by Guest Contributor | Sep 12, 2016 | Opinion
Basic Income Québec (RBQ) and the French Movement for a Basic Income (MFRB) had been preparing for the World Social Forum (WSF) event for almost a year. Their efforts paid off – the activities organized by the France-Québec team were an unmitigated success. For the first time ever, basic income achieved prominence at WSF, reflecting the growing worldwide interest in the idea.
A successful opening march with basic income robots that did not go unnoticed
The six members of the MFRB delegation teamed up with their counterparts of RBQ in order to organize several initiatives centered on basic income at the WSF in Montreal.
A wild workshop, a prelude to the Create-a-thon planned for Tuesday, August 9th, led to the creation of two robots (a concept developed by the MFRB local group of Lyon) along with signs and ponchos for the opening march taking place that day in Montreal, from Lafontaine Park to the Place des Arts that attracted about 15,000 people.
Marcus Brancaglione, Brazilian guest from the ReCivitas association, joined the jubilant “gang” of dozen-or-so activists who merrily spread the word about the program for the week, inviting passersby to come and take part in the workshops, conferences and debates.
The robots attracted quite a bit of attention. They were a big hit…or as the co-founder of RBQ (Luc Gosselin) put it, they “made a splash,” using a Quebec expression. They served as a rallying point throughout the week.
On the morning of August 10th, the group took possession of the two rooms that were graciously provided by the University of Quebec in Montréal (UQAM), enabling them to welcome more than two hundred motivated participants during the three days (excluding the Grand Conference).
Create-a-thon. Eighteen hours of creation. Fourteen stories from around the world.
The creation marathon was organized by the RBQ team. This two-and-a-half day event began with Lenny Watson’s presentation on the first Create-a-thons organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Finland.
Following an exchange between participants, an idea emerged. Inspired by a participant’s story about her mother, they began collecting stories of people they knew and explaining how a basic income would change their lives.
They started filming the next day. Aurélie Hampel handled video while Louise Allaire did the scripting and by day’s end 14 stories had been made, thanks to the many people who dropped by. Each told their story, stories from around the world, in their own language: in English, French or Portuguese.
On Friday, Aurélie and Louise pulled out the key themes and words from these stories. They were grouped into five chapters.
The following themes were chosen:
A basic income… when life is merciless
A basic income… to find one’s place in life
A basic income… in case of extreme poverty
A basic income… freedom to choose your own path in life
A basic income…to provide end-of-life care for loved ones
Teaser: https://youtu.be/wpKPSuSmZT4
All videos will be available on the MFRB YouTube channel, by the International Basic Income Week.
Ğeconomicus
The goal of the Ğeconomicus workshops was to promote the idea of changing our money system to bring about basic income without getting mired in politics and to start changing our debt-money-induced behaviour.
Carole Fabre and Damien Vasse hosted two game sessions, testing different monetary systems through card-playing. To sum up, each player exchanged cards with others to form squares. Each square represented a created value and was accounted for with a piece of candy (a new candyless version is possible. See website).The number of created value was tallied up at the end.
Human lifespan was introduced to test monetary exchange systems while keeping the same markers introduced in the Théorie relative de la monnaie by Stéphane Laborde.
With two and a half hours set aside for each workshop, they changed the rules and reduced human lifespan to 60 years as well as the duration of each round of play. They then played using a monetary system based on debt–today’s current system – and using a monetary system based on basic income and open money. Other systems could also be tested, such as barter and mutual credit, but they were unable to do so due to time constraints.
This game helps us understand how the structure of the monetary system affects our behaviors and exchanges.
Debt-money is boisterous and full of competition, trickery and knavery. With open money, tensions subside after two rounds, cooperation emerges and the ambiance changes. They were able to set aside over half an hour at the end of each workshop for a post-game discussion and debate. It was very rewarding each time, as people became aware of the debt-money trap and the unbelievable power of banks. With basic income in money creation, people saw that it was still possible to create value, but with a different behavior.
Co-creating our basic income using open money is finally possible, thanks to Duniter, an open money generator that took four years of work by developers and coders to make it fully operational. Now that it has proven successful in computer simulations, it is ready for the real world. The game provides an opportunity to show people that the system works and that it is up to us to make it happen.
Convergence Assembly: From realistic utopia to public policy
The two convergence assemblies were developed and facilitated in cooperation with Pierre Barbès and Gilles Charest, sociocracy experts at l’École Internationale des Chefs. The aim was for these meetings to be as inclusive as possible and to make people aware of the working methods we used by the MFRB, with a focus on sociocracy.
Right, Pierre Barbès,speaker and author, certified in sociocracy and community spirit development.
The conference ended with a round table giving everyone a chance to share what they gained from the workshop.
Convergence Assembly: “Income: A non-medical remedy?”
The idea for the assembly came from the Forum’s Health Space Committee, which two members of Basic Income Quebec took part in. The committee consisted of Quebec health professionals. RBQ wanted to ensure that one of the determinants of health – income – would be discussed and that everyone knew about the proven efficiency of basic income in areas where pilots had been conducted. Committee members were very receptive to the idea, as many of them were already familiar with the concept of basic income.
RBQ considers it as an important strategic step in Quebec. The group would like to see Quebec health professionals adopt a position in favor of basic income, just like their English Canada counterparts, both within their organizations and individually. The English group played a key role in the Ontario government’s decision to launch a basic income pilot, which is currently being developed.
The meeting reflected the keen interest in basic income by people from different countries who are primarily concerned with health, either as professionals or as citizens. Various courses of action were suggested.
Workshop: “On the Equitable Sharing of Wealth: Considering a Universal Basic Income and Maximum Wealth”
Many people pre-registered for this workshop as soon as it was announced, and it drew an at-capacity crowd. Wealth-sharing is an issue that has been addressed in various ways at the Forum. A universal allowance (or basic income) is an often-mentioned way to perform this sharing function in our societies. Maximum wealth has the same goal, but is less present in the public space. As a result, the majority of participants came to the workshop with a better grasp of basic income than maximum wealth. The similarities between the two ideas generated a lot of interest and lively debate with both facilitators, Alexandre Chabot-Bertrand and Christian Jobin. The exchanges continued long after the workshop had ended.
Grand Conference: Basic Income, a Major Social Innovation for the 21st Century?
Watch the conference video: https://youtu.be/tEumE1N1E0Y
The activities were concluded with a grand conference attended by nearly 500 people on the evening of Friday, August 12th. The speakers, each from a different country and approaching the issue of basic income from different perspectives, made quite an impression by their presence, their passion for the issue and their humor.
The conference began with a video from South African partner, Nkateko Chauke, Basic Income Grant Campaign Coordinator for the SADC (South African Development Community, which includes fifteen countries ranging from Tanzania to South Africa)
The conference began with a video from South African partner, Nkateko Chauke, Basic Income Grant Campaign Coordinator for the SADC (South African Development Community, which includes fifteen countries ranging from Tanzania to South Africa), who unfortunately was not able to attend. Watch the video here.
Rutger Bregman, Dutch journalist and author who recently published his book, Utopia for Realists: A Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-hour Workweek, led off the discussion by addressing basic income from a labor perspective
Rutger Bregman, Dutch journalist and author who recently published his book, Utopia for Realists: A Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-hour Workweek, led off the discussion by addressing basic income from a labor perspective. He questioned the moral imperative to work in a world that promotes the creation of what David Graeber calls bullshit jobs, referring to those pointless jobs, both for the people performing them and for society as a whole.
Karl Widerquist, from the United States and co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), then spoke about the three successive waves of basic income in our history
Karl Widerquist, from the United States and co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), then spoke about the three successive waves of basic income in our history. A first wave took root in the twentieth century (although the idea had already been discussed by the likes of Thomas Paine or Thomas More), especially in the Anglo-Saxon countries with advocates such as Bertrand Russell, George Henry and Virginia Woolf. The arguments at the time dealt primarily with principles of social and agrarian justice. The second wave emerged in the 1960s, with basic income being championed mainly by civil rights activists – Martin Luther King being the most eminent example. We are now in the third wave, which calls into question the current system, the conditionality of social welfare and our response to the changing nature of work. These changes have led to a wider acceptance of the idea, with more and more people showing an interest for it, including politicians and journalists.
Marcus Brancaglione, president of the ReCivitas association, presented the project being conducted in the town of Quatinga Velho in Brazil since 2008
Lastly, to demonstrate the potential of basic income, Marcus Brancaglione, president of the ReCivitas association, presented the project being conducted in the town of Quatinga Velho in Brazil since 2008. Marcus Brancaglione views basic income not just in terms of a pilot project but as a fundamental human right because he believes that poverty exists in society only because we allow it to. Brazil is the first country to have it enshrined in its Constitution as a long-term goal. The time has come to implement it.
The three speakers were very well received by the very engaged and enthusiastic audience. Hundreds of hands were raised throughout the discussion, as a lot of people wanted to ask questions and to share their thoughts on what a basic income would mean for them.
All these wonderful, diversified and varied initiatives helped spread the word about basic income throughout the world, clearly marking this year’s edition of the World Social Forum in Montreal.
Thanks to all those who helped make this event a success for basic income around the world!
The MFRB-RBQ organizing team: Aurélie Hampel, Carole Fabre, Christian Massault, Damien Vasse, Nicole Teke, Sylvie Denisse, Luc Gosselin, Louise Allaire, Lenny Watson and Sylvia Bissonette.
Article translated from French into English by Didier Di Camillo.
by Kate McFarland | Sep 6, 2016 | News
The Fabian Society, a prominent left-wing think tank in the UK, has published a book-length report on recommendations for improving the country’s social insurance, especially for non-pensioners (“For Us All” by Andrew Harrop). Among other topics, the report discusses–but not does not endorse–basic income. As an alternative, its author recommends a universal (but not unconditional) “individual credit” for adults.
In a Fabian Society report published on August 31, general secretary Andrew Harrop advises that the UK not replace existing social insurance benefits with a basic income (which he describes as a “single flat-rate payment for each individual”). His main concerns are that a basic income “would create many losers and would not reduce poverty or improve the incomes of those with least today,” unless there were to be a substantial increase in tax revenue, and that it would not eliminate the need for certain means-tested benefits, especially those related to housing (p. xix).
Harrop does, however, propose a type of universal cash payment that he calls an “individual credit”. All adults would be eligible to receive this payment in addition to Universal Credit payments and child credits for primary guardians. Universal Credit, a centerpiece of Britain’s current system of social insurance, is means-tested — and Harrop believes that retaining and supplementing the policy, rather than replacing it, “would significantly reduce poverty and increase low and middle incomes” (p. xx).
It is worth noting here the fact that the individual credit does not replace all means-tested benefits does not, in itself, imply that it is not a type of “basic income”. In principle, at least, basic income — a universal and unconditional cash payment paid directly to individuals — could be distributed in addition to universal credit or other conditional and means-tested benefits. Indeed, Compass, another British think tank, has recently recommended such a “modified scheme” as a way to introduce a universal basic income in the UK.
However, there are still important differences between Harrop’s individual credits and a basic income. Notably, the scheme that Harrop proposes is not strictly unconditional. He states that “Eligibility for the adult credit should depend on paying direct taxes or on productive participation in society” (p. xx). He elaborates on the “participation requirement” in the section on individual credits:
As a start, it [the credit] should only be available to people who both have a national insurance number and are on the electoral register (or an equivalent register for people without the right to vote). This would promote political participation and reduce the risk of fraud. Except for people with significant disabilities, receipt should also be dependent on either paying a certain amount of income tax or national insurance, or on learning, parenting, caring, job search or work preparation. The policing need not be particularly onerous, but people who refused the offer of a guaranteed job or educational place, after a significant time without working or paying direct taxes, should not continue to receive the credit (pp. 144-5).
Thus, unlike a basic income, the individual credit does carry a work requirement — even if a comparatively lenient and flexible one, which allows exemptions for students, parents, and caregivers.
At the same time, Harrop does not rule out basic income as a potential long-term goal. Indeed, he describes his own proposal as one that might provide a “gradualist, ‘Fabian’ route to creating a full basic income in the distant future”:
It would at least put in place the machinery that would make it possible to make larger universal payments should it be required, becoming an insurance policy in the event of a structural decline in the total hours of work, or of a severe recession which required a fiscal stimulus to support household spending (p. 143).
But paving the way for a basic income is not Harrop’s own goal in proposing individual credits. On the contrary, he goes on to say that “it is better to think of individual credit as ‘child benefit for adults’ not a step towards a basic income – i.e. a universal component in a hybrid system, which also includes contributory and means-tested elements” (pp. 143-4). Elsewhere, he enjoins policymakers to “focus on practical, incremental policy changes which embody something of the spirit of the basic income idea, but make sense as reforms in themselves” (p. 139).
Indeed, Harrop himself seems ambivalent as to whether basic income is a desirable himself endpoint — at one point stating that the case has not yet been settled either way (cf. pp. 137-9). An appendix to the report includes a summary of the reasons for and against a basic income (see Appendix 7, on final page).
In a September 1 interview with The Independent, Labour Party shadow chancellor John McDonnell — a long-time supporter of basic income — referred to the Fabian Society’s report when discussing his intention to continue to push for a universal basic income in the UK:
The Fabian society has just introduced a report today which is looking at reforms to the welfare state and it’s recommending a form of initial basic income for us to explore so we’re going to take that into account. When we look at the experiments that are taking place across Europe at the moment we’ll review those then consider what are options are.
Thus, McDonnell does seem to view Harrop’s proposal as route to basic income — even if Harrop himself deemphasizes this potential facet of the policy. (In the same set of remarks, McDonnell suggests that he also views child benefits, in the form of unconditional cash transfers to primary caretakers, in much the same way — that is, as a type of “initial” basic income.)
The Fabian Society is Britain’s oldest political think tank, founded in 1884. Today, it has approximately 7000 members and 70 local chapters. The society was one of the founders of the UK Labour Party, although it is not organizationally affiliated with the party today.
It summarizes its political mission as follows:
Our commitment to Fabianism means we believe in the fight against inequality, the power of collective action and an internationalist outlook. We believe in social progress, evidence, expertise, rationality and long-termism. We advocate gradualist, reformist and democratic means in a journey towards radical ends. We are a pluralist movement and create space for open debate.
The Fabian Society’s sister organization in Australia (not formally affiliated) recently sponsored a debate in Sydney on the topic of whether Australia should adopt a universal basic income.
To learn more about current basic income schemes proposed in the UK, see the compiled list at Basic Income UK.
References:
Andrew Harrop, For Us All: Redesigning social security, for the 2020s, Fabian Society, 2016.
Ashley Cowburn, “John McDonnell: I will win the argument to give every citizen in the UK a basic income“, The Independent; September 1, 2016.
See also:
Jon Stone, “Tax free allowances ‘must be axed to pay out modest basic income’, radical welfare blueprint suggests“, The Independent; August 30, 2016.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo of Fabian Society conference attendees CC BY 2.0 Fabian Society
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s patrons on Patreon
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
by Kate McFarland | Sep 3, 2016 | News
The European Forum for New Ideas is a conference that convenes annually in Sopot, Poland, bringing together academics, politicians, entrepreneurs, workers, and others to discuss the direction of the European economy.
This year’s conference will take place from September 28-30 on the theme of “The Future of Work: Realities, Dreams and Delusions”:
The implications of serious challenges currently facing Europe are all reflected in the continent’s labour market. The influx of immigrants, resuscitating EU unity, the technological revolution and the automation of processes will have tangible consequences for every EU citizen who wants to have a good job, decent pay and a stable future. Companies also have to tackle specific questions. Where to recruit new workers? How to retain those already employed? Which business models will be imposed by the automation of work and the possibility of artificial intelligence?
Notably from the standpoint of the Basic Income Earth Network, Guy Standing–BIEN’s cofounder and honorary co-president–will be participating in two sessions on the economic implications of technological change, both of which will be held on Thursday, September 29.
At the first, a morning plenary session, Standing will be one of six panelists. He will be joined by the author Martin Ford, who has promoted basic income as a way to cope with the automation of labor, especially in his popular book The Rise of the Robots (as well as in a recent White House roundtable discussion). Other panelists include Michał Boni (Member of the European Parliament), Michel Khalaf (President of MetLife EMEA), Ade McCormack (digital strategist), and Elżbieta Rafalska (Minister of Family, Labour and Social Policy in Poland). Marek Tejchman, Editor-in-Chief of Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, will moderate the discussion, which seeks to answer such questions as “Is polarization and fragmentation of work along with its attendant rise in inequalities inevitable?” and “What does the future hold in store for us: the end of unemployment, but also the collapse of stable employment?”
Later in the day, Standing will deliver an introductory speech at a debate on the topic “Is a Flexible and Secure Labour Market a Utopia?” (although he is not a participant in the debate itself).
Guy Standing is a Research Professor at SOAS, University of London, well known for his research and writing about the precariat. His latest book, The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does not Pay, was published in July of this year.
The European Forum for New Ideas is organized by Polish Confederation Lewiatan, in association with BusinessEurope.
For more information, including complete schedules, see the page for “The Future of Work: Realities, Dreams and Delusions” at the website of the European Forum for New Ideas.
Article reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Image (Krzywy domek Sopot ul. Bohaterów Monte Cassino) CC BY-SA 3.0 Topory
Shout out to Kate’s patrons on Patreon
by Roland Duchatelet | Aug 31, 2016 | Opinion
About 80 years ago, academics and policymakers in the US wondered if the country’s wealth was improving every year or not. They decided that the “added value” that was created in a country was the appropriate measure for wealth creation.
These policymakers looked at the quantity and price of goods sold by agriculture, deducted the value of goods acquired, like chemicals, tractors and fuel, to define the added value of agriculture in the economy. They did the same for the manufacturing and building industries and for services provided by bankers, hair dressers, restaurants and shops.
True, the wealth provided by a restaurant is short-lived, but industrial products do not last forever either. What you pay for a product or service is probably the best possible practical measure of its value. It all made sense.
Then they wondered what to do with services consumers didn’t pay for, like police and public administration. Those services were added to the “wealth of the country” at cost, since they were definitely contributing to our welfare by avoiding chaos. In 1930, public employment in the US was only seven percent of the total work force. That has most definitely increased, with more and more people entering public administration through universities similar to Norwich University.
The Gross Domestic Product, GDP, became a faith of the “Labour Church”. That it is faith and not reason was illustrated the last years by the huge impact on financial markets by statistically irrelevant changes of China’s growing GDP, like 0.5 percent, while its measuring inaccuracy is around 2.5 percent (see publications of Harry Wu, economics professor at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo).
Since 1970 machines, robots and computers have massively reduced the work force in agriculture and industry, considerably reducing the “added value” in those sectors.
I will now give examples of why GDP is not a good measure of wealth anymore.
- During the seventies, many European countries tried to solve rising unemployment following productivity gains in industry by creating new jobs in public service. Whether the newly appointed public servant did useful things or not, it supposedly increased the wealth of the country, since its cost, not its value, was counted in the GDP,
- Imagine that parents living in a village of the US have organised themselves to collectively watch their young kids and organise festivities for the community. That sort of work is not a part of the GDP. In Sweden, it is. Towns there enroll parents to take care of kids and organise parties and other events. This way, voluntary work is converted into paid work and thus GDP.
- If a country, for example Greece, drastically increases the number of its public servants and increases their salaries, they boost their GDP and make the IMF, the EU and creditors happy until the deadline comes to pay the loans used to fund the fantasy-growth of their GDP.
The examples show the same root cause of the problem, being the belief that unpaid labour has no value and paid labour has value even if the work is useless.
The approximation to count public services at cost is a design error in the GDP. It induces some countries to implement wrong policies to get a “better” GDP, at least for a short time, the time to get re-elected.
A nation is wealthy if it takes care of its people. For example, Belgium distributes an average of €550 in cash and another €420 pay-in-kind (free education and health care) per month per citizen. Many countries are now distributing a lot of money to the population (see this Economist graph). All of them do that in an incredibly complex way because the system grew over decades without being re-engineered. It is very likely that most wealthy countries will streamline their social security systems to make them more efficient and fair, like Finland is currently doing. No doubt that version 2.0 of our social security systems will contain a “basic income” core.
Shortly, my friends, within a few decades, the purchasing power distributed by a country to its citizens will replace the GDP as the measure of their wealth.
