What would people in poverty think of Chris Hughes’ new book Fair Shot?
By Janet Nelson, Vice President, International Movement ATD Fourth World
On February 25th, the New York Times ran a book review under the title “Chris Hughes Made Millions at Facebook. Now He Has a Plan to End Poverty.” The title is provocative, and as I read the review, I understood why the implied criticism.
The book by Hughes is entitled FAIR SHOT: Rethinking Inequality and How We Earn. To his credit, Hughes is aware of the fact that in the US today, a few people have more money than they know what to do with, while millions of others live in poverty. I have not read the book, but according to the reviewer, because of his interest in philanthropy, Hughes visited a project in Africa that provides unconditional cash grants to people living on less than a dollar a day. The positive results evidently convinced Hughes that the best way to combat the growing inequality in the USA is to become involved in the campaign for a universal basic income. He therefore argues for giving “a monthly $500 check to (nearly) all adults living in one of the 42 million households making less than $50,000 per year.” He also founded the Economic Security Project, a nonprofit devoted to using cash transfers to end poverty.
But in the reviewer’s eyes, there is a major flaw in Hughes’ plan: it is not a universal basic income, because it is restricted to those who are working. In the reviewer’s words, “Those who live at the very bottom of the income spectrum would have to continue to rely on America’s overstretched social safety net, which, in all too many cases, pays them little or nothing.” His conclusion is that in fact, Hughes’ proposal is deeply unfair for the very poorest.
But what do the poorest themselves think about the idea of a universal basic income? Four sessions of Fourth World People’s Universities (where people living in extreme poverty meet with experts on a particular topic) in France were devoted to the concept. In addition, participants from Belgium, France, Ireland, Netherlands, and Spain met in December 2016 around the idea of a guaranteed right to the means necessary to live decently.
Interestingly, the reaction was not wild enthusiasm. The idea was welcomed as providing some clear advantages, but also some dangers. A universal basic income would reduce the stigmatization associated with ‘being on welfare.’ It would provide a certain level of economic security, on which people could build through a job or other initiatives. They would have greater freedom to plan their lives. However, on the other hand, with a universal basic income, they were afraid they would be told, “Now, with the basic income, you have some money, we don’t want to hear from you anymore.”
And so a basic income would provide an income, but it would not allow for insertion into society, the recognition and the self-realization that people seek and often obtain through work. Furthermore, it would not solve the problems of lack of access to decent housing, education, or health care. To truly eradicate extreme poverty, a minimum income would have to be integrated into a comprehensive strategy that would address those issues as well. And that strategy would have to be designed, implemented and evaluated with those most concerned in order to be effective, rather than being shaped by the negative stereotypes that all too often are attached to people living in extreme poverty.
Those who would like to read the review can find it at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/books/review/chris-hughes-fair-shot.html
