Autonomy asked four leading experts in the field about the status and role of work in our society. Their responses touch on some of the most important facets of the question of work today: the gendered division of labour, the potential and actual uses of automation technologies, the changing nature of work practices themselves and more. We have also asked a question regarding basic income – a much discussed concept with a long history – that is central to current debates. 

3. Would you support the introduction of a Universal Basic Income? If so, how should it be implemented?

One possible solution to the contemporary crisis of work and automation is the introduction of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). However, like both the concepts of work and automation, the idea of UBI is a contested one. The rapid spread of the idea – from academics, the press, but also importantly in public discourse – speaks volumes about the state of contemporary work. The potential decoupling of work from income, breaking a direct relationship that has been viewed as natural for quite some time, is a potentially very powerful development.

However, before moving on to discuss this, it is crucial to understand that like the huge disparities between incomes in contemporary society, there are very divergent options for UBI too. At one extreme, you could see a generous UBI, set at a level high enough to allow people to drastically reduce their working week. There is increasing evidence that people offered less time at work tend to spend this on other activities with a positive social benefit. Taking London as an example, many people do not know their neighbours, and large numbers of older people regularly go many days without any social contact. With less time at work, there would be the option to volunteer in their community or engage in social care.

“The potential decoupling of work from income, breaking a direct relationship that has been viewed as natural for quite some time, is a potentially very powerful development.”

On the other hand, UBI could be shaped by right-wing economics to further the withdrawal of the state from social provisions. The right-wing economist Milton Friedman, for example, saw UBI as an alternative method to provide social goods like healthcare or education. Instead, tax money could be redistributed to everyone, allowing them direct control on what to spend the money on. Alongside defunding other means, this would allow a full marketisation of public services, meaning that money would only be received if an individual chose to spend it. This means that services that require redistribution of funding, for example expensive specialist healthcare, would become harder to access. The level of UBI could also be set closer to a subsistence level, rather than act as an income that provides freedom from the drudgery of full time work, and this would merely maintain people’s lives at the lowest necessary level.

UBI, as a concept, provides an important starting point for talking about contemporary work and the possibility of a post-work future. Like the wages for housework campaign, it provides a directional demand, one that can be used as part of a broader argument and struggle towards an alternative future. The key to the success of UBI is one of democracy, ensuring that it benefits the majority of people, rather than being used to serve the interests of the few.

Dr. Jamie Woodcock is a research fellow at the London School of Economics and his current research focuses on digital labour, sociology of work, resistance, and videogames. His most recent book Working the Phones (Pluto, 2017) is an ethnographic study of working conditions in call centres in the UK. He has previously worked as a postdoc on a research project about videogames, as well as another investigating the crowdsourcing of citizen science. Jamie completed his PhD in Sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London and has held positions at Goldsmiths, the University of Leeds, the University of Manchester, Queen Mary, NYU London, and Cass Business School.