Thoughts...
I've been thinking a lot recently. Mostly on one topic. I'm not sure when it started. The Occupy movement is involved tangentially, though I think they have missed something big. I think the biggest factor was when a friend made a comment about being unemployed for a significant period of time making it harder to find a new job.
My immediate reaction was to point out that the way things are going, that prejudice is going to have to fade. Unemployment rates are just too high for everyone to get a job. But something about this just didn't sit right with me. I felt that I was missing something.
I didn't pursue it immediately, but I've kept mulling it over. A few things eventually bubbled up to the surface. One is The Diamond Age. Another is a short story called Manna that I read a while ago.
This country was founded on the Puritan work ethic. Survival of entire communities was predicated on everyone contributing, and often making large contributions. Over the years, as survival became less of a question, the hard work was re-purposed as needed, and became enshrined as a virtue: "an honest day's pay for an honest day's work." And so on.
But something's changed. Somewhere along the line, all the hard work put into developing automation began to pay off. Taking care of the requirements for supplying the population with food, shelter, and other basic necessities is a very tiny portion of what the work force does. And automation keeps improving - some economists are suggesting that unemployment remains high because the jobs those people used to perform have been eliminated by advances in technology.
But this work ethic is still deep inside our expectations, our social contracts, our political discourse. Fewer people are needed to keep society functioning than have been, historically. The population is increasing. But if you can't find an honest day's work, what have you got? The cliche suggests that your options are no pay or dishonest pay.
There is a problem here. Follow these trends for another 25 years. The population keeps growing. Automation keeps improving. Pressure from both ends - more people vying for fewer jobs.
The established political discourse here has a single response to this situation - yelling about job creators. There's cajoling. There's insinuation that it's the fault of the other guy for not creating jobs fast enough. There are probably even some ritual chants and dances that get invoked. But job creators have already failed to keep up with changing times. They're not going to get better at it magically.
Maybe it's time to re-examine the our social contracts and expectations. The pieces of fiction I mentioned earlier have a common sub-theme. What if employment isn't a prerequisite for being able to support yourself minimally? What if our implied social contract said that you would be able to get by without having a job? What if there was no expectation that a day's work was necessary for a day's pay?
Ok, disregard the total catastrophe that a sudden transition to such a system would be. But consider the end state. People get bored. People like to live above the bare minimum. There would be people wanting to work for money. There would be people paying for work. The economy wouldn't collapse. In fact, it's likely the economy would remain as active as ever, but far more diversified.
This is where this differs from a hippie fantasy. I don't think everyone would share and the world would be a giant commune. I think capitalism would still dominate - but the parameters would be reset. Businesses would need to compete for workers as much as workers would compete for jobs. If you don't see a job you're interested in out there, you have options - tighten your belt and get by on the minimum, or find something you enjoy doing that someone will pay you for.
Some people would still be driven to get rich. And they still could get rich. They could still enjoy the material rewards of money. The capitalist dream would live on. Many more would chase the dream and come up short. But if they fall, the safety net is already in place. And for those who'd rather just get by with minimal fuss, that would be an option, too.
It turns out that I'm hardly the first person to think about all of this, of course. The basic income guarantee is the core concept I'm describing.
And so I'm sitting here, far too late, wondering if this idea could work. Can people adjust their expectations? Can a system like that be implemented non-destructively if enough people decide they want it? Would it even work?
But there's a change coming. The sustained unemployment rate looks like a canary suddenly falling off its perch. The Occupy movement resembles a harbinger of the will for real social change. (And don't make any mistake. It's not over. It's just gone underground for the winter.) For a long time, the only result I've been able to foresee is an apocalyptic crash. But maybe that's not inevitable. Maybe something less destructive is possible.
My immediate reaction was to point out that the way things are going, that prejudice is going to have to fade. Unemployment rates are just too high for everyone to get a job. But something about this just didn't sit right with me. I felt that I was missing something.
I didn't pursue it immediately, but I've kept mulling it over. A few things eventually bubbled up to the surface. One is The Diamond Age. Another is a short story called Manna that I read a while ago.
This country was founded on the Puritan work ethic. Survival of entire communities was predicated on everyone contributing, and often making large contributions. Over the years, as survival became less of a question, the hard work was re-purposed as needed, and became enshrined as a virtue: "an honest day's pay for an honest day's work." And so on.
But something's changed. Somewhere along the line, all the hard work put into developing automation began to pay off. Taking care of the requirements for supplying the population with food, shelter, and other basic necessities is a very tiny portion of what the work force does. And automation keeps improving - some economists are suggesting that unemployment remains high because the jobs those people used to perform have been eliminated by advances in technology.
But this work ethic is still deep inside our expectations, our social contracts, our political discourse. Fewer people are needed to keep society functioning than have been, historically. The population is increasing. But if you can't find an honest day's work, what have you got? The cliche suggests that your options are no pay or dishonest pay.
There is a problem here. Follow these trends for another 25 years. The population keeps growing. Automation keeps improving. Pressure from both ends - more people vying for fewer jobs.
The established political discourse here has a single response to this situation - yelling about job creators. There's cajoling. There's insinuation that it's the fault of the other guy for not creating jobs fast enough. There are probably even some ritual chants and dances that get invoked. But job creators have already failed to keep up with changing times. They're not going to get better at it magically.
Maybe it's time to re-examine the our social contracts and expectations. The pieces of fiction I mentioned earlier have a common sub-theme. What if employment isn't a prerequisite for being able to support yourself minimally? What if our implied social contract said that you would be able to get by without having a job? What if there was no expectation that a day's work was necessary for a day's pay?
Ok, disregard the total catastrophe that a sudden transition to such a system would be. But consider the end state. People get bored. People like to live above the bare minimum. There would be people wanting to work for money. There would be people paying for work. The economy wouldn't collapse. In fact, it's likely the economy would remain as active as ever, but far more diversified.
This is where this differs from a hippie fantasy. I don't think everyone would share and the world would be a giant commune. I think capitalism would still dominate - but the parameters would be reset. Businesses would need to compete for workers as much as workers would compete for jobs. If you don't see a job you're interested in out there, you have options - tighten your belt and get by on the minimum, or find something you enjoy doing that someone will pay you for.
Some people would still be driven to get rich. And they still could get rich. They could still enjoy the material rewards of money. The capitalist dream would live on. Many more would chase the dream and come up short. But if they fall, the safety net is already in place. And for those who'd rather just get by with minimal fuss, that would be an option, too.
It turns out that I'm hardly the first person to think about all of this, of course. The basic income guarantee is the core concept I'm describing.
And so I'm sitting here, far too late, wondering if this idea could work. Can people adjust their expectations? Can a system like that be implemented non-destructively if enough people decide they want it? Would it even work?
But there's a change coming. The sustained unemployment rate looks like a canary suddenly falling off its perch. The Occupy movement resembles a harbinger of the will for real social change. (And don't make any mistake. It's not over. It's just gone underground for the winter.) For a long time, the only result I've been able to foresee is an apocalyptic crash. But maybe that's not inevitable. Maybe something less destructive is possible.