We hear about the future of work all the time, but that conversation is really about the future of jobs. Here in Canada, employment and GDP are up, but many feel affordability is not improving. We’ve got lots of metrics, but are we measuring the right things?
It used to be that when the economy was good, most other things followed suit. That isn’t the case anymore. As we continue the conversation about the future of work, we must also discuss the future of the economy; and few interventions show as much promise as a universal basic income.
Mckinsey Global Institute estimates that women’s unpaid care work contributes $10 trillion dollars annually to the global GDP, yet women reap none of the economic benefits. The distinction between work and jobs could not be more apparent. Our economy doesn’t allow us to value the unpaid work of women in a way that supports their lives.
We also hear every day about how artificial intelligence (AI) and automation are making jobs obsolete in many sectors. All you’ve got to do is head to Wal-Mart or McDonald’s to see this in action at the most basic level. And if you step onto a factory floor, you’ll likely be shocked to see robots are replacing many good-paying jobs. These changes show no signs of slowing down and will continue to displace workers along the way.
We’ve got a slew of social programs loosely targeted to address these challenges, including parental leave, unemployment insurance, re-skilling programs, and social assistance. Why not simplify these programs and centre human dignity within our social safety net?
A universal basic income (UBI) could do that. And while we’re at it, let’s add a gender-based analysis to ensure that a UBI wouldn’t solidify existing gender inequities. We saw political parties of all stripes across the country suggest minor tweaks and expansions of the existing programs, but nothing as bold or quite frankly, forward-thinking, as a basic income.
U.S. presidential candidate Andrew Yang often says UBI is about everything but the money; it’s about dignity and the things that make us human. The model he is campaigning on is built to assume that every American 18-plus gets $1,000 a month. UBI would be the floor, not the ceiling.
The model Yang presents is one model, but UBI can be tailored to the needs of our society. We’re currently hyper-focused on measuring outputs like productivity, GDP, and workforce participation, but outputs matter less when a large part of your citizenry can’t make ends meet.
This idea isn’t new or particularly innovative. Indeed, Canada ran one of the first basic income pilots in the world in the 1970s in Manitoba. More recently, Finland ran a successful basic income pilot, which showed that the levels of people working did not decrease; however, levels of stress went down.
A pilot in Ontario also started up in 2017 and was built much on the recommendations of former Conservative Sen. Hugh Segal. Unfortunately, the Ontario pilot was cut short due to a change in government. Ensuring that all citizens have a basic level of financial safety and security does not incentivize leaving the traditional labour market, but instead gives folks the freedom to contribute more meaningfully.
People will often suggest that a universal basic income — or traditional social assistance programs for that matter — will disincentivize people from working. There is no evidence to support that claim. People want to contribute to their communities, but we need to push beyond our archaic ideology of what work means and what contributions look like.
We can’t wait until it’s too late to be bold. We’ve got to reimagine our economy in a way that measures work, not jobs, in a way that puts human dignity at the centre of policy rather than racing to the bottom. We’ve also got to ensure that women’s economic empowerment is at the centre of this discussion rather than creating a gender blind program.
Let’s stop over complicating our social safety nets to support not only the future of work but a future that works for all Canadians.
Recent Comments