The Argument of Universal Basic Income

Recently, the German Supreme court ruled the regulations of Hart IV (a German welfare payment) were not only unconstitutional, but a violation of human rights. Under the old guidelines, Hart IV recipients were paid a subsistence allowance of approx. $470.00 per month. However, strings attached included caveats such as; if recipients were deemed to not be actively seeking employment, refused a job offer or missed an interview, penalties were issued.

An accumulation of penalty points effected a reduction or even suspension of their basic subsistence payments and, eventually their health insurance. Benefits the German Courts have now determined are indeed basic human rights. Food, health and a place to live.

The ruling is significant on two major levels. It brings the question of human rights directly to a growing conversation around welfare payments structuring vs the idea of a universal basic income. Further, it requires us to take an overview of the “big picture” of global economics and, what are our cultural views on the intrinsic value of life.

The idea of a Universal Basic Income, or UBI is not a new one.

In 1968, Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith and James Tobin with an additional 1,200 like-minded economists put forward and signed a proposal calling for Congress to introduce a system of income guarantees and supplements.

Various Pilot programs for a Universal Basic Income have been popping up around the globe. These include India, Kenya, Canada, The Netherlands and Scotland, to name a few. The fundamental concept being to lift the burdens of poverty and provide an incentive freedom to improve one’s life.

In 2016 Finland initiated their universal basic income experiment. The paid out approx. $640.00 per month, “no strings attached” to a group of randomly selected unemployed people. Results of this experiment revealed that in comparison with the control group, who had received no help, those taking part in the experiment demonstrated, according to Minna Ylikanno, ,“fewer problems related to health, stress, mood and concentration”. Additionally, people responded with a more positive trust in their futures and their own ability to influence it in a proactive way.

“Constant stress and financial stress for the long term – it’s unbearable. And when we give money to people once a month they know what they are going to get,” said Ylikännö. “It was just €560 a month, but it gives you certainty, and certainty about the future is always a fundamental thing about well-being.”

In 2018, Stockton California, started their version of a “no strings attached” UBI experiment. Now, nearing the end of their experiment, the recently released data indicates that the recipients, contrary to some expectations, have spent their allowances on direct necessities such as food, clothing and utility bills. In effect, they have used it to improve their lives and future prospects.

With such initially positive results, we are led to believe Utopia is finally within reach.

Provisionally, we must always question, in the experimental field, what are the variables and where is the bias. The possible effects of knowing one is part of an experiment in addition to culture and education. People behave differently knowing they are in an experimental and, from different cultural values.

Controversially, the current experiments for UBI have taken place across cultures and in disparate, isolated groupings are still reaching similar results.

Further, we acknowledge, from studies in the 80’s, that relieving stress on employees by offering amenities such as paid child care, nature based environments and paid health care have improved productivity. These may not be “no strings attached” as they are attached as work benefits, however the concept is similar. Worker benefits incentivised productivity adding dollars to both the company and the extended economy. Benefits made money.

Currently, as technology races forward, displacing human jobs, we are left to question, how will people survive without those jobs? How will our social and work values be re-defined and impacted by skilled technologies and AI? And finally, what is the real, human value of a “pay-check?