At this point, I think it would be a good idea to expand on concepts that I discussed recently involving basic income and antiwork politics and try to come up with a basic blueprint to achieve a post work society, or as close to it as possible.
First, it would be a good idea to define what I mean by post work society. I don't necessarily mean abolishing all work, as I suspect that would be impossible, and would displease many anyway. Rather, my politics is about reducing coercion as much as possible to ensure that all work (defined as paid employment) is voluntary and that any undesirable work is either automated or done by volunteers who are compensated well for it.
While our current society has a 60%+ labor participation rate and our economic system basically forces as many people as possible to work 40 hours a week, a post work society as I see it may have a roughly 20-30% labor participation rate instead, or potentially higher with shorter work weeks. Work would be done by volunteers who do it simply because they either derive purpose from it, or desire higher standards of living than the basic income allows.
My blueprint, in actuality, does not seem very different from John Bentley's "Full Unemployment", but I do cede that some work simply cannot be automated, and that some people actually do desire to work, and think their lives would be empty without it. I really don't seek a post work society that wishes to deny anyone the opportunities to make extra cash or do something that gives them purpose, rather, I just want to remove the economic coercion from the equation, and help us begin to transition toward a post scarcity society. While post scarcity is the ideal, it may never be reached, but it should never stop being strived toward. But, in order to get there, we need to change our system from one that relies on some form of reciprocity carrying an obligation to work or other forced labor economy.
So how do we get there?
As we know, I define the biggest problems with this economic system as not necessarily being tied to who owns the means of production, but how the market, as its structured, coerces participation in order to acquire resources. And obviously, the solution, as outlined in previous posts on this topic, involves weakening the link between work and income. Now, when I saw weakening, I mean that, a weakening. I don't believe it should be eliminated, because I do count on the profit incentive remaining to encourage work participation, I simply seek to weaken it enough to remove coerced participation. There are two policies in particular that I would implement in order to accomplish this, and these would be universal basic income and medicare for all. Basic income is necessary to ensure everyone has a basic minimum standard of living to pay for housing, food, and other necessities. Medicare for all is necessary due to high medical costs and how a market based healthcare system tends to bankrupt people, meaning UBI in itself would not be enough for financial independence. This system would mirror the system we currently give seniors. Seniors normally get some form of social security, an average of $1500 a month or so, with medicare, which was granted because seniors would go bankrupt from healthcare bills living on social security alone. This system also mirrors Yang's purported top goals in the 2020 race.
My basic income would only be $1100 a month, designed to be slightly above the US poverty line. Despite my lofty goals, I recognize we have to be realistic on accomplishing these goals. We cannot just shift to a post work society overnight, and we still need lots of human labor. So we need to balance these goals with the practical reality of running an economy. But giving people a poverty line basic income would give them a decent living standard that would equal or exceed welfare in most cases. It would not be as generous as unemployment or social security benefits outright in most situations, but it would get kind of close. Around 2/3 or 3/4 the average amount roughly. This seems fair for an unconditional benefit, and given my math on the matter is, pretty feasible. Some will say this is too generous, some say it is too little, but I think it is just right as a baseline amount given what's practically feasible.
Studies have looked at basic income amounts similar to and less than this, and have found they don't greatly decrease work incentive. Results, generally speaking, seem to range between no disincentive to maybe 15% less than currently exists. 15% seems doable, it would be the equivalent of moving to a 34 hour work week or something like that, when looked at another way. Most losses in the article I stated (yeah, I know, paywall, but I can't find a PDF and I've read it before) seem to indicate the most dramatic work losses among teenagers, housewives (or, in a modern gender neutral context, secondary earners), and single moms, which are groups that you can make an argument shouldn't have to work. The fact is, most people do want to work, and basic income should be just enough to ensure a basic standard of living, without destroying the incentive to desire higher standards of living or the social and psychological benefits that currently come with work. Some would likely drop out entirely, but assuming that this level is low enough to not threaten the productivity of the economy, that is fine.
These amounts would be enough when scaled up to household size. Two adults (say, a couple or two roommates) would bring in $26,400 a year, which seems reasonable. It would definitely lighten the load on them, and with free healthcare, I'd imagine they would get by, but many would still work to live better.
So what effect would this have on the labor market?
Well, as I said, work disincentive would not decrease dramatically, but still, a mild effect may have positive effects on the economy. By giving people the right to say no, it would allow people to more easily quit bad jobs, thus pressuring employers to more equitably treat their employees. This means higher pay and better work hours. This might put more strain on some employers, but the way I see it, one of three things will happen to jobs.
1) They will need to pay their workers better and treat them more fairly to incentivize them to work. Supply of labor goes down, demand remains the same, in moderation, this means higher wages and better working conditions. Currently labor is subsidized by a gun to the head, depressing its true market value. Amazon, for example, wouldn't be able to get away with their crap if workers can walk off the job and survive. They would need to make work more pleasant for their workers, or pay better.
2) Some jobs might be automated. As technology becomes cheaper, jobs can become more automated. Some fear what this means for the future of the economy. Some claim there will always be more jobs to replace them. But long story short, some jobs will disappear a little more quickly. Good riddance I say. If workers won't work those jobs without being forced, and employers aren't willing to offer jobs at wages and conditions are willing to accept, those jobs can disappear for all I care.
3) Some jobs and industries might disappear. I don't expect this to happen too much, but if work disincentive is high enough, and employers aren't willing to adapt and cannot automate jobs, some businesses might disappear. This will give a heart attack to the GDP and productivity minded, but the way I see it, if the jobs aren't essential for the economy, and no one is willing to do them, maybe they should not exist. As we know from the pandemic, many industries are not essential. Sit down restaurants, amusement parks, movie theaters, etc. These industries are nice but they don't have to exist. And if their business model is subsidized by coerced labor, then maybe they shouldn't exist. That's up to the market to decide.
So what happens if something goes wrong?
Nothing should go wrong, because ideally these policies would be implemented slowly, perhaps over the course of 5-10 years, allowing time for the economy to adjust or problems to be identified before they become a problem, but let's say it does, what would go wrong and why?
Well, the biggest issue that I know of would basically be that the work disincentive would be too much. Too many people would quit working and the economy would enter free fall. This should not happen if UBI is implemented slowly, and we should see problems far in advance of them becoming serious. If we implemented UBI in 20% increments over 5 years, or 10% increments in 10, we should see work disincentive being a problem long before it does. If people start quitting at $500 a month and it starts accelerating at $600 a month and $700 a month, we could just cap the basic income at the highest sustainable amount, allowing the market to adjust, before pushing it higher if we ever do. If basic income leads to revenue raising issues, we could also cap it at a lower amount if needed. I admit my plan is ambitious, especially beside medicare for all. But I believe it should be tried.
I mean, ultimately, I am an incrementalist. I do see our society like a ship that turns slowly. I want to move it, but it can only move so fast. I only support moving as fast as is practically possible. I don't want to destabilize the whole thing in the name of my ideology. I'm not that much of an ideologue. I have my biases, but I do see the writing on the wall if needed.
Other issues might be more on the worker side. Rather than BI being too much, it might be too little. Well, if it is, and we can't raise UBI higher due to tax ceilings and laffer curves, we could try more traditional social democratic measures. Unions in work place would still be important and UBI should make it easier than ever to unionize. We could continue to fight for higher minimum wages and working conditions such as time off, reasonable work hours, and safety regulations. Quite frankly I'm more worried about UBI not being sufficient to accomplish all I hope it does, rather than it being too much.
Another issue is other industries like housing might eat up all of the gains under UBI. I do not believe this will happen as much as say, Marxists, say it will. For the housing market to unilaterally raise prices to put people in the same position there are now, there would need to be a serious supply and demand problem. This might happen in certain congested markets where people are tied to jobs, like New York or San Francisco, but my solution is this: MOVE! Some places are just going to be so hostile to the poor to live in, that they're never going to afford it. It's just a matter of too many people wanting to live there, and there not being enough space. Ricardo's law of rents applies to housing markets in relation to work, but if UBI frees people from work, they could find somewhere less populous to live, where housing is far cheaper. It's fine, as long as most places across the country are reasonably comfortable to live in at around UBI level. I also would not be opposed to increasing housing assistance or programs that create low cost housing for people living around the UBI level. I don't think that individual landlords have enough power to just unilaterally raise rent nationwide. Too much competition. Too many places to live. It's only attachment to certain areas that cause housing to skyrocket.
Education is another potential problem market, and I support free public college. Along with making work voluntary, I also want to give people the tools needed to find the careers they want, free of charge. College should not be locked behind paywalls, it should be provided to everyone who wants it. This would allow anyone to achieve upper mobility and find jobs they want to do, if they want to do them.
That said, I think concerns about things going wrong are overstated, and if they happen, they can be dealt with as they arise.
Looking ahead long term
Looking ahead long term, work will change. This will happen regardless of whether basic income is implemented, because as Yang states, automation is coming. The real question is what we do with it. Will we create more jobs and cling to the same outdated frameworks? Or will we seek to free people? Or maybe both, since I do think a lot of people would like to work. I really don't know exactly what will happen, and this is going to be something for us to all go through together. Ultimately, I want to give everyone what they want. Work for those who want it, freedom for those who want it. Basic income might not change much. The economy might go along like it always has, with most people working. Maybe people will be more wealthy and work the same as they always have. Maybe working conditions will improve and people will work less, mostly taking up side gigs or part time jobs to supplement their income. Maybe many will see the joys of not being forced to participate in the rat race and choose to live off of UBI. Whatever happens, as long as it happens gradually, it will be fine. We might have a system with 50-60% of people working full time, similar to how things are now in a few decades. We might have 40% of people working 20-30 hours a week instead. We might have 20% of people working full time, and another 20% working part time. I really don't know. I highly doubt we will eliminate work entirely, and those discussions are beyond the scope of my lifetime. I'm likely only going to be around on this earth, what, another 50 years? Maybe more, maybe less. So I'm only thinking at most 50 years ahead. That's all we can do. And even that isn't going to be with the best of accuracy. People in the 1960s predicted many of the things I'm hoping for in the next 50, to happen by the year 2000. John Keynes thought by 2030 we would be working 15 hours a week. Of course, I would argue these failures are due to how our social structures perpetuate work and employment as they always have, and are inflexible at allowing for anything else, hence my call for a UBI.
In fifty years, we might have an economy that ranges from being very similar to our own, to one in which robots do most of the work and only around half of the people who work today need to work to maintain society. And in the long term, that's going to present further challenges. If anyone reads this in the future, there's something I want you to know. Whatever my ideas are here, take them at face value for their worth here in 2021. They might be relevant to your time, they may not. Don't be that guy who reads theory from hundreds of years ago and acts like this is the ideal model for society. It isn't. I read socialist or anarchist theory from the 19th century and I find their works dated. I read works from the enlightenment era and find them even more dated. Despite that, these theories still have die hard proponents even today, who cling to them and act like they're the end all for philosophy. And it's annoying, because I find all of them, even the progressive leftists, to be horridly dated.
In fifty years, perhaps you will reach a state of much less work done due to my ideas, and now you have questions of whether to continue capitalism or pursue socialism. Perhaps my ideas will become completely irrelevant as climate change causes such scarcity from environmental backlash that my ideas seem naively unrealistic. I have no answers for you. I am not a revolutionary. I am a reformist. And I only seek to transition us as far as I can reasonably see a path toward. I have a plan to get us from point A to point B, and I have ideas of where I want to go, but ultimately where to go from there lies with the next generation. Do not view my word as an end all. It is only the beginning transition phase from a modern 20-21st century capitalist society, to something resembling post scarcity as I see it.
Conclusion
Here, I tried to give a brief outline of how I believe is best to achieve a post work society, or something close to it. I don't know if it will ever be truly post work, that is up to us in the future, and to technological advances. My ideas are intended to be compatible with a mixed capitalist economy like social democracy, but might work under mild forms of socialism too.
The crux of my ideas are centered around basic income and medicare for all. Once peoples' basic needs are taken care of without being linked to work, people would be free to pursue work for more money or other reasons if they desire, or to sit around and "do nothing." Most people will likely work, according to basic income trials. However, basic income will allow people to do labor on their own terms, and this over time will change the labor market, leading to jobs paying better and having better working conditions, or being automated. Some industries with unsustainable business models might stop existing, but that's for the market to decide.
Over time, I ideally hope to see America turn away from the concept of a full employment economy, focusing on ensuring basic needs through automation, with people doing fulfulling work they find interesting if they desire, or highly paid technical work that is essential to society. However, things might change very little over the long term, or a lot, it really depends. Whatever the outcome, I put it into the hands of the people of the future, and their choices as to what they find best for themselves. I do support people to have the freedom to live as they want, after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment