I want to engage with the course readings to reflect on my three key proposals, namely Citizens Assemblies as an effective democratic impetus for change, Universal Basic Services as a preferable alternative to a Universal Basic Income, and the desirability of an Institute for Lifelong Learning.

I set out in my piece that a series of citizen’s assemblies would be a good, effective, and democratic vehicle for law and policy making, able to contend with the issues of automation. My thinking was largely informed by the social shaping of technology approach as presented by Howcroft and Taylor (2022). They criticise the

assumption is that technology exists beyond the realm of values, beliefs and interests, and thus from the social world within which it resides,

My setting out of the citizen’s assemblies as the vehicle for change (and indeed resistance to technocratic utopian “solutions”) is an attempt to locate my own thinking and therefore the fictional assemblies’ actions in the social world.

In terms of proposing Universal Basic Services as preferable alternative to a Universal Basic Income, both Standing (2020) and Simcek and Williams (2016) advocate for a UBI as necessary for a post-work world. Simcek and Williams call UBI:

an essential demand in a post-work society

While there is great strength to the argument for UBI – especially in terms of its universality – there seems to me to be a danger that payments like these drive an individualistic response to social need. Put crudely, part of the argument for UBI is that it allows one to buy their way towards a better life. Standing goes further, he writes that:

it [a UBI] will foster greater freedom while helping us tackle the worsening crises of inequality, climate change, and authoritarian populism. (Emphasis mine)

This notion that a greater level of individual financial resource will give us the freedom to tackle the ills of society see is unfounded. The argument fails to explain why and how having this supplemented income will make us freer. There will still be the vast gulf between the richest and poorest and the wealth of the richest will still be gained through extractive means. It seems manifestly clear that a lack of freedom is not what stops those with the financial means from tackling inequality.

My alternative of Universal Basic Services (UBS) attempts to remove capital from this part of the equation. Rather than buying one’s way towards a better life, the state provides the conditions for flourishing. It is important to note that Simcek and Williams do make the explicit point that UBI;

must be a supplement to the welfare state rather than a replacement of it.

This begs the question, why have a UBI at all? Why not simply provide the most comprehensive public services we can?

Furthermore I tried to make the connection between well-funded public services all members of society engage with and the esteem given to those who work there. The personal financial freedom imaged by UBI allows one to buy their way out of public services towards private services. When everyone engages with the same services it is easier to make the case for the value of the workers who provide them.

Finally, I imagine the Institute for Lifelong Learning (ILL). Any attempt to set out a programme like this needs to contend with the question of why it exists. For what purpose does the state fund it? This question can, of course, be asked of any kind of state funded education. There are two potential answers. The first is to do with skills and the labour market. However, if the point of the ILL is to provide the skills the state deems necessary then we must ask necessary for whom? Generating GDP for the state is a poor answer that fails to locate the purpose of education in the needs of the learner’s community. Taken to one extreme conclusion this ends up with a future in which workers spend their time in simulated tasks simply because they need something to do (Kai-Fu Lee and Chen Quifan 2021). The second answer is to do with flourishing. Jones (2021) imagines a “microwork utopia” where, in a post-scarcity world work is distributed equally leaving more time and resources for education tied not to capitalist demands but to the interests of the individual located in a particular society at a particular time. In my piece the ILL tries, perhaps unsuccessfully, to strike a balance between vocational and interest driven education.

Bibliography

Howcroft, D. & Taylor, P. (2022) Automation and the future of work: A social shaping of technology approach. New technology, work, and employment. doi:10.1111/ntwe.12240.

Jones, P. (2021) Work Without the Worker: Labour in the Age of Platform Capitalism. Verso.

Kai-Fu Lee, C.Q. (1620) AI 2041: Ten Visions for Our Future. WH Allen.

Standing, G. (2020) The Case for a Basic Income. Great Transition Initiative. https://greattransition.org/gti-forum/basic-income-standing. (Accessed 9-3-24)

Srnicek, N. & Williams, A. (2016) Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work. London, Verso.

1.Which of these automation-related changes (e.g. mass unemployment; new digital jobs, AI at workplace (ethical and surveillance concerns); inadequate digital skills, poor working conditions) worry you the most? Why?

I would connect issues such as surveillance and poor working conditions and understand them, broadly speaking, to be about the power that workers have (or do not have) over their own lives and work. As technologies advance (and become more closed and harder to scrutinise) power moves even further away from the worker. The effect of this is that workers have less agency, are less able to organise, less able to make their voices heard and less able to be involved in decisions that affect them. This worries me the most.

2. Is a world without work possible?

In contemplating a world devoid of work, we tread a delicate balance between utopia and dystopia. The advent of the technologies we have read about as part of the pre-intensive promise to render most tasks obsolete, freeing humanity from the daily grind. Some would have us believe that machines will cater to our needs, leaving us unburdened by laborious work. Yet, this vision has complexities. Social institutions must evolve to accommodate this seismic shift long before it materializes. Long term thinking and planning of this sort is not part of our political discourse (see: https://www.nesta.org.uk/feature/minister-for-the-future/ ) While technology marches forward, those who work in service industries with low wages, lack of security and often precarious immigration status will likely still be needed, but will have the least say in how we organise the world going forward. A world without work beckons, but its realization demands foresight and collective political endeavour.

3. If you were given all the powers in the world, what changes would you like to see in the world of work?

This questions hinges on agency. How do we politically organise so that, as a society, we have the means to participate in the conversation about how we structure this new world of work. Expressed crudely, I would see a rather utopian world where workers are able to do jobs that are meaningful, fulfilling and appropriately remunerated. Given all the power in the world, I would want parity of esteem for all jobs; as jobs such as the caring professions are perhaps (in the short to medium terms at least) less affected by technological changes, I would want to see us value those jobs.

4. Complete this sentence: The future of work is…

meaningful, valued work (hopeful version)

one where workers are a commodity (pessimistic version)