The Pearson Centre for Progressive Policy

Progressive Dialogue and Policy for a Better Canada

Future of Work….and Basic Income – Regehr

By

August 4, 2019

Future of Work….and Basic Income – Regehr

By Sheila Regehr

The Pearson Centre has invited various leading thinkers to contribute their ideas towards the Progressive Platform to generate good ideas for debate in this general election. The views expressed here are those of the writer. We thank the writers for putting forward their ideas for this important project.
_______________________________________________________________________________

“We are pleased to post this contribution to the Pearson  Future of Work Project, by Sheila Regehr, Chairperson for the Basic Income Canada Network.  Terrance Hunsley, Senior Fellow “

May, 2019

The Future of Work

            I am pleased to be able to contribute to the Pearson Centre’s initiative, The Future of Work is Happening Now! What Can We Do About It? 

            I want first to highlight what it is we most need to do something about, and then focus on basic income as a necessary paradigm shift towards a better future. Basic (or guaranteed) income was recommended in the post-war era when concerns about technology, inequality and the future of work dominated public analysis, debate and action. That era generated a wide range of new public policies in areas of employment, health, education, pensions and more. They were almost all linked in one way or another to employment. They were successful for a while and still are for some, but their reach, value and impact has eroded. Even restored, they would be no match for today’s challenges.

            Basic income was the one key policy area that our leaders were not quite ready for in that earlier era, seeming to stall at pilots in Canada and the US in the 1970s. But that is not, in fact, the whole story. Canada adopted types of basic income (direct, unconditional cash transfers not tied to employment) in the form of seniors benefits (Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement), and later, in the 1990s, a national tax benefit system for families with children that has increased steadily in value (the federal program now called the Canada Child Benefit). These programs have great track records, have had wide public support for decades and are credited as an economic stimulus. Why wouldn’t we expand them out, especially now? Basic income is a bigger, faster and more positively consequential solution than anything else on offer. It is the key to making other solutions work too.

What Is It We Most Need To Do Something About?

            Some people think we have plenty of time to solve the problems that affect many of us already. But the problems are rapidly engulfing more people, including those who think they are safely in the middle class and young people of every background, in a precarious, unpredictable existence. When we speak of the future of work, we must realize that we are speaking of the future of income and the future of life.

            Because so much of our income security policy is tied to paid employment, the erosion in quantity and quality of employment increasingly puts lives at risk. And because so much of society’s most essential work (in families and in civic/democratic engagement) still brings in little or no income at all, lives are further at risk—it is not all about technology. People cannot manage the kind of disruption we are seeing without stable income to meet basic needs, especially in the face of obvious abundance. Desperation doesn’t produce resilience; it breeds fear, anxiety, ill health, tribalism of all sorts and social unrest. We need a different paradigm to distribute income, wellbeing, confidence and cooperation.

             I was asked at a recent speaking engagement by a young university student if I thought there was a point when it would become too late for a basic income. It is a disturbing question. If we let democracies fail for lack of it, we may indeed be too late to avoid a dystopian future.

Some Historical Perspective

            In order to better understand where we need to go in future, we need to see where we’ve come from and how we got here. The problems we are tackling now are not new. There are some new twists, for example concern for the environment has become much more important. And no one predicted our now ubiquitous smart phones and addictive personal technology that affects so much of our lives. But concerns about technological unemployment, the acceleration of automation, inequality, threats to democracy, the risks people faced if they had health problems or couldn’t get the education they needed to meet changing job requirements—they were all debated more than half a century ago. They were discussed at government hearings in Canada and the US in the post-war period through the 1950s, ’60s and ‘70s. And they were analyzed in arguably clearer and more human terms than we do today.

            That clarity came from tangible experiences and memories of extreme inequality, the great depression, fascism and world war, the struggle for independence of much of the colonized world, horrific racism in the US, and the spectre of Soviet communism. These all provided powerful incentives for governments to act to make sure the past was not repeated.

            Even then, however, there were competing interests with some arguing that nothing need be done but to sit back and watch the glories of technology unfold. Others had a more balanced view of the possibilities andthe dangers. In the first category were anticipated developments like a 4-day work week, early retirement, better health, more leisure, more purchasing power for workers, more abundance for all. The danger category included monopolization by large firms that could afford technology while smaller ones faltered, deskilling, people who can’t adapt in time or adapt at all as change accelerates, the creation of ghost towns, and the undermining of democracy and the economy.

            What is most significant in that era is that governments acted on the recommendations of those who were optimistic about the futureand concerned about the dangers. The public policies that were brought in or strengthened during that time—public pensions, insurance against unemployment and illness, labour legislation that protected workers, student loans and other educational supports and public health care (or in the US some semblance of health insurance)—have helped many people for many years. They weren’t enough then to avert many of the dangers, however, and they are certainly no longer sufficient now, even if we could reverse the erosion that has weakened some of these policies in recent years.

            The challenges we face now are not new but they are bigger, faster and more unpredictable than ever. Moreover, optimism seems to be fading. Canada and the world got the hoped-for abundance, and even more amazing technological innovation than anyone dreamed of—but the abundance is going to ever fewer people while many governments are still pushing scarcity models and austerity policies. The expected reduced work week and more leisure did not pan out so well. We also got all the dangers to some degree, like ghost towns, even whole regions outside large urban areas that are faltering. We have homelessness, an opioid epidemic, a health care system overwhelmed by preventable problems, middle-class erosion, a highly-educated youth cohort with few prospects, rising racism and xenophobia, and segregation based on who can afford to go to grocery stores and who is consigned to food banks. Underlying every one of these issues is a lack of income, security and autonomy.

            The critical lesson here is that it could have been much worse without concerted and constructive government action in the past and it can get much better if governments step up now and act boldly again. Basic income is that bold solution and one that Canadian governments should have confidence in because we’ve successfully started already.

Basic Income: Inclusive, Bold and Prudent Policy

            The alternative to a model of exclusionary dependency on employment is a basic income that enables full participation in the economy and society; it leaves no one out. It reflects a paradigm shift and for this reason is bolder and more ambitious than other recommendations put forward. It is not a panacea but it can help make many other problems smaller. Given Canada’s success with basic income-like programs for seniors and families with children, expanding a basic income out to those currently excluded is, therefore, prudent as well as bold. It must be stressed here that it is parents who receive child benefits; if we trust those adults, we cannot continue to justify a lack of trust in other adults.

            If we wait too long, we could endanger the advances in society and the economy that all of us have worked and struggled for. As the background paper asks us to ‘challenge old models’, perhaps the most revealing quote is from the World Economic Forum:

            As technological breakthroughs rapidly shift the frontier between the work tasks performed by humans and those performed by machines and algorithms, global labour markets are undergoing major transformations. These transformations, if managed wisely, could lead to a new age of good work, good jobs and improved quality of life for all, but, if managed poorly, pose the risk of widening skills gaps, greater inequality and broader polarization.

            Since we have mostly been on the path of the latter scenario for some time now, we must ask what managing wisely means and whois going to do the wiser managing? One of the essential benefits of a basic income is that it empowers women and men everywhere, on a daily basis, to manage their own lives, set their own plans and priorities in their best interests and make their own decisions. This autonomy is essential to agency and quality of life. Putting income directly into the hands of people who need it most is the fastest, most direct way to reduce inequality, poverty, insecurity, polarization and all their attendant consequences.

            Basic income is the widest ‘entry gate’ into society, the economy and democracy, without conditions and judgments imposed by others, whether it’s the Davos crowd or the welfare bureaucracy. This paradigm does challenge privilege, however, and that is not easy.

            A basic income that reduces inequality requires progressive changes to our tax/transfer system in order to ensure that it operates like universal health care so people get the level of support they need, when they need it. That way, throughout their lives, people will be variously contributors and beneficiaries to the basic income as circumstances change. The basic income paradigm also confronts a charitable model that retains power in the hands of the giver and currently provides fallback for people who can’t make ends meet, often even if they have a job. International basic income proponent Rutger Bregman, in speaking to that world forum of the richest and most powerful at Davos this year, challenged them to consider that their personal philanthropy should not be an excuse for not paying their fair share of taxes. It is to their credit that they invited him to come, as previously they have invited Guy Standing, as an international expert on precarious work, in recognition that the world needs new solutions. Unfortunately, many were not ready to see themselves as part of the problem. They are not alone.

            It is not easy to shift paradigms even when a new one is shown to work better. Humans are attracted to new and shiny things but in general we don’t want to change too much. As the WEF underscores, we face a very human dilemma. At the heart of it is whether we can make the economy and technology work for humans, or whether we continue to operate as if the majority of humans are reduced to ‘labourers’ in the service of someone else’s goals and profits. Realizing that human ‘labour’ value in the market is waning, some people are instead focusing on the need for everyone to have income in order to be ‘consumers’ of all the things the robots can produce. But that too reduces us to something less than human. It also can compromise the finite and fragile planet we live on where we produce all manner of wasteful goods and luxuries we don’t need, while people still go hungry. It further undervalues the important human work that needs to be done to maintain functioning societies.

            Several of the recommendations identified in the background paper focus on getting humans to take on more risk or other adaptations to a changing future. We may, however, have to focus more on adapting the future to us. It may be possible for some people to adapt but we must recognize that we are still human. There is increasing anxiety among students from junior grades to grad school, and whole communities are afflicted by suicide and opioid addictions. Women are significantly delaying child bearing to an age when it becomes riskier, fertility is reduced and expensive medical intervention becomes more necessary. Preventable illness related to stress is on the rise. This is what happens when humans can no longer cope.

            The link between income and physical and mental health must be part of any discussion of the future of work/income/life.  A basic income could very well enable people in communities to create a different kind of healthy future with a thriving local economy, a smaller ecological footprint and a culture where family life and constructive risk are truly possible.

            One of the most stunning findings of BICN’s survey of Ontario Basic Income Pilot recipients,Signposts to Success, was that going into the pilot the government baseline data showed over 80% of participants were suffering from moderate to severe psychological stress. Our survey recipients, after receiving a basic income for a few months, reported an equally  dramatic reduction in stress, anxiety and depression. Physical health improved greatly as well. The basic income also enabled people to go back to school, to afford transportation to work, to start or expand a business, to be healthy enough to work, to move for a better job, to perform better, and to get a promotion. These improvements took hold quickly and that’s not going to be the case for everyone, but it is a reason to be optimistic.

            It is essential to understand that if people face constant anxiety because they can’t put food on the table, or a roof over their heads, or pay the bills, or their job is precarious, there is no time or mental bandwidth left for lofty ideas like entrepreneurship, lifelong learning, constantly adapting, learning about neighbours who come from a different cultural or racial background, or other important recommendations. A basic income can change that.

The Role of Government

            It is the role of governments in democratic societies to promote and protect the public interest and the common good. If people are feeling abandoned and losing confidence in government, then Canadian governments must show leadership to regain their trust. A basic income is a bigger, faster and more positively consequential solution than anything else on offer. It is the key to making other solutions work too. It shows that our governments have trust and confidence in Canadians.


[1]This is not an official BICN document; it reflects my experience as the Chairperson of the Basic Income Canada Network, a former Executive Director of the National Council of Welfare, a career federal public servant who worked in policy and in intergovernmental and international relations, and a mother who has experienced both poverty and abundance.

Sheila Regehr is the Chairperson for the Basic Income Canada Network.