GZERO Media logo

Guaranteed Income? Really?

Guaranteed Income? Really?

Have you heard? The Republican president of the United States proposed a plan for "partial basic income" and his plan passed the House of Representatives. In 1969.

President's Nixon's plan, which he called "the most significant piece of social legislation in our nation's history," died in the Senate and never became law. It hasn't really made a comeback in the US. But the idea of "guaranteed basic income" is already back in the news in Europe, because income inequality — exacerbated by COVID-19 — will become increasingly hard for the world's political leaders to ignore.


What's the idea? Governments could provide all (or just the neediest) citizens with a small amount of guaranteed regular income. Enough cash to survive. The "guarantee" is that checks keep coming even if the recipient has or takes a job. It's an attempt to strengthen the social safety net at a time when widening income inequality, the current deep economic dive, and sweeping technological change in the workplace, are fueling public misery and anger in dozens of countries.

Many governments have looked at this idea. Spain's left-wing coalition government has just introduced a basic monthly income for families pushed into hardship by coronavirus. In addition, Finland gave 2,000 unemployed people $600 per month in 2017 and 2018. The plan was halted because it didn't prove cost-effective. A new study finds that the experiment boosted the well-being of those who received the money, but it did little to boost the economy.

Denmark, Ireland, the UK, and Sweden are now working on short-term versions of the idea. Local governments in Canada, the Netherlands, Scotland, and the US have tinkered with longer-term plans. The so-called Permanent Fund Dividend in the US state of Alaska offers a modest form of basic income. Kenya is conducting a 12-year study on the subject.

Arguments for: Unemployed people sometimes refuse work because it makes no sense to surrender benefits to take a job that pays less. With a small guaranteed subsistence-level income, they can take work and get ahead, say supporters of the idea. The idea could prove less expensive than current systems of unemployment benefits, advocates claim, because those who take work will begin paying taxes. And schemes that give money to everyone, regardless of need, eliminate the expensive bureaucracy needed to track benefit eligibility, saving the government money. They also help the workers most vulnerable to automation of the workforce get the training they need to make the leap to new forms of work.

Arguments against: Give people money for doing nothing, and they'll continue to do nothing, say the idea's detractors. They'll become wards of the state instead of productive citizens. It's the welfare state gone insane. And the idea will be absurdly expensive at a time when debt burdens are already eating away at many of the world's governments. Another entitlement program is not the answer.

Bottom line: None of the various experiments with basic income has proven that it can accomplish what its advocates claim. But we do know that wealth inequality was fueling public fury in many countries even before COVID-19 sent the entire global economy into a tailspin.

The problem is real. Until a credible alternative emerges, experiments with basic income will continue in different forms in different places.

Carbon has a bad rep, but did you know it's a building block of life? As atoms evolved, carbon trapped in CO2 was freed, giving way to the creation of complex molecules that use photosynthesis to convert carbon to food. Soon after, plants, herbivores, and carnivores began populating the earth and the cycle of life began.

Learn more about how carbon created life on Earth in the second episode of Eni's Story of CO2 series.

As we enter the homestretch of the US presidential election — which is set to be the most contentious, and possibly contested, in generations — Americans are also voting on 35 seats up for grabs in a battle for the control of the Senate. The 100-member body is currently held 53-47 by the Republican Party, but many individual races are wide open, and the Democrats are confident they can flip the upper chamber of Congress.

Either way, the result will have a profound impact not only on domestic policy, but also on US foreign relations and other issues with global reach. Here are a few areas where what US senators decide reverberates well beyond American shores.

More Show less

On September 23, GZERO Media — in partnership with Microsoft and Eurasia Group — gathered global experts to discuss global recovery from the coronavirus pandemic in a livestream panel. Our panel for the discussion Crisis Response & Recovery: Reimagining while Rebuilding, included:

  • Brad Smith, President, Microsoft
  • Ian Bremmer, President and Founder, Eurasia Group & GZERO Media
  • Jeh Johnson, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP and former Secretary of Homeland Security.
  • John Frank, Vice President, UN Affairs at Microsoft
  • Susan Glasser, staff writer and Washington columnist, The New Yorker (moderator)

Special appearances by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, European Central Bank chief Christine Lagarde, and comedian/host Trevor Noah.

More Show less

Jon Lieber, who leads Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, offers insights on the Supreme Court vacancy:

Will Senate Republicans, who stopped a Supreme Court nomination in 2016, because it was too close to an election, pay a political price for the change in tactics this time around?

Not only do I think they won't pay a political price, I think in many cases, they're going to benefit. Changing the balance of power on the Supreme Court has been a career-long quest for many conservatives and many Republicans. And that's why you've seen so many of them fall in line behind the President's nomination before we even know who it is.

At this point, do Senate Democrats have any hope of stopping President Trump from filling the ninth seat on the Supreme Court?

More Show less

In a special GZERO Media livestream on global response and recovery amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Eurasia Group & GZERO Media president Ian Bremmer discussed the difference between Europe's unified approach to economic stimulus and the deeply divided and political nature of the current conversation in the US. While initial stimulus support was bipartisan, there is little chance of Democrats and Republicans coming together again ahead of the November 3 presidential election. "It's red state versus blue state. President Trump's saying that coronavirus isn't so bad if you take the blue states out. He's president of the blue states, you can't take the blue states out," Bremmer told moderator Susan Glasser of The New Yorker.

UNGA banner

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's Newsletter: Signal

Panel: How will the world recover from COVID-19?

UNGA Livestream