ENGL B1A: Poverty in America: UBI Synthesis Essay

This paper explores universal basic income (UBI) in relation to crisis, from COVID-19 to techno-economic disruptions to work and prospective post-capitalist transition. Critical debates around automation, wage labour and post-work are brought into conversation with emerging trends in urban political economy around foundational infrastructure, smart cities and platform capitalism. To deliver the socio-economic transformations promised by UBI’s advocates, it is argued that more radical structural interventions in capitalist asset ownership and property relations, alongside democratized state investment in technological development, universal basic services and infrastructure, are necessary counterparts to any sufficient UBI – that is, if we hope to construct new systems of collective coordination capable of contending with complex epidemiological, economic and ecological crises.

At the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic, governments have struggled to address both the healthcare crisis and rapidly devolving economic conditions. These events have pushed governments to consider large economic relief programs. In the United States, congress approved an over $2 trillion relief package to combat the devastating economic decline. However, most families spent their one‐time cash payment on rent and food during the month it was provided. This left many to face uncertain futures as their ability to earn an income diminished and the promise of additional relief waned. Universal basic income (UBI) is one program which provides a regular disbursement to individuals without means testing or other action on the part of recipient (Van Parijs, 2013). The program is one potential tool for combating recession, mass unemployment, and wide‐spread business closures. Within the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic, this article discusses the use of UBI to meet these challenging circumstances. Given the depth of the economic issues, UBI may be suited to address these challenges as opposed to, or in conjunction with, other relief measures. Discussion is focused on how UBI may serve as a public policy response to the COVID‐19 pandemic and its implications.

Outside of direct fiscal policy effects, the rise in inequality may be attributed to the demand for highly skilled labor rising more rapidly than its supply, as well as to reduced bargaining power by labor in the workplace. On fiscal policy, the US tax and benefit system is still progressive. The tradeoff between using tax hikes and higher benefits to reduce inequality vs. their negative effects on growth remains disputed. Very broad proposals such as Medicare for All and a Universal Basic Income are inefficient ways to address inequality, and the objectives of a wealth tax may be achieved through the existing income and estate tax systems. Broadening the tax base to move to more of a consumption-based system, and improving pre-K and K-12 education, are desirable policies.

The notion of a universal basic income (UBI) has captivated academics, entrepreneurs, policymakers, and ordinary citizens in recent months. Pilot studies of a UBI are underway or in the works on three continents. And prominent voices from across the ideological spectrum have expressed support for a UBI or one of its variants, including libertarian Charles Murray, Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes, labor leader Andy Stern, and--most recently--former President Barack Obama. Although even the most optimistic advocates for a UBI will acknowledge that nationwide implementation lies years away, the design of a basic income will require sustained scholarly attention. This Article seeks to advance the conversation among academics and policymakers about UBI implementation. Our prior work has focused on the philosophical foundations of a basic income; here, we build up from those foundations to identify the practical building blocks of a large-scale cash transfer program. After canvassing the considerations relevant to the design of a UBI, we arrive at a set of specific recommendations for policymakers. We propose a UBI of $6,000 per person per year, paid to all citizens and lawful permanent residents via direct deposit in biweekly installments. We argue--contrary to other UBI proponents--that children and seniors should be included, that marriage penalties and cost-of-living adjustments should be rejected, that recipients should have a limited ability to use future payments as collateral for short- and mediumterm loans, and that the Social Security Administration should carry out the program. We also explain how a UBI could be financed through the consolidation of existing cash and near-cash transfer programs as well as the imposition of a relatively modest surtax on all earners. Importantly, the building blocks of a UBI do not necessarily determine its outward face. By this, we mean that economically identical programs can be described in very different ways--for example, as a UBI with no phaseout, a UBI that phases out with income, and a "negative income tax"--without altering any of the essential features. To be sure, packaging matters to the public perception of a UBI, and we consider reasons why some characterizations of the program may prove more popular than others. Our Article seeks to sort the building blocks of a UBI out from the cosmetic components, thereby clarifying which elements of a UBI shape implementation and which ones affect only the outward appearance.

The tension between creating jobs and protecting the environment remains central to contemporary environmental politics. Critical scholars have reworked the "jobs vs the environment" problematique, but how people will secure livelihoods in various imagined futures remains unclear. We demonstrate how a Universal Basic Income (UBI) that enacts a revitalised politics of redistribution, in conjunction with an active state, has the potential to rupture the link between employment and income. We suggest that such a UBI is complementary to various postcapitalist politics that fundamentally reorganise relationships between people, ecology, and labour. Further, such a UBI can enable the cultivation of new economic subjectivities, as well as the time needed for greater democratic engagement. Where radical environmental politics often configure a fearful agent of change, motivated by a dystopian imaginaries, we propose new radical visions for socioecological futures in which people have time for leisure, community, and democratic participation

Catholic social thought (CST) has obvious resonance with universal basic income proposals, due to the tradition’s insistence on basic needs as human rights, comfort with government redistribution, and preference for programs that promote the agency of individuals and local communities, among other similarities. However, some CST scholars believe basic income challenges dearly held values of the tradition. This essay examines both views, concluding that basic income can comport with CST’s view of work, correctly understood

Although the need for an efficient Roma integration policy is growing in Europe, surprisingly little robust scientific evidence regarding potential policy costs and expected benefits of alternative policy options has supported the policy design and implementation so far. The present study attempts to narrow this evidence gap and aims to shed light on long‐run economic, budgetary and fiscal effects of selected education and employment policies for the inclusion of the marginalised Roma in the EU. We employ a general equilibrium approach that allows us to assess not only the direct impact of alternative Roma integration policies but also to capture all induced feedback effects. Our simulation results suggest that although Roma integration policies would be costly for the public budget, in the medium‐to‐long run, economic, budgetary and fiscal benefits may significantly outweigh short‐ to medium‐run Roma integration costs. Depending on the integration policy scenario and the analysed country, the full repayment of the integration policy investment (positive net present value) may be achieved after 7 to 9 years. In terms of the GDP, employment and earnings, the universal basic income scenario may have the highest potential impacts, particularly in the medium‐to‐long run.

The relationship between Universal Basic Income (UBI) and disability needs more discussion. Although basic income will bring some benefits for disabled people, the UBI that everyone is entitled to may not meet the extra costs that disabled people face in order to live an independent life in the community. This means that we must define an additional concept of Basic Income Plus (UBI+). The 'plus' is the amount that will meet the extra costs faced by disabled people1 in exercising their citizenship. There is also important resistance to the idea of UBI by some within the disabled people's Inde-pendent Living Movement. Understanding and overcoming this resistance may prove important to the long-term success of UBI. In particular, it is argued here that the UBI community would benefit from attending to the core purpose of the Independent Living Movement, and to identifying the empowerment of potential as the ultimate goal of UBI.

Modern technology threatens to dramatically alter the U.S. labor economy, but the crumbling social safety net may be insufficient for affected workers. Some advocates propose to address these converging problems through universal basic income (UBI). Authors conducted a preliminary review of social work perspectives on the topic of UBI. They found very little relevant literature, especially among American scholars. Existent social work literature frames UBI as an alternative to the neoliberal welfare state and mass unemployment. Social workers also contribute a critical social justice orientation to UBI scholarship in other disciplines. Grounded in the NASW Code of Ethics , authors argue that it is imperative for American social workers to seriously consider UBI as an answer to growing inequality and the unique expertise that social workers offer as allies of marginalized populations

Historical accounts of the business response to basic income proposals imply that employer attitudes have been mixed. In the 1970s and 1980s, when an array of basic income schemes was proposed, some groups were supportive and others were opposed. This paper shows that, in a number of high-profile proposals in Canada and the US, behind the apparent dissensus among business groups lays a consensus stance against universalistic and unconditional guaranteed income schemes. The disagreement among business groups comes down to either (1) a basic misunderstanding of proposal details, or (2) the fact that the policy itself can take on a wide range of concrete forms. To the extent that business has exhibited support for guaranteed income policies, the actual policies in question tended to be "two-tiered" rather than unitary, selective rather than universal, and miserly rather than generous. The income maintenance policies that garnered some support among business groups would all include explicit or implicit work requirements for "able-bodied" adults. By contrast, generous, unconditional guaranteed income policies that reduce workers' market dependence-namely, those that basic income advocates find desirable-found no audience in business circles. I close by exploring the mechanisms underlying the impact of basic income on bargaining relationships in the labour market and comment on the promises and pitfalls of a social policy that continues to be highly malleable.

The article focuses on several aspects of universal basic income (UBI) in the U.S. It mentions that UBI can function to compensate individuals who care for others for the mountains of presently uncompensated care work; and workers in the U.S. living in or close to poverty. It also mentions need for providing freedom to workers to refuse to keep working for poverty-level wages under degrading, dangerous, or illegal working conditions.

Is a minimum wage in our future? The author believes history is moving powerfully in that direction, despite its expected cost. And it will affect the nature of work. Indeed, it would be a new minimum wage

Inadequate financial resources are a major driver for poor health. Financial insecurity contributes to health inequities in mutually reinforcing ways, with some effects lasting years. Fostering financial security to reduce the likelihood or magnitude of such pressures would have significant present and future health benefits. We review several models for bolstering financial security to determine which have the most significant health contributions based on current evidence and their theoretical potential. We hypothesise that basic income guarantees might have the greatest positive health impact for beneficiaries, though this is heavily contingent on programme design and how financing affects other social welfare programmes. Cash transfer programmes also contribute to financial security and promote health, with particularly strong evidence for the health benefits of conditional cash transfers, and may be more feasible programmes in some contexts.