Universal/Guaranteed Basic Income

Description and History

Universal basic income, or UBI, is a no-strings-attached cash payment given to all individuals by the government on a monthly or annual basis. According to Stanford University’s Basic Income Lab, UBI is 

  • universal: It is paid to every individual and not targeted to a specific population

  • unconditional: It involves no set conditions or sanctions and is given to those who are both employed and unemployed, voluntarily or not 

  • a cash payment: It is paid in cash, which allows recipients to convert their benefits however they choose

  • individual: It is paid on an individual basis (versus household-based); and 

  • periodic: It is a recurring payment rather than a one-off grant (2024). 

Guaranteed basic income, on the other hand, takes into account an individual’s socioeconomic status and is intended to redistribute wealth—public or private—to communities who have been historically excluded from financial opportunity (Arlington Community Foundation 2024). 

UBI has a long history, dating back to ancient Greece (Widerquist 2024), but finds its modern-day linkages with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision for economic justice (Foster 2023).

In response to the increasing automation of work (Reich 2016; Ford 2019), rising economic inequality largely due to insufficient wages and inadequate public assistance programs (Kujawski et al. 2021), and continued disinvestment and discrimination in low-income communities of color (Economic Security Project 2024), interest in and advocacy for UBI and UBS has proliferated in the past two decades. One of the most popular advocates for UBI was Andrew Yang, who ran for President in 2020 on a platform rooted in a “Freedom Dividend”. 

Universal Basic Income, Fair Work, and the Community Wealth Building Wedge 

UBI is intended to be an anti-poverty measure (Hasdell 2020), raising the income floor (Widerquist 2024) so that Americans are not as bogged down with basic day-to-day expenses. In one analysis of aggregated spending data across 31 guaranteed income pilot programs across the United States, program participants spent more than a third on food and groceries, transport, housing/utilities, healthcare, and education (2024). Beyond giving families some breathing room, UBI pilots have also shown improvements in health and overall quality of life (Hasdell et al 2021; Kujawski et al. 2021; Steward and Banks 2022). 

The spillover effects of UBI programs are also notable. Despite popular criticism, pilot programs have been shown to increase employment and entrepreneurship (Kujawski et al. 2021; Steward and Banks 2022; Lee and Neighly 2023; Rojo 2023). In one study examining the federal government’s $931 billion fiscal response to the pandemic, researchers found that “several workers…leveraged

guaranteed income and/or the expanded Child Tax Credit to start their own businesses, allowing them to have greater agency over their work” (Lee and Neighly 2023). 

UBI programs also have the potential to advance fair work because workers—who are no longer as reliant on poor quality jobs and low-road employers—have more bargaining power to advocate for better working conditions (Steward and Banks 2022; Lee and Neighly 2023). Unrestricted cash payments also enable those who participate in unpaid care work—largely women of color—to engage in this critical labor without worrying about working for wages (Kujawski et al. 2021; Shah and Neighly 2022). 

Examples

Tacoma, WA 

One example of a mayor-led guaranteed income program is Growing Resilience In Tacoma, or GRIT. Over 13 months, GRIT gave 110 Tacoma Asset Limited, Income Constrained while Employed, or ALICE, families $500 a month, a total of $715,000, no strings attached. The majority of family members were women and people of color (United Way of Pierce County 2024). Financed by private, philanthropic, and public dollars, GRIT was possible thanks to the leadership and advocacy of Mayor Victoria Woodards, a founding member of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income (MGI) (Lee 2023). At the end of the program, participants reported that they were able to keep their heads above water financially, which provided much-needed stress relief (Lee 2023; Blake 2024).  
Magnolia Mother’s Trust

Philanthropy can also finance UBI programs. The Magnolia Mother’s Trust—now in its fifth year—is one such initiative in Jackson, Mississippi. Funded by Springboard To Opportunities, the Trust provides low-income, Black mothers in the city $1,000 each month for 12 months along with a $1,000 deposit in a 529 savings account for each child. This two-generational approach which began with 20 women has now extended to over 100 women in Jackson (Springboard to Opportunities n.d.), “increasing the number of participants preparing three meals per day for their families, as well as increasing the number of recipients who could pay all their bills without additional support” (Kujawski et al. 2021). 

New Mexico Guaranteed Income Pilot Program for Immigrant Families 

In response to the pandemic The New Mexico Economic Relief Working Group (ERWG) and UpTogether, a community-based organization, designed and implemented an 18-month guaranteed income pilot program to support low-income, mixed-status families and workers in New Mexico who were traditionally excluded from social assistance programming. Using local and state government dollars, $35 million in cash transfers were distributed to more than 30,000 households in the state. The program resulted in increased job security, housing security, and better educational outcomes for children (Rojo 2023). 

Challenges & Limitations

While place-based, guaranteed income programs have gotten some traction over the past two decades, there is still considerable debate over the morality and efficacy of federal, universal basic income program. According to one report from the Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans oppose UBI (Gilberstadt 2020), many of them citing that it will encourage people to leave the labor force and/or unfairly benefit the wealthy (Ward 2021). However, many UBI advocates and support organizations are advancing critical narrative work to change the hearts and minds of American people (Bhattacharya et al. 2021). Additionally, that same report states that support for UBI among young people (i.e. those under 30) and people of color is, in fact, high (Gilberstadt 2020) and has continued to increase since the pandemic (Lake Research Partners and Chesapeake Beach Consulting 2024). It is important to note here that UBI/GBI is not a stand in for social services. This argument, often propagated by conservative movement leaders seeking to cut funding for social safety nets, is misguided: “income transfers are just as important and require reform, but not at the expense of collectively provided in-kind benefits” (Gough 2021). 

Next, much of the research that exists today is evaluating the success of hyperlocal pilot programs.  The last time UBI was experimented by the federal government was back in the 1970s to varying degrees of success (Matthews 2014).

Finally, the biggest question that remains to be answered is how a UBI program might be capitalized. As demonstrated in the examples above, local efforts require an amalgam of dollars: public, corporate, philanthropic, social wealth funds (Jones and Marinescu 2018), etc. Modern day proponents have suggested financing using the profits of “labor-replacing innovations” (Reich 2016) or a “Value-Added Tax” (Yang 2020 n.d.)

Taking It Forward

Though UBI and GBI initiatives require coalition-building, local elected officials and funders are best positioned to spearhead and scale these programs. The Basic Income Lab at Stanford University, the Jain Family Institute, and the Economics Security Project each have actionable toolkits for elected leaders, including principles for UBI programs, pilot messaging, and structural details for implementation. Mayors for a Guaranteed Income and Counties for a Guaranteed Income provide leaders a community of support and practice. The Economics Security Project also has a toolkit for funders, that encourages philanthropic entities to support both the reform and expansion of existing cash-based government policies.

In order for these initiatives to be truly impactful for all Americans, however, we do need to move beyond hyperlocal pilot projects to much broader application at the municipal, state, and federal levels. Further, these programs must be part of a broader ecosystem of social supports and redistributive efforts. 

Additional Resources