How Can Global Basic Income Alleviate the Effects of Modern Automation of the
Workforce?
Technology is the use of scientific knowledge to make human life easier and more practical. Even so, in 2013, Oxford University researchers predict that machines might be able to perform half of all U.S. jobs in the next two decades (Thompson 9). Unemployment results from the progression of technological influence in the workforce. Consequently, this leads to an increase in mental health victims, decrease in education, and restricts the freedom of people to pursue higher interests. While paying Global Basic Income would eliminate low-paid menial jobs, its implementation would alleviate all of these detriments.
A basic income is a form of social security. Basic income is defined as an unconditional amount of money guaranteed by the government to every individual whether rich or poor. This radical idea of distributing wealth is not new; many great philosophers and scholars have suggested basic income as a solution to poverty and unemployment, such as Martin Luther King Jr., Bernie Sanders, Friedrich Hayek, and many more. In his last book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?, King states that he is “convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income” (King 162). Many people will argue as to why basic income should be implemented, even when there are government welfare programs already in place.
The current welfare system is clearly disordered. There are 126 different anti-poverty programs funded by the federal government, 33 housing programs run by four different cabinet departments, and food purchasing assistance provided by 21 separate programs (Tanner 1). This puzzling enigma of various administrations is challenging to navigate and evaluate. However, the United States has an enormous social-welfare system. After all, according to Robert Rector, a leading authority on poverty, and welfare programs in America who writes for a conservative think tank, “the United States has the third highest level of per capita government social welfare spending” (1). In fact, the federal government spends “nearly $700 billion to fund anti-poverty programs… [and] State and local governments kicked in an additional $300 billion” (Tanner 1). Judging by these reports, the amount of money (nearly a trillion) given to social welfare should more than compensate for poverty rates.
However, this is simply not true. Although a massive amount of money is spent on welfare programs, poverty rates have been increasing gradually since 2000; “11.3 percent in 2000… Peaking at 15.1 percent in 2010 and remaining relatively stable” (National Poverty Center 1). There are many conflicts that arise as a result of being in a condition of poverty as it “[imposes] a mental burden akin to losing 13 IQ points” (Badger 1). This massive reduction in IQ is “comparable to the cognitive difference that’s been observed between chronic alcoholics and normal adults” (Badger 1). Most of those living in poverty are unemployed and have to tackle issues they face while being in a lower mental state than other adults.
Although work ethics are an important cultural aspect of the United States, the poor that live on welfare programs actually face a disadvantage after working. Those in poverty and the unemployed have a tangible reason not to work. According to Matt Zwolinski, an associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of San Diego and co-director of USD’s Institute for Law and Philosophy, “Poor Americans receiving assistance face a bewildering variety of phase-outs and benefit cliffs that combine to create extremely high effective marginal tax rates on their labor” (Zwolinski 1). Therefore, poor families and individuals find that increased amount of work or having a second member of the family working does not pay. Some may argue that global basic income would eradicate low-menial jobs as a result of an altered mentality such as, “why slave 10 hours a day with mop and bucket for £12k when you get £6k for free?” (Mason 1). However, these low-menial jobs are inevitably going to be eradicated as a result of a technological takeover of many jobs in the near future, as previously stated, machines might perform almost half of all U.S. jobs in the next two decades (Thompson 1). The increase in unemployment in the future will also make it difficult for there to be any consumers because as the consumers’ jobs are lost, so is the money to buy goods produced by machines.
Current welfare programs are very restrictive in the use of the money and aid provided (child care, education, food, etc.). This means that in the future, when there are fewer people working and earning money, it is difficult for them to purchase goods produced by companies that do not employ humans. According to Abraham Maslow, a psychology professor at numerous universities such as Alliant International University and Columbia University, the fundamental drive of humans are the physiological and basic needs that include: food, water, warmth, and rest (McLeod 1). Global basic income provides enough for people to meet their physiological needs and more. Consequently, after the level of basic needs is fulfilled, people are motivated to pursue other interests of their own as they need not worry about their basic needs. These next levels include their physiological needs and self-fulfillment needs that motivate them to find not only work for themselves but work that is purposeful. In an article written by American Psychological Association, it states that according to “a new report by Gallup Inc., only 30 percent of the U.S. workforce is engaged in their work” (Weir 1). This meant that the other 70 percent of the nation’s workers did not feel content or “engaged” in their work. Application of basic income would provide workers necessary leeway to find purposeful work they are passionate about. Additionally, this addresses the concept of “wage slavery,” where a person only works for their basic and immediate survival making it difficult to stop working or escape a bad job. According to Adam Smith, an economist, a philosopher, and an author, “no society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable" (Hauben 1). In addition to finding purposeful work, many people will be escaping poverty as a result of basic income and the increased incentive to work. The United States have done a few experiments to test basic income.
In the experiments conducted by the United States testing basic income, it was found that work effort in families had actually been reduced. These experiments resulted in a thirteen percent reduced work effort by the family, each third coming from the primary, secondary, and tertiary earners (Forget 5). However, this reduction in work was in turn, beneficial to the family because the secondary earners for the families had more time productivity in the household, especially those with newborns (Forget 5). This also meant that the family would have to spend less money looking for babysitters and could develop a better relationship with their children. Additionally, in the tertiary earners, mainly adolescent males, it was found that they joined the workforce later due to an increase in spending time in school and getting an education (Forget 5). As a result of basic income there, it was easier for the teenagers to stay in school. According to Adam Smith, “A collier working by the piece is supposed, at Newcastle, to earn commonly about double, and in many parts of Scotland about three times the wages of common labour” (106). Smith illustrates that the wealth of a person is largely based upon their skill or education; a collier with special skills is more likely to live successfully than a common worker that is easily replaceable. In regards to the adolescent males, their increase in education will provide them with a special job that allows them to make a good living. It can be concluded that the implementation of basic income will clearly benefit families.
There are several ways to begin the application of global basic income. One way would be to practice negative income tax and gain the needed money to fund basic income by "taxing the owners of the robots to support the people who are put out of work by them" (Matthews 1). According to the acclaimed physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, “Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution” (Lynch 1). Hawking then goes on to say that the trend seems to be more lenient on the second choice where the machine-owners are getting the freedom to advocate against wealth redistribution (Lynch 1). However, by taxing the rich machine-owners of the future who earn more, the money can be provided for those who do not have jobs which will result in the benefit of the national economy and those living in poverty. Additionally, since it's a negative income tax, those who do not have the money do not have to pay the taxes.
On the other hand, opponents of negative income argue that negative income taxpayers may have a reduced incentive to work. However, Hillel Steiner, an emeritus professor of political philosophy at the University of Manchester, more specifically discusses the idea of land value taxation. As noted by the Economist, “‘When thinking about any tax, economists focus on how it affects decision making. Income tax reduces the incentive to work… Land value taxation is so beloved of economists because, in theory, it does not distort decision making. Suppose a land value tax of one per cent on land value is introduced tomorrow. There can be no supply response: there would still be as much land as there is today’” (Steiner 295-296). This means that unlike a person’s will to work which can be easily decreased, the amount of land always remains the same, keeping the land value taxation in stability. Furthermore, Steiner states that land value tax alone in “one 1985 estimate of its potential revenue in the US, claimed that it would then have been sufficient to provide every average sized American family with an annual income of US$20,000” (295). This proves the ability of the US to implement basic income based solely on land value tax.
Another way we can start implementing basic income is by providing education to
advocate it. Though there are philosophers and scholars who advocate basic income, not many people know of it. Moreover, across North America, there have only been five experiments to test the legitimacy of basic income (Forget 2). With more experiments, subjects, and a larger area, information with better reliability, trustworthiness, and accuracy will be available to those getting educated about basic income. Additionally, with better statistics, people can also be warned about the risks of technological advancement and how it can affect them personally and their work life resulting in a gain of more supporters. Individual jobs that are at a high risk of being taken over such as taxis and drivers must also be taken into account as they are soon to be replaced by self-driving cars.
Although there are many ways to start the implementation of basic income guarantee, it will take time as it is an extremely radical and socialist idea. The United States economy is largely influenced by Adam Smith who believed in a free market economy and is credited to be the father of modern capitalism. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton, who are among the original Founding Fathers of the United States, all cited Wealth of Nations in speeches, letters or reports (How… Economy 1). Adam Smith’s book has played a vital role in shaping and explaining the field of economics as we see it today. In this book, the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith states “The exclusive privilege of an incorporated trade necessarily restrains the competition, in the town where it is established, to those who are free of the trade” (121). Smith clearly expresses his discouragement of government regulation on the economy as it removes the competitive nature between businesses. However, the exponential growth of progression in technology urgently calls for a need for alteration of current social programs. As stated by Derek Thompson, “computers are so dexterous that predicting their application 10 years from now is almost impossible” (9).
Word Count: 2072
Works Cited
Badger, Emily. “How Poverty Taxes the Brain.” CityLab, The Atlantic, 5 Sept. 2013,
www.citylab.com/work/2013/08/how-poverty-taxes-brain/6716/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2017.
Forget, Evelyn L. “The Town With No Poverty.” University of Manitoba, Feb. 2011.
Hauben, Michael. “The Real Voice of Adam Smith.” Columbia University in the City of New
York, www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/adamsmith.txt. Accessed 19 Mar. 2017.
“How Adam Smith Influenced the U.S. Economy.” Index Fund Advisors, Inc. –
Fiduciary Wealth Services, DFA Funds, 3 July 2012, www.ifa.com/videos/ep_38_how_adam_smith/. Accessed 19 Mar. 2017.
King, Martin Luther. Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Harper & Row, 1967.
Lynch, Conor. “Stephen Hawking on the Future of Capitalism and
Inequality.”Www.counterpunch.org, 30 Mar. 2016, www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/15/stephen-hawkings-on-the-tuture-of-capitalism-and-inequality/. Accessed 16 Mar. 2017.
Mason, Paul. “Paying Everyone a Basic Income Would Kill off Low-Paid Menial Jobs | Paul
Mason.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 Feb. 2015, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/01/paying-everyone-a-basic-income-would-kill-off-low-paid-menial-jobs. Accessed 7 Mar. 2017.
Matthews, Dylan. “Basic Income: the World's Simplest Plan to End Poverty, Explained.”Vox,
Vox, 25 Apr. 2016, www.vox.com/2014/9/8/6003359/basic-income-negative-income-tax-questions-explain. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017.
McLeod, Saul. “Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.” Simply Psychology, 16 Sept. 2016,
www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html. Accessed 10 Mar. 2017.
“National Poverty Center | University of Michigan.” RSS, www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/.
Accessed 20 Feb. 2017.
Rector, Robert. “Poverty and the Social Welfare State in the United States and Other Nations.”
The Heritage Foundation, 16 Sept. 2015,
www.heritage.org/welfare/report/poverty-and-the-social-welfare-state-the-united-states-and-other-nations. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017.
Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. Methuen & Co., 1904. College Board Stimulus Material 2017.
Tanner, Michael D. “The Basic Income Guarantee: Simplicity, but at What Cost?” Cato
Unbound, 26 Aug. 2014,
www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/26/basic-income-guarantee-simplicity-what-cost. Accessed 9 Mar. 2017.
Thompson, Derek. “A World Without Work.” The Atlantic, Aug. 2015, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/world-without-work/395294/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017. College Board Stimulus Material 2017.
Weir, Kirsten. “ More than Job Satisfaction.” American Psychological Association, Dec. 2013,
www.apa.org/monitor/2013/12/job-satisfaction.aspx. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017.
Zwolinski, Matt. “The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee.” Cato
Unbound, 4 Aug. 2014,
www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee. Accessed 10 Mar. 2017.