I Receive A “Basic Income” From The British Government.

Here’s Why Everyone Should Get It

Imagine what this country would look like if people had a meaningful option to say No to working for a corporation they know to be socially irresponsible. This would revolutionize the value-system on which corporations currently make business decisions on a daily basis.

I should like to begin by saying that if you are reading this in the hopes of learning about some secret Tory project to test the viability of the idea of the Universal Basic Income in Britain, I am very sorry to disappoint you. No such trial is taking place. And, I cannot imagine any such trial being commissioned by this Tory party that demonises the poor and needy at a whim.

But do not be disheartened, for I am going to explain to you how I believe I am on a government-sponsored basic income, how it has helped me and how it would help us as a society if everyone received it too.

I am a Nigerian student studying for a PhD in Philosophy at the University of Sussex. I am able to do this thanks to a generous scholarship I was offered by the University of Sussex. The Chancellor’s International Research Scholarship (CIRS), as it is called, is Sussex’s way of offering high-achieving students from all over the world the opportunity to carry their dreams forward in the UK. This scholarship is funded, at least in part, by grants from the British government. So, I am a beneficiary of the British government’s largesse, albeit in a second-hand way.

But how is my scholarship’s stipend a basic income? (1) I did nothing to “earn” it. (See picture below for what I said about meritocracy in a Facebook post in April this year.). (2) I enjoy what I am doing, and would be doing it (here or elsewhere) whether or not I got the scholarship. This means that the stipend is not a wage for work in any traditional sense. In essence, its money for nothing (except for the Thesis I have to produce at the end), and that’s basically what a basic income is.

Now, regardless of what you think of my case for why my scholarship’s stipend is a basic income, it surely exerts the same kind of impact on my life that campaigners say a Basic Income would. Campaigners say a Basic Income would allow people to do what they love; to strike out on their own and exercise their creative capacities, without risking their livelihoods. They also say it would strengthen their bargaining position when they seek jobs. They will not be forced to take jobs that are demeaning and are not sufficiently remunerated. A recent Guardian article shows how a trial in Finland is demonstrating that these claims have some validity.

But it is in a possible third kind of impact of the basic income that I am interested. I think the basic income would drastically reverse the incentive structure deeply embedded in the way our economy is currently organised that has seen even our best efforts to solve our biggest problems come up short.

I’ll illustrate this impact by telling a personal anecdote. So, a few weeks ago I decided that I wanted a part-time job with which to supplement my “basic income”. Like every app-loving millennial, I downloaded the Reed app, registered and uploaded my CV, and immediately applied for two jobs (with Ipso MORI and The British Heart Foundation).

This morning I received an email (posted below) from a member of the Reed app staff telling me about job openings as “Brand Ambassadors” for, I supposed, some corporation or other. This email immediately got me thinking about whether I wanted to work as an ambassador for just any corporation. I immediately knew I didn’t want to work as an ambassador for a corporation that dodged taxes, or is known for bad labour practices or is environmentally irresponsible. I also immediately decided that I wasn’t going to apply for this job.

This realisation got me wondering about how different my choice might have been had it been the case that I didn’t have my “basic income” to fall back on. I most definitely would have applied. That’s for sure. Offer anyone, even the most militantly progressive among us, the option of either starving or working for a company whose practices they find deplorable, they would very likely choose to take the job. And understandably so.

But imagine if things were different.

Here are a few facts I want you to keep in mind: On taxes: according to a 2016 HMRC study, over 6 in 10 Britons were angered by tax evasion and wanted the government to do more to tackle it. In a ComRes poll conducted earlier this year, 60% of those polled indicated that they would like to see corporations pay even more in taxes than the law currently stipulates. On the environment: 81% of the citizens of nine countries (including the UK) surveyed in a Cone Communications/Ebiquity Global CSR study said they were willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of the environment, and expected corporations to do same. On labour conditions, most people support paying workers at least a living wage, and would like to see the government step in to cap CEO pay to no more than 20% of the salary of the lowest worker.

Now, think of this: according to the Guardian

Almost half the workforce (42%) now want to work for an organization that has a positive impact on the world, according to research carried out by consultancy Global Tolerance. The survey of more than 2,000 people in the UK found 44% thought meaningful work that helped others was more important than a high salary and 36% would work harder if their company benefitted society.

The change, it would appear, is being driven by the so-called millennials. Of those born between 1981 and 1996, 62% want to work for a company that makes a positive impact, half prefer purposeful work to a high salary, and 53% would work harder if they were making a difference to others.

My Goodness! Imagine what this country would look like if these people had a meaningful option to say No to working for a corporation that dodged taxes; or that lobbied for lowering already low taxes; or that didn’t care for the environment or Climate Change; or that paid their CEOs exorbitant wages, etc. This would revolutionize the value-system on which corporations currently make business decisions on a daily basis.

Companies would no longer view taxes, environmental protections, labour and wage laws as placing undue costs on them. Or they would do so at their own peril. For, disregarding these (as they, to a significant extent, do today) would bring much greater costs with it, on balance. And new companies, with not just rhetorical appeals to social responsibility but real transparent efforts in that direction, would rise up to take their place. Social responsibility would be the new benchmark for measuring costs.

No business can run without staff.

Even in our rapidly automating economy, human staff are needed to build, program and supervise the activities of the robots. And in such a world, the overwhelming incentive would be to be socially responsible. You might be tempted to say that companies could respond by leaving. But then, wouldn’t we be setting these young people free to take risk creating those socially responsible businesses and companies they want to see.

A British government that is serious about solving these major problems should give the basic income serious thought.

👋🏾 Get to know the people and ideas shaping the products we use every day. Subscribe to Noteworthy — the product & design newsletter written by the Journal team.