news
Skipping the Basics
OREGON HAS A CONSIDERABLE LOW INCOME AND UNHOUSED
POPULATION, SO WHY ISN’T IT EXPERIMENTING WITH UNIVERSAL
BASIC INCOME PILOT PROGRAMS LIKE THE REST OF THE U.S.?
By Shane Hoffmann
T
he idea of government-financed univer-
sal basic income (UBI) and guaranteed
incomes (GI) programs is gaining popu-
larity across the nation.
Recently popularized by Andrew
Yang’s 2020 presidential campaign,
magnified through the financial turmoil
of the COVID-19 pandemic and led in large part by Mayors
for Guaranteed Income (MGI) — an organization hoping
to sift out what sectors of the population guaranteed
income works best for — a series of trials and start-ups
are underway.
Programs have turned up in more than a dozen states
around the nation, accounting for 62 total start-ups. The
West Coast accounts for a third of the trials with 18 in
California and two in Washington. But Oregon, a state
filled with pockets of the unhoused or low-income popu-
lation like Eugene, which seemingly fits the UBI billing
perfectly, has yet to make a move towards one of these
programs. The state’s hesitancy provides a deeper look
into the trepidation of many Americans.
“It’s a little bit the cart before the horse,” Eugene Mayor
Lucy Vinis tells Eugene Weekly. “We’re really not ready
for this. I don’t think it’s the battle to fight.”
Oregon could just be late to the party, but the state’s
lack of programs speaks to the greater drawbacks of UBI
and illustrates why a true citywide program has yet to
come to fruition, even if targeted basic income programs
could serve as an outlet to simplify welfare infrastructure
in the near future.
The idea of a basic income in its elegance and simplic-
ity has caught the eye of many, but remains riddled with
skepticism.
Basic income programs, as well as guaranteed income
programs are financial pick-me-ups. They have the propen-
sity to assist individuals in avoiding a compounding
economic downfall.
They are a federal gift of sorts, designed to lift people
off the ground and provide a floor. The programs aren’t
a substitute for a full-time job, but rather a fund for
basic necessities: money for a new set of clothes for a
job interview; money to fix the broken down car inhibit-
ing local transportation; money to pay off the utilities
bill for the month, freeing up grocery funds in a tight
financial month.
“I'm interested in any system or systemic changes that
allow people to control their own destiny in an effective
and successful way,” Vinis says. “Not just surviving in
poverty, but actually some prospect of thriving.”
UBI as a theory entails a set sum of money going to
each and every individual, no matter income or place
of residence. A monthly check, large enough to cover
basic needs.
Guaranteed income on the other hand is not univer-
sal, rather meant to be tied to income. If you are below a
certain income threshold, you'll be funded.
“Poverty is destabilizing to the point where it’s difficult
to apply for a job, get to a job, sustain a job,” says Janet
Bauer, a senior policy analyst at the Oregon Center for
Public Policy.
Cash injections during the pandemic showcased the
seeds of potential UBI expansion in the future. As low-
wage jobs make living harder, the labor market must
adjust. UBI could help account for that deficit.
“I certainly see [guaranteed income policies] as having
a lot of promise for addressing the dysfunctions of the
way our current labor market works and who has access
to jobs,” Bauer says.
That stabilizing potential could work well in a city like
Eugene, potentially helping meet the needs of the unhoused
community. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 20.4
percent of Eugene’s population lived in poverty in 2019.
Yet it’s in that hypothetical installation where the
drawbacks introduce themselves.
Mike Kuhn, an associate professor at the University
of Oregon Department of Economics, identified three
potential — and frequently mentioned — drawbacks of a
proposed UBI program and possible reasons for its lack of
presence in Oregon: negative employment effects, fund-
ing a potential program and ensuring the money reaches
the demographics who stand to gain the most.
Kuhn says he believes it’s the final drawback that
merits the most attention as a significant juncture and
could inhibit more widespread programs in the future.
The government has illustrated that getting money
to those with bank accounts or permanent addresses
is feasible via pandemic unemployment and stimulus
checks. What happens when you have neither? It’s one
of the biggest pitfalls when imagining a truly functional
guaranteed income plan in a city such as Eugene, whose
unhoused rates are among the nation’s highest.
“It certainly could happen in Eugene but of course
it’s a matter of political will and parity,” Bauer says. “But
I think that Eugene seems like it has some potential to
have that conversation. It has every reason.”
The “universal” tagline has led to consternation itself.
UBI isn’t a universal “extra” or “bonus” income. Individu-
als taking part would also chip in more in taxes.
“The history of policy in the U.S. is to try to target
the money in advance,” says Conrad Shaw, a UBI writer,
researcher and co-creator of a docu-series titled Bootstraps
that looks at a UBI pilot program, which will be released
soon. “We want to make sure they deserve it first. What
that leads to is this whole bureaucratic nightmare where
people have to stand in line and jump through hoops and
what that ends up with is people with welfare don’t get it.”
He adds: “We’re asking people to jump through hoops
when they’re desperate. Why not hand out the money
first and claw it back from the people who didn’t need it?”
Shaw, a staunch believer that UBI could in fact be our
nation’s future, is employing the many hesitancies as an
opportunity to inform and educate on both basic and guar-
anteed income programs as well as financial literacy itself.
He wants people to know what they are talking about,
to know what these programs would mean for them, and
to know their options and the economic levers at their
disposal, empowering individuals to begin making their
own judgements about what’s politically feasible.
A UBI calculator developed with Eugene-based Twenty
Ideas CEO Mike Biglan could be one way to educate the
public. The free website allows users to compare and
contrast UBI plans proposed by different individuals and
groups, learn how each would affect themselves and other
Americans and dive into the intricacies of how each is funded.
The calculator is an educational tool for those wishing
to learn more about the policy, although Shaw recognizes
that the hypothetical models can only go so far.
“It has to be experienced by a lot of people,” Shaw says
of UBI/GI programs. “It can’t just be something where we
point to data. It has to be something that people have felt.”
That’s what Mayors for Guaranteed Income is trying
to solve. Its expansive network of start-ups, both past
and present, is helping answer the question of who these
programs work best for, and in what ways.
The group’s executive director, Sukhi Samra, says that
the next 12 months will be crucial as the organization uses
data and results to start pushing towards a more perma-
nent policy at the state or nation-wide level.
Like many others, she cited budgetary logistics as the
chief roadblock. “The kind of political fight that would
rise around it would be pretty substantial,” Kuhn says.
That could explain Oregon’s lack of a roll-out. How
would it function? What would a roll-out look like? What
sector of society gets the nod? Many people don’t have
bank accounts, so could it work on credit cards? Checks?
Perhaps infrastructure is the starting point.
“A part of me wonders if guaranteed income is the
starting point,” Vinis says. “Because I just don’t think
these other pieces are in place. I’m just not convinced,
but that’s to study, to learn and to see.”
Hesitancy clouds the potential of a true, genuine UBI
program both locally and abroad. Politically, many view it
as a non-starter. Not necessarily as simple as the version
displayed on paper. But if the COVID-19 pandemic has
shown anything, it’s that welfare programs can be effec-
tive when executed correctly and equitably, entrusting
citizens with the kind of agency that can calm fears of
wasted money and laziness.
These programs may warrant a gamble. ■
For more information, check out MayorsforAGI.org and UBICalculator.com.
This story was developed as part of the Catalyst Journalism Project at the
University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication. Catalyst
brings together investigative reporting and solutions journalism to spark
action and response to Oregon’s most perplexing issues. To learn more
visit Journalism.UOregon.edu/Catalyst or follow the project on Twitter @
UO_catalyst.
Support
Local and Vocal
Journalism
S U P P O R T . E U G E N E W E E K L Y . C O M
E U G E N E W E E K LY . C O M
J A N U A R Y
1 3 ,
2 0 2 2
5