Skip to main content

There was an interesting opinion piece on the nature of work in the NYTimes' The Stone philosophy blog on Saturday by Gary Gutting called What is Work Really For? It posits that "leisure, not work, should be our primary goal" and quotes Bertrand Russell from In Praise of Idleness: “the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work.”

I love that line! The article posed questions about work but I have already made up my mind: we need less work and more leisure. For me the question is how do we do it? How can we work less in a world where the profits from increased productivity are not shared with working people? It's a key question for us as this century moves forward and technology and increased globalization decrease the need for humans to work full time.

I propose an answer: a system of "earned income security" that eventually leads to a basic income for all.  

Ever since I read Bob Black's The Abolition of Work back in the 90's, I've been grappling with this issue. There are simply not enough jobs for everyone who needs money. Most of the jobs that do exist in this world are bad jobs, with inadequate wages, unsafe working conditions, and shitty bosses.

Yet our entire economic system is set up so that the only way to get money is to work. Working-age people are in constant competition with each other for a dwindling number of jobs. As this century goes on, there will be less and less jobs, and with the crushing of the labor movement (which represents less than 7% of private sector workers in the US and has little power in the Third World where most of the jobs have gone), those dwindling jobs will most likely be bad jobs.

There's a solution to the jobs crisis, both short term and long term: we need to need jobs less. We'll never get anywhere when the vast majority of the human population need jobs that don't exist and never will.

To need jobs less, we need an independent source of money that's not tied to any job: a basic income, enough to meet the very basic human needs of food, clothing and shelter. Then we can work for what we want above that basic amount.

Bertrand Russell is one of many famous people who have called for some version of a basic income or guaranteed annual income, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Buckminster Fuller, Gov. Huey Long, etc. I believe it's the long-term solution to our jobs crisis.

The cost of providing working-age Americans with at-least poverty-level income of about $12,000 a year would be about $2 trillion annually. It would be a shock to the system for sure, but for that amount we would ensure an end to poverty, permanently stimulate our economy, along with many other societal benefits that go along with good economic times. But I think of it as a goal that we should strive toward. To get there, we could start with the short-term solution of earned income security.

There are two components to earned income security: increasing the earned income tax credit and making it a middle-class program, and rewarding years of work with guaranteed income that can always be counted on.

Working people could earn "income security" by working and paying taxes for at least 5 years. They would then receive their initial income security payments, $500 a month every month. That's money that they can count on, whether they have work or not. The amount would go up every 5 years until they receive a full basic income. They would eventually be guaranteed of waking up in the morning with at least poverty-level income in their bank accounts, and would work for what they want on top of that amount.

Having an extra $12,000 a year--or $1,000 a month--may not sound like a big transformation of our economy or the nature of work. But it would give working people a real boost, especially in households with multiple workers. It would give workers an ace in the hole when dealing with management, and allow people the opportunity to work less if they want to, opening up more jobs.

The combination of a robust EITC and monthly income payments after 5 years of working could allow many workers to raise a family on part-time work instead of needing to work multiple part-time jobs. It would allow working people to spend more time with their family and friends--or to invest the money and eventually retire early.

Earned income security would replace the 20th Century all-or-nothing social programs like welfare and unemployment that pay people only when they are not working (indeed, those programs pay people not to work). And unlike Social Security, where you work your whole life and then get payments when you stop working, this would be designed to supplement work income.

It may seem like a long-shot, but which is more likely, passing an "everybody wins" program that rewards work and fixes many societal ills, or reversing the slide away from good jobs with good wages and benefits and pensions toward part-time low-wage independent contractor work with no benefits? Which is more likely, earned income security or a massive full-employment jobs program. Income security would get money directly to people, without wasting it on bureaucracy.

How would we pay for this massively expensive program? It would require a conscious attempt to do something collectively with our world's wealth besides letting the wealthy do anything they want with it. The Alaska Permanent Fund is a model: they receive a portion of the oil industry's revenues that come from Alaska and put it in a Fund; dividends are then distributed to every man, woman and child in the state.

A requirement that corporations pay a portion of their revenues into a fund could work, combined with other revenue ideas like a financial transactions tax, a carbon tax, and my favorite: a tax on commercial advertising. Every ad you're forced to watch or hear would mean a contribution into the Earned Income Security Fund.

But there's no need to get too wonky about funding. We've figured out how to fund things that are national priorities, from WWII to bailing out the savings and loans/auto industry/Wall St. to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Soon we will be facing a world with even fewer jobs and even more people looking for work. Like the climate crisis, we will be forced to deal with it sooner or later. By creating a system of earned income security, we could have a relatively painless transition from the current all-or-nothing world of work to a world where work is still important and the gateway to economic security, but not the dominant feature of American life that it is today.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (7+ / 0-)

    "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

    by RiseUpEconomics on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 11:36:36 AM PDT

  •  Many advantages (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This plan wouldn't cost as much as one might think. Since everyone would get this, there would be no need for most welfare programs, which would save administrative costs. People would have more time to take care of children and the elderly, so there would be fewer kids in trouble, fewer people in nursing homes. There would almost certainly be less crime. This would also be a big advantage to people in the arts, who would live on the minimum and create their masterpiece (or not). I have been a fan of this since the 1970's. There was a serious proposal to do this during the Nixon administration. We will have to do something like this eventually, as automation eliminates jobs. We need more people working fewer hours so that everyone will some sort of job, rather than some people working 60 hour weeks, and others not able to find a job at all.

    I know that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... John Lennon

    by MagentaMN on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 12:13:56 PM PDT

  •  Completely agree (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiseUpEconomics, Pluto, NoMoreLies

    I have been thinking about this too... With more computer advancements, self-service everything replacing retail jobs, and other technological advancements causing one person to do the jobs of many, we are going to lose jobs. And that is without mentioning the fact that our population is growing at rate where we can't hope to create jobs for every new person born.

    I like this plan, especially the "stepping stool" approach that makes the shock from such a change less immediate. What political party, if any, would propose such a program?

    •  It has been proposed by both conservatives (0+ / 0-)

      and progressives. Conservatives usually tie it to some kind of flat tax for some reason. But they like the idea of just giving the money directly to people--instead of creating vast bureaucracies--and then letting the market work.

      One of the things that I like about the idea is that the left seems to be missing big visionary ideas about what the world could be like. The right has all sorts of crazies out there pushing the overall conversation to the right. We need our own bold crazy idea that pushes liberals more to the left.

      "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

      by RiseUpEconomics on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 12:45:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  no, we need unions more (0+ / 0-)

    worldwide as well as here at home.

    Imagine a worldwide labor movement that prevented offshoring because offshoring cost more than paying workers in the nations where the goods are sold.

    That's the key.

    Wages that let us live on one job per person -- or even one job per family, until the kids have finished college (age 26).

    Benefits including a VA-style health care program that covers everybody -- and you know what? IF the GOP can't stand the notion of affordable health care for everybody, let them explain why it's better for those of us not born with a silver foot in our mouths to just die quickly.

    Every other "first world" nation on the planet provides more leave time than the US and better wages and a national health care plan. Maternity leave -- and paternal leave that includes welcoming a newly adopted child into the family -- is just one such perq of not living with "the greatest medical care money can buy".

    LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

    by BlackSheep1 on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 12:18:36 PM PDT

    •  I agree we need unions (0+ / 0-)

      We had a much stronger economy when union density was around 35%. But the ever-changing nature of work and jobs just shows that we need unions plus some other way of sharing the wealth. Companies and industries can disappear in the blink of an eye, even if their workers are union--just ask the newspaper industry.

      Work is becoming more part-time, with workers considered independent contractors, many working from home as the new freelancers. Work is being denigrated all around us, from the factories that make iPhones as their employees jump from the roof to undocumented workers risking it all to cross the desert to have any chance of working at all.

      Workers need to join together in unions for sure. But we need to join together not just with our co-workers, but with all working people to re-work work. In addition to strengthening our rights at work, we need to establish income security, which will in turn give workers the fortitude to stand up to their bosses. We're all in the work-or-else boat now, and only by structurally changing the nature of work can we fix it in the long run.

      "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

      by RiseUpEconomics on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 12:41:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  REU: 's not the nature of work, 's the nature of (0+ / 0-)

        GREED that morphs. The Newspaper industry isn't dead, or wouldn't be, if it wasn't a corporate cash cow instead of an actual, you know, public service.

        Still, why not push for more unity? If we had a worldwide labor union, those guys building iPhones couldn't be treated so badly they jump off the roof. Srsly.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 02:10:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unions Yes (0+ / 0-)

          I'm with you: workers are stronger together and should unite. The corporate world is doing everything it can to make it next to impossible to do so. We need labor law reform here in the US with serious penalties for intimidating workers and an easier process for joining together. Strong labor standards are needed abroad to allow workers to join unions.

          But it was technological changes that led to the drop in newspaper sales and led advertisers to flee that medium. And technological changes will certainly lead to a lot fewer jobs in the future. We need a way to share the wealth or we'll end up in a death spiral of less and less jobs for more and more people, which no union could fix.

          "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon

          by RiseUpEconomics on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 02:34:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Go Read ATHENAE @ First Draft TODAY on (0+ / 0-)

            what's killing newspapers, please. I beg you. In fact, read her all the time, not just on what's killing newspapers.

            She's an insider in the industry I escaped from back in 1990, today.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 02:46:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site