The idea of a Universal Basic Income is a concept which has many names and many possible forms – the basic principle of which is a regular and unconditional payment being made to all members of society. To this extent, the mechanism by which the Universal Income is implemented can be understood, what is less clear however is the reasons supporting the application of a Universal Income.
December 2018 saw the end of the first government-sponsored European application of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). The Finnish Social Insurance agency Kela, instituted a two-year long plan to pay unemployed people a Basic Income of €560 per month. The principal objective of the experiment was to “help understand how receiving a basic income affects the income and employment status of the participants.” – the preliminary results published this month indicate that there was an improvement in the stated well-being of the participants, but no change in the rate of employment, when compared to a control group. (These results are based on the results from the year 2017 – with the results for the second year of the experiment not released until 2020.)
For the Finnish experiment then, the rationale was to see if there was any change in the rates of employment – and according to that criteria, it would appear that the experiment failed… but perhaps the problem was their objective and not the mechanism used. Why after all, would we assume that giving someone money would aid them in their search for employment..? Perhaps then, the question that the Finns were asking was not the correct one; maybe we should instead be asking whether or not there is any valid reason for a state to pay its citizens a Universal Income?
What reason could there be that would justify ensuring that all members of a society received an equal payment of money simply for existing? Is there a point can a citizen may be considered to be valuable enough to society to be worthy of an income – or should the very presence of the person suffice? According to the definition of a UBI, there are no conditions placed on the uses to which said income may be put. In the absence of any conditions then, it would seem to me a logical deduction that the only criteria for this income is one’s existence; which if true, would imply that the payment of the income could only be in return for that existence.
This seems to me a very reasonable position to take; after all, a society that has no members cannot continue to thrive and develop. If would follow therefore, that any and all societies who wish to develop would require citizens. This ‘existence’ is therefore the most valuable asset that any society can possess. The attribution of a payment to all members of a society merely serves to underscore the value of each and every one of those individuals to that society. Since each and every member exists to an equal extent (they are all alive in the same way) then the payment made to each should also be equal.
The structure of many of our societies is such that they permit (even reward to some extent) the accumulation and hoarding of wealth – and the passing of this wealth down through the generations. A child born to a wealthy family has a chance to inherit finances which are denied to a child born to a poor family – yet, if we acknowledge that their value to society – their very existence – is of equal value, surely we should question why this should be the case? As far as I understand things, children neither choose their parents nor their nationality at birth; in which case it seems entirely unreasonable to reward or penalise them for the impact of that decision. The same logic that argues that royalty is not a fair system of government must therefore also argue against the inheritance of wealth and goods. Taken to its logical extent, the same argument would support the implementation of a Universal Income.
It may also be worth considering that the state in which we live is generally responsible for setting the rules which govern our lives. Isn’t it reasonable then to consider that the state should also provide us with a minimum of resources to allow us to do just that? If a state is going to expect that its citizens continue to exist (what with suicide being outlawed in most societies) and follow the rules, then the society should ensure that this is a viable option for all… say by providing full and free health-care to all?
We live in a world where the ability to exist is linked inextricably to money, and in a world where money can be saved, hoarded and kept. Although the amount of money is not limited itself – as it is an artifice – for most intents and purposes it is a limited resource since the ability to create money is open to only a few; institutions such as banks and governments for example. If then a society wishes to continue to exist, it requires that people exist – and if people’s ability to exist is linked to money, then the citizens of a society should be remunerated for the fact that they exist. Furthermore, as the only criteria to be met is one’s existence, then the status of all people in any society must by definition be equal – since we all exist. Hence, we should all be treated equally and fairly, because we all do the same job.
Mark Twain is oft quoted as saying that we should not believe that the ‘world owes us a living” – perhaps not, but perhaps our societies do…
…with thanks to Guillaume for the inspiration.
So perhaps we should all quit our days jobs in favour of the important role of simply existing?
Money of course will be of no object, since society will pay me directly for my valuable contribution. A natural logic?
However, if all of society targets only existing then no work will be achieved. There will be no products or services to buy. Of what use will all this money be to me?
Perhaps the end state is that we all become hoarders of money, for no particular purpose at all? Then, as unproductive as the currently hoarded wealth is today, so it will be tomorrow too – only more so!
Would you target simply existing?
An interesting question, ow let me see….
….another 12hour day today on the perpetual hamster wheel of arguing the inconvenient truth, writing documents no-one will read and providing advice no-one will listen to for the sole purpose of enabling executives to tick the box to say ‘we consulted’…
Sometimes I wonder if I don’t already qualify as ‘simply existing’ ?
Still, I’m away tomorrow for a long weekend on the bike to the Indian Motorcycle Rally, so maybe there is a point to it all?
Come on, we have all spent years on the hamster wheel in order to earn a crust as nobody has ever seen fit to pay us for doing nothing…although perhaps the hamster’s output might be so classified as doing nothing much?
Personally I can see no reason why or how such a paltry freebie used in this experiment would encourage anybody to work. The cost of living in Finland is astronomical and I doubt if you could even keep body and soul together for much less then a weekly income of 560 euros let alone a month. Sounds like another hamster’s output bites the dust to me…..
Interesting it is Finland that has tried the experiment, I wasn’t aware it had taken place. I have been too busy trying to stop Brexit. One aspect is that Finland is considered to be amongst the most equal of Western European societies, and I think they deserve some credit for attempting to address a complex question.
There has been a great deal published about how, in the future, societies tackle the problems which may arise as the increasing use of robots diminishes the need for human hands at work, while at the same time increasing the profit margins for the owners of said robots. These discussions have raised ideas of a ‘Citizens Income’ which will take the place of previously earned income from time spent ‘at work’. The concept is a difficult one coming some 300yrs after the Industrial Revolution, and the 40yrs of the embedding of Neo Liberal Economic policy throughout the developed western economies in the form of the ‘Free Market’ principle. But whatever happens it will require a revolution of a vastly different order if societies wish to continue to progress and keep citizens content.