修车大队

In this time of great political anxiety and confusion, it can be hard to see a path forward for ambitious progressive programs like basic income, also referred to as (UBI) or . The past few years have seen a wave of hopeful city-led and philanthropic in which thousands of families across the United States received a regular income with no strings attached.

There were also government stimulus checks and the expanded child tax credit that slashed poverty by and supported many families through the COVID-19 pandemic鈥檚 economic crisis. It seemed as though we were beginning to adopt a new paradigm for assistance centered on efficiency, trust, and dignity.

But, as the political landscape is moving to the right faster than ever, could all that progress be lost? Basic income experiments are now facing from several states legislating against the visionary idea of granting individuals cash with no strings attached. And, as the Trump administration pledges to dismantle social programs and make life harder for those on welfare and those who don鈥檛 earn an income, it may seem like our window has passed to advocate for the right to a financial floor independent of work. 

However, giving up on the idea of a world where our intrinsic value is detached from our productivity would be a mistake. Basic income is meant to address the very economic insecurity and anxiety that helped fuel conservative populism.

Making a forceful case for a cash program that would benefit the vast majority of American residents is now more crucial than ever. New data from OpenResearch鈥檚 cash transfer program, the most comprehensive undertaken in this country, suggests basic income may even . 

It is time to consider a bold paradigm shift. In the philosophy world, we might call this 鈥渘ormative change鈥濃�攁n opportunity to change not just how we deliver social protection, but also what we think we owe each other. 

, which provided $1,000 monthly payments to 2,400 artists across New York State for 18 months, recently released findings from its . The research revealed significant benefits of guaranteed income on artists鈥� financial stability, creative output, and overall well-being. Key findings include a 19% increase in time spent on arts-related labor, improved work-life balance for 75% of caregiving artists, a 19% reduction in food insecurity, and a 29% reduction in severe anxiety and depression.听

The study, conducted by a multidisciplinary team of researchers, underscores the transformative potential of cash transfer programs for artists, addressing systemic inequities and enabling creative workers to focus on their craft. These findings make a compelling case for investing in artists as essential workers, supporting both their financial needs and creative contributions to cultural and economic ecosystems.

Artists are often pillars of their community. They work hard, like most people, and contribute . They also contribute to the well-being of our communities: embellishing our spaces, enriching the lives of children, preserving old cultures, and helping new ones emerge. They lift us when we are down and ensure we remain uplifted. When we strengthen them economically, we strengthen everyone. 

There can be a tendency in progressive movements to present basic income almost defensively, as a program that will not reduce employment hours or result in labor market withdrawal on the part of recipients. That鈥檚 understandable, and it is true: Research on cash programs has generated that people will withdraw from the labor market en masse if they get unconditional cash. In fact, it鈥檚 often .听

But UBI shouldn鈥檛 be considered a good idea only if it results in no changes to our current labor market participation. It is a good idea, whether it stimulates productivity or not. Basic income was always about reassessing the centrality we place on paid employment to make ends meet. At the origin of basic income was the powerful idea that we should stop viewing the right to an income exclusively through the lens of productivity and embrace instead our universal dignity鈥攚hat , who advocated for a universal right to welfare, called 鈥渢he right to life itself.鈥澛�

Artists are used to being berated about their impractical and financially irresponsible aspirations, often being told 鈥渢o get a real job.鈥� This approach to artists is insulting and based on false representations given that  

Nonetheless, such representations make artists the 鈥渉ard case鈥� for basic income. And so, to convince people that we need a guaranteed income floor, it can feel easier to start with non-artists. That鈥檚 why, in public discourse, the figure of the 鈥渨orking poor鈥� is so central. 

But this is precisely why we need to make the case for a guaranteed income for artists. If we can agree that even artists deserve unconditional cash, we will have won the moral case for everyone else too.听

Why haven鈥檛 we invested more dollars in national cash programs given that research shows it is a simple and effective antidote? This is partly thanks to our puritanical obsession with paid labor. It鈥檚 also because of the conservative argument that providing a modicum of support for artists, friends, and neighbors will lead to a plague of laziness. 

It鈥檚 time to reject the insulting and damaging myth (often gendered and racialized) that low-income families are unmotivated layabouts. We need to establish an unconditional right to an income to help us build a more humane society where no one is relegated to a life of poverty and no one has to grow up with the looming threat that they could one day be left with nothing to survive.

This normative change would be beneficial for more than economic emancipation. With our productivist paradigm comes that of competition: competition for jobs, for resources, for status, for esteem. This is unleashing a politics of envy and resentment: for the welfare recipients, for the non-white applicants who get spots at elite colleges through DEI efforts, for immigrants who come to the U.S. for better prospects.

This logic of competition and scarcity mindset is driving us into a downward spiral and, perhaps most importantly, it is teaching our next generation that value in life comes from being better or having more than others. There is little room for dignity, solidarity, trust, and human flourishing, and this is underserving all of us. Guaranteeing everyone鈥檚 right to a modest income independent of labor will not change everything, but it can help us make room in our society for these alternative sources of value.