Global Basic Income: Politics behind UBI

• The global basic income was believed to be politically impossible. Then Andrew Yang and Covid-19 came.
• Basic income programs now gain traction, and offer payments to troubled families.
• However, many Democrats and Republicans participate in tightening a political rope on programs.

While the idea of ​​global basic income is gaining traction in the United States, the policy surrounding it is still divided.

Global basic income is when the government is It reduces an examination to all the population – without any chains or connected restrictions – to support (but do not replace) their income.

It is not a new concept, but the feasibility of the global basic income has become more clear during the epidemic when the government sent many payments to most of the population, known as “motivational checks”. The idea was also greatly promoted by technology industry leaders, who expect potential job losses at the beginning of artificial intelligence. Outside the United States, there are already some global basic income countries and guaranteed basic income programs.

While the UBI national program It may still be far in the United States, and societies on City and state levels The experience of a copy called the guaranteed basic income began.

In these programs, money is granted to participants who make up smaller population groups, such as low -income people or mothers, For a limited time. These residents can still spend money as they want.

Even these local basic income programs, however, contradict the political opposition.

Below is a look at the policy that leads the debate on the global basic income programs included.

High income programs

In the past decade, UBI entered his way to national colloquial.

Entrepreneurs and executives such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg expressed their support for UBI in 2016 and 2017, respectively, noting the effect of automation on job strength. Meanwhile, Joe Biden, Vice President, wrote in 2017 that there is a “better way to move forward” than “a kind of guaranteed government examination without any connected chains.”

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Democratic candidate Andrew Yang, a technical businessman, raised the eyebrows when he announced that, if he was elected, his administration will provide a global basic income of $ 1,000 per month for each adult, a policy he described as “freedom repentance”. Yang said this was necessary to support American workers who were threatened by automation and inequality.

At that time, many refused Yang’s predictions as a dream at best and fear in the worst case. His nomination quickly faded.

After that, a few years later, Covid-19 was forced most Americans at home and many of them work. Suddenly, Yang’s idea of ​​global basic income has become less strange.

“I am sure I have never imagined that I will suspend my campaign in February and then we will agree to pay $ 1,000 per month for the Americans in March,” Yang told Politico in March 2020 after the Trump administration announced.

The federal government, during the era of President Donald Trump, then President Joe Biden, sent three motivational checks ranging from $ 600 to $ 1400 for adults and additional payments for each child in a family. More than 800 billion dollars of funds were spent from 2020 to 2021, which led to the output of about 3 million children of poverty.

The clear success of the motivation checks, inspiring invitation groups and local governments and the city to start their experience on a smaller scale, which led to many basic income programs guaranteed in the United States that were seen today.

One of the largest of these programs was partially funded by the CEO of Openai Sam Altman, which has called for a kind of basic income to alleviate the threat of artificial intelligence of American workers. The program distributed $ 1,000 per month to 1,000 people and $ 50 per month to 2000 (control group) across multiple states over three years.

“A larger decision -making agency that works better for their lives”, including their living positions, health care decisions, and savings.

Political challenges for basic income programs

However, not everyone is on board small basic income programs.

Basic income programs are often accompanied by studies that study their success. Many participants have reported to improve housing and food security during the program and say they can find better jobs or follow up on a higher educational level as a result.

However, opposing the global basic income and content It was fierce in some places. After birth, the resistance Lupay was often led by Republicans, while Democrats were usually among the most enthusiastic UBI supporters.

Republicans who talk about global basic income negatives often mention the cost of managing the programs and race they set for workers. Some conservative legislators criticized the programs as socially “bulletins” and expressed concern that they could inhibit the recipients.

Last year, the Republicans in Arizona voted to ban basic income programs in the state, and the similar opposition efforts gained traction in Iowa, Texas and South Dakota. In several states, legislators have argued that checks, despite their distribution for a limited period only, will increase dependence on the government.

“This is socialism on doping. This is the redistribution of wealth. This is an attack on American values.”

Some critics also refer to the target nature of the payments, some of which were used to support specific groups based on race or identity.

Last year’s governorate group filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Entry Program From sending payments to 55 TRS residents. The initiative has accepted the applicants through the non -corresponding, non -corresponding gender, and applicants of black, indigenous or colored people. Judicial Watch, a conservative legal activist group, said in his calls that the program violated the equal protection requirement for the California constitution.

Another governorate lawsuit targeted the abundant birth project, which is also an essential program for income in San Francisco, which gave pregnant black women $ 1,000 a month, describing it as discrimination because he used taxpayer money to provide payments based on illegal classifications, including race.