Overview

A growing body of evidence shows that implementing universal basic income (UBI), or guaranteed income programs, would create a public assistance system that more effectively promotes food security, improves health outcomes, and creates long-term financial stability. However, executing this type of program on a larger scale outside of pilots has been difficult, due to an issue known as the “benefits cliff effect.” The risk of participants losing Social Security Administration (SSA) assistance such as Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), as well as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, and housing assistance has been a major barrier in implementing UBI. These benefits are incredibly difficult to get in the first place due to strict eligibility requirements, and loss of benefits can have detrimental impacts for program participants. This policy brief provides a framework through which cities and states can understand public assistance programs and recommendations to execute UBI or guaranteed pilot programs to better support families.

Background

Public Assistance

The public assistance system in the United States is fraught with red tape that prevents people from receiving much-needed aid. Public assistance programs have historically been inadequate to support families in meeting their basic needs, leaving many food-insecure. Means-tested public assistance programs—such as SNAP, TANF, and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)—have different eligibility criteria and rules of participation and require a great deal of paperwork. These create significant time and administrative burden for both program recipients and the state and federal government agencies administering the programs.

Furthermore, TANF benefits vary significantly from state to state and are at or below 50% of the federal poverty line in every state. Participants of the SNAP program have said that the level of benefits is not enough to support a nutritious diet for families, and benefits can be extremely difficult to obtain. Due in part to the work of the SNAP Participants Collaborative and Center for Hunger-Free Communities, in 2021 the U.S. Department of Agriculture raised the SNAP benefit allotment by 21 percent for the first time since 1975.

Universal Basic Income

Universal basic income has been shown to promote overall health and well-being, with participating families reporting higher rates of food security, improved mental health, and increased ability to pay bills. (For more information on the case for UBI, see the Center for Hunger-Free Communities’ report “Universal Basic Income: Key to Reducing Food Insecurity and Improving Health,” February 2021)

The exact child tax credit, which functioned similarly to guaranteed income programs, proved to be effective in decreasing childhood poverty, reducing food insecurity, and allowing families to access basic necessities.

To prove the efficacy of programs such as UBI or guaranteed income in promoting food security and helping families move out of poverty, organizations such as the Mayors for Guaranteed Income and University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Guaranteed Income Research have launched pilot programs. However, one of the major barriers to implementing these pilot programs is the risk of participants losing benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA), as well as SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and housing assistance.

Key Terms and Definitions

• Benefits Cliff: A sudden loss of income or public assistance caused by an increase in income.
• Guaranteed Income: A government program of ongoing, unrestricted direct cash transfers to individuals or households. A guaranteed income may or may not meet basic needs or be targeted to specific populations.
• Means Testing: An evaluation determining whether a person or household is eligible for a payment or public assistance that is based on the person or family’s income and assets.
• Supplementary Security Income (SSI): SSI is a monthly public assistance program that provides income to people with limited income who are blind, disabled, or aged 65 years or older.
• Social Security Disability Income (SSDI): SSDI provides monthly financial assistance to disabled people and their families if they are insured, which occurs after a person works long enough to qualify (typically 10 years) and paid Social Security taxes.
• Universal Basic Income (UBI): A government program to ensure a basic standard of living and economic security for every member of a community through monthly, unconditional direct cash transfers with no means testing.

The Benefits Cliff

The benefits cliff refers to when someone experiences a sudden loss of public assistance because they start making a higher income. Even a small increase in wages can result in benefits such as SNAP or TANF being cut off, which prevents many program participants from building wealth and meeting their own basic needs. SNAP participants have reported that a loss of benefits causes a collapse in financial well-being, causing increased food insecurity, health care trade-offs, and more precarity.

The negative impact of the benefits cliff is compounded by the immense amount of time, energy, and resources that families spend to get their assistance back once it is lost. This discourages many people from taking on promotions or full-time work. Families who saw even a marginal increase in income lost their SNAP benefits and had difficulty purchasing food for their families.

The effects on health are also significant with the benefits cliff. As families use their limited income on food rather than relying on SNAP, there is an increase in health trade-offs (e.g. seeking medical care) as well as increases in depression and mental distress.

The loss of income or public assistance is especially troubling for people with disabilities. One in four SNAP participants has a disability or receives government disability assistance. Because SNAP defines disability status differently than the SSA, disabled people may face barriers to obtaining SNAP. Furthermore, disabled adults are twice as likely as those without a disability to experience poverty, with disabled adults being disproportionately vulnerable to being priced out of housing.

Social Security Benefits

Social security is a public assistance program with nearly universal public support. Both SSI and SSDI provide critical financial support to families with limited income or those with disabilities that preclude them from working. Food insecurity is also an important consideration for SSI and SSDI participants. Households with disabled adults are more likely to experience food insecurity; these households are also more vulnerable to severe food insecurity.

Additionally, many low-income non-elderly adults do not qualify for benefits but are still unable to work due to their disability. Guaranteed income programs would exist alongside SSI or SSDI to better support households experiencing deep poverty and food insecurity.

Social security programs are vital for the survival of low-income and/or disabled adults in the U.S. Data show that SSI applicants typically have significant declines in health status prior to receiving assistance, followed by relative stabilization. Social security is effective in reducing poverty for children, the elderly, and families, and especially for women and families of color.

Losing social security assistance can have catastrophic effects on the mental and physical health of families. For example, participation in a universal basic income pilot could increase a family’s income and make them ineligible for SSI, which could leave families vulnerable to food insecurity and worsened health.

How is SSI obtained?

SSI is available to eligible adults residing in one of the 50 states or District of Columbia and select lawful permanent residents. Assistance can be applied for online or at SSA offices.

How is SSDI obtained?

Workers who were in jobs covered by social security and meet the strict definition of disability are eligible for assistance. Disabilities that qualify include any ailment that limits an individual’s ability to complete work-related activities for at least 12 months.

Why are benefits so difficult to get?

When social security was first implemented in 1965, it was intended to function as supplemental income. Today, more Americans than ever are relying on the program as their primary source of income, leading to limited resources for the program. Furthermore, many first-time applicants for SSDI are denied, due to the strict eligibility requirements and required documentation.

Potential UBI Impact on Public assistance in Pennsylvania

Adapted from the Pennsylvania Benefits Matrix provided by the Humanity Forward Foundation

UBI and Public Assistance: The Stockton Pilot Program

As universal basic income gains momentum as an effective and sustainable solution to supporting families’ long-term economic security and overall health, pilot programs in cities like Stockton, California, have demonstrated the benefits of guaranteed income.

Researchers of the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) had several loss mitigation strategies to run their experiment alongside means-tested public assistance programs, instead of replacing them. In the enrollment process, SEED staff addressed households rather than specific people so household members could decide who should participate. SEED also included benefits counseling for potential participants, a cost-analysis sheet outlining how public assistance could be impacted, and ongoing communication with SEED staff.

Researchers also secured a waiver with the San Joaquin County Human Services agency to ensure CalWorks and TANF program participants could participate in SEED without the risk of losing their assistance. SSI was still at risk of being impacted, so recipients could decide to participate based on the cost-analysis. In addition, a Hold Harmless Fund was established to ensure that recipients weren’t negatively impacted through their participation in the program, replacing the cost of any lost assistance.

To protect against the loss of assistance, pilot program researchers held discussions with local and federal government officials to explore options such as implementing waivers for guaranteed income payments or disregarding payments when considering eligibility for public assistance programs.

Policy Recommendations

To support the health and well-being of public assistance participants and reduce the administrative burden of these programs while allowing for the effective utilization of universal/guaranteed income programs, they recommend implementing the following policy changes.

1. Develop a centralized public assistance program with uniform eligibility requirements and safeguards to support low-income families which will provide a sustainable path to food security and financial stability.

   With each assistance program having different eligibility requirements, it is time to create a universal public assistance program through which all funding can be administered. While universal basic income would create a sustainable, comprehensive safety net, cash payments should work alongside other public assistance programs for the time being. By creating universal guidelines, public assistance will not only be easier to obtain for those in need, but the significant administrative burden would also be reduced.

2. Implement a national waiver that ensures universal basic income or guaranteed income pilot program participants do not lose public assistance.

   Developing a federal waiver would ensure UBI/guaranteed income program participants do not lose existing public assistance supports, regardless of the city or state in which they live. By incorporating a guideline that prevents assistance like SSI, SNAP, or TANF from being cut off and leaving participants vulnerable to the benefits cliff, participants could take advantage of direct cash payments to feed their families, pay bills, and promote their health.

3. Create an alternative to the benefits cliff by easing participants off of assistance.

   Creating a solution that does not cause a steep drop off of assistance programs when participants increase their income will safeguard against precarity and support families in the pursuit of food and economic security. Ideally, funding would be lowered gradually instead of ending abruptly, in proportion with income increases over a period of time, providing participants the opportunity to stabilize their income and move off public assistance programs permanently.

For more information, contact: Kasia Kujawski, Dornsife Fellow, at kk3397@drexel.edu or Mariana Chilton, PhD, MPH, Director, at mariana.chilton@drexel.edu.

A number of outlets have covered Finland’s experiment with basic income on a national level. However, few uncover the reason why Finland can pull off such ambitious policies in an age where so many government are left powerless with even the smallest of changes in the way society works.

The bigger change is buried under the stream of international news regarding the world’s largest basic income trial. With a closer look, one can see that basic income is only a tip of the iceberg. During the past year, Finland has explored possibilities on how to reform some of its policy making functions with and idea to move from speculative to evidence-based and experimental.

Enter experimental politics

So how did Finland become the first country in the world to experiment basic income in a large scale?

Behind the basic income experiment is a longer continuum of Finland wanting to turn national governance agile and human-centric. In the Spring of 2015 Demos Helsinki, a Nordic think tank, together with Aalto University, was leading a strategic research and design project for the Prime Minister’s Office.

As a result of the project, Demos Helsinki proposed a new, quick-to-implement model for including experiments and behavioural approaches into Finnish policy design. The experimentation model and short introduction to it has been translated into English and can be found here.

As Forbes notes, “They’ve been pioneering a form of deciding upon public policy where people actually think through the problems at issue, think about them, consider solutions, test a few of them, then implement the best.”

Would Finland succeed in integrating experiments to its governance, this would present a landmark event in history of policy making. Instead of speculating on the impact of proposed policies – such as basic income and environmental policies – Finland will now experiment, measure, and scale.

“It’s bizarre that the rest of the society works with testing, prototyping and then scaling, but not governance. It makes politics very theoretical, slow, and to rely on guesses as opposed evidence,” explains researcher Mikko Annala of Demos Helsinki. He was part of the team that designed of the experimentation model.

“There’s a lot going on in government innovation right now, with initiatives such as the ‘Nudge unit’ in UK and the Mindlab in Denmark, but they wanted to take this a step further, with large experiments and scaling up to the policy level,” Annala explains. “What the typical government innovations units lack is a feedback loop to policy. That is different with the Design for Government initiative. Now the experiments are designed to scale from the start.”

Finland is taking many steps in order to become the first truly experimental nation in the world.

• First, ministries and municipalities are picking experimental methods. For example, there are over 100 mobility experiments being planned and executed, many of them under the administration ministry of traffic and communications, which plans to turn Finland into a one giant Mobility Laboratory.

• Second, the Prime Minister’s Office is currently investigating how to transform funding so that it can better support different experiments. This investigation is also undertaken by Demos Helsinki.

• Third, Finland is creating new platforms for communicating about experiments: sharing information, know-how, and related practices.

As the first step the Prime Minister’s Office is setting up the an experimentation office to oversee the experiments and scaling.

How Are the experiments done?

The process inspired by design thinking outlined in the report has six distinct steps.

The primary intention of the first phase is to sharpen their understanding of what is already known about the challenges and opportunities associated with the political objective in question, and to establish the ‘unknowns’ and what still needs to be clarified in terms of the steering methods and the related formation.

The next step is an expert workshop, at which a systematic review of the behavioural science literature related to the objective and the best practices is drawn up.

The qualitative stage of the experimental phase involves familiarisation with the theme based on lighter methods. A more widely applicable, precisely measurable verificatory experiment is conducted on the basis of the findings.

The verificatory stage of the experimental phase involves familiarisation with the theme through quantitative factors that enable a causal connection to be identified. Precise measurability is the aim during the experiment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author. They do not necessarily represent the views of Futurism or its affiliates.

It seems that basic income is on the lips of everyone today. From Finland to the Netherlands, Switzerland to Canada, governments and cities have embraced the idea as one worth testing. Although talk of basic income has been around for some time, it seems that now there is a real push, an unwavering drive and motivation to see how the idea could work in practice.

Beyond the hype, however, lie some crucial questions that need to be addressed. With support from all sides of the political spectrum and interest from cities and states all over the world, it is evident that the discussion on basic income is painstakingly broad in scope and variety. What do they even mean when they talk about basic income? Are they all talking about the same thing?

As the following years will undoubtedly be vital stepping stones in the testing and development of one of the most important social innovations of the 21st century, the need to focus on the nuances is growing. While it is unbelievably exhilarating that so many have begun to see basic income as something worth trying, now is not the time to stop. Rather, it is time to start the conversation, to go from abstract to concrete: What kind of basic income are you advocating for and why should it be implemented?

To help start this discussion, they asked some prominent basic income proponents what their answers are. Yes, these are deceptively simple questions and no, they did not deliver them nearly enough room to fully flesh out all the nuances that come along with the deal. Nevertheless, this is a beginning, a spark to the needed public discussion on what a basic income could be and should be.

See the below video for a TedX analysis and overview supporting the topic:

1. Jim Pugh, CEO of ShareProgress (US):

Ultimately, I would like to see a full universal basic income for all American adults, paid each month, at a sufficient level to eliminate poverty in the United States. However, to reach that point, I think it will likely be necessary to first introduce a smaller universal income — still paying out money every month, but not as much as a full basic income.

Once Americans have had a chance to experience this program and appreciate its benefits, and once sufficient funding sources can be identified, they can work to transition to a full basic income in the US.

For me, the main reason to push for basic income is to counter the rising inequality that’s being driven by technological unemployment and underemployment. The nature of work is changing, and they need a new social safety net that’s suited to these changes. Basic income will allow us to gracefully transition to a society where full employment is no longer the expectation.

2. Anthony Painter, Director of Policy and Strategy RSA (UK):

Basic income should be a simple weekly payment to replace all income-related benefits and personal allowances. It will not replace housing, disability or childcare support. They advocate a more progressive tax system to help fund it and boost support for children under the age of five.

Basic income is a wedge of freedom allowing people significantly more choice over the life choices they are able to make in support of their well-being, that of their families, and of their communities. It’s not utopia or a magical solution but it would help all – considerably.

3. Elina Lepomäki, Member of Finnish Parliament, National Coalition Party (FIN)

I support the Life Account -model [a personal welfare account that records the charges paid and benefits received during one’s lifetime]. It flexibly clears away welfare traps during different phases of life for low, middle and high income groups. It puts faith in the individual and the liberty and responsibility of humans to make choices concerning their own finances.

The Life Account would update social security to meet the labor markets of today and the future. Without a comprehensive reform, the public system of transfer payments cannot be financed. In addition, the change would be philosophical: Empowering people to make decisions that concern their own lives, taking care of everyone’s basic security together and helping those who cannot make it on their own even better than today.

4. Kristin Eberhard, Senior Researcher, Sightline Institute (US):

We all own a share in certain aspects of their country and their society, and they all should receive a dividend from these commonly-held resources. Clean air, clean water, a functioning climate, and a productive social system governed by a collective rule of law—these are commonly-held resources that generate dividends, and those dividends should accrue to all of us in the form of a basic income.

Basic income should be implemented because they are all better off with a middle class; because in a rich country, no one should be homeless or hungry; and because the 20th century idea that humans are here to do jobs that earn wages and they only deserve a place in society if they earn enough labor income is outdated. The middle class previously supported itself through labor income, but labor income no longer generates enough. A basic income generated from dividends from commonly-held assets such as a tax on greenhouse gas emissions that pollute their atmosphere gives every member of society a source of non-labor income and recognizes that every person deserves to have a roof over their head and food on the table. It gives us the security to figure out what humans are for in the 21st century.

5. Rutger Bregman, author of the forthcoming book “Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income” (NL):

I see the basic income primarily as a direction of thought. In the ideal form, it is universal, individual and unconditional.

The last bit is the most important for me: they have to make a life without poverty an unconditional right. So the basic income would have to be high enough to pay for your basic needs, but no higher than that (the Swiss proposal, for example, seems rather high to me).

We could do this in many ways – a negative income tax for example could do it as well. But as always: the devil is in the details. How will they finance it for example? I’d like to see a way in which the basic income would diminish inequality.

Nevertheless, it might also be a good idea to start with a smaller basic income of, for example, 500 euros that will be a supplement on top of their current welfare state. [Belgian philosopher] Philippe van Parijs has written about this. As a historian I am not in favor of sudden revolutions. They should take gradual steps and learn along the way (that’s why your experiment [in Finland]  is so exciting!).

There are also good arguments to make the basic income universal. Of course, some people wouldn’t notice much difference: they will get a basic income of, say, a 1.000 euros each month and pay the same amount in additional taxes. But it could be a powerful symbolic move to go this way, because it would weaken the stigma on benefits/social security.

I could say a lot more about this, but let’s just say that the most important thing for me is the unconditionality of the basic income. It’s the opposite of workfare.

I could deliver many reasons [for implementing basic income], but let me deliver my 3 most important reasons (read my forthcoming book for further support).

1. The basic income will deliver people true freedom. They have all kinds of freedoms in the West, but they are either negative (freedom of thought, religion etc.) or conditional (you’ll get social security, but only if you fill in this form, do that work, try to find this or that job, etc etc. – I’m referring to workfare here).

The basic income will deliver all us real freedom. The freedom to say, for example, no to a job that you don’t like or consider meaningless. This is actually a huge problem: a poll in the UK found that 37% of English workers consider their job to be ‘bullshit’.

The basic income will deliver people the freedom to decide for themselves what they want to make of their lives. This is the most fundamental argument in favor of a basic income, and it all revolves around what image you have of human nature. I think almost all humans are fundamentally creative beings that have a very big intrinsic motivation (this is not some ideological idea for me, there’s actually a lot of evidence).

2. The basic income would, finally, eradicate poverty. They should have done this long ago in their rich countries. Moreover: poverty is extremely expensive. In my forthcoming book I document how combating poverty through direct cash transfers is actually an investment that pays for itself.

3. The system of social security they have now is much better than nothing. But it is still, in many ways, broken. It is extremely bureaucratic, expensive, humiliating and in some cases even ineffective. Some studies show that the job training courses you’re forced to take in The Netherlands actually lengthen your unemployment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author. They do not necessarily represent the views of Futurism or its affiliates.

In previous eras, employee reward programs went by a different name: annual bonuses. While money still motivates, today’s programs are more creative and reflective of an organization’s unique culture.

Companies like Samsung, Westin and Intuit use diverse approaches to incentivize innovation from their employees. From financial or experiential rewards to public recognition, your own incentive program should reflect your org’s culture and serve your business goals — while offering employees an array of aspirational carrots.

To design an incentive program that motivates people for the entirety of the innovation process — not just the beginning or end — borrow a framework known as Incentivize Employees to Innovate.

Start by thinking about your innovation process as three distinct phases: Inputs, Development and Outputs. Different skills and behaviors are needed during each phase as are different kinds of incentives.

For illustration, let’s explore the first phase: Innovation Inputs. During this phase, you’ll need to generate a wide range of innovative ideas so it’s essential to include a diverse group of participants. trial invitees might be the sales team, mid-level staff, frontline employees, and senior management.

From those participants, you’ll also want to incentivize behaviors that enhance idea generation. These could include creativity, open-mindedness, curiosity, as well as the ability to communicate visually. (Being able to sketch an idea that doesn’t yet exist can be really valuable at this stage of the innovation game.)

Now that you’re familiar with the key skills and behaviors for the Input phase, let’s outline proven ways to incentivize those behaviors from employees.

The first reward tactic is experiential, which is epitomized by Westin Hotels. The hotelier has been known to award an exotic, five-day trip to the employee with the quarter’s best idea. While this award is on-brand for Westin, consider awarding extra vacation days or restaurant gift cards if vacation packages aren’t financially possible for your business.

Another incentive approach is financial. This can translate to on-the-spot bonuses for great ideas or other creative compensation. Samsung, for example, has financially rewarded employees who submit patent applications on its behalf — as well as team members who apply the new technologies to its products. Volkswagen pays employees between 10% and 50% of the value of an idea, depending on how big or small it is.

The last incentive category is recognition. This approach has been embraced by household names like Intuit. Every year, the software giant hosts a company-wide award ceremony at which the Failure Award is bestowed on a team whose unsuccessful idea resulted in valuable learning. Also on the recognition train is Hewlett Packard, which hands out the Golden Banana award to its most innovative employees.

All these examples illustrate the variety of incentives that companies use to reward innovative ideas and behaviors. And be sure to huddle with your HR or PR team on the best way to communicate the program company-wide.

Newfoundland and Labrador recently announced plans to introduce a basic income for people aged 60-64 receiving social assistance. It is slated to roll out in April 2024 and will match existing federal seniors' benefits.

On Prince Edward Island, a exact report has outlined how the province could reduce poverty by adopting a basic income. Meanwhile, in Ottawa, the Senate is considering developing a framework for a national basic income. Momentum behind a basic income is clearly growing in Canada.

Still, some remain skeptical and reservations about basic income often come down to ideas about who truly deserves assistance.

Treating poverty as an individual problem

There are largely three explanations for poverty. First, the individual explanation points to personal failings or inadequacies (like laziness or lack of discipline) as key contributors.

Second, the structural or systemic explanation considers the societal barriers that cause poverty: the lack of quality jobs, inequality, climate disruptions and economic and health crises, among other issues.

Third, the fatalistic explanation suggests that how people fare in life really chalks up to fate (hence the "less fortunate" label), bad luck causes unfortunate events, like illness or loss, that trigger poverty.

Of these, the second has the greatest weight—the causes of poverty are systemic.

Canada's social welfare architecture is modeled after the British and built on 16th-century poor law ideas. This legacy taught us to believe that poverty is a personal responsibility, with the onus on individuals to lift themselves out of it through discipline and hard work. Public assistance was purposefully designed to be punitive and stigmatizing so that people avoided it at all costs.

The poor were divided into two camps: the deserving poor (the infirm, elderly or disabled) were provided assistance at home, whereas the "able-bodied" undeserving poor were provided food and lodging in exchange for work in grueling workhouses, supposedly meant to instill a work ethic.

Following two World Wars and a depression, though, society began to appreciate that people could become "poor" through no fault of their own and that an active government response was needed to foster a healthy and prosperous society.

In the 1950s to 1970s, Canada introduced various income security programs. By the '70s and '80s, however, some became worried about too much government spending, and they reverted to the old ways of thinking about poverty again.

Myths about poverty

My research focuses on understanding the causes of poverty and debunking myths about why people become and remain "poor."

New ideas don't always "sweep away the old" and myths about poverty linger, such as:

Myth 1: Poverty stems from individual problems.

Reality: Systemic barriers carry more weight in engendering poverty than individual factors. The cost of living crisis in Canada is being driven by inadequate income support programs, unaffordable housing and the lack of quality employment.

Myth 2: Poor people are lazy, unmotivated and need incentives to work.

Reality: People in poverty are working hard (often in multiple jobs) but aren't getting any further ahead. It's not a matter of inadequate motivation, but a fundamental lack of gainful work opportunities—jobs that pay wages people can live on and possibly raise families on.

Myth 3: Poor people are all mentally ill and drug-addicted.

Reality: Addictions are not "the sole property of the poor," rather they traverse all socioeconomic levels. Poverty does create immense worries for those subjected to it, but research shows mental health and substance use issues Excellerate through interventions, like basic income, that alleviate poverty. Poor environments (often featuring trauma and childhood adversity) generate mental illness and addictions; enriching environments diminish them.

Myth 4: Poor people are criminals and prone to violence.

Reality: Criminal behavior and violence are not confined to people within a specific category or class, although the consequences of criminal behavior can often differ. Wealthy people can afford high-powered lawyers who help them avoid prosecution and punishment. White-collar crime often receives little to no punishment.

Meanwhile, low-income neighborhoods are regularly subjected to surveillance and heightened police presence. And racism (both systemic and overt) has led to the over-representation of marginalized people in the criminal justice system.

Myth 5: Poor people have different morals and values; they're different from me.

Reality: Assumptions of dubious morality again play into narratives of poverty being about individual problems, and exonerate the economic and political structures that reproduce poverty. Almost everyone (even the richest among us) affiliate with the "middle class" and its ideals. Differences among people have much more to do with access to power and resources, not morals and values.

Myth 6: Poor people just need to be more resilient.

Reality: Focusing on individual resilience suggests it is people who must be the ones to adapt and change, not the conditions they're exposed to. Individual characteristics like emotional intelligence explain a measure of resiliency, but researchers are now embracing a contextual understanding of resilience that acknowledges how social structures often determine how resilient they can be. Supportive environments that provide access to resources and opportunities are more likely to produce resilient populations.

Myth 7: Ending poverty isn't affordable, and people can rely on charity.

Reality: The system we've opted for now is hugely expensive. They pay dearly to address poverty's symptoms, not its causes, and do so ineffectively.

Cash transfers to individuals have great health and social benefits that can reduce the exorbitant costs of poverty. And charity just won't cut it—people never get out of poverty by using charitable programs, and there is a loss of dignity for those who use them.

These myths are incredibly damaging and hinder us from advancing policy solutions proven to work. Cash-transfer programs, like basic income, have a solid evidence base, showing they're effective.

People don't suddenly drop out of the workforce when they receive a basic income, nor are such programs too expensive to implement. They should be taxing super-rich corporations and individuals more to curb income inequality, known to be deadly for society.

Let's discard outdated thinking. Like Newfoundland and Labrador, the rest of Canada needs a basic income to help people cope with the cost of living crisis. Unlike misleading myths, the anguish of poverty is real.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

With research showing cyber threats aren’t improving, campuses must implement solutions to get their networks back up and running quickly.

Newfoundland and Labrador recently announced plans to introduce a basic income for people aged 60-64 receiving social assistance. It is slated to roll out in April 2024 and will match existing federal seniors’ benefits.

On Prince Edward Island, a exact report has outlined how the province could reduce poverty by adopting a basic income. Meanwhile in Ottawa, the Senate is considering developing a framework for a national basic income. Momentum behind a basic income is clearly growing in Canada.

Still, some remain skeptical and reservations about basic income often come down to ideas about who truly deserves assistance.

Treating poverty as an individual problem

There are largely three explanations for poverty. First, the individual explanation points to personal failings or inadequacies (like laziness or lack of discipline) as key contributors.

Second, the structural or systemic explanation considers the societal barriers that cause poverty: the lack of quality jobs, inequality, climate disruptions and economic and health crises, among other issues.

Third, the fatalistic explanation suggests that how people fare in life really chalks up to fate (hence the “less fortunate” label), bad luck causes unfortunate events, like illness or loss, that trigger poverty.

Of these, the second has the greatest weight — the causes of poverty are systemic.

Canada’s social welfare architecture is modelled after the British and built on 16th-century poor law ideas. This legacy taught us to believe that poverty is a personal responsibility, with the onus on individuals to lift themselves out of it through discipline and hard work. Public assistance was purposefully designed to be punitive and stigmatizing so that people avoided it at all costs.

The poor were divided into two camps: the deserving poor (the infirm, elderly or disabled) were provided assistance at home, whereas the “able-bodied” undeserving poor were provided food and lodging in exchange for work in gruelling workhouses, supposedly meant to instil a work ethic.

Story continues

Following two World Wars and a depression, though, society began to appreciate that people could become “poor” through no fault of their own and that an active government response was needed to foster a healthy and prosperous society.

In the 1950s to 1970s, Canada introduced various income security programs. By the ‘70s and '80s, however, some became worried about too much government spending and they reverted to the old ways of thinking about poverty again.

Myths about poverty

My research focuses on understanding the causes of poverty and debunking myths about why people become and remain “poor.”

New ideas don’t always “sweep away the old” and myths about poverty linger, such as:

Myth 1: Poverty stems from individual problems.

Reality: Systemic barriers carry more weight in engendering poverty than individual factors. The cost of living crisis in Canada is being driven by inadequate income support programs, unaffordable housing and the lack of quality employment.

Myth 2: Poor people are lazy, unmotivated and need incentives to work.

Reality: People in poverty are working hard (often in multiple jobs) but aren’t getting any further ahead. It’s not a matter of inadequate motivation, but a fundamental lack of gainful work opportunities — jobs that pay wages people can live on and possibly raise families on.

Myth 3: Poor people are all mentally ill and drug-addicted.

Reality: Addictions are not “the sole property of the poor,” rather they traverse all socioeconomic levels. Poverty does create immense worries for those subjected to it, but research shows mental health and substance use issues Excellerate through interventions, like basic income, that alleviate poverty. Poor environments (often featuring trauma and childhood adversity) generate mental illness and addictions; enriching environments diminish them.

Myth 4: Poor people are criminals and prone to violence.

Reality: Criminal behaviour and violence are not confined to people within a specific category or class, although the consequences of criminal behaviour can often differ. Wealthy people can afford high-powered lawyers who help them avoid prosecution and punishment. White-collar crime often receives little to no punishment.

Meanwhile, low-income neighbourhoods are regularly subjected to surveillance and heightened police presence. And racism (both systemic and overt) has led to the over-representation of marginalized people in the criminal justice system.

Read more: Equitable sentencing can mitigate anti-Black racism in Canada's justice system

Myth 5: Poor people have different morals and values; they’re different from me.

Reality: Assumptions of dubious morality again play into narratives of poverty being about individual problems, and exonerate the economic and political structures that reproduce poverty. Almost everyone (even the richest among us) affiliate with the “middle class” and its ideals. Differences among people have much more to do with access to power and resources, not morals and values.

Myth 6: Poor people just need to be more resilient.

Reality: Focusing on individual resilience suggests it is people who must be the ones to adapt and change, not the conditions they’re exposed to. Individual characteristics like emotional intelligence explain a measure of resiliency, but researchers are now embracing a contextual understanding of resilience that acknowledges how social structures often determine how resilient they can be. Supportive environments that provide access to resources and opportunities are more likely to produce resilient populations.

Myth 7: Ending poverty isn’t affordable, and people can rely on charity.

Reality: The system we’ve opted for now is hugely expensive. They pay dearly to address poverty’s symptoms, not its causes, and do so ineffectively.

Cash transfers to individuals have great health and social benefits that can reduce the exorbitant costs of poverty. And charity just won’t cut it — people never get out of poverty by using charitable programs and there is a loss of dignity for those who use them.

These myths are incredibly damaging and hinder us from advancing policy solutions proven to work. Cash-transfer programs, like basic income, have a solid evidence base, showing they’re effective.

People don’t suddenly drop out of the workforce when they receive a basic income, nor are such programs too expensive to implement. They should be taxing super-rich corporations and individuals more to curb income inequality, known to be deadly for society.

Let’s discard outdated thinking. Like Newfoundland and Labrador, the rest of Canada needs a basic income to help people cope with the cost of living crisis. Unlike misleading myths, the anguish of poverty is real.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and analysis to help you make sense of their complex world.

It was written by: Tracy Smith-Carrier, Royal Roads University.

Read more:

Tracy Smith-Carrier receives funding through the Canada Research Chairs program. Funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Connections Grant, she is co-organizing the BIG (Basic Income Guarantee) Forum in Ottawa from May 23-26, 2024. Tracy chairs the National Strategic Planning Committee to Advance a Basic Income Guarantee.