Basic income - Past, Present, and into the Future

At its core, basic income seeks to deal with one issue: poverty. This concept has been explored numerous times, it has been considered for hundreds of years, enormous amounts of data has been gathered on the subject, and yet no country on Earth has fully implemented it. Everyone understands the fundamental basic concept that not having enough money to afford the necessities of food, water, clothing, and shelter isn’t a good thing. Nobody with any sense what so ever thinks there is anything good about people living without basic needs. Yes, there are some who make ridiculous arguments stemming from a Social Darwinist perspective. For the purposes of this analysis, and hopefully any rational analysis on the topic, any argument which suggests that anyone should be, or somehow deserves to be, living in poverty will be ignored as the utter nonsense that it is. Poverty is a real issue, and it is a preventable one. That is the very heart of the idea of basic income, and it is the position this analysis will take.

Analysis of the Problem

As historian Rutger Bregman (2017) has said time and time again, “Poverty isn’t a lack of character. It’s a lack of cash.” This simple definition cuts straight to the heart of the issue. We live in a world of money, and in a world of money if you don’t have enough of it, you’re going to suffer for that in many ways. This is what poverty ultimately boils down to. There are many different ways of measuring or defining levels of poverty, none of which the world seems to be able to agree upon, but that’s the fundamental issue. Many like to push the idea that people should be working jobs rather than simply collecting some form of income without necessarily having to do anything for it. This attitude has produced a seemingly endless supply of meaningless jobs which nobody wants to do and are completely unnecessary at this point.

As automation and artificial intelligence (A.I.) continue to develop, this problem is only getting worse. Self-driving vehicles are here today. Those are set to displace hundreds of thousands of employees in the transportation industry in upcoming years. They’ve already replaced thousands of forklift operators and warehouse workers around the world. Amazon alone makes enormous use of automated drones which move and sort pallets in their warehouses. Conveyors do much of the rest of that work, and the people working in the warehouses are only there at this point to collect goods from one drone to move them on to the conveyor system. That job too will be automated with time. Self-checkouts are available in stores, and some grocery stores are currently being tested to run without anyone operating them at all. The shelves stack and re-fill themselves, items are automatically scanned as they’re picked up by customers, and they are billed via their cellphones as they walk out the door. We are at a point already where we don’t really need people doing much of the work in grocery stores. Nobody sits at home as a child and dreams of one day becoming a shelf stocker or checkout person at a grocery store. So why do these jobs still exist?

Our global society has for a long time now embraced the idea that if you want to live in a society you must contribute something to it. Except that’s not really entirely the case. As Rutger Bregman pointed out in his 2017 TED talk, after a six-day strike of garbage collectors in New York City, a state of emergency was declared. When the bankers went on strike in 1970’s Ireland, everything went on as usual so much so that they eventually simply returned to work six months later after realizing that they weren’t actually as essential as they’d thought themselves to be (Bregman, 2017). Some jobs just aren’t as essential as others. Banking, finance, coding, software development, accounting, all sorts of jobs which involve numbers or coding are rapidly being encroached upon by better and better A.I. systems designed to do much of the busy work of these professions. As a 2019 CBC article by Manjula Dufresne notes of Canada, over half of all jobs in this country are at risk of being made obsolete due to automation in the coming decades, yet critics are still stuck on how expensive a basic income would be.

How expensive is it to have half of Canadians unemployed due to advancing automation technology? Were the critics to have their way, half of Canada’s workforce would be relegated to our woefully inadequate welfare system whilst corporations rake in ever increasing profits as the costs of labor decline. This is obviously an insane proposition, but what is the alternative under the ‘everyone needs a job’ model? Artificially hold back automation of the jobs nobody wants to be working to begin with just so people are ‘working for their basic needs’? That is some seriously twisted ideology at work there. We should be embracing the fact that nobody needs to work meaningless and unnecessary jobs any longer, not clinging to them because of some twisted ideology. Should we have held back the advent of automobiles to protect the work of carriage drivers and farriers? Should we have rejected electricity to protect the dangerous work of oil lamp fillers? Should we now reject renewable energy technologies to protect the jobs of coal miners and oilfield workers? Obviously, the answer to all of these questions is a resounding “no.” So what makes basic income a good answer to the problem of job loss and poverty in general?

Past Policies & Programs

Basic income has long been recognized as a possible solution to a number of different issues pertaining to poverty. It was first referenced as early as 1516 by then lawyer, author, and social philosopher Thomas More in his book “Utopia” (republished in 1965 by Paul Turner). He had proposed the notion of a basic income as a way to help stop the poorest of his country from needing to steal to survive (More & Turner, 1965). He later became the Speaker of the House of Commons and eventually Lord Chancellor of Britain under King Henry VIII, but during his career as a statesman he was not able to bring about the very program he had proposed earlier in his life. This has been the case for all attempts made in the 500 years since then. It has often been proposed, has been tested in relatively small populations numerous times, has been thoroughly studied in the past century especially, but it has yet to gain enough traction and support to actually be brought into law.

One of the most successful and now well-known trials of basic income was right here in Canada back in 1974–1979. The trial was conducted in the small town of Dauphin, Manitoba, and it included everyone who lived there. Due to a change to a Conservative government, the trial was abandoned and subsequent funding to finish analysis of the data gathered was not secured (Forget, 2011). The original researchers put all of their data into boxes in the basement of the University of Manitoba where they would not be found again until a researcher at the university, Evelyn Forget, would find it several decades later (2011). In her analysis of the data, Forget found that the project was actually a resounding success, and the main concerns noted by critics, such as the thought that nobody would want to work if given a basic income, were largely disproved (2011). The only people to cut back on work at all were young mothers who took the time to stay at home and care for their children, and young men who then went on to higher education instead of working low wage entry-level positions (Forget, 2011). Other than the slight decrease in labor force participation by those who used that time for better pursuits, the results also showed an 8.5 percent drop in hospital visits, increased health and well being, improved mental health and fewer visits to doctors for that purpose, more young people continued their educations through to grade 12, and it was estimated that the health related positive outcomes during the study amounted to a significant savings in healthcare expenses (Forget, 2011). It was a success for participants, but as it did not match with the subsequent Conservative Government’s ideological views, the project was scrapped.

Forget’s research also highlighted a very unique and surprising example of another basic income project. It was done in the United States under the direction of then President Richard Nixon of all people, and to top that off the program was implemented by Donald Rumsfeld who brought on none other than Dick Cheney to assist him with the project (Forget, 2011). None of these names would typically relate to a concept like basic income in anyone’s mind, but even they saw some merit in looking into the idea. Given that they were Republicans, their main concern with the experiment was to find out what impact it would have on labor force participation (Forget, 2011). As the project went on and they conducted a total of four experiments covering several different populations around the States, they began to ask more questions and collect data on issues outside of just labor force participation rates (Forget, 2011). The American experiments discovered largely the same information as did the Canadian experiment finding a 13% reduction in overall ‘work effort’ by each family unit, married women stayed home with newborns longer, young men stayed in school longer, young children’s test scores improved at school, among other benefits also found in the Manitoba study (Forget, 2011). Unfortunately, once again it was reactions and critique from ideological Conservative viewpoints, in this case other Republicans, which largely scuttled support for the project (Forget, 2011).

Present Policies & Programs

Basic income projects certainly aren’t just a thing of the past. Several projects just finished this year, one of which was stopped abruptly by, unsurprisingly, a new Conservative Government. This fits with the pattern seen in the past experiments. The program is started under a more left-leaning Government, and when a new more right-leaning Government comes to power the project is scrapped and abandoned. The main argument used in cancelling these projects by Conservatives has been that it is a “waste of money” as has been said by Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford time and time again. Yet what really makes it an actual waste of money is in the abrupt ending of these projects before their scheduled end, and the disruption of data being collected to begin with. As Forget noted of the Dauphin study in Manitoba decades ago when that project was ended by Conservatives, they made sure there wasn’t any money left to go over the data which was collected to begin with (2011). It is an intentional burying of data to support an ideological belief.

The Ontario project was arguably far more ambitious than the project done in Finland. While the Finland project provided participants with 560 euros monthly (Kauranen, 2019), roughly $844 Canadian dollars, the Ontario project provided participants with $1415.75 per month, and persons with disabilities received an additional $500 monthly on top of that figure (Government of Ontario, 2017). The main aim of the Finland project was, like the projects done under Nixon, to find out whether a basic income could help increase labor force participation rates (Kauranen, 2019). While the project in Ontario did measure labor force participation rates, the project had much more ambitious plans overall. The project aimed to track and improve outcomes relating to food security, stress and anxiety, mental health, health and healthcare usage, housing stability, education and training, along with the aforementioned employment and labor market participation rates (Government of Ontario, 2017). The project was set up to gather the most accurate data possible from the 4,000 participants, including an additional 2,000 who represented a control group (Government of Ontario, 2017).

Ultimately, again just as was the case with the projects under Nixon and the Canadian project in Manitoba, the projects were ended. In so far as the Finland test went, it was shown that basic income did not increase labor force participation (Kauranen, 2019). The proposed costs to roll out the project nationwide were shown to be too high to gain the political support needed for the center-right party in Finland to move the project forward (Kauranen, 2019). In the case of the Ontario project, however; it was ended in the same way as was the Dauphin project. Doug Ford shut it down due to Conservative ideological reasons with no concern as to how it would impact the data given the project was designed to last longer and end in a more controlled fashion. The project is currently in the process of being wound down (Government of Ontario, 2017). It would appear that so long as Conservative Governments have their ideological say over the issue, basic income has more hill to climb before it becomes a reality. The only thing which will boost support for this concept from voters of all political stripes will be drastic drops in available employment, and that certainly seems to be a reality which is just around the corner.

Future Change

Right now in B.C., a committee of three experts is working on research and designing another pilot project for basic income (Dembicki, 2019). Writing for the Tyee, Geoff Dembicki (2019) notes that during his interview with one of the expert committee members, David Green of the University of British Columbia, automation and housing affordability are of the two most significant concerns basic income seeks to mitigate in the near future. While the committee is in its early stages at this point, the research regarding job loss due to automation and housing affordability due to increased inequality has been thoroughly studied for quite some time. As is pointed out in Dembicki’s article, automation is projected to eliminate tens of millions of jobs in the coming decades (2019). Further to that, inequality in general is already at levels not seen since the gilded age (Dembicki, 2019). Without basic income to support people in these coming times, inequality and unemployment are going to become issues worthy of a revolution. As if the means of production isn’t already in the hands of too few today, automation and A.I. technologies of tomorrow will only further concentrate that into a system which requires fewer and fewer participants to produce the same quantity of goods.

This is the point at which our society will face a major decision. Either we hold back these technological advances to artificially preserve jobs which nobody really wants to do to begin with just to hold onto the “everyone must work for a living” mentality in our society, or we must embrace these new technologies and move our society toward a more collective ownership and benefit model regarding this new production model which requires so many fewer workers. Why is it seen by some as such a terrible thing if there are a handful of people who decide they want to take their basic income, sit at home, and not contribute via a traditional ‘job’ at this point? With fewer and fewer positions available, we’re headed toward a future where either everyone will be working far fewer hours weekly, or a smaller number of people will be working full time whilst others pursue new endeavours to fill their time and find meaning in life. Either way, those who wish to work can still do so and earn some wage above and beyond their basic income level. This is all assuming that there even would be any significant numbers of people who would wish to simply ‘do nothing’ and live right at the poverty line on their basic income. None of the studies done to date have shown that any significant number of people actually choose to do this. This is again one of those Conservative ideological beliefs at play. The belief is that if people are given a bit of a cushion that they’ll simply choose to sit on it. It has been thoroughly debunked at this point, yet it still remains part of the conversation.

In the end, the B.C. project is likely to still come a bit too soon for basic income to be popular enough to surmount the unpalatable taste it leaves in many people’s mouths regarding its costs. Automation hasn’t taken tens of millions of jobs just yet. A.I. isn’t rewriting the software industry or taking over jobs in other fields quite yet. These technologies are closer than ever today, and self-driving cars alone are poised to take over millions of jobs in North America (The Canadian Press, 2018). This isn’t a distant reality, it’s one we’ll be seeing ramp up over the next ten years. That technology alone will displace taxi drivers, uber drivers, much of the delivery service industry, and semi-truck drivers (The Canadian Press, 2018). As this happens, people are going to need something to support themselves. Whether basic income comes before all of those workers revolt is unknown at this point in time. Hopefully our Governments of the near future will see past ideological belief to the reality of the situation before too many lives are upended.

References

Bregman, R. (2017, April). Poverty isn’t a lack of character; it’s a lack of cash. TED2017. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lack_of
_character_it_s_a_lack_of_cash

Dembicki, G. (2019, January 18). Meet the Economist Advising BC on Whether to Go Ahead with a Basic Income. The Tyee. Retrieved from https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/01/18
/Economist-Advising-BC-Basic-Income/

Dufresne, M. (2019, January 02). Basic Income: New Year, new look at an old idea. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/basic-income-new-year-new-look-at-an-old-idea-1.4951602

Forget, E. L. (2011). The Town with No Poverty: The Health Effects of a Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income Field Experiment. Canadian Public Policy, XXXVII(3). Retrieved from https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cpp.37.3.283

Government of Ontario. (2017). Ontario Basic Income Project. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot

Kauranen, A. (2019, February 08). Finland’s basic income trial boosts happiness but not employment. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-finland-basic-income/finlands-basic-income-trial-boosts-happiness-but-not-employment-idUSKCN1PX0NM

More, T., & Turner, P. (1965). Utopia. London: Penguin Books.

The Canadian Press. (2018, October 15). Government says self-driving cars could kill more than 1 million jobs. Global News. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/4550641/self-driving-automated-cars-jobs-killed/