Why is it important?
What if you didn’t have to work to earn a living? What if you could concentrate on other things like hobbies, leisure time or family instead of your job? Sounds a bit utopian, maybe it is. But it is precisely the concept of an unconditional basic income that has gained enormous importance in recent years. The idea of UBI (Universal Basic Income) is that every citizen, regardless of what or whether they work, receives a certain basic amount of money on a regular basis. The arguments for such a system range from „financial independence“ to „combating the high-income economy“. The most important argument today, however, is a different one. The thesis of various experts, such as historian Yuval Noah Harari, goes something like this: Robots, machines and AI will replace so many jobs in the future and the average requirements for jobs will reach such a high technical level that it will lead to large-scale unemployment. Many people will lose their jobs. These are not only „simple“ jobs like truck drivers but also more complex academic jobs like radiologists. This large unemployment will consequently lead to much poverty, hunger, death, riots and unhappiness. This is exactly why many proponents of the UBI, such as the American presidential candidate Andrew Yang, propose a robot tax. Companies that replace many human jobs with machines, robots and AI would have to pay a robot tax, which in turn would finance the UBI.
Voting in Switzerland
In 2016 the swiss population had the chance to vote on the basic income, which led to heated discussions at a national level, but also aroused great interest abroad. Many questions emerged on how we define work, why we work, and how the future of work will look due to digitalisation. Even if Switzerland is considered a politically conservative and tradition-conscious country, it was the first worldwide with such a referendum. But the idea of a basic income has been around for a while. The referendum resulted in 76.9% of votes against the introduction of a basic income. But still, every fourth person was in favor. The idea was to offer every inhabitant of Switzerland a certain amount of money to guarantee their existence- without consideration. Regardless of the job, wealth, or age. Back then, it was not yet certain who would get how much money but it was considered to provide 2500.- per month for adults and 600.- per month for children.
The opponents directly argued that no one works at all, as people would only do what they want. Further, they worried about how to finance it and how society as a whole would change. For many, a fundamental change in the economic and social system was not considered. Because this is the model of success for many, but not for all.
The advocates argued that people would still work and not only for money but for meaning and pleasure. Therefore people would be more motivated to work, which increases productivity and fosters innovation because the personal risk is less. Additionally, it would simplify the social system in saving money (for unemployment insurance, pension, child benefit) and it would relieve administration. All in all, it would be a fairer society because of an equal financial basis. The creative people who led the campaign for the basic income had outrageous ideas. They gave thousand 10 banknotes for free at the train station in Zurich, put 8 million 5 räppler (0.05 swiss francs) on the federal plaza in bern and with the slogan“ what would you do if your income were taken care of?“ they wanted to raise awareness in society.
Those actions were seen by the opponents as creative and time-consuming but as a reason for not having enough arguments.
Then and now
In a strict sense, the intellectual history of universal basic income is roughly half a century old.
The idea of a state-run basic income can be dated back to the early 16th century when Sir Thomas More’s Utopia depicted a society in which every person receives a guaranteed income.
In 1930, John Maynard Keynes articulated a utopian vision of „technological unemployment.“ He argued that we would leave behind „the struggle for subsistence“ and that work would cease to be a necessity. Labor’s obsolescence would not just free up time and energy, but be morally uplifting:
„I see us free, therefore, to return to some of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue—that avarice is a vice, that the exaction of usury is a misdemeanour, and the love of money is detestable.“
Keynes did not mention a basic income, assuming instead that standards of living would rise inexorably until, around 2030 or so, his languid utopia would materialize. Supporters believe a basic income could hurry the process along. They see creative people, freed from the need to take jobs they don’t want, contributing artistic, entrepreneurial, and spiritual vitality to society.
Basic income was discussed in several parts of the world from the 1980s and forward, but was in many cases portrayed as a rather utopian proposal. However, in recent years the idea has seemingly come to the forefront more than before. The referendum about basic income in Switzerland 2016 was covered in the media worldwide. Even though the activist in the YES-campaign ultimately lost, it was nevertheless a campaign that made headlines.
Imagining a 21st Century Basic Income
Today the idea of a basic income has again entered the mainstream. Unsurprisingly, given its scattered lineage, supporters make different arguments from diverse ideological vantage points.
In January 2019, Finland concluded a two-year basic income experiment that attempted to counteract the unemployment trap. The country’s welfare office sent €560 ($635) per month to 2,000 randomly selected working-age unemployed people. They didn’t lose the benefit if they started working, nor did the experiment affect their eligibility to receive unemployment insurance in excess of the basic income. Results from the first year found that recipients were happier and healthier than they were on unemployment, but that the basic income had little impact on their unemployment status.
Also as there exists the surge of technological advancements and the fear of a rapid change in the job market as many jobs become automated, the idea for a Universal Basic Income becomes more relevant.
Techno-pessimists: Save the future
Fears of machine-induced mass unemployment are as old as the power loom. The idea that our inventions will render us obsolete and dead has not panned out so far. Technology has enhanced human productivity, not replaced it. Until recently nearly everyone farmed; now fewer than 1% of Americans do, but they keep busy and the U.S. produces a food surplus. Despite the phrasing—“this time is different.“ Some of Silicon Valley’s leading lights are backing a basic income to counteract the automation their sector is creating, including Elon Musk, who has called artificial intelligence „our biggest existential threat.“
UBI got a boost in 2019-20 from Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, whose „Freedom Dividend“—a cornerstone of his campaign—would pay $1,000 a month to every American over the age of 18. His reason for proposing a UBI: „…the smartest people in the world now predict that a third of all working Americans will lose their job to automation in the next 12 years. Our current policies are not equipped to handle this crisis.“ A March 2017 study by Daron Acemoglu of MIT and Pascual Restrepo of Boston University found that each robot reduces local employment by 6.2 workers.Automation has been put forward as an explanation for the persistent gap between economic growth and wage growth in the U.S. since the 1970s.
Things are liable to get worse. A 2013 paper by Oxford’s Carl B. Frey and Michael A. Osborne found that 47% of U.S. employment is at risk of computerization. The most vulnerable jobs are hardly confined to the factory floor. Professions facing a 90%-plus probability of algorithmic obsolescence include tax preparers, waiters, paralegals, loan officers, credit analysts, and 166 others. Algorithms already outperform doctors at diagnosing certain ailments, and autonomous vehicle prototypes are breathing down 5 million professional drivers‘ necks.
One solution would be to grow out of these problems, producing twice the output rather than laying off half the workforce. That is a tall order—the IMF projected that advanced economies will grow at 1.6% in 2020-21, and that was before the coronavirus pandemic—but even if it’s possible, it’s potentially dangerous. Climate change already threatens to drive millions of refugees away from rising seas and spreading deserts. The planet could buckle under a carbon-intensive doubling of global GDP.
Utopians
Other futurists look at the prospect of mass unemployment and wonder what all the fuss is about: When robots shuttle dinner from kitchen to table or travellers from airport to hotel, are they yanking waiters‘ and cab drivers‘ livelihoods away—or liberating them from tedium? Arguably the latter, if they receive a basic income sizable enough to live comfortably, and especially if they use their newfound free time in creative and socially beneficial ways.
In his 2017 Harvard commencement speech, Mark Zuckerberg said, „we should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas,“ stressing that if he hadn’t been „lucky“ enough to enjoy free time, he couldn’t have founded Facebook.
Basic income also could address the issue of women’s largely unpaid work.
Relation to Social Design
When you think about the impact of the UBI on society, you realise that it will have a big impact on our social structures. The concept would be an effective way to fight poverty and allow everyone to live with dignity. No one would have to rely on welfare or illegal activities to survive. No one would have to take jobs that do not match their personal skills and aptitudes to secure their livelihood. Instead, people would be able to do work that they really like and where their strengths can be used in a meaningful way. This would possibly also create professions that we do not yet know. Individual freedom would grow as a result.
But the UBI could also have negative effects. One problem of an unconditional basic income could be that no one would want to do unattractive jobs. This could lead to these jobs having to be done in the future by illegal immigrants or other people who are not entitled to a basic income. Critics of the concept even fear that many people would no longer do any work at all if they were covered by the unconditional basic income. They would then have to be supported by the working society.
Written by Andri Zindel, Ayko Neil Kehl, Ever Bright Chakma and Melanie Arnold