stop talking about basic income and do it

just a few weeks ago, former democratic presidential candidate andrew yang campaigned on ubi. this week, u.s. senator mitt romney proposed sending every american a one-time $1000 cheque during the pandemic, and even stalwartly conservative activists have voiced support for the idea.

this comes as no surprise to dr. evelyn forget, a health economist and professor at the university of manitoba. in the 1970s, canada’s then-prime minister pierre trudeau and manitoba’s ndp government ran the mincome project in dauphin, manitoba , an experimental pilot project that gave the poorest residents a monthly cheque, no strings attached. the project was shelved after a new government came in and the data sat in boxes in a warehouse for more than 30 years until forget decided to analyze the results in 2006 . she’s also the author of basic income for canadians , making her literally the person who’s written the book on the subject. we spoke with her over the phone, from a healthy physical distance.

diana duong: how has the conversation on universal basic income changed over the past few years?

dr. evelyn forget: in canada, when we talk about the basic income, what we tend to support is a targeted program, so the amount you receive depends on your income from other sources — rather than the government cutting a $1000 cheque every month for everybody. it’s a very particular kind of basic income that tends to be quite different than from other places.

you must be tired of talking about this.

this past week, the government announced an $82-billion dollar aid package. should that money be spent on a basic income instead?

i think if we had a basic income in place, it would have been very easy for the government to increase payments to canadians and to adapt to this particular crisis . but the fact that we don’t have one in place means that the government is facing the question of how to most quickly roll out support. since we don’t  have the infrastructure in place right now to deliver a basic income, topping up existing programs will get money into peoples’ hands more quickly than trying to design and implement a targeted basic income in a very short period of time.

so would now be the right time to talk about a basic income? it does feel like we are all acting as more of a collective and there is more recognition of the working class — the amazon warehouse workers, grocery store workers, small businesses.

employment insurance (ei) used to work a lot better than it works today. it’s simply because people are working quite differently now than they did when those programs were designed. if you talk about how employment insurance can support people during this kind of downturn, you realize that a lot of people get left out simply because they’re working the kinds of jobs where they don’t work enough hours to qualify, or they’re relying on tips and that doesn’t show up as part of their insured earnings.

i think we are beginning to recognize the shortcomings of the existing programs we have in place. if we’re going to change those programs to better support canadians going forward, i think basic income becomes part of the conversation the next time a crisis hits — or even in this crisis depending on how long it lasts. we need to find a better way of thinking about how we can get together and fill in the gaps in the existing social programs.

you mention a targeted basic income, which sounds different from mitt romney or andrew yang’s universal basic income ‘for every american’. what would be more effective in canada?

people who support a universal program always say, ‘we’ll get it back through the tax system,’ but that means increasing taxes rather dramatically. so at the end of the day, if you have a universal program like andrew yang’s suggestions, what you end up with is a much larger government expenditure and much larger taxation, so it becomes sort of a political challenge to sell it in a country like canada. i think it’s politically a lot more feasible to talk about a targeted program simply because the amount of money the government has to access to run that program in the first instance is much, much smaller.

whose lives would a basic income improve the most in this outbreak?

how would a basic income change the course of this pandemic in canada?

people who don’t have adequate income generally live in overcrowded housing and tend to have less access to adequate diets. they have less money to support the healthy habits that public health confidently tells people like them they’re supposed to be practising in order to keep themselves safe. we talk about social distancing, well, it’s really hard to get social distancing if you’re living on a reserve with 10 or 15 people without adequate water to wash your hands, without reasonable diets, and without the kind of space and supports that income can provide.

some people believe that with a basic income, people will stop working. what has your research showed?

what a basic income does do is make it possible for people to stay home if they’re sick, for example. it certainly makes it possible for people to stay home with their kids if that becomes necessary. but i don’t think you’ll see sort of a mass infection of the canadian population with laziness, to stay home and play video games. in fact, one thing we’re going to see over the next few weeks is how badly people want to get back to work.

diana duong is an editor and writer at  healthing.  follow her on twitter @dianaduo.

share story

share this story

stop talking about basic income and do it

email

facebook

x

linkedin

copy story link