Because of its unconditionality, basic income is for everyone, but because everyone gets it, we can look at its effects on certain demographics. What would UBI do for single mothers, for foster youth, for Black & LGBTQ communities, for artists, for veterans, for ex-felons, etc?
The pilots popping up all over the place to look at the effects of UBI on specific groups aren't saying that UBI is only for those groups. It's about getting people from different communities to think about the effects of UBI on their own communities.
This is about storytelling.
If you can see yourself in the success story of someone provided unconditional basic income, then you are more likely to see the good sense of it. By creating a tapestry of stories people see themselves in, that's how we build a successful coalition.
A + B + C + D + E … = UBI
Any experiment we do will never actually be UBI, because the only way to do UBI is to do actual UBI. But in the same way UBI is a social vaccine, vaccines are trialed, but not on everyone, and the trials will never show herd immunity, but the effects on individuals show efficacy.
But basic income pilots are not only about showing it works, or getting people to see themselves in the success stories, it's also about getting influential organizations on board. A pilot focused on a demographic can win the support of an org focused on that same demographic.
When organizations that wield a lot of influence recognize that UBI will help accomplish their mission statements, then they can leverage their influence to get sitting politicians on board. That's when the wheels really start turning.
To win UBI requires strategy, not purity.
We need to be doing everything we can to make UBI happen, and part of that is welcoming all those who wish to zoom in on what UBI will mean for the communities they most want UBI for.
Small pilots will never be UBI, but they can inspire people, and build a winning UBI coalition.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Pelosi could pass a $50 trillion bill through the House. That doesn't mean it would ever become law, and I'd argue it's meant to not become law. If her intention was to start high and meet in the middle, she's now won. If HEROES was never meant to be law, no deals can be allowed.
Mitch is playing the same game, except he is going low, with the intention of only wanting to create the impression that he wants to pass something, when what he really wants is voters to blame Democrats for not passing something.
Both sides are playing a giant game of chicken.
Who can win the battle of making the other side look like they are the ones responsible for the increasing misery of voters? With only three weeks left, whoever gives in by accepting a deal, will be taking off the table the misery of voters, which is seen as a high value card.
It's not new evidence, but a huge new review of the existing evidence finds no evidence of a significant reduction in labor supply with basic income, instead finding evidence that labor supply increases globally among adults, men and women, young and old.
Because of an ongoing #UBI experiment that started before the pandemic, we now have evidence of what impact UBI would have had if already in place elsewhere. We'd be seeing less food insecurity, less depression, and we would have more hospital capacity.🏥
A 2018-19 experiment in Vancouver, BC provided $7500 unconditional cash to 50 homeless people. As a result they spent less time in shelters, saving the shelter system $8100 per person. Drug and alcohol use also went down 39%, plus food security improved.
1/ THREAD: As someone who's been researching and writing about #UBI since 2013, I can tell you that @SteveForbesCEO just expressed a ton of assumptions that are either a complete misunderstanding of how UBI works or factually incorrect based on the evidence we already have.
@SteveForbesCEO 2/ His first claim in his video is that UBI is corrosive to the work ethic, but that's wrong because UBI pays people to do anything, not nothing. The existing system pays people on the condition they maintain a sufficiently low income.
@SteveForbesCEO 3/ Does Steve really believe that fewer people will work if they can work and keep their benefits, instead of losing their benefits with employment, leaving them no better off or even worse off, as happens right now?
Work requirements are back. If you can't find a job, it's because you're not looking hard enough, not because tens of millions of jobs no longer exist.
Is this stupid? Yes. Is it a waste of time and resources? Yes. So why do we do it?
In a story from ToK, a woman is told to cold call businesses in the phone book one by one to ask about a job. She came back the next day with classifieds and was told she missed the point, which was to do anything an employer says, no matter how stupid.
No one's life should be tied to a job. Just as this crisis has shown that healthcare should never be tied to employment, neither should food and rent be tied to employment. Survival income is a right, not something for politicians to argue over.
Income should *NEVER* fall to $0.
We should have had UBI decades ago. Pretend we did. What does right now look like with a $1200/mo UBI? Maybe the $600/wk unemployment boost would have been $300/wk and Congress would be arguing over whether to boost people from $1200 to $2400 instead of from $0 to $2400.
With everyone starting each month with $1200 instead of $0, how many more people would have been able to pay their rent/mortgage each month on time for the past four months, instead of one third of the population being unable to? Would we be looking at an eviction crisis at all?
Cash to reduce poverty in Indonesia led to a 30% drop in forest loss, even though the income came with no conservation conditions. The effect was larger in villages where more people got income (like UBI), and where the income lasted longer (like UBI).
Unconditional income has been shown to improve the mental health of those in poverty. Improvements in physical health, such as reduced symptoms of illness and more physical activity, translate into improved mental health, which also improves productivity.
New analysis by @DavidCalnitsky + @pilargonalons of Canada's Mincome experiment in the 1970s backs up @AOC's recent assertion that reducing poverty would reduce crime, because that's exactly what happened in Dauphin, Manitoba.