Universal Basic Income: What Does it Mean from a Worker’s Perspective?
Originally published at ThousandWordWorker.wordpress.com 29th January 2021.
Workers may be understandably enthusiastic about the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). In a nutshell, UBI is an income given to individuals to protect against severe poverty which could result from unemployment due to increasing workplace automation. However, we should be weary.
The concept of a UBI is not new [1, 2]. The ‘history of the elite using [such] schemes … is at least 200 years old’. There are also multiple variants of UBI, sometimes called Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) or Universal Income Supplement (USI) [1].
Discussions of Universal Basic Income (UBI) have resurfaced in recent years. Reasons for this range from the precarious nature of employment, poverty wages and ‘the threat to jobs from automation’ [2]. A number of countries and cities across the globe have carried out, or plan on carrying out, UBI trials [3, 2].
Unlike most working-class demands, UBI is receiving support from the right-wing and big-business [2]. CEO’s like Elon Musk have been vocal about their support for such schemes [4]. This seems like a paradox. So what is their motivation?
UBI can be used to force people to work for poverty wages and increase profits.
Swanson gave the following example from England,
‘in the late 1700s and early 1800s… welfare officials began topping up the wages of farm workers … based on family size and the price of bread. This was called the Speenhamland Plan. … most of the wages … were paid for by the welfare system, not employers. Employers who didn’t have workers who received the wage top up would fire them and hire workers who were subsidized… a worker… said the plan had “a single tendency: to destroy the last vestige of control by the labourer over his own wage or working life” [1].
Likewise, in today’s economy, The Guardian’s Jathan Sadowski wrote, ‘UBI can, in some ways, be seen as welfare for capitalists… people can drive for Uber and work for TaskRabbit — at even lower wages! — because UBI subsidises the meagre paychecks… The tech companies take home the profit and face even less pressure to pay a living wage…’ [5].
In the mid-1980’s, the Canadian Manufacturer’s Association ‘wanted a corporate version’ of Guaranteed Annual Income, which they called ‘the Universal Income Supplement’ – which ‘had four parts’:
‘ending nearly all social programmes…’
‘not raising the minimum wage’
‘Keeping the level of the actual supplement so low that recipients would have to get paid work to survive’
‘allowing people who received the supplement to keep it even if they worked so employers could keep the [w]ages they paid low’ [1]
Under such policies, mothers were ‘forced to join… the low wage work force’ by luring them to leave previously existing social welfare schemes and into this Universal Income Supplement scheme[1]. Poor mothers were made poorer by having to accept the new scheme, accept low paying work as a condition of being on the scheme, and therefore being paid terribly low wages by their employers who were being subsidized by the Universal Income Supplement and were being incentivized against raising workers wages.
‘we need to realize that when the corporate spokespeople call for a GAI that will “consolidate” all existing social programs, this could be another word for “destroying” them. For example, employers would love to have so-called Employment Insurance (EI) consolidated into a GAI. That way they could escape their portion of EI payments which are 40 percent higher than the workers portion’ [1].
According to Swanson, for a UBI to work sincerely to the benefit of poor people, ‘it would have to have… ALL of these parts:
* The income would have to be at, or above, the poverty line
* Income would have to increase as the cost of living increases
* Recipients could not be forced by rules or necessity to take paid employment
* Existing public health, education, social and other programs could not be destroyed on the premise that people could pay for them with their Universal Basic Income’ [1]
Also, ‘Minimum wages would also have to increase to livable levels’ – a living wage [1].
Swanson issues a classic Marxist warning to the middle-class about UBI schemes:
‘employers could hire people at very low wages because they would… simply shift the burden of paying wages from corporate employers to mostly middle income taxpayers. The corporations would rake in more profit, and more middle income people could be pushed into poverty because of having to compete with supplemented people for wages and because of having to pay taxes to subsidize wages’ [1].
So, even with a UBI, the proletarianization of the petty-bourgeois class would continue – a classic symptom of capitalism, just as Marxism describes.
‘We all need to be aware of how the corporations and the wealthy can insidiously use our legitimate desire for the basic human right to an adequate income to further their own plans for a very unequal world’ [1].
In this way we see that ‘UBI proposals of some … are regressive rather than progressive, i.e. they would directly benefit the rich more than the poor’ [2]. Despite this, many on the right have opposed UBI as it may hinder capitalism’s capacity to oppose the working-class because its reserve of desperate unemployed workers who are ‘used to drive down wages and conditions’ would be undermined and the safety net would be strengthened by a sufficient UBI for ‘workers who move to take strike action’ [2].
Is a UBI Feasible?
Anyway, how feasible is a UBI today, with a worsening COVID-19 pandemic and continuing issues since the 2008 economic crash? A study in 2016 found that ‘it is not possible to design a scheme… without significant numbers of losers’ [2].
Many of the advocates of UBI suggest it should be “revenue neutral” so as to avoid upsetting the super-rich by hitting their wealth. This compromising would already limit the effectiveness of a UBI programme and would necessitate a parallel (but undermined) traditional social welfare system ‘to compensate the “losers”’ [2].
Beishon asks, why not simply take the most significant companies ‘into public ownership and deciding democratically how the wealth they produce is distributed? Otherwise the funds created will be restricted… to the whims of philanthropists or subjected to … the capitalist class and their governments … ’ [2]. Why not take ownership from the capitalists and democratically decide how technology is used to the benefit of all of society?
If a national government implemented a UBI, it is unlikely to be sufficient, as they are unlikely to tax companies to a level necessary to provide a living income for everyone who needs it, and because, as has been described above, it would strengthen the working-class’ ability to fight for improved working conditions, rights and pay; if a worker could survive longer periods on strike because they have enough income, they would be in a better position to bargain with their employers.
A Brave New World
Even if such an unfeasible “utopia” was possible, one in which a UBI provided sufficient income – is this what people want? Do we envision a society that is dominated by capitalists and their industrial army of robots, who shape the world according to the potential for profit? We would be neither free nor fulfilled under such a system; the role of an ordinary person would be that of a shallow consumer – like people from the film WALL-E; just as social media companies addict us for “free”, we would be exploited and manipulated into purchasing unfulfilling commodities. Instead of existing for the profit fixation of capitalists, we need a society that creates a world of fulfillment for all.
References
[1] J. Swanson, “Guaranteed Annual Income: Is This Really What We Need?,” Canadian Woman Studies, pp. 199-200, 2004.
[2] J. Beishon, “Universal Basic Income Demand Gains Ground: What Approach Should Socialists Take?,” 8 February 2017. [Online]. Available: https://internationalsocialist.net/en/2017/02/britain.
[3] S. Holder, “Support Grows for Guaranteed Income Among America’s Mayors,” 2 July 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-02/to-expand-the-safety-net-more-mayors-back-ubi.
[4] C. Clifford, “Elon Musk: Free Cash Handouts ‘Will be necessary’ if Robots Take Humans’ Jobs,” 18 June 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/elon-musk-automated-jobs-could-make-ubi-cash-handouts-necessary.html.
[5] J. Sadowski, “Why Silicon Valley is Embracing Universal Basic Income,” 22 June 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/silicon-valley-universal-basic-income-y-combinator.
