Universal income: everything proves that we should give free money to everyone you will surely like

During the pandemic, the idea of universal income (or basic income) returned to force in developed countries, as in Spain where such an unconditional allowance was put in place to allow citizens to cope with thecollapse of part of the economy.In the United States, we learned on December 9 that the CEO of Twitter Jack Dorsey donated $ 15 million to finance a basic income program set up in the city of Stockton, California.The idea is not yesterday, especially in Europe.In contemporary times, it was above all carried to the Netherlands.

Rutger Bregman knows how to be heard.If his name does not tell you anything, you know the Dutch historian and journalist since his murderous remarks during the 2019 edition of the World Economic Forum in Davos.On stage against an audience of billionaires who willingly present themselves as progressive, Bregman pointed out that their concern for global warming had not prevented them from coming to the Swiss Alps in private jet, and that their philanthropic impulses did not move anyone so muchthat they would refuse to fight the scourge of tax evasion among ultra-rich.

Wednesday, February 20, 2019, the historian was again talked about after the flight of his interview with the presenter of Fox News Tucker Carlson, who ended up telling him that he was a "stupid" and that hecould go "fuck".The reason for his skid?Rutger Bregman, asked about his intervention in Davos, replied that he was a little hypocritical to ask him these questions since the presenters of the republican channel are "all millionaires who take dirty billionaires" like RupertMurdoch and the Koch brothers.Ouch.

Rutger Bregman is also the author of this article, an investigation into universal income extracted from his book on the subject, which earned him the nickname "Mr. Universal Revenue" in the Netherlands.This idea is for him a "utopia for realists".Utopian, because the idea of a monthly income granted unconditionally to all the major citizens of the country seems to come out of a dream of sweet dreamers;realistic, because over the following four chapters, the historian carefully demonstrates that the idea is achievable - based on many successful experiments.If it has never been applied at the national level, all the experiences carried out on the planet have been a success, regardless of the period of history to which they took place.

When he published the utopia in 1516, the English politician and philosopher Thomas More already refers to it.And for good reason, she is thought for the first time by her friend and colleague, the Spaniard Juan Luis Vives, never stingy with reflections aimed at reforming social organization in a more humanist light.In 1526, after having fled the Spanish Inquisition in 1509 and studied at the Sorbonne, it was a refugee to Louvain - where Thomas More and other humanists stay - that he published from Pauperum, "poor ".This treaty, addressed to the magistrates of Bruges where a poverty which encloses it is rampant, contains for the first time the idea of a livelihood granted to all, to the poor as to the rich.

"Even those who dilapidated their fortune in a dissolved life - in games, prostitutes, excessive luxury, gluttony and betting - should have something to eat, because no one should die of hunger," writes this Jewish philosopher convertedCatholicism, born in Valence.His thought will inspire certain cities of the surroundings to set up the first experiments, such as the Flemish municipality of Ypres.Since then, his thesis has gone through the ages and minds of many thinkers.In 1895, in the time machine, H.G.Wells describes an Eloïs company based on universal income to overcome unemployment caused by the generalized automation of their company.

In his latest book published in 1967, where are we going?The last chance of American democracy, Martin Luther King writes his conviction that it is possible to create a "guaranteed income" for all American citizens.Today, experiences are currently taking place in Rwanda, Finland or India.Here is the proof that giving everyone for free money is a good idea.

Credits: Jim Cooke

London homeless

London, May 2009.This is the beginning of a small experience carried out with thirteen homeless men.Street veterans.Some of them sleep on the City's cold pavement, the European financial center for over 40 years.Their presence is far from costing nothing.Between the police, legal assistance and health care, thirteen men cost taxpayers thousands of books.Every year.In this spring, a local association makes a radical decision.Street veterans will become the subjects of innovative social experience.

No more food stamps, popular soup or temporary accommodation for them.They will benefit from a massive bailout, funded by taxpayers.They will each receive 3,000 pounds, in cash and without conditions.It is up to them to decide how they will spend it, the consulting services are completely optional.No prerequisites, no severe interrogation.The only question they must answer is: what is good for you, in your opinion?

The City of London Credits: ITV

"I did not expect a miracle," recalls a social worker.The desires of the homeless have proved to be completely modest.A phone, a passport, a dictionary: each participant had their own vision of the best for him.None of them wasted their money in alcohol, drugs or bets.On the contrary, most were very economical with the money they received.On average, only 800 pounds had been spent during the first year.Simon's life has changed at all thanks to this money.

Held to heroin for twenty years, he managed to get down and started taking gardening lessons."For the first time in my life, everything went without saying, I have the impression that now I can really do something," he said."I think about going home.I have two kids."A year after the start of the experience, eleven of the thirteen men had a roof above their heads.They agreed to be placed in a home, registered to take lessons, they learned to cook, received treatments to get rid of their addictions, they visited their families and have scaffolded plans for the future.

"I loved it when it was cold," recalls one of them."Now I hate it."After decades of fines, intimidation, persecution and employment of force in vain by the authorities, eleven vagabonds ended up leaving the pavement.How much did it cost?50,000 pounds per year, including social workers wages.In addition to having given a new start in life to eleven individuals, the project saved at least seven times what they had previously cost society.Even The Economist concluded after the end of the experience: "The most effective way to spend money to solve the problems of the homeless is perhaps good to give them.»»

Free money

We tend to presume that the poor are unable to manage their money.If they had it, say good number of people, they would probably spend it on fast food and cheap beer, not to buy fruit or pay for studies.These kinds of reasoning, president of the myriad of social programs, administrative jungles, armies of social assistance programs, as well as in the legions of teams that ensure the march of the contemporary welfare state.

Since the start of the crisis, the number of initiatives that have been fighting fraud to allowances and subsidies has been clearly increasing. Les gens doivent « travailler pour leur argent»», incline-t-on à penser.In recent decades, social assistance has been redirected to a labor market that does not create enough jobs.The passage from the Welfare to the Workfare - that is to say a redistributive social assistance system in favor of disadvantaged populations to the granting of allowances on the condition of a search for work - is international.

You must seek a job as quickly as possible, think about reintegration trajectories, or even inquire about volunteer activities.The underlying message?The money distributed for free makes people lazy.Except that this is not the case.

Les versements M-Pesa du KenyaCrédits :GiveDirectly

His name is Bernard Omandi.For years, he has worked in a career, somewhere in the uninhabitable region of western Kenya.Bernard won two dollars a day, until morning he received a most unusual text. « Quand j’ai vu le message, j’ai sauté de joie»», se rappelle-t-il.He had a good reason to react in this way: his account had just been credited with $ 500.For Bernard, this sum was equivalent to almost a year of salary.

Two months later, a New York Times reporter walked in his village.It was like everyone with the jackpot, but no one had wasted money.People were repairing their homes and launched small businesses.Bernard was gaining between six and nine dollars a day on the handlebars of his new Bajaj boxer, an Indian motorcycle that he uses to ensure the transport of local inhabitants. « Le choix revient aux défavorisés, pas à moi»», explique Michael Faye, le co-fondateur deGiveDirectly."The truth is that I don't think I know very well what disadvantaged people need.»»

QuandGoogle s’est penché sur les résultats de l’opération deGiveDirectly, la firme de la Silicon Valley a immédiatement décidé de leur donner 2,5 millions de dollars.Bernard and the other inhabitants of his village were not the only ones to have this chance.In 2008, the Ugandan government gave around $ 400 to nearly 12,000 young people aged between 16 and 35.Just money, they were asked no questions.And guess what the results were amazing.

Almost four years later, the entrepreneurial or educational reinvestments of these young people allowed their income to increase by 50 %.Their chances of being hired has leaps by 60 %.Another Ugandan program offered $ 150 to 1,800 disadvantaged women from the north of the country.Again, income has increased significantly.Women who were helped in their efforts by a social worker were slightly better subjected, but subsequent calculations have shown that the program would have been even more effective if the salary of social workers had been simply redistributed between women.

Studies from around the world converge at the same point: distributing money undoubtedly helps.It has been shown that there was a correlation between free money and the decline in crime, inequalities, malnutrition, infant mortality, early pregnancies, absenteeism at school;as well as a significant increase in academic results, economic growth and emancipation. « La principale raison pour laquelle les gens pauvres sont pauvres, c’est qu’ils n’ont pas assez d’argent»», affirmait sèchement l’économiste Charles Kenny, membre du Center forGlobal Development, en juin 2014."It should not be surprising to see that giving them money is a great way to remedy the problem.»»

Lors du projet JustGive Money to the Poor en 2010, les chercheurs de l’Institut Brookes pour la pauvreté dans le monde, un institut indépendant basé à l’université de Manchester, ont donné de nombreux exemples au cours desquels l’argent avait été dépensé avec succès.In Namibia, malnutrition, crime and absenteeism at school fell respectively by 25 %, 42 % and almost 40 %.In Malawi, registrations within schools for girls and women experienced a 40 %increase, with or without conditions.

From Brazil to India via Mexico and South Africa, there have been many money distribution programs without condition in the past ten years.Although the millennium development objectives (MDGs) have not mentioned, today more than 110 million families benefit from it, in at least 45 countries.Researchers have summarized the advantages of these programs:

1.Households make good use of this money.2.Poverty fell.3.The positive impact in terms of income, health and tax revenue is considerable in the long term.4.There is no negative impact on the available workforce: the beneficiaries of this money work no less.5.Programs saved money.

Bernard Omandi on his Motocredits: NPR

Why send 4 × 4 foreigners to substantial wages to 4 × 4 foreigners when we can just send money?This would also considerably decrease the risk that corrupt officials take their share in passing.Free money stimulates the entire economy: consumption is growing and generates more job offers and higher income. « La pauvreté est essentiellement un problème de manque d’argent, ça n’a rien à voir avec la stupidité»», remarque l’auteur Joseph Hanlon."We can't go up the sleeves when we don't have a shirt.»»

MINCOME

Free money: the idea was propagated by some of the brightest minds that the world has known (H.G. Wells à Martin Luther King en passant parGeorge Bernard Shaw).Thomas More dreamed of it in Utopia, in 1516.An incalculable number of economists and philosophers, including many winners of the Nobel Prize, followed.His supporters cannot be pointed out on the political spectrum: the idea appeals to thinkers on the left as well as on the right.Even the founders of neoliberalism, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, supported him.Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers directly to it.

Anyone is entitled to a sufficient standard of living to ensure their health, well-being and family, especially for food, clothing, housing, medical care as well as for the necessary social services;She is entitled to security in the event of unemployment, illness, disability, widowhood, old age or in other cases of loss of her means of subsistence as a result of circumstances independent of her will.

Basic income.

A brilliant and forgotten experience: DR.Evelyn Forget

And not for a few years, or only in developing countries, or only for disadvantaged people: it is money distributed without condition as an essential right for each. Le philosophe Philippe van Parijs appelle cela « la transition directe du capitalisme au communisme»».A monthly allowance, high enough to live decently, without any external control over how you spend it.No forest of additional costs, advantages or reimbursements - which are very costly to be put in place.At most, higher amounts for the elderly, unemployed or disabled. Basic income est une idée prête à se concrétiser.

~

In the attic of a Winnipeg warehouse in Canada, 1,800 boxes take dust.They are filled with data-tables, graphics, reports and internscriptions of interviews-from one of the most fascinating social experiments in post-war history: the Mincome program.Evelyn Forget, professeure à l’université de Manitoba, a entendu parler de l’expérience en 2004.For five years, she insisted with Canadian National Archives to be able to access data.When she was finally given the entry to the attic, in 2009, she did not believe her eyes: these archives contained a mine of information on the implementation of the old idea of Thomas More.

An aerial view of the city of Dauphincredits: Dauphin Economic Development

Among the thousand interviews piled up in the boxes, there was that of Hugh and Doreen Henderson.35 years earlier, while the experience started, he worked as a concierge in a school while she was dealing with their two children at home.Life had not been tender with them.

Doreen cultivated vegetables and they raised their own chickens to be sure they could eat their hunger daily.One day, we sounded at the door. Deux hommes en costume leur ont fait une offre que les Henderson ne pouvaient pas refuser : « Nous avons rempli des formulaires et ils voulaient savoir combien nous gagnions»», se rappelle Doreen.

From this moment, money was no longer a problem for the Henderson family.Hugh and Doreen have entered the Mincome program: the first Canadian social experience on a large scale, and the largest experience on basic income ever made.In March 1973, the governor of the province decided to allocate $ 17 million to the project.The experience was to take place in Dauphin, a small town of 13,000 inhabitants north of Winnipeg.The following spring, researchers began to settle in town to be able to follow the development of the pilot project.

Economists took note of people's work habits, sociologists observed the effects of experience on family life, and anthropologists were working to observe the way individuals reacted to experience. Basic income devait garantir que personne à Dauphin ne vivrait en-dessous du niveau de pauvreté.In practice, this meant that about a thousand families, or 30 % of the city's population, would receive a check every month.For a family of five, the annual amount of the operation would today correspond to 16,000 euros.Unconditional.

Four years passed, then new elections came to put sticks in the wheels of the program.The newly elected conservative government did not like the idea that this expensive experience was 75 % funded by taxpayers.When they realized that they would not have enough money to analyze its results, the instigators of the experience repaired it.In 1,800 boxes.

The dolphin population remained bitter.When he started in 1974, Mincome was seen as a pilot project that could have given rise to a national experience.But now it seemed that she was going to fall back into oblivion. « Les responsables du gouvernement opposé au Mincome ne voulaient pas dépenser plus d’argent pour analyser des données qui montreraient ce qu’ils pensaient déjà savoir : que ça ne marchait pas»», se souvient l’un des chercheurs."As for the supporters of mincome, they were worried because if the analyzes showed that the data were not favorable, they would have spent a million dollars more for nothing.Things would have been even worse.»»

When Professor Forget has heard of Mincome for the first time, no one knew whether the experience had worked or not.1970 had also been the year when Medicare, the Canadian health insurance system, had been set up.The Medicare archives provided another mine of information in Forget, which she analyzed by comparing Dauphin to the surrounding cities, as well as other control groups.For three years, she analyzed the data to finish it, always leading to the same conclusion: Mincome had been a huge success.

The American dream

« Les politiciens avaient peur que les gens s’arrêtent de travailler et qu’ils fassent des tonnes d’enfants pour augmenter leurs revenus»», explique le professeur Forget.However, it is the opposite that occurred: the average age of the first marriage was raised while the birth rate has dropped.Mincome beneficiaries had better academic success rates.The total amount of working hours has dropped only 13 %.Family supports have hardly reduced their hours, women used the basic income to be able to stay two months on maternity leave, and young people used it to do more studies.

But the most remarkable discovery that Forget was made is that hospital visits have decreased by 8.5 %.This represented immense savings (in the United States, it would be more than $ 200 billion a year today).Two years after the start of the program, the rates of domestic violence and mental affections have also been better.MINCOME has improved the daily life of the whole city. Basic income a continué d’impacter les générations suivantes, à la fois en termes de revenus et de santé.

Lyndon Johnson at war with poverty April 1964

Dolphin, a city without poverty, was one of the five North American basic income experiences.Four US projects preceded it.Today, few people remember how much the United States was about to set up a system of public supportive assistance in the 1960s, which could have compared without blushing to those of modern Western European countries.

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson a déclaré la « guerre à la pauvreté»».Democrats and Republicans fed the common ambition of in -depth reform of Social Security.But first of all had to be carried out.Several tens of millions of dollars have been made available to test the effects of the basic income among 10,000 families of Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Seattle and Denver.The researchers were trying to find the answers to three questions:

1.Does basic income lead people to work significantly less? 2.If so, will the cost of such a program be unaffordable? 3.Will it therefore be unrealizable politically?

Answers: no, no and yes.The decrease in working hours has proven moderate."Our discoveries do not allow us to support a" laziness "assertion," said the main analyst of Denver's experience."There is no trace on the horizon of the massive desertion predicted by the apocalypse prophets.»» En moyenne, on constatait une réduction des heures de travail de 9 % par foyer.As in Dauphin, the majority of this decline was caused by young mothers and students in their twenties.

The march for the survival of children in 1972, in the United States: DC Public Library Washington Star Collection

« Ces réductions des heures de travail salarié ont été indubitablement compensées en partie par d’autres activités utiles, comme la recherche d’un meilleur emploi ou du travail ménager»», concluait un rapport d’évaluation du projet de Seattle.A mother who had never finished the school won a university diploma in psychology and began a career in research.Another woman started comedy lessons, while her husband has embarked on the composition. « Nous sommes autonomes à présent, nous vivons de notre art»», ont-ils dit aux chercheurs.

The academic results have improved in all experiences: the grades have experienced an overall increase and dropout rates have dropped.Data concerning nutrition and health also showed positive signs-for example, the weight of newborns had increased.For a while, it seemed that basic income would do well in Washington. « La réforme de l’assistance publique est votée à la Chambre»», disait un titre du New York Times le 17 avril 1970.

An overwhelming majority of representatives had approved President Nixon's proposal for a modest basic income.But once the proposal landed in the Senate, the doubts made their return. « Cette loi représente la réforme de l’assistance publique la plus chère, la plus étendue, la plus profonde et la plus chère jamais traitée par le Comité des finances du Sénat»», a déclaré l’un des sénateurs.And then, the fatal discovery arrived: the number of divorces in Seattle had increased by more than 50 %.

This percentage suddenly made the other results, positive for their part, perfectly uninteresting.This fueled fear in men that a basic income would make women too independent.For months, the bill has gone back and forth between the Senate and the White House, until landing in the bins of history.Subsequent analyzes have shown that the researchers were wrong: in reality, the number of divorces had not moved.

Posters in favor of the basic income in the USACRES: DR

Distrust and shame

« Nous pouvons le faire ! Éradiquer la pauvreté aux États-Unis d’ici 1976»», a écrit James Tobin, qui recevrait plus tard un prix Nobel, en 1967.At that time, almost 80 % of the American population was in favor of the adoption of a small basic income.This did not prevent Ronald Reagan from tackling Johnson for years later: "In the 1960s, we declared war on poverty, and poverty won.»» Les tournants de la civilisation sont souvent considérés de prime abord comme d’impossibles utopies.

Albert Hirschman, one of the great sociologists of the last century, wrote that utopian dreams were generally refuted on three fields: futility (it's impossible), danger (the risks are too great) and perversity (its realizationwill give rise to its opposite: dystopia).However, Hirschman also described how, once implemented, the ideas previously considered as utopian are quickly held for normal.Not so long ago, democracy was the great utopian ideal.

From the radical philosopher Plato to the conservative aristocrat Joseph de Maistre, most intellectuals considered the masses as being too stupid for democracy. Ils étaient d’avis que la volonté générale du peuple dégénérerait rapidement en une sorte de « volonté du général»».This kind of reasoning, applied to basic income, would give roughly that: it would be futile because we cannot offer it, dangerous because people would stop working, and pervert because we would have to work twice as hard forrepair the damage they would have caused.But wait a second.

Futile?For the first time in history, we are rich enough to finance a solid basic income.This would allow us to put an end to most of the services and surveillance programs that the public assistance system requires today.Many tax abatements would appear superfluous.Additional funding could come from a (higher) taxation of capital, pollution and consumption.

A quick calculation.The country in which I live, the Netherlands, has 16.8 million inhabitants.Its level of poverty is set at 1,165 euros per month.Which would represent a reasonable basic income.Simple calculations bring its cost to 193.5 billion euros per year, around 30 % of our national GDP.An astronomical figure.But let's keep in mind that the government already occupies more than half of our GDP.And that does not prevent the Netherlands from being one of the richest, the most competitive and the happiest countries in the world.

Basic income expérimenté par le Canada – de l’argent distribué inconditionnellement aux personnes défavorisées – serait beaucoup moins cher à mettre en œuvre.Eradicating poverty in the United States would cost $ 175 billion, recently calculated economist Matt Bruenig-a quarter of the country's military budget, which is $ 700 billion.Despite everything, a system that helps only the poor would only confirm the division of prosperous citizens. « Une politique pour les pauvres est politiquement pauvre»», a un jour écrit Richard Titmuss, le cerveau de l’État-providence britannique.A universal minimum income, on the other hand, could count on broad support since everyone would benefit.

Dangerous ?It's true, we would work a little less.But this is a good thing, it could potentially do miracles in our personal lives and our family lives. Un petit groupe d’artistes et d’écrivains (« tous ceux que la société méprise de leur vivant et honore après leur mort»» – Bertrand Russell) cesseraient effectivement d’accomplir des travaux salariés.But nevertheless, there are many proofs because the vast majority of people, no matter what they earn for that, want to work.Unemployment makes us deeply unhappy.

Un des avantages du revenu de base est qu’il encouragerait les « travailleurs pauvres»» – qui sont, au sein du système actuel, plus en sécurité lorsqu’ils se reposent sur l’aide sociale – à chercher des emplois. Basic income ne peut qu’améliorer leur situation ; l’aide serait inconditionnelle.The minimum wage could be abolished, multiplying opportunities even in the lowest strata on the job market.Age would no longer be an obstacle to find and keep a job (since the oldest employees would not necessarily be better paid), and this would have the effect of boosting the participation of individuals in the overall effort.

Pervert ?On the contrary, in recent decades, it was our social security systems that have degenerated into perverse social control systems.Civil servants spy on people who receive social assistance to be sure they don't waste their money.Inspectors spend their days teaching citizens how to get out of all the necessary paperwork.Thousands of officials are busy keeping this bureaucracy particularly sensitive to fraud.The welfare state was designed to bring security, but it degenerated into a system where distrust and shame reigns and shame.

The beginning

It has already been said.Our welfare state is expired, based on an era at which men were the only ones to exercise a profession and where employees worked within the same company throughout their careers.Our pension system and our social protection programs are still focused on those who are lucky enough to have a regular job.Social security is based on the erroneous postulate that the economy creates new jobs.Social assistance programs have become traps to avoid rather than trampolines.Never before had time had been conducive to the implementation of a universal and unconditional minimum income.

Our aging societies challenge us to keep the oldest economically active as long as possible.An increasingly flexible labor market creates the need for more security.Globalization is eroding the wages of the middle classes around the world.The emancipation of women will only be complete when greater economic independence will be possible for all.The boom in robots and increasingly important automation of our economy could also cost dearly to those at the top of the scale.

Martin Luther King and Walter Reuther

La légende raconte que Henry Ford II visitait une nouvelle usine entièrement automatisée en compagnie du leader syndicaliste Walter Reuther, dans les années 1960, quand Ford plaisanta : « Walter, comment allez-vous amener ces robots à payer vos cotisations syndicales ?»» Ce à quoi Reuther aurait répondu : « Henry, comment allez-vous les amener à acheter vos voitures ?»» Un monde où les salaires n’augmentent plus a toujours besoin de consommateurs.

In recent decades, the purchasing power of the middle class has been held under infusion thanks to credits, credits, and always more credits.No one asks companies around the world to set up an expensive basic income system in one go.Each utopia requires starting small, with experiments that gradually transform our world - like that of 2009 in London.

One of the social workers remembered afterwards: "It is quite difficult to change the way you apprehend the problem.These pilot projects give us the opportunity to describe, think and speak differently from the problem.»» C’est ainsi que tout progrès commence.

Translated from English by Nicolas Prouillac and Arthur Scheuer from an adapted test of the book Utopia for Realists: The Case for A Universal Basic, Open Borders, and A 15-HOUR WORKWEEK, from Rutger Bregman.Utopia for Realists was born on De Corpondent and the book is available on Amazon.

Cover: Illustration by correspondence.