Are We Ready for Basic Income?

This past weekend, Swiss voters made a strong stance against the idea of basic income, with the BBC reporting that nearly 77% opposed the plan for an unconditional monthly income. This was one of the first large-scale tests of an idea that has been gaining traction in recent months, with smaller studies being considered in Oakland, California, Ontario, Canada, and Finland, among others.

These studies, along with the Swiss vote, all point to a lot of uncertainty around the potential impact of providing a basic income. Would it actually make a difference in how and when people work? Would it improve inequality and outcomes such as happiness and satisfaction? If it does, how should it be funded? Mostly, what will jobs and companies of the future look like?

Today, there are no clear answers to these questions, and probably will not be for some time to come. Still, it is interesting to think about how work itself may need to be rethought should a basic income become the norm (assuming people will still plan on working, of course).

Basic income is fascinating because it reshapes the core ideas that many of us hold about work, ideas that began largely with the Industrial Revolution. Barry Schwartz succinctly captured this very dynamic in his TED talk: “we created a factory system consistent with the false idea of human nature [of inherent laziness and the need for incentives in the form of pay]” and once in place, “there was really no other way for people to operate except in a way that was consistent with [that] vision.”

In a perfect world, it’s possible to contemplate a different idea of the organization, in which basic needs are met through a guaranteed income, and work is pursued for much more intrinsic and meaningful reasons. It may be an optimistic viewpoint of the motivation of people to want to work, but perhaps it is less of a stretch to make the case that people want to spend their time in pursuit of worthwhile activities.

In short, work can become a much more human experience, designed in such a way that offers employees the ability to see and strive for meaning and value in the contributions they make. Perhaps even to follow their passion.

Within this new paradigm, an interesting question is whether a basic income encourages innovative compensation practices across the board. For example, employees rather than employers tend to be in a more powerful position, negotiating and crafting meaning in work that they choose, no longer in the position to have to settle for a paycheck. With that shift in power, employees may emerge as a source of crowdsourced compensation for their colleagues; not only seeking meaning for themselves, but giving meaning by recognizing the contributions that make a difference in their work.

Another point of intersection is the capability of technology to take over the mundane or repetitive tasks, as we have seen in manufacturing and may soon see in the knowledge economy. This represents yet another point of freedom to design work that is meaningful and aligned with one’s own values and mission.

To close with a lofty quotation from that same TED talk: “We design human nature by designing the institutions within which people live and work.” But it can be a difficult cycle to change once it’s rolling.

Where do you stand on the notion of basic income and its ability to change work for the better?

As Globoforce’s Vice President of Client Strategy and Consulting, Derek Irvine is an internationally minded management professional with over 20 years of experience helping global companies set a higher ambition for global strategic employee recognition, leading workshops, strategy meetings and industry sessions around the world. He is the co-author of "The Power of Thanks" and his articles on fostering and managing a culture of appreciation through strategic recognition have been published in Businessweek, Workspan and HR Management. Derek splits his time between Dublin and Boston. Follow Derek on Twitter at @DerekIrvine.

Comments

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Good time for this update, Derek. As I recall from the background research for my initial Pay for Nothing article, the only place broad expansion of EITC or UBI was realistically tested (in Canada), it was a tremendous but quiet success. Living Wage issues continue to plague more "socialist" UK and France, so I expect more such innovation to take place there than here. The concept is foreign to most American value systems. Of course, England once had debtors' prisons, so attitudes can change anywhere.

[Dan Walter]

This is unlikely to ever happen in the US. Basic Income is little more than a base level of welfare. Rather than give people the money to spend, you could argue that the government could simply make the "basics" free.

The idea of this occurring in a developed country, for any broad range of people, without a fully socialist or communist government seems pretty darned unlikely.

[Trevor]

If Basic Income is put in place what's to stop landlords from raising rents and pushing renters to work to earn more than basic income to live?

Seems like it may have to lead to some type of government supported housing. I would expect any pilot program to get very different results than if it were adopted broadly.