In the utopian (dystopian?) future projected by technological visionaries, few people would have to work. Wealth would be generated by millions upon millions of sophisticated machines; but how would people earn a living?
Silicon Valley has an answer: a universal basic income, or UBI, but what does that have to do with today’s job market, with many people squeezed by globalization and technological change?
Two business columnists for the New York Times, Farhad Manjoo, who writes “State of the Art” on Thursdays, and Eduardo Porter, author of “Economic Scene” on Wednesdays, have just taken on these issues in different ways. The Times brought them together for a conversation to help sharpen the debate about the US’ economic future.
Illustration: Yusha
Eduardo Porter: I read your very interesting column about the universal basic income, the quasi-magical tool to ensure some basic standard of living for everybody when there are no more jobs for people to do. What strikes me about this notion is that it relies on a view of the future that seems to have jelled into a certainty, at least among the technorati on the US west coast.
However, the economic numbers that we see today do not support this view. If robots were eating our lunch, it would show up as fast productivity growth, but as Robert Gordon points out in his new book, The Rise and Fall of American Growth, productivity has slowed sharply. He argues pretty convincingly that future productivity growth would remain fairly modest, much slower than during the burst of US prosperity in the mid-20th century.
A problem I have with the idea of a universal basic income — as opposed to, say, wage subsidies or wage insurance to top up the earnings of people who lose their job and must settle for a new job at a lower wage — is that it relies on an unlikely future. It is not a future with a lot of crummy work for low pay, but essentially a future with little or no paid work at all.
The former seems to me a not unreasonable forecast — we have been losing good jobs for decades, while low-wage employment in the service sector has grown; but no paid work? That is more a dream (or a nightmare) than a forecast. Even George Jetson takes his briefcase to work every day.
Farhad Manjoo: Because I am scared that they would unleash their bots on me, I should start by defending the techies a bit before I end up agreeing with you.
So, first, I do not think it is quite right to say that the proponents of UBI are envisioning a future of no paid work at all. I think they see less paid work than we have today — after software eats the world, they say it is possible we might end up with a society in which there is not enough work for everyone, and especially not a lot of good work.
They see a future in which a small group of highly skilled tech workers reign supreme, while the rest of the job world resembles the piecemeal, transitional work we see coming out of tech today (Uber drivers, Etsy shopkeepers, people who scrape by on other people’s platforms).
Why does that future call for instituting a basic income instead of the smaller and more feasible labor policy ideas that you outline? I think they see two reasons. First, techies have a philosophical bent toward big ideas, and UBI is very big.
They see software not just altering the labor market at the margins, but fundamentally changing everything about human society.
While there would be some work, for most non-programmers work would be insecure and unreliable. People could have long stretches of not working at all — and UBI is alone among proposals that would allow you to get a subsidy even if you are not working at all.
Porter: I know what you mean by thinking big. Many of these new technology entrepreneurs think more like engineers than social scientists. In the same breath they will extol the benefits of individual liberty and the market economy and propose some vast reorganization of society following an ambitious blueprint cooked up by an intellectual elite.
A few months ago I interviewed Albert Wenger, the venture capitalist you cite in your column. He also told me about his vision of a future world in which work would be superfluous. It made me think of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World or George Orwell’s Animal Farm.
If there are, in fact, jobs to be had, a universal basic income might not be the best choice of policy. The lack of good work is probably best addressed by making the work better — better paid and more skilled — and equipping workers to perform it, rather than offering a universal payment unrelated to work.
The challenge of less work could just lead to fewer working hours. Others are already moving in this direction. People work much less in many other rich countries: Norwegians work 20 percent fewer hours per year than Americans; Germans 25 percent fewer. They have taken much more of their wealth in the form of leisure rather than money, but they still work for a living.
And, by the way, I have read about robots that can program. So maybe the programmers are not safe either.
Manjoo: One key factor in the push for UBI, I think, is the idea that it could help reorder social expectations. At the moment we are all defined by work; Western society generally, but especially American society, keeps social score according to what people do and how much they make for it. The dreamiest proponents of UBI see that changing as work goes away. It would be okay, under this policy, to choose a life of learning instead of a low-paying bad job.
Porter: To my mind, a universal basic income functions properly only in a world with little or no paid work, because the odds of anybody taking a job when his or her needs are already being met are going to be fairly low.
The discussion, I guess, really depends on how high this universal basic income would be. How many of our needs would it satisfy? We already sort of have a universal basic income guarantee. It is called food stamps, or SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), but it is impossible for people to live on food stamps alone.
This brings to mind something else. You give the techies credit for seriously proposing this as an optimal solution to wrenching technological and economic change, but in a way, is it not a cop-out? They are just passing the bag to the political system. Telling governments, “You fix it.”
If the idea of robots taking over sounds like science fiction, the idea of the US government agreeing to tax capitalists enough to hand out checks to support the entire working class is in an entirely new category of fantasy.
Manjoo: Yes, this is perhaps the biggest criticism of UBI: It all sounds too fantastical. It is straight from sci-fi. And you are right; many of these proponents are not shy about being inspired by fantasies of the future.
However, paradoxically, they also see UBI as more politically feasible than some of the other policy proposals you call for.
One of the reasons some libertarians and conservatives like UBI is that it is a very simple, efficient and universal form of welfare — everyone gets a monthly check, even the rich, and the government is not going to tell you what to spend it on.
Its very universality breaks through political opposition. And I should note that it is not only techies who are for it — former head of the Service Employees International Union Andy Stern is publishing a book calling for a basic income.
Still, like you, I am skeptical that we will see anything close to this sort of proposal anytime soon. Even US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is not proposing it. The techies, as usual, are either way ahead of everyone, or they are living in some other universe. Often it is hard to tell which is which.
Let us get back to the question of productivity. You are right that software has not produced the sort of productivity gains many had said it would, but why do you disagree with the techies that automation is just off beyond the horizon?
Porter: I guess some enormous discontinuity right around the corner might vastly expand our prosperity. Joel Mokyr, an economic historian that knows much more than I do about the evolution of technology, argues that the tools and techniques we have developed in recent times — from gene sequencing to electron microscopes to computers that can analyze data at enormous speeds — are about to open up vast new frontiers of possibility. We might be able to invent materials to precisely fit the specifications of our homes and cars and tools, rather than make our homes, cars and tools with whatever materials are available.
The question is whether this could produce another burst of productivity like the one we experienced between 1920 and 1970, which, by the way, was much greater than the mini-productivity boom produced by information technology in the 1990s.
While I do not have a crystal ball, I do know that investors do not seem to think so.
Long-term interest rates have been gradually declining for a fairly long time. This would suggest that investors do not expect a very high rate of return on their future investments. Research and development intensity is slowing down and the rate at which new businesses are formed is also slowing.
Little in these dynamics suggests a high-tech utopia — or dystopia, for that matter — in the offing.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with