The COVID-19 pandemic has brought lots of flaws in our system to the surface. Existing employment insurance and welfare systems proved to be highly inadequate, inefficient and outdated for the 21^st century. The food banks in the U.S. have seen long line-up with a lot of first timers , while demands in Canada are also rising. The reality of the current economic system is that a lot of people are consistently one or two pay cheques away from losing their homes and having the means to survive. Losing a job could quickly put people in a very precarious situation.

As the pandemic unfolds, some homeless end up sleeping on bus shelters or without a roof or a safe place to shelter-in-place from the pandemic. Homeless people stayed away from shelters either from fear of contracting the virus or because the shelters have closed to prevent spread. Meanwhile, people with disability are also often left out and treated under an inadequate disability social assistance system. Meanwhile, the prison became a hotspot for the propagation of COVID-19 virus. COVID-19 shone a spotlight on the over-incarceration over minor crimes that disproportionately affect minorities.

Cases of people falling into economic distress is nothing new. But the COVID-19 crisis quickly put a large number of people in the shoes of those often overlooked by our current system — the people who constantly struggle to have enough cash to put food on the table. Those who lost their jobs must contend not only with loss of income, but also the sudden loss of benefits — such as medicine or hospital costs for Americans who live in a developed country that still do not have universal health care to this day. Those who need expensive life-saving drugs are suddenly unable to afford them.

A large portion of the population suffers poverty or are economically classified as belonging to low-income earners. 28% of Canadians with under $20,000 annual income are considered poor, while 21% living below the low-income measure (LIM) — i.e. below median — are considered lower income. Therefore half of all Canadians were already struggling to get by even before the pandemic hit.

COVID-19 also exposed the fact that a lot of essential frontline workers are not getting paid enough to live. This has been the case for a long time, but nobody seems to have been paying attention nor care. Their pay are below livable wage. That is why when Canada quickly decided that $2,000 is what is needed to survive and provided Canadian Emergency Relief Benefit (CERB). The essential frontline workers who continued to work were excluded and are worse off than people staying at home to quarantine. CERB started off as being very limited and was continuously expanded after criticism for having excluded people in various groups.

A large number of low-paying frontline workers in the U.S. are also African-Americans or visible minorities . The minorities make up a smaller percentage of the population, but their community have seen higher percentages of COVID-19 related hospitalization or deaths. In Canada, reports of COVID-19 cases have shown that low-income households and those on shared housing are more prone to getting infected with COVID-19. Aside from the frontline workers, people falling under these groups were also the ones who cannot afford to have disposable income and rainy day funds, and they were the first ones to be affected with job losses. Especially worse hits are African-American single mothers, who are among the first to fall and get evicted.

Systemic Bias

Even before the COVID-19 crisis hit, wages have stagnated for decades now, and what were once mostly upper middle class are increasingly falling at the edge of lower middle class and low-income threshold. As poverty increases, crime increases. Instead of tackling the root cause of the problem, government chose to pour money into police force instead. Police who used to be the friendly neighborhood police were increasingly militarized as use of force increases. The increased use of force tends to attracts power hungry and violent individuals with abusive behaviors, including those who abuse their spouses. It also attracts white supremacists who use the force to legitimize their violent act. African-Americans and other minorities in poor neighborhoods are randomly stopped and presumed to be suspects of crimes.

Systemic bias in a society might not be overt. But minorities are more likely to become impoverished. And those who are impoverished (minority or not) are at higher risk of falling into crime (whether having crime committed against them or being manipulated or controlled by criminals and crime organizations). Minorities are also more likely to be stopped for random searches. Minor possession of marijuana or addictive substance from random searches often lands the mostly poor people and minorities in jail. The incarcerated population disproportionately consists of large numbers of impoverished indigenous people in Canada or minorities in the United States. Meanwhile, white-collar crime that cheated main street investors out of billions through fraud like subprime mortgage have largely avoided prosecution.

As people work from home, the lower-wage workers, who are unable to work from home, were the first ones to be laid off without pay. As classes go online, the digital rift between the have and have nots were exposed. Schools scramble to provide for low-income households who don’t have good internet bandwidth or devices for online classes. Lower income families are left behind and suffers from the digital divide. The increased prices of goods and the need to stockpile disproportionately affects the lower income and seniors. Lower income earners are often at higher risk of having chronic disease and are at higher risk of complications if they contracted the COVID-19 virus.

Increased Vulnerability to Exploitation

Spouses and kids in lower income are also more vulnerable to becoming victim of abuses. The lower income earners are more likely to be incarcerated and are also a group most vulnerable to being abused. A survey of those incarcerated shows high numbers who have been abused as a kid. This has sometimes led to false correlations that abused kids are more likely to commit crime. But the fact is a large numbers of abused kids (from low income, hostile environments and victims of pedophilia) are not more likely to commit crimes.

The constant refrain that “we are in this together” during the pandemic might ring hollow for some. The neglected migrant workers in cramped quarters, or people packed in houses so they can afford to have roof over their head, were the ones that are at a higher risk of being infected with the COVID-19 virus. The indigenous reserves in Canada, where people mostly live in cramped houses with unclean water, are at higher risk should COVID-19 reach their community. Singapore migrant workers camp and meat plant workers in Canada’s Alberta province are just a few examples.

Canada have instituted a temporary foreign worker (TFW) system to create cheap labor . Some critics fear there is a risk that this could provide a pathway for employers to keep wages low. That instead of raising wages to a fair livable level to attract and retain employees, they will just resort to temporary foreign workers. Some fear this opens these workers to exploitation and creates a system of serfdom or a second-class citizen similar to slave workers of the American sugar plantation. These second-class citizens have no chance of becoming permanent citizens and are often denied the same rights as others in the country. One migrant worker, who have seen fellow migrant workers die of COVID-19 as cases in their work place increased, was interviewed by a Canadian news program. He compared their condition to slavery. They have no health insurance and do not have similar worker’s rights as Canadians. Politicians who are anti-immigration favors such a system and claim professional skilled workers are included among the TFWs also. But Canada already have a system that awards points for skilled workers to permanently immigrate to Canada, which is a healthier way to integrate people to be part of the community with all the rights a local worker would get. There are lots of people unemployed in Canada who will be willing to work the jobs if paid a livable wage that would allow them to settle in their community, rather than constantly switching jobs, if only an employer would invest in their employee through better wages. It is equally important that there is a willingness to train rather than just quickly give up and seek low paid staff through TFW.

The world’s conflict zones threaten to be another hotspot for transmission of COVID-19 such as Africa and the Middle East. Yemen was already dealing with a cholera outbreak and now must contend with COVID-19, which will likely be underreported since their infrastructures and health facilities are in disarray. If not controlled, COVID-19 could spread to neighboring countries piling on to any existing cases. Aside from the pandemic, the income insecurity and anxiety takes a heavy mental toll on a lot of ordinary people, much more so for those on lower income. Health care workers warn about increased suicide rate. There were reports of increased suicide due to Lebanon’s economic crisis.

While the pandemic exposed the vulnerability in our support system, similar crisis exists at all times due to no one’s fault but by unfortunate turn of events. Various micro-crisis happens all the time with some worse than others. Some are individual crisis while others are either caused by nature or humans affecting the most vulnerable.

The long-time neglect in the long-term care homes for elderly and those with disability or chronic debilitating diseases have also been exposed. The constant government cuts to health care and to inspections on these facilities means years of atrocious conditions went unchecked. If the Canadian military called in to help had not became whistleblowers , their letter of concerns would still not have been publicized. They have wondered why no actions were being taken after they raised concerns over long-term care home conditions, which they have described as worse than anything they have seen overseas.

Government officials are responsible for earlier cuts to inspections, and now sit as board of directors in the multi-million dollar companies who owns these facilities. These facilities were already understaffed before the pandemic hit. In order to maximize profits, these facilities use personal support workers (PSW) who are underpaid, understaffed, overworked, unregulated and undertrained for the jobs. A lot of new immigrants and those struggling to find jobs settled for non-livable survival wage jobs being offered for PSW, having to work multiple jobs and multiple long-term care homes just to get by. The seniors, PSW and nurses (who were increasingly cut and replaced with low-paid PSW who do not get any benefits) are all casualties of profit focused, austerity minded approach of recent years.

Seniors, who did have some semblance of basic income in Canada through Old Age Security (OAS) and a Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) — top-up for poorer seniors — has seen their payment increased as part of government relief for COVID-19. The fact is before COVID-19 some seniors were already not getting the full $1,800 maximum. Seniors poverty was at a high of 30% in the 1970s before government improved OAS, GIS and the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) that lead to reduction of seniors’ poverty to 5% in 1995. But this downward trend saw a reversal after 1995 as CPP, private pensions and benefits for the elderly stagnated. Due to the lack of new actions from the government to address the changing socio-economic landscape, seniors’ poverty rates are now on the uptrend.

Retirees who continue to work past their retirement should do so at their own accord rather than being forced back to work in order to survive, due to lack of good pension or pension disappearing with a company’s bankruptcy. Some are now calling for pension to be protected and managed as a separate fund and not tied to a company’s insolvency. A lot of seniors could use permanent help by becoming part of a standard basic income program that automatically adjusts with inflation and low-income measures such as LIM.

Childhood poverty are also a major concern even before the pandemic hit. Aside from the digital divide and being left behind on education compared to children from non-low income families, about 2.1 million children are at risk of hunger as COVID caused unemployment could see increased number of children relying on school breakfast programs. In Canada, the government announced reduction in child poverty due to the limited child version of basic income through Canada Child Benefit (CCB). But the problem is far from resolved as Canada still ranked number 30^th of the 38^th wealthiest nation in terms of support for children and youth. Three of worse federal ridings are in Manitoba with a 63% rate in child poverty . The bottom line is you cannot solve child poverty without solving poverty in general. Children that fall under the current foster system or states child welfare are not necessarily orphans. In fact, the current Canadian indigenous child welfare and foster system are often used against impoverished indigenous family, and those still struggling to recover from residential school abuses and trauma. This is increasingly coming under criticism and adds to the compounding problems from past indigenous policies such as the 60s scoop.

Years of education cuts due to austerity and ill planned budget deficit means that classroom sizes kept increasing as teachers were laid off. This reduces personal interaction and attention that a teacher can normally accord to the students, especially the younger kids. The COVID-19 crisis magnified those challenges as parents and educators ask government for more funding to reduce class sizes and reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission.

There is an old idea that is new again. But it’s worth studying how it failed in the past with the hopes that we don’t fall into the same mistake again.

The Concept of Caring and the Increasing Regression

The concept is as old as the human civilization — going back to times of the hunter-gatherer society — where no one is left to go hungry unless everyone is. But as we transform to agriculture then industrial revolutions, early thinkers such as U.S. founding father Thomas Paine saw the threat of increasing inequality. To avoid any resentment that he realized would follow, he proposed a “ground rent” for every person rich or poor. This was around 1795. Others before and after him have also proposed similar proactive and preventative solutions.

The New Deal seems to have saved America from the worse effect of the 1930s global Great Depression. The increasing mistrust in government and social unrest was somewhat abated temporarily. President Roosevelt was able to reassure the people and stopped the panic and risk of rushed withdrawals and banks failure. Contrast that with the rising fascism, xenophobia and hatred that rode on the backs of the 1930s Great Depression to become mainstream in some parts of Europe. But by the 1960s, as economy starts to fizzle again, urban unrest in the U.S. was on the rise once more. It was triggered by a combination of economic hardship and unresolved systematic discrimination that had kept a large segment of minority poor.

The civic unrest somewhat abated with the information technology stock market boom of the 1980s and 1990s, leading to increased income and economic growth. However, Reagan’s trickle-down experiment that deregulated the New Deal era of oversight against monopoly has a long-term effect and leads to worsening inequality. Despite the economic boom due to advancement in technology, the fissure in the fabric of society remains and continued growing as wage stagnated and inequality increased.

The increasing precariousness threatens to explode from a population who felt marginalized. We saw that happen during the Arab springs where populations, long suppressed by a dictatorial government and who now faces economic hardship and a bleak future prospect, rose up despite the odds and violence exacted against them. While the current Minneapolis riot was sparked by police brutality that rekindled unresolved injustices against African-Americans for centuries, the embers underneath likely includes pent-up anger at the social and economic injustices that the people felt were getting worse.

Modern Basic Income Considerations

The increasing economic insecurities even before Reagan’s time had drove policy makers to seek new forms of socio-economic policy. The 1960s and 1970s saw several basic income experiments conducted in the U.S. with the support of more than a thousand economists. In 1974 to 1979 a basic income experiment called Mincome was conducted in the Canadian province of Manitoba with one saturated site at the town of Dauphin, where everyone is eligible to receive basic income.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. also appears to appreciate the impact that a basic income would bring. He recognized that the civil rights fights rest on lifting the oppressed from poverty. He envisioned an empowered population able to lift themselves up and challenge the systematic socio-economic injustices stacked against them. He wrote about guaranteed income in his last book as part of the solution for his Poor People’s campaign, to give people trapped in poverty a fighting chance. However, he will not be able to see through his campaign as he was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

There was already recognition at that time that there will not be enough work with pay that is sufficient to meet everyone’s basic survival needs. In 1969, Canada, Ontario’s Progressive Conservative premier John Robarts stated as-much when he called for an annual guaranteed income to be considered. His Progressive Conservative federal equivalent Robert Stanfield also supports a basic income calling the existing social assistance a patchwork quilt that did not alleviate suffering nor cover those who are most in need. He states that “it is like sending a man into storm with half a raincoat”.

Landmark train station in Dauphin, Manitoba that remains to this day

The closest a basic income got to being implemented nationally was Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan, which is a form of basic income. Despite Nixon’s tainted record from the Watergate scandal, he did not grew up from a wealthy family and knew how family struggling financially looked like. When he proposed his basic income plan to America, he lamented on how his parents struggled financially when his brother got sick from tuberculosis and died at age 24. His proposal, which came out of research works done by the Kennedy and Johnson era’s anti-poverty committee, passed Congress only to be blocked by bi-partisan status quo Senators. The vehement objectors included bi-partisan Senators from the South who feared the loss of workers in the plantation and people to iron their clothes (a sentiment expressed in the book “The Politics of A Guaranteed Income” by Harvard Professor Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was involved in Kennedy and Johnson’s anti-poverty campaign and became Nixon’s adviser).

Nixon introduced his plan amidst growing civic unrest due to racial and social injustices. Moynihan described in his book the growing civic unrest at that time. “Social malaise” was on the rise and there were police beating “mobs”, with reported deaths in Miami and more beatings in Chicago. Young New York city scientist Paul Weaver observed that “the social fabric of New York is coming to pieces”, and “there was growing frustration and distrust”. It was widely held that the American republic was caught up in “the most serious domestic crisis since the Civil War”. In 1965, there were 4 major riots and civil disturbances (including the Watts Riots in the Watts district of Los Angeles among the Black urban population on June 4, 1965). In 1966, it rose to 21 major riots and civil disorders. By 1967, there were 83 major riots and civil disturbances in cities.

According to Moynihan, Nixon decided on the Family Assistance Plan on three propositions:

1. The poor, especially the Black poor, were being destroyed by the existing welfare system. This was becoming the most serious social problemf the time.

2. After so very long it was time to bring the South back into the mainstream of American life. The South was kept apart and the nation kept divided because of poverty.

3. It was necessary to prove that government could work. There was indeed a “crisis of confidence in the capacity of government to do its job”.

A week after Nixon’s public address introducing the Family Assistance Plan, Gallup poll showed that 65% of the public support with 20% unfavorable while 15% had no opinion.

The main players in the Nixon’s attempt to introduce a guaranteed income through Family Assistance Plan came from across the political spectrum. Such cross-partisan co-operation would increasingly become rare after Nixon. Perhaps that is why left academic Noam Chomsky called Nixon the last progressive president on 2014 during Obama’s presidency. Chomsky was frustrated with the growing wealth gap, wage stagnation and simple economic problems (where ordinary people’s consumption were increasingly reduced thereby cutting back on Main Street’s economic growth). Despite Nixon’s political failing, he did increase the minimum wage, expanded social security and food stamps benefits, and increased funding to states and municipalities. Nixon also moved desegregation forward in the South earning scorn from southern politicians and his rival Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan. He also tried to pass a comprehensive health care insurance that some claim is more progressive than Obamacare . Most of these policies would later be considered progressive policies that regressed through inaction or cuts by successive administration after him, both Democrats and Republicans.

One of the persons instrumental in getting Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan passed on Congress is Ways and Means committee chair Wilbur D. Mills, a Democrat who was a fiscal conservative. The passing in the House was hailed as “the last days of white supremacy”. Just like Nixon he was able to work through his ideological bias of giving “free money” and carefully studied the basic income proposal. When he finally fully understood the guaranteed income plan, a light bulb turned on and he became a proponent declaring:

“when we were boys and a man’s barn burned down, all the neighbors pitched in and helped him build another one. All we’re doing here is pitching in and helping this man to help himself”.

The House passed the Family Assistance Plan on April 1970. A majority of both Democrats and Republicans voted in favor with a total votes of 243 for and 155 against (Democrats voted 141 to 83 in favor, Republicans voted 102 to 72 in favor. i.e. 63% Democrats and 59% Republicans). The Southern delegation voted overwhelmingly against it (of 102 votes from the South, 79 against and 17 for). But when it reached the Senate Finance Committee headed by Democrat Senator Long, it devolves into conspiracy and misinformation. Senator Long had called welfare mothers as “brood mares”. He prefers his own “workfare” proposal that protects “the interest of Southern economic elites” (Bertram, 2015, p. 87). Senator Long fears Nixon’s guaranteed income would undermine his proposal.

While supporters came from the left and the right, it also divided civil rights groups, including social service personnel and scientists. The opponent came from both the extreme left and right. The extreme left, who by Moynihan’s account would rather see the house burn down, while the extreme right are the white Southern politicians who would rather preserve the racially divisive status quo. Senator McCarthy helped stage a public trial hearing before the Senate’s vote, tapping into the left mistrust of Nixon and using welfare mothers as witnesses to sway the Democrats to vote against it. Just like Canada’s introduction of universal health care, opposition sometimes came from those whose clients were supposed to benefit the most. Their fear for change likely complicated by a well-funded disinformation campaign. Canada’s universal health care was initially opposed by some doctors influenced by disinformation from the American health insurance industry. Nixon’s plan was strongly opposed by what Life magazine said are the “170,000 welfare bureaucrats’ resistance to change”.

As the bill dies on the Senate floor, Senator Hartke plead for support. He said, “The longer we allow a system of national failure to create a culture of personal failure, the larger the costs of redeeming ourselves will be”. The Washington Post said there was mean mindedness on the right and showboating on the left (Moynihan, 1973, p. 541). Moynihan said the middle kept quiet by threat of punishment by the left and the right who were against it, including from the “radical”.

The post-Nixon era saw socio-economic policies headed in the opposite direction away from the principles of basic income. Soon after the defeat of basic income in the Senate floor, Senate Finance Committee moved to cut welfare eligibility and allowed more invasive entry to welfare homes. Policy post-Nixon era headed towards austerity and the damaging workfare that was implemented to allow massive cuts to social assistance. A workfare or job guarantee often ends up doing more harm than good and limit people’s potential to thrive and get a better career to see them through retirement. People end up being denied of their time to retrain on jobs of their choosing. Instead, they are forced to take mandatory jobs that are often dead-end and low paying, or even in some cases unpaid work in exchange for inadequate social assistance. Economists keep warning about poverty trap and the flawed design of welfare. Policy makers from Nixon’s time already recognized a less convoluted fix to the flawed system. But their work was side-tracked by politicians who are fearful of change.

This solution has been staring us in the face. It was proposed by past visionary like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. but our bias and hang-up continue to stand in its path towards adoption. But we need this more now than ever as we chart a new course towards a new normal (from all indications should not be like the old normal) for post pandemic or any future crisis.

Recently, 50 Canadian Senators out of the 105 seats, Senate signed a petition for the federal government to convert CERB to basic income to “free up valuable time and resources” and to “stop other groups of Canadians from falling through the cracks.” One of the signees is Senator Marilou McPhedran of Manitoba. In an interview she gave on April 23, 2020, she cited the Mincome experiment at Dauphin as proof basic income is the right move. Various Canadian Senators have since spoken to the press advocating for a basic income system for mid- and post-COVID.

The Mincome experiment was conducted under the former Manitoba Premiere Ed Schreyer and former Prime Minister (PM) Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the 1970s, but the PM’s finance minister John Turner, was a vocal opponent of basic income. Turner successfully blocked the adoption of basic income during a cabinet meeting in 1975 and frustrated the progressive wings of the Liberal party. He would later resign the same year due to conflict with Trudeau on wage and price controls. Turner’s term as finance minister was beset by world’s economic crisis and stagflation (stagnating economy combined with rising inflation at the same time). Recently as COVID-19 economic crisis unfolds and under repeated questioning by the press about basic income, the former Finance Minister Bill Morneau said they quickly looked at it and decided against it.

The Mincome experiment did not formally end until 1979 under the newly elected Progressive Conservatives premier of Manitoba and the short-lived Federal Progressive Conservative government of Joe Clark. Joe Clark did not share the same enthusiasm for basic income as former Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield. Progressive Conservative will return to power under Mulroney on 1984 against the Liberals, who suffered the worst defeat of a sitting government in history at that time. Mulroney was later reported to be looking at guaranteed annual income. The 1984 McDonald Royal Commission during Mulroney’s term recommended (but never implemented) a form of more limited basic income, criticized by some as highly inadequate. But the commission recognized the increasing work displacement, especially with the adoption of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The Liberal in the opposition led by anti-basic income John Turner would criticize the Progressive Conservative for considering guaranteed income. There was no bill introduced nor was it ever publicly discussed by Mulroney. Later, the Liberal government under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien would be reported to be musing about basic income and this time it was the Conservative (PC and Reform/Canadian Alliance) turn to ridicule the idea, even though past Conservative party leaders have supported the idea. Opposition leader from Canadian Alliance Stockwell Day’s former Reform Party also supported the idea in 1993. When current PM Justin Trudeau was reported to have mentioned guaranteed income in December 2018, a Conservative columnist started attacking the idea, repeating common stereotypes such as “freeloading”. But Canada has its enduring ardent and long-time proponent of basic income in former Progressive Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, who was chief of staff in Mulroney’s cabinet. He was consulted for the recent Ontario basic income pilot before it was cancelled by supposed populist Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Doug Ford.

Efficiency Issues and Challenges

The federal government of Canada introduced COVID-19’s Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) relief fund and quickly decided that a $2,000 monthly payout is the survival amount needed for people who lost their income. After several iteration and delays, some gaps that saw people falling through the cracks remains. No matter how well intentioned the government decision makers are, they are unable to account for all types of scenarios and people who might need help. Changes to business relief added later on still missed startup businesses that are at pre-revenue or profit stage. Some who might have quit their jobs to pursue their business. Government officials did repeat WHO pronouncement that in times of crisis, speed is key. Questions about why not simply introduce a universal basic income were repeatedly asked by reporters. The problem with targeted relief and non-uniform rules is that some are left out and end up resenting what they felt is unfair treatment.

People in distress should be able to get immediate relief and basic income could provide an ongoing life-support in case the government relief is slow to arrive, such as with the case in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina or in Puerto Rico after hurricane Maria. Historically, the pandemic or epidemic could last several years or even centuries. Just within a few years we’ve seen a spike in numbers of novel viruses such as SARS, MERS, H1N1 and Zika. Smallpox lasted a long time and devastated the indigenous population in North America. The Black Plague also lingered for several years and caused tens of millions of deaths. We are also seeing increased rates of natural calamities. We can’t afford to wait for government’s aid for every crisis. For a lot of cases like CERB, it continues to leave out the most vulnerable.

It often takes great upheaval like the Great Depression for humans to be propelled into action. But inaction could create voids that are quickly filled by nefarious forces.

Mind Map Comparing Universal Basic Income and Incremental Relief (Click image or link for full size image)

The upper right hand shows the recipients of basic income and the list includes various scenarios and groups that CERB originally missed and kept missing to this day. Government had to keep going back to the drawing board after each public outcry and opposition motion. This means a lot of the recipients on the list must wait for each loop of the process listed at the bottom part of the mind map. Each loop could take weeks to plan and weeks to implement, so it could be a month before those affected see any relief. More than a month into the crisis, there are still lots of those who are still not covered, like a student who graduated last semester but just have had their graduation ceremony in January. But this time, they and those who were already out of work and not eligible for EI before the COVID-19 crisis hit, might not get the same volume of outcry for government to respond.

Intrusive, Ineffective and a Costly System

Our intrusive and surveillance-heavy welfare system is comparable to the poor houses in old United Kingdom that provoked Charles Dickens to write Oliver Twist (putting the inhumane conditions of poor workhouse on spotlight). Just like before, the current welfare system gave up on the poor and treated them as second class people. The poor are treated with suspicion, with a system that keeps them deprived rather than lift them out of destitution. Complex gatekeeper systems tend to be expensive and are often too little too late in providing any meaningful relief.

Theresa Funiciello, a single mother whose experiences in the welfare system propelled her to become a passionate advocate for welfare reform and for guaranteed income — to “open the door to social opportunity and income security”. She described the frontline of the broken welfare system as consisting of single mothers in constant crisis.

Theresa Funiciello has numerous stories from her work at the Downtown Welfare Advocate Centre (DWAC), a centre founded by welfare mothers. She said, “poverty is the number one killer of children” and there were lots of kids dying, due to overused stoves from unheated homes catching fire and higher instances of deadly diseases in impoverished children.

Theresa also decried the waste in the welfare system in a 1994 interview: “Except to poor people themselves, poverty is mega business”. And in a speech the same year laments the miscategorization of “work” as being paid work while “There’s a group of Americans who are fully employed. They aren’t very well paid or they’re not paid at all. They’re called mothers; and I’ve never heard of a mother who wasn’t a working mother. And that includes the mothers on welfare”.

A well-designed and thoughtfully created basic income will cut through all the red tapes, inefficiency and highly expensive system and it will be much more effective without discriminating based on flawed human subjectiveness. There is enough evidence to show it is not as apocalyptic as proclaimed by those who prefer austerity and dog-eats-dog, every-man-for-himself type of system.

Our modern economic system has been exposed by COVID-19 as being highly inadequate and full of flaws despite centuries of development and progress. A century or a thousand of years timeline seems fleeting when compared to other species before us that roamed the Earth for hundreds of millions of years. We went from facing the threat of extreme socialism (i.e. perverted form of socialism where everyone is equally poor, and authoritarian centralized figure micromanage people’s freedom — stifling independent thoughts and creativity) to living with extreme capitalism (i.e. pro-monopoly and rent-seeking oligarchic system that crushes free and fair enterprise, that is egregiously profit driven to the detriment of the well-being of working classes, which has also subverted the word “free market” to protect oligarchic monopoly instead of allowing subsidy to help common people such as farmers).

Perhaps it is time we come full circle to the base human spirit of our hunter-gatherer ancestors of looking after each other but in the context of a large modern and vibrant society with advanced technology. It needs not be a zero-sum game. With basic income we get the characteristic of humanity of an uncorrupted socialism and the ideals of free-enterprise where everyone receives a capital investment from shared wealth in society to establish a foundation through basic income. A capital as a means to pursue their dreams and have free thoughts and ability to create and innovate freely. Not to be held back based on what a central authority dictates an individual should be. Not prevented from trying for fear of failing and becoming indigent. Contributions to society in the form of new ventures, creative works, innovation and service to society are measures of success than just purely wealth-based. A lot of people with higher income either inherited their wealth or earn off other people’s work or from society’s shared resources.

There is a current wave of mostly peaceful protest and outpouring of support against racial injustice that is being called by the press as a “period of reckoning”. Yet this is a path that’s been travelled before during Selma as Blacks, Whites and people of other ethnic background joined in protest against brutal police crackdown of a peaceful protest. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. recognized that the path to uplifting people is through guaranteed income, an effective emancipation tool. Basic income will not change white supremacist attitude but will reduce the effect of divisive politics and their ability to turn people against each other. The link might not be immediately obvious for some people but Mincome experiment have shown hints of how that could be achieved.

The politician and public servant’s job is to find creative and noble ways to solve the current societal problem. People can be convinced by a visionary leader to pursue a transformative policy. Plans that rely on deficit with no clear end in sight will feel like a blank cheque of uncontrolled spending. People will balk at a costly endeavor without a well thought out and transparent plan.

Times are changing and evidence on the feasibility of basic income is widely available for those who care to look. The current crisis exposed the flaw in our current system and the much needed improvement to deal with post crisis challenges any future crisis. Stubbornly sticking with current system and just doing minor tweaks than adopting basic income, despite the evidence that the latter could lead to self-sufficiency and resiliency, is akin to sleeping on the switch when a train is about to hit a brick wall.

There are various ways to fund various forms of basic income and this have been well studied and debated over the years. If basic income were to come out of the COVID-19 crisis, then it could be this generation’s defining moment, much more profound than what Universal Health Care was for the generation of the much-revered Canadian Tommy Douglas. Canada and the world sorely need a leader like Tommy Douglas, President Franklin D. Roosevelt or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr right now. Someone who has the vision to see through an often-misunderstood novel idea, and the courage to stand up against powerful and wealthy disinformation campaign.

Alarms are being raised on increased cases of domestic abuses worldwide during COVID-19 lockdown. In response Canada had announced increased funding for shelters to help battered spouses. The battered spouses and youths who normally runaway to homeless shelters have dropped in numbers, causing chills up the spine of social workers who normally provide assistance to those affected. Offering token funding to shelter as a means to tackle the increasing domestic abuse problem is like surrendering the victim’s fate to be at the shelters, which will most likely deter them from escaping to for risk of becoming homeless and impoverished especially if they have kids.

Spending time volunteering at homeless shelter (and witnessing real-life struggle of those who were there due to no fault of their own) could increase awareness and make people more determined to fight for basic income. The vulnerable are often taken advantage of. In Winnipeg, there was instances of serial killers targeting helpless homeless people. We can make homeless shelter obsolete in our lifetime if there is political will. Then we won’t see any more needless victims like the gentle and kind disabled regular user of food banks who was seen to have bruises from being beaten on the street.

Shelters do some wonderful work and some also provide transitional housing or programs to integrate people to a normal neighborhood. The difference can be seen on the face of the kids. Kids who transitioned to a regular neighborhood away from high crime and stressful neighborhood exhibit changes in behaviors. From a tense stressed look of a kid maturing too soon, to a more relaxed playful kid like what a normal kid should look like. We might look back at our social assistance system in the future as primitive and cruel for treating those who have fallen on hard times like criminals.

The Winnipeg Harvest food bank have seen an increased demand during the COVID-19 crisis where 81% are said to be new users. At the Three Square emergency food distribution center in the U.S., cars start lining up for miles before sunrise. The call for donation to food banks or for reliefs that are sometimes met with angry responses on social media from people saying they can’t afford to give and are in trouble themselves. But people who can are donating.

A better solution would be to give cash directly to the people through basic income without prejudice. This should be obvious by now for anyone whose job is researching policies and solutions as part of the task they were elected to do. It is absurd with all the evidence in our hands to settle for token funding to shelters for homeless or battered spouses when we could stop them from falling into homelessness in the first place.

Winnipeg Harvest is a vocal supporter of basic income. They believe basic income will eliminate the need for food banks and they will be glad when that day happens, even if it means the need for them to exist will cease. Basic income also helps a single mother whether they are running away from an abusive relationship with their children or just unfortunate turn of events have made them a widow. Government should be working to eradicate the need for food bank and children of poor family’s reliance on school’s breakfast club for food. This can easily be done with basic income.

Alana Baltzer, an Ontario’s basic income pilot participant described, during a North American Basic Income Congress, the joy of having cupboards full of foods. Something people with steady jobs don’t even think about. She described life before basic income as constantly being triggered mentally due to fear of not having enough to live. With basic income and having her basic survival needs met she planned to go back to school. But the cancellation of the pilot put all those plans on hold.

Perilous Environment

Those who grew-up in poor neighborhoods are generally more prone to crime whether falling victim or becoming involved in one, such as being recruited to gangs or exploited to sex works and other survival jobs that are at the margins of society. Incarceration cost for each inmate per year is more expensive than a post-secondary education without counting the criminal justice and legal cost. A 40% drop in crime was seen in area of Namibia with basic income and property crime decreased in Dauphin, Manitoba during the Mincome experiment.

As more people are displaced by COVID-19, increased rates of break-ins were reported. People were already on the edge with reports of guns being pulled at grocery stores. People who are on the edge of breakdown will likely be the first one to go. And sometimes they take out large numbers of people with them through mass suicide or domestic abuses and mass murder. Even before COVID-19, as we walk down the poor neighborhoods, where politicians normally avoid visiting during election campaign periods, we can hear people talk about there being lots of “broken people” in their area.

Edmond Yu

People with their stereotypes would sometimes point to indigenous populations who have a large portion of population in poverty. As with other poorer neighborhoods, addictions are rampant. But there is sometimes a general dismissiveness and blaming that it is “fault of their own” or the growing missing indigenous women that they are at risk due to “their choices”. Any mention of abuses in residential schools, 1960s scoop, and continued family breakup with the current foster child system, are downplayed and indigenous people who are struggling are told to get over it (and any past transgressions). The truth is for a lot of indigenous families, the trauma from residential school abuses and deaths are still fresh in their minds. Trauma and ensuing alcoholism tends to pass down generations. Imagine one person as a victim of abuse and being traumatized and the consequences of that. But multiply that to a whole generation of indigenous people who are now the parents or grandparents of the indigenous youth nowadays. A lot of their youth are still being separated from their family through child welfare and foster care homes. In Canada, 52 percent of children in foster care homes are indigenous children. So the same separation from their culture and family is still ongoing at this time. Rather than tackle the generational trauma they are envied about their isolated reserve land or tax free status like it is enriching them when the opposite is true. They would rather be integrated to the same health care and system enjoyed by other Canadians. The reserve land or tax free status as reparation aside, there is no reason to exclude them from other basic health care and human rights enjoyed by other Canadians.

Young indigenous women are often victimized into child prostitution and crime, the perpetrator emboldened, knowing that when the victims are indigenous, people tend to overlook and shrug their shoulder as if it is a “fault of their own”. The stacked multi-generational trauma is just their problem to sort out and to “get over it” and they are undeserving of any support. Some enviously criticize their tax-free status as a windfall despite reality of the Indian act relegating them to isolated reserves that are not conducive to supporting economic growth or personal survival.

Blaming the Victim

As relief funds for COVD-19 were announced, some politicians claim they support the relief because it is for the people who have fallen on hard times due to “no faults of their own”, while leaving out those who have long been struggling. Assumptions are often made that the destitute troubles are “faults of their own”, making it easier to dismiss any feelings of empathy towards them.

A large part of the reason for addiction and social ills are caused by income insecurity and poverty. Contrary to stereotypes that people became poor because they are lazy and engage in addictions when the reverse is true (people become addicts due to mental problems resulting from being impoverished or past abuses). Or the root cause could be due to other causal factor or trauma.

An asterisk should be added to the poverty trauma link, as precursor of social ill, is ingrained inequality and biases in the system, which causes females or people of colors being treated less in salary or standing in society. This in turn creates a trap that adds a layer of obstacle for the affected group to advance.

As an aside but noteworthy nonetheless: the link above to a study on childhood trauma and IQ defect have found that for people with psychotic disorder, that is not caused by trauma, their IQ or cognitive ability were less affected. Other study also found that IQ is not a predetermining factor for prejudice. Both “intelligent” and non-intelligent people could both be prejudiced. They are more likely to engage in social Darwinism that predates Darwin’s actual scientific theory. Unlike Darwin’s theory, social Darwinism is based on prejudice than science. Social Darwinists use scientific theory of genetic survival of the fittest as an excuse for apathy and outright oppressive actions against specific groups.

Similar to people from abusive environment, bullied kids are more likely to underperform. But removed from the hostile environment they could recover and excel. The government welfare system and its past and present system of treating kids from indigenous homes essentially took on the role of the bully by constantly harassing people who are dealing with trauma, compounding the problem than helping them recover.

We tend to minimize any case of abuses that are brought to light. A lot of times the victims are instead blamed and discredited. Our brains as described by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky are risk averse. We have a hard time accepting an uncomfortable truth and will tend towards minimizing and rationalizing it out. This leads to victim blaming that even some victims of domestic abuse themselves resort to.

Healing Effects of Basic Income

Basic income will help heal the wound in our social fabric. It will ease recovery and rehabilitation from trauma, no matter what the origin, source or the form it is in. Those recovering from trauma due to systemic injustices or from personal tragedy have a steep hill to climb even before the added burden of facing the threat of income insecurity. Healing takes time and basic income gives them time and income support to recover.

Basic income also allows victims of abuse to remove themselves from the abusive environment without fear of losing their means of survival, or a roof over their heads and ending up on the streets. With Universal Basic Income (UBI), a fund for basic survival is available to them anytime. But if the basic income system is non-universal such as NIT, then the system needs to be able to respond quickly, without intrusive interrogators that could make those who are thinking of running away think twice. The system must be easily accessible and responsive. The rule must be clear and make people trust it and be comfortable that they will not get turned down or be stigmatized as they seek urgent help.

Conspiracy theory often spikes when people are anxious. Disinformation, whether from foreign instigators or local pranksters, spreads farther and wider when people are anxious, whether it is due to pandemic or economic insecurity. People become paranoid and mistrustful of government or large organizations. This in turn leads to the rise of false savior populist leaders. When society is anxious, voice of reason and rational thoughts are drowned out by voices of fear and hate. Science and fact give way to paranoid xenophobic fascism and protectionism.

The Mincome experiment analyzed by Manitoba economist Evelyn Forget indicates there were fewer hospital visits and mental health issues, along with reduced domestic abuses, accidents or injuries. Although the experiment was short-lived, it reduced hospitalization rate by 8.5% while the experiment was running.

People are often cynical about the intention of others aside from their own. Believing that given a regular basic income, people will stop working. This have been repeatedly debunked by various studies, but the myth persists. The Mincome experiment’s survey responders shows there were increased social cohesion as a result of people receiving a basic income. Volunteer works and community involvement increased.

By reforming long-term care or at-home care for elderly or the disabled, and making it an essential social and health service, some people could be recruited to volunteer as a public service just as volunteers currently do in hospitals. They could supplement the currently overworked PSW workers. Some might find it hard to believe that people would do this willingly. But there are lots of social workers who chose their profession not out of desire to get rich, but a desire to selflessly help others. We also hear about youth volunteering to care for at-home or long-term care home’s senior citizens. People might not put in as much volunteer hours as they would like if they have to work multiple jobs or they are working long hours with barely any spare time.

Socio-economic uncertainty often leads to increased acrimony whether on the domestic level or at national level. This could lead to breakups and separatist sentiments. Malicious forces (externally and/or internally) could tap into the discontent to create division and demand for secession. A basic income, on the other hand, is less intrusive with less overbearing centralized control. The basic income stabilizing and calming effect against socio-economic fear and uncertainty could foster a more co-operative mindset that we are truly “in this together”.

There is also a misconception that only developed countries can afford basic income. The truth is, the less developed countries can also afford basic income for its residence. They have a lower cost of living so their basic income will be less than developed countries. A lot of the so-called third world countries are also rich in resources and have a wealthy segment of the population who also does not pay a fair share of taxes. There is often a stark difference between the very rich and the general population that are poor. Corruption is also a big problem. For the few countries who might need aid despite their best effort (e.g. due to natural calamity), developed countries might be able to pool together and contribute to a fund, similar to the Marshall plan, a grand strategy to help uplift these countries to make them self-sustaining. To ensure the aids are spent properly, a reliable standard of anti-corruption open data system should be implemented and adopted as a precondition for any aid.

Just like developed countries, the sudden lost of income due to COVID-19 in developing countries saw a long line-up of people trying to get relief funds. Some moved back to the countryside hoping to have a better chance of surviving by planting their own foods. Despite the lower standard of living in developing countries, sometimes people are happier than those from more developed countries due to community kinship and spirit. Even in poorer countries where families struggled to make ends meet, we still see people volunteering their times (e.g. as a firefighter where government funded infrastructure and support is not as strong as in developed countries). This belies the claim that people normally tend towards doing nothing, and at the first opportunity after getting a basic income, people will stop working. As various experiments have already shown, volunteerism and communityship increased after basic income.

"Bayanihan" — a Filipino culture of going out of their way to help their community in need (e.g. moving houses)

The empathy that manages to shine out of the extraordinary effort by some people who have too little to give will only be magnified once giving a helping hand requires less of an extraordinary effort as their basic needs are met. Cynicism will persist but we need not stop introduction of a policy that could help millions of people for fear of a fake beggar or fraudster who in reality are only a very small percentage of the population. In fact, with universal basic income not only the fraudster will benefit nor should it matter, since everyone else will be far better off than them.

By ensuring everyone will have basic income, even in less developed countries, the people could be empowered and can hold their government to account. This will help prevent creation of despotic regimes that constantly threatens the world. And non-marginalized people are less likely to support radical ideas. There are also various cryptocurrency projects where the amount of basic income might seem minuscule for those on developed countries but will be life saving for people from less developed countries. Reducing worldwide poverty will benefit everyone. The marginalized youth are fertile ground for radicalization. Mali is among many places reported to have issues with youth being radicalized into terrorist organizations due to various reasons, including potential economic gain.

Economists have been warning about a welfare/poverty trap, where those on welfare are disincentivized from getting back to a work place that pays minimum wage as a non-livable wage. The reason is that they are effectively taxed 100% of any new earnings. Each new earnings leads to greater net loss for them. CERB should not be compared to UBI on work disincentive. CERB’s non-universal payout and ever-changing requirements (where some gets relief while others do not and therefore earn less than CERB, or where earning income might see the CERB amount stopped) means people are disincentivized from working.

CERB exposed the flaw of existing welfare or social assistance on work disincentive. Contrary to common misconception that basic income will be a work disincentive, it has actually been proven to have the opposite effect. It is the current welfare system and the convoluted rules of CERB relief fund that disincentivizes work. Basic income does not have the sudden loss of the income security floor as is the case in both CERB and welfare. Nixon in his speech to Congress (when he introduced his Family Assistance Plan) called the current social assistance system as: “a system that penalizes works, breaks up homes and rob recipients of their dignity”.

Lots of millionaire CEOs going on TV claiming CERB should be stopped so people will not be disincentivize from going back to work appears out of touch with actual conditions.

The government of Canada have been making revisions, but a lot of people are still left out with no plans or indications they will ever be addressed. Some Canadian politicians had criticized CERB as disincentivizing people to go back to work. Some viewed that as a criticism of those receiving CERB due to the pandemic, and were outraged. If there are indeed those who are choosing not to go back to work that are not due to concern for their safety, it might be the fact that they are one of those who fell through the cracks and been left there for a while, those earning less than needed to survive.

Ron Hikel, who was the executive director of Mincome experiment, who we were fortunate to have interviewed, has recently been interviewed on Canada’s CBC radio and called on government to implement basic income now so we are ready for the next crisis. He emphasized the importance of having a properly designed basic income that will meet people’s basic needs where people are always better off by working more. And clear rules that give people’s confidence knowing it will be there when needed. CERB’s complex and changing rules could cause people to hesitate from giving up their CERB. CERB is work disincentivizing because it is not like basic income. Basic income will not have that effect as people get a guaranteed amount and any additional income they might have earned. Even non-universal forms like Negative Income Tax reduces it gradually (what is called clawback or negative tax rate). Therefore, people are always better off as they earn more income, unlike with current welfare.

Without basic income, people without income for whatever reason could end up with no means to survive. Although Canada does have support for disabled people, even with top-up by provinces such as the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) it is often inadequate. A lot of them end up on the street. The working poor might have a bit of income but not enough to live on.

Income Before Basic Income

With a basic income, those who does not earn any income will get at least the guaranteed amount. Assuming it is set at Low-Income-Measures (LIM) of $24,183 — the Canadian LIM threshold as of 2018. Also, assume that a negative tax rate is set at 50% (the “clawback rate”), then the break-even level (the threshold at which any income earned above that is charged under current positive tax rate) will be $48,366.00. This means any income earned before that threshold will always be a net gain unlike the current welfare where new income earned are often met with a sudden high tax rate as high as 100% of all newly earned income.

Income After Basic Income

This means the working poor, those who gets paid minimum wage job or working multiple jobs, can keep working and will always be better off than not working. This is why economists who understand basic income tout it as a better system than the current welfare system.

The key is people who work are always better off than those who do not work. The middle class and higher income earners will continue to see increase in their income above the break-even level or threshold to positive tax, whether through their earnings or investment. Investment returns of 10% are not uncommon for those who can afford to hire a professional investment advisor.

Various studies from economist Evelyn Forget and other studies from around the world have shown that the stereotypes about basic income — such as cost and work disincentive — were misplaced. Forget study revealed that those with decent paying jobs and bread winners are not among those who dropped out of the labor market. The few who did are mostly youth who went on to finish high school, rather than to quit school and start earning income early. This is considered to have a positive long-term economic effect. Since those who quit high school are at greater risk of being stuck in low earning wage for the rest of their lives, other groups with reduced work effort were secondary earners. During the mid to late 1970s, they usually comprised of mothers staying at home to care for newborn, or those who stay at home to care for the elderly or the sick, and those engaged in other forms of volunteer work.

Various basic income experiments, such as those from the U.S. and Canada, shows that any work effort reduction is no more than 10%. With various parts of Canada already seeing above that percentage, even before COVID-19 (and with the expected acceleration of automation expected to shave as much as 70% of jobs on some sectors) the low percentage is unlikely to have any adverse effect on the labor supply. The pandemic have also lead to an acceleration in automation of jobs and some work might not return even after the pandemic.

A common scapegoat for not implementing basic income are the poor and those addicted to substance abuse. While Ontario’s short-lived basic income pilot showed a huge turnaround of mental stress and health issues from participants, an often precursor to addictions, it is very likely that those who are deep in addiction for a prolonged period of time would need more than basic income to help them treat the chronic illness. However, basic income provides a steady floor they can stand on as they go through rehabilitation. Absence of that floor means relapse is more likely, they will just keep falling down the hole over and over again no matter how many attempts at rehabilitation.

If people are assured of a basic income floor that will not be taken away, people will keep working to supplement their basic income. Who among the current relief recipient really enjoys staying at home than going back to work to earn more than the relief payout? Aside from wanting a less hectic schedule to have time for family, the majority of people would rather go back to work. Although we would rather work, we think the majority of other people would squander any basic income that they get, a common cynical view of those “others”. People often have aspiration and would like to keep busy to feel a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction in life. A well-to-do individual crowing about how the poor should not be helped, since they will waste the money on drugs or stop working like they won the lottery, are opinions based on common misconception.

David Calnitsky’s qualitative analysis of the survey response from Mincome experiment shows there might be some increase in wages, and other studies cite that these increases are in low wage workers — which includes the ones we came to realize are frontline essential workers. Some workers, such as the Personal Support Worker (PSW), should have been receiving higher wages like nurses or health care aides in hospitals. They are currently unregulated and report a moderately high level of burnout. Manitoba is seeking to deal with the long-term care crisis during COVID-19 by forcing nurses to work at long-term care homes. In 2018, the Nurses Union warned about chronic shortage of staffing at long-term care homes due to funding cuts.

Not only does the PSW have low wages, but they also have no benefits. The lack of protective equipment also exposed them and the elderly residents to higher risk of contracting the COVID-19 virus. They are now being asked to work only in one home, and some in the press acknowledged that the PSW would not have enough to live if forced to only work one job. A lot of companies who operate the homes are earning millions of dollars, with one home where large outbreaks and deaths were reported and said to be charging $5,000 per month per resident.

There is no reason to believe these essential low-paying jobs will not see increased applicants if they have higher wages. We all have needs and desires beyond just having enough for basic needs. We all want extra income to buy our own house, and for a vacation (which are not just luxury but a means to unwind and protect our mental health, but it is a luxury for those who never earned enough with just one job).

As former Progressive Conservative senator Hugh Segal points out during our interview, the “poor people” are mostly the working poor who work multiple jobs to survive. And yet we love to generalize and denigrate them as the undeserving poor.

To encourage work sharing, we should redesign or improve our employment and payroll taxes such that it does not disincentivize businesses from hiring additional workers. There are those who might prefer to work lesser hours to care for their kids, sick loved ones, or pursue their passion even if it is not a big income generator (e.g. research, arts, or community involvement). While there was recognition since the mid-20th century that there will not be enough livable wage jobs for everyone, things seem to have gotten worse with increased gig workers and precariat. The vulnerabilities of the precariat have been exposed by the COVID-19 crisis.

Even those who lost their jobs are faced with sudden loss of benefits to pay for medicine and life-saving drugs. This could be resolved by introducing the universal pharmacare component of the Canadian universal health care. The universal pharmacare component was never implemented by succeeding government. Having universal pharmacare, like developed countries of Europe, would reduce benefit and payroll cost for employers. By lowering non-wage payroll costs and through other tax reform, small or large businesses could hire multiple non-full-time workers as part of a work sharing program with other employees who prefer to work fewer hours.

Some people might think it is contradictory to be talking about non work-disincentivizing effects of basic income in contrast to welfare while talking about the ability to reduce hours for those who want to. But the whole point is people should be free to choose what work they want to do and not be coerced to work a low non-livable wage job most of us are unwilling to do. There’s always the totalitarian mindset and fear that we might run out of workers, so we have to keep some people poor to work those jobs. Some people are always willing to take up jobs that others are unwilling to do at the right price. If the price becomes too high then businesses could potentially automate, which is becoming more common and affordable nowadays. In the near term, those are more likely to affect the repetitive task handled most efficiently by robotics. People will always want to work to supplement their basic income, and earn as much as they can to meet their needs and to pay for hobbies they are passionate about, or to allow for a little leisure and relaxation.

A guaranteed job dictated by a totalitarian government through coercion is unlikely to be a well paid life, enriching non dead end job. Coerced work will be less productive than a work chosen freely by an individual. A worker will be less productive when they are forced to take a job than being able to seek further advancement in their chosen career, through further education or by spending time to find jobs matching their career goal. A micromanaging leader often leads to resentment from those being dictated to. There will also likely be maximum hours of coerced work at which the productivity gain is minimal. A burned-out worker is not only less productive but could drag an organization’s output and morale down with it. Countries with more vacations and who work less hours are observed to be more productive. There is no shortage of work if a system can be created to share work.

People tend to work more if no conditions are attached and it is out of their own desire. Small business owners or independent workers like artists tend to spend more hours taking care of their business or work than the average worker, but are generally happier even if their income is lower.

The essential frontline workers, whose work could be more taxing and labor intensive, might never get paid like the doctors or professionals. But their livable wage will now be based on market’s labor supply, and not exploitative last resort survival wage. A business that cannot innovate and adopt, and can only exist with exploitative slave wage, probably should not be in the business to begin with.

Saving Small Businesses and Community Organizations

Small businesses and local organizations are the heart and soul of a local economy. The slow rollout of relief for businesses means a lot might have decided to close permanently before seeing any relief. And for those who survived? Other places that have recovered shows that the return of customers might be slow. This could cause more businesses to further close shop permanently. Fewer business means more job loss and lost revenue for suppliers of goods. Less taxes and revenues for government. GDP of countries are expected to contract but basic income can minimize the contraction.

Lots of business owners hesitate to re-hire back workers even with 75% government wage subsidy. They are unsure when they will get the funds or if they will get it at all. Whereas the rent relief are designed to give landlords the power to decide. They could choose not to participate than take 25% required reduction on rent income, or possibly 50% if tenants defaulted. Or they could take the opportunity to get out of the contract and replace the tenant. All the twist and turns in the convoluted requirements are out of the tenants or small business owner’s hand. Canadian government have recently expanded the wage subsidy while the press questioned the low intake and adoption. Businesses with uncertain future hesitates to take employees back on their payroll and being stuck with 25% of pay, the payroll taxes and benefits.

If business owners or landlords — who has mortgages to pay — receive a monthly basic income along with everyone else, it could change their mind away from quickly cutting their losses. Some of Ontario’s basic income pilot participants started a business after receiving their basic income. Various basic income experiments around the world have shown that having economic security leads people to be more entrepreneurial. People are more willing to take risks and pursue their passion.

Special attention should be given to the design of a non-universal basic income such as Ontario’s pilot version or NIT, that the rules should allow business owners the ability to get basic income if their business fails due to a crisis or government mandated shutdown that is not of their own making. A well-designed NIT will likely be based on a person’s income month-to-month, including business owners and not just those on payroll. Otherwise those currently ineligible for basic income will be less eager than their UBI counterparts to leave their salaried employment to establish a business, which comes with the inherent risk of failure and losing all their hard-earned savings.

Faster Recovery and Creating a Thriving Local Economy

Consumption is the key to get the businesses and economy going again with cash directly in the hands of the people through basic income. They are the main engine that will drive our economy again, which no micromanaging paternalistic system will be able to do as effectively. In essence, it will do what past trickle-down stimulus failed to do. Past trickle-down policy focused on subsidy to big corporations in the belief that it will “trickle-down” and create jobs. Instead, the subsidies went towards stock buy-backs of company shares, and CEO bonus went unabated with little to show for job creation. Wage increase for employees were also frozen. That, despite the bail out from government cash, was hoarded instead. Defenders of for-profit business saw that as common sense during difficult times to save instead of spend. In Canada, 3 years after the recession, an exasperated former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor Mark Carney decried corporations who sits on piles of cash in what he termed as “dead money”. That instead of re-investing the money, they sat on half a trillion dollar in cash compared to the end of recession in 2009.

Basic income, on the other hand, will put money in the hands of those who are more likely to spend them and put it back into the economy. It will increase everyone’s purchasing power. There will be a gushing-up effect with spending that will spread out to local businesses, creating an ongoing self-sustaining stimulus month after month. With increased confidence in the people’s ongoing financial status, and less fearful of uncertain economic times where loss of jobs or investment being wiped-out could cause immediate hardship, they are more likely to spend and help increase demand in local businesses and the economy.

Basic income could create an economic powerhouse supported by the consumer and large independent base of entrepreneurs, innovators, community and part-time volunteer workers, and all forms of workers whether paid or unpaid. It will have a fountain effects of gushing-up from the grassroots up and sustaining a lush and dynamic socio-economic ecosystem. The positive effects, by all indications from past and existing pilot and experiments, could be far reaching. From improved health and mental issues thus savings in cost, to sustainable economic growth.

Even once businesses are allowed to re-open, experts believe the recession is expected to last for a while. There will likely be more than one economic shock as the severity of the losses from COVID-19 are slowly realized. The economic shock is expected to be worse than the great depression. Some economist predicts 10 years time for Canada’s economy to recover. A not so surprising number considering economists who claim we have not really totally recovered from the recession of 2008, as inequality and low wages persist. But this could be shortened with a permanent basic income providing an ongoing self-sustaining economic stimulus even after the CERB have ran out and businesses that closed permanently now takes longer to be replaced. Basic income will prevent the scarcity of money in Main Street that is the cause of slow recovery in past economic downturn. Basic income could cushion the blow and lead to quicker recovery.

CERB might already be showing the benefit of giving cash directly to the people, albeit some vulnerable populations that are still left out. Having cash reassures people and allows them to keep spending and carrying on with their lives, as opposed to past recessions where consumers just retreated and held on to whatever is left of their savings if any. The effect is a longer time for the economy to recover. Currently in the U.S., people who used to have well paid jobs are suddenly finding themselves in food bank lineups as they struggle to pay their bills. In Canada, there is an initial report of spending declining by 17% in April, an improvement over the 30% month-to-month decline in March. The CERB payments did not go out until April. But if government pulled out CERB abruptly instead of transitioning to a permanent basic income, we might see the slight April improvement reverse its course for the duration of the prolonged economic downturn.

Basic income is similar to a life jacket given to everyone without assumption of “fault of their own”. There is no discrimination based on our faulty judgment of deserving and undeserving poor. By comparison, the current welfare system seems inhumane and highly discriminatory, leaving out the marginalized who need help the most.

An often heard misconception about increased purchasing power through basic income is how it would cause a rise in inflation. There are various factors that negates the threat of inflation. Proponent of basic income often points to Alaska’s annual dividend and quantitative easing as examples of why basic income will not cause inflation. In both cases, the infusion of cash did not cause inflation. One factor could be due to basic income itself. Various pilots and experiments have shown increased entrepreneurship. This leads to more innovative solutions and an increase in supplies. The increased supplies likely meet or exceed the demand. And we often hear about the era of abundance we are living in. So there is no shortage of supplies, the only shortage is purchasing power often limited to upper and high income earners while the rest have seen their wage stagnate and struggle to meet month-to-month expenses.

Eliminating Credit Crunch, Liquidity Problems and Insolvency

During the COVID-19 crisis, small business owners complaint about government supported loans failing to help because the financial institutions that were supposed to give them loan is refusing to lend it to them and instead favors safer multi-million dollar companies. This led to some entrepreneurs accusing the government of paying lip service since their promised aid failed to materialize. The financial institutions fear that despite the government covering part of the loan, they might still be liable for 20% or more of the loan if businesses defaulted. Meanwhile, the big businesses have more funds to help them last longer. The bigger corporations have better relations with their financial institutions and would find it easier to get loans with favorable terms.

Some of the survey responses gleamed by David Calnitsky from the Mincome survey records were indications that companies have shown increased willingness to provide credit to those receiving basic income. This could be due to companies knowing people with basic income are less likely to go bankrupt. It is still not too late to start basic income for everyone now, even business owners who have reduced earnings who have not completely shutdown their business. This will ensure the convoluted rules of the relief funds does not leave anyone out.

Increased purchasing power extends to funding for venture capital whether through direct support for startups, or investing in stocks of emerging business, or obtaining loan with their improved credit to start their own business.

Other than Mincome recipients having an easier time getting a loan, business owners could also use the basic income to expand their business or save it for rainy day like the COVID-19 crisis right now. Or they will be more willing to take up the COVID-19 loan and cover the shortfall than shut their business permanently, since they have lesser fear of becoming destitute if their business fails to recover.

During the last recession, on a crisis created by the U.S. financial institution’s own actions through subprime mortgage fraud, government in the U.S. set aside a trillion dollar bailout while Canada offered $300 billion. COVID-19 offers different challenges as businesses and people are at risk of defaulting on their rent or mortgages and loans en masse. This in turn could cause liquidity crunch or insolvency at lending institutions. This is best avoided by giving people basic income so the problem is stopped at the root than giving it to the institutions later, which might save themselves but leave people still out without homes.

Basic income should be thought of as a capital investment in the people to the benefit of society. Policy makers and politicians who favors austerity would often criticize direct payment to the people while favoring subsidy to wealthier companies or individuals. Capital investment by companies and individual or retail investors are essentially free money to a publicly listed company to help them thrive, with return of investment that will benefit the investors. Basic income is essentially a capital investment in the human resources of a society for them to go forth and do their best to thrive. Some will fail and some will succeed but in the wider scope of things, it should lead to net benefit to society. Too much micromanagement from centralized government tends to overlook a lot of issues and often leaves people worse off.

The people are the engine of the economy. Basic income could serve as that sustainable energy that will keep powering this engine. When businesses and people thrive, the money lent to them is more than made up when it is paid back into the economy, helping it recover quickly. On the contrary, not spending big on direct relief to the people could mean a prolonged recession or depression. The more people or businesses that fall through the cracks, the longer and harder it will take for the economy to recover, and with that a whole swath of industries, including banking, will suffer.

Basic income will make our economy more resilient because the next time a crisis hits businesses and the people who support it, we can quickly get back on their feet and rebuild. This is true whether the cause is economic, social, pandemic, or a big natural calamity. Even before the pandemic, people were already struggling to make ends meet with most not having enough to save for a rainy day. Wages have stagnated and the income of renters have not totally recovered when the pandemic hit. Meanwhile, rent continues to increase and takes a larger share of the take home income.

The pandemic saw provincial government in Canada coming together asking federal government for returning health transfer to its previous levels before it was cut a few years and several various government prior. They are asking for as much as 13% more. Mincome experiment, despite being short term, has shown that hospital visits and health care costs could be reduced by 8%. Imagine what the long term savings would be and once effects from poverty, which is a major cause of chronic illness and emergency hospital visits, take effect and their health improves along with criminal justice cost (such as incarceration, law enforcement and court cost).

The provincial government was right that federal government have the most source of revenue they can tap into. Fact is Canadian federal and provincial government from both political spectrum have been cutting back on funding, leaving municipalities to pick up the tab on transit to infrastructure. Property tax keeps increasing since that is the community’s main source of revenue. While most taxes goes to federal and provincial government, they are perceived as acting more like dead-beat dad than a reliable partner.

We are more resilient by working together and helping each other out. We can set aside the baggage created by old economic models and ideology that has no place on the 21st century and onward. Basic income that failed adoptions in the past are mostly borne out of stereotypes and old ideological hang-ups. Basic income fixes a lot of social ills and lead to major savings, and that alone is more than worth its cost. A gross cost that is paid back to the economy. Instead of constantly racking up deficits, we can see improved quality of life for everyone. If the pandemic and increasing natural calamity is any indication, we are in this planet together and will suffer any negligence on the well-being of our planet and our people together.

Another concern exposed by the COVID-19 crisis is food security and the importance of being self-reliant on manufacturing medical supplies. Aside from disruption in distribution, there are other global risks that could threaten the world food supply. There are reports of swarms of locusts threatening Africa and so-called big “murder hornets” and “gypsy moths” affecting Washington state and British Columbia, causing fear it could decimate food and bees/honey supplies. Winnipeg mayor recently called on those who have extra space to plant extra vegetables to help the local food banks.

Farming carries a big risk as weather and other factors could affect harvest and profitability. The great uncertainty caused a lot of farmers and their heir to switch to other career options with more predictable income. Farmers with basic income could change their mind knowing that if their harvest failed their basic needs could still be met, allowing them to survive until the next season. They could also use the money to expand their business or farms or buy a new truck or other equipment needed at their farm, just as Betty Wallace and her family did with the money they got from the Mincome experiment.

With increased unpredictability in the weather and climate, and having smaller farms scattered over wide geographic regions could improve food security and avoid inflation from rising food prices. This would also help communities to be self-reliant in case a nationwide or worldwide crisis hit, causing food shipment across borders to be halted. Smaller scale farmers could join forces and create a member’s owned co-operative. This co-operative could look after purchasing and lending out more expensive modern agricultural equipment that increases efficiency. The co-operative could also work to advance agriculture and farmer’s interests on legal matters, research, market negotiations, and other issues that a lone farmer might not have the resources to deal with.

The neglect in long-term and home-care services against our elderly, who built our country, was exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Seniors poverty is also increasing. A large percentage (44% of seniors in BC) are struggling to make ends meet. An improved universal basic income at survival amount to meet basic needs of everyone should include seniors to permanently top-up the amount they currently receive from OAS and GIS. A major difference with OAS and basic income is OAS is taxable and basic income or guaranteed income (up to the guaranteed amount) is not.

Supporting local businesses, even if the initial production cost is higher than those from a slave labor nation, have the increased consumer power from basic income and it could help increase the local economy and make us more self-reliant. This would cast aside the radical free market imposition of forbidding any subsidy to help local farms or local industry thrive and grow.

There also seems to be a stagnation of breakthrough research. The current dearth of new foundational scientific discoveries can be re-ignited by having scientists be supported by basic income and grants to advance their research, rather than toiling in menial tasks just to get by and survive. Instead of being more concerned about failing, they can dedicate their time and efforts towards breaking new grounds and helping our society take the next leap. Just like most social workers who did not choose the profession to get rich, but to pursue their selfless passion, dedicating most of their time and resources to help those in need.

Basic income is an investment in people to be the best they can be, to be creative, to take risk, to break new grounds, and to aim for excellence without fear of failure and becoming destitute. Basic income could bring in new scientific revolution like late Renaissance that changed theory of math, chemistry, standard methods of experiments based on rational thoughts, observations, known facts or knowledge, and with sciences that brought in new foundation for new innovations. Just as scientists are able to build on and improve works of Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Gutenberg and da Vinci, what seems like failed or incomplete research now could later be used as a stepping stone and the missing link to future breakthrough research.

Cynics who think no person will be so selfless as to do it for free just have to look at the open source community, where people dedicate their free time and money to help create software, hardware and productive tools that matches or beat products from multi-million dollar companies. People who contribute to open source communities do it often out of passion and civic duty than personal gains and fame. The free tools and research or arts generated by innovators on basic income can be used by others to advance and improve our society’s health and socio-economic well-being.

As economy stalls government grows more conservative in spending on new infrastructures, even to the extent of delayed maintenance and fear of failure in bridges causing catastrophic injury and death. Municipalities who suffered offloading of cost from Federal and Provincial government, saw cut to their funding and struggle to fund essential services and transit. Savings from basic income for municipal cost can go towards poverty, health and crimes, and could go towards essential services and infrastructure budgets.

There is a false narrative that basic income, which is a system that allows us to look after each other to ensure no one gets left behind, is a fairy tale and rainbows and unicorns. Such bias opinion will likely remains even with empirical proof from studies that it is more realistic and effective and feasible than the current system. But once implemented, the effects became undeniable, even doubters can change their minds.

[[Content Under Construction - Coming Soon]]