The paradox of work
The future of work is one of the most pressing questions of our time: more and more jobs are being lost, and entire sectors are likely to be automated in the coming years. It’s a fascinating subject, and one at the center of which is a paradox: a lot of people hate their job, but are even more fearful of losing it.
In the majority of cases around the world, the only reason people work is to make money, and they gain little or no satisfaction from the activity. They need money to survive, and work takes up most of their time and strength, leaving them with few options to do anything else in life. But take that job away and replace the worker with a robot or some kind of automated system, and while productivity increases, most people have no idea of what they would do with their time or energy.
In less than a generation, most work will be done by machines. This is not just about saving money, but improving quality and efficiency. We’re not talking about the machine as a substitute, but the machine as the logical option, evidence of mankind’s ability to develop technology that is far superior to human capacity.
Work will not disappear, but will be reoriented toward other priorities: we will still work to improve our living standards, to satisfy our curiosity, to realize ourselves, to contribute to society, and for many other reasons, but as part of a decision-making process marked by very different priorities and values. The link between a society of this nature and basic income seems logical, and experiments in this regard seem to reflect a shift in priorities: given the option of a universal basic income, instead of working, people spend time with their children or undergo training or attend education, while others seek more meaningful employment opportunities.
As well as a historic experiment in the Canadian state of Manitoba in the 1970s, a number of countries have recently carried out initiatives to look at what would happen in a society where people’s basic needs were covered by the state. Switzerland looked into basic income in 2013, suggesting a payment of 2,500 francs a month, giving people an annual income of around $30,000. The initiative received enough popular support to be submitted to a referendum, and despite the government’s opposition, the Swiss will vote on it sometime in 2016.
The Dutch city of Utrecht is moving in a similar direction: it wants to provide inhabitants with a basic income, with any extra earnings subject to tax, to see if this helps tackle the problems associated with poverty, as well as freeing up more people able to work part time, preferably in areas that interest them, or to study or retrain. It will also show if people simply kick back and relax, making no contribution to society once their most basic needs are met.
Finland too is exploring the workability of basic income as a way to simplify its social security system. With 10 percent unemployment and 22.7 percent youth joblessness, four out of five Finns back the idea. The experiment is to be introduced in phases that will see 8,000 people from impoverished background receiving between €400 and €700 a month. If the scheme works, the government has said it will look into extending it further.
As technology advances and more and more jobs are taken over by robots, generating greater wealth in society from improved productivity, political parties will have no choice but to open a debate about basic income. The UK Green Party already has it on its agenda. There will be arguments in favor, and against, but this is a complex issue that we will have to decide on sooner or later, and not as some utopian dream, but within a generation. It’s time to spend some time reading up on basic income.
(En español, aquí)
