, and increase housing and food security. Some financial-security advocates also say that basic income can boost local economies by making it easier for lower-income people to maintain steady work and buy consumer goods.

    “We are allowing folks to stabilize and to then plan for the future,” Sukhi Samra, the executive director of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, a national advocacy network, previously told BI.

    To be sure, much of basic-income research is based on short-term trials. Basic income’s financial impact on participants in the long run remains unclear, and some participants struggle to afford essentials after their programs end.

    Traditional safety-net programs typically do not have an end date, and participants can continue to receive benefits as long as their household income meets qualification thresholds.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Universal basic income: ‘The power to say no and the freedom to say yes’

    By Suzanne Rent

    See original post here.

    Scott Santens is the founder and CEO of the U.S.-based Income to Support All (ITSA) Foundation, and has been researching and advocating for Universal Basic Income (UBI) since 2013.

    In Nova Scotia, there seems to be an increased interest in UBI with groups like Basic Income Nova Scotia hosting annual conferences on the UBI concept. Last year’s conference included discussions on the P.E.I. Basic Income Report, which I wrote about here.

    Meanwhile, councils in Nova Scotia municipalities and towns, such as Yarmouth, have passed resolutions in support of basic income.

    On Tuesday, I interviewed Santens about his work researching UBI, his thoughts on a recent resurgence in the interest in and support for UBI, and what automation and AI means for UBI.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Halifax Examiner (HE): Tell me how you got into studying and promoting UBI, because you’ve been working on this since 2013.  

    Scott Santens (SS): I got into it back in 2013 through the automation angle. This was actually prior to anyone really talking about automation. A big report that fall suggested about half of all jobs would be automated in the next 20 years.

    At the time when I got into it, no one was really talking automation at all. I was really interested to learn going through all this discussion, and then basic income popped up here and there. I was reading about that and started looking into it. I was just fascinated to learn that we had multiple [UBI] pilots around the world and it goes back to Richard Nixon and how we did some pilots in the U.S. in the 70s, and how even Nixon was pushing a version of it called the Family Assistance Plan (FAP) that passed the House [of Representatives] twice.

    Not only did the U.S. do [UBI] pilots, but Canada did a pilot in Manitoba in Dauphin (Mincome) and it just fascinated me to learn all about that history and the evidence behind it all that those pilots discovered.

    The more I looked into it, the more it made sense that it wasn’t only something for automation but actually just makes good sense. And it’s something that we should have done decades ago. It’s something that would have so many positive impacts if we were to do it.

    HE: When you talk about automation, you mean like AI or other forms of automation?

    SS: In current days, it’s mostly about AI and robots. I would argue that we’ve already been looking at that automation since the 70s, and that’s kind of the main impact, in general, of automation that people talk about how there won’t be any jobs.

    For the last decade, that’s really been the main impact is that there’s been a wage depression impact and a greater inequality increase. We’ve seen a lot of productivity growth through automation, through computers, and manufacturing and things like that. But most of that growth has gone mostly to the top.

    We just expect more of that. It’s not like there won’t be any more jobs. There will be lots of robots and AI potentially, but the impact will be people will just be getting paid less. The rich will get much, much richer and inequality will get much larger.

    HE: There seems to be a resurgence in the push for UBI here in Nova Scotia. A lot of municipalities in small towns have passed resolutions in support of UBI. Are you seeing that elsewhere in other jurisdictions through your work?

    SS: In the U.S., we’ve seen a lot of progress at the local level since the pandemic. We have over 150 pilots around the country taking different shapes, nothing that I would consider to be like a true universal basic income pilot, which would be an entire town or at least entire communities.

    HE: What do you think the reluctance is to UBI programs, though? As you said, there have been studies and pilots for UBI since the 70s, but it’s never really gotten any huge traction.

    SS: The top three kneejerk responses are, how do we pay for it, won’t people stop working, and won’t this cause inflation. Those are kind of the headspace arguments where people are thinking about the behavioural impact. They don’t understand how inflation works, and maybe they are thinking people are lazy. I think the read of it is just a coercive power kind of thing.

    HE: Have there been any pilots around the world that you thought were really impressive in terms of how UBI would work or that had all the right components?

    SS: I think one of the earliest ones was up there in Canada, in Dauphin [Manitoba] and that was because the entire town got UBI. There’s universal basic income and there’s negative income tax, and they can both achieve the same thing in the same way.

    There’s a lot to learn from that kind of [UBI] where an entire town gets it. There’s been one in India and in Namibia. Both of those were full universal pilots where the entire village or villages and every adult and child in a household [got it]. There’s a big difference between one person in some community getting unconditional cash and every member in a community getting unconditional cash.

    In the India pilot, one of the most successful people in that pilot started her own business with her first payment. She started to make loaves of bread to sell them to the village. And she did really well to the point where by the end of the pilot, she was earning four times as much as a basic income. If she had got a loan and got the exact same thing, would she have been as successful? Well, probably not, because she wouldn’t have [been] surrounded by customers. But the thing is, because the entire village got the basic income, then she was surrounded by people who had money and could actually pay for bread.

    That’s why you see this large impact on entrepreneurship in these pilots and also why you see crime reductions. I wouldn’t expect to see a crime reduction if a couple of people in a community got basic income.

    HE: We’ve written about this before, that there seems to be no reluctance, at least here, in Nova Scotia, in Canada, in giving certain people money and only for big splashy projects. But to give everyday people money is really frowned upon.

    SS: That’s the problem of the deserving and the undeserving. You’ve got your seniors and you’ve got people with disabilities, and you’ve got parents, especially single parents, not so much multiple parents. It’s expected that one of them should work.

    That’s a big challenge and I think that’s why automation kind of helps disrupt that. We also had kind of an inkling of this too during the pandemic. The massive unemployment wasn’t blamed on the people themselves. It wasn’t their fault. They didn’t do anything wrong. It was just very popular to give money to people. We had our stimulus cheques and unemployment and you had your CERB (Canada Emergency Response Benefit). It was just seen differently.

    Even with responses to where a disaster happens. Oh well, that’s fine to get any kind of rebuilding money or whatever. You didn’t do anything wrong. That was an act of God.

    I think automation could get at that, where if there’s enough of an issue where people are finding it hard to find jobs or they’re finding it hard to find jobs that pay well, they could be like, “well, what about me? I’m not doing anything wrong?” As soon as someone starts thinking about themselves, their need for help…I think that opens the door to this kind of rethinking of the deserving versus undeserving.

    HE: Those disaster responses and the responses to COVID prove that governments can, at least on the administrative side, pull these things together.

    SS: Absolutely. Social Security is the most efficient program here in the U.S. It’s got a 0.5% overhead and they send out payments every month. They’re very efficient at it. I would say if there’s one thing that government is good at it is cutting cheques. They’re very good at getting money to people. It’s all the others stuff that they may not be so good at, especially when you have to have administrators and bureaucrats checking boxes here, and testing people for that.

    When it came to the pandemic, we saw immediately, oh, this is a big problem. Tens of millions of people are unemployed here in the U.S. and then in very short order, they started sending money to people. And they didn’t raise taxes to do it. They just got the money out there. That was it. There’s nothing stopping a government who issues its own currency to actually just get money to people.

    HE: Are there any legitimate arguments against UBI?

    SS: I would say when it comes to the work argument, that’s not a valid argument. When you look at just the mountain of evidence about what happens, what’s been their response to unconditional universal income is maybe you’ll have some people working a little bit less, especially in particular groups. Let’s say those groups are usually seniors, those with disabilities, new parents, or students. Because the amount is universal, then you actually have more people to seek out jobs and they are able to do that work. But overall, you just don’t see any kind of big impact at all. It’s not a big increase, it’s not a big decrease. It’s a waste of money to apply conditions and means testing for the cash.

    You have two other main arguments. One of them is the cost. It’s a big cost, sure. Here in the U.S., the net cost of a poverty-level basic income would be about $1 trillion more per year. That’s a good amount of money. But it’s also important to understand it as an investment.

    We would expect to see less crime. We would expect to see better health. We wouldn’t be spending as much on the health care system. The Dauphin, Manitoba pilot saw about a 90% decrease in hospitalization. The other pilots where you see large decreases in ER usage, you see increases in preventative care. You see decades down the line, there would be a lot of better health outcomes.

    If those savings end up being more than a trillion dollars a year down the line, then I don’t see why the cost argument is a good argument either. Poverty isn’t free. Extreme insecurity and inequality aren’t free. All of these things have downstream impacts and are very expensive.

    The inflation argument, which people have started worrying about even more because of the pandemic, because obviously we saw this global inflation. A lot of it has been blamed on the pandemic stimulus various countries did. That one is tougher. There is definitely a concern about the way these things can be done. But the details matter when it comes to the inflation concern. When people worry that any amount of basic income done in any way would cause hyper-inflation, then no. That’s ridiculous. That’s not going to happen.

    If you’re talking about a poverty-level basic income, and you’re pairing it with increased taxes on those with higher incomes, corporations… then again, you’re going to have very low inflationary pressures. There could be some and you would see it in certain sectors. It’s not like people are going to start buying ten times as much food.

    When it comes to inflation, a lot of the arguments are about the economic capacity to meet demand. So, if demand goes up for a certain thing, then supply needs to catch up. If supply can’t go up, then there needs to be some price increases, and maybe that will just be temporary.

    You want to make sure that a country is producing enough goods and services to meet people’s basic needs. When it comes to luxury goods and stuff like that, those are limited supply and those prices might go up. I don’t think that’s a concern.

    HE: I’ve read a lot about UBI and written stories on UBI, certainly not nearly as much as you, but what I have learned is that most people use the money to make their lives better. But they have control over the way they use that money instead of being told how to use that money. So they might start a business or they might leave a partner who’s abusive or they put it aside for their children. Do you see that in your research, too?

    SS: I like to describe a basic income distinctly as the power to say no and the freedom to say yes. The power to say no is to your employer. Maybe they’re not paying enough. If you’re in a relationship with someone and the power to say no to them is the power to flee. You’ve seen that in experiments, plenty of times actually.

    In the U.S. in the 70s, one of the concerns that helped kill Nixon’s plan was that members of Congress were concerned that women would leave their husbands. That actually wasn’t true. It was a statistical error at the time, but they were freaking out about higher divorce rates. It was bad that they were freaking out about women leaving abusive husbands, but also it was just bad math at the time.

    When they looked back later, they found that even though women didn’t divorce their husbands at a higher rate, [UBI] did improve relationships. It was that ability and the freedom to leave that made the difference.

    That’s also the freedom to say yes. You can say yes to things you like. You can start up your own business. You can pursue unpaid work. You can switch from the labour market to unpaid care work at home.

    HE: What would you say to governments and skeptics of UBI?

    SS: It’s really difficult to get people to think differently about poverty. I know it’s only in specific circumstances like disasters and COVID where people thought that. I don’t think we can actually convince anyone otherwise until they’re in a drastic situation.

    Instead, I think that people need to think of basic income not as a welfare system, but as a dividend. I think AI really helps us see this in a different way. Where does AI come from? Public funding went into the R&D that made AI possible. Then, AI was fed massive amounts of data… and the data came from us. We created the data. Not only present day. It shouldn’t only be seen as our work and capital that went into making this possible, but also our ancestors. So [UBI] can also be seen as an inheritance. No one judges inheritances. Inheritance is fine. Everybody agrees that is fine. We should also look at it as inherited dividends. We should see ourselves as stockholders.

    There are other natural resources. Why aren’t we seeing ourselves as the owners of not only oil, but why aren’t we the owners of wind power, solar panels? We can look at this stuff differently and see ourselves as joint owners, and if we did that I think we would start to see things differently.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Food banks were never supposed to be permanent, CEO says

    By Joey Chini

    See original post here.

    Public sees problem taken care of, but it’s actually getting worse, says Matt Noble

    Conceived as a stopgap measure to address unmet needs in some communities, food banks were first implemented on a large scale in Canada in the 1980s.

    The country’s first food bank opened its doors in Edmonton, where it was meant to provide temporary respite to the city’s hungry. It remains in operation to this day.

    Decades later, there are more than 5,000 food banks across Canada. Their mission is to “relieve hunger today and prevent hunger tomorrow.” 

    However, despite their efforts, reliance on food banks grows and they are increasingly providing long-term assistance.

    Some anti-poverty advocates are trying to change that trajectory. While the spotlight on food banks often centres around the need for donations, the advocates want to instead shine a light on the people who rely on their assistance.

    Matt Noble, executive director of the Toronto Vegetarian Food Bank and the “Put Food Banks Out Of Business” campaign, says Canadians shouldn’t need food banks to keep people fed and they were never meant to be a permanent fixture.

    “Governments have been failing Canadians for far too long, and food banks have been here doing our best to pick up the slack. But the reality is that we shouldn’t need to be here,” he said.

    Noble says the existence of food banks creates the perception that food insecurity in the country is being taken care of, when, according to the most recent available data from Statistics Canada, things are actually getting worse.

    Dana Olstad, associate professor of population and public health at the University of Calgary, echoed Noble’s sentiment.

    “I don’t think anybody, including the food banks themselves, actually want food banks to be needed in Canada,” Olstad said.

    “In a developed country, food banks should not be needed. Everybody should be able to afford to eat three meals a day.… The fact that we have food insecurity in Canada, and that the rates are so high, and that they have been increasing, is a huge concern.”

    Not enough focus on solving food insecurity

    Olstad agreed food banks were never meant to be a permanent response to food insecurity. She says it has become normalized for people — mostly Black and Indigenous Canadians — to rely on food banks.

    “That’s because the need has not gone away,” Olstad said. “It tells us that something is going on in Canada.… People, even people with jobs — and many times good jobs — still don’t have enough money to be able to afford food.”

    Meaghon Reid, executive director of Vibrant Communities Calgary, says Canadian society has placed too much emphasis on donating to food banks — and not enough on the people receiving those donations.

    She says charities have done a great job in terms of adapting to demand for food, but they shouldn’t have to keep asking for more and more donations each year.

    “I think we have to zoom out, though, and look at this system and say, by continuing to fill the gaps and provide these Band-Aids for people, are we letting governments off the hook in terms of making sure that people are fed and have that adequate income to do so?” Reid said.

    She says Canadians should think about solutions to food insecurity instead of determining how much food or monetary donations are needed to keep people fed every day.

    “What are we doing to make sure that people require these services less frequently?” she said.

    The cost of food insecurity

    People who depend on food banks have exhausted all other avenues to keep themselves fed, Olstad says. She uses an analogy of someone who has to choose between paying for housing or paying for groceries.

    “You can’t pay half your rent. So, do you want to eat less or do you want to be on the street?” she said, adding this is often the case.

    “That’s why food insecurity is actually a really great indicator of poverty in Canada, because it’s telling us that more than 20 per cent of our population does not have enough money to be able to afford the basic necessities.”

    According to Vibrant Communities Calgary, 30 per cent of food bank users in Alberta receive social assistance, and the overwhelming majority of them also receive disability income supports. 

    Olstad says social assistance programs are insufficient because they are not giving people in need enough money to afford to eat.

    People with food insecurity have higher rates of chronic disease, mental health issues, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, among other conditions, Olstad says. This ends up costing Canada’s health-care system more.

    “If we could eliminate food insecurity, all those excess health-care costs would decline significantly,” she said.

    Reid says food insecurity is incredibly costly in Canada, to the tune of more than $80 billion annually, because food insecurity affects the country’s health-care system, its criminal justice system, soup kitchens and shelters, which rely on tax dollars to remain operational.

    “I think the better solution here is to invest in the right way, which is to make sure people have the food that they need. It is so expensive to keep servicing this problem,” she said.

    How to eliminate food insecurity in Canada

    The centrepiece of the “Put Food Banks Out Of Business” campaign, Noble says, is making sure Canadians have enough money to afford food. 

    “That’s why [we’re] calling for a guaranteed livable basic income, so that no one in Canada can fall below the poverty line,” he said. “[It’s] the single most impactful policy solution for addressing food insecurity.

    “The problem is poverty. People who are food insecure are poor. And it’s a simple problem with a simple solution. Poor people need money.”

    Noble says even if implementing a guaranteed basic income costs about the same as what’s being spent now on addressing poverty in Canada, the end result would be thousands of people being lifted above the poverty line.

    He adds implementing the policy would not replace major programs like public health care, public education or pharmacare — it would make sure everyone can afford to buy food.

    It seems like a simple solution, because people earning minimum wage in major cities often cannot afford to live in those cities.

    “It’s not a radical idea, it’s called basic income for a reason. We’re not talking about communism here. We’re literally just talking about an income floor so that no one can fall below the poverty line,” Noble said.

    Olstad agrees that a basic income in Canada would work best. In addition, she says programs like universal child care and pharmacare, among others, would further bolster food security in the country.

    Implementing a guaranteed, livable, basic income is a policy that is also supported by Reid.

    “We’re not going to work ourselves out of food insecurity with more food. The real answer here is more income,” she said.

    “This is not a luxury, it’s a basic need. And I think that we really need to look at that mismatch in the cost of living and what people are making both from employers, but also from income supports.”

    Noble says people who agree should call or write their MPs and let them know that ending food insecurity in Canada is an important issue to them.

    “There’s no reason that in a country like Canada we should have people living … below the poverty line and in such deep food insecurity,” he said.

    The last time a basic income was considered by Canada’s government was during Question Period in 2021, at the height of pressures brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    While information on basic income was compiled by government, ultimately it decided to continue to monitor research and analysis on the idea, without moving the policy forward.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The UK plans to ‘unleash AI” to boost growth

    By Liv McMahon, Zoe Kleinman & Charlotte Edwards

    See original post here.

    Artificial intelligence presents a “vast potential” for rejuvenating UK public services, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said on Monday.

    In a speech setting out the government’s plans to use AI across the UK to boost growth and deliver services more efficiently, the Prime Minister said the government had a responsibility to make AI “work for working people”.

    The AI Opportunities Action Plan is backed by leading tech firms, some of which have committed £14bn towards various projects, creating 13,250 jobs, the government said.

    It includes plans for growth zones where development will be focused, and the technology will be used to help tackle issues such as potholes.

    But the announcement has prompted questions over how much time and money will be needed to make the government’s vision a reality, amid concerns over borrowing costs and the pound falling to a recent low.

    And while estimates from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) support the claim that AI could increase productivity, it also says the changes may come gradually.

    The government tasked AI adviser Matt Clifford with creating a UK action plan for supporting the growth of artificial intelligence and its use in public services.

    He came back with 50 recommendations which are now being implemented.

    Among these is for the UK to invest in a new supercomputer to boost computing power – marking a change in strategy after the Labour government ditched the previous government’s plans for a supercomputer at Edinburgh University.

    Sir Keir said AI “will drive incredible change” in the country and “has the potential to transform the lives of working people”.

    “We’re going to make AI work for everyone in our country,” he added, saying the “battle for the jobs of tomorrow is happening today”.

    Sir Keir said the UK would become one of the AI “superpowers” – mirroring former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s drive to boost the UK sector so it could rival that of the US and China.

    At the time, many of Sunak’s proposals were geared towards mitigating future risks of highly powerful AI systems.

    In October 2023, he said AI could enable faster, easier production of chemical and biological weapons, or be used by terrorist groups to spread disinformation.

    He added that in a worst-case scenario, society could lose control over AI.

    His government’s emphasis on “safety” seems largely absent in this new plan – instead focusing on maximising opportunities, growth and innovation.

    Professor Dame Wendy Hall said the proposals were “ambitious”, but necessary to help the UK keep up with the pace of development.

    “It’s an ambitious plan but there’s a lot of upfront investment,” she told BBC Radio Four’s Today programme.

    “It will take some time to see a return on that investment and they’ve got to be in it for the long-term.”

    How the AI plan could affect you

    Among the government’s proposals are:

    • AI will be used by the public sector to enable its workers to spend less time doing admin and more time delivering services.
    • Several “AI Growth Zones” around the UK will be created, involving big building projects and new jobs.
    • AI will be fed through cameras around the country to inspect roads and spot potholes that need fixing
    • Teachers and small business owners were highlighted as two groups that could start using AI for things like faster planning and record-keeping.
    • AI is already being used in UK hospitals for important tasks such as diagnosing cancer more quickly and it will continue to be used to support the NHS.

    The government has also proposed a boost to UK infrastructure as part of the plan, with tech firms committing £14bn towards large data centres or tech hubs.

    But shadow science secretary Alan Mak said Labour was “delivering analogue government in a digital age”.

    While the push towards AI is seen as way of cutting down on public spending, Mak accused Labour of undermining this goal with its economic policies.

    “Labour’s economic mismanagement and uninspiring plan will mean Britain is left behind,” he said.

    Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle told the BBC there was no reason why the UK could not create tech companies on the same scale as Google, Amazon, and Apple.

    “At the moment, we don’t have any frontier conceptual, cutting-edge companies that are British-owned.”

    He highlighted DeepMind, which created technology enabling computers to play video and board games, as an example of a former British-born company that was now US-owned.

    It was founded by three University College London students before its acquisition by Google.

    Tim Flagg, chief operating officer of UKAI – a trade body representing British AI businesses – said the proposals take a “narrow view” of the sector’s contributors and focus too much on big tech.

    “AI innovation spans industries, from small enterprises to non-tech sectors, all driving the new industrial revolution,” he said.

    “It’s time the government recognised this broader definition and tapped into the full potential of AI across the UK.”

    AI ‘not perfect’

    There are continuing questions over the risks of introducing AI systems that can “hallucinate” or make things up, or discriminate against certain groups of people due to bias.

    Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden said “we’re only at the foothills of this” and AI was a developing technology.

    He said a government-developed AI teaching assistant had been used by about 30,000 teachers in England so far.

    “It saves teachers about three-and-half hours a week – gives them their Sunday evening back, if you like, in terms of lesson preparation and classroom preparation,” he told BBC Breakfast.

    McFadden said AI applications used by the health service can detect some cancers earlier which are not detectable by the human eye.

    However he acknowledged AI was “not perfect” after Apple faced calls to withdraw a controversial feature that generated inaccurate news alerts on its latest iPhones.

    “We’ve got to have an eye on safety as well as opportunity,” McFadden said.

    “The truth is, you can’t just opt out of this. Or if you do, you’re just going to see it developed elsewhere.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The UK plans to ‘unleash AI” to boost growth

    By Liv McMahon, Zoe Kleinman & Charlotte Edwards

    See original post here.

    Artificial intelligence presents a “vast potential” for rejuvenating UK public services, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said on Monday.

    In a speech setting out the government’s plans to use AI across the UK to boost growth and deliver services more efficiently, the Prime Minister said the government had a responsibility to make AI “work for working people”.

    The AI Opportunities Action Plan is backed by leading tech firms, some of which have committed £14bn towards various projects, creating 13,250 jobs, the government said.

    It includes plans for growth zones where development will be focused, and the technology will be used to help tackle issues such as potholes.

    But the announcement has prompted questions over how much time and money will be needed to make the government’s vision a reality, amid concerns over borrowing costs and the pound falling to a recent low.

    And while estimates from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) support the claim that AI could increase productivity, it also says the changes may come gradually.

    The government tasked AI adviser Matt Clifford with creating a UK action plan for supporting the growth of artificial intelligence and its use in public services.

    He came back with 50 recommendations which are now being implemented.

    Among these is for the UK to invest in a new supercomputer to boost computing power – marking a change in strategy after the Labour government ditched the previous government’s plans for a supercomputer at Edinburgh University.

    Sir Keir said AI “will drive incredible change” in the country and “has the potential to transform the lives of working people”.

    “We’re going to make AI work for everyone in our country,” he added, saying the “battle for the jobs of tomorrow is happening today”.

    Sir Keir said the UK would become one of the AI “superpowers” – mirroring former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s drive to boost the UK sector so it could rival that of the US and China.

    At the time, many of Sunak’s proposals were geared towards mitigating future risks of highly powerful AI systems.

    In October 2023, he said AI could enable faster, easier production of chemical and biological weapons, or be used by terrorist groups to spread disinformation.

    He added that in a worst-case scenario, society could lose control over AI.

    His government’s emphasis on “safety” seems largely absent in this new plan – instead focusing on maximising opportunities, growth and innovation.

    Professor Dame Wendy Hall said the proposals were “ambitious”, but necessary to help the UK keep up with the pace of development.

    “It’s an ambitious plan but there’s a lot of upfront investment,” she told BBC Radio Four’s Today programme.

    “It will take some time to see a return on that investment and they’ve got to be in it for the long-term.”

    How the AI plan could affect you

    Among the government’s proposals are:

    • AI will be used by the public sector to enable its workers to spend less time doing admin and more time delivering services.
    • Several “AI Growth Zones” around the UK will be created, involving big building projects and new jobs.
    • AI will be fed through cameras around the country to inspect roads and spot potholes that need fixing
    • Teachers and small business owners were highlighted as two groups that could start using AI for things like faster planning and record-keeping.
    • AI is already being used in UK hospitals for important tasks such as diagnosing cancer more quickly and it will continue to be used to support the NHS.

    The government has also proposed a boost to UK infrastructure as part of the plan, with tech firms committing £14bn towards large data centres or tech hubs.

    But shadow science secretary Alan Mak said Labour was “delivering analogue government in a digital age”.

    While the push towards AI is seen as way of cutting down on public spending, Mak accused Labour of undermining this goal with its economic policies.

    “Labour’s economic mismanagement and uninspiring plan will mean Britain is left behind,” he said.

    Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle told the BBC there was no reason why the UK could not create tech companies on the same scale as Google, Amazon, and Apple.

    “At the moment, we don’t have any frontier conceptual, cutting-edge companies that are British-owned.”

    He highlighted DeepMind, which created technology enabling computers to play video and board games, as an example of a former British-born company that was now US-owned.

    It was founded by three University College London students before its acquisition by Google.

    Tim Flagg, chief operating officer of UKAI – a trade body representing British AI businesses – said the proposals take a “narrow view” of the sector’s contributors and focus too much on big tech.

    “AI innovation spans industries, from small enterprises to non-tech sectors, all driving the new industrial revolution,” he said.

    “It’s time the government recognised this broader definition and tapped into the full potential of AI across the UK.”

    AI ‘not perfect’

    There are continuing questions over the risks of introducing AI systems that can “hallucinate” or make things up, or discriminate against certain groups of people due to bias.

    Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden said “we’re only at the foothills of this” and AI was a developing technology.

    He said a government-developed AI teaching assistant had been used by about 30,000 teachers in England so far.

    “It saves teachers about three-and-half hours a week – gives them their Sunday evening back, if you like, in terms of lesson preparation and classroom preparation,” he told BBC Breakfast.

    McFadden said AI applications used by the health service can detect some cancers earlier which are not detectable by the human eye.

    However he acknowledged AI was “not perfect” after Apple faced calls to withdraw a controversial feature that generated inaccurate news alerts on its latest iPhones.

    “We’ve got to have an eye on safety as well as opportunity,” McFadden said.

    “The truth is, you can’t just opt out of this. Or if you do, you’re just going to see it developed elsewhere.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • 41% of Employers Worldwide Say They’ll Reduce Staff by 2030 Due to AI

    By Matt Novak

    See original post here.

    The World Economic Forum released its bi-annual survey on what employers worldwide expect their businesses to look like in the future and much of the attention is on generative AI. And while a majority (77%) expect to help train their existing staff to work with AI, 41% say they expect to reduce the number of staff they employ as AI automates more tasks on the job.

    The survey includes 1,000 employers worldwide, which covers more than 14 million workers in 22 different industry clusters, according to the new report. One of the big problems that emerges from the survey is that employers believe many of their workers don’t have the skills needed to do their jobs as technology evolves.

    “AI and big data top the list of fastest-growing skills, followed closely by networks and cybersecurity as well as technology literacy,” according to the report. “Complementing these technology-related skills, creative thinking, resilience, flexibility and agility, along with curiosity and lifelong learning, are also expected to continue to rise in importance over the 2025-2030 period.”

    The report seems to be very bad news for graphic designers and legal secretaries, two jobs that employers will apparently need fewer of in the future, presumably due to AI.

    “The presence of both Graphic Designers and Legal Secretaries just outside the top 10 fastest-declining job roles, a first-time prediction not seen in previous editions of the Future of Jobs Report, may illustrate GenAI’s increasing capacity to perform knowledge work,” the report states.

    Generative artificial intelligence tools are now able to create elaborate graphics with just a few text prompts, though the tech is controversial since it’s little more than a plagiarism machine.

    “Job decline in both roles is seen as driven by both AI and information processing technologies as well as by broadening digital access. This is a major change from the report’s 2023 edition, when Graphic Designers were considered a moderately growing job and Legal Secretaries did not feature in the expected job growth/decline list,” the report continues.

    Employers say they believe attracting employees will involve an emphasis on health and well-being, a rather nebulous category to begin with, but certainly, a sentiment that many in the U.S. can understand, given our fundamentally broken healthcare system. The U.S. is the only wealthy country in the world that hasn’t achieved universal health care coverage and having health insurance is largely tied to having a job.

    The good news? The survey predicts a net growth in the number of jobs created over the next five years, even with AI advances.

    “Extrapolating from the predictions shared by Future of Jobs Survey respondents, on current trends over the 2025 to 2030 period job creation and destruction due to structural labour-market transformation will amount to 22% of today’s total jobs,” the report states.

    “This is expected to entail the creation of new jobs equivalent to 14% of today’s total employment, amounting to 170 million jobs,” the report continues. “However, this growth is expected to be offset by the displacement of the equivalent of 8% (or 92 million) of current jobs, resulting in net growth of 7% of total employment, or 78 million jobs.”

    The report emphasizes that even though technology is expected to help productivity around the world, the humans who are using that tech are expected to be more productive.

    “Importantly, this analysis only compares the 2025 and 2030 proportions of total task delivery attributable to human employees, technology or collaboration between the two, respectively, and does not consider the potential change in the absolute amount of work tasks (output) getting done,” the report states.

    “In other words, both machines and humans might be significantly more productive in 2030—performing more or higher value tasks in the same or less amount of time than it would have taken them to do so in 2025—so any concern about humans ‘running out of things to do’ due to automation would be misplaced.”

    That, of course, is small consolation to graphic designers. But it will hopefully turn out to be true for other occupations, especially since AI has proved to be incredibly dumb and needs a lot of babysitting to make sure it doesn’t mess up any number of tasks.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Universal programs are much easier to administer than means-tested ones

    By Abdallah Fayyad

    See original post here.

    In an ideal world, everyone who qualifies for an aid program ought to receive its benefits. But the reality is that this is often not the case. Before the pandemic, for example, nearly one-fifth of Americans who qualified for food stamps didn’t receive them. In fact, millions of Americans who are eligible for existing social welfare programs don’t receive all of the benefits they are entitled to.

    As I wrote in an earlier edition of this newsletter, a big part of the problem is the paperwork and the bureaucratic hoops people have to jump through in order to participate in certain programs. But what’s often at the root of those hurdles is an all-too-common policy choice that lawmakers turn to: means testing — that is, establishing eligibility requirements (like income or wealth thresholds) for social programs.

    Means testing a given social program can have good intentions: Target spending toward the people who need it most. After all, if middle- or high-income people who can afford their groceries or rent get federal assistance in paying for those things, then wouldn’t there be less money to go around for the people who actually need it?

    The answer isn’t so straightforward.

    How means testing can sabotage policy goals

    Implementing strict eligibility requirements can be extremely tedious and have unintended consequences.

    For starters, let’s look at one of the main reasons lawmakers advocate for means testing: saving taxpayers’ money. But that’s not always what happens. “Though they’re usually framed as ways of curbing government spending, means-tested benefits are often more expensive to provide, on average, than universal benefits, simply because of the administrative support needed to vet and process applicants,” my colleague Li Zhou wrote in 2021.

    More than that, means testing reduces how effective antipoverty programs can be because a lot of people miss out on benefits. As Zhou points out, figuring out who qualifies for welfare takes a lot of work, both from the government and potential recipients who have to fill out onerous applications. The paperwork can be daunting and can discourage people from applying. It can also result in errors or delays that would easily be avoided if a program is universal.

    There’s also the fact that creating an income threshold creates incentives for people to avoid advancing in their careers or take a higher-paying job. One woman I interviewed a few years ago, for example, told me that after she started a job as a medical assistant and lost access to benefits like food stamps, it became harder to make ends meet for her and her daughter. When lawmakers aggressively means test programs, people like her are often left behind, making it harder to transition out of poverty.

    As a result, means testing can seriously limit a welfare program’s potential. According to a report by the Urban Institute, for example, the United States can reduce poverty by more than 30 percent just by ensuring that everyone who is eligible for an existing program receives its benefits. One way to do that is for lawmakers to make more welfare programs universal instead of means-tested.

    Why universal programs are a better choice

    There sometimes is an aversion to universal programs because they’re viewed as unnecessarily expensive. But universal programs are often the better choice because of one very simple fact: They are generally much easier and less expensive to administer. Two examples of this are some of the most popular social programs in the country: Social Security and Medicare.

    Universal programs might also create less division among taxpayers as to how their money ought to be spent. A lot of opposition to welfare programs comes from the fact that some people simply don’t want to pay for programs they don’t directly benefit from, so eliminating that as a factor can create more support for a given program.

    In 2023, following a handful of other states, Minnesota implemented a universal school meal program where all students get free meals. This was in response to the problems that arise when means testing goes too far. Across the country, students in public school pay for their meals depending on their family’s income. But this system has stigmatized students who get a free meal. According to one study, 42 percent of eligible families reported that their kids are less likely to eat their school meal because of the stigma around it.

    Minnesota’s program has proven popular so far: In September 2023, shortly after the program took off, the amount of school breakfasts and lunches served increased by 30 percent and 11 percent compared to the previous year, respectively.

    While it might not be politically feasible — or, in some cases, necessary — to get rid of means testing for all public subsidies, free school meals also offer an example of what a compromise might look like at the national level. Though Congress hasn’t made school meals free to all, it passed a provision in 2010 that allows schools to provide free meals to all students in districts where at least 25 percent (originally 40 percent) are eligible. The program showed that providing free meals to all lowered food insecurity, even among poor students who already qualified for free meals, by removing stigma. (The community eligibility provision now serves nearly 20 million students.)

    As for how universal programs can be paid for, the answer is, yes, imposing higher taxes. It might seem inefficient to give people a benefit if you’re going to essentially take it back from them in taxes, but what you actually end up with is a much more efficient program that is more easily administered and doesn’t leave anyone out.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • ‘Virtual employees’ could join workforce as soon as this year, OpenAI boss says

    By Dan Milmo

    See original post here.

    Sam Altman says tools that carry out jobs autonomously, known as AI agents, could transform business output.

    Virtual employees could join workforces this year and transform how companies work, according to the chief executive of OpenAI.

    The first artificial intelligence agents may start working for organisations this year, wrote Sam Altman, as AI firms push for uses that generate returns on substantial investment in the technology.

    Microsoft, the biggest backer of the company behind ChatGPT, has already announced the introduction of AI agents – tools that can carry out tasks autonomously – with the blue-chip consulting firm McKinsey among the early adopters.

    “We believe that, in 2025, we may see the first AI agents ‘join the workforce’ and materially change the output of companies,” wrote Altman in a blogpost published on Monday.

    OpenAI is reportedly planning to launch an AI agent codenamed “Operator” this month, after Microsoft announced its Copilot Studio product and rival Anthropic launched the Claude 3.5 Sonnet AI model, which can carry out tasks on the computer such as moving a mouse cursor and typing text.

    McKinsey, for instance, is building an agent to process new client inquiries by carrying out tasks such as scheduling follow-up meetings. The consulting firm has predicted that by 2030, activities accounting for up to 30% of hours worked across the US economy could be automated.

    Bloomberg reported that Operator will use a computer to take actions on a user’s behalf, such as writing code or booking travel.

    Last year, Microsoft’s head of AI, Mustafa Suleyman, indicated the company is moving towards agents that can make purchasing decisions, saying he had seen “stunning demos” where the agent carries out transactions independently, although there have also been “car crash moments” in development. However, an agent with these capabilities will emerge “in quarters, not years”, Suleyman said.

    Before making the agent prediction, Altman also wrote in his blog that OpenAI knows how to build artificial general intelligence (AGI), a theoretical term that he has referred to in the past as “AI systems that are generally smarter than humans”.

    “We are now confident we know how to build AGI as we have traditionally understood it,” he wrote, adding that OpenAI was now turning its ambitions towards “superintelligence”.

    “We love our current products, but we are here for the glorious future. With superintelligence, we can do anything else,” he wrote.

    “Superintelligent tools could massively accelerate scientific discovery and innovation well beyond what we are capable of doing on our own, and in turn massively increase abundance and prosperity.”

    Altman also participated in a Q&A with Bloomberg published this weekend in which he predicted that Elon Musk will continue his feud with OpenAI this year, but will stop short of using his relationship with Donald Trump to hurt the company.

    Altman said he expected the world’s richest person to maintain his legal battle with OpenAI, although he played down the prospect of being challenged to a cage fight with Musk, who asked Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg for a mixed martial arts bout in 2023.

    “I think he’ll do all sorts of bad s***. I think he’ll continue to sue us and drop lawsuits and make new lawsuits and whatever else,” Altman told Bloomberg.

    “He hasn’t challenged me to a cage match yet, but I don’t think he was that serious about it with Zuck, either, it turned out … he says a lot of things, starts them, undoes them, gets sued, sues, gets in fights with the government, gets investigated by the government. That’s just Elon being Elon.”

    Musk dropped an initial lawsuit against OpenAI in June last year but returned two months later with a new complaint that has been expanded to include Microsoft, OpenAI’s biggest backer. The suit accuses OpenAI of pursuing profit over safety and “actively trying to eliminate competitors”.

    Musk and Altman have a fractious history. The two co-founded OpenAI in 2015 before Musk left the company over an internal power struggle several years later. OpenAI was founded with the aim of building “safe and beneficial” AGI.

    Altman added that he did not expect Musk to use his influence within the incoming Trump administration to hobble competitors such as OpenAI. Musk launched a new AI business, xAI, in 2023.

    “Will he abuse his political power of being co-president, or whatever he calls himself now, to mess with a business competitor? I don’t think he’ll do that. I genuinely don’t. May turn out to be proven wrong,” he said.

  • Tuberculosis rates plunge when families living in poverty get a monthly cash payout

    By Gabrielle Emanuel

    See original post here.

    What if the best medicine isn’t a pill or vaccine — but it’s cold cash?

    There’s a growing body of research that suggests economic programs that give money to very poor people can have major health benefits. Now, a new study — out on Friday in Nature Medicine — proves this approach can work when it comes to the world’s deadliest infectious disease: tuberculosis, which killed more than 1.25 million people in 2023.

    The study is impressive in its scale. Researchers combined two Brazilian datasets — one from the Ministry of Health and one that tracks social programs for the poorest half of the population — enabling them to zero in on 54 million people in Brazil living in poverty. In this group, 44% of them received cash each month from a government program while 56% did not. The families that received the cash were significantly less likely to contract TB. Among the extremely poor in this category, TB cases and deaths dropped by more than 50% and in the Indigenous population the drop was even more dramatic: more than 60%.

    “There are very large benefits — large and underappreciated — of these [types of] programs,” says Dr. Aaron Richterman, an assistant professor of infectious diseases and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania who was not involved in the study.

    The findings could have far-reaching implications for global efforts to end the TB epidemic. “If we think about what can take us to the next level, it’s not the next drug,” he says. “It’s probably not the vaccine that we’re all waiting for. It may be something like this, which I think we have good reason to believe would help potentially end something like a TB epidemic.”

    Here’s a look at how the conditional cash transfer program works, why it’s having unintentional – but welcome – health impacts and what the implications are.

    Free money with some strings attached

    Twenty years ago, Brazil started what was then a revolutionary program. The government would give poor people a regular cash handout with a few strings attached. Today, the program, which is called Bolsa Familia (Portuguese for Family Allowance), helps 21 million families in Brazil or about a quarter of the population.

    To be eligible, a family must live below the poverty line. The government gives these households a monthly cash benefit that’s the equivalent of at least $120; the amount can increased, based on their neediness and the number of children. For some families, that sum doubles their income.

    Recipients can spend the money as they please. But they must meet certain requirements: sending their kids to school and regular check-ups for pregnant women and kids, including prenatal visits and childhood vaccinations.

    The program is focused on “the long game,” says Seema Jayachandran, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, who was also not involved in the study.

    “The philosophy of conditional cash transfers was to break the cycle of poverty by investing in the younger generation,” she says. “And it’s through two prongs: One is making sure they get educated, they grow up healthy with access to health care. And then the second is giving the family money so that they can have better food or school uniforms.”

    There’s lots of data to show that programs like Bolsa Familia reduce economic and social inequalities. But lately, she says, studies have been showing an added bonus: “There are some extra benefits that are actually quicker wins.”

    How money is helping people avoid and fight TB

    Tuberculosis is famously a disease of poverty.

    People are exposed to the bacteria that causes TB in overcrowded, under ventilated spaces.

    This type of scene is, unfortunately, familiar to many in Brazil, says Priscila Scaff, an author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher at the Federal University of Bahia’s Institute of Collective Health. In low-income families, she’s seen 10 people living in one room. In poor urban areas, she adds, there are sometimes houses “where they don’t have access to the sunlight” or fresh air. These are perfect conditions for TB to flourish — the tuberculosis bacteria spreads through the air, traveling on a cough, sneeze, spittle, or even a laugh. The monthly payouts might enable a family to move to larger, better ventilated quarters.

    The cash transfer can also lead to a healthier diet — and that can help avoid TB even if someone’s exposed to the bacteria. “People who have poor nutrition – it increases the risk very, very substantially for progression to tuberculosis,” says Richterman. Again, Scaff says, poor people in Brazil often don’t have access to enough food — or nutritious food.

    But things get better when a household enrolls in Bolsa Familia. It’s one of the program’s primary goals: On its website, the government claims to have reduced hunger for millions of families. A series of studies have found that families spend more on food than those who didn’t get the payments and that they buy healthier foods.

    And, finally, the treatment for TB is intensive — and can lead to a loss of income. “You have to treat it for at least six months. There’s a lot of side effects and toxicities related to the medicines,” says Richterman. “Even if you have free medicines, you have to take medicines every day, you have to get to the clinic, you have to get transported there. You’re sick and you can’t work,” he says.

    He explains that many day laborers — or others living hand-to-mouth — can’t afford to take time off work. Unless, of course, they have that extra cushion provided by Bolsa Familia.

    “So you can see how cash support — or poverty alleviation, more generally — can work at every single step of the way, from exposure to TB outcomes,” Richterman says.

    And there may be something else going on too, says Davide Rasella, a study author and head of the health impact assessment and evaluation group at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health or ISGlobal. It’s possible, he says, that because the program insists on regular checkups for kids, parents become more connected to the health system.

    “Sometimes the [health] outpost is not even so distant, but somehow it is not accessed,” he says. “[But with the requirements of the Bolsa Program] the families are in more contact with the health post. They trust more health professionals and they get diagnosed earlier.”

    But wait! It’s not just TB

    The magnitude of the drop in TB cases and deaths surprised even the study authors. “We were expecting an effect but not so big,” says Rasella.

    “What we are discovering – the more we study – is the effects are really strong. It’s not just tuberculosis. We have seen it in HIV/AIDS, child mortality, etc.,” he says. “We have a study showing an enormous effect on reduction of hospitalization, or millions of hospitalizations that have been avoided in the last two decades because of the [Bolsa Familia] program.”

    The study results are echoed in other parts of the world. In a study published last year, Richterman and colleagues looked at cash transfers in 37 low- and middle-income countries and found huge benefits for reducing mortality, including a 20% reduction in risk of adult women dying.

    He says they found that a program spends about $11,000 for each life that is saved. He calls that “an extraordinarily cost effective intervention just for that” — an stunning result from a program that was never intended to save lives. And protection from fatal illness is not the only payoff from payouts: “These programs do a lot of things. They improve education. They improve women’s empowerment. They reduce poverty. They improve food security. They improve child nutrition,” he says.

    There are now conditional and unconditional cash transfer programs all over the world — including in the U.S. “It’s an example of something that has spread from lower-middle income countries to rich countries,” says Jayachandran. And these efforts got a big boost during the pandemic when many countries were looking for ways to help households who’d lost income because of lockdowns and the like, especially without requiring in-person meetings.

    But these programs are not cheap. Bolsa Familia costs about 14 billion Brazilian reais — or about $2 billion — a month; the money comes from the state as well as groups like the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.

    As policymakers debate whether they can afford to start or expand such programs, Rasella says, the message from Brazil is clear: It’s not just an economic program. It’s also an “impressive” health program.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: We all deserve more money. Let me prove why it’s time for universal basic income

    By Zack Polanski

    See original post here.

    Universal basic income is not a utopian dream; it’s a practical step to tackle poverty, reduce inequality, and create a sustainable future.  

    As the world braces for a second Donald Trump presidency, the UK must reflect on its failure to deliver a meaningful alternative to tackle inequality and avoid drifting toward demagogues. 

    Our current system leaves millions of children in poverty and inequality growing worse. How do we tackle systemic poverty and injustice while addressing the climate crisis and adapting to emerging challenges like artificial intelligence?

    The answer lies in ensuring everyone’s basic needs are met. A roof over their head, enough food to eat, and the ability to live with dignity should not be luxuries – they are fundamental rights. 

    One solution key to meeting those basic needs is universal basic income. 

    A universal basic income policy is simple yet transformative: it would ensure every citizen receives an unconditional recurring payment. While the exact amount is up for debate, it would broadly align with the minimum wage – around £1,200 to £1,600 per month. 

    And this is no dream. Pilot programs are already happening, including a trial in Wales for care leavers, showing universal basic income’s potential to create real change. 

    Now, you might wonder how can we afford to deliver this policy. I have a better question: How can we afford not to?  Let me prove that this is a better question to ask.

    First, the UK spends billions on universal credit – a dehumanising and costly system (both for the claimant and the administrators!) Replacing it with universal basic income would cut inefficiencies and guarantee support for all.

    Second, universal systems are simpler and fairer than means-tested ones. While some argue the wealthy shouldn’t receive benefits, it’s far more efficient to tax wealth than to impose complex eligibility requirements — a lesson the government should note over cutting everyone’s winter fuel payments! 

    Third, as a sovereign currency issuer, the UK can choose its spending priorities. Alongside universal basic income, measures like wealth and carbon taxes could help reduce inequality. Investing in people also saves money long-term, reducing pressure on the NHS, the justice system, and other services strained by inequality. 

    Finally, disabled individuals require special consideration. A ‘better-off’ mechanism ensures anyone currently receiving benefits would gain under universal basic income. Only the wealthiest – multimillionaires and billionaires – might contribute more, though there’s plenty of evidence that they too benefit from a fairer, more stable society.

    If we fail to deliver real solutions – not just in rhetoric but through policies that improve people’s lives – more demagogues will rise.  

    Rampant inequality demands urgent action.  

    While a wealthy few soar above in private jets, mocking those in poverty beneath them, millions are barely getting by. Many juggle multiple jobs to cover bills, fight to keep a roof over their heads, or simply try to survive. This cannot go on. 

    Whilst that might sound idealistic, it’s the bare minimum we must achieve to build a fair and sustainable society.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: We all deserve more money. Let me prove why it’s time for universal basic income

    By Zack Polanski

    See original post here.

    Universal basic income is not a utopian dream; it’s a practical step to tackle poverty, reduce inequality, and create a sustainable future.  

    As the world braces for a second Donald Trump presidency, the UK must reflect on its failure to deliver a meaningful alternative to tackle inequality and avoid drifting toward demagogues. 

    Our current system leaves millions of children in poverty and inequality growing worse. How do we tackle systemic poverty and injustice while addressing the climate crisis and adapting to emerging challenges like artificial intelligence?

    The answer lies in ensuring everyone’s basic needs are met. A roof over their head, enough food to eat, and the ability to live with dignity should not be luxuries – they are fundamental rights. 

    One solution key to meeting those basic needs is universal basic income. 

    A universal basic income policy is simple yet transformative: it would ensure every citizen receives an unconditional recurring payment. While the exact amount is up for debate, it would broadly align with the minimum wage – around £1,200 to £1,600 per month. 

    And this is no dream. Pilot programs are already happening, including a trial in Wales for care leavers, showing universal basic income’s potential to create real change. 

    Now, you might wonder how can we afford to deliver this policy. I have a better question: How can we afford not to?  Let me prove that this is a better question to ask.

    First, the UK spends billions on universal credit – a dehumanising and costly system (both for the claimant and the administrators!) Replacing it with universal basic income would cut inefficiencies and guarantee support for all.

    Second, universal systems are simpler and fairer than means-tested ones. While some argue the wealthy shouldn’t receive benefits, it’s far more efficient to tax wealth than to impose complex eligibility requirements — a lesson the government should note over cutting everyone’s winter fuel payments! 

    Third, as a sovereign currency issuer, the UK can choose its spending priorities. Alongside universal basic income, measures like wealth and carbon taxes could help reduce inequality. Investing in people also saves money long-term, reducing pressure on the NHS, the justice system, and other services strained by inequality. 

    Finally, disabled individuals require special consideration. A ‘better-off’ mechanism ensures anyone currently receiving benefits would gain under universal basic income. Only the wealthiest – multimillionaires and billionaires – might contribute more, though there’s plenty of evidence that they too benefit from a fairer, more stable society.

    If we fail to deliver real solutions – not just in rhetoric but through policies that improve people’s lives – more demagogues will rise.  

    Rampant inequality demands urgent action.  

    While a wealthy few soar above in private jets, mocking those in poverty beneath them, millions are barely getting by. Many juggle multiple jobs to cover bills, fight to keep a roof over their heads, or simply try to survive. This cannot go on. 

    Whilst that might sound idealistic, it’s the bare minimum we must achieve to build a fair and sustainable society.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • ‘We can’t believe you would just trust us’: why social assistance shouldn’t come with strings attached

    By Neil Howard

    See original post here.

    When the authorities provide social assistance to those in need, it almost always comes with conditions attached. These include behavioural requirements or criteria determining who is and isn’t eligible for support.

    Common examples include proving that you’re looking for a job, are too ill to do so, or that you fall into a particular category that policymakers have decided is worthy of aid – for example, working children or single parents.

    This approach is problematic for at least three reasons. First, it can be ineffective, because targeted support like this often excludes many who desperately need it. Second, it can be inefficient, because behavioural controls are often ill-designed and inappropriate, while policing them requires expensive, unwieldy bureaucracy.

    Third, it is often contrary to human dignity. Evidence from many countries shows that the administrative practices associated with conditions have a tendency towards discrimination and dehumanisation.

    So, what is the alternative? Simply put, to provide social assistance unconditionally, without behavioural requirements or targeting. In other words, to provide assistance to all and with no strings attached.

    Colleagues and I from joint research teams in the UK, India and Bangladesh have recently completed two large-scale policy experiments that attempted to do this in the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka, and the Indian city of Hyderabad.

    In both cases, we provided unconditional assistance to all residents of five urban communities. The assistance combined unconditional cash and open-ended participatory forms of community organising delivered by social workers embedded in the communities.

    Cash was pegged at basic income levels in both countries and the organising was focused on building relationships, developing capacity, and above all on generating locally rooted solutions to locally identified problems.

    Our findings offer great cause for hope. Alongside predictable reductions in poverty, the basic income generated improvements in health, wellbeing, access to education, and quality of housing. We also found what we are calling a “dignity dividend” attached to it. The cash signifies to recipients that they matter, and that the material difficulties they face and their humanity are both recognised and worth responding to.

    The lack of conditions here is essential. Recipients repeatedly contrasted this with painful experiences of stigmatisation at the hands of mainstream welfare provision. As one woman put it: “we can’t believe you would just trust us”.

    Making space for good things to happen

    Our research suggests that the community organising that was wrapped around the cash also operates as an effective form of social protection unto itself. This is because it enables connection to services or bottom-up responses to individual and group challenges that would not have been possible had we come with pre-set notions of what was the “right” thing to do.

    For example, in Dhaka, affordable healthcare was unavailable to most people and represented a priority. In response, the community organisers set up monthly health camps in partnership with local providers to offer basic, low-cost healthcare to hundreds.

    But the real magic appears to lie at the intersection between the cash and the community organising. The cash seems to motivate participation in the community work, while the community work catalyses the impact of the cash.

    We saw this especially in the formation of a labour union among the garbage collectors participating in our experiment in India. The union has gone on to make groundbreaking demands of local authorities in relation to working conditions and pay.

    Evidence from parallel experiments around the world is showing similar trends. One inspiring example with formerly incarcerated people in the southern US has shown a massive drop in recidivism.

    Another, with disadvantaged people of colour in the American mid-west, has shown benefits across indicators including health, wellbeing and work. These findings have been echoed in Peru in an experiment with indigenous Amazonian communities.

    Importantly, this approach to providing social assistance is beginning to take hold more widely. The international charity, Give Directly, offers cash to the poor with no strings attached, arguing that dollar-for-dollar this is by far the most efficient and effective approach.

    And in South Africa and Brazil, advocates are pushing for the replacement of patchy, targeted social safety nets with a universal basic income that provides all citizens with a degree of guaranteed security.

    The conclusion from this new wave of research is hard to escape: we don’t need punitive and exclusive forms of conditional welfare provision. In fact, this approach may well be counterproductive.

    So, while our leaders continue to impose austerity on us, following former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s infamous dictum that “there is no alternative”, the evidence strongly suggests otherwise. There is an alternative, and it is unconditional.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Volunteers providing meals in eastern P.E.I. renew call for basic income guarantee

    By Gwyneth Egan

    See original post here.

    In the kitchen at the Lower Montague Women’s Institute, volunteers with the Down East Food Collective regularly get together to prepare and cook more than 100 servings of freshly made sauces and pasta for Montague’s community fridge.

    They do this once a month to improve food insecurity on Prince Edward Island, and have been organizing monthly community cook days to fill the food pantry at the Montague Christian Church since April. 

    The volunteers work to fill the fridge first, then start filling up the freezer, said Tina Ratcliffe, one of the collective’s founding members. 

    The meals are usually gone within 24 to 48 hours, she said.

    “It brings great joy for me personally to be able to give back to the community,” she said.

    “When you see people using the fridge and taking and sustaining themselves by the meals that we have prepared, it’s phenomenal.” 

    She said she’s seen adults and children make use of meals the collective has prepared. 

    According to the most recent data from Statistics Canada, 28.6 per cent of Islanders had trouble acquiring healthy food in an affordable manner in 2022. That number is up from 23.6 per cent in 2021. 

    With the number of people unable to get healthy food on the rise, the Down East Food Collective’s monthly meal prep initiative has no end in sight, said Irene Whitten, one of the founders of the project.

    “Until the government makes policy changes that are so needed, we do what we can,” she said. 

    ‘Food insecurity is an income insecurity issue’

    One of the policy changes advocates say would help is a basic income policy. 

    “Food insecurity is an income insecurity issue,” said Darlene Sorrey-Scott, a volunteer with the Down East Food Collective. 

    “If you don’t have an appropriate income or the sufficient income, food is one of the first things that goes — either the quality of your food goes down or you do without.”

    “A good, solid basic income policy needs to be looked at strongly in Canada, and doing an experiment in Prince Edward Island — in a small province — is the way to go,” said Sorrey-Scott. 

    “We need to demonstrate that when people have a basic income, they don’t have to ask continually every weekend for good, nutritious food. They’ll be able to go and buy it if they have a decent income.” 

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: What “Universal Basic Guys” gets wrong about basic income – and why it matters

    By Ricardo Beaird

    See original post here.

    As an artist who brings complex stories to life through theater, I understand the power of storytelling to shape how we see the world — and what we believe is possible. Narratives can inspire hope, spark change or, as in the case of Fox’s new animated series “Universal Basic Guys” (now streaming on Hulu) reduce transformative ideas to shallow stereotypes.

    Some 64% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck – and the majority of families are one unexpected expense away from crisis. Yet in its portrayal of universal basic income, “Universal Basic Guys” turns a lifeline into a punchline. The show follows brothers Mark and Hank Hoagies (voiced by series creators Adam and Craig Malamut), who were “not well-off” even at their factory jobs, and now receive a monthly stipend comparable to those wages after losing their jobs to automation. Yet remarkably, universal basic income isn’t mentioned once in the dialogue of the opening episode. The only explanation of the policy comes from a blink-and-you-miss-it description in the opening theme song: “I used to work in a hot dog factory until the robots came along. And now there is no job for me but I get $3,000 a month thanks to basic income. Now we’re Universal Basic Guys. It’s still not much, but we’re still going to try.”

    The show squanders its premise by defaulting to the oldest stereotype in the book – that people would rather coast on government support than achieve stability through meaningful work. It goes on to reduce the brothers to caricatures making one bad decision after another – from blowing their guaranteed income on everything from a luxury cruise to an elite country club to an exotic pet. And when they do attempt professional growth, it’s played for cheap laughs. Take their foray into advertising through entry-level internships: Mark gets fired for drinking on the job while Hank rejects a promotion because weekend work might interfere with watching the NFL draft. Instead of these tired sitcom storylines, imagine showing how basic income could help former factory workers navigate career transitions, finding humor in their authentic struggles with professional growth.

    The show’s depiction of basic income couldn’t be further from the truth. Rather than participants luxuriating in newfound free time, a Stockton, California pilot found that full-time employment actually rose among those receiving guaranteed income, while their financial, physical and emotional health also improved. There’s little room for frivolous spending, either: in Minnesota’s Guaranteed Income for Artists pilot program, people allocate their funds primarily to essentials, with 35.94% directed toward critical retail purchases, followed by food (30.26%) and housing (10%). Many basic income programs are also designed specifically to support individuals working low-wage jobs or cobbling together income from gig work — and they’re part of a growing movement. With over 100 pilot programs across the United States, these initiatives are showing how financial stability enables people to invest in their futures.

    To better understand the reality of basic income, the showrunners would be well-served to speak with an actual recipient of UBI – like Torri Hanna, a fiber artist in the Minnesota program. Her monthly $500 stipend helped stabilize her yarn store and improve her housing situation with her daughter. She now creates art for downtown storefronts with the senior center, showing how basic income ripples through communities – an impact completely missing from Fox’s cartoonish portrayal.

    The stakes of such misrepresentation extend far beyond bad television. As artist and organizer Ricardo Levins Morales explains, “The soil is more important than the seeds,” – a profound insight into cultural change. Just as plants struggle to grow in toxic environments, transformative ideas like basic income can’t flourish in a culture poisoned by narratives that people can’t be trusted with economic freedom. Television has proven it can cultivate better ground for change. “Good Times” brought public housing realities to millions in the 1970s, addressing safety nets with nuance. “Superstore” used workplace comedy to illuminate low-wage workers’ struggles. Even Fox’s own animated shows excel at social commentary – “The Simpsons” roasts political hypocrisy while “Bob’s Burgers” exposes the struggles of running a small business. “Universal Basic Guys” doesn’t need to be a dry economics lecture, but entertainment can be both funny and nourishing to our shared cultural landscape.

    The show fails to tell the deeper story of how guaranteed income enables human potential. Imagine episodes where one brother finally confronts long-ignored student loan debt, where the brothers use their basic income for home improvements so their elderly mom can move in, or their well-meaning but chaotic attempts at community volunteering reveal that civic engagement is harder than it looks. These stories could mirror how real basic income recipients use stable income to tackle debt, create multi-generational housing solutions, and give back to their neighborhoods. This rich tapestry of real-world experiences offers far more compelling storylines than anything season one has shown us.

    What if “Universal Basic Guys” told a better story — that basic income unlocks purpose in two men labeled as slackers, trapped by systemic barriers and dead-end jobs? Instead of burying the concept in a throwaway theme song, the show could weave honest dialogue about this new social contract throughout its episodes, replacing silence with understanding. Their transformation could challenge assumptions about human potential and growth, especially now, as some states move to ban guaranteed income programs. Shows like this shape public perception and policy, making it vital to highlight how basic income fosters the economic freedom everyone needs to thrive.

    To reach its potential, Universal Basic Guys must evolve beyond parody into a narrative that reflects the real power of guaranteed income. With a second season already greenlit, it has a real opportunity to pivot and tell a story of struggle, resilience and growth, honoring the dignity and potential of those often overlooked. By portraying how basic income helps people rebuild their lives, the show could drive social change, proving that economic freedom is key to unlocking human potential.

    The stakes are high. Media influences policies and how we see each other. A nuanced, compassionate take on basic income could pave the way for a future where economic security is a right — not a punchline.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Why Income Inequality in America Is Hurting Collective Happiness

    By Matthew Killingsworth

    See original post here.

    What does income inequality in America have to do with happiness? And more generally, what is the right way to think about the relationship between money and happiness? A recent study by Wharton’s Matthew Killingsworth offers some surprising answers.

    The shape of the relationship between money and happiness is remarkably systematic. Killingsworth’s research, based on more than 1.7 million real-time reports from over 33,000 U.S. workers, challenges the notion that money stops adding to happiness beyond a certain point. From $10,000 per year to over $500,000 per year, average happiness rose perfectly linearly with the logarithm of income.

    If this highly precise shape reveals the “price” of happiness in dollars, what are the implications for the rest of human life? It suggests that each extra dollar matters slightly less for happiness as incomes grow. For example, an extra $10,000 is predicted to have a much bigger impact on happiness for someone earning $25,000 a year than on someone making $200,000. Additional dollars have diminishing returns.

    Yet, incomes increase fast enough in size to completely offset this. So for an individual, bigger incomes are associated with a steady and non-diminishing rise in happiness, even for the well-off. “From an individual perspective, there doesn’t appear to be any diminishment in the benefit of a larger income,” said Killingsworth. Moreover, a proportional change in income, like a 10% raise, is predicted to have the same benefit to happiness regardless of income level.

    Closing the Income Inequality Gap Could Make Americans Happier

    However, the study also reveals that to increase happiness across society, it’s more effective to raise the incomes of those earning the least. When dollar trade-offs are made between people with different incomes — as could occur in philanthropy, tax policy, or compensation decisions — the returns for total happiness are likely to be much larger when lower-income people benefit. The reason is that a given dollar matters exponentially more when you have fewer of them.

    “The people who would benefit the least from additional dollars have gained the most, while the people who would benefit the most from additional dollars have gained almost nothing.”— Matthew Killingsworth

    For instance, if a company spent the same amount of money to give bonuses or pay raises to people earning $40,000 per year instead of those earning $4,000,000 per year, the returns for happiness are predicted to be 100 times, or 10,000%, larger. Companies sometimes do the opposite, giving large bonuses to the highest paid workers. There may be good reasons for this practice, but from the standpoint of total happiness, it comes as a cost.

    This finding suggests that policies aimed at raising the incomes of lower earners could do far more to improve overall happiness than simply giving bonuses to the wealthy or cutting taxes for the highest earners.

    “When we have to make financial trade-offs between people, focusing on policies that help the poorest could create far more collective happiness than boosting the fortunes of those who are already well-off,” Killingsworth noted.

    Why Income Inequality Persists in America

    The study also highlights a key tension between individual and collective happiness, which could help explain why income inequality persists — not only in America but other countries as well. “If additional money brought diminishing happiness gains to the wealthy, we’d expect them to eventually stop chasing higher incomes,” Killingsworth said. Yet his study shows that even the wealthiest continue to find joy in earning more, which keeps the desire for higher earnings — and the cycle of inequality — alive.

    This also sheds light on why happiness levels in the U.S. have stagnated in recent decades, despite economic growth. The richest individuals have benefited the most from rising incomes in recent decades, while lower earners have seen the slowest income growth, even in percentage terms.

    “From the perspective of society’s happiness, the impact of economic growth in recent decades seems to have played out in exactly the wrong way. The people who would benefit the least from additional dollars have gained the most, while the people who would benefit the most from additional dollars have gained almost nothing,” he said.

    In short, while evidence suggests that money can steadily increase individual happiness, making society happier as a whole may benefit from a more strategic approach, with a special emphasis on lifting up those who have the least.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Biden says he was ‘stupid’ not to sign Covid stimulus checks as Trump did

    By Robert Tait

    See original post here.

    Joe Biden has voiced regret for not following Donald Trump’s example by putting his signature on Covid-19-era economic stimulus cheques sent to Americans during a speech about his record on the economy as he prepares to leave office.

    Five weeks after his vice-president, Kamala Harris, lost the presidential election to Trump, the US president suggested on Tuesday that his failure to put his name on the cheques may have contributed to voters blaming his administration for high prices even when the economy was improving.

    “Within the first two months of office I signed the American Rescue Plan,” Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based thinktank. “And also learned something from Donald Trump – he signed checks for people, $7,400 for people because we passed the plan. I didn’t – stupid.”

    Trump was widely criticised after becoming the first president to have his name printed on cheques disbursed by the Internal Revenue Service – America’s federal tax authority – in 2020. The move followed legislation from Congress intended to ease the impact of the economic slowdown that resulted from the first wave of the Covid pandemic.

    “I’m sure people will be very happy to get a big, fat, beautiful check and my name is on it,” he said at the time.

    Anecdotal evidence suggested that he may have been given credit by voters that was denied to Biden for his response to the pandemic.

    Campaigning for Harris, Barack Obama told audiences that some voters had told him that “Donald Trump sent me a check during the pandemic” to explain their support for him.

    Biden interrupted his speech after about 10 minutes to tell the audience that his teleprompter had broken down, forcing him to speak unscripted. Such a move was notable as during his presidency, critics frequently remarked on Biden’s public appearances for an over-reliance on teleprompter-scripted deliveries, suspected by many as intended to guard against his tendency for verbal gaffes.

    His attempt at justifying his self-styled “Bidenomics” approach amounted to a rebuff to detractors – both Democrat and Republican – who blamed his administration for failing to counteract inflation and persistently high prices, even while job creation and growth rebounded strongly after the Covid-19 pandemic forced a widespread economic shut down.

    “We got back to full employment, got inflation back down, managed a soft landing that many people thought was not likely to happen,” Biden said. “Next month, my administration will end, and a new administration will begin. The new administration’s going to inherit a very strong economy, at least at the moment.”

    During the campaign, opinion polls repeatedly showed concerns over the economy topping voters’ priorities, with many voicing frustration over high fuel and grocery costs. The administration blamed fallout from the pandemic – which prompted the enactment of a $1.9tn stimulus plan early in Biden’s term aimed at reviving the economy – and on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    But Biden suggested Trump might squander his economic legacy by reverting to “trickle-down” economics amid indications that the president-elect intends to extend his 2017 tax cuts, which drastically slashed rates paid by corporations and the rich, while imposing tariffs on foreign imports.

    “By all accounts the incoming administration is determined to return the country to another round of trickle-down economics … once again causing massive deficits or significant cuts in basic programs,” Biden said.

    “I believe this approach is a major mistake. I believe we’ve proven that approach is a mistake over the past four years.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Bangladesh is considering testing out universal basic income

    By Selim Jahan

    See original post here.

    The issue of social protection may be viewed from three perspectives: as a concept linked to the notion of a welfare state; as a support to those who cannot fend for themselves and are outside the growth loop; and also as a tool to reduce poverty and inequality in a society. Social protection has various programmes and instruments, ranging from disability assistance to unemployment insurance to childcare allowances to conditional cash transfers. Over the years, one of the social protection instruments that has been piloted in many countries is the universal basic income (UBI).

    Some of the issues concerning UBI need to be clarified. First, the word “universal” in UBI is sometimes misunderstood. Universal here does not mean everyone in the society, but it refers to everyone who qualifies for it, irrespective of all other social assistance they receive. Second, even though UBI has been discussed for decades, no country in the world currently has a national UBI. Over the years, many countries have tried UBI as pilot programmes on a local scale. Thus, in 1974, Canada ran its basic income pilot programme in Mincome, in the province of Manitoba. In 2008-09, Namibia provided every resident of Otjivero-Omitara with 100 Namibian dollars per month. In 2017-18, Finland paid 2,000 unemployed people a monthly income of 560 euros. Third, even now, experiments with UBI are still going on. For example, in England, a pilot programme is planned to trial a UBI of 1,600 pounds per month. The programme will pay 30 people a lump sum each month for two years.

    Three issues are pertinent to the UBI pilot programmes in different countries. One, they were to test whether this basic income transfer could reduce poverty and social exclusion, and also to assess the modus operandi of such programmes. Two, it was to identify whether a basic income to people would act as a disincentive for them to work. Three, the pilot programmes were a test case to determine whether the cost implications for an UBI programme would be high. These concerns are of importance for scaling up the current UBI programmes as well as for their replication in other countries.

    All these issues are relevant to contextualise the present discussions that have been taking place in Bangladesh on introducing a UBI programme, in line with the aspiration of the people to create a society without disparities. The idea is that such an initiative in Bangladesh will improve the living conditions of its poor, will protect those who are outside the market structures and are unable to fend for themselves, and will pave the way for a welfare state. A UBI programme for Bangladesh has recently been proposed as a promising tool to reduce poverty, empower citizens, and streamline social protection even within the constraints of the current fiscal framework.

    Some of the characteristics of the proposed programme are: first, it would include a periodic, unconditional, and uniform cash payment system, offering financial security to all members of the society. Second, it has been maintained that at this point, a partial UBI would be perfect for Bangladesh. Third, a poverty scorecard has been recommended as a reliable and cost-effective tool to assess poverty levels and identify target groups. The threshold of the proposed poverty scorecard is supposed to indicate the households’ susceptibility to poverty with the implication that those scoring below the threshold are more vulnerable to poverty, while those above are not. This will ensure an effective implementation of the programme.

    In moving forward with the proposal, it will be of critical importance to pay attention to some crucial issues. First, the proposed UBI programme has been referred to as an initiative that could be more effective than the current social safety net programmes in alleviating poverty in the country. Does it mean that other social safety net programmes will be scrapped? Or would it lead to a combined integrated social protection package for the country? Similarly, if there is duplication of benefits (for example, if someone gets some other social safety benefits in addition to UBI), will the other benefits be stopped? Second, the proposed UBI will be an unconditional cash transfer. As there is an intense global debate on the efficacy of unconditional versus conditional income transfers, the issue may be revisited in the context of Bangladesh. This is because conditional cash transfers can bring in additional benefits in areas of children’s education, health and nutrition. Bolsa Familia, the conditional cash transfer programme in Brazil, is a prime example. Third, the implementation mechanism of UBI should be thought through. The bureaucracy around UBI can be stifling.

    Two other major issues need to be tackled in the context of UBI for Bangladesh. First is the question of targeting. The proposed UBI has indicated that the threshold of the poverty scorecard would be determined by analysing values in urban and rural areas, aligning them to represent households that fall below the upper poverty line, as defined by the 2022 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) of the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). According to the proposal, urban households with a score below 48, and rural areas below 52, would be eligible to receive allowances. In this context, two questions need to be answered: one, how the scoring was done—if there was any subjectivity behind those scoring; and two, if, in future, the upper poverty line was adjusted up or down, how the scoring would change.

    Second, the resource implications of UBI everywhere in the world is huge, and Bangladesh is no exception. If each eligible person here is handed over, as proposed, Tk 4,540 per month, a national UBI programme would cost the treasury about Tk 75,000 crore. With the country’s tax-GDP ratio at eight percent, the scale of the challenge to implement a national UBI programme will be daunting. There is also a related question: even if it is possible to sustain this cost of UBI, would the resources for other social safety net programmes dry up?

    Finally, it is good to know that like other relevant countries, the UBI proposal is focusing on it first as a programme on a limited scale and coverage. A proposal has been made to roll it out in 11 most poverty vulnerable districts in the country. This is a prudent and a pragmatic approach. If, on monitoring and evaluation, it seems promising, the UBI programme can then be scaled up nationally and sustained.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • What happens when you give moms and babies $7,500? Flint is finding out

    By Nushrat Rahman

    See original post here.

    Flint is the city that fights back, says Dr. Mona Hanna. She’s the Flint pediatrician who raised the alarm about the city’s water crisis.

    She’s also the co-director of Rx Kids, a program that provides cash to expectant moms mid-pregnancy and the first year of the infant’s life. Pregnant mothers get a $1,500 lump sum and then, after the baby is born, $500 a month, for a total of $7,500.

    In January, Rx Kids launched in Flint, a city where 59% of those under 18 years old are living below poverty and this year marked a decade since a water supply switch exposed tens of thousands of individuals to lead contaminated drinking water.

    “Flint is the city that fought back, that refused to accept the status quo, that said, ‘No, we’re not OK with poison water.’ In that same spirit, Flint is leading the way and saying, ‘Hey, we’re not OK with our babies growing up in poverty,’” Hanna said.

    Rx Kids has so far distributed about $4.7 million to more than 1,200 families in Flint, as of early December. The program, which does not have income requirements, has a goal to eliminate maternal infant poverty. Hanna said the uptake of Rx Kids in Flint suggests that’s working. More than 90% of the babies born in Flint are part of the program, she said.

    The program received $20 million in a state budget allocation to allow it to grow beyond Flint to communities across Michigan. Next up: Kalamazoo.

    Both in Flint and Kalamazoo, the programs rely on a combination of public and philanthropic dollars, from funders like the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Stryker Johnston Foundation and the Kalamazoo Community Foundation. Rx Kids needs philanthropic funds to make it available to moms, in areas it is slated to launch, regardless of their income, program leaders have said.

    Rx Kids is co-directed by Hanna, associate dean of public health at the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, and Luke Shaefer, who heads up the University of Michigan’s Poverty Solutions initiative.

    Recently, the Free Press spoke to Hanna about Rx Kids as the program nears the end of its inaugural year and raises funds to launch in other parts of the state in 2025. The interview was edited for clarity and length.

    QUESTION: Can you tell me why you started Rx Kids? What was your personal motivation?

    ANSWER: So much of what ails my children that I care for, so much of what makes people sick at a population level, the root cause is poverty. It is widely recognized as a leading social determinant of health.

    Q: Why focus on pregnant moms and babies?

    A: Towards the end of pregnancy, moms often have to come out of the workforce. They lose income. Babies are expensive. This is one of the time periods where families have to spend a lot of money on novel things, like car seats and strollers and diapers … and there’s lots of other out of pocket expenses, like medical care. And then once a baby is born, moms are often still out of the workforce. We have no paid leave policies in the United States, which is very anomalous compared to other countries. And then child care is also very expensive. So this window of pregnancy, infancy is when families are the poorest across the entire life course. And then that’s also really the most important period in child development.

    Q: What were you seeing as a doctor, as a pediatrician in Flint, that pushed you to start Rx Kids. What are some of those specific moments that motivated you?

    A: It’s the kid that comes in with failure to thrive because of inadequate diet. It’s a kid that comes in with obesity because they don’t have access to healthy food in their neighborhood. It’s missed appointments because kids don’t have reliable transportation to get to the doctor. … All of these things, if you peel back and ask, ‘why, why, why’ can (it) be rooted to poverty. … When you look at things at a population level — not just at the individual level — we have so many disparities that are racial and demographic that can also be kind of traced back to poverty.

    Q: In what ways did the water crisis — which I know that you were pivotal in calling the alarm on in Flint — impact the decision to start our RxKids in Flint?

    A: The water crisis was fundamentally about poverty, because we were a very poor city and a near bankrupt city that got taken over by the state and we had financial emergency managers running the city. So that was one of the causes besides obviously the lost democracy by being taken over and the water storage and denial of science and crumbling infrastructure. All of these are big lessons that are playing out and have played out … but since the moment of kind of recognizing and uncovering the water crisis, my work in Flint — as so many folks in Flint — has been about recovery. What can we do to mitigate the impact of this water crisis? And we’ve done amazing things in Flint. We put in, for example, high quality child care and expanded Medicaid and nutrition programs and trauma informed services. … As a community, we have been doing so much to promote the health and development of children. Yet, once again, there’s this thing that has been missing in our toolbox, something I wish I had in my doctor’s bag, and despite all the goodness that we’ve been able to do, we haven’t been able to address poverty. … The water crisis has enabled a lot of us to think differently, to refuse the status quo, to not be OK with how things are, but to reimagine how things can be, and not to just think about it, but put it into play.

    Q: What are your takeaways from running this program for a year? Anything surprised you? Anything unexpected?

    A: Still a lot of disbelief that we were able to do this. There’s a lot of kind of joy from the families, from really everybody who interacts with this program. I think everybody recognizes how historic this was, to be able to do this thing that has never been done before, that so many people thought wouldn’t be possible. There’s a lot of sleeplessness because of the desire to continue to work, to expand the work. Every single day we get communication from somebody who lives somewhere else or another community that wants to do this.

    Q: What’s next for Rx Kids? 

    A: It’s the continued expansion, making sure that it is up and running in other low-income Michigan communities. … We are deep in the weeds of the evaluation, so making sure that we can look at the data and get that data out as quickly as possible, to share our findings, so that we can continue to inform policy, to make an impact in the lives of, once again, children and families all over.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Homeless families to receive $1,000 a month from Google and San Francisco nonprofits

    By David Sjostedt

    See original post here.

    Some recently homeless families in San Francisco will soon receive $1,000 every month as part of a new program funded in part by a $4.5 million investment from Google’s nonprofit arm.

    Two local charities focused on family homelessness, Compass Family Services and Hamilton Families, announced the new program called “It All Adds Up” on Tuesday.

    Unveiled with a splashy website, the program is part of a broader $1 billion effort by Google.org to increase the Bay Area’s housing supply. It’s projected to cost more than $6 million over the five-year pilot period, with additional funding from anonymous donors, according to a spokesperson for Compass. 

    The concept of guaranteed basic income—where people receive a modest amount of money on a regular basis to cover their basic needs—has been widely studied in social welfare circles and has attracted interest from Silicon Valley elites.

    OpenAI founder Sam Altman is also funding a pilot program to study the practice. Altman predicted in 2021 that artificial intelligence could one day create enough wealth to pay every U.S. adult $13,500 per year.

    The It All Adds Up initiative argues for the benefits of guaranteed basic income, a practice it says has been tried and tested back to the days of Julius Caesar.

    “Julius Caesar gave each Roman citizen 100 silver coins,” the program’s website says. “The rise of income inequality, automation, and artificial intelligence in the late 2000s catapulted the idea back into the mainstream.”

    “It All Adds Up” will provide 450 families that have recently experienced homelessness with monthly no-strings-attached cash stipends as part of a five-year pilot. Half of the participants will receive $1,000 per month, while the other half, a control group, will receive just $50. 

    The payments will be distributed exclusively to families with one to three months left in their city-funded housing subsidies. 

    The experiment aims to show that guaranteed basic income programs can work to combat poverty and homelessness in cities across the country.

    San Francisco has experienced a surge in family homelessness in recent months, with 427 families waiting in line for shelter as of April 17. A waitlist for individual shelter beds had 172 people on it on Monday afternoon.

    New York University plans to conduct a study on the program, evaluating its success based on outcomes such as housing stability, income and mental health.

    In a quote provided in a press release, a homeless parent who gave their name simply as Ayalla, explained the potential benefits of the cash stipend.

    “With $1,000 a month, I could pay my bills and have the room to look for a career where I can use my culinary skills,” Ayalla said in the release. “Maybe even take my son for pizza and a night at the arcade.”

    San Francisco’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing budgeted $713 million to combat homelessness this fiscal year, spending approximately 59% of its annual budget to provide housing for formerly homeless people.

    Another 8% of the department’s annual budget goes toward prevention efforts. For example, a program called Problem Solving provides stipends for car repairs, rent deposits and other resources that may help people stay off the streets.

    Separately, the city’s Human Services Agency spent approximately $30.3 million on general assistance benefits in fiscal year 2022. The program served about 8,330 people, providing $105 stipends for those who were homeless and a maximum of $687 for those living indoors.

    The city reduced the amount of cash provided to homeless people in 2002 through legislation called Care Not Cash under then-Mayor Gavin Newsom. Earlier this year, voters passed new legislation authored by Mayor London Breed requiring some aid recipients to undergo drug screening. Breed’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on Google’s new initiative.

    Meanwhile, advocates for homeless people have touted research showing that no-strings-attached cash can be a key factor in helping them turn things around.

    One of them is Michael D. Tubbs, the former mayor of Stockton, who pointed to dozens of programs showing the success of this approach.

    “Behind the numbers are real people who are able to breathe easier,” Tubbs said in the press release.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Payments under revamped Harris County guaranteed income program halted pending Paxton’s appeal

    By Sarah Grunau

    See original post here.

    The modified program would provide nearly 2,000 families living below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, who were already selected for the program, with $500 monthly payments through preloaded debit cards. Payments under the revised program were set to start going out in January.

    Harris County cannot distribute money under a revamped guaranteed income program while a final appeal is pending, according to a recent order by the Fifteenth Court of Appeals.

    The move comes months after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed a decision by a Harris County judge that denied the state’s attempt to shutter the county’s second version of a guaranteed basic income program. Deemed unconstitutional, the first version of the “no-strings-attached” program was first struck down by a judge in June.

    The modified program would provide nearly 2,000 families living below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, who were already selected for the pilot program, with $500 monthly payments through preloaded debit cards. Payments under the revised program were set to begin going out in January.

    An order from the court on Dec. 6 granted a request to expedite the appeal process of the guaranteed income program, giving the county and the state just over two weeks to file opinions in the matter. During proceedings in the appeal process, the county cannot distribute funds under the revamped plan deemed the Community Prosperity Program.

    “We disagree with the court’s decision to stay the program, pending the appeal,” Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee said in a statement Friday to Houston Public Media. “Attorney General Paxton is dead set on blocking Harris County families from having the resources they need to make a better life for themselves.

    “Harris County families deserve support, and we’ll keep pushing for solutions that give them a fair shot,” Menefee added.

    The $20 million program would be funded through federal COVID-19 recovery dollars. Harris County commissioners approved the plan to relaunch the program for a second time in August, despite the retooled changes not being “the spirit” of the original pilot program, Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo said.

    In August, Hidalgo added that if the new program becomes stuck in court, the money will be reallocated to county programs “to support people living in poverty.”

    “I don’t want the families to have sort of false hope,” she said during a commissioners court meeting at the time. “We’re going to wait and see what happens, but we’re doing everything we can.”

    Since the first version of the program, called Uplift Harris, was struck down, Paxton has maintained that distributing public dollars for guaranteed income programs violates state law.

    “Harris County is not above the law and cannot ignore the Texas Constitution,” Paxton said in a statement Friday. “They made a blatant attempt to end-run a Texas Supreme Court ruling by duplicating their unlawful handout program, and we have successfully blocked them again.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • New guaranteed basic income program in WA aims to help Native parents

    By Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks

    See original post here.

    Having struggled with postpartum depression and anxiety following the birth of her first child, Alison Fasolino knew she wanted to have doula support that incorporated Native American traditions this time around.

    But 12 weeks into her pregnancy, she faced a more urgent issue: staying afloat financially.

    Experiencing debilitating morning sickness every day and diagnosed with gestational diabetes, Fasolino in February started taking time off from her job as a mental health counselor. Without her income, she and her husband would soon have to consider moving out of their Queen Anne apartment.

    So when Fasolino learned about a new guaranteed basic income program for Native families run by Hummingbird Indigenous Family Services, a Seattle-based organization that also offers doula services, it was kismet. 

    “My first thought was just how wonderful it was that I was actually reading something that was putting emphasis on helping Native American women and specifically Native American mothers,” said Fasolino, who is an enrolled member of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma.  

    Her next thought? 

    “Wow, we won’t have to worry about buying the things this baby needs and going to doctor’s appointments and transportation and that sort of thing if I were to get this,” she recalled.

    American Indian and Alaska Natives in Washington have a higher maternal mortality rate than any other ethnic group. Babies born to Indigenous people are more likely to have birth complications. Tribal communities disproportionately experience housing insecurity, poverty and worse health outcomes — disparities rooted in racism and discrimination, and forged by centuries of violence, cultural genocide and economic dispossession. 

    To help reverse those dire trends, Hummingbird Indigenous Family Services launched the Nest in August 2023, the first guaranteed income program in the United States that specifically serves Native communities.

    Under the program, 150 pregnant people who identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander were selected to receive $1,250 a month, no strings attached.

    Households had to be in King or Pierce counties or on the Tulalip Reservation and roughly fall below the University of Washington’s Self-Sufficiency Standard to be eligible. A household of four people, for example, would have to make less than $100,000.

    Participating parents — some of whom already have children or live with older relatives — started receiving the money during pregnancy or just after giving birth. They will continue getting payments until their child’s third birthday, meaning a family may receive as much as $45,000 by the time they exit the program. 

    There is a long history of social work harming Indigenous communities and significant stigma around poverty and welfare, said Tia Yazzie, Hummingbird’s Abundance Auntie. The Nest aims to change that. 

    “This program is going to build Indigenous generational wealth,” said Yazzie, who checks in on Nest participants to offer support and resources. “It’s not just money wealth, but cultural wealth, healing wealth.” 

    A number of guaranteed basic income programs have launched across the United States in recent years, offering a model of direct assistance that advocates say alleviates poverty while respecting people’s dignity and self-determination. 

    Critics of guaranteed income argue unrestricted cash discourages people from working and is a waste of government spending. Even supporters note small payments don’t address systemic issues like income inequality or regressive tax policies, and pilot programs rarely lead to widespread policy adoption.

    Part of what makes Hummingbird’s guaranteed basic income program special is that it’s informed by Indigenous practices around healing, abundance and resilience, said founding Executive Director Camie Goldhammer.

    Those enrolled in the Nest have access to a variety of Hummingbird’s other programming, such as doula services, lactation counseling and home visits. Hummingbird also funds and supports Indigenous-centered community events and activities that encourage positive early childhood development or opportunities for parents and children to bond.

    During a recent workshop in Columbia City, Goldhammer taught a group of Native women how to make star quilts, a traditional handmade gift originating from northern Plains tribes.

    Expecting mothers and eager aunts carefully cut strips of colorful fabrics to create an intricate morning star motif, representing the first glitter of light one can see before the sun rises. The quilts are often sewn by family members to celebrate births, commemorate milestones like graduations, and honor loved ones who’ve passed on. 

    Among the quilters was Chelsea Hendrickson, a citizen of the Northern Arapaho Nation who is also Cu’pik from Nunivak Island, Alaska, who was in her third trimester.

    Far from the aunties and grandmothers on her reservation who know how to craft important sacred objects, Hendrickson called the class “a blessing.”

    A survivor of domestic abuse and sexual violence who is in recovery for addiction, Hendrickson said “each stitch, each thread” is a meaningful part of her healing journey that binds her closer to her child and her Indigenous identity.

    “You can see a therapist or go to an AA meeting, but when you have the direct connection to a community and a culture, that’s what’s really going to take the healing for a Native woman to another level,” Hendrickson said, as sewing machines hummed around her.

    Pairing direct cash assistance with opportunities for family services informed by Indigenous traditions just makes sense, Goldhammer said — they’re “sisters that belong together.”

    “Being able to receive care by your community in your community does lead to better outcomes,” said Goldhammer, who is a Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate tribal citizen. “When you’re connecting them with cultural support, that’s what makes the difference.”

    The cash that comes alongside the cultural support has provided significant relief and helped reduce stress for parents, said Lacey Warrior, the Nest’s program manager.

    For some, like Hj-lynn Hiteuo, the money has covered rent and paid for diapers, baby formula and other necessities.   

    Hiteuo had recently moved to Federal Way from Micronesia when she learned she was pregnant in early 2023. Being a part of the program allowed her to stay at home for several months after giving birth. 

    Her daughter’s first birthday is coming up and she’s planning on a big celebration. “I’ve been saving up the money I’ve been receiving, $100, $200 every month,” she said.

    “I really want to spend time with my daughter because I want to have that strong bond between me and her,” Hiteuo said. She now works part-time at a nearby McDonald’s and hopes to eventually get a higher paying job.

    Similarly, when Fasolino started receiving payments in May during her last trimester, the relief for her family was instant.

    “It really has been such a huge help for us, that little peace of mind,” said her husband Jon Sioleski on a recent day at Bhy Kracke Park as he cradled 3-month-old Luka.

    “Each month, that’s a little added security that’s going to come in,” he said, watching Fasolino and their 2-year-old daughter Anastasia sit under the playground structure.

    Fasolino has since returned to work, but only part-time. That reduced caseload has allowed her to spend more time with her children, better help her current clients, and pursue her artistic passions as a theater actor. Her family can afford to support her older daughter’s emerging gymnastics interest by paying for tumbling classes. Every once in a while, Fasolino splurges to buy traditional foods like bison.

    For the first time since she was 12, Fasolino and her family will be able to fly to Arkansas to attend her tribe’s annual powwow across the border in Oklahoma next September. 

    Other moms in the program have been able to treat themselves to a manicure or haircut, or work on traditional art like weaving or beading. During the holidays, some have been able to travel out of state to see their relatives or purchase more gifts for the kids. One woman was able to fly her mother out from the Marshall Islands so she could meet her new grandchild for the first time.

    “I do feel like the Nest is sort of a catalyst for changing the framing and mindset from scarcity to abundance,” said Warrior, an enrolled member of the Ninilchik Village Tribe (Dena’ina Athabaskan) who is also Alutiq and a descendant of the A’aniiih Nation. 

    Overwhelming evidence from guaranteed basic income programs around the world indicates “mostly a huge, or a very substantial, benefit,” said University of Toronto professor Arjumand Siddiqi, who studies the health effects of guaranteed basic income.

    People report being healthier, happier and less food insecure, seeing higher employment rates, increased monthly income, decreased reliance on government assistance, and overall feeling better prepared for sudden expenses. One study found improved birth outcomes among low-income pregnant women who received small income supplements.

    Income is a major determinant of health, said Siddiqi, who is also a senior scientist and chair of child policy research at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. When families have more money, they are able to buy nutritious foods, go see doctors, afford medicine and reduce their stress, she said.

    The goal of the Nest isn’t to prove direct cash payments with no strings attached are beneficial, but rather, explore how Hummingbird’s additional culturally attuned services can impact families, said Tess Abrahamson-Richards, Hummingbird’s director of data sovereignty. 

    Abrahamson-Richards said Hummingbird is still collecting quantitative data on the program’s impacts. The group plans to compare outcomes for those who only receive Nest money, those who only receive services from Hummingbird, and those who receive both, then publish their findings. 

    “What is the impact of a culturally grounded guaranteed income intervention addressing not just the financial needs of families, but also the personal and the collective?” she said.

    Some of those personal needs are addressed by Hummingbird’s Indigenous doulas, who help guide families through pregnancy, birth and the early postpartum weeks.

    T’leeuh Antone, an Indigenous BirthKeeper and lactation counselor with the nonprofit, has visited several Nest participants. When they go to work, formalities are “out the window.”

    “You’re my relative, my sister, my cousin, I’m auntie vibes,” Antone said. “Folding clothes, bringing hot meals, picking up groceries, that’s my role, and the extra benefit to that role is you’re getting a lot of birthing education, lactation training and all those things.” 

    Antone said some of the people they’ve worked with are first-time parents who live far from their extended families or tribal community, while others have deep roots in the region but may not have a relative who can help guide them through pregnancy and early child rearing. Many see the birth of a child as a chance to reconnect with their Indigeneity, Antone said. 

    In the weeks before a baby arrives, Antone has helped families craft cradleboards or medicine pouches. During early labor, Antone might put on traditional music specific to the new mom’s tribal community. Even in a clinical setting like a hospital, birth is sacred, Antone said, and should be treated with ceremony and reverence. 

    “No matter where we’re at, we’re making it special,” Antone said. 

    The Nest, which is set to run for five years, is financially supported by the Perigee Fund, a Seattle-based foundation that aims to improve the health and well-being of infants and their caregivers.

    Whether the program will be expanded in the future remains to be seen. Hummingbird has been part of a recent push to create a statewide guaranteed income program, though efforts in Olympia have stalled. 

    Yazzie, Hummingbird’s Abundance Auntie, hopes that more Indigenous parents will be able to experience the “life changing” impacts of the Nest. Expanding the program is in line with traditional values like leading with generosity, building strong communities and protecting the health and well-being of families, she said.

    “We don’t want to just limit this to 150 people,” she said. “That’s not how we think about it as an Indigenous community.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: A basic income grant is our most potent weapon in the fight against hunger

    By Neil Coleman

    See original post here.

    A shocking 64.7% of all South African households have expenditure on food per person that is below the food poverty line. Hunger creates a ticking time bomb which can be devastating when the fuse is lit.

    Much of the discourse on hunger in South Africa tends to be about food systems. While important, this misses a critical issue: the relationship between hunger and income poverty. 

    Before addressing this, it is worth making some general observations about the politics of hunger in South Africa (and globally):

    • There is sufficient food in South Africa to feed everybody. But hunger is widespread. Hunger, globally and in South Africa, is man-made;
    • Hunger can be eradicated, or massively reduced in a short time. President Lula da Silva showed this with the Zero Hunger campaign in Brazil, which took that country off the UN hunger map;
    • At its most extreme, hunger is used as a weapon of war, and in the case of Gaza, a weapon of genocide;
    • The ravages of hunger in South Africa may be less obvious and brutal, but they are no less real, resulting in thousands losing their lives (malnutrition being the underlying cause of a third of child deaths in South Africa), and many more permanently scarred;
    • High unemployment, income poverty, low wages and lack of adequate social security is a toxic combination that breeds hunger and malnutrition; and
    • Hunger and food security is complex – it also relates to food systems, retail monopolies, eating habits, etc. Such factors need to be addressed. There is nevertheless a stark reality: if people don’t have enough income to buy sufficient food, they will constantly face the spectre of hunger.

     The relationship between hunger and social protection 

    Imagine if every South African was guaranteed a minimum income floor sufficient to meet their basic food needs. 

    The Institute for Economic Justice conducted a study on the relationship between hunger, income poverty and social protection and reached the following four basic conclusions: 

    • Food insecurity in South Africa is closely tied to income poverty, with millions of households struggling to access sufficient nutrition despite the country producing enough food for everyone;
    • Expanding social protection, particularly through a Universal Basic Income Grant (UBIG), is key to addressing hunger;
    • By reducing income poverty, a Universal Basic Income can help ensure that people have the money to buy enough food, improving overall health and well-being; and
    • Over time, reducing food insecurity not only benefits individuals and families but can also support sustainable development by creating a virtuous cycle where improved nutrition leads to higher productivity of the economy, better educational outcomes, and inclusive economic growth.

     Income poverty and hunger in South Africa 

    We have a crisis of income poverty in the country that underpins the crisis of hunger. This is based on certain key realities:

    • Astronomical levels of unemployment: an expanded unemployment rate of more than 42%, with 12.2 million out of work. More than 80% of the unemployed are long-term unemployed, and three million have given up looking for work;
    • High levels of working poverty, with many people earning too little to afford a basic diet. A 2023 Wits University hunger study showed that 40% of households with an income of between R2,000 and R5,000 experienced food insecurity or were at risk of hunger; and
    • Social grants which are below the food poverty line. The R530 Child Support Grant is about two-thirds of the food poverty line of R790 per month. The R370 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant for adults is less than half the food poverty line.

    The HSRC finds that a shocking 64.7% of all households have expenditure on food per person that is below the food poverty line (FPL). This means that nearly two-thirds of South Africans are food-insecure. 

    There are serious challenges with definitions in the literature as to what constitutes hunger, food insecurity, etc, and therefore with measuring the depth of the problem. This needs to be addressed. 

    How do people feed their children and themselves, given these dire realities? 

    • The 2023 Wits hunger study found one in five South African households sends a member of the family out to beg for food regularly. When I point to this study people say that can’t be possible in a wealthy country like South Africa! But this is the reality;
    • Many people take on debt to buy food (40% of South Africans borrow to buy food), or borrow from friends and family; and
    • Many others simply don’t cope, and face extreme hunger, with some resorting to desperate measures to deal with their situation, including crime and suicide. Mental illness arising from the stress of hunger is rife.

     So what do we do? 

    Systemic interventions are needed, including through transforming food systems; combating concentration and profiteering in the food chain, particularly retail; controlling the prices of basic foods, and ensuring their accessibility in poor communities through markets and public outlets; and ensuring a particular focus by the public sector on nutrition for young children through school meals, etc.

    Many of these proposed interventions were contained in the Food for All commitments in the ANC 2009 Manifesto, but most haven’t been implemented. Such interventions are important, but many of them will take considerable time. 

    However, we don’t have the time. We need rapid high-impact interventions that will end the scourge of hunger. Critical here is to ensure people have adequate income for their basic food needs.

    Too many interventions being proposed to combat hunger, while well-meaning, fail to address the fundamental challenge of income poverty. These include food vouchers, subsidies to retailers and even expanding VAT exemptions on basics.

    While many of these interventions will have a significant cost to the state, and may marginally alleviate the crisis, they are not all guaranteed to trickle down to those who need them most, and don’t adequately address the crisis of income poverty or hunger. 

    Improving and expanding basic income support is key to combating hunger. The evidence, in South Africa and internationally, is that the most powerful and direct way to help people to combat hunger is to put income directly into their hands, combined with measures to keep the price of essential foods down and easily accessible to everyone. 

    Evidence from a number of studies is that even the very small R350 (now R370) SRD grant has played a significant role in mitigating hunger, and that about 93% of SRD grant beneficiaries spend their grant on food. But the grant remains too far below the food poverty line, currently at R796 per month. 

    So, expanding and improving the SRD grant as a basis for a permanent system of basic income support, at least at the level of the FPL, would play a critical role in combating hunger. 

    But this needs to be done together with improving other aspects of the social assistance framework. 

    The Child Support Grant is not able, at its current level, to eliminate child hunger.

    First, because its value is far too low, and is insufficient to cover a child’s food needs. Second, even if the Child Support Grant is raised to the FPL it won’t be able to eliminate child hunger, because, as the evidence clearly shows, the grant is shared within households whose adult members lack sufficient income support, which dilutes the benefit. 

    This is why it is so important to have both a system of guaranteed basic income for all members of the household, and to raise the Child Support Grant to the FPL. 

    This combination of an expanded and improved SRD/adult basic income, and an improved child grant at the FPL will be able to rapidly eliminate extreme forms of hunger. It is important though that millions who are currently being unfairly excluded from the SRD be brought into the social assistance net. 

    The Institute for Economic Justice and #PayTheGrants (#PTG) legal action on the SRD grant seeks to address the unfair exclusion of millions of applicants, and thus secure the constitutional right of SRD grant beneficiaries to social assistance.

    But this case is also an action to secure the right to food: up to 18 million South Africans, and more than half the country’s population, if you include dependants, stand to benefit if there is a positive judgment which will enable them to access food for themselves and their families.

    Civil society organisations continue to hold the government to its commitments to introduce a permanent system of basic income support. There is broad civil society agreement, expressed by the Universal Basic Income Coalition, that the introduction of basic income should start at the food poverty line as a platform to progressively realise universal basic income set at the Upper Bound Poverty Line (UBPL) over time. 

    ADRS modelling conducted jointly with the Institute for Economic Justice shows that progressive introduction of basic income at the UBPL can sustainably be achieved by 2030, with beneficial results to the economy, employment, poverty and inequality. This would massively reduce, if not totally eliminate, hunger in the country.

    The cost of basic income support 

    The question that is always asked is, would a system of basic income be affordable? There is extensive evidence that with the necessary political will, which requires us to inter alia elevate the fight against hunger to the top of the national agenda, this intervention can both be sustainably financed, and significantly contribute to economic development.

    There are multiple avenues for domestic resource mobilisation, and research has shown that there are a variety of financing options that can be used to finance such a grant in South Africa. 

    It is important to broaden the lens with which we examine this question. Narrow bookkeeping calculations, which we see so often in the public debate, of the number of beneficiaries multiplied by the value of the grant (the gross cost) neither capture the dynamic economic benefits of this large-scale income transfer to the poorest communities, nor the real costs after the economic returns to the fiscus in the form of increased VAT, and increased corporate tax take, etc (the net cost). The net (or real) cost could be as low as 50% of the gross (nominal) cost. 

    Extensive international and local evidence demonstrates that income transfers have a range of economic development impacts, ranging from a stimulus to local economies (particularly those in a depressed economic state), to promotion of small business, promotion of employment, and job seeking.

    International evidence suggests that income transfers have particularly high economic multipliers in developing countries and those with high levels of inequality. South Africa clearly ticks these boxes. 

    In addition to these economic impacts of income support, there are a range of social benefits that arise in areas such as health and crime, which create significant indirect savings for the state and society. International evidence shows that the cost of poverty is extremely high when you consider, for example, the costs to the health system, including from malnutrition and hunger-related illnesses. A system of basic income could radically reduce these costs.

    I conclude on a sobering note: apart from the social price society is paying for hunger in terms of malnutrition and the multiple negative impacts it has on children and adults, hunger creates a ticking time bomb which can be devastating when the fuse is lit.

    Costs of the looting and riots in July 2021 exceeded R100-billion (R70-billion in eThekwini alone) – more than the amount required to introduce basic income at the level of the food poverty line.

    Nor should it escape us, that while ostensibly “political”, reports clearly suggest that the events of 2021 had a strong element of “food riots”. 

    Penny-pinching technocrats need to think more carefully when they make their calculations.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: A basic income grant is our most potent weapon in the fight against hunger

    By Neil Coleman

    See original post here.

    A shocking 64.7% of all South African households have expenditure on food per person that is below the food poverty line. Hunger creates a ticking time bomb which can be devastating when the fuse is lit.

    Much of the discourse on hunger in South Africa tends to be about food systems. While important, this misses a critical issue: the relationship between hunger and income poverty. 

    Before addressing this, it is worth making some general observations about the politics of hunger in South Africa (and globally):

    • There is sufficient food in South Africa to feed everybody. But hunger is widespread. Hunger, globally and in South Africa, is man-made;
    • Hunger can be eradicated, or massively reduced in a short time. President Lula da Silva showed this with the Zero Hunger campaign in Brazil, which took that country off the UN hunger map;
    • At its most extreme, hunger is used as a weapon of war, and in the case of Gaza, a weapon of genocide;
    • The ravages of hunger in South Africa may be less obvious and brutal, but they are no less real, resulting in thousands losing their lives (malnutrition being the underlying cause of a third of child deaths in South Africa), and many more permanently scarred;
    • High unemployment, income poverty, low wages and lack of adequate social security is a toxic combination that breeds hunger and malnutrition; and
    • Hunger and food security is complex – it also relates to food systems, retail monopolies, eating habits, etc. Such factors need to be addressed. There is nevertheless a stark reality: if people don’t have enough income to buy sufficient food, they will constantly face the spectre of hunger.

     The relationship between hunger and social protection 

    Imagine if every South African was guaranteed a minimum income floor sufficient to meet their basic food needs. 

    The Institute for Economic Justice conducted a study on the relationship between hunger, income poverty and social protection and reached the following four basic conclusions: 

    • Food insecurity in South Africa is closely tied to income poverty, with millions of households struggling to access sufficient nutrition despite the country producing enough food for everyone;
    • Expanding social protection, particularly through a Universal Basic Income Grant (UBIG), is key to addressing hunger;
    • By reducing income poverty, a Universal Basic Income can help ensure that people have the money to buy enough food, improving overall health and well-being; and
    • Over time, reducing food insecurity not only benefits individuals and families but can also support sustainable development by creating a virtuous cycle where improved nutrition leads to higher productivity of the economy, better educational outcomes, and inclusive economic growth.

     Income poverty and hunger in South Africa 

    We have a crisis of income poverty in the country that underpins the crisis of hunger. This is based on certain key realities:

    • Astronomical levels of unemployment: an expanded unemployment rate of more than 42%, with 12.2 million out of work. More than 80% of the unemployed are long-term unemployed, and three million have given up looking for work;
    • High levels of working poverty, with many people earning too little to afford a basic diet. A 2023 Wits University hunger study showed that 40% of households with an income of between R2,000 and R5,000 experienced food insecurity or were at risk of hunger; and
    • Social grants which are below the food poverty line. The R530 Child Support Grant is about two-thirds of the food poverty line of R790 per month. The R370 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant for adults is less than half the food poverty line.

    The HSRC finds that a shocking 64.7% of all households have expenditure on food per person that is below the food poverty line (FPL). This means that nearly two-thirds of South Africans are food-insecure. 

    There are serious challenges with definitions in the literature as to what constitutes hunger, food insecurity, etc, and therefore with measuring the depth of the problem. This needs to be addressed. 

    How do people feed their children and themselves, given these dire realities? 

    • The 2023 Wits hunger study found one in five South African households sends a member of the family out to beg for food regularly. When I point to this study people say that can’t be possible in a wealthy country like South Africa! But this is the reality;
    • Many people take on debt to buy food (40% of South Africans borrow to buy food), or borrow from friends and family; and
    • Many others simply don’t cope, and face extreme hunger, with some resorting to desperate measures to deal with their situation, including crime and suicide. Mental illness arising from the stress of hunger is rife.

     So what do we do? 

    Systemic interventions are needed, including through transforming food systems; combating concentration and profiteering in the food chain, particularly retail; controlling the prices of basic foods, and ensuring their accessibility in poor communities through markets and public outlets; and ensuring a particular focus by the public sector on nutrition for young children through school meals, etc.

    Many of these proposed interventions were contained in the Food for All commitments in the ANC 2009 Manifesto, but most haven’t been implemented. Such interventions are important, but many of them will take considerable time. 

    However, we don’t have the time. We need rapid high-impact interventions that will end the scourge of hunger. Critical here is to ensure people have adequate income for their basic food needs.

    Too many interventions being proposed to combat hunger, while well-meaning, fail to address the fundamental challenge of income poverty. These include food vouchers, subsidies to retailers and even expanding VAT exemptions on basics.

    While many of these interventions will have a significant cost to the state, and may marginally alleviate the crisis, they are not all guaranteed to trickle down to those who need them most, and don’t adequately address the crisis of income poverty or hunger. 

    Improving and expanding basic income support is key to combating hunger. The evidence, in South Africa and internationally, is that the most powerful and direct way to help people to combat hunger is to put income directly into their hands, combined with measures to keep the price of essential foods down and easily accessible to everyone. 

    Evidence from a number of studies is that even the very small R350 (now R370) SRD grant has played a significant role in mitigating hunger, and that about 93% of SRD grant beneficiaries spend their grant on food. But the grant remains too far below the food poverty line, currently at R796 per month. 

    So, expanding and improving the SRD grant as a basis for a permanent system of basic income support, at least at the level of the FPL, would play a critical role in combating hunger. 

    But this needs to be done together with improving other aspects of the social assistance framework. 

    The Child Support Grant is not able, at its current level, to eliminate child hunger.

    First, because its value is far too low, and is insufficient to cover a child’s food needs. Second, even if the Child Support Grant is raised to the FPL it won’t be able to eliminate child hunger, because, as the evidence clearly shows, the grant is shared within households whose adult members lack sufficient income support, which dilutes the benefit. 

    This is why it is so important to have both a system of guaranteed basic income for all members of the household, and to raise the Child Support Grant to the FPL. 

    This combination of an expanded and improved SRD/adult basic income, and an improved child grant at the FPL will be able to rapidly eliminate extreme forms of hunger. It is important though that millions who are currently being unfairly excluded from the SRD be brought into the social assistance net. 

    The Institute for Economic Justice and #PayTheGrants (#PTG) legal action on the SRD grant seeks to address the unfair exclusion of millions of applicants, and thus secure the constitutional right of SRD grant beneficiaries to social assistance.

    But this case is also an action to secure the right to food: up to 18 million South Africans, and more than half the country’s population, if you include dependants, stand to benefit if there is a positive judgment which will enable them to access food for themselves and their families.

    Civil society organisations continue to hold the government to its commitments to introduce a permanent system of basic income support. There is broad civil society agreement, expressed by the Universal Basic Income Coalition, that the introduction of basic income should start at the food poverty line as a platform to progressively realise universal basic income set at the Upper Bound Poverty Line (UBPL) over time. 

    ADRS modelling conducted jointly with the Institute for Economic Justice shows that progressive introduction of basic income at the UBPL can sustainably be achieved by 2030, with beneficial results to the economy, employment, poverty and inequality. This would massively reduce, if not totally eliminate, hunger in the country.

    The cost of basic income support 

    The question that is always asked is, would a system of basic income be affordable? There is extensive evidence that with the necessary political will, which requires us to inter alia elevate the fight against hunger to the top of the national agenda, this intervention can both be sustainably financed, and significantly contribute to economic development.

    There are multiple avenues for domestic resource mobilisation, and research has shown that there are a variety of financing options that can be used to finance such a grant in South Africa. 

    It is important to broaden the lens with which we examine this question. Narrow bookkeeping calculations, which we see so often in the public debate, of the number of beneficiaries multiplied by the value of the grant (the gross cost) neither capture the dynamic economic benefits of this large-scale income transfer to the poorest communities, nor the real costs after the economic returns to the fiscus in the form of increased VAT, and increased corporate tax take, etc (the net cost). The net (or real) cost could be as low as 50% of the gross (nominal) cost. 

    Extensive international and local evidence demonstrates that income transfers have a range of economic development impacts, ranging from a stimulus to local economies (particularly those in a depressed economic state), to promotion of small business, promotion of employment, and job seeking.

    International evidence suggests that income transfers have particularly high economic multipliers in developing countries and those with high levels of inequality. South Africa clearly ticks these boxes. 

    In addition to these economic impacts of income support, there are a range of social benefits that arise in areas such as health and crime, which create significant indirect savings for the state and society. International evidence shows that the cost of poverty is extremely high when you consider, for example, the costs to the health system, including from malnutrition and hunger-related illnesses. A system of basic income could radically reduce these costs.

    I conclude on a sobering note: apart from the social price society is paying for hunger in terms of malnutrition and the multiple negative impacts it has on children and adults, hunger creates a ticking time bomb which can be devastating when the fuse is lit.

    Costs of the looting and riots in July 2021 exceeded R100-billion (R70-billion in eThekwini alone) – more than the amount required to introduce basic income at the level of the food poverty line.

    Nor should it escape us, that while ostensibly “political”, reports clearly suggest that the events of 2021 had a strong element of “food riots”. 

    Penny-pinching technocrats need to think more carefully when they make their calculations.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Opinion: A basic income grant is our most potent weapon in the fight against hunger

    By Neil Coleman

    See original post here.

    A shocking 64.7% of all South African households have expenditure on food per person that is below the food poverty line. Hunger creates a ticking time bomb which can be devastating when the fuse is lit.

    Much of the discourse on hunger in South Africa tends to be about food systems. While important, this misses a critical issue: the relationship between hunger and income poverty. 

    Before addressing this, it is worth making some general observations about the politics of hunger in South Africa (and globally):

    • There is sufficient food in South Africa to feed everybody. But hunger is widespread. Hunger, globally and in South Africa, is man-made;
    • Hunger can be eradicated, or massively reduced in a short time. President Lula da Silva showed this with the Zero Hunger campaign in Brazil, which took that country off the UN hunger map;
    • At its most extreme, hunger is used as a weapon of war, and in the case of Gaza, a weapon of genocide;
    • The ravages of hunger in South Africa may be less obvious and brutal, but they are no less real, resulting in thousands losing their lives (malnutrition being the underlying cause of a third of child deaths in South Africa), and many more permanently scarred;
    • High unemployment, income poverty, low wages and lack of adequate social security is a toxic combination that breeds hunger and malnutrition; and
    • Hunger and food security is complex – it also relates to food systems, retail monopolies, eating habits, etc. Such factors need to be addressed. There is nevertheless a stark reality: if people don’t have enough income to buy sufficient food, they will constantly face the spectre of hunger.

     The relationship between hunger and social protection 

    Imagine if every South African was guaranteed a minimum income floor sufficient to meet their basic food needs. 

    The Institute for Economic Justice conducted a study on the relationship between hunger, income poverty and social protection and reached the following four basic conclusions: 

    • Food insecurity in South Africa is closely tied to income poverty, with millions of households struggling to access sufficient nutrition despite the country producing enough food for everyone;
    • Expanding social protection, particularly through a Universal Basic Income Grant (UBIG), is key to addressing hunger;
    • By reducing income poverty, a Universal Basic Income can help ensure that people have the money to buy enough food, improving overall health and well-being; and
    • Over time, reducing food insecurity not only benefits individuals and families but can also support sustainable development by creating a virtuous cycle where improved nutrition leads to higher productivity of the economy, better educational outcomes, and inclusive economic growth.

     Income poverty and hunger in South Africa 

    We have a crisis of income poverty in the country that underpins the crisis of hunger. This is based on certain key realities:

    • Astronomical levels of unemployment: an expanded unemployment rate of more than 42%, with 12.2 million out of work. More than 80% of the unemployed are long-term unemployed, and three million have given up looking for work;
    • High levels of working poverty, with many people earning too little to afford a basic diet. A 2023 Wits University hunger study showed that 40% of households with an income of between R2,000 and R5,000 experienced food insecurity or were at risk of hunger; and
    • Social grants which are below the food poverty line. The R530 Child Support Grant is about two-thirds of the food poverty line of R790 per month. The R370 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant for adults is less than half the food poverty line.

    The HSRC finds that a shocking 64.7% of all households have expenditure on food per person that is below the food poverty line (FPL). This means that nearly two-thirds of South Africans are food-insecure. 

    There are serious challenges with definitions in the literature as to what constitutes hunger, food insecurity, etc, and therefore with measuring the depth of the problem. This needs to be addressed. 

    How do people feed their children and themselves, given these dire realities? 

    • The 2023 Wits hunger study found one in five South African households sends a member of the family out to beg for food regularly. When I point to this study people say that can’t be possible in a wealthy country like South Africa! But this is the reality;
    • Many people take on debt to buy food (40% of South Africans borrow to buy food), or borrow from friends and family; and
    • Many others simply don’t cope, and face extreme hunger, with some resorting to desperate measures to deal with their situation, including crime and suicide. Mental illness arising from the stress of hunger is rife.

     So what do we do? 

    Systemic interventions are needed, including through transforming food systems; combating concentration and profiteering in the food chain, particularly retail; controlling the prices of basic foods, and ensuring their accessibility in poor communities through markets and public outlets; and ensuring a particular focus by the public sector on nutrition for young children through school meals, etc.

    Many of these proposed interventions were contained in the Food for All commitments in the ANC 2009 Manifesto, but most haven’t been implemented. Such interventions are important, but many of them will take considerable time. 

    However, we don’t have the time. We need rapid high-impact interventions that will end the scourge of hunger. Critical here is to ensure people have adequate income for their basic food needs.

    Too many interventions being proposed to combat hunger, while well-meaning, fail to address the fundamental challenge of income poverty. These include food vouchers, subsidies to retailers and even expanding VAT exemptions on basics.

    While many of these interventions will have a significant cost to the state, and may marginally alleviate the crisis, they are not all guaranteed to trickle down to those who need them most, and don’t adequately address the crisis of income poverty or hunger. 

    Improving and expanding basic income support is key to combating hunger. The evidence, in South Africa and internationally, is that the most powerful and direct way to help people to combat hunger is to put income directly into their hands, combined with measures to keep the price of essential foods down and easily accessible to everyone. 

    Evidence from a number of studies is that even the very small R350 (now R370) SRD grant has played a significant role in mitigating hunger, and that about 93% of SRD grant beneficiaries spend their grant on food. But the grant remains too far below the food poverty line, currently at R796 per month. 

    So, expanding and improving the SRD grant as a basis for a permanent system of basic income support, at least at the level of the FPL, would play a critical role in combating hunger. 

    But this needs to be done together with improving other aspects of the social assistance framework. 

    The Child Support Grant is not able, at its current level, to eliminate child hunger.

    First, because its value is far too low, and is insufficient to cover a child’s food needs. Second, even if the Child Support Grant is raised to the FPL it won’t be able to eliminate child hunger, because, as the evidence clearly shows, the grant is shared within households whose adult members lack sufficient income support, which dilutes the benefit. 

    This is why it is so important to have both a system of guaranteed basic income for all members of the household, and to raise the Child Support Grant to the FPL. 

    This combination of an expanded and improved SRD/adult basic income, and an improved child grant at the FPL will be able to rapidly eliminate extreme forms of hunger. It is important though that millions who are currently being unfairly excluded from the SRD be brought into the social assistance net. 

    The Institute for Economic Justice and #PayTheGrants (#PTG) legal action on the SRD grant seeks to address the unfair exclusion of millions of applicants, and thus secure the constitutional right of SRD grant beneficiaries to social assistance.

    But this case is also an action to secure the right to food: up to 18 million South Africans, and more than half the country’s population, if you include dependants, stand to benefit if there is a positive judgment which will enable them to access food for themselves and their families.

    Civil society organisations continue to hold the government to its commitments to introduce a permanent system of basic income support. There is broad civil society agreement, expressed by the Universal Basic Income Coalition, that the introduction of basic income should start at the food poverty line as a platform to progressively realise universal basic income set at the Upper Bound Poverty Line (UBPL) over time. 

    ADRS modelling conducted jointly with the Institute for Economic Justice shows that progressive introduction of basic income at the UBPL can sustainably be achieved by 2030, with beneficial results to the economy, employment, poverty and inequality. This would massively reduce, if not totally eliminate, hunger in the country.

    The cost of basic income support 

    The question that is always asked is, would a system of basic income be affordable? There is extensive evidence that with the necessary political will, which requires us to inter alia elevate the fight against hunger to the top of the national agenda, this intervention can both be sustainably financed, and significantly contribute to economic development.

    There are multiple avenues for domestic resource mobilisation, and research has shown that there are a variety of financing options that can be used to finance such a grant in South Africa. 

    It is important to broaden the lens with which we examine this question. Narrow bookkeeping calculations, which we see so often in the public debate, of the number of beneficiaries multiplied by the value of the grant (the gross cost) neither capture the dynamic economic benefits of this large-scale income transfer to the poorest communities, nor the real costs after the economic returns to the fiscus in the form of increased VAT, and increased corporate tax take, etc (the net cost). The net (or real) cost could be as low as 50% of the gross (nominal) cost. 

    Extensive international and local evidence demonstrates that income transfers have a range of economic development impacts, ranging from a stimulus to local economies (particularly those in a depressed economic state), to promotion of small business, promotion of employment, and job seeking.

    International evidence suggests that income transfers have particularly high economic multipliers in developing countries and those with high levels of inequality. South Africa clearly ticks these boxes. 

    In addition to these economic impacts of income support, there are a range of social benefits that arise in areas such as health and crime, which create significant indirect savings for the state and society. International evidence shows that the cost of poverty is extremely high when you consider, for example, the costs to the health system, including from malnutrition and hunger-related illnesses. A system of basic income could radically reduce these costs.

    I conclude on a sobering note: apart from the social price society is paying for hunger in terms of malnutrition and the multiple negative impacts it has on children and adults, hunger creates a ticking time bomb which can be devastating when the fuse is lit.

    Costs of the looting and riots in July 2021 exceeded R100-billion (R70-billion in eThekwini alone) – more than the amount required to introduce basic income at the level of the food poverty line.

    Nor should it escape us, that while ostensibly “political”, reports clearly suggest that the events of 2021 had a strong element of “food riots”. 

    Penny-pinching technocrats need to think more carefully when they make their calculations.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.