The main argument for government-provided basic income is that it enriches the lives of low-income people by increasing their financial resources and allowing them to negotiate for better jobs. However, the extent to which this conclusion applies depends on the recipient's individual circumstances and how other adjustments occur in response to the basic income. For example, what if basic income counts as “income” and eligibility for other public support is reduced accordingly? Recognizing that low-income workers have other sources of support What if companies looked for ways to impose costs on employees (for example, the cost of training or uniforms)? For that matter, what if rental property owners see universal basic income as an opportunity to raise rents? Of course, this backlash in government policy and markets is not what those who support the desire for a universal basic income would like, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
Mr. David A. Green delivered a presidential address to the Canadian Economic Association on the following topics:Basic income and the labor market: labor supply, precarious work, and technological change”(Canadian Journal of EconomicsNovember 2023, pp. 1195-1220).
Green specifically discusses the potential interactions between universal basic income and the labor market, and how economic models that define work as negative and leisure as positive can miss important aspects of the debate. The focus is on gender. Ms. Green writes:
In our main model, people value leisure and prefer a life of not working all the time and living solely on benefits (when their income choices are close to the benefit level). Supporting such lives for society's least productive people is considered a policy success in a system that builds walls to prevent others from participating. My sense, from discussions with people who may actually need benefits, is that a more accurate model is that people have a fundamental desire to work (self-esteem, self-efficacy, social connectedness). Although they have a lot of money, they also prefer to enjoy more leisure time at any time. …At the same time, many people in need face multiple barriers to work (e.g., health problems, poor work performance, inadequate housing) and are therefore unable to work in low-wage, short-term jobs. facing. That is, we need to think in terms of a model in which we can transition them into a permanent working state, but rather support them over and over again, alongside the work they take on in search of self-esteem and connection. We need to think in terms of a model that recognizes that we need . The obvious trade-off is to create a system that provides support for this sporadic work pattern without creating an incentive to adopt it for people who are not likely to face it. It means I want to. I am not aware of any papers that incorporate this perspective when considering the design of relocation policies. …
Returning to the main theme of this paper, a perspective that places greater emphasis on supporting self-esteem and social esteem, and their relationship to work, influences thinking about basic income. On the other hand, basic income works well from this perspective. At a minimum, it means providing benefits without judgment related to labor requirements. In that sense, it can be said to be close to the recommendations of optimal tax theory. On the other hand, the relationship between respect and work has not received enough direct attention. People can (and may) use basic income as financial support for their desire to find work and receive training. But this is completely up to them. Certainly, a system that provides direct support would be more effective.
Basic income could be a useful tool for reducing the number of „bad jobs“ and increasing the number of „fair labor exchanges“ by giving workers the freedom to quit their jobs and find alternatives. Green's argument as to whether it is high or not is as follows.
I think the answer is no for two reasons. The first is an ethical argument. If the main problem with bad work is that it undermines workers' self-esteem and deprives them of autonomy, cash payments are not the right response. An important tenant of justice is that the remedy must operate in the same realm as the problem. For example, paying cash as compensation for an insult may further increase feelings of being insulted rather than resolving the issue. The right area would be to change work arrangements to remove the direct insult to dignity. I think this is an important issue for economic models when considering justice in the relationship between workers and companies. This is because we write our models in terms of individual utility and ultimately monetary equivalents, which takes us away from consideration of different realms of exchange. In other words, when we broaden our horizons to consider outcomes in terms of justice, we begin to think of work not simply as a means of increasing income and decreasing leisure time, but as a locus of self-worth and self-image. In that context, it becomes difficult to think about converting everything into monetary equivalents.
The second reason is that our model misses the nature of the problem at hand. Changing workplace conditions in situations where individuals cannot move freely between jobs requires collective action by workers. In fact, I believe that the correct model for creating workplace comfort is one that involves both employers and employees, and that a significant part of the latter needs to act in order for change to occur. Masu. In other words, the collection of employees at work is a community, and indeed it is a community that is important to the concept of individual self-worth. Because labor market frictions prevent the kind of market discipline that would occur in a simple neoclassical model, it is unlikely that just one person in the community decides to leave their job because they do not like the level of amenities. , not enough to change working conditions. Using basic income as a response to this situation involves expecting individuals to take personal support measures as a means of participating in community activities. This can happen, but there is no clear reason why it would happen. Presumably this would encourage everyone to leave bad jobs, but as we have seen, it is not clear whether this would lead to a reduction in the proportion of bad jobs as it would fund people to leave good jobs ( I hope you find a better job).
The problem with basic income as a response to too much poor work is that it ignores both of these problems. They act as if money is the right domain and supporting individual efforts are sufficient to solve problems. But that applies only to the neoclassical world. And in that world, we are in one world or the other. Compensate for differential equilibrium—No action is actually required in this case. Alternatively, a more directly effective response is regulation rather than cash. Basic income is not the right response in a world where individual workers do not have enough agency to effect change through markets.
Another way to put this is that at least some proponents of basic income indirectly have a great deal of faith in the operation of the free market labor system. They believe that with a universal basic income, decentralized bargaining between workers and employers and mobility between jobs would increase incentives for employers to provide better jobs. On the other hand, Green argues that better jobs are unlikely to emerge from market-oriented dynamics. Instead, they argue that better jobs are the result of collective action between workers and their employers who keep their jobs. Regulations and government programs related to issues such as training, childcare, and transportation assistance.