by Kate McFarland | Jan 6, 2017 | Research
The Green Institute, an Australian non-profit organization devoted to education and action concerning green politics, has published a collection of essays on the ideas of universal basic income (UBI) and a shorter working week (Can Less Work Be More Fair?, December 2016).
In the collection’s introduction, Executive Director Tim Hollo states that the Green Institute “remains agnostic” on whether a UBI is an “appropriate mechanism” to achieve a reduction in working hours with no reduction in pay or working conditions–a goal which the organization does unequivocally support. Hollo adds that, despite its agnosticism, the Green Institute “believe[s] a conversation on the idea [of UBI], in the context of the need to grapple with the inevitability of less and less paid work in an ever more unstable world, is vital to [Australia’s] politics.”
Following are overviews of the 10 essays in the report and their authors.
1. “Why work less?” by Tim Hollo and Chris Twomey, Policy Director of the Western Australian Council of Social Service (WACOSS) and Chair of the Green Institute.
Hollo and Twomey discuss four reasons for which societies should pursue policies aimed at the reduction of working hours: inequality and insecurity of work (e.g. the rise the of the gig economy and zero-hour contracts), the threat of the automation of many jobs, widespread overwork and the need for improved work/life balance, and environmental destruction caused by the “work-to-consume / work-to-produce-to-consume” cycle.
Additionally, the authors critique two pervasive social norms, which they believe should be challenged by the debate around debate surrounding UBI and shorter working hours: the ideas that “only paid work is a noble pursuit” and that “a punitive approach to welfare is necessary to force people into this noble pursuit” (p. 15).
Finally, they propose three alternative ideals to frame the policy debate: “the ideal of universalism; the realisation that, while work is good, less work can be better; and the approach of encouraging and enabling meaningful work in resilient communities, rather than the punitive attitude to welfare that is failing both workers and employers” (p. 19).
Hollo and Twomey stop short of endorsing UBI as the preferred means to achieve these ideals, and they are clear that UBI would not be a one-stop solution (if it is part of the solution at all). However, they maintain that–as long as it is framed in the terms they describe–UBI in an crucial policy to consider and debate.
2. “Towards an historical account of Universal Basic Income” by Elise Klein, Professor of Development Studies at the University of Melbourne.
In her contribution to the collection, Klein traces the history of discourse about UBI from its roots in the ideas of Thomas More, Marquis de Condorcet, and Thomas Paine. She also provides an overview of the contemporary state of basic income debate, both globally and in the Australian context.
Klein has previously defended universal basic income in essays such as “Securing Economic Rights: The Time Has Come” (2015).
3. “On shorter working hours” by Godfrey Moase, assistant general branch secretary at the National Union of Workers in Melbourne.
In his contribution, Moase traces the history of labor’s demand for shorter working hours and argues that we must “take up the struggle once again for a shorter working week” for the sake of economic security, quality of life, and ecological sustainability.
Moase has previously defended a basic income guarantee of $30,000 per year for all Australians; see, for example, his 2013 article published in The Guardian (“Why Australians deserve a universal minimum income“).
4. “Not Just a Basic Income” by Ben Spies-Butcher, Senior Lecturer at the Department of Sociology at Macquarie University.
The main objective of Spies-Butcher’s essay is to argue against a UBI as conceived as a replacement for the welfare state, concluding “UBI is part of the answer, but only if it builds on a broader project for social change” (p. 46).
Spies-Butcher has previously defended an Australian UBI (as a partial solution) in articles such as “Could a new ‘basic income’ protect Australia’s most vulnerable?” (October 2015, The Conversation) and, earlier in 2016, in a panel discussion on UBI hosted by the New South Wales Fabian Society (see his presentation).
5. “A Universal Basic Income: Economic considerations” by the political economist Frank Stilwell (Emeritus Professor at the University of Sydney).
After outlining several reasons for which UBI seems to a policy “whose time has come”, Stilwell raises the question of how a UBI could be funded in Australia, and describes some sources of uncertainty with respect to the policy’s economic effects. However, he concludes his essay by emphasizing that “these uncertainties are not a reason to eschew further investigation” and that the discussion surrounding UBI is important because it “directs our attention to the all-important questions of ends and means: ‘what sort of society do we want?’ and ‘how should we restructure our economy so that the desired social outcomes can be achieved?'” (p. 51).
Stilwell also defends basic income in a short radio interview with Hamish Macdonald (“Less work, more money: the argument for a universal basic income“), which was aired in response to the publication of the Green Institute report.
Harry Nilsson
6. “Goin’ where the weather suits my clothes” by Louise Tarrant, former National Secretary of United Voice.
Inspired by the 1969 Harry Nilsson hit “Everybody’s Talkin’“, Tarrant recounts several pivotal moments in the last 70 years of history of Western democracies, ultimately arguing that now is the time to recreate an effective democracy and new social compact. Tarrant discusses the threat of automation and the “over-valorization” of paid work as factors giving rising to this need. She finally describes how a new social compact might be formed around the ideas of less work and a UBI.
To hear more of Tarrant’s ideas about UBI, listen to her discussion of the policy’s pros and cons at the Fabian Society panel (in which she participated alongside Spies-Butcher).
7. “The emancipatory potential of a Universal Basic Income” by Clare Ozich, Executive Director of the Australian Institute of Employment Rights (AIER).
Drawing from the work of Guy Standing, Kathi Weeks, Paul Mason, and others, Ozich argues that the debate about UBI should be seen as a way to open discussion about “how we conceive of work and what value we place on what forms of work” (p. 71). She stresses that the emancipatory potential of UBI depends on the exact form of the UBI implemented; for example, a basic income set too low could merely act as a subsidy to low wages.
8. “Why a Universal Basic Income can address historic, gender and material inequities” by feminist advocate Eva Cox, currently Adjunct Professor at Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning at the University of Technology, Sydney.
Cox supports a basic income as a way to recognize the value the unpaid labor: “By liberating people from the need to earn their basic expenses through paid work, we can open up many possibilities of creating better functioning societies. By recognising the value of unpaid contributions already made and encouraging their expansion, there can be more gender equity, social wellbeing and validation of diversity of lifestyle choices” (p. 82).
After making a case for the need to recognize unpaid work, Cox briefly outlines a possible incremental approach to welfare reform in Australia.
Indigenous Australian Dancer, CC BY-SA 2.0 Naparazzi
9. “Basic income makes basic sense for remote Indigenous Australia” by Jon Altman, research professor at the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation at Deakin University in Melbourne and emeritus professor of the Australian National University in Canberra.
In his contribution, Altman reviews decades of findings concerning the effects of welfare programs on indigenous communities, especially the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme and the “work for the dole” Community Development Programme (CDP) that eventually replaced it. Although originally intended to provide wages for part-time employment, the CDEP came to administered a basic income in some regions, where it was popular and successful. Altman argues that the CDP is less effective (calling it “neo-paternalism … masquerading as a work-creation program that is destructive and deeply impoverishing already impoverished people”, p. 93), and that a (re-)introduction of basic income scheme would greatly improve the status of indigenous Australians.
Altman has argued for the same thesis–that a basic income would improve the position of indigenous Australians–in previous works, such as the book chapter “Basic Income for Remote Indigenous Australians: Prospects for a Livelihoods Approach in Neoliberal Times” (published in the 2016 edited collection Basic income in Australia and New Zealand).
10. “The environmental impacts of a UBI and a shorter working week” by Greg Marston, Professor at School of Social Science at The University of Queensland and a leader of BIEN’s Australian affiliate, Basic Income Guarantee Australia.
Marston, one of Australia’s most prominent basic income advocates, presents an ecological argument for basic income in his contribution to the Green Institute report. As Marston argues, “Transitioning to a low-carbon slow growth economy is not simply a matter of social policy prescription or new economic incentives, but of transforming whole patterns of social life in terms of employment, family, mobility, housing and leisure” (p. 97), and such transformations require that work be organized differently. Some companies might opt to create a virtual working environment (often through registered address use at Companies House offices), potentially allowing employees to work from home and promote flexible working. These days, working from home is becoming more and more of an option, and technology is advancing at a rate that makes it entirely possible. Many companies already have some form of av system in place in order to facilitate things like virtual meetings and conferences with both employees and clients alike, so there are communications solutions already out there for remote working. Naturally, without modern communication technology, none of this would be possible. Implementing a cloud contact centre may encourage more businesses to retain a positive outlook on remote working.
Marston’s argument is one that he has also presented in earlier articles, including “Unconditional Basic Income and transitioning to a low-carbon society” and “Greening the Australian Welfare State: Can Basic Income Play a Role?” (the latter is a chapter in the book Basic income in Australia and New Zealand, which he co-edited).
Additional Press
Gareth Hutchens, “Take basic income and short working week seriously, Greens think-tank urges“, The Guardian, December 8, 2016.
Cover Photo: Surfer at Australia’s Byron Bay, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Richard Rydge
by Kate McFarland | Nov 9, 2016 | News
Social Justice Ireland’s 2016 Social Policy Conference in Dublin will center on the topic of basic income in Ireland and throughout Europe.
Social Justice Ireland, an independent think tank and advocacy organization, hosts an annual Social Policy Conference, which focuses each year on a different issue related to social justice.
Its 2016 conference, which will take place on November 22 in Dublin, is titled “Basic Income: Radical Utopia or Practical Solution?” and will explore current thinking about basic income in both the global and Irish contexts.
Themes to be addressed include:
- The role of basic income with respect to citizenship rights and responsibilities.
- How a basic income provides a route to a “more inclusive, equal, and creative society.”
- The international experience on implementing a basic income, highlighting experiments planned for countries such as Finland and the Netherlands.
- Possibilities for implementing a basic income in Ireland.
2015 SJI Conference, image courtesy of Michelle Murphy
Conference Speakers
The conference will be divided into two main sessions: one on the international state of the basic income movement, with a focus on experiments, and one on the potential for basic income in Ireland.
The first session, on the international context, will bring in researchers and basic income experts from throughout Ireland, the UK, and beyond:
- Anthony Painter – Director of Policy and Strategy at the British think tank RSA (Royal Society of Arts); author of the RSA Basic Income Model.
- Ville-Veikko Pulkka – Researcher at Kela (the Finnish Social Insurance Institution); one of the lead researchers behind Finland’s forthcoming basic income pilot.
- Ronan Lyons – Assistant Professor of Economics at Trinity College Dublin.
- Ursula Barry – Senior Lecturer and Deputy Head of the School of Social Justice at University College Dublin (who has previously presented at events held by Basic Income Ireland).
In the second session, Roisin Mulligan of Basic Income Ireland and Michael Taft of Unite (the UK’s largest trade union, which endorsed basic income in July) will speak about the Irish context, as will multiple members of Social Justice Ireland (Michelle Murphy, Eamon Murphy, Seán Ward, Seán Healy, and Brigid Reynolds).
Social Justice Ireland’s Stance on Basic Income
Social Justice Ireland supports a basic income and is on the steering committee of Basic Income Ireland, BIEN’s Irish affiliate.
The organization elaborates its stance on basic income in its 2015 policy proposal on income distribution (see pp. 68-72), from which the following excerpt was taken:
“As we are proposing it, a basic income system would replace social welfare and income tax credits. It would guarantee an income above the poverty line for everyone. It would not be means tested. There would be no ‘signing on’ and no restrictions or conditions. In practice, a basic income recognises the right of every person to a share of the resources of society.
“The Basic Income system ensures that looking for a paid job and earning an income, or increasing one’s income while in employment, is always worth pursuing, because for every euro earned the person will retain a large part. It thus removes poverty traps and unemployment traps in the present system. Furthermore, women and men would receive equal payments in a basic income system. Consequently the basic income system promotes gender equality because it treats every person equally.
“It is a system that is altogether more secure, rewarding, simple and transparent than the present tax and welfare systems. It is far more employment friendly than the present system. It also respects other forms of work besides paid employment. This is crucial in a world where these benefits need to be recognised and respected. It is also very important in a world where paid employment cannot be permanently guaranteed for everyone seeking it. There is growing pressure and need in Irish society to ensure recognition and monetary reward for unpaid work. Basic income is a transparent, efficient and affordable mechanism for ensuring such recognition and reward” (pp. 69-70).
More Information and Registration
See the website of Social Justice Ireland for more information about the upcoming conference, including schedule details and bios of all speakers:
www.socialjustice.ie/content/civil-society-policy/social-policy-conference-2016.
To register, go here: https://groupvite.io/v/tagqy.
According to the organizers, the conference will interest “policy makers, academics, social justice activists and others interested in looking at innovative ways of creating a more equal, just and fair society.”
Conference details provided by Michelle Murphy of Social Justice Ireland
Cover photo: Lady Justice at Dublin Castle CC BY-NC 2.0 Derek Bruff
by Kate McFarland | Oct 21, 2016 | Opinion
Thomas H. Davenport and Julia Kirby, the authors of Only Humans Need Apply, favor a job guarantee (JG) over a universal basic income (UBI). In a previous post, I critiqued their use of the claim that people who lack jobs tend to be less happy than those who have them (irrespective of income). Of course, we all aim to have successful careers which is often what drives employees in the financial sector to push on and start a firm of their own. Without a doubt, starting my own accounting firm wasn’t easy but I have zero regrets.
In this follow-up post, I take a different tack, and argue that we have reason to support UBI over a JG even if we grant that most people would be happier when employed than when not.
Two points will be key: a UBI does not prevent individuals from working; a UBI, but not a JG, would benefit the minority of individuals who do fare better outside of traditional employment.
1. A Basic Response
In their recently published book Only Humans Need Apply, Tom Davenport and Julia Kirby briefly dismiss a universal basic income (UBI) in favor of a job guarantee (JG).
I laid out their main argument in a previous post on Basic Income News. To recall: Davenport and Kirby’s primary claim is that a JG provides benefits to individuals that exceed those provided by a UBI–specifically, jobs. Central to their argument is the assumption that jobs “bring many benefits to people’s lives beyond the paycheck, among them the social community they provide through having coworkers, the satisfaction of setting and meeting challenging goals, even the predictable structure and rhythm they bring to the week” (p. 7).
In my previous post, I focused on their use of one particular type of data: studies that suggest that unemployed people tend to be less happy than employed people, even after controlling for monetary factors. I will now pursue a slightly different tack. Here I will argue that, even if it is true that jobs improve the happiness of most people, this does not necessarily favor a JG over UBI. (For the purpose of the argument, I will also assume–as do Davenport and Kirby–that sufficient jobs can continue to be created to support full employment, notwithstanding advances in automation.)
These are the crucial observations:
- A UBI does not compel individuals who already have jobs to leave them (obviously); thus, it would not hurt those people who already have jobs and value them. Similarly, a UBI does not prevent those without jobs from taking jobs (while also permitting them more time and flexibility to find, or retrain for, a job that is a good fit to their skills and interests).
- Even if most individuals are disposed to be happiest when employed in a stable, full-time job, there are some individuals who aren’t. Some individuals are disposed to be happiest–as well as most productive–when not traditionally employed. A UBI, but not JG, would allow those in this minority to flourish.
Combined, I believe that these two points provide strong reason to prefer UBI over JG. When we consider individuals who are happily employed, the choice appears to be a draw. Perhaps a JG could provide more security in a cherished job, but a UBI would not necessarily hamper it. Meanwhile, a UBI–but not JG–would immensely help those individuals who would better thrive outside of traditional jobs. (There is one important caveat here, which I will return in Part 3 of this article: a JG is likely to provide the greater benefit to some individuals who would prefer to be employed but are out-of-work.)
If the majority of individuals are happiest in jobs, as Davenport and Kirby assume, then a JG presumably would be for the good of the majority. A UBI, however, would be for the good of the majority and then some. A UBI would not cause anyone to be unemployed. However, a large enough UBI would enable individuals to abstain from employment temporarily or permanently–should they choose to do so. A UBI would support the majority and, unlike a JG, also the minority of individuals who are not happiest in jobs (as well as those who are happiest in jobs but need the flexibility to transition into a better job, as I’ll mention briefly in §3).
2. Liberation from Jobs
Most regular readers of Basic Income News have, no doubt, encountered the argument that basic income necessary to liberate individuals from overtaxing jobs, oppressive jobs, or meaningless “bullshit” jobs. Many, perhaps, were drawn to investigate basic income (as I was) precisely because it opens this possibility. Nonetheless, it’s worth rehearsing some points.
It is not hard to demonstrate that some individuals do not gain meaning, happiness, and self-worth from jobs. And, for the purposes of the above argument, this weak claim is all that is necessary (there’s certainly no need to argue that most individuals are so disposed). Some individuals would be much better able to gain meaning, happiness, and self-worth outside of a job–and, in the process, contribute more to society than they otherwise could.
In my last post, for example, I mentioned entrepreneur Robin Chase’s informal studies of individuals’ “passion jobs”. Recall, for example, the couch-surfing, open-source programmer–an individual who is presumably not interested in monetizing his work, who is motivated just to engage in challenging projects and disseminate his work as widely as possible. (For bigger examples on similar lines, we might look to the communities of creators of Linux and Wikipedia.) Even if he could monetize his work as a programmer, this would only take time away from–and perhaps constrict–the socially valuable work that he is currently performing for no financial reward. But, of course, one must have capital (possibly in the form of friends with couches) in order to devote significant amounts of time to open-source programming or other unpaid work. Many would-be creators and innovators lack such capital, and thus remain trapped in jobs that might well be less valuable–to both themselves and society–than the unpaid work they could (and would) otherwise perform.
Brian Eno CC BY 2.0 Garry Knight
Musician Brian Eno supports basic income for quite similar reasons–that it would enable individuals to avoid jobs in order to engage in more creative work–as evident, for example, in remarks made at meet-up in London last December:
I often get asked to come and talk at art schools, and I rarely get asked back, because the first thing I always say is, ‘I’m here to persuade you not to have a job.’ … My first message to people is: try not to get to a job. That doesn’t mean try not to do anything. It means try to leave yourself in a position where you do the things you want to do with your time, and where you take maximal advantage of whatever your possibilities are. The obstacle is that most people aren’t in a position to do that. I want to do anything to work to a future where everybody’s in a position to do that. … [T]he concept [of basic income] is the closest thing I’ve heard to achieving the kind of future that I would like to live in.
Similarly, anthropologist David Graeber, known in part for his trenchant look at the proliferation of “bullshit jobs”, supports basic income as a means to unleash the innovative potential of people who might otherwise wasting their talents in unfulfilling jobs.
David Graeber (left) CC BY 2.0 Guido van Nispen
This has all seemed perfectly obvious to me: I’m among those who find traditional jobs confining and stifling, and who has no particular interest in monetizing and advertising the work that I do outside of traditional employment–including, of course, my writing and other work for BIEN and Basic Income News. If only could afford it, I would indeed prefer not to have to seek personal monetary gain from my work. And this preference is not limited to my work for the basic income movement. For instance, one of alternative plans has been to do more work as a “curriculum development consultant” for graduate teaching associates and adjunct faculty in my discipline. This would be interesting, challenging, and rewarding for me–as well as a valuable service for others. But, being familiar with the financial plight of most graduate TAs and adjuncts, I am rather appalled by the thought of charging money for any such services.
Chakay Artisan Roasts: one product of an unpaid passion job
Prior to my recent personal experiences, my late mother stood out for me as someone who quite clearly found her meaning and purpose outside of paid employment. After spending years feeling stuck low-paying, dead-end service job, she only discovered her “passion job” after she was fired: developing and manufacturing a vegan meat-substitute. Despite the fact that their product was already being sold in restaurants the year before she passed away, my mother and her partner did not envision their invention as a (meatless) cash cow: their vision was that it would eventually provide a low-cost, sustainable solution to end global protein malnutrition. Maybe if they had invested then in restaurant pos systems such as the ones we have now in the market for retail operations, their restaurant business would have flourished even more.
Meanwhile, some people find traditional jobs constricting simply due to the norms and expectations of job culture. A recent blog post on Medium, which focused on neurodiversity, makes this point well:
Most people are unhappy with their jobs, and workplace stress is the biggest cause of workdays lost to ill health. There are many reasons for this, and some of them are directly linked to the reasons so many autistic people struggle to find or hold onto jobs. Noisy environments, interruptions, long work hours and lack of autonomy are stressful for everyone, but often downright intolerable for autistic people. Expectations of conformity hit neurodivergent people especially hard, but they can be stifling or even ruinous for people from other cultures, too, not to mention anyone who doesn’t fit neatly into the gender roles assigned them by society. [Embedded links in original]
Neurodivergent individuals, and others who do not fit neatly in the mold of society, can be stifled and inhibited by traditional work environments. Such individuals are better able to flourish personally–and, in turn, become more valuable contributors to society–if they are able to working outside of traditional jobs, or perhaps take the time to a job that is a better match.
Examples like the above easily could be multiplied, but these will suffice to make the point.
Now, then, what do Davenport and Kirby have to say about such individuals? The answer is not much. They do mention explicitly that proponents of UBI often claim that “the impulse to create value is innate in humans, and if anything is channeled into less socially valuable activities when the point must be to gain payment for one’s work” (p. 242). However, their only reply is quite hastily and uncritically dismissive:
Unfortunately, the data don’t bear that out. As Derek Thompson notes in his provocative Atlantic article “A World Without Work,” time studies suggest that people who don’t work tend to sleep more, watch more TV, and browse the Internet. So much for taking up painting.
There’s no need to say much more in reply to this hasty assertion. Certainly, it is not difficult to compile anecdotes of specific individuals who would (or do) thrive outside of paid work. And, for the purpose of the present argument, there is no need to demonstrate that all or even most individuals would engage in socially valuable activities outside of paid work. Plausibly, even with a UBI, most individuals would choose to remain in paid employment. To make the case for the advantage of a UBI to a JG, we need only to show that some individuals (and, in turn, society) would benefit tremendously if liberated from the need for work for money–as we’ve done.
It is worth pointing out, though, that the Thompson’s Atlantic article goes much farther than Davenport and Kirby’s comments would suggest–and it goes much farther, specifically, in exploring and describing a multitude of creative recreational activities performed by individuals outside of paid work. Indeed, Thompson states that one of his objectives in the article is to envision “how millions of people might find meaningful work without formal wages”. He accepts that it’s possible for people to “meaningful work without wages”. Moreover, he investigates what such meaningful work might be–visiting locations such as the Columbus Idea Foundry, a large “makerspace” (right next door to my own neighborhood, as it happens).
CC BY-NC 2.0 Stephen Wolfe
It’s worth reading more of Thompson’s own words:
The Internet and the cheap availability of artistic tools have already empowered millions of people to produce culture from their living rooms. People upload more than 400,000 hours of YouTube videos and 350 million new Facebook photos every day. The demise of the formal economy could free many would-be artists, writers, and craftspeople to dedicate their time to creative interests-to live as cultural producers. Such activities offer virtues that many organizational psychologists consider central to satisfaction at work: independence, the chance to develop mastery, and a sense of purpose.
After touring the [Columbus Idea Foundry], I sat at a long table with several members. … I asked them what they thought of their organization as a model for a future where automation reached further into the formal economy. A mixed-media artist named Kate Morgan said that most people she knew at the foundry would quit their jobs and use the foundry to start their own business if they could. Others spoke about the fundamental need to witness the outcome of one’s work, which was satisfied more deeply by craftsmanship than by other jobs they’d held.
Late in the conversation, we were joined by Terry Griner, an engineer who had built miniature steam engines in his garage before Bandar invited him to join the foundry. … “I’ve been working since I was 16. I’ve done food service, restaurant work, hospital work, and computer programming. I’ve done a lot of different jobs,” said Griner. … “But if we had a society that said, ‘We’ll cover your essentials, you can work in the shop,’ I think that would be utopia. That, to me, would be the best of all possible worlds.”
To echo Davenport and Kirby: So much for just sleeping, watching TV, and surfing the web.
3. UBI for Workers
I believe that the proponent of UBI can hardly underemphasize the need to liberate individuals from stifling, unengaging, and unnecessary jobs. At the same time, however, it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that the choice between JG and UBI is not a choice between “jobs and fewer jobs”. A UBI per se does not entail that individuals will stop working: it merely enables this possibility. A UBI does not harm those who are already happy in their jobs. Indeed, far from discouraging paid employment, UBI carries the advantage of avoiding the “welfare trap”: individuals do not lose the benefit when they assume a job or wage increase. (Indeed, this is a major reason that countries like Finland are seriously exploring the implementation of UBI.)
And we could add that there might be advantages of a UBI over a JG even when limiting our attention to those who do prefer to work in traditional jobs. A UBI would benefit anyone who feels trapped in a job that is a poor match for their personality, interests, and capabilities–even those would prefer to remain in full-time employment (but simply not in their current ill-fit jobs). With a guaranteed unconditional income, one could take away from full-time employment in order to retrain, further their education, start a private business, or pursue other such opportunities. A basic income provides a financial floor to enable individuals to switch jobs and careers–and even to execute the retraining that Davenport and Kirby recommend to cope with the age of automation!
A job guarantee provides jobs. A basic income, however, provides individuals with the financial security necessary to temporarily abstain from employment while retraining or searching for a job that is a good match to their interests and capabilities.
4. A Critical Caveat
There is, though, one caveat–which I’ll take up in my third and final installment. We must concede that there is something that UBI doesn’t guarantee that JG does: jobs.
Under a UBI, without a JG, there is no guarantee that sufficient jobs will even exist for all individuals–and even if there are sufficient jobs, a UBI alone does not enable individuals to access those jobs. A UBI does not provide social networks, cultural or linguistic capital, resumé-writing or interviewing skills, or self-marketing abilities. A UBI does not overturn implicit biases in hiring. A UBI does not guarantee that jobs are located where job-seekers live, or that job-seekers have the training and credentials needed to obtain a job. And so on.
A UBI program is likely to treat individuals as self-reliant–left to their own devices to find a job (or not)–in contrast to a JG program, which would bring along services to ensure that individuals are provided with jobs. Quite likely, one fear of Davenport and Kirby is that a UBI, but not JG, would result in many individuals who desire jobs but have difficulty in finding or obtaining them. While UBI might not prohibit individuals from taking up employment, it also does nothing to guarantee jobs to those who want them.
CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 New York City Department of Transportation
Perhaps, then, there is one category of individuals who stands to benefit more from a JG than from a UBI: those who are not employed, and who are looking for entry into a traditional job.
My hope, as broached in my last feature, is that UBI would usher in the attenuation of the job-culture. But it would not be immediate. At present, many (perhaps most) people have internalized the job-ethic. At present, unemployment does bear a stigma. And many people lack the training, motivation, or desire to start a small business or become independent artists, craftspersons, researchers, or software developers. Plausibly, there are many unemployed individuals who just want a job to provide their lives with purpose, dignity, structure, and a sense of social contribution. And we must not simply assume, without evidence, that such individuals would not be satisfied with the sort of “make-work” position created by a JG (which, after all, could be a truly important one, such as repairing our failing infrastructure).
It’s important that UBI advocates do not overlook this category of individuals: those who would prefer guaranteed employment (even in a government-created job) to guaranteed income.
But how many such individuals actually exist? And how would they fare under under a UBI? Is the solution a UBI plus a JG or other policy? Are other compromise positions available?
These are important concerns, which I plan to address in future work.
Davenport and Kirby: Full Bibliographical Entries
Thomas H. Davenport and Julia Kirby (2016) Only Humans Need Apply: Winners & Losers in the Age of Smart Machines, HarperCollins Publishers.
Tom Davenport and Julia Kirby (May 26, 2016) “What Governments Can Do When Robots Take Our Jobs“, Fortune Magazine (and reprinted in Yahoo Finance).
Reviewed by Tyler Prochazka
Featured Image CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 San Francisco Public Library
Thanks to Kate’s supporters on Patreon
by Hilde Latour | Sep 22, 2016 | News
On the first day of International Basic Income week and just six months before the election of a new House of Representatives (“tweede kamer”) in March of next year, a debate on unconditional Basic Income was held in the Dutch parliament on September 19th. This debate was initiated by Member of Parliament Norbert Klein of the Cultural Liberal Party (Vrijzinnige Partij), who wrote a ‘note of initiative’ (“initiatiefnota”) in January this year, called “Certainly Flexible: about thinking differently about work and social security with an unconditional basic income”
Klein asked for three things:
1. The government’s reaction
The Minister of Social Affairs and Employment, Lodewijk Assher (Labour Party, PvdA), answered in writing on May 31st, that introducing a basic income is simply too expensive as the number of people paying taxes will decrease dramatically.
In addition to the economic arguments against a Basic Income, the Minister states: Having a job is more than having an income. (…) A job offers people a social network, structure in life, self esteem and personal development.” That participation in (paid) labour is good for everyone, is the broadly supported position of the Dutch government. This is what Klein refers to as a “one size fits all” policy.
In this context it is worth noting that in the current Dutch participation legislation (“participatiewet”), people are not allowed to choose the job or activities they like. The government decides which work is suitable, prohibiting many kinds and types of participation with extremely high penalties for people who participate in other activities without specific permission of the (local) government. There is very little freedom of choice and many people report to be forced into meaningless jobs. The Minister refers to this policy as “support with an activating character”.
Apparently the characterization “one size fits all” for the current policy hurts, because the minister bounces it back at Klein, by saying that a basic income is a “one size fits all” idea. He states that in case of an unconditional basic income, every citizen would receive the same income support, even if they don’t need it. He ignores the fact that the richer part of the population would be paying back most of it through taxes as was indicated by Klein in his note of initiative.
He also ignores the fact that people will regain their freedom of choice to either participate in (paid or non-paid) labour, education, caring roles or anything else that helps them create structure in their lives, build social networks, and nurture self esteem or personal development.
Furthermore, the Minister argues that European legislation might be a roadblock on the way to implementing a Basic Income in the Netherlands. However, no definite answer is given about this possible hurdle, nor is the minister referring to any specific European legislation that might stand in the way of implementing a Basic Income in The Netherlands.
During the meeting the Minister confirms he is not in favour of new research, as enough research has been done. He indicates the possibility that the House of Representatives would have to order an investigation by itself.
2. More extended research on the effect of a basic income on the state’s budget
Klein states, the research on the impact on the state’s budget done so far, has been incomplete regarding the domains in which the effect of basic income can be expected. He questions the conclusions of previous research on the effect of a Basic Income on the state’s budget and formulates a list of examples of positive side effects that were not included in the calculations (i.e. effect on health, housing market, executional costs, increased entrepreneurship and participation in labour). He asks for new research where these effects will be included.
3. A debate in the House of Representatives
During the meeting of the Committee of Social Affairs and Employment on September 19th, seven political parties of the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament were represented: Socialist Party (SP), Green Left (GL), Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), Democrats 66 (D66), Labour Party (PvdA) and of course Klein / Cultural Liberal Party (Vrijzinnige Partij).
The main decision to be made during the debate: Is the House of Representatives willing to order an investigation by the Central Planning Agency (CPB) and the Socio-Cultural Planning Agency (SCP) for an explorative study on the financial / socio-economic as well as the behavioral aspects of an unconditional basic income?
The VVD is firmly against a basic income, where in the past the option was openly supported by the VVD-Minister of Economic Affairs, Gerrit Zalm. An unconditional Basic Income is an unfair solution according to the right wing-party nowadays, arguing as follows: the working part of the population pays for the people sitting at home. It is senseless, anti social and unaffordable. What if everyone chooses to do fun things instead of going to work? The effect of an unconditional Basic Income will be less participation in labour, resulting in a decrease in tax-income. We already have too many regulations that discourage people to go to work. Freedom of choice for people that is paid by others is not a dream but a nightmare. No further research is needed according to the VVD.
All other parties first have questions about the note of initiative and ask for further information. What will happen to the current social security system, what will be the cost of a basic income and how will it be financed?
In response to these questions, Klein hands out an estimate of the cost (130 billion euros) of implementing an unconditional Basic Income of 800 euros per person and a proposal of how this could be financed. He also alters his initial inclusion criterion for a basic income (living 10 years in the Netherlands) towards people with a Dutch residence permit. He emphasizes the starting point is a positive image of citizens, where most people want to participate in society in a good way. A basic Income should be seen as a springboard, not a safety net. He states that unpaid work can be as beneficial for society as paid work.
Green Left is the party most positive towards researching the effects of a Basic Income, but does not support the idea of an income guaranteed for everyone. Green Left is in favour of a looser link between work and income but wants different options to be investigated, e.g. Basic Income, negative income tax and dividend on robotics.
All parties, except the VVD, asked for a suspension of the meeting to another date to be able to study Kleins’ financial proposal. A date will be chosen during the next meeting of the committee.
To be continued…
Info and links
A report of the meeting can be found here (in Dutch)
Both letters (Klein’s note of initiative and Assher’s response) can be found here (in Dutch).
Related Basic Income News articles:
NETHERLANDS: Basic Income debated for first time in Parliament
[Hilde Latour]
THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS: Expert Meeting on “Sense (and Nonsense) of a Basic Income”
[Florie Barnhoorn]
Special thanks to Josh Martin, and Cameron McLeod for reviewing this article.
Cover photo:
Meeting of Committee of Social Affairs and Employment – Hilde Latour 19 sep 2016
by Kate McFarland | Sep 5, 2016 | Opinion
Thomas H. Davenport and Julia Kirby, the authors of Only Humans Need Apply, favor a job guarantee (JB) over a universal basic income (UBI). In this first part of a three-part article, I review their main argument, and assess one their central claims: the supposition that joblessness causes people to be less happy (irrespective of income).
Thomas H. Davenport and Julia Kirby, the authors of Only Humans Need Apply (2016, HarperCollins), believe that automation will radically change the structure of work. However, they further maintain that there is no need to fear a robot job apocalypse — in defiance of the picture painted by the popular CGP Grey video Humans Need Not Apply, to which the book’s title alludes. On their assessment, humans and machines will be able to work together in the new economy. Indeed, Only Humans Need Apply consists largely of strategies that workers can pursue to reduce their risk of losing their jobs to machines.
Davenport and Kirby are not proponents of universal basic income (UBI). Instead, as they mention briefly near the end of their book, they favor a job guarantee (JG) program. In this article, I will review their main argument against UBI, and present what I take to be its major shortcomings.
Something, though, should be said upfront: for the purposes of this article, I am happy to grant Davenport and Kirby’s premise that there’s no robot job apocalypse on the horizon. Indeed, I agree that it’s plausible that people will continue to create abundant opportunities for paid employment despite increased automation; after all, they have been doing so for decades already. However, as I’ve stressed elsewhere, there are plenty of reasons to support basic income that have nothing to do with automation; we don’t need to fear the rise of the robots. For one, I believe that a UBI should be demanded in part to free individuals from the need to sell their labor in the marketplace.
It’s on this last point that I markedly disagree with Davenport and Kirby, who hold that jobs are good. More specifically, Davenport and Kirby maintain that jobs are good for those who work at them — and for more than just income. It’s largely for this reason — which I’ll present in more detail below — that they eschew UBI in favor of JG.
1. The ‘Jobs Have Non-Monetary Value’ Argument
Davenport and Kirby devote only one chapter of Only Humans Need Apply to government policy, and only one short section of this chapter to universal basic income (pp. 241-243). (In fact, most of the relevant content was reprinted as an article in Fortune.)
Davenport and Kirby are quick to dismiss UBI — which they believe “misses the point” by neglecting the non-monetary value a jobs. It is worth noting what their complaints against UBI are not. For one, they do not worry that a UBI would be too expensive. Indeed, they assert that “the huge gains in productivity will mean we could afford, as a society, to go in either direction” of a UBI or JG (p. 243). Nor are they convinced that a guaranteed income would encourage laziness. They are clearly skeptical (as we’ll see later on), but at the same time they concede that this question is an empirical one — and go so far as to “applaud” cities like Utrecht for their willingness to experiment (p. 242).
For Davenport and Kirby, the deciding factor seems to be that (on their view) a JG provides benefits to individuals that exceed those provided by a UBI. What benefits? Well, jobs.
Jobs bring many benefits to people’s lives beyond the paycheck, among them the social community they provide through having coworkers, the satisfaction of setting and meeting challenging goals, even the predictable structure and rhythm they bring to the week. In 2005 Gallup began conducting a global opinion survey called World Poll. Analysis of the responses reveals that people with “good jobs” — which Gallup defines as those offering steady work averaging thirty or more hours per week and a paycheck from an employer — are more likely than others to provide positive responses about other aspects of their present and future lives.
Another World Poll question presents “aspects of life that some people say are important to them” and asks respondents to categorize each as to whether it is something essential they could not live without, very important, or useful but something they could live without. Gallup chair Jim Clifton says that by 2011, “having a good quality job” had reseach the top globally — putting it ahead of, for example, having a family, democracy and freedom, religion, or peace (pp. 7-8).
Work has value in itself as a way to find meaning in life. As we’ve noted, having a good job is the most desired thing in the world in global polls. Freud said that, “Love and work…work and love, that’s all there is.” Many studies have found that unemployed people are less happy, and that compensating them anyway doesn’t make them as happy as putting them back to work (p. 242).
To be sure, Davenport and Kirby are at times a bit flip. The Freud quotation, for instance, merits no more of a rebuttal than “The Beatles said, ‘All you need is love, love; love is all you need.'”
However, the basic worry — that work brings value to life that’s not provided by income alone — is indeed an important concern, and it merits a serious reply. Indeed, as I will concede later, it’s possible that, for some individuals, a JG would provide more benefit than a UBI — due precisely to the fact that jobs provide many people with rewards other than a mere paycheck. But I will argue that, all things considered, this is not a persuasive reason to favor a JG to UBI.
In particular, I want to highlight three main shortcomings of Davenport and Kirby’s argument:
1. It is inappropriate to extrapolate the results of studies like those in question (viz., surveys of unemployment and unhappiness) to a society with UBI. This is because a UBI itself might engender importantly different norms, values, and societal expectations.
2. Such generalizations ignore the fact that many individuals are discontent in their jobs, and that some would be happier (and more productive) if not confined to any traditional job. A UBI, but not a JG, would help such individuals immensely.
3. It’s important not to ignore that a UBI does not compel individuals to stop participating in paid employment; thus, it would not hurt those people who do have jobs and value them.
The decision between a UBI and JG must not construed as a choice between a society in which most individuals lack jobs and one in which they have them. After all, studies of guaranteed income, such as the Mincome experiment in Dauphin, Manitoba, have shown little negative effect on employment. It is a choice between a society in which those individuals choose jobs at their own will and one which the majority are forced to take jobs out of financial necessity.
In this article, I will focus on the first consideration above. Since UBI does not “cause” employment, it might seem that this issue is a red herring; nonetheless, it is illustrative to scrutinize some of the reasons that the extrapolation of results on “unhappiness” is unwarranted.
In a second article (to be published), I will turn to the second and third.
2. The Extrapolation Worry
Go back to one of Davenport and Kirby’s more provocative claims: “Many studies have found that unemployed people are less happy, and that compensating them anyway doesn’t make them as happy as putting them back to work” (p. 242). Let’s grant that this is true, and that there were no fatal flaws in the design of the studies. My claim is that, nonetheless, it’s inappropriate to extrapolate these results to a society in which a UBI has been enacted.
Suppose that, in general, unemployed people are less happy than employed people, and that this difference in happiness cannot be accounted for merely by the loss of income. Can we conclude that a job guarantee should be favored over a universal basic income?
I believe that the answer here is clearly no. This is because, in our actual society, there are other variables that are confounded with the presence or absence of paid employment. For one, to lack a job is to have a stigma (perhaps especially if one is receiving income without working). Secondly, jobs often play a large role providing individuals with a sense of meaning and personal identity. No doubt that bearing a stigmatized identity can contribute to unhappiness, as can the lack of a sense of identity and purpose. But what I want to stress here is that these correlations are present in our actual society — and there is good reason to believe that these connections would be attenuated by the institution of a UBI itself.
Put otherwise: The correlations between unemployment and stigma, and between employment and self-identity, are products of our society and culture. They would not necessarily hold in a society with a UBI. Thus, if it’s really the stigma and/or the loss of identity that causes many unemployed people to be unhappy, we can’t conclude that unemployment would have this same effect were a UBI to be put in place.
2.1 Unemployment and Stigma
Take the fact that unemployment is stigmatized. Some observations do suggest that stigma does play a role in contributing to the unhappiness associated with unemployment — such as the following three. First, retirees are not disproportionately unhappy. Second, in one study designed to test the stigma hypothesis, it was found that unemployed individuals enjoyed a boost in life satisfaction upon reaching retirement age, even though (curiously) employed individuals did not [1]. Third, if unemployment makes individuals unhappy, then the average happiness levels within societies should be expected to decrease when unemployment rates rises; however, this has been found not to happen [2]. Davenport and Kirby would argue that everyone wants a happy retirement, so whether being unemployed beforehand or not, wouldn’t or shouldn’t effect this. To be honest, retirement is closely linked to the age of senility. Therefore, this becomes the time for many to enjoy the last few happy years on the planet. That said, expecting a happy retirement is a normal human tendency. Many people expect a retirement devoid of the fear of writing a will or maybe getting in touch with a probate attorney in Denver (or nearby places) in advance to take care of the estate administration in case of death.
Anyway, these three observations can’t be explained merely by the hypothesis that people are unhappy when they lack a job. They can, however, be explained by the “stigma hypothesis”. Take the first two observations: although our society expects that able-bodied, non-elderly adults are employed full-time, this expectation does not hold for individuals past retirement age; “retirees” is a socially-acceptable, non-stigmatized category. Additionally, the third observation could be explained by noting that, when the unemployment rate is higher in a region, unemployment becomes more familiar, and thus ceases to bear as much of a stigma.
And we should add that there is also stigma associated with the receipt of “handouts”. Thus, if stigma is a large factor in the mechanism by which unhappiness contributes to unemployment, we should not expect that merely giving money to unemployed individuals would restore their happiness. If the money is perceived as a “handout” — a symbol of personal unfitness or inadequacy — then to accept it is to assume a stigmatized identity on top of a stigmatized identity.
That is our present world. Now, consider a world with UBI. In this world, a basic income is awarded to everyone. There is no need for anyone to prove their neediness in order to receive enough money to live, nor must anyone demonstrate that they are physically or mentally unable to work, or that they seeking employment but unable to find it. Because of the universality, there would be no stigma attached to individuals’ receipt of this form of cash assistance. Receiving the benefit could not in itself be construed as evidence of personal inadequacy.
Of course, it’s possible that individuals who did not work, living upon the basic income alone, would still be stigmatized in UBI-world. Perhaps they would still be branded as lazy, freeloaders, or incompetent to find work. However, in a society in which all individuals are guaranteed an income sufficient to meet their basic needs, some highly driven individuals might voluntarily opt out of the paid workforce in order to concentrate solely on their passions — artists and writers, independent researchers and open-source programmers, political activists and volunteers for humanitarian projects, and so on. If such individuals are numerous, successful, and productive, then unemployment might cease to be stigmatized, and could instead come to be regarded as a socially acceptable life-choice.
The final point relates directly to the second “confounder”: as a matter of fact, paid jobs provide a sense of meaning and identity to many people; however, this is not necessarily the case.
2.2 Employment versus Meaningful Work
Davenport and Kirby are surely correct that jobs function as an important “a way to find meaning in life”: for many people, having a job is a way to feel like one is providing some sort of important social contribution. And even those who find their jobs unfulfilling, perhaps even meaningless, might find in their job and career a source of self-identity. In American culture, a customary question to ask upon meaning a new acquaintance is “What do you do for a living?” Relatedly, a customary question to ask a child is “What do you do want to be when you grow up?”
In our current culture, job-centrism starts young — and persists. You might be interested in temporary work such as Interim Director Jobs. Maybe it is unsurprising that our culture should be this way: if jobs that consume most of our adult years are inevitable for us (given its financial necessity), then perhaps we might as well accept our jobs as core features — often the core features — of our personal identities.
But there seems to be nothing intrinsic about paid employment such that it should be more central to our self-identities than, say, unpaid work. Indeed, later in their section on UBI, Davenport and Kirby themselves state that volunteer service also “leads to greater happiness” (p. 243). Unemployed individuals seldom turn to volunteer service as a way to replace the lost non-monetary rewards of paid employment (I assume); however, this itself is plausibly an effect of society’s job-centrism. In our society, it is assumed that an unemployed, able-bodied person ought to devote as much effort as they can into searching for a new job; exclusive dedication to volunteer work, unless it is clearly a possible path to paid employment, is likely to be seen as imprudent and a waste of time.
Once again, however, a UBI might engender an entirely new culture — one which in more people, freed from the inevitability of full-time employment, turn to non-paid work to make their lives meaningful and valuable. This, I believe, is by no means an improbable effect of a UBI. After all, even in our present society, some individuals don’t turn to jobs for meaning and purpose — or would prefer not to. (I will return to this point in Part 2 as well.)
To take just one example, Zipcar CEO Robin Chase spoke of her research on “passion jobs” a recent White House roundtable discussion on automation an UBI. She has interviewed individuals from a cab driver who wrote music that made autistic children happy (but could not afford to pursue this passion full-time) to a computer programmer who slept on friends’ couches probably while being in the process to install git to write open-source software for 3D printers. In her informal research, she has encountered many people who are unable to pursue socially valuable and personally gratifying projects, simply because these projects are not financially lucrative; instead, these people are stuck in “crummy jobs”, detached from their passions. Chase herself supports a UBI as a way to allow individuals to pursue vocations that would give their lives much more meaning than the jobs to which they must resort for income.
If she is right, then a UBI might create an environment in which individuals routinely turn to voluntary work or other unpaid activities for meaning, fulfillment, and self-identity.
Similar points apply to other non-monetary benefits that many individuals derive from traditional jobs, such as those mentioned by Davenport and Kirby earlier in the book: “the social community [jobs] provide through having coworkers, the satisfaction of setting and meeting challenging goals, even the predictable structure and rhythm they bring to the week.” (I will return to similar points in Part II of this multi-part editorial.)
Presumably, most people are less happy when they lack engagement in projects, causes, and communities. In our present society, where jobs are (of necessity!) central to most people’s lives, lacking a job can mean lacking such a project, cause, or community. Again, however, this link is contingent — and could be severed through the institution of UBI itself. Thus, we can’t conclude that unemployment would have the same effect on unhappiness given UBI.
TL;DR –
Even though unemployment is correlated with unhappiness in modern developed societies (even when controlling for monetary factors), this result is plausibly a reflection of the job culture itself: it’s not that our culture values jobs because jobs intrinsically make us happy; it’s that being employed tends to make us happier because we are stuck in a culture that values jobs [3].
While the relationship between unemployment and unhappiness is no doubt highly complex — involving the interplay of more factors than we can reasonably discuss in a short response piece — the acknowledgement of the factors described above should at least lead us to question the appropriateness of invoking such studies in an argument for the superiority of a JG to UBI.
[1] Clemens Hetschko, Andreas Knabe, Ronnie Schöb (May 4, 2012) “Identity and wellbeing: How retiring makes the unemployed happier“, CEPR VOX.
[2] Cf. Petri Böckerman and Pekka Ilmakunnas (2006) “Elusive Effective of Unemployment on Happiness”, Social Indicators Research 79: 159-169.
[3] For more discussion of the non-naturalness of our modern notion of “work”, see this recent article: Ilana E. Strauss (Jun 8, 2016) “Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad?” The Atlantic.
Davenport and Kirby: Full Bibliographical Entries
Thomas H. Davenport and Julia Kirby (2016) Only Humans Need Apply: Winners & Losers in the Age of Smart Machines, HarperCollins Publishers.
Tom Davenport and Julia Kirby (May 26, 2016) “What Governments Can Do When Robots Take Our Jobs“, Fortune Magazine (and reprinted in Yahoo Finance).
Reviewed by Tyler Prochazka
Photo (“Workers”) CC BY 2.0 Daily Sunny
Kate would like to thank her supporters on Patreon
