Does this seem impracticable? Consider for a moment the vast changes that would be wrought in social life by a change which would assure to labor its full reward; which would banish want and the fear of want; and give to the humblest freedom to develop in natural symmetry.
—George (2017)
As the world continues to change, the dire predictions of a world of work dominated by artificial intelligence and robotics brings into sharp focus what happens to those who are unable to secure a job, or whose options from work keeps them in penury due to the lack of living wage. The dilemma the world is grappling with is what to do with those who do not have enough to live on, a population size that is considered to be one that will grow in the coming years, especially in developed countries. Goldin (2018) states that
research at the Oxford Martin School estimates that over the next 20 years up to 47 per cent of US jobs, around 40 per cent of UK and European jobs and a higher share of jobs in many developing countries including China, could be replaced by machines.
This predication is alarming, for no other reason than that those who are already struggling are most likely to be the ones who find it difficult to find well-paid work going forward. Werner and Lim (2016) highlight that
although the UK is ranked as the sixth largest economy in the world by nominal GDP, there are more than five million people, or about 21% of the working population who struggle to make ends meet in a “low-wage” economy.
Osterman (2018) showed that in the United States there is a similar story,
in 2015 27 million adults between the ages of 25 and 54 earned less than 125% of the poverty line for a family of three with two children ($23,870). These represent 21% of the workforce in this age range.
The rise of the gig economy, zero hour contracts, and temporary work where individuals are forced to take self-employed contracts is perhaps a precursor to understanding the type of job market that awaits the majority of people in the future. These types of jobs are predominately filled by women and young people. At the same time, the cost of living continues to rise with essential services such as gas, electricity, water, and food pricing all facing above inflationary rises and the welfare state being squeezed, making those on low wages to gain support from government agencies. Furthermore, there is an increasing disparity between executive pay and the pay received by “ordinary workers.” Charles Cotton, who is the CIPD’s senior performance and reward advisor, highlights that
there is an assumption that the only people who achieve success are a handful of individuals at the top of the organisation . . . where the only way you can incentivise those at the top is through giving them barrel loads of money. (Jeffrey 2018)
These rising inequalities are driving a perfect storm where the dystopian future so often portrayed in science fiction is becoming our current reality.
Alongside this doomsday prediction is a growing move toward the introduction of a universal basic income, which horrifies many as unaffordable, leading to significantly increased levels of sovereign debt or moving resources from other budget areas such as defense or education. The alternative, also considered alarming, would be higher taxes and redistribution of wealth. The argument put forward by Goldin (2018) is that universal basic income wouldn’t work, because everyone would get it, and that welfare payments would be transferred from those at the lowest end of the scale. However, the “failure” of the universal basic income trial in Finland wasn’t a pure universal income in the sense that everyone got it. The 2,000 people in the trial were all chosen from the unemployed, and the trial was a set two-year trial, not ending due to failure. There is no reason why a full roll out of universal basic income would be unconditional, that is, if you are already earning above the basic income threshold you don’t receive more, instead it is paid to those who are not at that level, to bring them up to the threshold as a minimum. In many ways like the minimum hourly wage the premise would be a guaranteed minimum income system. Other trials of universal basic income are beginning in Ontario, Holland, and an experiment in Kenya. The Scottish government is also developing plans to pilot a basic income project in Glasgow and Edinburgh. At the time of writing these trials have yet to release any results.
The concern from most with a capitalist mindset is that it would be socially destructive to remove the link between income and work, as if that link is somehow pure and unbroken with the current system. The issue of course is that, that link is broken. The delineation between the rich and poor means that many individuals in top management positions earn an income that would take centuries for someone to earn, in the same company but at the lower end of the salary scale. It is patently obvious that CEOs don’t do hundreds of years’ worth of work or add hundreds of years’ worth of additional value to an organization versus a lower paid employee, and yet this income to work link is tolerated and even advocated as necessary. There is a web of issues relating to who, how, and why a universal income should be paid. Goldin (2018) states that “wherever possible safety nets should be a lifeline towards meaningful work and participation in society, not a guarantee of a lifetime of dependence.” This notion of encouragement to participate is one of the biggest hurdles to a universal basic income, but fails to understand that participation is possible where safety is guaranteed. In a perfect system the entry-level jobs would provide a degree of psychological and financial safety to encourage people to participate fully. But the capitalist system isn’t working, so their incentive to participate becomes muted. Minimum wages are touted as providing for meeting people’s economic needs but providing a “wage floor for unorganised labour” (Werner and Lim 2016). If work paid then more people would be incentivized to work, but if you work in a meaningless job and at the end of the week or month you still can’t pay your bills or put food on the table then there is no reward for participating. Businesses will tout the need for affordability and remaining competitive. But for individuals the result of a low-wage economy is the choice to live in poverty and not work, or work and live in poverty. It is not sustainable and degrading in a civil society. The antagonism from business toward paying a minimum wage, let alone a living wage is testimony that the argument regarding participation is a faux narrative that is thrown up to place a barrier to protecting the most vulnerable in society. The determination to paint anyone on any form of benefit as a laggard and a scrounger loves to publish details of those who are robbing the system and taking that which they don’t deserve. This position fails to acknowledge that perhaps as society we have a duty to provide the vulnerable and that every person regardless of background should be treated with dignity and respect. Werner and Lim (2016) highlight “the need of households to take care of themselves and be self-sustaining” while the state and those with means have a “responsibility to provide the poor with the means to earn an income that would enable them to earn a sustainable livelihood.” Our current societal expectations is to put the onus on the poor to work, without demanding that the government and organizations provide jobs that pay equitably and ensure that wages are sustainable. Not everyone gets to eat caviar and quaff champagne, but when children are going to school hungry because their parents are struggling to afford to pay the bills then society begins to break down. Werner and Lim (2016) report that the architect of the free market economy, Adam Smith “believed in paying all workers at least what we would call today a living wage because it would ultimately benefit society in the form of increased productivity, wealth distribution and economic growth.” I agree with Goldin’s (2018) assertion that we should “radically change the way we think about income and work,” though not his rejection of universal basic income.
In the UK, there has been a 13 percent increase in food bank use with over 1.3 m 3-day emergency food supplies provided to people in crisis in a 12-month period (Bulman 2018). The reason for this rise is attributed to low income, because of benefit sanctions, delays, and changes, leading to benefit values reducing. In a country that has the fifth biggest economy the fact that one in every 200 people are homeless (Butler 2017) should be shameful enough but when the UN reports that over 40 million Americans live in poverty (Kinkade 2018), then the issue is less to do with a government or a country but instead a system which benefits the wealthy, delivers inequality as an outcome, and develops a culture of individuals in need deserving what they get. The amount of savings that individuals have, have dwindled as more people are surviving from pay check to pay check. One wrong move, an unexpected illness or layoff, can take those people that are just about managing from security to homelessness in a matter of weeks.
Not being able to afford to pay for the latest gadget or home improvement project is one thing, providing people with a basic level of income that allows them to live free of fear is what a universal basic income seeks to provide. This is about lifting people out of poverty and enabling them to think about something other than where their next meal is coming from. Few people are lucky enough to go through life without some periods of difficulty or crisis. The fear of such a system is that it feels unfair that people get something for nothing, but the opposite criticism of the current system that people get nothing or very little for something and others get a lot for doing little is often ignored. Ensuring people have enough to eat, somewhere safe to sleep, and their basic needs met shouldn’t be something that is mind-blowingly radical; it is the basic building block of a civil society. I’ve complained about the Victorian work paradigm in my exploration of Temperatism, but the philanthropy shown by Victorian industrialists could teach us something. The Rowntree, Cadbury, and Fry families in the UK were all Quakers, which led them to ensure that they ran their commercial enterprises with a focus on enhancing public good. Charitable giving included the finance of public libraries, parks, swimming pools, theatres, and most notably addressing poverty. They tackled the problem from the perspective that rather than focusing on the symptoms of poverty, they would look at the failing in society that were at the root cause. Notably, they did not believe poverty was a result of the moral failure of the poor. Their endeavors led to addressing problems such as the lack of decent affordable housing, improving working conditions, provisions of health care for workers, the supply of a pension, and the development of staff canteens to ensure their staff got a decent meal. This approach highlights that at a basic level, those working should be able to sustain themselves, and that it is a duty of society and organizations to provide work, which acknowledges a person’s worth and right to operate with dignity. Addressing economic inequality relates to the need for social sustainability, low income causes social division and a hostile environment, which is not conducive to conditions which provide ongoing economic opportunity for organizational effectiveness.
Some businesspeople today, including billionaires Bill Gates and Richard Branson, are committed philanthropists giving money to a number of causes, including health care. However, the argument in this chapter is that these endeavors should not be the preserve of those civically minded or the preserve of the idle rich. Not every business can afford to build houses and contribute to the public good, but at the very least they should ensure that their employees are not subject to harm. As a first point, universal basic income isn’t simply about the state handing out benefits, it should be the amount that is considered a minimum needs to live securely, and if employers are not providing that, then they should be sanctioned. The rise of in-work poverty is probably the biggest and most unchallenged scandal that exists in modern business today. If an employee working full-time hours cannot afford to rent a house, feed themselves, and live at least with a modicum of comfort from their endeavors then they are not in work, they are in wage slavery. This is not a position that a business with a social conscience should be happy to continue.
In the UK, working tax credits were introduced for families whose wages fell below a particular threshold. The need for benefits for those in work demonstrates everything that is wrong with the current organizational system. If you are in work, there should be no need for the state to support you, it speaks only of a disparity in reward for the average employee. If the average person is unable to secure a reasonable affordable place to live, pay bills, and eat well through earning a full-time wage, then they are not being paid adequately. Any organization that allows its workers to live in poverty is failing as an employer and should be bought to task. A Temperatist approach would never allow this. If a social conscience begins in the workplace then the way that an organization rewards its employees is relevant. A universal basic income shouldn’t be something that organizations should be afraid of, instead it should be something that is supported and embraced fully. If the focus is Doing Good then philanthropic notions become part of the way that the organization does business.
The Safety Net
For those out of work or unable to work, there is a moral obligation on society to provide a reasonable level of support. It is not good enough that there is a form of discrimination of people at the bottom end of society to have an attitude that individuals are not deserving, or they have caused it themselves through some form of failing. It should not be impossible to survive in a modern society. It is an acknowledgment that the root cause of many people suffering poverty is a system that is steeped in injustice and inequality. For the majority of people who find themselves struggling poverty, it is because they are so close to the edge that a single bad decision or mistake can send them plummeting. Those who are born into wealth can afford to mess up and make mistakes, because there is a safety net to catch them, but if there is no one there is to catch you when you fall, mistakes can become crisis very quickly. For many, though, it is nothing that they have done that causes them to find themselves struggling; sometimes, it can be the actions of an organization, which can cause the pain.
The idea that in perfect competition everyone who applies themselves correctly will receive economic benefit ignores reality. The state needs to step in because of market failure, the need to regulate to protect individuals and society from business activities that are harmful and unacceptable levels of income and wealth inequality. The need for the entrepreneur to retain the profit from their discovery and the shareholder to retain the returns from their risk is inherent in our system. But it does not account for the flip side, where individuals are the victims of circumstance, despite their best efforts. Should a child who is born into a challenging home environment be penalized because they do not have access to health care, education opportunities, or the emotional support needed to be a functioning member of society? The question that we are confronted with is, is there anyone who deserves to fall? From a Temperatist perspective the answer to that question is a resounding No. No one should fall. Drug addicts should be treated, homeless should be homed, and those in poverty should be lifted out of poverty. The universal basic income therefore is a key component. If people need support they should have it. The benefits to the individual are obvious, the ability to pay for essentials, the opportunity for the individual to plan ahead, and the freedom for all to live with dignity. Dignity should not be the preserve of the rich and wealthy, it is an important part of the social economy. The demand that there is a link between work and income forgets that in order to participate people must feel like they have something to contribute and also be in a position for contribution. Without a home or food security an individual will find it difficult to work and contribute. Without dignity the ability of an individual to participate diminishes. Physical and mental health improvements will reduce dependency not increase it and giving people the opportunity to live with financial security enables them to have the space to contribute fully. The problem that most people see with universal basic income is affordability, but the scales are firmly tipped in favor of the wealthy. Keegan (2018) highlights that in the UK approximately £400bn of tax reliefs are given to the wealthy and corporations, which perhaps highlights that the notion that someone is getting something for nothing and is dependent is perhaps focusing on the wrong section of society.
The philosophical underpinnings of capitalism are that in somehow a socialist perspective if people find themselves in need of help it is because they are in some way lazy or refusing to work. Research by Rentkova (2015) shows that “in spite of the fact that we know that very few people are poor because they have chosen their situation, there can be found a light contempt for the poor.” I once heard someone describe looters as “like socialists, thinking they can take someone else’s stuff for free.” Although it is true that there are those on the “beg” and attempting to scam the system, this minority is no more than the greedy corporate fat cats that commit financial fraud or try to scam the system at the top echelons of society. There are always bad eggs, but the majority of people are just doing their best to get by. Unfairness and injustice are a consequence of living under a capitalist system, the haves and the have not’s, the ever-expanding income gap is not only unintentional, it is inevitable. The question therefore becomes “to what extent there really are ethical commitments to help people in need and to what extent they are morally just and eligible” (Rentova 2015). It is understandable that those who have may feel like they are in some way being robbed but this comes from a perspective that they alone are responsible for their wealth without any contribution of anyone else, but the truth is that we are standing on someone else’s shoulders. Politicians think nothing of asking for money from donors to pay for their campaigns, charging the state living expenses or having subsidized meals in the House of Commons. But those seeking support to simply survive are considered social pariahs. What we consider allowable state support and what we consider illegitimate gains isn’t rational, it doesn’t make sense. We live in a society where it is not only legal, but somehow morally acceptable for the richest in society to pay a smaller percentage of taxes on income than the poorest, or corporations avoid paying taxes and avoid making a contribution to the society and community that they are selling too. Werner and Lim (2016) point out that “low wages impose a cost on others . . . employers who [pay] below-subsistence wages to their workers [are] social parasites.” The use of in-work benefits in the UK to supplement low wages, such as free school meals or housing benefit, highlights that it is low-paying organizations that are being subsidized by the taxpayer and exploiting workers and the state by not paying a fair wage for a fair day’s work. Vranceanu (2014) highlights that an organization is Doing Good when “they compensate people who place their resources under the control of the firm at a fair price.” However, he goes on to say that “the fair price is the market price”; to me this is the mistake, the market price is not representative of the value of an individual but is based on perception, and the perception of employees is predominately not aligned to social sustainability. The uproar over proposals for universal income ignore the fact that society is subsidizing excessive executive pay through a combination of corporations avoiding paying their fair share of tax and having to subsidize low-paid workers who are not being paid a sustainable income level. Rather than subsidize the rich, the universal income supports the poor.
The principle of the universal income isn’t just about the duty of the state and organizations to provide a sustainable income for individuals. It goes beyond that into benefit of providing individuals with the opportunity to be able to operate outside of poverty. Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs is an old typology describing levels of motivation, but the theory has relevance in terms of what we want individuals to be able to achieve in a lifetime. If our concern is what am I going to eat, or can I keep a roof over my head, what Maslow terms as “safety needs,” then what opportunity is there for “humans to have opportunity to develop within reasonable limits all [their] faculties, physical, intellectual, moral or spiritual” (Werner and Lim 2016). Maslow (1943) termed this as self-actualization, the ability of individuals to reach their full potential. It begs the question, why organizations and the state would not want the human resource in the economy to achieve its full capability. Temperatism is more than simply about feeling good because society is supporting everyone, it is about enabling the full potential of the human race to be released throughout the world. Social conscience in business makes sense, because it delivers sustainable performance for one of an organization’s biggest resources, its people. Keeping individuals oppressed, unable to concentrate, fearful, or struggling to look after themselves has visible and costly consequences. High levels of stress, the productivity problems that Western economies are struggling with, lack of employee commitment, and low levels of much needed skills. Individuals can’t afford to up skill or keep their knowledge current if their income doesn’t even cover their basic needs. Werner and Lim (2016) state that, “These employers would impost costs on society, as, by exploiting and exhausting their workforce, they would deplete the nation’s capital stock of character, intelligence and energy and also negatively affect reproductive abilities.” Without a commitment to a universal basic income society curses our huge majority of individuals to low-paid jobs or the poverty trap. The result is that their self-worth is diminished, and they lose self-respect that would be received from gainful employment and a feeling that they have something to contribute. This is more than simply paying someone to do a job, it is helping individuals to realize their full capability, to use their talent to deliver a benefit beyond a task successfully completed.
Performance literature demonstrates that teams perform better when individuals who form part of their team feel like they are delivering a purpose, that they are allowed to fully use their skills as a team member, and if they believe that their contribution is valued and valuable. Too many people go through life doing a job that sucks the very essence out of their being, and as a result they are never able to achieve their full potential as a human being. We do a job because we have to work. Graduates leave university and get a job, any job, regardless of their suitability or fit to the job or organization. People end up following a career in a job they hate. A good outcome is they stay gainfully employed, a bad outcome, they crash and burn. What a waste. If any other resource in business was treated the same way that the people resource is used the directors would be sacked for criminal neglect of their duties. We spend more time trying to control costs, than focusing on releasing the full, unfettered capability of the human resource. Gallup polls regularly demonstrate the low levels of engagement. Capitalism is supposed to be about growth, but it only focuses on financial growth at the detriment of human growth. The capitalist system does not differentiate between good products/services and bad products/services. Prostitution, drugs, guns, they are all goods that are regulated not due to free market economics, but because of a government imposing societal values about right and wrong. The exploitation of individuals and the victims of such activity is rarely considered a consequence of market outcomes, it doesn’t count the cost of an individual who is forced into slavery or deprivation, giving consideration to what they could have been had their circumstances been different. When you meet someone who is fully working in their talent, and developing their talent potential it is wonderful to behold. In this circumstance you will find someone motivated, innovative, going the extra mile, and delivering added value to the organization . . . and yet, these people are the exception rather than the rule.
Doing Good is good for society. It is good for individuals, and it delivers growth. This isn’t an either-or equation, it is an “and.” How much more could we achieve, as a human race, if individuals were free from the shackles of poverty and deprivation and have the ability to be all that they can be. That is what Temperatism seeks to deliver. It is more than delivering profit maximization, it is a broader objective of creating value for society. It does stop exploitation from the rich who are happy to be social parasites, and instead releases the untapped potential so that they can contribute to society. The universal income therefore asks us to reevaluate what worth we place on a human life and what value humans, fully released from poverty and want, can truly deliver.