Universal Basic Income, post-automation world etc

[Bromley boy]

I thank you and @Bromley boy for your views and respect them but don't necessarily agree that Uber buying the 'product' (in this case a taxi ride) as and when someone orders one and reselling it at a higher price is any more exploitative than a shopkeeper buying stock from a (self employed) manufacturer as and when he needs some.

But I don't want to drag the thread off topic so will make this my last post on the subject.

Fair enough. Although I think this subject is very relevant to the thread.

In answer to that, I would suggest there is a vast difference between a shopkeeper and a taxi driver (and a vast difference between a self employed black cab driver who can ply for hire and an employed mini cab driver for uber who only takes work from the app, and must pay a % of all takings to his de facto employer).

I have no issue in principle with people being self employed. What I (and I imagine Dave1987) do have an issue with is large, powerful organisations telling their workers/employees they are self employed, when they legally aren’t, in a cynical attempt to save money - and in the full knowledge that many of these people will be too desperate/poor/ignorant to do anything about it.

We don’t live in the third world. Workers and employees are legally entitled to certain basic rights in this country and employers must be held to these standards.

 

[The Ham]

Fair enough. Although I think this subject is very relevant to the thread.

In answer to that, I would suggest there is a vast difference between a shopkeeper and a taxi driver (and a vast difference between a self employed black cab driver who can ply for hire and an employed mini cab driver for uber who only takes work from the app, and must pay a % of all takings to his de facto employer).

I have no issue in principle with people being self employed. What I (and I imagine Dave1987) do have an issue with is large, powerful organisations telling their workers/employees they are self employed, when they legally aren’t, in a cynical attempt to save money - and in the full knowledge that many of these people will be too desperate/poor/ignorant to do anything about it.

We don’t live in the third world. Workers and employees are legally entitled to certain basic rights in this country and employers must be held to these standards.

Employees everywhere should have the right of a fair wage it shouldn't matter if the live in the UK or elsewhere in the world.

The problem is that the rich (and regardless of how you compare to others in the UK compared to much of the rest of the world we have won life's lottery by being born in a Western Country and even compared to other Western Countries we are still fairly well off, although some may have more super rich) have always been willing to oppress others to be better off (just ask the Jews about their time in Egypt before Moses brought them out).

The problem is although that brings short term wealth to those who do so, overall we'd all be better off if we ensured that everyone had a good standard of living. For instance if you are seeking trainers what would be better to have a market of maybe 1bn who can afford your footwear or a market of the whole world? The problem is to get to that point would cost them higher staff pay for quite a long time. It could be nearly any product that is a premium product from chocolate* to cars.

* Yes chocolate, very few people in the world actually eat it as they can't afford to, including the vast majority of those who grow the cocoa to produce it, especially given that it's not uncommon (although less so than 10 years ago) for there to be slavery involved in its growth, which is why there's been such a growth in Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance chocolate over the last decade. The reason for this, to ensure that the rich were richer, including ALL those who ate it, even though the extra cost for a small bar might only be a few pence more.

 

[AlterEgo]

I thank you and @Bromley boy for your views and respect them but don't necessarily agree that Uber buying the 'product' (in this case a taxi ride) as and when someone orders one and reselling it at a higher price is any more exploitative than a shopkeeper buying stock from a (self employed) manufacturer as and when he needs some.

But I don't want to drag the thread off topic so will make this my last post on the subject.

Then you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the difference. The shopkeeper can choose supplier in almost all cases. The shopkeeper gets to set his price. The shopkeeper can keep any and all tips (if he ever gets any). The shopkeeper can choose to stop stocking the product and sell something else.

The shopkeeper isn’t an employee because he is truly self employed, with autonomy over what he does, how he does it and for how much.

The Uber driver does not have the same autonomy, hence the courts ruling that the idea they’re really self employed is laughable.

 

[radamfi]

If you are signing on, you are supposed to accept the first suitable job available. But you aren't obliged to become self-employed. So presumably you can't be forced to be a Deliveroo delivery driver, Uber driver or shopkeeper as they aren't "jobs".

 

[Dai Corner]

Then you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the difference. The shopkeeper can choose supplier in almost all cases. The shopkeeper gets to set his price. The shopkeeper can keep any and all tips (if he ever gets any). The shopkeeper can choose to stop stocking the product and sell something else.

The shopkeeper isn’t an employee because he is truly self employed, with autonomy over what he does, how he does it and for how much.

The Uber driver does not have the same autonomy, hence the courts ruling that the idea they’re really self employed is laughable.

If Uber said that drivers could only work for them I might agree, but they don't. They're free to advertise and find their customers themselves, or to work via a different taxi firm, or deliver parcels for a courier firm or use their car and driving ability for any purpose. Uber are just one source of business for a self-employed driver.

But this has all been done to death elsewhere. Let's get back to the subject of the thread. Would people think differently about the gig economy if UBI existed and things like holiday and sick pay were covered by the State?

 

[pemma]

One idea being put forward by a Cambridge professor is a data tax charged to the companies making profits from using our data. He suggests it should be used to fund retraining of people who lose their jobs to automation but the same idea could work to fund a universal basic income or even companies pay us directly for using our data.

 

[pemma]

Then you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the difference. The shopkeeper can choose supplier in almost all cases. The shopkeeper gets to set his price. The shopkeeper can keep any and all tips (if he ever gets any). The shopkeeper can choose to stop stocking the product and sell something else.

The shopkeeper isn’t an employee because he is truly self employed, with autonomy over what he does, how he does it and for how much.

The Uber driver does not have the same autonomy, hence the courts ruling that the idea they’re really self employed is laughable.

I think the problem lies with where the line is drawn between an employee on flexitime and a self employed person. Hermes do allow their delivery drivers to work around commitments which Royal Mail don't e.g. being a delivery driver for Hermes allows a parent to work between taking their kids to school and picking up their kids from school whereas Royal Mail workers can't turn up for work at 9am and if they do the afternoon collections they have to be done after school finishing time, not before. However, it seems Hermes thought offering flexible working was enough to make their drivers self employed and consequently mean they don't get vehicles provided or holiday/sick pay.

Using the shopkeeper example there's different types of shopkeeper. Near me there's One Stop, Spar and Corner Groceries. The latter is the traditional corner shop where Tom has control over everything while One Stop is a subsidiary of Tesco so the store manager has to do what head office tells them to. Spar is neither, Spar don't own the shop - it's run as a franchise. Again I think the companies which have self employed workers have copied bits of the franchise model without going the full way and operating a proper franchise system.

 

[Bromley boy]

They're free to advertise and find their customers themselves, or to work via a different taxi firm, or deliver parcels for a courier firm or use their car and driving ability for any purpose. Uber are just one source of business for a self-employed driver.

Yes but in reality they cannot accept fares which hail them in the street, so they have to get work from somewhere (either uber or a mini cab firm, who would charge them a radio rent in any case, so the sources of work are mutually exclusive). When working for uber they:

- have to drive a (late model) car meeting Uber’s spec;
- they can be deactivated if they decline jobs;
- they can only charge the low (- commission) fares set by uber;
- one individual driver has absolutely no ability to change any of the terms on which he is engaged by uber. If fares go down or commission goes up, they have to lump it.

When all of this is taken into account they look far more like workers than genuinely self employed. Many of them work dangerously long hours as their hourly rate equates to a figure well below minimum wage, taking into account expensive car finance payments, fuel, insurance etc.

Yes there might be the odd well off retired person who owns a qualifying car and does uber part time for enjoyment/topping up a pension but this isn’t the reality for the majority of drivers I’ve encountered (and yes I do use it myself, so perhaps that makes me a hypocrite!).

Anyone who supports a minimum level of workers’ rights in the U.K. (hopefully everyone posting on here!) should accept the fact that if a company chooses to engage workers in the U.K., it owes responsibilities to those workers. It follows that it is unacceptable to flout those obligations by pretending workers are actually self employed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One idea being put forward by a Cambridge professor is a data tax charged to the companies making profits from using our data. He suggests it should be used to fund retraining of people who lose their jobs to automation but the same idea could work to fund a universal basic income or even companies pay us directly for using our data.

But companies already pay corporation tax on their profits. (Yes, I realise there are issues about multinational companies being able to declare their profits out of the UK, but those exact same issues would apply to any so-called data tax). In practice any tax is going to amount to saying that companies that operate in certain areas related to data have to pay a higher rate of tax than other companies. That seems hard to sustain as an ethical position, unless you identify some way in which making a profit from data is socially harmful, thereby justifying attracting a higher tax rate. And even if you can do that, defining exactly what uses of data attract the extra tax and identifying which companies are liable is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Ultimately, no matter how you frame it, if you want to provide a universal income, then we all have to pay for it - either directly in the form of higher taxes, or indirectly in the form of higher prices caused by higher taxes on some other organisations. No supposedly clever idea for some odd tax, such as a data tax, is going to change that reality.

 

[pemma]

Ultimately, no matter how you frame it, if you want to provide a universal income, then we all have to pay for it - either directly in the form of higher taxes, or indirectly in the form of higher prices caused by higher taxes on some other organisations. No supposedly clever idea for some odd tax, such as a data tax, is going to change that reality.

Well yes my initial reaction to hearing the professor say that was to think those free mobile apps are free because the data we provide is valuable to the companies behind the apps, not because the app developers want to work for free and the likes of Google and Apple provide their app stores for free. However, saying that the 50p you'd get for completing a YouGov survey or the 0.5p you'd get back for £1 spent on your Nectar card is nothing compared to the value of the data you are providing.

 

[Dai Corner]

Finland have decided against extending their UBI trial

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-43866700?__twitter_impression=true

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

The Finnish government has decided not to expand a limited trial in paying people a basic income, which has drawn much international interest.

Currently 2,000 unemployed Finns are receiving a flat monthly payment of €560 (£490; $685) as basic income.

"The eagerness of the government is evaporating. They rejected extra funding [for it]," said Olli Kangas, one of the experiment's architects.

Some see basic income as a way to get unemployed people into temporary jobs.

The argument is that, if paid universally, basic income would provide a guaranteed safety net. That would help to address insecurities associated with the "gig" economy, where workers do not have staff contracts.

Supporters say basic income would boost mobility in the labour market as people would still have an income between jobs.

Finland's two-year pilot scheme started in January 2017, making it the first European country to test an unconditional basic income. The 2,000 participants - all unemployed - were chosen randomly.

But it will not be extended after this year, as the government is now examining other schemes for reforming the Finnish social security system.

"I'm a little disappointed that the government decided not to expand it," said Prof Kangas, a researcher at the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government agency.

Speaking to the BBC from Turku, he said the government had turned down Kela's request for €40-70m extra to fund basic income for a group of employed Finns, instead of limiting the experiment to 2,000 unemployed people.

Read more on this topic:

• Could this be the future of welfare?
• Will Finland's basic income trial help the jobless?
• Finland country profile
• What is universal credit?

Another Kela researcher, Miska Simanainen, said "reforming the social security system is on the political agenda, but the politicians are also discussing many other models of social security, rather than just basic income".

Image captionOlli Kangas wanted the two-year trial to be expanded to people in work
When Finland launched the experiment its unemployment rate was 9.2% - higher than among its Nordic neighbours.

That, and the complexity of the Finnish social benefits system, fuelled the calls for ambitious social security reforms, including the basic income pilot.

The pilot's full results will not be released until late 2019.

In February this year the influential OECD think tank said a universal credit system, like that being introduced in the UK, would work better than a basic income in Finland.

The study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said income tax would have to increase by nearly 30% to fund a basic income. It also argued that basic income would increase income inequality and raise Finland's poverty rate from 11.4% to 14.1%.

In contrast, the OECD said, universal credit would cut the poverty rate to 9.7%, as well as reduce complexity in the benefits system.

 

[Jonny]

If you are signing on, you are supposed to accept the first suitable job available.

And you wonder why there are various instances of disgruntled employees causing bother. Sometimes, it might be better to pay them not to work.