Hi Peter and Lesley, thanks for this. I saw it in the Guardian and tried to gain access via the website but they seem to be setting up a paywall with a day’s free trial. Anyway I think the Finnish project is very interesting and the Netherlands perhaps even more so because of the variety of pilots. The only problem as I see it is that those who have to look for work in exchange for the basic income might feel resentful towards those who don’t and that might skew the results. Nevertheless, this is the most extensive test of the UBI and the results will be interesting.
Dickie.
Thanks Mark, it looks as though the RSA is proposing a UBI that would still require people to seek work rather than a living wage model that the Glasgow council is investigating. It may be of course that the RSA model would more acceptable politically.
Cheers,
Dickie.
Thank you for the refs. The big debate on the left now seems to be between Universal Basic Income and a Job Guarantee. For a feel of the argument, and the passions it is arousing, you might like to look at
I think it would be interesting for us to have this debate ourselves at some time. Like most economic arguments, the side taken is largely according to one’s view of the world :my sense is that UBIers tend to be optimists and JG fans pessimists. But it is vital that any decisions on UBI are taken with as much understanding as possible.
I tried to reblog this but id didn’t work so I’m leaving another reply. I thought it might be interesting to post some responses to criticisms of UBI mainly drawn from the Compass paper Universal Basic Income: An idea whose time has come?
1) The country isn’t ready for UBI: It could be argued that the country isn’t ready for many of our proposals. That’s particularly true for taxes, which, as we discussed, are almost universally despised. We have a mountain to climb to persuade people otherwise even before we try to make the case for a more progressive tax regime.
In housing Compass’s idea for a ‘right to stay’ is important but at least as important is its plan for renting, bearing in mind that many people will never be able to buy their own home. But the dominant ideology at the moment is that buying is the only option with government policies in danger of fatally undermining social housing. The same could be said of pursuing a policy of equality of outcome and common ownership of resources.
So I’m not at all sure that the criticism that the country is not ready for UBI stands up in itself. If we took that as a reason for not pursuing it, then we would be left with very little. I think the main point of Compass is trying to change the dominant ideology of neoliberalism which, almost by definition, means arguing for policies for which the country is not yet ready.
2) UBI would feed into the ‘striver-skiver’ narrative that has been so successfully by the Tories and New Labour: Well, yes it would, but since we disagree with this narrative it can hardly be said to be a criticism of UBI. In so far as the dominant narrative needs to be countered then it should be so counter, not used as a stick with which to beat UBI.
If, on the other hand, we are concerned that UBI will simply create a ‘money-for-nothing’ culture, then there is a danger that we are indeed feeding into the ‘skiver-striver’ narrative that we oppose. Some people do indeed fear that UBI would discourage work, but others argue that it would encourage paid employment by reducing the risk of poverty and the insecurity of the precariat. The evidence to date is limited but what there is suggests that in places where it has been tried including the USA, Canada, Namibia and India the number of people dropping out of work is likely to be small.
3) The case for UBI is set in the context of the exponential increase in capacity of computers and automation together with predictions that this phenomenon could have a deleterious impact on jobs and workers. So, one criticism is that this hasn’t happened so far so it’s unlikely to happen in the future. However, in order make this argument stick one would need to adduce evidence to show why the current state of computer technology and automation is just as unlikely to have negative impact on employment as it has been over the past 30 years or so. One would also need to find some way of discounting mounting evidence that it is already having an impact. For example, we know that employers can now micromanage their product stocks and services by the hour rather than days and weeks, which forces workers into insecure micro jobs. Such people are difficult to reach by unions because they are so atomized. It is estimated that 11 per cent of the working population (nearly five million people) are working for online platforms and are paid by the task. The evidence appears to show that this number is likely to increase rather than diminish. Employment appears to be moving away from the notion of the guaranteed job for life towards more and more insecure work and the ‘low-pay, no-pay’ cycle. Of course, the same is true the other way around for those arguing that automation will have a negative impact on employment. The problem for both arguments is the notorious difficulty of predicting the future, which is why an evidence-based, pilot-led programme for UBI is essential.
4) What we need is a proper social security system – UBI doesn’t take us much further: The argument here is that the Welfare State worked well at a time of largely full and stable employment. But it is too cumbersome to cope with the vicissitudes of today’s employment market. In addition, UBI is not equivalent to the Welfare State because it represents a wholescale move away from Beveridge’s contributory principle, which has in any case of necessity been somewhat diluted over the years. UBI can be better characterised as what has been called a ‘citizens wage’, an income paid as a right to everyone, rather than when things go wrong.
5) There are more important priorities: Well, maybe. But if it is true that we are indeed moving into a new working paradigm which has been called the Precariat, then we will need to start building the institutions to rebalance power to prevent Capital from colonizing this paradigm and accruing more and more wealth and power to itself. If UBI is indeed part of this process, then it’s difficult to see anything more fundamental than that.
Hello Andrew, some interesting stuff here, particularly on the job guarantee which is not something I’ve been focusing on. For what it’s worth I think Myerson’s analysis of money – that it is fundamentally a function of credit/debit dichotomy – goes deeper than Ferguson’s, although I’m not sure whether that would change his position. I think it is interesting to note, however, that Myerson’s piece does not endorse Ferguson’s without qualification because he says towards the end that the dignified life he is seeking could be provided by a jobs guarantee and/or a universal basic income, as well as other measures. This would seem to suggest that a jobs guarantee and UBI are not incompatible and maybe a combination of the two is possible. Certainly I don’t see UBI as the end of work, simply the end of pointless work that could be done better by a robot. One of my concerns about a jobs guarantee is that it seem to assume that the automation revolution will not take place or that, if it does, the state can simply create as many jobs required for full employment. But would we then be creating jobs for the sake of it and what sort of jobs would they be?
I certainly agree with your last sentence which is why the pilots in Finland and the Netherlands is so important.
An in Finland too which started its scheme this week. http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/finland-begins-universal-basic-income-trial-as-the-world-watches/news-story/7ae91901c856ca697ed6b30e18cbba00
LikeLike
Hi Peter and Lesley, thanks for this. I saw it in the Guardian and tried to gain access via the website but they seem to be setting up a paywall with a day’s free trial. Anyway I think the Finnish project is very interesting and the Netherlands perhaps even more so because of the variety of pilots. The only problem as I see it is that those who have to look for work in exchange for the basic income might feel resentful towards those who don’t and that might skew the results. Nevertheless, this is the most extensive test of the UBI and the results will be interesting.
Dickie.
LikeLike
The idea of a universal basic income is gaining traction in many countries. This short video considers some of the pros and cons.
LikeLike
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EIGfzKvg5I
LikeLike
Thanks Mark, it looks as though the RSA is proposing a UBI that would still require people to seek work rather than a living wage model that the Glasgow council is investigating. It may be of course that the RSA model would more acceptable politically.
Cheers,
Dickie.
LikeLike
Thank you for the refs. The big debate on the left now seems to be between Universal Basic Income and a Job Guarantee. For a feel of the argument, and the passions it is arousing, you might like to look at
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/fck-work.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29
or
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/01/05/why-universal-basic-income-is-seizing-the-agenda/
I think it would be interesting for us to have this debate ourselves at some time. Like most economic arguments, the side taken is largely according to one’s view of the world :my sense is that UBIers tend to be optimists and JG fans pessimists. But it is vital that any decisions on UBI are taken with as much understanding as possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I tried to reblog this but id didn’t work so I’m leaving another reply. I thought it might be interesting to post some responses to criticisms of UBI mainly drawn from the Compass paper Universal Basic Income: An idea whose time has come?
1) The country isn’t ready for UBI: It could be argued that the country isn’t ready for many of our proposals. That’s particularly true for taxes, which, as we discussed, are almost universally despised. We have a mountain to climb to persuade people otherwise even before we try to make the case for a more progressive tax regime.
In housing Compass’s idea for a ‘right to stay’ is important but at least as important is its plan for renting, bearing in mind that many people will never be able to buy their own home. But the dominant ideology at the moment is that buying is the only option with government policies in danger of fatally undermining social housing. The same could be said of pursuing a policy of equality of outcome and common ownership of resources.
So I’m not at all sure that the criticism that the country is not ready for UBI stands up in itself. If we took that as a reason for not pursuing it, then we would be left with very little. I think the main point of Compass is trying to change the dominant ideology of neoliberalism which, almost by definition, means arguing for policies for which the country is not yet ready.
2) UBI would feed into the ‘striver-skiver’ narrative that has been so successfully by the Tories and New Labour: Well, yes it would, but since we disagree with this narrative it can hardly be said to be a criticism of UBI. In so far as the dominant narrative needs to be countered then it should be so counter, not used as a stick with which to beat UBI.
If, on the other hand, we are concerned that UBI will simply create a ‘money-for-nothing’ culture, then there is a danger that we are indeed feeding into the ‘skiver-striver’ narrative that we oppose. Some people do indeed fear that UBI would discourage work, but others argue that it would encourage paid employment by reducing the risk of poverty and the insecurity of the precariat. The evidence to date is limited but what there is suggests that in places where it has been tried including the USA, Canada, Namibia and India the number of people dropping out of work is likely to be small.
3) The case for UBI is set in the context of the exponential increase in capacity of computers and automation together with predictions that this phenomenon could have a deleterious impact on jobs and workers. So, one criticism is that this hasn’t happened so far so it’s unlikely to happen in the future. However, in order make this argument stick one would need to adduce evidence to show why the current state of computer technology and automation is just as unlikely to have negative impact on employment as it has been over the past 30 years or so. One would also need to find some way of discounting mounting evidence that it is already having an impact. For example, we know that employers can now micromanage their product stocks and services by the hour rather than days and weeks, which forces workers into insecure micro jobs. Such people are difficult to reach by unions because they are so atomized. It is estimated that 11 per cent of the working population (nearly five million people) are working for online platforms and are paid by the task. The evidence appears to show that this number is likely to increase rather than diminish. Employment appears to be moving away from the notion of the guaranteed job for life towards more and more insecure work and the ‘low-pay, no-pay’ cycle. Of course, the same is true the other way around for those arguing that automation will have a negative impact on employment. The problem for both arguments is the notorious difficulty of predicting the future, which is why an evidence-based, pilot-led programme for UBI is essential.
4) What we need is a proper social security system – UBI doesn’t take us much further: The argument here is that the Welfare State worked well at a time of largely full and stable employment. But it is too cumbersome to cope with the vicissitudes of today’s employment market. In addition, UBI is not equivalent to the Welfare State because it represents a wholescale move away from Beveridge’s contributory principle, which has in any case of necessity been somewhat diluted over the years. UBI can be better characterised as what has been called a ‘citizens wage’, an income paid as a right to everyone, rather than when things go wrong.
5) There are more important priorities: Well, maybe. But if it is true that we are indeed moving into a new working paradigm which has been called the Precariat, then we will need to start building the institutions to rebalance power to prevent Capital from colonizing this paradigm and accruing more and more wealth and power to itself. If UBI is indeed part of this process, then it’s difficult to see anything more fundamental than that.
LikeLike
Hello Andrew, some interesting stuff here, particularly on the job guarantee which is not something I’ve been focusing on. For what it’s worth I think Myerson’s analysis of money – that it is fundamentally a function of credit/debit dichotomy – goes deeper than Ferguson’s, although I’m not sure whether that would change his position. I think it is interesting to note, however, that Myerson’s piece does not endorse Ferguson’s without qualification because he says towards the end that the dignified life he is seeking could be provided by a jobs guarantee and/or a universal basic income, as well as other measures. This would seem to suggest that a jobs guarantee and UBI are not incompatible and maybe a combination of the two is possible. Certainly I don’t see UBI as the end of work, simply the end of pointless work that could be done better by a robot. One of my concerns about a jobs guarantee is that it seem to assume that the automation revolution will not take place or that, if it does, the state can simply create as many jobs required for full employment. But would we then be creating jobs for the sake of it and what sort of jobs would they be?
I certainly agree with your last sentence which is why the pilots in Finland and the Netherlands is so important.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on salisburycompass.org.
LikeLike