Redefining work and rethinking income for the future
There is so much talk about the work of the future - or lack thereof. Some say that robots will replace up to half of human jobs. Others say that humans will just create new jobs for themselves.
Either way, it is clear that work in changing. Forget the feared robot take over. Coronavirus is already shaking things up and propelling us into the future of work.
When it comes to the work of the future, the conversation is broad and diverse, yet the aspects that I find most interesting are seldom talked about. They have to do with the opportunity to redefine work and rethink income.
Redefining what counts as work and should be rewarded as such is key for our human society to thrive.
Work is not only the means for people to earn a living but it is also, for many of us, integral to defining our identity and affirming our sense of self worth.
Sadly, many people have to work in what the anthropologist David Graeber calls 'Bullshit Jobs' in order to earn a living. The people in these jobs (duct tapers, box tickers, flunkies.. you can check out Graeber's 5 bull shit jobs categories in this Business Insider article) are paid better than the 'essential workers' who actually keep our societies afloat, as clearly demonstrated in the recent Coronavirus shutdowns. But their work, by their own admission, does not make any positive difference to society.
In other words, the system rewards work that does not make a significant difference in the daily lives of people and communities more than work that does.
The way I see it, that is a perplexing mismatch between incentives and actual existential needs in our human society.
Automation could offer a golden opportunity to farm out a lot of bullshit jobs. The human resources thus 'liberated' could be redirected towards jobs like teaching or caring, making more of the support available that humans actually need.
Take it one step further and we could dare to 'requalify' as work things that currently are associated with little prestige and even less reward. For example, raising children, caring for the elderly, coming together to organise activities or solve problems in a community or creating art and beauty.
What naturally follows from what I just said about useful work and retribution, is that the simplest way to redress the current mismatch between monetary incentives and existential needs in the human society would be to make retribution proportional to a worker's impact on the real life of people and communities.
But I am not such a blue-eyed idealist as to think that is going to happen any time soon. So I have another plan, or rather, a dream, to test out a different way to distribute resources in a community. At its heart is the question: what if money was only one of several means to get what we need and want for a good life? Stick with me, and I will try to explain.
Money is universally fungible and can give you access to almost everything. Yet money as a means of exchange can hinder the mobilisation of resources that are not scarce. While a certain amount of cash will always be necessary to get by, technology and collaborative economy models define new ways to get hold of things of value with and without money.
The boom of the sharing and collaborative economy is giving us a taste of how it can be possible, convenient and efficient to borrow, share, swap or rent things and skills that we would have traditionally bought. (The Library of things, Streetbank and Task Rabbit are only a few examples of this). Babysitting clubs, timebanks, and mutual care schemes ranging from multigenerational co-housing arrangements to care arrangements inspired by the Fureai Kippu model are all examples of how people can exchange help and support with each other and how mutuality and reciprocity can replace or run alongside monetary exchanges. Through Local Exchange and Trading Systems people exchange professional services without using money.
Technology connects us like never before, making it easy to find a spare drill in my neighbourhood or someone willing to care for my pets while I am away in exchange for the use of my home in just a few clicks. Innovations like Blockchain create an infrastructure enabling trust between strangers at a scale that has never been possible before.
Add to that a rediscovered fondness for pre loved stuff and a resurgence of interest in growing and making things and you see how more frugal living could be made into a virtue from necessity when there is less money and more time available.
Complementary currencies are forms of money that circulate alongside the national currency. They have historically been conceived of and issued by nonprofit organisations, businesses and local authorities to respond to societal needs that traditional currencies do not address.
For example, time credits have been created to build community by valuing effort and contribution based on time, not qualifications. Enabling people to swap an hour for an hour, they encourage mutual help. The Tempo timebank in the UK also offers the option to redeem time credits against activities, such as visiting the theatre, cinema, attractions etc., thus offering access to marketplace services in exchange for a contribution in time.
The Rabot-Blaisantvest district in Ghent rewards citizens who engage in activities that benefit the community, like litter picking running exercise classes or volunteering in the local social grocery store, with Torekes, which can be redeemed with local businesses.
Local currencies like the Brixton Pound or the Chiemgauer can be bought in exchange for national currency and spent in a defined geographic location. Their purpose is to support the local economy by directing more spend locally.
Whether they are backed by national currency or not, complementary currencies are generally designed with a social goal in mind. They are designed to value specific things: citizen's time, their pro-community efforts, the resilience of the local economy..
So why not conceive of a complementary currency to value Work that Matters but does not pay, whether from essential workers, informal carers or community volunteers?
If you are still following me, let me recap what we have covered so far:
Now imagine a community where exchange and collaborative platforms flourish and a complementary currency (the Work that Matters coin - WtM) is issued to reward work that is considered socially valuable.
Let's imagine you are a care worker; someone working part time and caring for an elderly parent; a mother of young children volunteering in your local hospital, or an artist organising creative parties for children in the community.
If you were to rely on your income alone, you might be forced at times to make trade-offs between culture and entertainment, childcare, equipment or fresh and healthy food. Instead, you can:
As far as dream projects go, this is certainly an ambitious one. It hinges on an ecosystem approach to social and economic revival. It entails creating a community currency, scaling a plurality of platforms of exchange and nurturing the community networks that keep them alive.
...But extreme times call for radical solutions and, who knows? the Covid pandemic might create enough incentives to think out of the box and future-proof our economy and our communities...
Drop me a line at fcignola@gmail.com
