What do you think?
Rate this book
Pelican Books #14
寫給每個人的基本收入讀本: 從基本收入出發, 反思個人工作與生活的意義, 以及如何讓社會邁向擁有實質正義、自由與安全感的未來
當AI或將取代人類，失業狂潮衝擊前夕，我們迫切需要的「新人權」－－－－
全球熱議，「基本收入」的時代已然來臨？
從歷史源流、理論內涵、正反意見到執行方法、實驗成果及未來展望，
全球最大基本收入研究推廣組織「基本收入全球網絡」創辦人蓋伊．史坦丁三十年研究精華
為所有人寫的深思基本收入議題完全指南！
◎聯合推薦
UBI Taiwan無條件基本收入台灣協會共同創辦人／Tyler Prochazka
哲學雞蛋糕腦闆／朱家安
美國紐約市立大學研究中心經濟學博士／廖美
「越來越多處於相對貧窮與經濟不安全感狀態下的人，沒有能力脫離那樣的窘境，就算再怎麼努力工作也無濟於事，而就算是持續提高的稅額抵減與法定最低薪資，也未能抑制這個趨勢。總之，所得分配系統已徹底瓦解。」
近年來世界貧富不均日益嚴重，許多社會瀕臨崩潰，個人也因缺乏穩定收入，導致各式壓力影響精神狀況，進而使伴侶、家庭、婚姻等人際關係惡化，進而衍生薪資凍漲、生育率低迷、長照問題等，這些問題背後的根本原因，即是現代社會大多數人都缺乏最基本的「經濟安全感」。
但當前的社會保障制度對人民進行財力調查、行為調查，津貼又會延遲發放，非但沒有改善人民的不安全感，反而加重對未來的不確定性，不論政府如何透過「創造就業機會」、「提供失業、低收入戶補助」等方式打擊貧窮、安定社會，這些社會福利制度已然失效、甚至產生反效果。普遍低薪更進一步讓我們比以前更可能活在無力償債的邊緣，面對負面衝擊或偶發事件的能力下降。
當社會福利制度瀕臨瓦解，社會瀕臨崩潰，我們該怎麼做，才能為社會裡的所有人消除不安，進一步重建社會整體安全感，打造安定而有希望的前景？答案可能就是實施「基本收入」！
◎從馬斯克、霍金到諾貝爾經濟學獎得主布坎南都支持，
基本收入如何能幫助我們獲得實質正義、自由與經濟安全感，邁向真正的良善社會？
「雨露均沾的經濟安全感必然將促使人們產生許多正面的心理變化。當一個人掌握了和自身生命有關的決策，當他確信自己的收入很穩定且確定，以及當他知道自己有尋求自我提升的工具時，他將會感覺非常有尊嚴。當我們摒棄以金錢這種不公平的指標來衡量人類的價值，丈夫、妻子和孩子之間的個人衝突一定會逐漸減少。」
所謂「基本收入」，基本上可以定義為：定期（例如每個月）無條件對個人給付的一筆適當金額，提供一個人最基本的經濟安全感，讓他於所屬社會中即使碰到極端狀態也能夠生存，例如：遭遇失業或重大傷病等意外而喪失工作能力等。
基本收入在近年愈來愈受關注，因為許多人都漸漸體認到當前的經濟與社會政策，已導致貧富不均與不公不義的情況嚴重惡化，並隨時可能分崩離析。隨著全球化以驚人速度席捲整個世界，以及科技革命促使勞動市場產生改造性變化等，二十世紀的所得分配系統已經崩潰。而這個所得分配系統崩潰的結果之一，就是「殆危階級」（precariat，又稱「不穩定無產者」）愈來愈龐大，所謂殆危階級是指面臨不穩定且缺乏保障的勞動條件、缺乏職業認同、實質薪資降低且激烈起伏、喪失津貼，與長期受慢性債務所苦的人，據估計，殆危階級的人數高達數億之譜。
◎勞權倒退、薪資凍漲、貧富嚴重不均、極右派崛起……
面對隨時可能分崩離析的社會，我們需要盡快認識且評估如何實施「基本收入」
在過去，國民所得流向「資本」和「勞動」的百分比大致上相當穩定，但那種舊有的恆常狀態已不復存在。目前愈來愈高比率的所得正流向代表少數者的「食利族」（rentier），也就是純粹靠著財產所有權收益為生的人，包括實體資產、金融資產與「智慧」財產。無論是就道德或經濟層面來說，這樣的現象都不合理。而隨著當前貧富不均的程度呈倍數成長，民怨當然也加速沸騰。社會上的憂慮、混亂、疏離和憤怒等交雜情緒，正醞釀成一場「完美風暴」，而民粹主義政治人物也從中得到操弄恐懼的大好機會，他們順勢引誘民眾支持許多危險的主張。
除非我們能建構一套全新的所得分配系統，否則這個世界朝極右派傾斜的力量將會更加強大（看看2016年英國脫歐公投的通過，以及川普的當選）。作為一個更平等、更解放的制度的支柱，基本收入是相當迫切的要務，這是作者寫作本書的原因，也是我們每個人為什麼必須現在就該理解「基本收入」。
◎全球最大基本收入研究推廣組織創辦人三十年精華，深思基本收入議題的完全指南！
本書作者蓋伊．史坦丁是全球最大基本收入研究推廣組織「基本收入全球網絡」（BIEN）創辦人，投入基本收入研究已超過三十年，而他彙集研究精華所寫成的這本書，即是我們深思基本收入議題的最佳指南。本書不只解釋了基本收入原理，討論三個被用來證明基本收入有實施必要的主要觀點－－正義、自由與安全感，也解釋了相關的經濟理論，並比較與其他社福制度的異同，闡述為何基本收入是當前我們迫切需要的。此外，他也針對一般常見的基本收入反對意見進行解釋，並進一步探討落實基本收入制度的實務挑戰和政治挑戰。
從歷史源流、理論內涵、正反意見到執行方法、實驗成果及未來展望，這不是一本學術研究專書，而是身處於現代社會的你我都值得一讀的思辨讀本。
不論你是什麼行業、身分，是學生、老師、上班族、政府官員或者其他職業，只要你關心自己、家人或社會的當下與未來，希望居住在一個擁有一個真正安全、自由而有前景的世界，你都可以從這本書獲得深刻的啟發與收穫。
－－－－「不必工作就有收入，這怎麼公平！？」：對基本收入的常見疑惑與迷思－－－－
●政府哪裡來的錢負擔基本收入的支出？
根據研究及實際試算，只要合理重新安排政府在福利上的支出比例，並考慮廢除舊式津貼審查制度所省下的大筆行政成本，以及合理調整既有的租稅減免及免稅額制度，即有可能在不影響或只稍微影響稅率的情況下實行基本收入。
●基本收入會降低「工作」誘因，讓人們產生「不勞而獲」的習性。
基本收入可能會減少從事「有薪勞動」的人口，但絕大部分是因為他們因獲得基本收入而得以安心從事「無薪工作」，如照護、求學、進修、生育等。此外，如果基本收入是一種全民共享的「權利」，本就不應該要有貢獻、承擔責任才能享受權利。而且以這個觀點批判基本收入的人，理當也要批判其他所有非經由生產活動取得的收入，例如遺產繼承、版稅收入、各種避稅工具等。
●基本收入會引發通貨膨脹，導致物價飆漲。
錯，這個說法忽略了額外的購買力對商品與勞務供給的影響，這甚至可能促使基本商品及服務的價格降低，並創造新的市場，在印度的試點計畫即應證了這個例子。如果基本收入的財源是單純來自公共支出的內部比例調整，對通貨膨脹的影響更是微乎其微。
●基本收入為什麼不分貧富都給一樣的金額？給富人補助不是一件奇怪的事嗎？
基本收入其實可視為一種整體社會所繼承的公共權利，這麼一來就得是全民共享且均等的；而且比起依目標發放不同金額的目標鎖定型津貼，基本收入向全民發放同等金額再向富人課稅，其實行政成本較低也較容易實施；此外，目標鎖定型的津貼由於津貼領取率、行政效率相對低落，以及有累進稅效果，反而更可能導致貧富不均惡化。
●基本收入將消滅國家的其他福利政策？
基本收入的實施並不代表廢除公共服務，也不會取代所有其他福利津貼，而應該將基本收入視為某個新所得分配制度的「樓地板」，與其他必要的福利共存。
●基本收入以前從來沒實施過，代表它一定有什麼缺陷。
像退休金、家庭補助款等各種新政策其實都碰過這樣的批評，而以基本收入來說，今日社會是有史以來第一次擁有落實基本收入的制度性與技術性工具，而當過去其他社福政策都已經不足以保障人民的經濟安全感，基本收入是我們現在值得、也應當嘗試的。
●基本收入會讓社會偏離「充分就業」的目標，妨礙進步。
我們應該回頭思考為什麼要把「充分就業」當作社會進步的象徵？事實上，很多就業機會都很乏味、有損人格、陷人於孤立甚至危險，而基本收入至少有助於改善就業機會的本質，因為它讓更多人有能力拒絕自己不喜歡的工作，或要求更高的薪資。
●基本收入的擁護者以為窮人只是缺錢而已。
基本收入的擁護者當然不認為金錢是萬靈丹，也知道貧窮與毒品、酒精成癮、心理健康等複雜社會因素有關，但他們認為，基本收入將有助於改善當代人的心理健康，因為許多壓力「金錢」常是直接且重要的因素。
●基本收入會導致窮人誤入歧途，花在酒精、香菸等「公害」上。
這只是不合理的直覺推斷。根據已實施的基本收入試點計畫顯示，領取人把絕大多數的錢用在私人的「良性用途」上。此外，在道德上認定「窮人不該把錢花在必需品以外的任何事物」，這個想法本身也值得商榷。
●基本收入會導致工資降低，因為雇主會覺得員工已經領了基本收入。
實際情形或許正好相反：基本收入反而讓人們有能力拒絕不合理的低薪，在選擇工作上有更大自由，並更有信心與雇主協商。
……更多迷思及解釋詳見本書第六～八章
全球熱議，「基本收入」的時代已然來臨？
從歷史源流、理論內涵、正反意見到執行方法、實驗成果及未來展望，
全球最大基本收入研究推廣組織「基本收入全球網絡」創辦人蓋伊．史坦丁三十年研究精華
為所有人寫的深思基本收入議題完全指南！
◎聯合推薦
UBI Taiwan無條件基本收入台灣協會共同創辦人／Tyler Prochazka
哲學雞蛋糕腦闆／朱家安
美國紐約市立大學研究中心經濟學博士／廖美
「越來越多處於相對貧窮與經濟不安全感狀態下的人，沒有能力脫離那樣的窘境，就算再怎麼努力工作也無濟於事，而就算是持續提高的稅額抵減與法定最低薪資，也未能抑制這個趨勢。總之，所得分配系統已徹底瓦解。」
近年來世界貧富不均日益嚴重，許多社會瀕臨崩潰，個人也因缺乏穩定收入，導致各式壓力影響精神狀況，進而使伴侶、家庭、婚姻等人際關係惡化，進而衍生薪資凍漲、生育率低迷、長照問題等，這些問題背後的根本原因，即是現代社會大多數人都缺乏最基本的「經濟安全感」。
但當前的社會保障制度對人民進行財力調查、行為調查，津貼又會延遲發放，非但沒有改善人民的不安全感，反而加重對未來的不確定性，不論政府如何透過「創造就業機會」、「提供失業、低收入戶補助」等方式打擊貧窮、安定社會，這些社會福利制度已然失效、甚至產生反效果。普遍低薪更進一步讓我們比以前更可能活在無力償債的邊緣，面對負面衝擊或偶發事件的能力下降。
當社會福利制度瀕臨瓦解，社會瀕臨崩潰，我們該怎麼做，才能為社會裡的所有人消除不安，進一步重建社會整體安全感，打造安定而有希望的前景？答案可能就是實施「基本收入」！
◎從馬斯克、霍金到諾貝爾經濟學獎得主布坎南都支持，
基本收入如何能幫助我們獲得實質正義、自由與經濟安全感，邁向真正的良善社會？
「雨露均沾的經濟安全感必然將促使人們產生許多正面的心理變化。當一個人掌握了和自身生命有關的決策，當他確信自己的收入很穩定且確定，以及當他知道自己有尋求自我提升的工具時，他將會感覺非常有尊嚴。當我們摒棄以金錢這種不公平的指標來衡量人類的價值，丈夫、妻子和孩子之間的個人衝突一定會逐漸減少。」
所謂「基本收入」，基本上可以定義為：定期（例如每個月）無條件對個人給付的一筆適當金額，提供一個人最基本的經濟安全感，讓他於所屬社會中即使碰到極端狀態也能夠生存，例如：遭遇失業或重大傷病等意外而喪失工作能力等。
基本收入在近年愈來愈受關注，因為許多人都漸漸體認到當前的經濟與社會政策，已導致貧富不均與不公不義的情況嚴重惡化，並隨時可能分崩離析。隨著全球化以驚人速度席捲整個世界，以及科技革命促使勞動市場產生改造性變化等，二十世紀的所得分配系統已經崩潰。而這個所得分配系統崩潰的結果之一，就是「殆危階級」（precariat，又稱「不穩定無產者」）愈來愈龐大，所謂殆危階級是指面臨不穩定且缺乏保障的勞動條件、缺乏職業認同、實質薪資降低且激烈起伏、喪失津貼，與長期受慢性債務所苦的人，據估計，殆危階級的人數高達數億之譜。
◎勞權倒退、薪資凍漲、貧富嚴重不均、極右派崛起……
面對隨時可能分崩離析的社會，我們需要盡快認識且評估如何實施「基本收入」
在過去，國民所得流向「資本」和「勞動」的百分比大致上相當穩定，但那種舊有的恆常狀態已不復存在。目前愈來愈高比率的所得正流向代表少數者的「食利族」（rentier），也就是純粹靠著財產所有權收益為生的人，包括實體資產、金融資產與「智慧」財產。無論是就道德或經濟層面來說，這樣的現象都不合理。而隨著當前貧富不均的程度呈倍數成長，民怨當然也加速沸騰。社會上的憂慮、混亂、疏離和憤怒等交雜情緒，正醞釀成一場「完美風暴」，而民粹主義政治人物也從中得到操弄恐懼的大好機會，他們順勢引誘民眾支持許多危險的主張。
除非我們能建構一套全新的所得分配系統，否則這個世界朝極右派傾斜的力量將會更加強大（看看2016年英國脫歐公投的通過，以及川普的當選）。作為一個更平等、更解放的制度的支柱，基本收入是相當迫切的要務，這是作者寫作本書的原因，也是我們每個人為什麼必須現在就該理解「基本收入」。
◎全球最大基本收入研究推廣組織創辦人三十年精華，深思基本收入議題的完全指南！
本書作者蓋伊．史坦丁是全球最大基本收入研究推廣組織「基本收入全球網絡」（BIEN）創辦人，投入基本收入研究已超過三十年，而他彙集研究精華所寫成的這本書，即是我們深思基本收入議題的最佳指南。本書不只解釋了基本收入原理，討論三個被用來證明基本收入有實施必要的主要觀點－－正義、自由與安全感，也解釋了相關的經濟理論，並比較與其他社福制度的異同，闡述為何基本收入是當前我們迫切需要的。此外，他也針對一般常見的基本收入反對意見進行解釋，並進一步探討落實基本收入制度的實務挑戰和政治挑戰。
從歷史源流、理論內涵、正反意見到執行方法、實驗成果及未來展望，這不是一本學術研究專書，而是身處於現代社會的你我都值得一讀的思辨讀本。
不論你是什麼行業、身分，是學生、老師、上班族、政府官員或者其他職業，只要你關心自己、家人或社會的當下與未來，希望居住在一個擁有一個真正安全、自由而有前景的世界，你都可以從這本書獲得深刻的啟發與收穫。
－－－－「不必工作就有收入，這怎麼公平！？」：對基本收入的常見疑惑與迷思－－－－
●政府哪裡來的錢負擔基本收入的支出？
根據研究及實際試算，只要合理重新安排政府在福利上的支出比例，並考慮廢除舊式津貼審查制度所省下的大筆行政成本，以及合理調整既有的租稅減免及免稅額制度，即有可能在不影響或只稍微影響稅率的情況下實行基本收入。
●基本收入會降低「工作」誘因，讓人們產生「不勞而獲」的習性。
基本收入可能會減少從事「有薪勞動」的人口，但絕大部分是因為他們因獲得基本收入而得以安心從事「無薪工作」，如照護、求學、進修、生育等。此外，如果基本收入是一種全民共享的「權利」，本就不應該要有貢獻、承擔責任才能享受權利。而且以這個觀點批判基本收入的人，理當也要批判其他所有非經由生產活動取得的收入，例如遺產繼承、版稅收入、各種避稅工具等。
●基本收入會引發通貨膨脹，導致物價飆漲。
錯，這個說法忽略了額外的購買力對商品與勞務供給的影響，這甚至可能促使基本商品及服務的價格降低，並創造新的市場，在印度的試點計畫即應證了這個例子。如果基本收入的財源是單純來自公共支出的內部比例調整，對通貨膨脹的影響更是微乎其微。
●基本收入為什麼不分貧富都給一樣的金額？給富人補助不是一件奇怪的事嗎？
基本收入其實可視為一種整體社會所繼承的公共權利，這麼一來就得是全民共享且均等的；而且比起依目標發放不同金額的目標鎖定型津貼，基本收入向全民發放同等金額再向富人課稅，其實行政成本較低也較容易實施；此外，目標鎖定型的津貼由於津貼領取率、行政效率相對低落，以及有累進稅效果，反而更可能導致貧富不均惡化。
●基本收入將消滅國家的其他福利政策？
基本收入的實施並不代表廢除公共服務，也不會取代所有其他福利津貼，而應該將基本收入視為某個新所得分配制度的「樓地板」，與其他必要的福利共存。
●基本收入以前從來沒實施過，代表它一定有什麼缺陷。
像退休金、家庭補助款等各種新政策其實都碰過這樣的批評，而以基本收入來說，今日社會是有史以來第一次擁有落實基本收入的制度性與技術性工具，而當過去其他社福政策都已經不足以保障人民的經濟安全感，基本收入是我們現在值得、也應當嘗試的。
●基本收入會讓社會偏離「充分就業」的目標，妨礙進步。
我們應該回頭思考為什麼要把「充分就業」當作社會進步的象徵？事實上，很多就業機會都很乏味、有損人格、陷人於孤立甚至危險，而基本收入至少有助於改善就業機會的本質，因為它讓更多人有能力拒絕自己不喜歡的工作，或要求更高的薪資。
●基本收入的擁護者以為窮人只是缺錢而已。
基本收入的擁護者當然不認為金錢是萬靈丹，也知道貧窮與毒品、酒精成癮、心理健康等複雜社會因素有關，但他們認為，基本收入將有助於改善當代人的心理健康，因為許多壓力「金錢」常是直接且重要的因素。
●基本收入會導致窮人誤入歧途，花在酒精、香菸等「公害」上。
這只是不合理的直覺推斷。根據已實施的基本收入試點計畫顯示，領取人把絕大多數的錢用在私人的「良性用途」上。此外，在道德上認定「窮人不該把錢花在必需品以外的任何事物」，這個想法本身也值得商榷。
●基本收入會導致工資降低，因為雇主會覺得員工已經領了基本收入。
實際情形或許正好相反：基本收入反而讓人們有能力拒絕不合理的低薪，在選擇工作上有更大自由，並更有信心與雇主協商。
……更多迷思及解釋詳見本書第六～八章
352 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 4, 2017
83 people are currently reading
1738 people want to read
About the author
Guy Standing
55 books174 followersGuy Standing is a British professor of Development Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, and co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN).
Standing has written widely in the areas of labour economics, labour market policy, unemployment, labour market flexibility, structural adjustment policies and social protection. His recent work has concerned the emerging precariat class and the need to move towards unconditional basic income and deliberative democracy.
Standing has written widely in the areas of labour economics, labour market policy, unemployment, labour market flexibility, structural adjustment policies and social protection. His recent work has concerned the emerging precariat class and the need to move towards unconditional basic income and deliberative democracy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews
August 25, 2017
I would give a five-star rating without second thoughts. It is amazingly organized covering all aspects of UBI (Universal Basic Income). Looking at the objections and alternatives, there is no excuse for not applying UBI in any country, including developing countries. According to Guy Standing, applying a UBI in developing countries is easier than developed ones.
Nothing happens over night!
1. A basic income could be financed by increasing taxes
2. Funds could come from switching public expenditures
3. Sovereign wealth fund, which the author prefers
4. Donors
If governments and policymakers really want to eradicate poverty, which is not the sole justification of UBI, why do not they simply give money directly to people instead of subsidies, which as I understand it now, have a negative effect as they only help those capable of using the subsidized items! However as he sees it
Nothing happens over night!
The level of the basic income would obviously be set in relation to resources available and could be gradually increased over time.He introduced four methods to start up a UBI in developing countries:
1. A basic income could be financed by increasing taxes
2. Funds could come from switching public expenditures
3. Sovereign wealth fund, which the author prefers
4. Donors
If governments and policymakers really want to eradicate poverty, which is not the sole justification of UBI, why do not they simply give money directly to people instead of subsidies, which as I understand it now, have a negative effect as they only help those capable of using the subsidized items! However as he sees it
One of the biggest challenges confronting any major social reform is identifying a feasible way of moving from the current situation to something very different.
January 23, 2023
It is difficult to divorce my review of the book from my impression of its ideas, but I shall try.
The book's skeleton is what drove me to it in the first place. The structure is as any policy-oriented, entry-level, simple, wannabee impactful political essay should be in my mind. Lay out the basic arguments for the thesis and the fundamental reasoning for it, develop it, and then address the major or most common counter-arguments one by one. Ending on a plan for how to achieve the proposal is an excellent final touch. Keeping it at a medium page count (~300 but print fairly spaced) allows a good semi-detailed development of the theory without getting bogged down into academic level detail.
While the structure is excellent, what the author filled it with does not always convince me.
I really appreciated the first two chapters as they start things off by posing Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a fundamental right, and by making the argument that it should be a desired policy even before any of the other more numbers-based/economic reasons. UBI is posed as a means of redistributing's humanity's shared resources of land, economic and technological heritage, etc., and as a compensation for some having appropriated the land from the community. I mean I am simplifying the idea to the extreme here but that is the idea. Society benefits from the work of the past, and we should share the dividends from that, is the gist. There is also some more esoteric discussion about the fact that "doing nothing" is worthwhile and a right; that in a world of abundance, not working should not be punished especially when it is temporary; that the safety of a basic income allows people to take time out for art or whatever other endeavour they will.
Now, although this is an excellent foundation, there is of course more to it. It is next argued that UBI reduces poverty and income inequality which is fairly evident, and that it reduces poverty traps which therefore encourages more work, not less. With current benefits system, there is a huge marginal cost to going from benefits to a low paying job. The author cites a figure of 'up to 80% marginal tax rate or more' at least a dozen times in the book, but the idea is indeed sound. With a low paying job you are now taxed heavily on the extra income you gain, whilst incurring additional costs for transport, child care or whatever else, and losing whole or part of your benefits. The marginal gain can be minimal, or even negative. Thus this creates a poverty trap where a low paying job is simply not worth taking even if you want to, and therefore it is often rational to stay on benefits instead. The proposal of replacing current means-based benefits by UBI, which by definition would be paid regardless of employment status, is argued to reduce this effect dramatically, which seems sound to me, which the author says therefore would enable people to take jobs if they so wished (and to better bargain with employers, since employees now have a certain, universal safety net to fall back on).
There are also some arguments towards liberty for this. Two I remembered are that the certain safety net of UBI allows workers to more readily get out of exploitative or underpaid jobs; and that it enables partners to be less financially dependent from one another, which makes leaving an 'abusive breadwinner' a much safer thing for example. Same thing for children. The book quite successfully makes the case that paternalistic aid to the poor is neither moral nor efficient. Requiring for those in need to do x or y to receive benefits, e.g. taking jobs within time constraints as a basic example, or show up to the office at x time to apply, is costly to verify, not dignifying, and ultimately does less good on the dollar - or so the book says, I frankly can't remember the data that is shown.
With the reasoning behind UBI being laid out, the author next endeavour to examine common counter-arguments to UBI. UBI would discourage work - as explained above, the author argues to the contrary due to the undoing of poverty traps. UBI would be unaffordable - the discussion boils down to variations of 'tax the rich and you can finance it' which makes complete sense, plus arguments in the flavour of 'UBI would alleviate the need for some means-tested benefits, and means-testing in itself requires a large, costly administrative apparatus which could then be foregone' (which also answers the counter argument that it would be stupid to give money to the rich as well as to the poor, which is a feature of Universal BI. Means testing is also not perfect, and both misses people and gives to some who actually shouldn't qualify). To this can be added arguments along the lines of 'the government spends x amount on fossil fuels and y amount on the army, some of that could well go to UBI'. I personally think the bottom line is, in a society of abundance - as the book, as we will see, is primarily targetted at the global North -, redistributing income in the form of UBI is affordable, it is only a matter of whose income you reduce and how.
Another classic argument, which I do not think the book spends nearly enough time on, is inflation. While affordability gets its own chapter, the question of inflation only gets a couple of pages. The argument as I understand it - and parts of it I must admit I did not understand very well -, is that UBI would create purchasing power and spending power on a large scale, which therefore would counteract inflation because it pushes producers to increase the supply. The example given points to a pilot in India where basic income led farmers to plant more wheat and rice available for purchase, with therefore overall minimal effects on inflation. The book also argues that if UBI is funded by divesting funds from other sources of public expenditure, the overall effect would not be much inflationary, citing an argument by a Geoff Crocker that there can only be an inflationary impact if the aggregate purchasing power surpasses GDP. Now, I am no economist. But I also don't think the book is aimed at economists, being a political pamphlet of sorts, and therefore I wish it gave a little more substance to its arguments. For example, this is all well and good, but it only sees economics as a purposeless, self-regulated system. As a layreader, I don't think it really answers questions such as - why wouldn't my landlord just raise rent by whatever the amount of the UBI was?
Now this is where, in my view, the cracks in the book really start to show. First of all, it has to be said that this is resolutely a book aimed at the UK/US, and West in general. There is a subsection about the matching between religious moral codes and the moral reasons behind UBI, and 90% of that looks at Christianity alone. Now that's what the author's scope is, and with the book's purpose seemingly being convincing the population of US/UK/West of the value of UBI, the limitation sort of
makes sense, but it ought to be pointed out. It is, after all, a book written by a singular author, and who that author is should be kept in mind. I should mention that the book depicts a very heteronormative view of society, which part of me hopes is a tactic to more easily rope in its target 'convincees' as a coy tactic to not challenge them on such questions, but who knows. The book does drop as complete obviousness that the surrogate a child's basic income should be paid to is their mother, with no further discussion on the matter.
Where the book I think starts to really fail is that it does not make at all clear what scale of UBI it advocates for. Its ethical discussion early on purports that UBI should be sufficient to achieve essential standards of living, but later on it discusses affordability schemes where in the UK the population would be awarded £300/mo per capita. 300 quid is a nice and welcome supplement, but by no means can it be someone's sole income with a decent living standard - a heated home and sufficient food seems like necessities that could not both be afforded with that amount. Now I understand the author has to work with the pilot/proposal data there is out there, but even keeping this in mind I came out of the book with the impression that I did not really know which amount he would suggest himself, even in the UK where he originates from and which the book is somewhat chiefly concerned with (understandably so).
Where there the numbers muddied the waters, there are other aspects in which the author does not give us enough numbers, especially when discussing the result of pilots. He talks of big impacts, improved school attendance, improved nutrition, etc., but never quantifies it. I appreciate some of it is for readability's sake, but you need some numbers at some point. Because, as it is, by the end of the book I still had no grasp on what a "big improvement" in e.g. school attendance means to the author. Is it +10%? Is it doubling? No idea. The only number being advanced is the seemingly endlessly repeated 80% marginal tax rate or more talking point that I mentioned above in regards to poverty traps.
I also don't quite understand why near the end the author starts bashing randomised controlled trials, during which discussion he seems to show he is apparently unaware of the concept of clustered RCTs. The appendix chapter seems to be a bit of a strange addition. No one reading the chapter would have the knowhow or funds to run such a pilot even if they were to read it; anyone with the knowhow and funds to run a UBI pilot should not need to read this to know what to do. Then again, as an inspiring blueprint in an appendix, why not.
Truly the weakest point of the book in my view (and perhaps of UBI itself?) is that it is decidedly, profoundly reformist, and anti-revolutionary. The book does not have a satisfactory answer to the questions "why not go further? Why stop there?".
The book brushes aside the idea of truly universal (i.e. worldwide, or at any rate transnational) basic income, even in its early theoretical discussion. According to the same reasons the book advances for UBI at the national level, everyone, everywhere should have a right to it. Whilst I understand the practicality and pragmatic argument that policy is created at the local level of country or state, a) this does not mean the idea should not be discussed, especially in a chapter that talks about justice and ethical foundations to the basic income movement, b) it is untrue as world organizations of various descriptions do exist.
The book does not dare to be idealistic critical at a systemic level, which is perhaps fine given its stated aim. But again I wish it at least mentioned that there could be ways to go further. The most striking example is the subsection on "the rent problem", which the book proposes to tackle by tweaking the tax and UBI systems, without even suggesting the broader question of why there is a rent problem to start with, or the role of landlords etc. I appreciate that the book means to remain short and digestible, but just mentioning these questions would not take more than a couple lines here and there and would help broaden the reader's horizon - though I can see how this could also give way to slippery slope type arguments from the 'opposite' side.
But the book does not just keep to reformism for pragmatic purposes, which I would understand to a degree. It goes out of its way to attack any more radical view. This would be ok, if it was argued well. Instead it dismisses communism as a horrible world where everybody works to their death, which is extremely reductionist of communist history and theory. There is no critique of rentier capitalism, no suggestion of outright limiting maximal wealth. Change here only exists in the forms of tax code changes and welfare modifications to finance UBI.
Editorial footnote before the conclusion: I forgot to mention this, but the book makes also a good case that UBI would help valorising work that is not currently financially remunerated, such as carer tasks or volunteering for the community. It distinguishes 'work' from 'labour', which is a subset of work that is paid for by employers, and which is often misconstrued as being all work can ever be.
If you are interested in the question of UBI, this is a pretty good book to start with, especially in the way it lays the foundations and basic reasoning in favour of UBI and its adjacent principles. But it is not in my view in and of itself a sufficient introduction, as it leaves too much up in the air. I found afterwards that many of my own questions regarding UBI were left open. Chiefly, the book does not particularly address the fact that the pilots have the heavy limitation of being local change within a society that has not changed. Whilst pilot data is encouraging, it does not, and the author does not, answer the question of how UBI would work as an ubiquitous policy, e.g. in regards to inflation, drive to perform highly specialised and tiresome jobs, etc. But it does offer a pretty solid first foundation to further explore the topic of UBI - just be aware that you will probably need to explore further indeed. 3/5
The book's skeleton is what drove me to it in the first place. The structure is as any policy-oriented, entry-level, simple, wannabee impactful political essay should be in my mind. Lay out the basic arguments for the thesis and the fundamental reasoning for it, develop it, and then address the major or most common counter-arguments one by one. Ending on a plan for how to achieve the proposal is an excellent final touch. Keeping it at a medium page count (~300 but print fairly spaced) allows a good semi-detailed development of the theory without getting bogged down into academic level detail.
While the structure is excellent, what the author filled it with does not always convince me.
I really appreciated the first two chapters as they start things off by posing Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a fundamental right, and by making the argument that it should be a desired policy even before any of the other more numbers-based/economic reasons. UBI is posed as a means of redistributing's humanity's shared resources of land, economic and technological heritage, etc., and as a compensation for some having appropriated the land from the community. I mean I am simplifying the idea to the extreme here but that is the idea. Society benefits from the work of the past, and we should share the dividends from that, is the gist. There is also some more esoteric discussion about the fact that "doing nothing" is worthwhile and a right; that in a world of abundance, not working should not be punished especially when it is temporary; that the safety of a basic income allows people to take time out for art or whatever other endeavour they will.
Now, although this is an excellent foundation, there is of course more to it. It is next argued that UBI reduces poverty and income inequality which is fairly evident, and that it reduces poverty traps which therefore encourages more work, not less. With current benefits system, there is a huge marginal cost to going from benefits to a low paying job. The author cites a figure of 'up to 80% marginal tax rate or more' at least a dozen times in the book, but the idea is indeed sound. With a low paying job you are now taxed heavily on the extra income you gain, whilst incurring additional costs for transport, child care or whatever else, and losing whole or part of your benefits. The marginal gain can be minimal, or even negative. Thus this creates a poverty trap where a low paying job is simply not worth taking even if you want to, and therefore it is often rational to stay on benefits instead. The proposal of replacing current means-based benefits by UBI, which by definition would be paid regardless of employment status, is argued to reduce this effect dramatically, which seems sound to me, which the author says therefore would enable people to take jobs if they so wished (and to better bargain with employers, since employees now have a certain, universal safety net to fall back on).
There are also some arguments towards liberty for this. Two I remembered are that the certain safety net of UBI allows workers to more readily get out of exploitative or underpaid jobs; and that it enables partners to be less financially dependent from one another, which makes leaving an 'abusive breadwinner' a much safer thing for example. Same thing for children. The book quite successfully makes the case that paternalistic aid to the poor is neither moral nor efficient. Requiring for those in need to do x or y to receive benefits, e.g. taking jobs within time constraints as a basic example, or show up to the office at x time to apply, is costly to verify, not dignifying, and ultimately does less good on the dollar - or so the book says, I frankly can't remember the data that is shown.
With the reasoning behind UBI being laid out, the author next endeavour to examine common counter-arguments to UBI. UBI would discourage work - as explained above, the author argues to the contrary due to the undoing of poverty traps. UBI would be unaffordable - the discussion boils down to variations of 'tax the rich and you can finance it' which makes complete sense, plus arguments in the flavour of 'UBI would alleviate the need for some means-tested benefits, and means-testing in itself requires a large, costly administrative apparatus which could then be foregone' (which also answers the counter argument that it would be stupid to give money to the rich as well as to the poor, which is a feature of Universal BI. Means testing is also not perfect, and both misses people and gives to some who actually shouldn't qualify). To this can be added arguments along the lines of 'the government spends x amount on fossil fuels and y amount on the army, some of that could well go to UBI'. I personally think the bottom line is, in a society of abundance - as the book, as we will see, is primarily targetted at the global North -, redistributing income in the form of UBI is affordable, it is only a matter of whose income you reduce and how.
Another classic argument, which I do not think the book spends nearly enough time on, is inflation. While affordability gets its own chapter, the question of inflation only gets a couple of pages. The argument as I understand it - and parts of it I must admit I did not understand very well -, is that UBI would create purchasing power and spending power on a large scale, which therefore would counteract inflation because it pushes producers to increase the supply. The example given points to a pilot in India where basic income led farmers to plant more wheat and rice available for purchase, with therefore overall minimal effects on inflation. The book also argues that if UBI is funded by divesting funds from other sources of public expenditure, the overall effect would not be much inflationary, citing an argument by a Geoff Crocker that there can only be an inflationary impact if the aggregate purchasing power surpasses GDP. Now, I am no economist. But I also don't think the book is aimed at economists, being a political pamphlet of sorts, and therefore I wish it gave a little more substance to its arguments. For example, this is all well and good, but it only sees economics as a purposeless, self-regulated system. As a layreader, I don't think it really answers questions such as - why wouldn't my landlord just raise rent by whatever the amount of the UBI was?
Now this is where, in my view, the cracks in the book really start to show. First of all, it has to be said that this is resolutely a book aimed at the UK/US, and West in general. There is a subsection about the matching between religious moral codes and the moral reasons behind UBI, and 90% of that looks at Christianity alone. Now that's what the author's scope is, and with the book's purpose seemingly being convincing the population of US/UK/West of the value of UBI, the limitation sort of
makes sense, but it ought to be pointed out. It is, after all, a book written by a singular author, and who that author is should be kept in mind. I should mention that the book depicts a very heteronormative view of society, which part of me hopes is a tactic to more easily rope in its target 'convincees' as a coy tactic to not challenge them on such questions, but who knows. The book does drop as complete obviousness that the surrogate a child's basic income should be paid to is their mother, with no further discussion on the matter.
Where the book I think starts to really fail is that it does not make at all clear what scale of UBI it advocates for. Its ethical discussion early on purports that UBI should be sufficient to achieve essential standards of living, but later on it discusses affordability schemes where in the UK the population would be awarded £300/mo per capita. 300 quid is a nice and welcome supplement, but by no means can it be someone's sole income with a decent living standard - a heated home and sufficient food seems like necessities that could not both be afforded with that amount. Now I understand the author has to work with the pilot/proposal data there is out there, but even keeping this in mind I came out of the book with the impression that I did not really know which amount he would suggest himself, even in the UK where he originates from and which the book is somewhat chiefly concerned with (understandably so).
Where there the numbers muddied the waters, there are other aspects in which the author does not give us enough numbers, especially when discussing the result of pilots. He talks of big impacts, improved school attendance, improved nutrition, etc., but never quantifies it. I appreciate some of it is for readability's sake, but you need some numbers at some point. Because, as it is, by the end of the book I still had no grasp on what a "big improvement" in e.g. school attendance means to the author. Is it +10%? Is it doubling? No idea. The only number being advanced is the seemingly endlessly repeated 80% marginal tax rate or more talking point that I mentioned above in regards to poverty traps.
I also don't quite understand why near the end the author starts bashing randomised controlled trials, during which discussion he seems to show he is apparently unaware of the concept of clustered RCTs. The appendix chapter seems to be a bit of a strange addition. No one reading the chapter would have the knowhow or funds to run such a pilot even if they were to read it; anyone with the knowhow and funds to run a UBI pilot should not need to read this to know what to do. Then again, as an inspiring blueprint in an appendix, why not.
Truly the weakest point of the book in my view (and perhaps of UBI itself?) is that it is decidedly, profoundly reformist, and anti-revolutionary. The book does not have a satisfactory answer to the questions "why not go further? Why stop there?".
The book brushes aside the idea of truly universal (i.e. worldwide, or at any rate transnational) basic income, even in its early theoretical discussion. According to the same reasons the book advances for UBI at the national level, everyone, everywhere should have a right to it. Whilst I understand the practicality and pragmatic argument that policy is created at the local level of country or state, a) this does not mean the idea should not be discussed, especially in a chapter that talks about justice and ethical foundations to the basic income movement, b) it is untrue as world organizations of various descriptions do exist.
The book does not dare to be idealistic critical at a systemic level, which is perhaps fine given its stated aim. But again I wish it at least mentioned that there could be ways to go further. The most striking example is the subsection on "the rent problem", which the book proposes to tackle by tweaking the tax and UBI systems, without even suggesting the broader question of why there is a rent problem to start with, or the role of landlords etc. I appreciate that the book means to remain short and digestible, but just mentioning these questions would not take more than a couple lines here and there and would help broaden the reader's horizon - though I can see how this could also give way to slippery slope type arguments from the 'opposite' side.
But the book does not just keep to reformism for pragmatic purposes, which I would understand to a degree. It goes out of its way to attack any more radical view. This would be ok, if it was argued well. Instead it dismisses communism as a horrible world where everybody works to their death, which is extremely reductionist of communist history and theory. There is no critique of rentier capitalism, no suggestion of outright limiting maximal wealth. Change here only exists in the forms of tax code changes and welfare modifications to finance UBI.
Editorial footnote before the conclusion: I forgot to mention this, but the book makes also a good case that UBI would help valorising work that is not currently financially remunerated, such as carer tasks or volunteering for the community. It distinguishes 'work' from 'labour', which is a subset of work that is paid for by employers, and which is often misconstrued as being all work can ever be.
If you are interested in the question of UBI, this is a pretty good book to start with, especially in the way it lays the foundations and basic reasoning in favour of UBI and its adjacent principles. But it is not in my view in and of itself a sufficient introduction, as it leaves too much up in the air. I found afterwards that many of my own questions regarding UBI were left open. Chiefly, the book does not particularly address the fact that the pilots have the heavy limitation of being local change within a society that has not changed. Whilst pilot data is encouraging, it does not, and the author does not, answer the question of how UBI would work as an ubiquitous policy, e.g. in regards to inflation, drive to perform highly specialised and tiresome jobs, etc. But it does offer a pretty solid first foundation to further explore the topic of UBI - just be aware that you will probably need to explore further indeed. 3/5
January 19, 2023
Is it possible to pay a sum of Rs. 5000 per month to every adult who identifies as an Indian citizen? Moreover, this transfer should be with no strings attached, to every individual (not household), without any means-testing or expectation from the State. Guy Standing explores this idea in twelve chapters, dissecting the common myths around basic income. He cites three reasons to argue why basic income is necessary: to promote social justice, to enhance freedom, and to reduce inequality/eliminate poverty. The author has convincingly addressed the commonly propagated misconception that basic income would make people lazy and impact the labor market.
Unconditional cash transfers are considered one of the fairest, most cost-effective, and most impactful ways to alleviate poverty and stimulate economic growth. The idea behind them is that the current income and wealth distribution has failed and that direct monetary payments might be able to solve the problem of existing poverty and inequality. The best way to overcome this is to run pilot studies to document the effectiveness of the intervention. In 2019, on the advocacy of Nobel Laurate Abhijit Banerjee and former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan, NYAY or Minimum Income Support Program (MISP) proposed to target the bottom five crore families with an unconditional cash transfer of Rs. 6000 per year. However, in India, where the poverty line is arbitrary and subjective, people in or near poverty experience fluctuating incomes and often work in unorganized sectors whose daily wages vary. In this scenario, an ideal form of piloting would be to identify 200 rural hotspots with low per capita income and abysmal development indicators, thereby intervening for at least 24 months to arrive at any meaningful conclusion.
The author conducted such pilot studies in the Indian states of Madhya Pradesh and New Delhi, whereby individuals were paid a sum as basic income. The results of the studies conclude that people who opted for basic income had improved food intake, purchasing power, nutritional status, sanitation, educational performance among children, and health. Unconditional cash transfers for every woman in a household are about to be rolled out in Tamil Nadu. The expected social implications are reduced dependency of women on the sole breadwinner of the family, increased women and child nutritional status, enhancement of agency (voice), and improved consumption of essential goods that will consequently have a multiplier effect on raising the demand.
Guy Standing delivered a well-reasoned, coherent, and convincing account of basic income. However, in the Indian context, coupled with inflationary concerns, ensuring an unconditional cash transfer to sixty percent of the population would also mean phasing out the public expenditure on health, education, food security, and public works.
Unconditional cash transfers are considered one of the fairest, most cost-effective, and most impactful ways to alleviate poverty and stimulate economic growth. The idea behind them is that the current income and wealth distribution has failed and that direct monetary payments might be able to solve the problem of existing poverty and inequality. The best way to overcome this is to run pilot studies to document the effectiveness of the intervention. In 2019, on the advocacy of Nobel Laurate Abhijit Banerjee and former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan, NYAY or Minimum Income Support Program (MISP) proposed to target the bottom five crore families with an unconditional cash transfer of Rs. 6000 per year. However, in India, where the poverty line is arbitrary and subjective, people in or near poverty experience fluctuating incomes and often work in unorganized sectors whose daily wages vary. In this scenario, an ideal form of piloting would be to identify 200 rural hotspots with low per capita income and abysmal development indicators, thereby intervening for at least 24 months to arrive at any meaningful conclusion.
The author conducted such pilot studies in the Indian states of Madhya Pradesh and New Delhi, whereby individuals were paid a sum as basic income. The results of the studies conclude that people who opted for basic income had improved food intake, purchasing power, nutritional status, sanitation, educational performance among children, and health. Unconditional cash transfers for every woman in a household are about to be rolled out in Tamil Nadu. The expected social implications are reduced dependency of women on the sole breadwinner of the family, increased women and child nutritional status, enhancement of agency (voice), and improved consumption of essential goods that will consequently have a multiplier effect on raising the demand.
Guy Standing delivered a well-reasoned, coherent, and convincing account of basic income. However, in the Indian context, coupled with inflationary concerns, ensuring an unconditional cash transfer to sixty percent of the population would also mean phasing out the public expenditure on health, education, food security, and public works.
December 11, 2018
Not a believer of Basic Income at first but this book gave me interesting perspectives.
Read
August 2, 2023Only read half before it was due back at the library. Learned a lot from the first half though.
August 2, 2023
I’m fairly convinced that some form of basic income is going to be needed for the world without work that our robot overlords will deliver. I just didn’t find the book either particularly compelling or interesting. There’s plenty of detail, and he obviously cares about his subject. I just found his details too noodly, his arguments too convenient and his politics too partisan.
There were times that I got onboard, but there were just as many times that I got annoyed by badly-reasoned arguments. There were more times when I was just plain bored. There were, however, very few times that I felt properly convinced, despite Standing’s obvious enthusiasm and depth of knowledge. it’s a pity really, because I think I was more sold on the concept before I’d read this book.
There were times that I got onboard, but there were just as many times that I got annoyed by badly-reasoned arguments. There were more times when I was just plain bored. There were, however, very few times that I felt properly convinced, despite Standing’s obvious enthusiasm and depth of knowledge. it’s a pity really, because I think I was more sold on the concept before I’d read this book.
May 20, 2020
interesting! I was really skeptical, but i'm a lot more convinced than i thought i would be !
He addressed well some of my former questions abt affordability and inflation by talking about some economics stuff that i mostly understood (basically UBI needs to come with huge changes to tax and subsidies). also critised work and talked about the importance of reproductive labour which is a sexy thing to do (fuck work!).
however, written in such a dry style that i thought he was a tory for a bit of it, and it petered off towards the end. I would say still worth a read for anyone wanting to learn more about ubi - i learnt a lot !
He addressed well some of my former questions abt affordability and inflation by talking about some economics stuff that i mostly understood (basically UBI needs to come with huge changes to tax and subsidies). also critised work and talked about the importance of reproductive labour which is a sexy thing to do (fuck work!).
however, written in such a dry style that i thought he was a tory for a bit of it, and it petered off towards the end. I would say still worth a read for anyone wanting to learn more about ubi - i learnt a lot !
January 6, 2022
An interesting book about the idea of Basic Income, better known as Universal Basic Income or UBI, it shows both how advanced the idea is, tries to address the most common objections to the idea and shows how it can be put into practice in different contexts and how it can be tested. It also discusses the advantages of this system over other systems or as a complement to already existing social security frameworks.
An issue that is particularly interesting here, with Standing having a clear centre-left political position, is the way in which the book addresses the hijacking of UBI by neo-liberal right wing politics, which seeks to use UBI as a way to replace public services and benefits. This is clearly a source of frustration for Standing, understandably, as it would make an idea that has the original aim to create a better life for everyone and take them out of poverty, into another tool that would mainly benefit those at the top, while the bottom earners would have to spend all the UBI to cover health and education, for example, which should be state-funded.
It is an interesting primer on the idea of UBI and its possibilities and it is easy to come out of it convinced, or at least more convinced of its benefits. Particularly relevant is the section where the social impact in terms of gender and class equality is examined taking into account previous experiments. How women, often oppressed, particularly in more traditional societies, manage through UBI to have their own earnings and therefore to get a social standing and independence that is unprecedented, how most people use extra money for good ends rather than for the old canards of "drinking and drugs". It's pretty enlightening stuff.
An issue that is particularly interesting here, with Standing having a clear centre-left political position, is the way in which the book addresses the hijacking of UBI by neo-liberal right wing politics, which seeks to use UBI as a way to replace public services and benefits. This is clearly a source of frustration for Standing, understandably, as it would make an idea that has the original aim to create a better life for everyone and take them out of poverty, into another tool that would mainly benefit those at the top, while the bottom earners would have to spend all the UBI to cover health and education, for example, which should be state-funded.
It is an interesting primer on the idea of UBI and its possibilities and it is easy to come out of it convinced, or at least more convinced of its benefits. Particularly relevant is the section where the social impact in terms of gender and class equality is examined taking into account previous experiments. How women, often oppressed, particularly in more traditional societies, manage through UBI to have their own earnings and therefore to get a social standing and independence that is unprecedented, how most people use extra money for good ends rather than for the old canards of "drinking and drugs". It's pretty enlightening stuff.
December 19, 2024
"Achieving a strong sense of personal agency and basic income security are interdependent. You cannot have one without the other. Today, many people lack both."
It has become clear that the modern world of work is still governed by theories of a gone age. Trades have changed a lot since the Keynesian era of achieving "full employment", which Standing puts on full blast. Work today - for better or for worse - is more flexible than ever before.
Guy makes a compelling argument that a basic income can enable everyone to "buy time" and become more flexible in their reformation of what they feel is an adequate work-life balance. Straight-forward in its arguments against "the alternatives", the book rips through current welfare and 'workfare' programmes, emphasising the conditional nature of these schemes and their tendency to create poverty traps for those on low incomes.
Some of his methods are confusing. Standing challenges the legitimacy of the tax allowance on income taxes, pointing out that nearly half of all US households don't pay federal income tax, and says one could raise UBI money from them. Yet presumably, a large portion of these households don't have enough money to cover an emergency - as Standing himself points out prior. His addressing of counterarguments, particularly on inflation, are also left wanting.
Overall though, Standing helps us to imagine a future where the state exists to provide for us and ensure our security, rather than continuing on the paternalistic path wherein governments entrap the 'precariat' and decrease their human potential. It might be an optimistic book, but it is certainly a refreshing and straightforward take.
It has become clear that the modern world of work is still governed by theories of a gone age. Trades have changed a lot since the Keynesian era of achieving "full employment", which Standing puts on full blast. Work today - for better or for worse - is more flexible than ever before.
Guy makes a compelling argument that a basic income can enable everyone to "buy time" and become more flexible in their reformation of what they feel is an adequate work-life balance. Straight-forward in its arguments against "the alternatives", the book rips through current welfare and 'workfare' programmes, emphasising the conditional nature of these schemes and their tendency to create poverty traps for those on low incomes.
Some of his methods are confusing. Standing challenges the legitimacy of the tax allowance on income taxes, pointing out that nearly half of all US households don't pay federal income tax, and says one could raise UBI money from them. Yet presumably, a large portion of these households don't have enough money to cover an emergency - as Standing himself points out prior. His addressing of counterarguments, particularly on inflation, are also left wanting.
Overall though, Standing helps us to imagine a future where the state exists to provide for us and ensure our security, rather than continuing on the paternalistic path wherein governments entrap the 'precariat' and decrease their human potential. It might be an optimistic book, but it is certainly a refreshing and straightforward take.
April 6, 2021
wielowymiarowa, dobrze przeprowadzona analiza dochodu podstawowego, jego alternatyw, zalet, możliwych problemów, które może stwarzać, czy kryteriów, które powinny spełniać badania pilotażowe sprawdzające efekty dochodu podstawowego na społeczeństwo. bardzo interesująca i dobrze napisana.
December 1, 2025
Positives: as promised it delivers an introduction to basic income, outlining areas that could be investigated more later; some interesting ideas around freedom and the fundamentals of why UBI is important (it’s not just about eliminating poverty); and it addresses many of the main arguments levied against it.
Negatives: some of the most vocal detractions could have used a lot more detail, specifically it would have benefited from a chapter dedicated to inflation; and I found the writing style extremely dry and in parts clunky and sometimes even misleading / opaque.
Some interesting things that were new to me: how the republican idea of freedom (not to be confused with the GOP) means freedom of choice and also freedom from someone having the ability to exert control over you either now or in the future whether or not they actually do ever control you - compared with libertarianism which doesn’t care about someone’s ability to control you as long as they never do; the idea of liberal paternalism (where the state offers benefits but nudges you in a certain direction and is a controlling force); the complexity of tax policy and how you need to bundle tax reform with transfer (welfare) reform; what work means and how we operate in “flexible tertiary economies” (jobs are less tied to specific hours or locations) and how this means policy like minimum wage is less relevant; GDP and our definition of economic “work” is weird and needs refinement (if i pay someone $10 to walk my dog and they pay me $10 to walk their dog GDP goes up by $20) - also touched on in Dougnut Economics and Invisible Women.
Some of the detractions addressed: the problem of affordability (it’s complicated but properly addressing tax && transfers together makes it seem achievable); inflation (detractions typically ignore supply side elasticity, however I think the book should probably go more into this —> it was a bit hand wavy here over arguably the second biggest detraction, after affordability); governments might manipulate UBI around elections.
Giving it a 4 as I’m positively biased towards UBI and want others to read this book. At its core it taught me a few things that will help me learn more later. I quite like these Pelican Introductions! Be warned some parts of this can be quite dry and you might prefer selecting specific chapters
Negatives: some of the most vocal detractions could have used a lot more detail, specifically it would have benefited from a chapter dedicated to inflation; and I found the writing style extremely dry and in parts clunky and sometimes even misleading / opaque.
Some interesting things that were new to me: how the republican idea of freedom (not to be confused with the GOP) means freedom of choice and also freedom from someone having the ability to exert control over you either now or in the future whether or not they actually do ever control you - compared with libertarianism which doesn’t care about someone’s ability to control you as long as they never do; the idea of liberal paternalism (where the state offers benefits but nudges you in a certain direction and is a controlling force); the complexity of tax policy and how you need to bundle tax reform with transfer (welfare) reform; what work means and how we operate in “flexible tertiary economies” (jobs are less tied to specific hours or locations) and how this means policy like minimum wage is less relevant; GDP and our definition of economic “work” is weird and needs refinement (if i pay someone $10 to walk my dog and they pay me $10 to walk their dog GDP goes up by $20) - also touched on in Dougnut Economics and Invisible Women.
Some of the detractions addressed: the problem of affordability (it’s complicated but properly addressing tax && transfers together makes it seem achievable); inflation (detractions typically ignore supply side elasticity, however I think the book should probably go more into this —> it was a bit hand wavy here over arguably the second biggest detraction, after affordability); governments might manipulate UBI around elections.
Giving it a 4 as I’m positively biased towards UBI and want others to read this book. At its core it taught me a few things that will help me learn more later. I quite like these Pelican Introductions! Be warned some parts of this can be quite dry and you might prefer selecting specific chapters
November 20, 2022
Opá, este livro... se a tua principal oposição ao RBI são questões de viabilidade ou das consequências económicas do mesmo, se calhar este livro é para ti. Se, por outro lado, és como eu e te preocupas como o RBI pode ser apropriado pelos neoliberais e libertários para destruir o pouco que resta do estado social e finalmente legitimar as suas crenças de que se és pobre a culpa é tua e não mereces qualquer tipo de consideração, então, este livro deixa muito a desejar. O Homem Levantado parece quase embaraçado pela forma como afirma que o RBI não pode substituir o estado social enquanto tenta acolher de braços abertos o apoio dos libertários da cobrinha que querem fazer precisamente isso.
June 1, 2017
كتاب ملهم في دفاعه عن واحد من أكثر الإجراءات التي توصف بأنها طوباوية وغير واقعية في اعطاء الناس الحق في العيش بكرامة وحرية. الدخل النقدي غير المشروط هو دخل شهري تؤمنه الدولة لكل المواطنين او حتى المقيمين يكفل لهم حدا ادنى من العيش. الكتاب يظهر بالدليل والحجة والتجارب الامبريقية كيف ان إجراءا كهذا ليس فقط يمكن تنفيذه وإنما أيضا يرد على كل من يقولون انه سيدفع الناس للكسل وانفاق المال على السجائر والمخدرات وما شابه. مزيج مدهش من الثقة في حسن ما ينطوي عليه البشر حقا والدلائل الفلسفية والسياسية والتجارب العملية الواقعية.
December 28, 2021
This is a very practical, blow-by-blow, account of UBI. It can be a little dry at times as a reading experience. Some of the chapters are about how to run a pilot scheme, which I don't see myself doing. Nonetheless it would provide a way of assessing one were it to go ahead. The chapters on the history of the idea itself are the most interesting for a bystander like myself. I would give it 5 stars for its commitment to an ethical and empathic vision for humanity and for working towards that.
February 11, 2019
A fairly exhaustive rundown of the arguments for universal basic income and the issues surrounding it, by one its leading promoters. Definitely worth a read if you're interested in the topic.
February 25, 2019
Eye opening and mind blowing. The book seems fair and balance presenting the subjects, its counter arguments and the weaknesses or challenges brought by both. They won an advocate for the cause.
December 29, 2021
I read this to inform my essay on whether we should implement UBI in the UK and it really became a vital source, especially with all the texts the book leads you to. Incredibly insightful.
January 21, 2022
Dochod podstawowy nie jest fanberia. Jest jedna z drog mozliwego uksztaltowania stosunkow spolecznych w najblizszej przyszlosci (perspektywa 15-30 lat?) . Jedna z mozliwych - bo sa inne - choc dosc niepokojace w porownaniu z tym co proponuje autor. Ksiazka manwalormflownie poznawczy - opisuje inne metody adresujace narrastajace rozwarstwienie spoleczne ale - choc o tym wspomina sie marginalnoe - problem technologicznego bezrobocia. Brak blyskotliwych polemik czy analiz. Interesujaca lektura dla wszystkich zainteresowanych rozważaniami nad przyszłością.
November 8, 2023
Konuyla ilgili olanların mutlaka okuması gereken bir kitap. Temel Gelir konusunda dünyada en sıkı savunucularından olan Guy Standing'in bu eserini Türkçe'ye kattıkları için Tellekt ekibine teşekkürler. Kitabın çevirisi de oldukça başarılı. Çok seri bir şekilde okunabiliyor.
Kitap, yazarın taraf olması (Guy Standing, Dünya Temel Gelir Ağı'nın kurucusu ve onursal eşbaşkanı) dolaysıyla belki eleştirilebilir hatta kitap içerisinde yer yer kendi savını doğrulamak için kendi ile çeliştiği noktalar da bulunuyor bana göre fakat konunun en temelinden anlaşılması bakımından temel kaynak eser haline gelmiş.
Kitap, yazarın taraf olması (Guy Standing, Dünya Temel Gelir Ağı'nın kurucusu ve onursal eşbaşkanı) dolaysıyla belki eleştirilebilir hatta kitap içerisinde yer yer kendi savını doğrulamak için kendi ile çeliştiği noktalar da bulunuyor bana göre fakat konunun en temelinden anlaşılması bakımından temel kaynak eser haline gelmiş.
July 13, 2017
I have no idea whether this argument could be rolled out effectively - but what Guy Standing has done here is offer a readable, and well argued policy with action points. I first encountered the author through his book 'the precariat' that I thought was a timely analysis of modern 'class' or structures. This book is just practical and published at the right time.
June 8, 2017
Great book covering the critiques, alternatives, and practicalities of UBI. I made a video summarising it and talking more personally about how it may be funded and how I feel about that. Lots of feels. Political feels.
January 13, 2018
okay, I'm a believer in basic income now =D a lot of waste goes into administrative costs to determine who gets what. by guaranteeing a basic income to everyone, we can spend more time having fun. this book is good, but a bit dry.
May 10, 2017
A reasoned and informative look at a fascinating concept. Standing presents his arguments well and is very convincing on this subject.
November 12, 2017
Everything you ever wanted to know about basic income, but were afraid to ask.
April 8, 2020
Guy Standing was one of the co-founders of the Basic Income Earth Network in the 1980s and has been a champion of his cause ever since. Thirty to Forty years of fighting this corner at times must have been arduous and thankless; moreso in recent years of right wing governments and global policies of austerity. However, he remains passionate and confident that the time is now for a universal basic income, and this reviewer happens to agree.
In terms of the book, it begins with a historical tour of the concept of a universal basic income. While we may see UBI as a relatively new political idea, its germination can be traced back to 2000 years ago but emerged as robust idea in Utopia by Thomas More, published in 1514. At various times since then UBI has gained many supporters, not always from the areas of society you might think; in the 20th century both Milton Friedman and Freidrich Hayek were supporters and more recently Nobel prize winning economists such as Jospeh Stiglitz and Angus Deaton. While some of these may have looked at this from a libertarian point of view in terms of a replacement for welfare and government, the fact is they saw the merit in essentially “giving” people money to enhance their personal freedom and level of choice, whether that choice be in the arena of work, education or leisure.
Standing is clear though that a UBI should not be a replacement for existing welfare or benefits but should work alongside those to alleviate poverty and reduce inequality. For him it is a matter of social justice and this runs strongly through the book as a central nervous system without which the idea cannot survive. Over the next 300 or so pages we are given access to the positives from angles personal, economic, international, labouring, liberty and affordability. Two of the most useful chapters are a dissection of alternatives and a list of standard arguments against UBI and their converse rebuttals. It is thorough and well sourced, being able to call on the results of pilot schemes that have taken place across the world with positive results in terms of work, poverty, education and crime.
Where the book is incomplete is its lack of understanding with which our current politics would fight back against this, and only barely mentioned is the media outrage such progress would face. We are led by politicians currently in the world’s largest and oldest democracies by reactionary right wing people who are in thrall to ideas that not only don’t work but actively make life harder for the poorest in a given society. This isn’t an accident, it is the point of government policy. Since roughly 1980 we have seen a gigantic transfer of wealth and power from the poor to the rich. Genuinely social democratic policies which reduces inequality were abandoned and what became known as neoliberal policies were the only game in town. This was only exacerbated by the fall of the Soviet Union; capitalism won but our leaders are still fighting a Cold War that no longer exists, and there is no brake on the system.
Similarly we have a media class that is bought and controlled by the billionaire class. Even the nominally progressive sources of news such as MSNBC or The Guardian are ideologically positioned to maintain the status quo; this can be evidenced by the treatment of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn in the so called left wing media; any chance of real change must be shut down. Without pluralism in our media, no government will be brave enough to carry out substantial change that would transfer wealth back to the true creators; the workers. We know all too well the style of story that targets benefit “cheats” in the same pages that celebrate the lives of the indolent rich. Without media backing, no policy can survive.
Traditionally this work-focused route to wealth has also been championed by organisations on the left such as trade unions, many of which see a rise in income and living standards equating less members of their institutions. This shows a startling lack of confidence in unions and an inability to adapt to a changing situation. The pilots show that people are more likely to be engaged in soldaristic grass roots institutions such as unions and other community based organisations as they not only have the free time to do so, but also have the money to join in the first place; as a grass roots trade union rep I have heard all too often that members of staff cannot join as they simply cannot afford it as their contract is insecure or their hours too few.
Aside from what I took to be a lack of understanding of the realities as they stand, the book is a rallying cry for fairness and must be celebrated as such. Whatever the arguments against, what is clear is that market driven capitalism has had 200 or so years to reduce poverty and inequality; if this is the pinnacle of an ideology, it has failed wholly. UBI can be used as something to kickstart a new way of living, or it could be used even to save capitalism as it stands but as Victor Hugo said, nothing is more power than an idea whose time has come.
In terms of the book, it begins with a historical tour of the concept of a universal basic income. While we may see UBI as a relatively new political idea, its germination can be traced back to 2000 years ago but emerged as robust idea in Utopia by Thomas More, published in 1514. At various times since then UBI has gained many supporters, not always from the areas of society you might think; in the 20th century both Milton Friedman and Freidrich Hayek were supporters and more recently Nobel prize winning economists such as Jospeh Stiglitz and Angus Deaton. While some of these may have looked at this from a libertarian point of view in terms of a replacement for welfare and government, the fact is they saw the merit in essentially “giving” people money to enhance their personal freedom and level of choice, whether that choice be in the arena of work, education or leisure.
Standing is clear though that a UBI should not be a replacement for existing welfare or benefits but should work alongside those to alleviate poverty and reduce inequality. For him it is a matter of social justice and this runs strongly through the book as a central nervous system without which the idea cannot survive. Over the next 300 or so pages we are given access to the positives from angles personal, economic, international, labouring, liberty and affordability. Two of the most useful chapters are a dissection of alternatives and a list of standard arguments against UBI and their converse rebuttals. It is thorough and well sourced, being able to call on the results of pilot schemes that have taken place across the world with positive results in terms of work, poverty, education and crime.
Where the book is incomplete is its lack of understanding with which our current politics would fight back against this, and only barely mentioned is the media outrage such progress would face. We are led by politicians currently in the world’s largest and oldest democracies by reactionary right wing people who are in thrall to ideas that not only don’t work but actively make life harder for the poorest in a given society. This isn’t an accident, it is the point of government policy. Since roughly 1980 we have seen a gigantic transfer of wealth and power from the poor to the rich. Genuinely social democratic policies which reduces inequality were abandoned and what became known as neoliberal policies were the only game in town. This was only exacerbated by the fall of the Soviet Union; capitalism won but our leaders are still fighting a Cold War that no longer exists, and there is no brake on the system.
Similarly we have a media class that is bought and controlled by the billionaire class. Even the nominally progressive sources of news such as MSNBC or The Guardian are ideologically positioned to maintain the status quo; this can be evidenced by the treatment of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn in the so called left wing media; any chance of real change must be shut down. Without pluralism in our media, no government will be brave enough to carry out substantial change that would transfer wealth back to the true creators; the workers. We know all too well the style of story that targets benefit “cheats” in the same pages that celebrate the lives of the indolent rich. Without media backing, no policy can survive.
Traditionally this work-focused route to wealth has also been championed by organisations on the left such as trade unions, many of which see a rise in income and living standards equating less members of their institutions. This shows a startling lack of confidence in unions and an inability to adapt to a changing situation. The pilots show that people are more likely to be engaged in soldaristic grass roots institutions such as unions and other community based organisations as they not only have the free time to do so, but also have the money to join in the first place; as a grass roots trade union rep I have heard all too often that members of staff cannot join as they simply cannot afford it as their contract is insecure or their hours too few.
Aside from what I took to be a lack of understanding of the realities as they stand, the book is a rallying cry for fairness and must be celebrated as such. Whatever the arguments against, what is clear is that market driven capitalism has had 200 or so years to reduce poverty and inequality; if this is the pinnacle of an ideology, it has failed wholly. UBI can be used as something to kickstart a new way of living, or it could be used even to save capitalism as it stands but as Victor Hugo said, nothing is more power than an idea whose time has come.
March 28, 2022
Etin Cinsel Politikası beni nasıl etkilediyse bu kitap ta o şekilde etkiledi. Harika bir kitap.
July 6, 2025
What is our vision of the future society?
Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen, by Guy Standing
Occupy Wall Street is a movement over a decade ago and “we are the 99%” does not appear in the media anymore. The media over the last few years has been filled by an overwhelming number of articles about COVID, and the recovery of economy in the post-COVID era. What is almost forgotten is the extreme inequality exposed during the pandemic period. The wealthy may be bothered by the trivial inconvenience of wearing mask on the plane or the temporary close down of their favourite restaurants, but low-income group is struggling between sickness and hunger. The slow down of economic activities means the availability of temporary or contract jobs is precarious at best and often there is just no demand for manual labour given everyone is staying at home. Their mobility is severely dampened when public transport cuts down the schedule or even shuts down. Inflation on basic goods and grocery items following the COVID period also hurts them the most.
Hence this is the best time to revisit the idea of basic income. The book was written by Guy Standing at pre-COVID time and COVID illustrates in a crystal-clear way why basic income is desirable. The author defines basic income as “a modest amount of money paid unconditionally to individuals on a regular basis”. One of the key functions of such a benefit is to provide predictability. Low-income family often could not make decisions based on long-term benefits due to the volatility of their economic status. If you are not sure whether you would have enough to pay for next month’s rent, would you still be confident to pay for a training course to upgrade your skills, or invest in your children’s education to improve their future? Regardless of the level of basic income, this could provide the necessary certainty that the money will appear in the bank account, with the predetermined amount at the predetermined time. This does not only allow every family to plan for the future, but the peace of mind it brought would also ease the day-to-day pressure and make better decision-making possible.
However, any kind of benefit to the poor would be a redistribution of income. Though it is John Rawls’ principles of justice to suggest that inequality shall only be arranged to the benefit of the least advantaged, the introduction of basic income is always claimed to be detrimental to the overall economic output of a society and at the end will only reduce the living standards of all its citizens, including those in most need of it. The argument cited is that the provision of basic income would disincentivize people to work, and instead this source of income will become the sole support to their lives, without any further contribution to the economy. Guy rightly points out that this logic of thinking makes an implicit assumption that the objective of a society is always on the economic growth, which is rebutted by actual experience. Regardless of your belief in utilitarianism or not, it is in the modern times generally accepted that pleasure and happiness defined in its broadest sense (i.e. including ideas like justice, sense of community, or other desired feelings of human being) shall be the goal of the social policy. In such case, why can’t a person prefer leisure time, or even being totally idle to material consumption? The problem of many economic arguments is that they only take into account the transactions made in a society, without considering those activities with no exchange of money, to take a simple example the caring services of your family members, which is essential for a “good quality life” though not included in any kind of GDP calculation.
As someone who is concerned about climate change, I just want to raise a small disagreement on Guy’s suggestion that the introduction of basic income will bring to the environment. Basic income would “mean a shift to resource-conversing activities away from resource -depleting ones. Shorter working hours in jobs are correlated with smaller ecological footprints”. It just seems too idealistic and is based on the belief that material consumption is not part of people’s desire. Maybe it is achievable though this, together with the basic income, shall both be the result of a shift of social value to non-materialistic rather than the environmental benefit being an outcome of basic income. Though apart from this minor critic, the book has captured essentially all the arguments for and against basic income and cleared the stigmatization on this social policy which is both feasible and desirable.
＃BasicIncome #GuyStanding #BookRecommendation
North York Reading Group in Toronto hosts gathering on different book titles from time to time. Stay tuned by joining our Facebook page below:
https://www.facebook.com/share/g/16fP...
Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen, by Guy Standing
Occupy Wall Street is a movement over a decade ago and “we are the 99%” does not appear in the media anymore. The media over the last few years has been filled by an overwhelming number of articles about COVID, and the recovery of economy in the post-COVID era. What is almost forgotten is the extreme inequality exposed during the pandemic period. The wealthy may be bothered by the trivial inconvenience of wearing mask on the plane or the temporary close down of their favourite restaurants, but low-income group is struggling between sickness and hunger. The slow down of economic activities means the availability of temporary or contract jobs is precarious at best and often there is just no demand for manual labour given everyone is staying at home. Their mobility is severely dampened when public transport cuts down the schedule or even shuts down. Inflation on basic goods and grocery items following the COVID period also hurts them the most.
Hence this is the best time to revisit the idea of basic income. The book was written by Guy Standing at pre-COVID time and COVID illustrates in a crystal-clear way why basic income is desirable. The author defines basic income as “a modest amount of money paid unconditionally to individuals on a regular basis”. One of the key functions of such a benefit is to provide predictability. Low-income family often could not make decisions based on long-term benefits due to the volatility of their economic status. If you are not sure whether you would have enough to pay for next month’s rent, would you still be confident to pay for a training course to upgrade your skills, or invest in your children’s education to improve their future? Regardless of the level of basic income, this could provide the necessary certainty that the money will appear in the bank account, with the predetermined amount at the predetermined time. This does not only allow every family to plan for the future, but the peace of mind it brought would also ease the day-to-day pressure and make better decision-making possible.
However, any kind of benefit to the poor would be a redistribution of income. Though it is John Rawls’ principles of justice to suggest that inequality shall only be arranged to the benefit of the least advantaged, the introduction of basic income is always claimed to be detrimental to the overall economic output of a society and at the end will only reduce the living standards of all its citizens, including those in most need of it. The argument cited is that the provision of basic income would disincentivize people to work, and instead this source of income will become the sole support to their lives, without any further contribution to the economy. Guy rightly points out that this logic of thinking makes an implicit assumption that the objective of a society is always on the economic growth, which is rebutted by actual experience. Regardless of your belief in utilitarianism or not, it is in the modern times generally accepted that pleasure and happiness defined in its broadest sense (i.e. including ideas like justice, sense of community, or other desired feelings of human being) shall be the goal of the social policy. In such case, why can’t a person prefer leisure time, or even being totally idle to material consumption? The problem of many economic arguments is that they only take into account the transactions made in a society, without considering those activities with no exchange of money, to take a simple example the caring services of your family members, which is essential for a “good quality life” though not included in any kind of GDP calculation.
As someone who is concerned about climate change, I just want to raise a small disagreement on Guy’s suggestion that the introduction of basic income will bring to the environment. Basic income would “mean a shift to resource-conversing activities away from resource -depleting ones. Shorter working hours in jobs are correlated with smaller ecological footprints”. It just seems too idealistic and is based on the belief that material consumption is not part of people’s desire. Maybe it is achievable though this, together with the basic income, shall both be the result of a shift of social value to non-materialistic rather than the environmental benefit being an outcome of basic income. Though apart from this minor critic, the book has captured essentially all the arguments for and against basic income and cleared the stigmatization on this social policy which is both feasible and desirable.
＃BasicIncome #GuyStanding #BookRecommendation
North York Reading Group in Toronto hosts gathering on different book titles from time to time. Stay tuned by joining our Facebook page below:
https://www.facebook.com/share/g/16fP...
January 3, 2018
There is a danger when one reads a book dealing with a subject in which one already believes that the book itself will be unconvincing and make one question their own previously held position. This happened some years ago when I read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and I was worried that the same thing might happen here. Whether Standing makes for a more convincing argument than Dawkins or whether my own belief in the merits of a basic income is a more unshakable faith I finished this study even more thoroughly convinced that a basic income is the essential consideration for the 21st century.
It's not perfect, at times one has the impression that Standing is possibly glossing over some of the criticisms of UBI and I would have liked a more detailed acknowledgement of some of the possible pitfalls rather than having them dismissed, but it is nonetheless compelling. Much of the book is taken up with discussing previous and varied attempts at implementing some form of basic income and it appears that every one of any historical influence from Pericles to the Iranian Ayatollahs via Thomas Paine, William Morris and Richard Nixon have considered some form of UBI. Standing also presents a chapter detailing the most common objections to UBI and how they might be challenged though the one area that I believe will be the greatest challenge to UBI, the cost of housing in the UK, is not covered in sufficient detail other than to say that it will have to be dealt with separately and may well require a separate, means tested benefit to supplement UBI.
Standing also sets out some key definitions and essential red lines which must be in place such as true universality, the fact that the payments cannot arbitrarily be withdrawn or garnished and that it must be unconditional. He also discusses the difference between work and labour which is at the heart of the debate. Possibly of most interest is the way in which he suggests the payments are funded, not directly from mass taxation or from reallocating the welfare budget, though these sources of state income will definitely have their part to play, but primarily from what he terms the 'rentier' economy where a lot of the cost will be offset by taxing unearned income. To this end his proposed system is as much about wealth re-distribution as it is about covering the essential needs of the population which is something with which I can fully get on board and rather surprisingly if his statements are to be believed so can more of the population than if the scheme were to solely be funding from general taxation.
I don't agree with everything that Standing says, but as he covers early on and throughout the book, support for UBI is a left, right and centre broad church with a variety of views and positions leading to a common core belief.
Read this book, engage in the debate and make up your own mind.
It's not perfect, at times one has the impression that Standing is possibly glossing over some of the criticisms of UBI and I would have liked a more detailed acknowledgement of some of the possible pitfalls rather than having them dismissed, but it is nonetheless compelling. Much of the book is taken up with discussing previous and varied attempts at implementing some form of basic income and it appears that every one of any historical influence from Pericles to the Iranian Ayatollahs via Thomas Paine, William Morris and Richard Nixon have considered some form of UBI. Standing also presents a chapter detailing the most common objections to UBI and how they might be challenged though the one area that I believe will be the greatest challenge to UBI, the cost of housing in the UK, is not covered in sufficient detail other than to say that it will have to be dealt with separately and may well require a separate, means tested benefit to supplement UBI.
Standing also sets out some key definitions and essential red lines which must be in place such as true universality, the fact that the payments cannot arbitrarily be withdrawn or garnished and that it must be unconditional. He also discusses the difference between work and labour which is at the heart of the debate. Possibly of most interest is the way in which he suggests the payments are funded, not directly from mass taxation or from reallocating the welfare budget, though these sources of state income will definitely have their part to play, but primarily from what he terms the 'rentier' economy where a lot of the cost will be offset by taxing unearned income. To this end his proposed system is as much about wealth re-distribution as it is about covering the essential needs of the population which is something with which I can fully get on board and rather surprisingly if his statements are to be believed so can more of the population than if the scheme were to solely be funding from general taxation.
I don't agree with everything that Standing says, but as he covers early on and throughout the book, support for UBI is a left, right and centre broad church with a variety of views and positions leading to a common core belief.
Read this book, engage in the debate and make up your own mind.
April 18, 2021
An informative book about Universal Basic Income.
Although the book is written by an advocate of UBI, it does cover some of the criticisms commonly made against Basic Income and shows a fair amount of nuance in parts. Standing concedes that UBI will not be a "panacea" leading to some sort of utopia. He also rejects the libertarian view that UBI could replace all other forms of welfare. However, he gives a staunch evidence based defence against detractors of basic income, particularly on affordability and the belief that guaranteed income will make people lazy.
It also warns of some of the pitfalls that policymakers could fall into whilst trying to implement it. Politicians should try to steer clear of making out that it's a one person is taxed to pay another system, so that media and conservative hyperbole arguments such as "something-for-nothing" don't interfere with its implementation. It's better to talk of it as a social dividend that will enrich entire communities funded through "capital or forms of rent".
Erroneous implementation could be another pitfall. Standing makes clear that cash payments need to be realistic and they must adhere to the actual definition of UBI.
This means UBI should be -
- Universal: everyone should receive it and it shouldn't be targeted at deemed-to-be "deserving" groups
- Unconditional: there should be no work based or behavioural requirements to be eligible for the scheme
- Properly Basic: there should be enough money to cover some basic needs so as to make payments "sufficiently meaningful" to the recipient but not enough to give total security
There is an interesting table inserted at the end of chapter 7 "The Alternatives" which pits Basic Income against a list of other welfare schemes and tries to measure each of them against five stated "social justice principles"
- The Security Difference Principle:
a policy is socially just only if it improved the security of the least secure groups in society
- Paternalism Test Principle:
a policy or institutional change is socially just only if it does not impose controls on some groups that are not imposed on the most free groups in society
- Rights-Not-Charity Principle:
a policy is socially just if it enhances the rights of the recipients of benefits or services and limits the discretionary power of the providers
- Ecological Constraint Principle:
a policy is socially just only if it does not impose an ecological cost borne by the community or by those directly affected
- Dignified Work Principle:
a policy is socially just only of it does not impede people from pursuing work in a dignified way and if it does not disadvantage the most insecure groups in that respect.
The table shows that UBI ticks all of these boxes, whereas all other schemes fail to. It goes into detail why these schemes fail to live up to these principles throughout the chapter. It is a good conceptualisation of the good a "social dividend" could do for society.
The book is rather dry in style but it more than makes up for it with the evidence and argumentation it presents. It also splits each chapter into different sub headings, making it very easy to read in smaller digestible chunks.
I think people with no knowledge of basic income could read this book and that it would be an excellent jump off point to learn the basics of Basic Income, perhaps balanced with another book that is more critical of the idea.
Although the book is written by an advocate of UBI, it does cover some of the criticisms commonly made against Basic Income and shows a fair amount of nuance in parts. Standing concedes that UBI will not be a "panacea" leading to some sort of utopia. He also rejects the libertarian view that UBI could replace all other forms of welfare. However, he gives a staunch evidence based defence against detractors of basic income, particularly on affordability and the belief that guaranteed income will make people lazy.
It also warns of some of the pitfalls that policymakers could fall into whilst trying to implement it. Politicians should try to steer clear of making out that it's a one person is taxed to pay another system, so that media and conservative hyperbole arguments such as "something-for-nothing" don't interfere with its implementation. It's better to talk of it as a social dividend that will enrich entire communities funded through "capital or forms of rent".
Erroneous implementation could be another pitfall. Standing makes clear that cash payments need to be realistic and they must adhere to the actual definition of UBI.
This means UBI should be -
- Universal: everyone should receive it and it shouldn't be targeted at deemed-to-be "deserving" groups
- Unconditional: there should be no work based or behavioural requirements to be eligible for the scheme
- Properly Basic: there should be enough money to cover some basic needs so as to make payments "sufficiently meaningful" to the recipient but not enough to give total security
There is an interesting table inserted at the end of chapter 7 "The Alternatives" which pits Basic Income against a list of other welfare schemes and tries to measure each of them against five stated "social justice principles"
- The Security Difference Principle:
a policy is socially just only if it improved the security of the least secure groups in society
- Paternalism Test Principle:
a policy or institutional change is socially just only if it does not impose controls on some groups that are not imposed on the most free groups in society
- Rights-Not-Charity Principle:
a policy is socially just if it enhances the rights of the recipients of benefits or services and limits the discretionary power of the providers
- Ecological Constraint Principle:
a policy is socially just only if it does not impose an ecological cost borne by the community or by those directly affected
- Dignified Work Principle:
a policy is socially just only of it does not impede people from pursuing work in a dignified way and if it does not disadvantage the most insecure groups in that respect.
The table shows that UBI ticks all of these boxes, whereas all other schemes fail to. It goes into detail why these schemes fail to live up to these principles throughout the chapter. It is a good conceptualisation of the good a "social dividend" could do for society.
The book is rather dry in style but it more than makes up for it with the evidence and argumentation it presents. It also splits each chapter into different sub headings, making it very easy to read in smaller digestible chunks.
I think people with no knowledge of basic income could read this book and that it would be an excellent jump off point to learn the basics of Basic Income, perhaps balanced with another book that is more critical of the idea.
March 2, 2018
Guy Standing has written a brilliant book about Basic Income and how we can make it happen. Standing begins by explaining what Basic Income is, “a modest amount of money paid unconditionally to all individuals on a regular basis”. He then proceeds to examine the arguments for introducing such a scheme (Social Justice, Freedom, Reducing poverty, inequality & insecurity). Standing then moves onto argue that a Basic Income makes good economic sense. He claims that a Basic Income would lead to higher and more sustainable economic growth and protection against possible large-scale unemployment due to technological change (e.g. introduction of robots).
The various arguments against a Basic Income are examined in the book including whether such a scheme is affordable. Towards the end of the book Standing reports on a number of pilots that have been undertaken in various countries before moving onto to look at the political challenge of how Basic Income might be introduced including how the scheme might be framed as a Citizen’s dividend.
By the end of the book I was totally convinced of the case for the introduction of a Basic Income and felt inspired to find out more about what I could do to bring it about in the UK. In the appendix I found the link to the Basic Income UK website (http://www.basicincome.org.uk ) and discovered that they were hosting a talk by Guy Standing close to where I live.
The various arguments against a Basic Income are examined in the book including whether such a scheme is affordable. Towards the end of the book Standing reports on a number of pilots that have been undertaken in various countries before moving onto to look at the political challenge of how Basic Income might be introduced including how the scheme might be framed as a Citizen’s dividend.
By the end of the book I was totally convinced of the case for the introduction of a Basic Income and felt inspired to find out more about what I could do to bring it about in the UK. In the appendix I found the link to the Basic Income UK website (http://www.basicincome.org.uk ) and discovered that they were hosting a talk by Guy Standing close to where I live.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews