Don't Jump on the Universal Basic Income Bandwagon Just Yet
Although cities are experimenting with modest guaranteed income programs, they shouldn't attempt to implement full-blown universal basic income programs.
Andrew Yang's presidential campaign in 2020 was focused on the idea of a "Freedom Dividend" - a universal basic income (UBI) that would be given to every person. Although Yang's campaign was not successful, the idea of a guaranteed income is still being explored by cities and other organizations. However, these more modest programs are unlikely to have a major impact on inequality in cities or across the nation.
I think that guaranteed income is a great idea that is gaining momentum in cities across the country. I believe that this type of program could help to alleviate poverty and provide stability for families and individuals. I think it is important for cities to continue to experiment with different types of guaranteed income programs to find what works best for their community.
I support the idea of a guaranteed income floor for all Americans. This would help to ensure that everyone has a basic level of financial security, and it would also help to reduce poverty and inequality. I believe that 81 mayors who have signed on to this idea are on the right track, and I hope that more cities and states will pilot programs like this in the future.
In my forthcoming book, Unequal Cities, I argue that cities' structural political and economic disadvantages make it virtually impossible for them to create their own welfare states, even though they have pressing fiscal and social needs. Cities are suffering from inequality and economic discrimination, and they are trying to find ways to address these issues. However, without help from the state or federal government, it will be difficult for them to make any significant progress.
I believe that these modest, targeted programs can help to improve the lives of low-income people, especially those with young children. These programs can provide a much-needed safety net for these individuals and families, and help to break the cycle of poverty.
There is a lot of debate surrounding the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI), with some proponents envisioning a world where work would become essentially voluntary. However, most people don't believe that UBI would completely replace existing welfare state social programs. The main disagreement is whether UBI would supplement or replace these programs.
I think that a UBI is a great idea and I love that Stern and Murray are both advocating for it. I think that it is important to have a UBI that reinforcing health care and other social supports. I do not think that we should eliminate a wide range of income, child care, health, housing, and other programs and convert the funds to a cash payment.
I believe that all city-based income programs should aim to provide universal coverage, with high levels of income and no cuts to social programs. programs like Los Angeles' BIG: LEAP are a great step in the right direction, but we need to do more to help those in need.
There is a growing movement to provide guaranteed basic incomes to people in cities across the United States. These programs vary in scope and size, but all share the goal of providing financial security to those who need it most. The most ambitious of these programs is in Chicago, where the city is working to provide a guaranteed income of $500 per month to every resident. This program is still in the planning stages, but it has the potential to transform the lives of millions of people in the city. Other city programs are more modest; you can see a detailed map at the Mayor’s Project. St. Paul’s “People’s Prosperity Pilot” initially provided 150 families with a total of $9000 over 18 months. (A new round will offer more funding plus deposits into college savings accounts.) Gainesville, Florida launched “Just Income GNV,” providing up to $7600 in one year for 115 “justice-impacted people” (people released from jail or prison or on felony probation). These programs are a good first step, but there is still much more work to be done to ensure that everyone has a guaranteed basic income. With the right policies in place, we can make sure that no one is left behind.
There are a number of concerns that have been raised about the feasibility and desirability of a universal basic income (UBI). These include the potential for it to be used as a way to reduce or eliminate the welfare state, the political opposition to delinking work from government support, and whether guaranteed job programs might be a better alternative for addressing chronic poverty and unemployment. Personally, I have a number of practical and philosophical concerns about UBI that trouble me as an anti-poverty advocate. However, I believe that it is important to continue to explore the possibility of implementing a UBI as a way to address some of the most pressing issues facing our society today.
The push for universal basic income (UBI) is gaining momentum, but we are not quite there yet. Cities are experimenting with time-limited and modest payments to low-income people, using federal and private philanthropic funds. Evaluation research is ongoing, and we will learn from these programs. With continued support, UBI could become a reality, providing much-needed financial security for many people across the globe.
I believe that the city-based pilot programs will have a positive impact on how cash assistance is delivered to poor households with children. While they may not lead to a major revolution in how cities design and fund welfare programs, I believe they will help to make these programs more effective and efficient. Ultimately, this will benefit society as a whole by helping to reduce poverty and inequality.