vox--2020-10-19--Nancy Pelosi sets a deadline this week for getting a stimulus deal before the election

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday set a tight timeline for getting a new stimulus deal done before the election : about 48 hours .
During an appearance on ABC ’ s This Week on Sunday , Pelosi suggested there likely won ’ t be time to pass a new package before November 3 if lawmakers don ’ t reach an agreement by Tuesday .
“ The 48 [ hours ] only relates to if we want to get it done before the election , which we do , ” she said .
( Her office later clarified to CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Tuesday . )
Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have been negotiating over a new stimulus package since the summer , but the effort has been stymied by disagreements over provisions on state and local funding , as well as Republican pushback over the scope of spending .
Their talks were also briefly derailed by President Donald Trump , who in early October announced the White House was ending negotiations , before changing course and demanding the parties proceed quickly .
Drew Hammill , Pelosi ’ s deputy chief of staff , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ array of additional differences ” between what Democrats want and what Mnuchin has offered , which would need to be worked out in the next two days .
Pelosi noted Sunday , for example , that language over funds for coronavirus testing was an ongoing sticking point .
Whether the Tuesday deadline helps spur some much-needed progress , however , is an open question .
As House Democrats negotiate with the White House , Senate Republicans , it seems , are on a parallel track .
Even as Pelosi and Mnuchin continue talks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent White House proposal suggesting a bill worth $ 1.8 trillion — Senate Republicans have been adamant that any stimulus be much smaller .
On Saturday , Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced the Senate would vote on a narrower $ 500 billion bill this week .
The new bill is a reminder that even if Pelosi and Mnuchin reach an agreement , there ’ s a great deal of uncertainty around whether Senate Republicans would support it , particularly given concerns many GOP lawmakers have expressed about adding to the national debt .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m going to put on the floor , ” McConnell previously said of the recent $ 1.8 trillion White House offer .
The new Senate bill , however , isn ’ t expected to get the Democratic votes it needs in either the House or the upper chamber : The targeted $ 500 billion bill includes only a fraction of the spending House Democrats demanded in the latest version of their stimulus package , the HEROES Act , which calls for $ 2.2 trillion in aid ( down from the $ 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These developments are the latest continuation of a months-long back-and-forth between lawmakers on what should be next for stimulus spending .
It ’ s an argument that has seen House Democrats ’ proposals blocked by ongoing disagreements over aid for states and expanded unemployment insurance , along with diverging concerns about the debt .
In the meantime , millions of people are grappling with evictions , unemployment , and business closures as the economic fallout from the pandemic continues .
What ’ s next for the stimulus The next steps depend on whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an agreement in this 48-hour window — and if they do , how the Senate responds .
Currently , a push for their own measure by Senate Republicans and negotiations between House Democrats and the White House are happening simultaneously , albeit separately .
The Senate on Tuesday is scheduled to vote on a standalone bill to boost funding for the Paycheck Protection Program , which provides aid to struggling small businesses .
On Wednesday , the body is set to vote on a roughly $ 500 billion stimulus bill that would include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and coronavirus testing .
“ This is half a trillion dollars of good that Congress can do right now , ” McConnell said in a statement Saturday .
The legislation , which is much narrower than what Democrats want , is not expected to garner support from Senate Democrats and will likely fail to reach the 60-vote threshold it needs to pass .
Much like they did earlier this fall , Republicans are pushing this legislation to send a message : By voting on it , they ’ re putting pressure on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by making it appear as though they ’ re the ones obstructing more relief .
Democrats , meanwhile , have pointed to the House ’ s passage of significantly more comprehensive packages in both May and October as signs they ’ re committed to getting something done .
Given McConnell ’ s opposition to the earlier $ 1.8 trillion proposal , Senate Republicans could still pose a major obstacle even if Pelosi reaches an agreement with the White House .
McConnell on Saturday noted the Senate would “ consider ” an agreed-upon deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever lets the House reach a bipartisan agreement with the administration , the Senate would of course consider it , ” he said .
The outstanding issue — which has been the problem for months — is whether House Democrats , the White House , and Senate Republicans can all ultimately get on board with the same bill .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as @ @ @ @ @

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday set a tight timeline for getting a new stimulus deal done before the election: about 48 hours.
During an appearance on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, Pelosi suggested there likely won’t be time to pass a new package before November 3 if lawmakers don’t reach an agreement by Tuesday. “The 48 [hours] only relates to if we want to get it done before the election, which we do,” she said. (Her office later clarified to CNN the deadline is set for the end of Tuesday.)
Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have been negotiating over a new stimulus package since the summer, but the effort has been stymied by disagreements over provisions on state and local funding, as well as Republican pushback over the scope of spending. Their talks were also briefly derailed by President Donald Trump, who in early October announced the White House was ending negotiations, before changing course and demanding the parties proceed quickly.
Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff, tweeted Saturday that there are “an array of additional differences” between what Democrats want and what Mnuchin has offered, which would need to be worked out in the next two days. Pelosi noted Sunday, for example, that language over funds for coronavirus testing was an ongoing sticking point.
... address the virus’ disproportionate impact on communities of color. There remains an array of additional differences as we go provision by provision that must be addressed in a comprehensive manner in the next 48 hours. Decisions must be made by the White House... (2/3) — Drew Hammill (@Drew_Hammill) October 18, 2020
Whether the Tuesday deadline helps spur some much-needed progress, however, is an open question.
As House Democrats negotiate with the White House, Senate Republicans, it seems, are on a parallel track. Even as Pelosi and Mnuchin continue talks about an expansive package — with a recent White House proposal suggesting a bill worth $1.8 trillion — Senate Republicans have been adamant that any stimulus be much smaller. On Saturday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced the Senate would vote on a narrower $500 billion bill this week.
The new bill is a reminder that even if Pelosi and Mnuchin reach an agreement, there’s a great deal of uncertainty around whether Senate Republicans would support it, particularly given concerns many GOP lawmakers have expressed about adding to the national debt.
“That’s not what I’m going to put on the floor,” McConnell previously said of the recent $1.8 trillion White House offer.
The new Senate bill, however, isn’t expected to get the Democratic votes it needs in either the House or the upper chamber: The targeted $500 billion bill includes only a fraction of the spending House Democrats demanded in the latest version of their stimulus package, the HEROES Act, which calls for $2.2 trillion in aid (down from the $3 trillion bill passed in May).
These developments are the latest continuation of a months-long back-and-forth between lawmakers on what should be next for stimulus spending. It’s an argument that has seen House Democrats’ proposals blocked by ongoing disagreements over aid for states and expanded unemployment insurance, along with diverging concerns about the debt.
In the meantime, millions of people are grappling with evictions, unemployment, and business closures as the economic fallout from the pandemic continues.
What’s next for the stimulus
The next steps depend on whether Pelosi and Mnuchin can actually come to an agreement in this 48-hour window — and if they do, how the Senate responds.
Currently, a push for their own measure by Senate Republicans and negotiations between House Democrats and the White House are happening simultaneously, albeit separately.
The Senate on Tuesday is scheduled to vote on a standalone bill to boost funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, which provides aid to struggling small businesses. On Wednesday, the body is set to vote on a roughly $500 billion stimulus bill that would include funding for schools, expanded unemployment insurance, and coronavirus testing. “This is half a trillion dollars of good that Congress can do right now,” McConnell said in a statement Saturday.
The legislation, which is much narrower than what Democrats want, is not expected to garner support from Senate Democrats and will likely fail to reach the 60-vote threshold it needs to pass.
Much like they did earlier this fall, Republicans are pushing this legislation to send a message: By voting on it, they’re putting pressure on vulnerable Democratic members who block the bill by making it appear as though they’re the ones obstructing more relief. Democrats, meanwhile, have pointed to the House’s passage of significantly more comprehensive packages in both May and October as signs they’re committed to getting something done.
Given McConnell’s opposition to the earlier $1.8 trillion proposal, Senate Republicans could still pose a major obstacle even if Pelosi reaches an agreement with the White House. McConnell on Saturday noted the Senate would “consider” an agreed-upon deal, however. “If Speaker Pelosi ever lets the House reach a bipartisan agreement with the administration, the Senate would of course consider it,” he said.
The outstanding issue — which has been the problem for months — is whether House Democrats, the White House, and Senate Republicans can all ultimately get on board with the same bill.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-20--Everywhere basic income has been tried, in one map

Share All sharing options for : Everywhere basic income has been tried , in one map The idea of a basic income was , for decades , something of a policy fantasy .
But the last few years have seen it become less outlandish , to the point where we now have many limited basic income programs up and running around the world — perhaps a dry run for a broader embrace of the policy in the coming years .
The general idea — that the government should give every citizen a regular infusion of free money with no strings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16th century .
But it ’ s recently experienced a remarkable resurgence : Advocates ranging from tech billionaire Mark Zuckerberg to libertarian economist Milton Friedman to former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang have endorsed it .
The Covid-19 pandemic has given the idea fresh momentum .
With the crisis generating so much financial loss and uncertainty , and with federal stimulus packages failing to meet the needs of millions , advocates are arguing that citizens desperately need some sort of guaranteed income .
And around the world , countries are running pilot programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceptions — Kenya , where a big experiment in universal basic income ( UBI ) is underway ; Iran , which has a nationwide unconditional cash transfer program ; and Alaska , which gives an annual dividend to everyone in the state — basic income programs are offering money to small groups of a few hundred or a few thousand people , not an entire polity .
In other words , they offer a basic income , but not a universal basic income .
These small-scale trials are necessary because governments want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effects will be before they start shelling out many billions or trillions of dollars .
Proponents of basic income argue it ’ s the best way to end poverty : Just give everyone money !
Some also say it ’ ll help society cope with a coming era of automation-induced joblessness .
And the evidence so far suggests that getting a basic income tends to boost happiness , health , school attendance , and trust in social institutions , while reducing crime .
But critics worry that it will disincentivize work , cheating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the sense of meaning that work can bring .
Plus , they say , it ’ s just plain unaffordable for the government to pay every citizen enough to live on regardless of whether they work .
The evidence so far does not support these critiques , as you ’ ll see .
Below are all the places that are trying or have tried some version of basic income .
You ’ ll find that only unconditional cash transfers are included here .
Some 130 countries , from Mexico to Italy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transfers , which may require recipients to send their kids to school or go for health checkups .
Although these programs have proven beneficial in some cases , they ’ re not the subject of this piece .
Note that most of the basic income projects here are funded by governments , but a few are funded by private donors .
Scroll down for details on how each place gave out or is giving out free money — and what behavioral effects it seems to have on the recipients .
The US has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but most have been short-lived small-scale trials .
Alaska is an exception .
Since 1982 , the state has given each citizen an annual check just for being alive , effectively wiping out extreme poverty .
The money — which can range from around $ 2,000 per person when oil prices are high to $ 1,000 in cheaper gas years — comes from the Alaska Permanent Fund , a state-owned investment fund financed by oil revenues .
Economists investigated whether the payment was leading people to work less and found that “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall .
( It has , apparently , had an effect on fertility , encouraging families to have more kids .
It ’ s also had some unexpected effects on the state ’ s politics . )
Another long-running program is the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Casino Dividend in North Carolina .
Since 1997 , revenue from a casino on tribal land has been given to every tribal member , no strings attached .
Each person gets on average somewhere between $ 4,000 and $ 6,000 per year .
Economists found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less .
It does lead to improved education and mental health , and decreased addiction and crime .
Between 1968 and 1974 , the US experimented with giving cash to around 7,500 people in New Jersey , Pennsylvania , Iowa , North Carolina , Seattle , Denver , and Gary , Indiana .
The money proved beneficial to recipients but did modestly reduce the hours they worked ; Dylan Matthews has explained for Vox why we shouldn ’ t make too much of that slight reduction .
In 2019 , Andrew Yang tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoting basic income : giving it out himself .
First , he promised to give $ 1,000 per month , for 12 months , to someone who retweets and follows him on Twitter .
Then , on the presidential debate stage , he announced that he ’ d give away $ 1,000 per month to 10 randomly selected families .
We don ’ t know exactly what effects the cash may have had on the recipients , because the giveaways weren ’ t formal research studies , but they ’ re worth mentioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the concept of a basic income .
What about current projects ?
Stockton , California , is in the midst of an 18-month experiment : It ’ s giving $ 500 per month to 125 people .
The money comes from individual and foundation philanthropy , with the initial $ 1 million in funding coming from the Economic Security Project .
The first batch of data shows the recipients are mostly spending the money on food , clothes , and utility bills .
Y Combinator , which previously ran a small trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planning to start a new trial elsewhere in the US .
Between 1974 and 1979 , Canada ran a randomized controlled trial in the province of Manitoba , choosing one farming town , Dauphin , as a “ saturation site ” where every family was eligible to participate in a basic income experiment .
The basic income seemed to benefit residents ’ physical and mental health — there was a decline in doctor visits and an 8.5 percent reduction in the rate of hospitalization — and high school graduation rates improved , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ Mincome ” and funded jointly by the provincial and federal governments , was canceled after four years when a more conservative party came into power .
Four decades later , another Canadian province , Ontario , was willing to try again .
In 2017 , the Liberal government launched a basic income pilot project in three cities : Hamilton , Lindsay , and Thunder Bay .
It was supposed to help 4,000 low-income people and last for three years .
But then a new Progressive Conservative government came into power , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2018 , they canceled the project after hearing from staff that it disincentivized participants from finding work .
However , the pilot had only been active a short time , not long enough to gather the data required to support that claim .
A handful of participants have since filed a class action lawsuit against the government .
Brazil has been experimenting with cash transfers to poor families since the 1990s , and it now runs the massive Bolsa Familia program , which gives millions of people cash transfers .
This isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are conditional — recipients are expected to keep their children in school and visit health clinics .
But the massive program has formed the backdrop for Brazilian experiments in unconditional cash transfers .
From 2008 to 2014 , a Brazilian nonprofit called the ReCivitas Institute administered a basic income — funded by private donors — in the village of Quatinga Velho .
One hundred residents received 30 reais ( about $ 8 ) per month .
This year , around 52,000 people in the Brazilian city of Maricá are receiving a basic income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Basica de Cidadania ( Citizens ’ Basic Income ) .
Each will receive 130 reais per month ( around $ 35 ) , which is expected to lift many above the poverty line .
Because the money is coming out of the city budget , mostly from oil royalties , this program has the potential to stick around for a long time ; it currently has no end date .
In 2017 , the Finnish government decided to see what would happen if it chose 2,000 unemployed citizens at random and gave them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 635 ) every month for two years .
Participants were assured they ’ d keep receiving the money if they got a job .
As it turned out , the income didn ’ t help them get jobs , but it did make them feel happier and less stressed .
The recipients also reported that they felt more trust toward other people and social institutions — from political parties to the police to the courts — than they did before getting a basic income .
Finland ended the trial in 2018 .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My Basic Income ) used crowdfunding to set up a basic income raffle .
By the end of 2019 , it had awarded almost 500 basic incomes to people all over the world who ’ d submitted their names .
Each got about $ 1,100 per month for a year .
According to Fast Company , 80 percent of recipients said the income made them less anxious , more than half said it enabled them to continue their education , and 35 percent said they now feel more motivated at work .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another basic income project funded entirely by private donors .
For three years , 250 randomly chosen people in Germany will receive unconditional transfers of up to $ 466 per month , while 250 others act as a control group .
Against the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic , Germany started a new basic income experiment in August : 120 Germans are receiving 1,200 euros ( $ 1,430 ) every month for three years .
They ’ ll fill out questionnaires about how the cash benefit is affecting their emotional well-being , home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responses will then be compared with the responses of a control group of 1,380 people who are not receiving a basic income .
The German Institute for Economic Research is conducting the study , and it ’ s funded by 140,000 private donations collected by Mein Grundeinkommen .
In 2017 , Spain ’ s “ B-MINCOME ” experiment started offering a minimum guaranteed income to 1,000 households randomly selected from some of Barcelona ’ s poorest districts .
Under the two-year randomized controlled trial , households could receive up to 1,675 euros ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was also a control group of 383 households .
The experiment split up the households into four “ modalities ” of participation : conditional ( you get the cash , but you have to participate in certain social programs ) , unconditional ( you get the cash with no strings attached ) , limited ( if you earn extra income through work , that reduces the amount of cash you get ) , and non-limited ( extra income does not reduce the amount of cash ) .
Preliminary results showed that the effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modalities .
But across the board , the basic income boosted life satisfaction and mental health while making participants neither more likely nor less likely to find employment .
With the arrival of Covid-19 , the Spanish government launched a website in June offering payments of up to 1,015 euros ( $ 1,145 ) to the poorest families in the country — some 850,000 households .
The government isn ’ t running this initiative as a research study per se ( there ’ s no control group ) , but it will continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aims to keep the initiative going even after the pandemic-induced recession ends .
In 2017 , Utrecht and a few surrounding cities kicked off a basic income experiment with 250 recipients as part of a randomized controlled trial .
Some recipients got the money ( around $ 1,050 per month ) unconditionally , while others had to do volunteer work .
The researchers ’ aim is to figure out which way of delivering the financial assistance works best .
In 2011 , Iran rolled out a nationwide unconditional cash transfer program to compensate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , water , electricity , heating , and fuel .
The government gave out sizable monthly payments to each family : 29 percent of the median household income on average .
The program was later dialed back as some Iranians came to believe it was disincentivizing people to work .
Yet economists found that “ the program did not affect labor supply in any appreciable way.
” The program is still running , and it ’ s the only such program in the world to run nationwide .
The largest and longest UBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Kenya , where the charity GiveDirectly is making payments to more than 20,000 people spread out across 245 rural villages .
As part of this randomized controlled trial , which started in 2016 , recipients receive roughly 75 cents per adult per day , delivered monthly for 12 years .
Some preliminary results will be available soon .
In the meantime , we ’ ve already seen that in another GiveDirectly program in Kenya , cash transfers have stimulated the economy and benefited not only the recipients themselves but also people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all residents below the age of 60 living in the Otjivero-Omitara region of Namibia received a basic income : 100 Namibian dollars ( $ 6.75 ) per person per month , no strings attached , regardless of their socioeconomic status .
Funding came from private donors in Namibia and around the world .
As a result , child malnutrition dropped and school enrollment rates went up , while poverty-related crime ( like theft ) fell , according to reports from BIEN and the Center for Public Impact .
However , a lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the pilot project was never rolled out nationwide .
Between 2011 and 2012 , a pilot project in the state of Madhya Pradesh gave a basic income to some 6,000 Indians .
The project , coordinated by the Self-Employed Women ’ s Association and funded by Unicef , included two studies .
In the first study , every man , woman , and child in eight villages received a monthly payment : 200 rupees ( $ 2.80 ) for adults and 100 rupees for each child ( paid to the guardian ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased to 300 and 150 rupees , respectively .
Meanwhile , 12 similar villages received no basic income , acting as a control group .
In the second study , one tribal village received an income of 300 rupees per adult and 150 rupees per child for the entire trial .
Another tribal village acted as a control .
The results : Receiving a basic income led to improved sanitation , nutrition , and school attendance .
In 2011 , following years of budget surpluses and under pressure to help poor and elderly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program called Scheme $ 6,000 .
All adults with a valid Hong Kong permanent identity card — some 6 million people — were eligible to receive a one-time giveaway of HK $ 6,000 ( $ 772 ) each .
The public had a host of complaints about the program — for example , that administrative costs were eating up too much of the money that could go to citizens — and it only lasted one year .
However , it was briefly revived in 2018 thanks to another budget surplus and round of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an autonomous region on the south coast of China , has been experimenting with basic income since 2008 , when it began giving small but unconditional transfers to all residents — around 700,000 people — as part of a Wealth Partaking Scheme .
Each year , local residents get around 9,000 patacas ( $ 1,128 ) and nonpermanent residents get around 5,400 patacas ( $ 672 ) .
Unfortunately , critics say these sums are too paltry to make a real dent in poverty .
Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa announced in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away 1 billion Japanese yen — about $ 9 million — to 1,000 random Twitter followers .
His stated goal was to test the premise of a basic income .
“ It ’ s a serious social experiment , ” he said .
Since the money was distributed in April , each recipient has had to fill out follow-up surveys asking what impact the cash has had on their lives .
The initial survey results show that recipients of the cash benefit are now 3.9 times more interested in launching a new business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates , from 1.5 percent to 0.6 percent .
And more than 70 percent of recipients said they experienced a significant increase in happiness .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Share All sharing options for: Everywhere basic income has been tried, in one map
The idea of a basic income was, for decades, something of a policy fantasy. But the last few years have seen it become less outlandish, to the point where we now have many limited basic income programs up and running around the world — perhaps a dry run for a broader embrace of the policy in the coming years.
The general idea — that the government should give every citizen a regular infusion of free money with no strings attached — has been around since the 16th century. But it’s recently experienced a remarkable resurgence: Advocates ranging from tech billionaire Mark Zuckerberg to libertarian economist Milton Friedman to former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang have endorsed it.
The Covid-19 pandemic has given the idea fresh momentum. With the crisis generating so much financial loss and uncertainty, and with federal stimulus packages failing to meet the needs of millions, advocates are arguing that citizens desperately need some sort of guaranteed income.
And around the world, countries are running pilot programs to test it.
With a few exceptions — Kenya, where a big experiment in universal basic income (UBI) is underway; Iran, which has a nationwide unconditional cash transfer program; and Alaska, which gives an annual dividend to everyone in the state — basic income programs are offering money to small groups of a few hundred or a few thousand people, not an entire polity. In other words, they offer a basic income, but not a universal basic income.
These small-scale trials are necessary because governments want to have a good sense of what the effects will be before they start shelling out many billions or trillions of dollars. Proponents of basic income argue it’s the best way to end poverty: Just give everyone money! Some also say it’ll help society cope with a coming era of automation-induced joblessness. And the evidence so far suggests that getting a basic income tends to boost happiness, health, school attendance, and trust in social institutions, while reducing crime.
But critics worry that it will disincentivize work, cheating economies out of productivity and cheating individuals out of the sense of meaning that work can bring. Plus, they say, it’s just plain unaffordable for the government to pay every citizen enough to live on regardless of whether they work. The evidence so far does not support these critiques, as you’ll see.
Below are all the places that are trying or have tried some version of basic income. You’ll find that only unconditional cash transfers are included here. Some 130 countries, from Mexico to Italy to Uganda, have instituted conditional cash transfers, which may require recipients to send their kids to school or go for health checkups. Although these programs have proven beneficial in some cases, they’re not the subject of this piece.
Note that most of the basic income projects here are funded by governments, but a few are funded by private donors. Scroll down for details on how each place gave out or is giving out free money — and what behavioral effects it seems to have on the recipients.
United States
The US has tried a few basic income experiments, but most have been short-lived small-scale trials.
Alaska is an exception. Since 1982, the state has given each citizen an annual check just for being alive, effectively wiping out extreme poverty. The money — which can range from around $2,000 per person when oil prices are high to $1,000 in cheaper gas years — comes from the Alaska Permanent Fund, a state-owned investment fund financed by oil revenues.
Economists investigated whether the payment was leading people to work less and found that “the dividend had no effect on employment” overall. (It has, apparently, had an effect on fertility, encouraging families to have more kids. It’s also had some unexpected effects on the state’s politics.)
Another long-running program is the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Casino Dividend in North Carolina. Since 1997, revenue from a casino on tribal land has been given to every tribal member, no strings attached. Each person gets on average somewhere between $4,000 and $6,000 per year. Economists found that it doesn’t make them work less. It does lead to improved education and mental health, and decreased addiction and crime.
Between 1968 and 1974, the US experimented with giving cash to around 7,500 people in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Seattle, Denver, and Gary, Indiana. The money proved beneficial to recipients but did modestly reduce the hours they worked; Dylan Matthews has explained for Vox why we shouldn’t make too much of that slight reduction.
In 2019, Andrew Yang tried out a sensationalistic yet effective method of promoting basic income: giving it out himself. First, he promised to give $1,000 per month, for 12 months, to someone who retweets and follows him on Twitter. Then, on the presidential debate stage, he announced that he’d give away $1,000 per month to 10 randomly selected families. We don’t know exactly what effects the cash may have had on the recipients, because the giveaways weren’t formal research studies, but they’re worth mentioning because they drew a lot of attention to the concept of a basic income.
What about current projects? Stockton, California, is in the midst of an 18-month experiment: It’s giving $500 per month to 125 people. The money comes from individual and foundation philanthropy, with the initial $1 million in funding coming from the Economic Security Project. The first batch of data shows the recipients are mostly spending the money on food, clothes, and utility bills. Y Combinator, which previously ran a small trial in Oakland, California, is now planning to start a new trial elsewhere in the US.
Canada
Between 1974 and 1979, Canada ran a randomized controlled trial in the province of Manitoba, choosing one farming town, Dauphin, as a “saturation site” where every family was eligible to participate in a basic income experiment. The basic income seemed to benefit residents’ physical and mental health — there was a decline in doctor visits and an 8.5 percent reduction in the rate of hospitalization — and high school graduation rates improved, too. Nevertheless, the project, known as “Mincome” and funded jointly by the provincial and federal governments, was canceled after four years when a more conservative party came into power.
Four decades later, another Canadian province, Ontario, was willing to try again. In 2017, the Liberal government launched a basic income pilot project in three cities: Hamilton, Lindsay, and Thunder Bay. It was supposed to help 4,000 low-income people and last for three years.
But then a new Progressive Conservative government came into power, led by Ontario Premier Doug Ford. In 2018, they canceled the project after hearing from staff that it disincentivized participants from finding work. However, the pilot had only been active a short time, not long enough to gather the data required to support that claim. A handful of participants have since filed a class action lawsuit against the government.
Brazil
Brazil has been experimenting with cash transfers to poor families since the 1990s, and it now runs the massive Bolsa Familia program, which gives millions of people cash transfers. This isn’t a UBI since the transfers are conditional — recipients are expected to keep their children in school and visit health clinics. But the massive program has formed the backdrop for Brazilian experiments in unconditional cash transfers.
From 2008 to 2014, a Brazilian nonprofit called the ReCivitas Institute administered a basic income — funded by private donors — in the village of Quatinga Velho. One hundred residents received 30 reais (about $8) per month.
This year, around 52,000 people in the Brazilian city of Maricá are receiving a basic income under a new program called the Renda Basica de Cidadania (Citizens’ Basic Income). Each will receive 130 reais per month (around $35), which is expected to lift many above the poverty line. Because the money is coming out of the city budget, mostly from oil royalties, this program has the potential to stick around for a long time; it currently has no end date.
Finland
In 2017, the Finnish government decided to see what would happen if it chose 2,000 unemployed citizens at random and gave them a check of 560 euros ($635) every month for two years. Participants were assured they’d keep receiving the money if they got a job. As it turned out, the income didn’t help them get jobs, but it did make them feel happier and less stressed. The recipients also reported that they felt more trust toward other people and social institutions — from political parties to the police to the courts — than they did before getting a basic income. Finland ended the trial in 2018.
Germany
In 2014, the nonprofit Mein Grundeinkommen (My Basic Income) used crowdfunding to set up a basic income raffle. By the end of 2019, it had awarded almost 500 basic incomes to people all over the world who’d submitted their names. Each got about $1,100 per month for a year. According to Fast Company, 80 percent of recipients said the income made them less anxious, more than half said it enabled them to continue their education, and 35 percent said they now feel more motivated at work.
In 2019, the nonprofit Sanktionsfrei kicked off another basic income project funded entirely by private donors. For three years, 250 randomly chosen people in Germany will receive unconditional transfers of up to $466 per month, while 250 others act as a control group.
Against the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic, Germany started a new basic income experiment in August: 120 Germans are receiving 1,200 euros ($1,430) every month for three years. They’ll fill out questionnaires about how the cash benefit is affecting their emotional well-being, home life, and work life. Their responses will then be compared with the responses of a control group of 1,380 people who are not receiving a basic income. The German Institute for Economic Research is conducting the study, and it’s funded by 140,000 private donations collected by Mein Grundeinkommen.
Spain
In 2017, Spain’s “B-MINCOME” experiment started offering a minimum guaranteed income to 1,000 households randomly selected from some of Barcelona’s poorest districts. Under the two-year randomized controlled trial, households could receive up to 1,675 euros ($1,968) per month. There was also a control group of 383 households.
The experiment split up the households into four “modalities” of participation: conditional (you get the cash, but you have to participate in certain social programs), unconditional (you get the cash with no strings attached), limited (if you earn extra income through work, that reduces the amount of cash you get), and non-limited (extra income does not reduce the amount of cash).
Preliminary results showed that the effects varied a bit depending on the different modalities. But across the board, the basic income boosted life satisfaction and mental health while making participants neither more likely nor less likely to find employment.
With the arrival of Covid-19, the Spanish government launched a website in June offering payments of up to 1,015 euros ($1,145) to the poorest families in the country — some 850,000 households. The government isn’t running this initiative as a research study per se (there’s no control group), but it will continue to monitor the results and says it aims to keep the initiative going even after the pandemic-induced recession ends.
The Netherlands
In 2017, Utrecht and a few surrounding cities kicked off a basic income experiment with 250 recipients as part of a randomized controlled trial. Some recipients got the money (around $1,050 per month) unconditionally, while others had to do volunteer work. The researchers’ aim is to figure out which way of delivering the financial assistance works best.
Iran
In 2011, Iran rolled out a nationwide unconditional cash transfer program to compensate for the phase-out of subsidies on bread, water, electricity, heating, and fuel. The government gave out sizable monthly payments to each family: 29 percent of the median household income on average.
The program was later dialed back as some Iranians came to believe it was disincentivizing people to work. Yet economists found that “the program did not affect labor supply in any appreciable way.” The program is still running, and it’s the only such program in the world to run nationwide.
Kenya
The largest and longest UBI experiment in the world is taking place in Kenya, where the charity GiveDirectly is making payments to more than 20,000 people spread out across 245 rural villages. As part of this randomized controlled trial, which started in 2016, recipients receive roughly 75 cents per adult per day, delivered monthly for 12 years.
Some preliminary results will be available soon. In the meantime, we’ve already seen that in another GiveDirectly program in Kenya, cash transfers have stimulated the economy and benefited not only the recipients themselves but also people in nearby villages.
Namibia
Between 2008 and 2009, all residents below the age of 60 living in the Otjivero-Omitara region of Namibia received a basic income: 100 Namibian dollars ($6.75) per person per month, no strings attached, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Funding came from private donors in Namibia and around the world.
As a result, child malnutrition dropped and school enrollment rates went up, while poverty-related crime (like theft) fell, according to reports from BIEN and the Center for Public Impact. However, a lack of alignment with the national government meant that the pilot project was never rolled out nationwide.
India
Between 2011 and 2012, a pilot project in the state of Madhya Pradesh gave a basic income to some 6,000 Indians. The project, coordinated by the Self-Employed Women’s Association and funded by Unicef, included two studies.
In the first study, every man, woman, and child in eight villages received a monthly payment: 200 rupees ($2.80) for adults and 100 rupees for each child (paid to the guardian). After one year, the payments increased to 300 and 150 rupees, respectively. Meanwhile, 12 similar villages received no basic income, acting as a control group.
In the second study, one tribal village received an income of 300 rupees per adult and 150 rupees per child for the entire trial. Another tribal village acted as a control.
The results: Receiving a basic income led to improved sanitation, nutrition, and school attendance.
China
In 2011, following years of budget surpluses and under pressure to help poor and elderly people, Hong Kong tried out a program called Scheme $6,000. All adults with a valid Hong Kong permanent identity card — some 6 million people — were eligible to receive a one-time giveaway of HK$6,000 ($772) each. The public had a host of complaints about the program — for example, that administrative costs were eating up too much of the money that could go to citizens — and it only lasted one year. However, it was briefly revived in 2018 thanks to another budget surplus and round of pressure to help the needy.
Macao, an autonomous region on the south coast of China, has been experimenting with basic income since 2008, when it began giving small but unconditional transfers to all residents — around 700,000 people — as part of a Wealth Partaking Scheme. Each year, local residents get around 9,000 patacas ($1,128) and nonpermanent residents get around 5,400 patacas ($672). Unfortunately, critics say these sums are too paltry to make a real dent in poverty.
Japan
Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa announced in a January 1 tweet that he would give away 1 billion Japanese yen — about $9 million — to 1,000 random Twitter followers. His stated goal was to test the premise of a basic income. “It’s a serious social experiment,” he said.
Since the money was distributed in April, each recipient has had to fill out follow-up surveys asking what impact the cash has had on their lives. The initial survey results show that recipients of the cash benefit are now 3.9 times more interested in launching a new business. Recipients saw a decrease in divorce rates, from 1.5 percent to 0.6 percent. And more than 70 percent of recipients said they experienced a significant increase in happiness.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-10-20--Why everything from furniture to diet soda is so hard to buy right now

You don ’ t appreciate how indispensable your refrigerator is until it stops working .
When Slomique Hawrylo ’ s Kenmore fridge broke down in mid-August , she realized this is especially true during a pandemic .
At first , Sears quoted her two-and-a-half weeks to deliver a replacement — already a long wait for a five-person household — a date the retailer pushed back once , then twice , then three times , until she was looking at sometime in October .
After an expensive experiment with dry ice , she bought a dorm-size mini-fridge to tide the family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help , though .
“ I mean , once you put a gallon of milk in the refrigerator , that ’ s it , ” she says .
“ So we found ourselves going to the store every day , we found ourselves eating out every day.
” Eventually , she gave up and canceled the order , finally tracking down one of the few available models at a local Lowe ’ s .
“ It was a humbling experience , to be honest with you , ” she says .
People across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or months-long back orders It ’ s also a familiar one during the Covid-19 pandemic .
Nearly seven months into the pandemic , people across the US are still finding themselves thwarted from purchases due to empty shelves or months-long back orders .
While toilet paper may no longer be a scarce commodity , the supply of new bikes hasn ’ t yet caught up with the cycling boom , and dumbbells continue to see the kind of resale markups usually reserved for limited-edition Air Jordans .
Now , as Americans get ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave of the virus — or settle into masked and distanced school and work routines — they ’ re buying up a whole new range of products to prepare .
Retailers are struggling to keep up : Wayfair had sold out of nearly its entire selection of patio heaters by mid-September as people snatched them up for safer outdoor gatherings .
School districts are facing shortages of Chromebooks , leaving tens of thousands of students without laptops for online learning .
Big-box stores can ’ t keep enough furniture and appliances in stock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are now spending so much time .
The disruptions are everywhere — and with the busiest shopping season of the year still ahead , experts say more delays are inevitable .
If it were merely an issue of quarantine fads and a shift from offline to online shopping , these problems might have a quicker fix .
But behind every sold-out product , there ’ s a vast supply chain linking raw materials to factory floors to distribution centers , and the fallout from the pandemic is impacting them in ways we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shortages we see now are the direct result of decisions made six months ago , says Rafay Ishfaq , an associate professor of supply chain management at Auburn University .
In April , retailers looked at the growing economic and human toll of the virus and adjusted their purchase orders accordingly .
At a time of record unemployment , it was understandable to think Americans might be inclined to buy less .
“ Imagine a big-box retailer saying , ‘ Let ’ s hold off .
Let ’ s see where things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ the supply chain ] .
’ That ’ s what ’ s happening , ” he says .
When retailers told their suppliers not to produce more , those companies told their suppliers not to produce more , setting off a chain reaction .
As lockdowns eased and people started shopping , however , there was no switch anyone could flip to ramp back up to a pre-pandemic pace .
“ It takes time to gather that momentum and get this global supply chain or even the domestic supply chain going , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ producers to start making things , they need demand planners and merchants and the retail firms to tell them how much they need.
” While it may seem obvious from today ’ s vantage point that restrictions on indoor gatherings would lead to a run on outdoor heaters , that was hardly the case back in the spring .
When Walmart placed its orders for fishing tackle earlier this year , it estimated that 25 million Americans would be fishing regularly .
None of its forecasts predicted that number to jump to 35 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recreation .
Now , looking ahead , there ’ s no historical data to model whether people will still be scrambling to buy inkjet printers and chest freezers next April , or whether , by then , there will be a whole new “ new normal.
” Plus , says Ishfaq , even if retailers could meet every spike in demand at a few weeks ’ notice , it ’ s not necessarily worth it for them to do so .
“ Every retail chain is focused on their big sales items : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re known for , what the customers come to the stores to buy , ” he says .
“ If that means that the peripherals or seasonal items or secondary product categories run short , then so be it.
” “ Every retail chain is focused on what they sell most , what they ’ re known for , what the customers come to the stores to buy ” This is especially true when manufacturers are dealing with supply chain issues of their own .
Fans of Coke ’ s or Pepsi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diet Mountain Dew Code Red , Cherry Vanilla Coke Zero — have found them out of stock for months as the companies prioritized their “ high-volume ” products .
Like other beer and soft drink makers , they ’ ve also had to contend with an aluminum can shortage — a consequence of consumers suddenly drinking at home en masse rather than at bars or restaurants , where most beer comes from a keg — as well as earlier disruptions in the supplies of artificial sweetener ( imported from China ) and carbon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gasoline , for which demand plummeted this spring ) .
It ’ s not just beer and soda cans that are harder than usual to come by .
Sales of canned food and home canning supplies have soared during the pandemic , and while the leading can manufacturer , Ball Corporation , has ramped up production at two US plants and begun construction on another , that extra capacity won ’ t come online until the latter half of 2021 .
Even that ’ s a better timeline than most : Paper towels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but “ producers have no plans to build new manufacturing capacity , ” reports the Wall Street Journal .
“ The central piece of the machinery needed to make paper towels takes years to assemble.
” Transportation bottlenecks are another culprit in the back order bonanza .
Early on in the pandemic , US imports plummeted and shippers canceled planned voyages from countries like China , anticipating lower demand .
As economic activity picked up and Americans tore through retailers ’ inventory of standing desks and roller skates , freight couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to capacity , leading to congestion and delays in ports .
Months later , importers are still struggling to find shipping containers to send certain goods , and when they can , it ’ s costing nearly three times as much to ship from East Asia to the US ’ s West Coast as it was pre-pandemic , according to the Freightos Baltic Index .
Shipments are also less reliable , and those delays and costs get passed along to the consumer .
“ Transportation has a limited capacity , ” says Simone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chain management at Michigan State University .
“ There are only that many containers that fit on a ship or number of products that fit on a truck , and thus , if there is not enough transportation capacity , then products will take longer to reach their destination.
” Stateside , the effects of Covid-19 have exacerbated a shortage of truck drivers , caused by the industry ’ s decades-long failure to increase drivers ’ wages and benefits to reduce turnover .
With workers retiring or changing careers in droves , companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ license new drivers fast enough to meet increased demand .
“ There are only that many containers that fit on a ship or number of products that fit on a truck ” Steven Melnyk , a professor of supply chain and operations management at Michigan State University , says we ’ ll be feeling the effects of many of these disruptions for months — and in some cases years — to come .
One threat he expects will eventually trickle down to store shelves is supplier bankruptcies .
In July , the International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for small- and medium-sized businesses could triple this year due to the pandemic , potentially destabilizing the supply chains they support .
“ Many companies are just going to disappear , ” says Melnyk .
“ Why ?
Because if they file for bankruptcy and then they decide to reconstitute themselves , they have a 25 percent reduction in their ability to secure a loan from a bank because they previously declared bankruptcy .
So guess what they do ?
They just shut the door.
” These so-called “ silent bankruptcies ” are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the Washington Post that many of its suppliers in China and South Korea have simply stopped returning messages .
In some industries , such as aerospace , suppliers may be highly specialized and therefore hard to replace when demand returns , says Melnyk .
“ When they go bankrupt , you don ’ t have a supplier .
And it takes time for you to find an alternative and qualify them and develop them and vet them and integrate them.
” Even if the market for children ’ s rides seems unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , those companies , in turn , support a network of other businesses that could crumble if orders dry up — subcontractors who make specific components , suppliers of raw materials and manufacturing equipment , transportation and logistics companies , and so on — making a quick rebound even harder .
In the shorter term , the holiday shopping rush is going to be a test of Americans ’ patience .
A recent Salesforce report found that as many as 700 million packages could face delays if online orders exceed shipping capacity by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also see fewer bargains on Black Friday , says Melnyk .
While retailers usually compete on price during the holidays , this year , “ The issue is going to be availability .
… You might see some discounts but they ’ re not going to be the crazy discounts we ’ ve seen in the past.
” For those who have their eye on fitness equipment , a new guitar , or a working refrigerator , the question may not be , “ Where can I find this on sale ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it at all ?
” Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

You don’t appreciate how indispensable your refrigerator is until it stops working.
When Slomique Hawrylo’s Kenmore fridge broke down in mid-August, she realized this is especially true during a pandemic. At first, Sears quoted her two-and-a-half weeks to deliver a replacement — already a long wait for a five-person household — a date the retailer pushed back once, then twice, then three times, until she was looking at sometime in October.
After an expensive experiment with dry ice, she bought a dorm-size mini-fridge to tide the family over. It wasn’t much help, though.
“I mean, once you put a gallon of milk in the refrigerator, that’s it,” she says. “So we found ourselves going to the store every day, we found ourselves eating out every day.”
Eventually, she gave up and canceled the order, finally tracking down one of the few available models at a local Lowe’s. “It was a humbling experience, to be honest with you,” she says.
People across the US are still finding empty shelves or months-long back orders
It’s also a familiar one during the Covid-19 pandemic. Nearly seven months into the pandemic, people across the US are still finding themselves thwarted from purchases due to empty shelves or months-long back orders. While toilet paper may no longer be a scarce commodity, the supply of new bikes hasn’t yet caught up with the cycling boom, and dumbbells continue to see the kind of resale markups usually reserved for limited-edition Air Jordans. Now, as Americans get ready to hunker down for a projected next wave of the virus — or settle into masked and distanced school and work routines — they’re buying up a whole new range of products to prepare.
Retailers are struggling to keep up: Wayfair had sold out of nearly its entire selection of patio heaters by mid-September as people snatched them up for safer outdoor gatherings. School districts are facing shortages of Chromebooks, leaving tens of thousands of students without laptops for online learning. Big-box stores can’t keep enough furniture and appliances in stock to fill the homes where their customers are now spending so much time.
The disruptions are everywhere — and with the busiest shopping season of the year still ahead, experts say more delays are inevitable.
If it were merely an issue of quarantine fads and a shift from offline to online shopping, these problems might have a quicker fix. But behind every sold-out product, there’s a vast supply chain linking raw materials to factory floors to distribution centers, and the fallout from the pandemic is impacting them in ways we are still coming to understand.
Many of the shortages we see now are the direct result of decisions made six months ago, says Rafay Ishfaq, an associate professor of supply chain management at Auburn University. In April, retailers looked at the growing economic and human toll of the virus and adjusted their purchase orders accordingly. At a time of record unemployment, it was understandable to think Americans might be inclined to buy less.
“Imagine a big-box retailer saying, ‘Let’s hold off. Let’s see where things go, and then we will restart [the supply chain].’ That’s what’s happening,” he says. When retailers told their suppliers not to produce more, those companies told their suppliers not to produce more, setting off a chain reaction.
As lockdowns eased and people started shopping, however, there was no switch anyone could flip to ramp back up to a pre-pandemic pace.
“It takes time to gather that momentum and get this global supply chain or even the domestic supply chain going,” says Ishfaq. “For the producers to start making things, they need demand planners and merchants and the retail firms to tell them how much they need.”
While it may seem obvious from today’s vantage point that restrictions on indoor gatherings would lead to a run on outdoor heaters, that was hardly the case back in the spring. When Walmart placed its orders for fishing tackle earlier this year, it estimated that 25 million Americans would be fishing regularly. None of its forecasts predicted that number to jump to 35 million as lockdowns propelled interest in outdoor recreation.
Now, looking ahead, there’s no historical data to model whether people will still be scrambling to buy inkjet printers and chest freezers next April, or whether, by then, there will be a whole new “new normal.”
Plus, says Ishfaq, even if retailers could meet every spike in demand at a few weeks’ notice, it’s not necessarily worth it for them to do so.
“Every retail chain is focused on their big sales items: what they sell most, what they’re known for, what the customers come to the stores to buy,” he says. “If that means that the peripherals or seasonal items or secondary product categories run short, then so be it.”
“Every retail chain is focused on what they sell most, what they’re known for, what the customers come to the stores to buy”
This is especially true when manufacturers are dealing with supply chain issues of their own. Fans of Coke’s or Pepsi’s more esoteric soda flavors — Diet Mountain Dew Code Red, Cherry Vanilla Coke Zero — have found them out of stock for months as the companies prioritized their “high-volume” products.
Like other beer and soft drink makers, they’ve also had to contend with an aluminum can shortage — a consequence of consumers suddenly drinking at home en masse rather than at bars or restaurants, where most beer comes from a keg — as well as earlier disruptions in the supplies of artificial sweetener (imported from China) and carbon dioxide (produced as a byproduct of gasoline, for which demand plummeted this spring).
It’s not just beer and soda cans that are harder than usual to come by. Sales of canned food and home canning supplies have soared during the pandemic, and while the leading can manufacturer, Ball Corporation, has ramped up production at two US plants and begun construction on another, that extra capacity won’t come online until the latter half of 2021. Even that’s a better timeline than most: Paper towels are out of stock at many retailers, but “producers have no plans to build new manufacturing capacity,” reports the Wall Street Journal. “The central piece of the machinery needed to make paper towels takes years to assemble.”
Transportation bottlenecks are another culprit in the back order bonanza. Early on in the pandemic, US imports plummeted and shippers canceled planned voyages from countries like China, anticipating lower demand. As economic activity picked up and Americans tore through retailers’ inventory of standing desks and roller skates, freight couldn’t keep up: Ships were filled to capacity, leading to congestion and delays in ports.
Months later, importers are still struggling to find shipping containers to send certain goods, and when they can, it’s costing nearly three times as much to ship from East Asia to the US’s West Coast as it was pre-pandemic, according to the Freightos Baltic Index. Shipments are also less reliable, and those delays and costs get passed along to the consumer.
“Transportation has a limited capacity,” says Simone Peinkofer, an assistant professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University. “There are only that many containers that fit on a ship or number of products that fit on a truck, and thus, if there is not enough transportation capacity, then products will take longer to reach their destination.”
Stateside, the effects of Covid-19 have exacerbated a shortage of truck drivers, caused by the industry’s decades-long failure to increase drivers’ wages and benefits to reduce turnover. With workers retiring or changing careers in droves, companies aren’t able to recruit or license new drivers fast enough to meet increased demand.
“There are only that many containers that fit on a ship or number of products that fit on a truck”
Steven Melnyk, a professor of supply chain and operations management at Michigan State University, says we’ll be feeling the effects of many of these disruptions for months — and in some cases years — to come. One threat he expects will eventually trickle down to store shelves is supplier bankruptcies. In July, the International Monetary Fund warned that the bankruptcy rate for small- and medium-sized businesses could triple this year due to the pandemic, potentially destabilizing the supply chains they support.
“Many companies are just going to disappear,” says Melnyk. “Why? Because if they file for bankruptcy and then they decide to reconstitute themselves, they have a 25 percent reduction in their ability to secure a loan from a bank because they previously declared bankruptcy. So guess what they do? They just shut the door.”
These so-called “silent bankruptcies” are already underway: One amusement ride manufacturer told the Washington Post that many of its suppliers in China and South Korea have simply stopped returning messages.
In some industries, such as aerospace, suppliers may be highly specialized and therefore hard to replace when demand returns, says Melnyk. “When they go bankrupt, you don’t have a supplier. And it takes time for you to find an alternative and qualify them and develop them and vet them and integrate them.”
Even if the market for children’s rides seems unlikely to see a sudden surge in demand, those companies, in turn, support a network of other businesses that could crumble if orders dry up — subcontractors who make specific components, suppliers of raw materials and manufacturing equipment, transportation and logistics companies, and so on — making a quick rebound even harder.
In the shorter term, the holiday shopping rush is going to be a test of Americans’ patience. A recent Salesforce report found that as many as 700 million packages could face delays if online orders exceed shipping capacity by the expected 5 percent.
Shoppers could also see fewer bargains on Black Friday, says Melnyk. While retailers usually compete on price during the holidays, this year, “The issue is going to be availability. … You might see some discounts but they’re not going to be the crazy discounts we’ve seen in the past.”
For those who have their eye on fitness equipment, a new guitar, or a working refrigerator, the question may not be, “Where can I find this on sale?” but rather, “Can I find it at all?”


vox--2020-10-20--A political scientist explains why the GOP is a threat to American democracy

It sounds hyperbolic to say that American democracy is broken , but an honest glance at the country — at our institutions and the broader political culture — makes it hard to conclude otherwise .
As things stand , one of our two major political parties is committed to suppressing as many votes as possible , and the leader of that party , the president of the United States , has said outright that he won ’ t accept the legitimacy of the election process if he doesn ’ t win .
If , under those conditions , Trump either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country into a bitter , protracted fight over the results , it doesn ’ t seem all that alarmist to suggest the US will have descended into what political scientists sometimes call a “ weak democracy ” or even “ competitive authoritarianism.
” But I really don ’ t want to be overly alarmist , so I reached out to Pippa Norris , a political scientist at Harvard University and one of the leading authorities on global democracy .
I wanted to know her honest assessment of the state of American democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a true turning point for the country , and what the US will have to do moving forward to undo the damage done in the past several years .
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
If American democracy was a patient , how would you describe its condition ?
I ’ d say the patient has not been well for a long time .
The patient is obese and doesn ’ t exercise .
You like to say that democracy is not an “ all or nothing ” process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continuum with peaks and valleys and lots of movement over time .
Would you say that the biggest weakness in the American system right now is this combination of the intractability of our Constitution and the fact that one of our major parties , the Republican Party , is basically invested in an anti-democratic , countermajoritarian agenda ?
It ’ s true that we ’ re facing an existential crisis in part because the Republican Party has put all of their appeals into a shrinking sector of the electorate — mostly white , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using their power to change the rules of the game to favor their own party .
That ’ s all true .
The point about the intractability of the Constitution is also true .
There ’ s something called the Comparative Constitutions Project .
They look at the longevity of constitutions and how much change is ideal and how much change is dysfunctional .
So you don ’ t want a constitution that changes all the time because that leads to instability and you need to have rules of the game that everybody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t have a constitution that ’ s fundamentally unchangeable .
America is just off the charts in terms of the rarity of changes .
It ’ s not just that we have so few changes ; it ’ s the combination of institutional arrangements that make change almost impossible .
America ’ s Constitution really doesn ’ t change , and we don ’ t look abroad for constitutional innovations .
Can you give me an example of a good constitutional innovation from around the world ?
Almost every new democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sets up a central and effective independent election management system .
Now , they ’ ve all got different degrees of independence .
But nevertheless , if there ’ s an election dispute , there ’ s an independent executive to say what the results are and to provide a mechanism for handling legal disputes that isn ’ t tainted by politicized courts .
It doesn ’ t necessarily have to be a Supreme Court .
It can be an election court , often common in Latin America .
Or there may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America has all these decentralized forms of electoral administration , which means that just one local area , which had one local problem in its ballot or its count or its regulations , could really derail the whole of the presidential election , particularly if it ’ s Broward County in Florida or somewhere else in Georgia or somewhere else in Michigan or wherever it is .
The point is that other countries around the world have developed ways of dealing with these issues and America just hasn ’ t learned or adapted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its current manifestation , the biggest obstacle to making the sorts of changes we need to make ?
It is .
I ’ ve done a global party survey in December 2019 , asking over 2,000 experts where they place mainstream political parties worldwide on a range of issues , from taxes to health care to environmental policy .
And the US results are quite remarkable .
If we ’ re just looking at OECD [ post-industrial ] countries and trying to measure whether parties favor or oppose checks and balances on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to basic pluralistic values , and if they respect or undermine liberal democratic principles , what you find is that the GOP is surprisingly extremist .
The position of the GOP on these issues is close to parties like Golden Dawn in Greece [ a neo-fascist party ] , Fidesz in Hungary , or the Law and Justice party in Poland .
These are illiberal parties cutting back on the freedom of press and stamping out democratic freedoms in their countries .
And these are the only parties in the developed world that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of their commitment to what we ’ d call authoritarian values .
So in a two-party system , you would expect a party like the GOP to naturally position itself somewhere around the center of the ideological spectrum to appeal to the median voter and to maximize its vote in general elections , like the Democratic Party tends to do .
And the Democratic Party , for what it ’ s worth , basically scores the same as most of the standard middle-of-the-road European center-left parties .
But what ’ s happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved much , much further away from that center , a process that Trump has accelerated .
Now , the problem is that you ’ d expect them to change course if they lose badly in the election , because that ’ s where most American voters are located in a normal curve .
The problem is that primary voters and donors are often more extreme than ordinary Americans .
Seats are often uncompetitive , due to gerrymandering .
And it often takes more than one heavy electoral defeat to get a party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them a bit like ocean liners .
They ’ re sailing along in one direction .
Under new leadership , they may try and move to port or to starboard , but it takes time to turn around , partly because after defeat , the incumbents who are reelected can blame Trump ’ s leadership and events like Covid-19 , rather than their core policy appeals .
It may take a couple of electoral shocks for the GOP to learn the lessons , reverse course , and begin to nominate more moderate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it still accurate to call the US a liberal democracy ?
Well , remember , I like to think of democracy as a continuum .
What that suggests is that you can slide up or down as things improve or deteriorate .
So we could , for example , be closer to what ’ s called an “ electoral democracy , ” meaning that elections still work but many other institutions don ’ t .
The judiciary may be undermined or press freedoms may be undermined .
These are the kinds of things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is backsliding .
When this happens , strongman rulers come to power and they basically reinforce their position through amending or changing constitutions .
That ’ s a very common strategy to make sure that they get elected time and time again .
America is still a liberal democracy insofar as we still have the formal institutions you ’ d expect to find in a liberal democracy .
And there ’ s still freedom of speech and assembly .
There ’ s still the expectation that the loser of an election will step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward electoral democracy .
Whether it gets even worse depends on what happens this November .
You say , rather ominously , that everything turns on what happens in November .
If Trump wins , if the GOP ’ s countermajoritarian strategy is rewarded , what then ?
We ’ ve got at least these two scenarios .
Number one , there ’ s a landslide and the Democrats win so overwhelmingly that the system essentially staggers back to where it was and , hopefully , Biden brings in some much-needed reforms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is basically a change in the Senate , as well as in the presidency , then you could see America returning to the system that was there with Obama — deeply imperfect , but working .
If there ’ s a narrow result and the Electoral College is very narrow , and it is one where Biden gets the edge , then there ’ s going to be so many disputes and confidence is going to go down .
We ’ ve already seen the cracks in places like Michigan , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic terrorists were plotting to kidnap the governor , and we can expect to see more of this extralegal violence as social trust and tolerance keeps eroding .
That ’ s hard to get your head around , but it ’ s real and it ’ s absolutely on the table .
If Trump returns to office , then things are going to get worse .
We know that when authoritarian populists come in the first term , they ’ re just trying out ideas , seeing what works and what doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always more moderate .
The second term is when it ’ s much more problematic .
And the worst case would be something like Hungary , where illiberal populists have destroyed the foundations of the electoral system in ways most people don ’ t really understand .
It all happened right in front of people ’ s eyes , but not enough attention was paid early on — and now it ’ s too late .
If Trump loses , what ’ s the path to democratic restoration look like ?
We need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the role of money in politics is a core problem .
We haven ’ t heard much about this lately because more attention has been paid to issues like voter suppression , with good reasons , but it ’ s a fundamental issue standing in the way of nearly everything else .
We have to restore the integrity of the Department of Justice .
If you don ’ t have an umpire you can trust , then where can you go ?
We need impartiality and independence .
There are two meanings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they often get misunderstood .
When Trump says “ rule of law , ” what he really means is the power of the law to control the system , as opposed to the power of the law to check the executive and the legislative branch in effective , independent , impartial ways .
It ’ s clear which one we need .
It will sound nuts , but I really think we need a bipartisan commission to start a conversation among moderate Republicans and Democrats and progressives about the larger problems of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gerrymandering and beyond corruption in politics .
When there ’ s a real crisis in governance , you have to get out of single party and you have to forge a new consensus .
Many countries , including Britain , have done things like this and it ’ s important .
You can think of it like a democratic audit , one that engages the public in a real dialogue .
Again , I know this sounds silly , but when the problems run this deep , all of civic society has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We all have to ask , “ What are the key issues in America ?
” and frame them in ways that cut through the conventional Republican-Democrat frame .
What gives you the most hope about our political future ?
The mobilization has been fantastic .
A lot of the mobilization has gone in dangerous directions , as we just saw in Michigan .
But on the other side , we have all this energy dedicated to improving the country in big and small ways .
If you look at the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you look at the Black Lives Matter movement , if you look at how many people have taken to the streets to call for change — that ’ s all exciting and necessary .
We need that energy .
It tells us the country isn ’ t asleep at the wheel any longer , that people are waking up .
Democracy is on the ballot in this election — everybody knows it .
And people are mobilized either for or against it .
As long as this energy can be contained and positively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real , lasting change .
We just have to avoid violence .
Plenty of countries have disputed elections , but we have to manage that conflict without violence .
Once that line is crossed , it ’ s hard to go back .
I ’ ll just end by saying that a crisis is an opportunity .
Just like Covid is an opportunity to rethink the nature of work , so the crisis which America ’ s going through is an opportunity to rethink how we ’ re running our liberal democracy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reforms , and maybe learn from other countries .
Our problems won ’ t disappear , but with effective reforms and a renewed commitment to change , there is at least hope .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

It sounds hyperbolic to say that American democracy is broken, but an honest glance at the country — at our institutions and the broader political culture — makes it hard to conclude otherwise.
As things stand, one of our two major political parties is committed to suppressing as many votes as possible, and the leader of that party, the president of the United States, has said outright that he won’t accept the legitimacy of the election process if he doesn’t win.
If, under those conditions, Trump either wins the election or loses and throws the country into a bitter, protracted fight over the results, it doesn’t seem all that alarmist to suggest the US will have descended into what political scientists sometimes call a “weak democracy” or even “competitive authoritarianism.”
But I really don’t want to be overly alarmist, so I reached out to Pippa Norris, a political scientist at Harvard University and one of the leading authorities on global democracy. I wanted to know her honest assessment of the state of American democracy, why she thinks the upcoming election is a true turning point for the country, and what the US will have to do moving forward to undo the damage done in the past several years.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
If American democracy was a patient, how would you describe its condition?
Pippa Norris
I’d say the patient has not been well for a long time. The patient is obese and doesn’t exercise.
Sean Illing
You like to say that democracy is not an “all or nothing” process — it’s more like a continuum with peaks and valleys and lots of movement over time. Would you say that the biggest weakness in the American system right now is this combination of the intractability of our Constitution and the fact that one of our major parties, the Republican Party, is basically invested in an anti-democratic, countermajoritarian agenda?
Pippa Norris
It’s true that we’re facing an existential crisis in part because the Republican Party has put all of their appeals into a shrinking sector of the electorate — mostly white, mostly older. And they’re using their power to change the rules of the game to favor their own party. That’s all true.
The point about the intractability of the Constitution is also true. There’s something called the Comparative Constitutions Project. They look at the longevity of constitutions and how much change is ideal and how much change is dysfunctional. So you don’t want a constitution that changes all the time because that leads to instability and you need to have rules of the game that everybody can agree upon. But you also can’t have a constitution that’s fundamentally unchangeable.
America is just off the charts in terms of the rarity of changes. It’s not just that we have so few changes; it’s the combination of institutional arrangements that make change almost impossible. America’s Constitution really doesn’t change, and we don’t look abroad for constitutional innovations.
Sean Illing
Can you give me an example of a good constitutional innovation from around the world?
Pippa Norris
Almost every new democracy or country going through a transition always sets up a central and effective independent election management system. Now, they’ve all got different degrees of independence. But nevertheless, if there’s an election dispute, there’s an independent executive to say what the results are and to provide a mechanism for handling legal disputes that isn’t tainted by politicized courts.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be a Supreme Court. It can be an election court, often common in Latin America. Or there may be other mechanisms which provide informal resolutions. America has all these decentralized forms of electoral administration, which means that just one local area, which had one local problem in its ballot or its count or its regulations, could really derail the whole of the presidential election, particularly if it’s Broward County in Florida or somewhere else in Georgia or somewhere else in Michigan or wherever it is.
The point is that other countries around the world have developed ways of dealing with these issues and America just hasn’t learned or adapted.
Sean Illing
Is the Republican Party, in its current manifestation, the biggest obstacle to making the sorts of changes we need to make?
Pippa Norris
It is. I’ve done a global party survey in December 2019, asking over 2,000 experts where they place mainstream political parties worldwide on a range of issues, from taxes to health care to environmental policy. And the US results are quite remarkable. If we’re just looking at OECD [post-industrial] countries and trying to measure whether parties favor or oppose checks and balances on the executive, if they’re committed to basic pluralistic values, and if they respect or undermine liberal democratic principles, what you find is that the GOP is surprisingly extremist.
The position of the GOP on these issues is close to parties like Golden Dawn in Greece [a neo-fascist party], Fidesz in Hungary, or the Law and Justice party in Poland. These are illiberal parties cutting back on the freedom of press and stamping out democratic freedoms in their countries. And these are the only parties in the developed world that really compare to the Republican Party in terms of their commitment to what we’d call authoritarian values.
So in a two-party system, you would expect a party like the GOP to naturally position itself somewhere around the center of the ideological spectrum to appeal to the median voter and to maximize its vote in general elections, like the Democratic Party tends to do. And the Democratic Party, for what it’s worth, basically scores the same as most of the standard middle-of-the-road European center-left parties.
But what’s happened is that the GOP has now gradually moved much, much further away from that center, a process that Trump has accelerated. Now, the problem is that you’d expect them to change course if they lose badly in the election, because that’s where most American voters are located in a normal curve.
The problem is that primary voters and donors are often more extreme than ordinary Americans. Seats are often uncompetitive, due to gerrymandering. And it often takes more than one heavy electoral defeat to get a party to shift course. You can think of them a bit like ocean liners. They’re sailing along in one direction. Under new leadership, they may try and move to port or to starboard, but it takes time to turn around, partly because after defeat, the incumbents who are reelected can blame Trump’s leadership and events like Covid-19, rather than their core policy appeals.
It may take a couple of electoral shocks for the GOP to learn the lessons, reverse course, and begin to nominate more moderate Lincoln Republicans and mainstream appeals.
Sean Illing
Is it still accurate to call the US a liberal democracy?
Pippa Norris
Well, remember, I like to think of democracy as a continuum. What that suggests is that you can slide up or down as things improve or deteriorate.
So we could, for example, be closer to what’s called an “electoral democracy,” meaning that elections still work but many other institutions don’t. The judiciary may be undermined or press freedoms may be undermined. These are the kinds of things you see in countries in which democracy is backsliding. When this happens, strongman rulers come to power and they basically reinforce their position through amending or changing constitutions. That’s a very common strategy to make sure that they get elected time and time again.
America is still a liberal democracy insofar as we still have the formal institutions you’d expect to find in a liberal democracy. And there’s still freedom of speech and assembly. There’s still the expectation that the loser of an election will step aside. But the US is sliding toward electoral democracy. Whether it gets even worse depends on what happens this November.
Sean Illing
You say, rather ominously, that everything turns on what happens in November. If Trump wins, if the GOP’s countermajoritarian strategy is rewarded, what then?
Pippa Norris
We’ve got at least these two scenarios. Number one, there’s a landslide and the Democrats win so overwhelmingly that the system essentially staggers back to where it was and, hopefully, Biden brings in some much-needed reforms. If confidence in elections returns, if there is basically a change in the Senate, as well as in the presidency, then you could see America returning to the system that was there with Obama — deeply imperfect, but working.
If there’s a narrow result and the Electoral College is very narrow, and it is one where Biden gets the edge, then there’s going to be so many disputes and confidence is going to go down. We’ve already seen the cracks in places like Michigan, where, let’s be honest, domestic terrorists were plotting to kidnap the governor, and we can expect to see more of this extralegal violence as social trust and tolerance keeps eroding. That’s hard to get your head around, but it’s real and it’s absolutely on the table.
If Trump returns to office, then things are going to get worse. We know that when authoritarian populists come in the first term, they’re just trying out ideas, seeing what works and what doesn’t. But they’re almost always more moderate. The second term is when it’s much more problematic. And the worst case would be something like Hungary, where illiberal populists have destroyed the foundations of the electoral system in ways most people don’t really understand. It all happened right in front of people’s eyes, but not enough attention was paid early on — and now it’s too late.
Sean Illing
If Trump loses, what’s the path to democratic restoration look like?
Pippa Norris
We need reforms — lots of reforms. Corruption and the role of money in politics is a core problem. We haven’t heard much about this lately because more attention has been paid to issues like voter suppression, with good reasons, but it’s a fundamental issue standing in the way of nearly everything else.
We have to restore the integrity of the Department of Justice. If you don’t have an umpire you can trust, then where can you go? We need impartiality and independence. There are two meanings of the “rule of law” and they often get misunderstood. When Trump says “rule of law,” what he really means is the power of the law to control the system, as opposed to the power of the law to check the executive and the legislative branch in effective, independent, impartial ways. It’s clear which one we need.
It will sound nuts, but I really think we need a bipartisan commission to start a conversation among moderate Republicans and Democrats and progressives about the larger problems of American democracy beyond voter suppression and beyond gerrymandering and beyond corruption in politics. When there’s a real crisis in governance, you have to get out of single party and you have to forge a new consensus. Many countries, including Britain, have done things like this and it’s important. You can think of it like a democratic audit, one that engages the public in a real dialogue.
Again, I know this sounds silly, but when the problems run this deep, all of civic society has to be engaged in this enormous rebuilding effort. We all have to ask, “What are the key issues in America?” and frame them in ways that cut through the conventional Republican-Democrat frame.
Sean Illing
What gives you the most hope about our political future?
Pippa Norris
The mobilization has been fantastic. A lot of the mobilization has gone in dangerous directions, as we just saw in Michigan. But on the other side, we have all this energy dedicated to improving the country in big and small ways. If you look at the number of women running for office, if you look at the Black Lives Matter movement, if you look at how many people have taken to the streets to call for change — that’s all exciting and necessary. We need that energy. It tells us the country isn’t asleep at the wheel any longer, that people are waking up.
Democracy is on the ballot in this election — everybody knows it. And people are mobilized either for or against it. As long as this energy can be contained and positively channeled, there’s hope for real, lasting change. We just have to avoid violence. Plenty of countries have disputed elections, but we have to manage that conflict without violence. Once that line is crossed, it’s hard to go back.
I’ll just end by saying that a crisis is an opportunity. Just like Covid is an opportunity to rethink the nature of work, so the crisis which America’s going through is an opportunity to rethink how we’re running our liberal democracy and explore the possibilities of serious and moderate reforms, and maybe learn from other countries. Our problems won’t disappear, but with effective reforms and a renewed commitment to change, there is at least hope.