The Future of Universal Basic Income from a Social Work Perspective

Researching the future of work is becoming my second career. I am disturbed, hopeful, anxious, and excited about the prospects innovation holds for us as disruptive technology barrels forward. Automation and technology will make millions of careers obsolete in as early as 5-10 years (Muro, Maxim, & Whiton, 2019). If this doesn’t wake us up to needed changes, it should. Economic forums, books, TedTalks, policy websites, articles, social media; the world seems abound with discussion about Universal Basic Income (UBI) as the answer to automation. Over 40% of the public in the United States support such measures. UBI, as described by many business leaders, economists, and thought leaders, will not work, unless the lessons learned from social work become part of the priority.

This series of posts will address UBI from a social work perspective. We first start with fundamental questions: What is work? What will be the nature of work in the future as automation replaces careers?

Then more specific questions: What are the goals of UBI? What would UBI add to society? What happens without UBI? Moving to the next blog post, a UBI+ alternative will be explored.  What would a potential “New Deal” look like in the 21^st Century? The last post discusses funding potential and financial implications over different systems supporting the UBI+ plan.

Contrary to belief, American’s work longer hours than any other country. On my work trips to California I often use Uber. Each driver has a different story, but they all work full time in professional position. A dentist, a businessman, an engineer, if these professions need a second income, how many jobs would it take someone in a service profession to live? Most of my life as a social worker I held at least two jobs, and at times up to four. I often ask myself “where is this work ethic getting me? Or us?”

What is Work? Basic Tenants of Work in the United States

Before portions of work became automated, work folded into a life led to survive. The ideal goal of work in the 21^st century is fulfillment, but fulfillment in work is a privilege for most. The Puritan work ethic combined with the entrepreneur spirit seeking the opportunities in capitalism and democracy ground our values of what is work.

·       Work is perfunctory

·       Having a career is privilege

·       Working long hours is an expectation

·       Hard work will bring you success and advancement

·       Work includes some type of ability

o   Ability may or may not be transferable

o   Abilities are not equal

·       Work in the United States is seen as an individualistic endeavor, not collectivistic

·       Work creates a value for one’s own life

Most Americans cannot work on the premise of “fulfillment” as a goal for employment. According the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018) the service industry is the largest segment of our workforce, employing almost 19.5 million Americans. These positions include retail, restaurants, cashiers, customer service, wait staff, and personal care aids. The average monthly income for these jobs can range anywhere from our minimum wage of $7.25 to an average of $23.34 per hour.  Hard work doesn’t always lead to advancement. Just ask the people working 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet or the people in retirement who worked their whole lives and still need part time employment with their social security check. 

Will automation replace most careers?

Automation will almost completely eradicate monotonous and/or assembly line type of work (Muro, Maxim, & Whiton, 2019). Professions will become streamlined. Blue-collar and white-collar jobs will encapsulate. Unfortunately, condensing professions will lead to skilled workers needing alternatives for their careers. Automation will reduce the need for truck drivers, artificial intelligence diagnosing will replace the need for many radiological physicians, and lawyer bots will perform the basic requirements for simple law proceedings. Professions we never thought replaceable by technology will be replaced by Artificially Intelligent machines.

Those who survive within these and other professions will be specialists or innovators. These specialists will be free to explore the complexities of their professions. Their job fulfillment will increase as will the impact on their professions. What will happen to those who do not make the cut in their field or whose jobs are eliminated from automation? The dire predictions of automation and joblessness may not reach cataclysmic levels. Some employment will be mitigated by entrepreneurial pursuits or the employment disruptive technology creates, but there will not be enough opportunities to address the disruption.

UBI as it exists in the present

UBI is not a new concept. In the 1700’s Thomas Paine proposed an equal share of profits for all citizens. Martin Luther King Jr. espoused guaranteed income as a means to alleviate poverty and balance the scales of inequity for all POC. Even the next round of Democratic Presidential hopefuls’ flirt with the notion of developing a system of UBI for Americans. Up to 50% of people under fifty years of age support some form of UBI, but what do we know about it?

According to Stanford’s Basic Income Lab, their UBI’s definition is “give every individual cash on a reoccurring basis, no string’s attached” (I address this will not work in my next blog). UBI is a bare bones approach to solving system inequities, but does it work? Researchers at Stanford’s Basic Income Lab are tracking ten projects in the US to evaluate UBI’s efficacy. The following list includes the ten projects being monitored by Stanford’s Basic Income Lab.

Current U.S. Basic Income Pilots

Project	Location	Implementing organization	Dates	Recipients	Amount and frequency	Design of program
Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend	Alaska	Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (state-owned)	Ongoing since 1982	All Alaska residents including children	Approx. $1,000-$2,000 / year	Universal base income
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Casino Revenue Fund	North Carolina	Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians	Ongoing since 1996	All enrolled members of Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians	Approx. $3,500-6,000 / 6 months	Universal base income
Baby’s First Years (Income & the Developing Brain Study)	New York City, NY New Orleans metropolitan area, LA Omaha metropolitan area, NE Twin Cities, MN	University of California, Irvine Columbia University New York University University of Wisconsin-Madison	2017 - 2022	1,000 low-income mothers with newborns	$333 / month for 40 months for treatment mothers Control group: $20 / month for 40 months	Base income
Preserving Our Diversity	Santa Monica, CA	City of Santa Monica Housing and Economic Development	Nov 2017 - ongoing	21 low-income elderly, rent-burdened renters (proposed expansion to 300)	Calculated by household using the Basic Needs Subsidy Method, average of $500 / month	Base income
Direct Giving Lab	Chicago, IL	Direct Giving Lab	Ongoing since 2017	70 low-income families (proposed expansion to 200)	$100 / month	Base income
Magnolia Mother’s Trust	Jackson, MS	Springboard To Opportunities	2018 - 2019	16 low-income African-American mothers	$1,000 / month	Basic income
Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED)	Stockton, CA	Office of Mayor Michael Tubbs, Reinvent South Stockton Coalition, Reinvent Stockton Foundation	Feb 2019 - Jul 2020	100 residents of low-to middle-income neighborhoods	$500 / month Control group: compensated for participation in study	Universal base income
Basic Income Project	TBD in 2019	Y Combinator Research	TBD (3-5 yrs)	1,000 residents of low- to middle-income neighborhoods	$1,000 / month Control group: $50 / month	Universal basic income
Chicago Resilient Families Initiative (proposed)	Chicago, IL	Chicago Resilient Families Initiative Task Force	TBD	Proposed: 1000 families	Proposed: $500 / month	Universal base income
Newark UBI pilot	Newark, NJ	Newark Mayor’s Office Exploratory Task Force	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD

Definitions

Universal: everyone in a given geography is eligible (for pilots, this may be a random selection of residents of low and middle income neighborhoods)

Not universal: targeted to specific groups

Basic income: the amount is approximately sufficient to meet basic needs

Base income: the amount is intended to be a supplement, but not to ensure basic needs

Cash transfers: one-time transfer of cash, rather than regular installments

Source: Stanford Basic Income Lab  

As yet, completed UBI trials failed to produce positive results increasing work. Finland, Ontario, and even the negative income tax the US used from 1968-1980 did not incentivize work. I propose part of the problem is our definition of work. As we move forward, with automation replacement on our heels, the culture of work needs an overhaul.

Transforming what we tell ourselves about work

Our culture presses work values on children at a young age. “what do you want to be when you grow up?” is a common question encountered by kids throughout childhood. If the answer is not one which will financially support them, an artist, a mom, a social worker, then displeased parents frown upon their child.  “You can’t make a living at that dear, how about something different? Maybe a firefighter? Computer Programmer? Electrician? Lawyer?” Feeling the need to please their parents/community/society, children can base their whole careers on the messages they received about work when growing up. The big message here…Your worth is based upon your work, provide for your family, and your earning capacity.

Automation will continue to replace the tediousness of certain professions, but will also open the door to more fulfilling prospects. People will not stop working to get a stipend of $1000 a month. The middle class will have more time to spend with their children instead of working a second job. The lower the income level, the more services need expansion to support equity in quality of life pursuits. UBI will not work unless we create social supports for people slightly above or below the poverty line.

As automation begins to displace workers, our societal definitions of worth need to adjust if we don’t want to experience an increase in mental illness, specifically depression and anxiety. The shifts occurring in employment will necessitate a redefinition of work. People’s identity and ego strength is wrapped up in their employment (Kozan, Blustein, Paciorek, Kilbury, & Işık, 2019). UBI’s current goal is to stabilize individuals and families to be more productive in their work. The definition of worth can be broadened with inclusion of alternative routes to value in society. A significant part of our population will not be able to retrain, reskill, nor participate in work as it is currently defined.

A change in definition and value of work within the next ten or twenty years seems unattainable. People still argue about aspects of the New Deal from the early 1930’s! Values change can happen if enough systems support change. Examples of rapid cultural change in our recent history are everywhere. Besides the miracle of any information in the world available on your phone, other paradigm shifts continue to occur. We can shop from our couches with food delivery in a day. Computers identify lung tumors in patients more accurately than doctors.  A watch gives people warnings of potential heart attacks.  Cars drive themselves!  

All of these disruptive technologies, altering our culture, accelerated in developed over the past five to ten years. Can you imagine yourself without a smart phone? What would your life be without email? When was the last time you called an airline for a plane ticket? Twenty to twenty-five years ago could you have imagined technology would be such an integral part of your life? The swift change of culture occurred due to the influence of business, marketing, and government, on promoting, consciously and unconsciously, a shift towards a digital future. The reasons may include high profit margins or a drive to innovate, but because of the power behind the effort, technology innovations are accepted by most people as inevitable. The more systems fostering the change, the more individuals will accept the change, as long there is a perception of improvement in their quality of life.

Shifting Cultural Norms - Individualism balanced with collectivistic principles

The future of work is shifting from assembly lines and intellectual positions to responsibilities requiring high level critical thinking, creative solutions, and innovation or the other end of the spectrum, service care positions and personable tasks for which technology cannot replace (Muro, Maxim, & Whiton, 2019). Change in values and norms can progress relatively quickly if there is a consensus of opinion and collaboration towards an objective.

Carew and Stapleton (2013) proposed a systems paradigm shift in technology innovation away from a functionalism approach to an empathic human-centered approach. Sometimes we need to take a step backward to move forward. Innovations in technology, to this point, are void of inclusionary practices. If inventions of disruptive technologies take away large segments of potential employment then plans to rectify this displacement need to be addressed. Innovation benefits the few where this proposal introduces an inclusivity of benefits to all Americans.

Disruptive technologies will impact work, but how successful our society’s transition occurs is dependent on societal buy in of the following ideals:

·       Systemically providing education and promotion for the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948 & 2015)

·       Bipartisan support of efforts to improve quality of life for all Americans

·       Innovation structured to be inclusive vs. exclusive of all intersections

·       Needs assessment of automation replacement on Americans, including input from displaced workers

·       Develop a lifelong learning mindset throughout the lifespan

·       Integration of social and psychological intersectionality system mentors in government, businesses, and education for policy and program development

·       Shift work focus to a family focus supported by policy and funding

·       Look to other types of work options (job sharing, working from home, entrepreneurship, etc.)

·       An increase in workplace protections, benefits, and displacement services

·       Broaden definition of work to life work (work which enhances the quality of life for an individual)

·       The cost of basic living expense increases needs to be minimal or frozen for financial equity to build. Rent, utilities, food etc. prices cannot go up to increase capitalistic profit. Our society needs to agree to let people succeed, not continuing the cycle of wealthy increasing their wealth at the cost of the lower classes

·       Equality across states, more government funding depending upon state resources

                          

What happens without UBI?

The Metropolitan Policy Program (2019) published a brief entitled “Automation and Artificial Intelligence: How machines are affecting people and places.” This briefing details where the US is heading in our not too distant future through easy to understand concepts and graphics. I encourage you to read this and contemplate the implications of automation. Most significant, the results provide the automation potential of many industry categories. The statistics are not heartening.

As automation replaces whole segments of job categories, not everyone will be able to be re-skilled. Certain vulnerable populations will be more at risk for poverty and homelessness. The stratification of income levels will increasingly polarize inequities. If our nation lets this continue, we will have consequences. History’s cyclical nature provides a blueprint for what will occur next. Social order is already being disrupted by the instability of political and economic structures governing the “have nots.”

We see the impact of wide spread ignorance in reversal of civil rights decisions through legislation in our poorest, least educated states. When economic growth does not include an equitable distribution of resources, over time, revolutions erupt. The blame game this lack of reasoning creates, is a schism targeting a perceived threat to primarily white Americans living in scarcity of resources. If divisions in social issues continue to ignite and distract the general populous, then we will fail together. False logic with racial overtones will continue to collapse the very foundation of principles America was built upon. Automation without solution is a very real threat to the stability of our democracy.

What now?

If no UBI is not a solution, and the present structure of UBI is not a solution, what is the answer? The next blog, “UBI+ or The New Deal – for the 21^st Century from a Social Work Perspective” will provide details to increase the success of a UBI system. I hope you come along for the journey to the future and add your solutions to the mix. 

References

Bidadanure, J., Kline, S., Moore., Rainwater, B., & Thomas, C. (2018). Basic income in cities: A guide to city experiments and pilot projects. National League of Cities & Stanford Basic Income Lab, Retrieved from https://basicincome.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj7921/f/basic_income_in_cities_toolkit_shareable_11-2-18.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Service providing industries. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag07.htm

Carew, P., & Stapleton, L. (2014). Towards empathy: a human-centered analysis of rationality, ethics and praxis in systems development. AI & Society, 29(2), 149. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.chapman.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid&db=edb&AN=95431143&site=eds-live

Kozan, S., Blustein, D. L., Paciorek, R., Kilbury, E., & Işık, E. (2019). A qualitative investigation of beliefs about work-related crises in the United States. Journal of Counseling Psychology. https://doi-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/10.1037/cou0000343

Muro, M., Maxim, R., & Whiton, J. (2019). Automation and artificial intelligence: How machines are affecting people and places. Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019.01_BrookingsMetro_Automation-AI_Report_Muro-Maxim-Whiton-FINAL-version.pdf

Piero Dominici. (2018). For an inclusive innovation. Healing the fracture between the human and the technological in the hypercomplex society. European Journal of Futures Research, (1), 1. https://doi-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/10.1007/s40309-017-0126-4