Since the dawn of time, humans have consistently been creating tools and devices that make our lives easier. Fire, the cotton gin, the steam engine, and the printing press are just a few examples of past inventions that have drastically shaped the way we approach the duties we have faced. As our creations eased our work load, we continued to shift our attention to solving more complex problems and have allowed ourselves to evolve further than we could have ever imagined. Today, our society faces a new era of problems generated by our rapidly advancing technology.
Many occupations are becoming automated, causing myriad Americans to lose not only their job, but their entire profession. In 2013, a study from Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne of the University of Oxford cautioned that up to 47% of jobs in the U.S. have high probabilities of becoming computerized or automated in the near future (Pirouz). As a result, many individuals are forced out of work and are left unable to afford to live. In order to combat the inevitable mass reduction of the workforce and reduction of need for manual labor, a form of universal basic income must be implemented, ensuring a means for subsistence for every member of society.
We are already experiencing a massive switch from manual labor to automated labor within many popular fields across the country. The most obvious example of which can be observed in the grocery store. Ever notice how there are less and less cashiers and more self-checkouts? In our day and and age, it is inevitable. Automation, especially in certain fields, is more efficient as it allows for little to no margin of error and a higher profit for companies. From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense to have a fully automated factory than to have many paid workers. “When turnover at the warehouse is high, they can work 20 hours a day and at quiet times still put in at least 11 hours rather than a laborer’s eight to nine hour shift,” (“Cheese Robots”). The largest percentage of Americans who are at risk of losing their jobs come from the middle class, and “automation threatens to widen the gap between capital income and labor income,” (“Robots”).
The creators and programmers of these machines commit a double-whammy, especially when their tech companies coagulate in one specific area. These companies pay high salaries, while creating the products that rid the jobs of the people that their machines replace, adding to the income inequality concerning Americans. “In a Jan. 2014 report, the Center for American Progress found that 86% of Americans think the government should use its resources to fight poverty, and 7 out of 10 Americans support the goal of reducing poverty by 50 percent over the next 10 years,” (“Universal Basic Income”).
A government exists to be responsible and accountable for the citizens within its national boundaries. It can be argued that people in a society consent to be governed as long as their needs are met (affectionately known as "The Social Contract," Jean-Jacques Rousseau). A citizen is expected to obey the laws laid by their government and, in return, their government is expected to keep them safe and secure. Personal security is dependent on financial freedom and financial relief. It is unquestionable that an abundance of middle-class jobs being rapidly replaced by artificial intelligence greatly reduces the overall attainability of financial freedom.
Although the idea of a universal basic income seems radical, it is not by any means a new concept. In 1795, Thomas Paine suggested in a pamphlet entitled "Agrarian Justice" the creation of a national fund which would pay each citizen a set amount of money "as a compensation in part for the loss of his or her natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property,” (Paine). He argues that the government exists to give poor people the same right as rich people to live a happy life. His goal was to help society as a whole.
In 1986, the Basic Income European Network (BEIN) of scholars and activists held an international conference in Belgium aiming to promote the idea of an unconditional income given to all citizens. Every two years the network holds an international conference in varying cities. In 2004, the network expanded to the Basic Income Earth Network, with the same goal on a global scale. “Early this year, Finland kicked off a two-year national experiment in basic income. In the United States, a trial was recently completed in Oakland, Calif., and another is about to launch in nearby Stockton, a community hard-hit by the Great Recession and the attendant epidemic in home foreclosures," (Goodman).
Additional programs have also been designed to help combat the imminent collapse of the working class. The negative income tax system is one in which people who earn below a certain amount would not have to pay taxes, and would instead receive a supplemental amount from the government. A similar system can be observed through the implementation of certain tax credits in the United States tax code. Alternatively, programs like WIC, SNAP, PHA, HUD, etc. are also examples of current programs similar to a universal basic income.
A common question of implementing a universal basic income is where the extra money would be coming from. A basic income would provide every citizen with the bare minimum amount of money to live off of, thus eradicating and abolishing the 126 federal welfare programs currently implemented (like SNAP or unemployment benefits). Further suggestions would include higher taxes for people making a household income of over $250,000 a year, as well as $60,000 being the maximum amount one can make before not receiving a basic income. Having a threshold of $60,000 reduces the cost of a basic income since not every citizen would need it. “A universal basic income would help alleviate the burden on the working poor as well as low-income families,” (“Universal Basic Income”). Most basic income proposal ideas suggest that every person receives a check, regardless of personal income, but of course there is room for improvement as this infantile program develops.
With society’s basic necessities fulfilled without deterrence, and machines taking over the repetitive jobs that used to alienate citizens, humankind would be free to pursue myriad of other interests and hobbies that appeal to them. With a universal basic income paired with robots handling whatever tasks they're designed to do, it is entirely possible that we could catapult our own evolution and dictate exactly where we want to go and what we want to do. A changing society requires a changing government, and a changing government requires a whole new way of thinking. As we continue through to the future, a necessary new form of government would inevitably be a hybrid of both capitalism and socialism working in tandem with each other. A universal basic income ensures an equal bottom line for all citizens, and grants the ability for true freedom.
Works Cited
"Cheese Robots Take Over in Swiss Dairy Vaults." The Industrial Robot 22.5 (1995): 6.
De Wispelaere, Jurgen, & Stirton, Lindsey. "The Many Faces of Universal Basic Income." The Political Quarterly 75.3 (2004): 266-74.
Goodman, Peter S. "Capitalism Has a Problem. Is Free Money The Answer?" Web. NY Times.
Paine, Thomas. “Agrarian Justice.” 1795. Web. Social Security Administration.
Pirouz, Alex. "Are Machines Taking Over?" Sep 29 2015. Web.
"Robots Vs. the Middle Class." Business week May 2015: 14.
"Universal Basic Income could Lower Poverty." University Wire Feb 13 2014.