What do you think about Basic Income?

[Alias]

You all realize that a lot of jobs we take for granted now will be gone in five years, right? Never to return. Plus, with this pandemic, and it's next two waves, the tourist industry is pretty much a phenomenon of the recent past; along with that, a whole lot of jobs related to air travel, cruise ships, hospitality, catering, etc. will be defunct. There is a big dump of unemployable unemployed about to land on the world economy. Bailing out Westjet just means its top executive walk away from the crash without a scratch on them; bailing out Princess Cruise lines means even less. The US already has 2 million felons who can't get jobs. And no shoes really need shining anymore, even the people wearing most of them could afford to pay for it.
Massive restructuring of the economy will be required very soon.

[Belindi]

Can the idea of education for leisure be revived?
Because it seems to be a choice between that, and conscription.

[Steve3007]

Can the idea of education for leisure be revived?

Do you mean educating oneself for fun? Or does "education for leisure" mean something specific?
When I Googled it I got an interestingly disturbing sounding poem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_Leisure

During this crisis my kids and the kids of friends are being educated online and at home in some interesting and different ways. For example, a friend's 15 year old is currently studying Macbeth so a friend of hers who is an English teacher gave her a lesson on it via Skype. Very successful apparently.

My kids are sent work to do via a website from their school teachers. My youngest son got it done quite quickly yesterday so he got to go on a 2 hour walk along the beach (making the most of the single outside exercise session our leader has decreed we are allowed each day!). So, so far, technology is helping a lot. Once this crisis is over (and it will be over at some point) will we have permanently changed anything about the way we live? Hard to say at this stage.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't know where it is officially called UBI.

Then you haven't looked very hard.

Basic income, also called universal basic income (UBI)...

Link to Wikipedia page.

[Pattern-chaser]

Can the idea of education for leisure be revived?

Nice thought!

Because it seems to be a choice between that, and conscription.

Hmm. Do I understand from this that you feel people must be given an occupation if they don't have one, maybe even by force? [Conscription is mandatory, yes?]

[Pattern-chaser]

How can the measure win public support when 90% of expenditure cannot be justified?

Is it impossible, then, to justify expenditure that would safeguard the income of everyone? By "justified", do you mean "profitable"? Would you describe charitable giving (by the government) as unjustified, for example?

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't agree with the average human having nothing of some importance to do. Whether that activity is uncompensated, poorly compensated (without UBI subsidy) or well compensated has little to do with it's otherwise vital psychological value.

OK, you don't agree. But do you have a more formal justification for this view than just your own disagreement? You have referred several times, I think, to the psychological harm that might result if the link between earning enough to provide for oneself and one's dependents, and having a job, was broken? Could it be that the "vital psychological value" is nothing more than removing the anxiety of providing for oneself and one's family? Do we really think people are incapable of filling their time if they aren't forced to work? Is there evidence for this? [I don't know.]

Most would be better off either in job satisfaction (with similar overall compensation) or better compensation (with similar job satisfaction) but very few would choose to drop their compensation to poverty levels and have nothing to do all day (which sounds like a criminal breeding ground).

Why would idle citizens become criminals? The Devil makes work for idle hands to do? Isn't this part of the Puritan ethic that preaches the necessity of work, that seems so common among Americans? Why is it axiomatic that work is essential? Earning-to-provide, for ourselves and our dependents, is essential. But, once our basic needs are met, why must anyone work? [I'm not asking whether they should work, only if they must.]

[LuckyR]

I don't agree with the average human having nothing of some importance to do. Whether that activity is uncompensated, poorly compensated (without UBI subsidy) or well compensated has little to do with it's otherwise vital psychological value.

OK, you don't agree. But do you have a more formal justification for this view than just your own disagreement? You have referred several times, I think, to the psychological harm that might result if the link between earning enough to provide for oneself and one's dependents, and having a job, was broken? Could it be that the "vital psychological value" is nothing more than removing the anxiety of providing for oneself and one's family? Do we really think people are incapable of filling their time if they aren't forced to work? Is there evidence for this? [I don't know.]

Most would be better off either in job satisfaction (with similar overall compensation) or better compensation (with similar job satisfaction) but very few would choose to drop their compensation to poverty levels and have nothing to do all day (which sounds like a criminal breeding ground).

Why would idle citizens become criminals? The Devil makes work for idle hands to do? Isn't this part of the Puritan ethic that preaches the necessity of work, that seems so common among Americans? Why is it axiomatic that work is essential? Earning-to-provide, for ourselves and our dependents, is essential. But, once our basic needs are met, why must anyone work? [I'm not asking whether they should work, only if they must.]

You are making much (too much by my estimation) of activity for compensation (called "work") vs uncompensated activity (called "volunteering" or "activity" or "interest"). One only has to look at retirement data to show that happiness and longevity are correlated with interesting activity during the classic retirement time period. Doesn't matter if the activity is meaningful employment (for money), a hobby/sport (uncompensated) or being a member of an association/club with a mission (also uncompensated).

So yes, for the above reasons, society (and the individuals in it) are better off with something meaningful to do. Doesn't have to be compensated ("work", as you stipulated).

As to criminal behavior, are you in dispute of the concept that someone with nothing to occupy their time day after day, who notes that others have more stuff might develop an interest in acquiring some of that stuff for themselves, perhaps by any means necessary?

[Pattern-chaser]

As to criminal behavior, are you in dispute of the concept that someone with nothing to occupy their time day after day, who notes that others have more stuff will develop an interest in acquiring some of that stuff for themselves, perhaps by any means necessary?

At the moment, many people steal because their poverty leaves them no choice. UBI would avoid this. So the temptation toward criminal behaviour, though it remains, is considerably lessened, no? So UBI might actually help to combat the tendency you observe?

[LuckyR]

As to criminal behavior, are you in dispute of the concept that someone with nothing to occupy their time day after day, who notes that others have more stuff will develop an interest in acquiring some of that stuff for themselves, perhaps by any means necessary?

At the moment, many people steal because their poverty leaves them no choice. UBI would avoid this. So the temptation toward criminal behaviour, though it remains, is considerably lessened, no? So UBI might actually help to combat the tendency you observe?

Yes, it totally could (that's why am a proponent of UBI, especially in a future where automation MAY make traditional employment uncommon). My point was that it does so best at a compensation level that discourages doing nothing.

[Pattern-chaser]

[UBI] does so best at a compensation level that discourages doing nothing.

I still can't shake the idea that the whole point of UBI is to remove, not just lessen, our rigid dependence on work to earn what we need to survive. As soon as UBI approaches the poverty line, it is reduced to a bit of a helping hand. The chains binding us to our jobs - work or starve! - remain in place, perhaps diminishing or removing the primary benefits of UBI?

Why is it so difficult for you - and the many others who believe as you do! - to accept the possibility of people who could choose to "do nothing", if they want to? Is it that they are receiving "something for nothing", and (perhaps) you feel this is in some way immoral? Why the resistance to the possibility of idleness?

[Belindi]

Can the idea of education for leisure be revived?

Do you mean educating oneself for fun? Or does "education for leisure" mean something specific?
When I Googled it I got an interestingly disturbing sounding poem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_Leisure

During this crisis my kids and the kids of friends are being educated online and at home in some interesting and different ways. For example, a friend's 15 year old is currently studying Macbeth so a friend of hers who is an English teacher gave her a lesson on it via Skype. Very successful apparently.

My kids are sent work to do via a website from their school teachers. My youngest son got it done quite quickly yesterday so he got to go on a 2 hour walk along the beach (making the most of the single outside exercise session our leader has decreed we are allowed each day!). So, so far, technology is helping a lot. Once this crisis is over (and it will be over at some point) will we have permanently changed anything about the way we live? Hard to say at this stage.

Carol Ann Duffy was talking about how education for leisure has failed. Teachers will tell you they spend a lot of their time, not keeping students company on their intellectual and emotional journeyings, but getting them to pass exams get qualifications. Like so much else productivity and economic growth has been put on HOLD and now we can get on with what matters more. Dare we hope at least we will have a new vision once it's all over?

Might the unseen hand of the market now be called a malevolent ghost?

[Belindi]

Pattern Chaser wrote:

Hmm. Do I understand from this that you feel people must be given an occupation if they don't have one, maybe even by force? [Conscription is mandatory, yes?]

Law and order is not why I think conscription is possible quite soon. I was thinking particulary of the need to get prisoners out of their virus factories and on to the land to harvest crops.

When the urgency has gone and we can see what industries are still viable we can make sure human rights are firmly in place to counter any Draconian measures.

[LuckyR]

[UBI] does so best at a compensation level that discourages doing nothing.

I still can't shake the idea that the whole point of UBI is to remove, not just lessen, our rigid dependence on work to earn what we need to survive. As soon as UBI approaches the poverty line, it is reduced to a bit of a helping hand. The chains binding us to our jobs - work or starve! - remain in place, perhaps diminishing or removing the primary benefits of UBI?

Why is it so difficult for you - and the many others who believe as you do! - to accept the possibility of people who could choose to "do nothing", if they want to? Is it that they are receiving "something for nothing", and (perhaps) you feel this is in some way immoral? Why the resistance to the possibility of idleness?

No, I am not so naïve as to not to realize that some folks will do essentially nothing after UBI, just as a percentage do so now before UBI. I am OK with the percentage that do so now and I am equally OK with a similar percentage doing so after UBI. I bring it up for two reasons: 1) as I referred to with our current experience with choices in retirement, most humans are happier and live longer with a purpose (doesn't have to be a job) and 2) because of #1, I don't think we should knowingly craft the details of UBI to ENCOURAGE idleness. If folks choose it, fine. Just as it is fine now.

[Belindi]

I must revise my previous support for 'education for leisure'.

Educating people with no mind to their future employment prospects, and without universal basic income, would result in almost complete lack of social mobility.This would come about because educational resources are naturally limited so students who seem more like school failures would be sidelined in favour of the cleverer ones.

It's already known children from poorer homes don't do as well as children with space and leisure to do homework in comfort, and role models of parents who read and talk about ideas. Children from homes that lack resources need extra encouragement to succeed in the world of work. Some professions are always going to have more political clout than others. Even during the days of the Soviet Republic when such as doctors were not paid more than peasants there was an elite power class of politicians. For these reasons child education has to aspire to prepare children for work as well as for leisure.

My ill -thought -out idea of education for leisure was simplistic. The arts are undervalued, and arts education should earn as much for the individual as technical and science educations. Ideally technical and science educations will include a large component of arts. The way this would work out is for instance, a medical doctor would be taught history and philosophy of medicine to a competent standard. Similarly with science, and law. Likewise arts students should be taught practical applications of arts. No student of Shakespeare, Shelley, Blake, or the plastic arts should believe politics, or care of the sick, does not concern them.

The hewers of wood and the drawers of water similarly need to concern themselves (myself !) with politics and the arts.

Thanks Steve, for drawing my attention to the poem "Education for Leisure" by Carl Ann Duffy. Like all good things I had to work at its implications before I saw where I was misguided.