Guaranteed Minimum Income
Various schemes have been proposed like GMI - Universal Basic Income, for one. I'm not that au fait with the key differences, but a conversation on line with an artist has brought the idea to the fore (for me).
This artist was pleading for council support during the COVID-19 lock down, when most premises were told to close down. Her argument was that art is beneficial to society/culture and the economy, but what's hidden beneath this argument is that of course she needs money, money typically comes in exchange for work and her work is art.
I am not trying to say that art for art's sake is unimportant, but with many competing claims on money, it is quite a difficult argument to sustain, whereas the argument that everyone should be given the means to subsist as a birth right (or citizenship right) can be made on behalf of everyone, and isn't, and doesn't sound like special pleading.
Once someone is secure in knowing that they will be adequately nourished, clothed and accommodated, and their healthcare needs are assured (along with other basics that may be determined), this would seem to liberate them to do what they are good at and/or called to do - what provides them with autonomy, gives scope to acquire and exercise mastery, and fulfils the need for purpose [to adopt and paraphrase Daniel Pink's expressions of motivation.].
There is a risk that not enough people will be motivated to do the things that need to be done to ensure everyone's basic needs are met, but I think we might be pleasantly surprised. I saw on TV the son (nephew?) of a doctor who had died with/from Covid-19, and he spoke of the passion that the doctor had for what he did - what passion (motivation) to risk and even lose your own life helping others. The capacity is there in humans.
Of course not requiring people to work just to survive is going to throw up all kinds of work that doesn't really need doing either at or as much. The people that work on means-testing of benefits, for example, wouldn't need to exist if benefits weren't means tested because there is GMI/UBI (or whatever) instead. And the tendency to stand in the way of technology that takes jobs away would surely vanish as losing your job wouldn't mean losing the means to subsist.
With so many organisations, businesses and individuals facing a drastic loss of income - the time to look at such proposals is ripe.
This artist was pleading for council support during the COVID-19 lock down, when most premises were told to close down. Her argument was that art is beneficial to society/culture and the economy, but what's hidden beneath this argument is that of course she needs money, money typically comes in exchange for work and her work is art.
I am not trying to say that art for art's sake is unimportant, but with many competing claims on money, it is quite a difficult argument to sustain, whereas the argument that everyone should be given the means to subsist as a birth right (or citizenship right) can be made on behalf of everyone, and isn't, and doesn't sound like special pleading.
Once someone is secure in knowing that they will be adequately nourished, clothed and accommodated, and their healthcare needs are assured (along with other basics that may be determined), this would seem to liberate them to do what they are good at and/or called to do - what provides them with autonomy, gives scope to acquire and exercise mastery, and fulfils the need for purpose [to adopt and paraphrase Daniel Pink's expressions of motivation.].
There is a risk that not enough people will be motivated to do the things that need to be done to ensure everyone's basic needs are met, but I think we might be pleasantly surprised. I saw on TV the son (nephew?) of a doctor who had died with/from Covid-19, and he spoke of the passion that the doctor had for what he did - what passion (motivation) to risk and even lose your own life helping others. The capacity is there in humans.
Of course not requiring people to work just to survive is going to throw up all kinds of work that doesn't really need doing either at or as much. The people that work on means-testing of benefits, for example, wouldn't need to exist if benefits weren't means tested because there is GMI/UBI (or whatever) instead. And the tendency to stand in the way of technology that takes jobs away would surely vanish as losing your job wouldn't mean losing the means to subsist.
With so many organisations, businesses and individuals facing a drastic loss of income - the time to look at such proposals is ripe.
Comments
Post a Comment