Skip to main content

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated Cookie policy, Privacy policy and Terms & Conditions

English

Playing by the Rules

In a recent article, ‘Sympathy for the Luddites’, Paul Krugman looks at the impact of automation on the future of work. He argues that the old conflict between labor and capital is entering a new phase. In the past technological progress displaced unskilled labor; now it is knocking out skilled labor as well. There are no (or not enough) skilled jobs to go round.

Keynes, writing in the 1930s, referred to Krugman's problem as “technological unemployment”; he viewed it as an opportunity to shift the activity of society away from work and towards leisure. In our recent book, How Much is Enough?, My son Edward and I took the same view.

Together with Krugman we advocate a guaranteed basic income. In support of this, Krugman writes:

If the picture I’ve drawn is at all right, the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society — a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules — would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

What does Krugman mean here, though, by the phrase ‘as long as they work hard and play by the rules’? He seems to see his strong ‘social safety net’ as a top up to wage income – a kind of in-work benefit. He has argued for an increase in the minimum wage in the US along exactly these lines. But he has also said that there will not be enough skilled jobs for the middle class to go to. It makes no sense to top up non-existent wages.

Our proposal deals directly with the Keynes/Krugman problem of growing technological unemployment. We advocate a universal basic income, received by all citizens on an unconditional basis: that is, detached from the labor market. This offers a choice between work and leisure. It would make it possible for ordinary citizens to live - eventually comfortably - outside the labor market, in the same way the rich could always do. To offer such a choice is both a fruit of an affluent society and a solution to the problem of technological unemployment.

Subscribe now
Bundle2020_web

Subscribe now

Subscribe today and get unlimited access to OnPoint, the Big Picture, the PS archive of more than 14,000 commentaries, and our annual magazine, for less than $2 a week.

SUBSCRIBE

A universal basic income does away with the necessity of working hard and getting on, at the same time as automation – by eliminating jobs – is doing away with the possibility of doing so. Without the constant demand to find paid work in order to live, a whole range of possibilities opens up outside the labor market. If work becomes scarce, that is the perfect opportunity to question its central status in our lives. Krugman is surely right that such an income would have to be financed from the proceeds of capital. This would require a new political consensus about who should reap the benefits of technological progress. But if it becomes obvious that “hard work” no longer pays that no longer sounds like mere utopianism.

https://prosyn.org/AP6A6Vx;
  1. lhatheway8_Spencer PlattGetty Images_stockmarketcoronavirus Spencer Platt/Getty Images

    A COVID-19 Emergency Response Plan

    Larry Hatheway

    The rapid escalation of the COVID-19 crisis may be setting the stage for a global recession. Economic policymakers have no time to waste in preparing a response – preferably one that makes full use of low and falling bond yields, below-target inflation, and the lessons of the last recession.

    0
  2. fischer166_JIM WATSONAFP via Getty Images_trumplookingangrywef Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

    The West’s Final Countdown?

    Joschka Fischer

    With the US presidential election approaching, no one can say they didn't foresee the possibility of Donald Trump winning a second term – an event that would pose an existential threat to the very idea of "the West." So why are European leaders spending their time squabbling over agriculture subsidies?

    8

Edit Newsletter Preferences