Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the idea that everyone (well, sort of everyone) would receive an income just for being a person, with no qualifications.
Let's discuss four issues regarding work and UBI.
First, even from a capitalist perspective, fewer people working could be a good thing.
Second, let's talk about the assumption that "people want to work."
Third: UBI would finally compensate people doing "care work" and other "informal" labor.
Fourth: Why so much concern about people working? What happened to machines doing most of our work and people living the good life?
Let's take these one at a time.
First, from a capitalist perspective, fewer people working could be a good thing.
One of the oft-repeated talking points against the proposal for UBI is that if everyone got paid just for being a person, this would reduce the incentives to work. And so fewer people would work.
The assumption behind this argument is that having fewer people who work would be a bad thing (because it's good for people to work).
But what if fewer people working would be a good thing? Let's put aside the empirical debate about whether or not UBI decreases the number of people entering the workforce, and assume that it would (although this is far from clear). Then what? Or, so what?
Many of the same people arguing against UBI are the same people that value efficiency in the capitalist economy. But if what we really want is efficient production, then we should want to have the fewest people working as possible. Here's why.
Currently, companies can rely on cheap exploitable labor. But with UBI, everyone would have enough money to live. People wouldn't need to take exploitative, low-paying, mind-numbing, exhausting, unfulfilling, dangerous, jobs just to survive.
Instead, companies would have two options.
They could create more meaningful positions that would satisfy the basic human desire for creative, satisfying work. This would result in more responsibility and creativity for workers. Which, in turn, could certainly lead to more productivity and efficiency.
Or, without as many available workers, companies would have to get creative to achieve better efficiency. If fewer people are working, companies would have incentives to innovate and develop more efficient production.
So, we see that fewer workers could increase efficiency.
Second is the idea that "people want to work." This is an argument often used by people in favor of UBI. They say that even if people had a basic income, they would still work, because "people want to work."
But I don't think that's quite right.
I think what we really mean is that people want to be valued. We want to contribute to our communities. We want our actions to have meaning. We want to be a part of something.
In our current society, the primary and most recognized way to accomplish all of these goals is to work for money. That could mean working for a start-up, becoming a teacher, building houses for a construction company, or working at a non-profit that helps kids. Wage labor is the dominant channel for people's desire to be valued and contribute.
This doesn't mean, though, that "people want to work." It means that people want to live meaningful lives, with and/or for other people.
Work is the dominant way for people to do this currently. But it doesn't have to be. We could (and already do) find other ways of achieving meaning, outside of wage labor.
This leads to the final point.
Third, much of the work already being done is unpaid. UBI could help address this injustice.
This point is well known to feminists, undocumented immigrants, people of color, and many others involved in social justice struggles.
Basically, much (perhaps the majority) of the value produced in our current economy is unpaid work. This includes many forms of care work, taking care of children, emotional labor and support, etc.
The existing scheme of wage labor exploits -- and only exists because of -- this unpaid work.
And precarious labor is only getting more common, and increasing numbers of people enter (or are forced into) the "gig" economy, informal sectors, or other forms of precarious labor.
UBI would ensure that these people would be compensated. Likely not as much as they should be, but it would be a start.
Finally, why so much concern about people working? What happened to machines doing most of our work and people living the good life?
In a society where 40% of people (in Western countries) think they have "bullshit" jobs -- jobs that don't need to and probably shouldn't exist -- why are we still working so hard?
A free market was supposed to eliminate inefficient, unnecessary jobs.
What happened?
There's obviously enough technology to easily provide for all of our basic needs. For example, only a small fraction of all workers are involved in agriculture and food production. And even there, inefficiency reigns supreme because of large pools of exploitable labor.
Of course, one response is that consumer culture controls. People work so that they can consume things they want but don't need. Nice things. Fun things.
Another response is that capitalism has made work necessary by depriving people of their basic needs, withholding support until and unless people do wage labor.
But even beyond this, many people have come to believe that work is morally good (see, e.g., the Protestant work ethic).
UBI can help us break these patterns. At least I hope it can.
Because I would love to live in a world where machines do all the boring stuff, where all people have their basic needs met, where care work is compensated, and where we pursue projects not because it is paid "work," but because we are doing what we love.
