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 21st 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 21st
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
|
Alaska Permanent
Fund Corporation (state-owned)
|
Ongoing since
1982
|
All Alaska
residents including children
|
Approx. $1,000-$2,000
/ year
|
Universal base
income
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Chicago, IL
|
Direct Giving Lab
|
Ongoing since
2017
|
70 low-income
families (proposed expansion to 200)
|
$100 / month
|
Base income
|
|
Jackson, MS
|
Springboard To Opportunities
|
2018 - 2019
|
16 low-income
African-American mothers
|
$1,000 / month
|
Basic income
|
|
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
|
|
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, IL
|
Chicago Resilient
Families Initiative Task Force
|
TBD
|
Proposed: 1000
families
|
Proposed: $500 /
month
|
Universal base
income
|
|
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
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 21st 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.
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
