This IGAF (Is Goodness a Fashion) series explores, from a non-expert point of view, the social, economic and narrative ramifications I see developing from the COVID-19 crisis, worries, but also hopes for a future that the current shock to the system may result in.
The response to COVID19 demonstrates the role of publicly funded bodies in the resolution of public and economic moments of panic- the role of governments and geographic unions, of a global response to a pandemic, of a healthy and workable health care system that is universal and the ability to effect universal solutions to specific problems. There are some "temporary" measures that, no matter whom you ask, will be described as "human". Time to wonder and wander, to crystalise your path, to engage with friends and loved ones, to not work- to, for a while, not operate within the rules of the market. It is a short break before whatever comes next, and possible that those now excluded from a shrinking services-oriented economy may never be able to reenter it.
What comes next is probably going to be a massive rises in prices, non-temporary decreases in employment and labour outside of corporate structures, and a state of enforced, constant insecurity. Our cultural landscapes- especially independent cultural production- will be further restricted as funding and locations become less and less available. All of this without taking into account the effects of a narrative of "social distancing"- the idea that other people, especially unknown people, are inherently not good for you. Surveillance will become ubiquitous- already people are reporting on each other for breaking new rules regulating what was no-ones business two weeks ago. Divide and conquer.
Several media outlets have made the case for vigilance, and I can only reiterate that there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes when the stage is so large and flamboyantly decorated. At the same time, I don't, at this point, want to dwell on this aspect of the current crisis. In this part, I'd like to look at one of my favourite, unfeasable ways in which governments can intervene to the benefit of everyone- hint: it involves taxes and wealth distribution.
If we look at the chart pulled from Opendemocracy above, we see a huge gap on the right- the gap in the economic cycle that will be exarcerbated by the current crisis. Let's accept for a moment that capitalists are going to capitalist and try to make as much money as possible while making every attempt not to give back any of that money to society. Let us also assume that governments realise that the trickle-down economics myth is no longer working and that the working and consuming class is worse off every time a government decides to save "the economy"- in short, that they realise the market is hardly working for anyone, including them.
Wishing to continue guaranteeing roads, health care, fire departments, police and sewage, they decide to reimpose massive taxes on companies and individuals who profit massively. Governements use these funds not only in the usual way, but also to deploy a form of UBI that would ensure that no matter how badly an employer pays you, you can survive the month (much like the current bailouts for the working poor and the precariat, except constant and ongoing). With oncoming automation, it may be a good time to rethink how peeople pay for things, how they earn a living, indeed, the nature of wealth and the uses of accumulated hoards of it for an individual and a society.
The point I'm getting at is that it is the role of governement in a capitalist society to be an equalising force- to ensure that innovation, trade and an economic activity continues, while ensuring that the people they serve are not disadvantaged by the activities of the economy. Hence, in an economy that benefits the very few, the role of a government has to be to ensure that the distribution of wealth is more widespread- a flatter curve, if you will, one that denotes that resources are being spread horizontally across a population, rather than a steep one, representing the flow of wealth from the bottom to the top with very few stops in the middle. I am not suggesting a nanny state (though, to some, I probably am), the suggestion on the table is that we reexamine profit and business success.
Rather than see profit as something that first has to reach the top, and then trickle down to the bottom of society, is it not imaginable that profit be measured as "societal contribution"? That a CEO or owner be rewarded for their part in running an enterprise not only according to the revenue of said enterprise, but also dependent on the overall "health" of a business. In my head, a healthy business employs workers whose labour is fairly compensated, who do not have to live in fear of not making their next pay check and who know that they have a voice and a say in the way they work and the running of the place they are offering their labour to.
In my experience, businesses can seldom be trusted to look out for anything but their short-term bottom line. Maybe that's as it should be- there is energy to be found in urgency and innovation can be drawn from that urgency. On the other hand, my experience shows that governments are slow, unwieldy things that occasionally have to expend manic energy to keep things running, usually at great long-term cost to the public and, recently, great profit to financial institutions that require a great deal of aid not to collapse under their own lack of weight. My suggestion is a middle path between the two.
In this crisis, it is visible that countries with robust, or less hollow, public institutions are more resillient to the effects of the Covid pandemic than countries that have put the profit motive at-whatever-cost before the maintenance of their institutions- health care is currently the best example, but this extends to many other sectors. Countries that have- no matter how much lobbying occurs in the halls of their respective capitols- not forgotten that they have a responsibility towards the societies that inhabit them, that they are not beholden only to respected titans of industry, but also to the homeless and the migrant, to the elderly and the unemployed. How these are treated, and seen to be treated determines how a society interacts with these people and their needs.
No matter how much work you do put in, you are currently putting work into a system designed to extract labour and obedience and give back as little as it can while it needs your labour- and requires you to vote occasionally. At this point in time, the political and economic systems are rigged to benefit those who make the most financial profit, rather than benefitting those who offer the most value to society. Our metrics have become skewed towards the obvious number- a stock index, a big black number at the end of a sheet of expenditure and income- rather than evaluate their success by more obscure numbers, such as whether it is possible for many to retain their human dignity and happiness.
It bears repeating that most people get to where they are not only through compromises they make in what labour they choose, what life, but also through coincidences of birth and heritage. That wealth built over generations exists, that passports exist and that privilege- whether "white"*, national or monied- is a great factor in upholding the system we are operating under. Personally, I don't begrudge people who have privileges per se. I do begrudge people who have internalised their privilege as "we are here to be served, and demand a continuation of our accustomed service at all cost."- those who have forgotten that the value of a human being is seldom the balance of their bank accounts, or their accolades- that profit goes far beyond monetary gain.**
For profit to be meaningful, it must extend beyond a few individuals or families. There is nothing wrong with earning more for a difficult job well done. There is nothing wrong with excelling in a field and being adequately compensated. There is everything wrong in extracting labour, resources and time, even if you take risks with your private capital, expecting to earn ALL the money. What I am saying is that to expect a return on your investment is a reasonable approach, as long as the financial investors are mindful that, even if they are investing capital, others are investing an equal amount of measurable resources into the enterprise. They deserve to be remunerated adequately for their efforts, both financially, and in the direction the enterprise takes.
What, however, happens when human labour is no longer required? When most tasks can be accomplished either by robots, or through interactions with screens? What happens when all you need to start up an enterprise is enough capital to lease the machines required to run that enterprise? When do most lives begin to resemble the Black Mirror episode "Fifteen Million Merits"? At which point do we collectively throw our hands up, frustrated by the menial, infantilising labour this situation enforces on most and go "Dammit, we quit."? Probably never, but that isn't to say we couldn't.
As financial profit continues to accumulate and concentrate in the hands of the very few, many people will have found themselves out of what we, in 2020, consider "work". Some professions will probably continue, as much out of luxury as out of necessity- I suspect we will never quite tire of human interaction, no matter how efficient our machines are. In a number of professions, human involvement or supervision will be deemed "essential". Maybe we'll invent some new ones- I'm very tempted to look for training as a robot repairman. But over time, we will inevitably see the number of humans earning money through their labour decrease, while outputs rise and profits increase.
This is where governments should step in: at this point, we have two gaps in the loop that begins this post: The rich no longer pay their taxes and companies no longer pay working people, who, however are still expected to somehow come up with ways to pay for essential goods and services, not to mention housing, transport, taxes. Reformulated: the lives of the working classes will change the most, but the expectations towards their ability to sustain an economy by spending will not. So it becomes the duty of government (of whatever flavour) to make sure that it is not endlessly printing new money, leading to infinite inflation, but to keep what resources are already in the system circulating- to effectively tax income and profit very stringently to ensure that the theoretical value this profit generates is not sucked out of the system. To ensure that everyone gets their fair share of the output of labour that is performed by, at the end of the day, no-one.
So, ironically, government becomes the guarantor of income for the population by administering the profits of private enterprise and distributing them. This is not new- in the early- mid 20th century, taxes on the income of high earners were higher, and stringently applied, then pumped back into the general infrastructure of the country***. The difference here is that I'm suggesting that salaries below a certain level be abolished entirely, paid by governments, call it UBI if you want. The small businesses that still exist get to keep all their profits (except what they return to society in taxes), and continue existing and serving their communities. Businesses employing more than 10 employees (for instance) have to start paying out of pocket for workers, or for part of the salaries- after all, they are draining the market of a valuable resource and that comes at a price- which cannot be below what the market has dictated in the form of UBI. This replaces unemployment and social benefits already being paid to millions across the globe, and is paid monthly, to every citizen of a country. It is hard-coded into the system so as to require a minimum of bureaucracy- the payment only gets suspended if you get a well-paid job.
As neoliberal enterprise is based on an universal extraction resources, this should satisfy the need for labour with minimal remuneration, but also create a safety net for workers in the form that they are not required to perform genuflections of loyalty, or be dependent on the whims of their employers. They can go to work, do their chosen job well, then go home in the knowledge of a job well done, food on the table and medical assistance when needed, rather than worry where the next meal is going to come from or how to pay for emergencies. It would be an improvement over current insecurities and abuses in many fields of work- a general increase in the value of profits, rather than enabling the hoarding of capital.
It may even have beneficial side effects- knowing that profits cannot be infinite, the economy would slow down a bit. While this may horrify some, it would bring relief to FOMO-afflicted people everywhere due to the decrease in constant whispers to spend on the newest thing. It would enable policies to work against climate change- both workers and governments would have leverage in choosing to support companies that enact climate-friendly policies. And in an age of ubiquitous automation and continuing profit, it would ensure that no-one is alone in facing the consequences of our economic, cultural and human activity since the late 1800's.
I believe that some countries have included a form of emergency UBI in their relief packages for those affected by quarantine measures or being unable to work due to restrictions on public life. As this is a cycle that we will probably see repeated over the next period, this may be a good time to think of this, amongst many other ways we can create an economy that serves all, rather than force humans to abandon their humanity to engage in a system that never will give anyone more than temporary relief.****
Meanwhile, let's remember that applause is nice, but won't pay bills.*****
Part V of the current IGAF: Money, Politics and People- Distributing Profit a bit more fairly
Part IV of the current IGAF: Dystopia
Part III of the current IGAF: Keeping a shop open
Part II of the current IGAF: How are we going to pay for THAT?
*with all the discussions about identity politics, let's not forget that white supremacy is a system that is happy to include people who are not white of skin, as long as they serve its ends. While we're at it, a reminder that cultural participation without economic inclusion is nice, but ultimately changes nothing.
** or, if we want to go by Bourdieu, Capital
*** I don't understand exactly how this works between income taxes, estate taxes, wealth taxes and all the other taxes. I'm a graphic designer, not an economist, Jim. All I do understand is that no-one needs to have a net income of several million a year, and a family fortune in the bank. Maybe people with an established fortune could just happily live off the interest and let the rest of us get on with our lives? I didn't think so.
**** I'm still a graphic designer. I come at this from a position of naïve optimism for the future and the hope that we find solutions to relieve many people of the burdens the current systems impose on them.
***** but it's always nice to be appreciated :)
 |
| https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/following-coronavirus-money-trail/ |
What comes next is probably going to be a massive rises in prices, non-temporary decreases in employment and labour outside of corporate structures, and a state of enforced, constant insecurity. Our cultural landscapes- especially independent cultural production- will be further restricted as funding and locations become less and less available. All of this without taking into account the effects of a narrative of "social distancing"- the idea that other people, especially unknown people, are inherently not good for you. Surveillance will become ubiquitous- already people are reporting on each other for breaking new rules regulating what was no-ones business two weeks ago. Divide and conquer.
 |
| via https://twitter.com/alex_dd89 |
If we look at the chart pulled from Opendemocracy above, we see a huge gap on the right- the gap in the economic cycle that will be exarcerbated by the current crisis. Let's accept for a moment that capitalists are going to capitalist and try to make as much money as possible while making every attempt not to give back any of that money to society. Let us also assume that governments realise that the trickle-down economics myth is no longer working and that the working and consuming class is worse off every time a government decides to save "the economy"- in short, that they realise the market is hardly working for anyone, including them.
Wishing to continue guaranteeing roads, health care, fire departments, police and sewage, they decide to reimpose massive taxes on companies and individuals who profit massively. Governements use these funds not only in the usual way, but also to deploy a form of UBI that would ensure that no matter how badly an employer pays you, you can survive the month (much like the current bailouts for the working poor and the precariat, except constant and ongoing). With oncoming automation, it may be a good time to rethink how peeople pay for things, how they earn a living, indeed, the nature of wealth and the uses of accumulated hoards of it for an individual and a society.
The point I'm getting at is that it is the role of governement in a capitalist society to be an equalising force- to ensure that innovation, trade and an economic activity continues, while ensuring that the people they serve are not disadvantaged by the activities of the economy. Hence, in an economy that benefits the very few, the role of a government has to be to ensure that the distribution of wealth is more widespread- a flatter curve, if you will, one that denotes that resources are being spread horizontally across a population, rather than a steep one, representing the flow of wealth from the bottom to the top with very few stops in the middle. I am not suggesting a nanny state (though, to some, I probably am), the suggestion on the table is that we reexamine profit and business success.
Rather than see profit as something that first has to reach the top, and then trickle down to the bottom of society, is it not imaginable that profit be measured as "societal contribution"? That a CEO or owner be rewarded for their part in running an enterprise not only according to the revenue of said enterprise, but also dependent on the overall "health" of a business. In my head, a healthy business employs workers whose labour is fairly compensated, who do not have to live in fear of not making their next pay check and who know that they have a voice and a say in the way they work and the running of the place they are offering their labour to.
In my experience, businesses can seldom be trusted to look out for anything but their short-term bottom line. Maybe that's as it should be- there is energy to be found in urgency and innovation can be drawn from that urgency. On the other hand, my experience shows that governments are slow, unwieldy things that occasionally have to expend manic energy to keep things running, usually at great long-term cost to the public and, recently, great profit to financial institutions that require a great deal of aid not to collapse under their own lack of weight. My suggestion is a middle path between the two.
In this crisis, it is visible that countries with robust, or less hollow, public institutions are more resillient to the effects of the Covid pandemic than countries that have put the profit motive at-whatever-cost before the maintenance of their institutions- health care is currently the best example, but this extends to many other sectors. Countries that have- no matter how much lobbying occurs in the halls of their respective capitols- not forgotten that they have a responsibility towards the societies that inhabit them, that they are not beholden only to respected titans of industry, but also to the homeless and the migrant, to the elderly and the unemployed. How these are treated, and seen to be treated determines how a society interacts with these people and their needs.
No matter how much work you do put in, you are currently putting work into a system designed to extract labour and obedience and give back as little as it can while it needs your labour- and requires you to vote occasionally. At this point in time, the political and economic systems are rigged to benefit those who make the most financial profit, rather than benefitting those who offer the most value to society. Our metrics have become skewed towards the obvious number- a stock index, a big black number at the end of a sheet of expenditure and income- rather than evaluate their success by more obscure numbers, such as whether it is possible for many to retain their human dignity and happiness.
It bears repeating that most people get to where they are not only through compromises they make in what labour they choose, what life, but also through coincidences of birth and heritage. That wealth built over generations exists, that passports exist and that privilege- whether "white"*, national or monied- is a great factor in upholding the system we are operating under. Personally, I don't begrudge people who have privileges per se. I do begrudge people who have internalised their privilege as "we are here to be served, and demand a continuation of our accustomed service at all cost."- those who have forgotten that the value of a human being is seldom the balance of their bank accounts, or their accolades- that profit goes far beyond monetary gain.**
For profit to be meaningful, it must extend beyond a few individuals or families. There is nothing wrong with earning more for a difficult job well done. There is nothing wrong with excelling in a field and being adequately compensated. There is everything wrong in extracting labour, resources and time, even if you take risks with your private capital, expecting to earn ALL the money. What I am saying is that to expect a return on your investment is a reasonable approach, as long as the financial investors are mindful that, even if they are investing capital, others are investing an equal amount of measurable resources into the enterprise. They deserve to be remunerated adequately for their efforts, both financially, and in the direction the enterprise takes.
What, however, happens when human labour is no longer required? When most tasks can be accomplished either by robots, or through interactions with screens? What happens when all you need to start up an enterprise is enough capital to lease the machines required to run that enterprise? When do most lives begin to resemble the Black Mirror episode "Fifteen Million Merits"? At which point do we collectively throw our hands up, frustrated by the menial, infantilising labour this situation enforces on most and go "Dammit, we quit."? Probably never, but that isn't to say we couldn't.
As financial profit continues to accumulate and concentrate in the hands of the very few, many people will have found themselves out of what we, in 2020, consider "work". Some professions will probably continue, as much out of luxury as out of necessity- I suspect we will never quite tire of human interaction, no matter how efficient our machines are. In a number of professions, human involvement or supervision will be deemed "essential". Maybe we'll invent some new ones- I'm very tempted to look for training as a robot repairman. But over time, we will inevitably see the number of humans earning money through their labour decrease, while outputs rise and profits increase.
This is where governments should step in: at this point, we have two gaps in the loop that begins this post: The rich no longer pay their taxes and companies no longer pay working people, who, however are still expected to somehow come up with ways to pay for essential goods and services, not to mention housing, transport, taxes. Reformulated: the lives of the working classes will change the most, but the expectations towards their ability to sustain an economy by spending will not. So it becomes the duty of government (of whatever flavour) to make sure that it is not endlessly printing new money, leading to infinite inflation, but to keep what resources are already in the system circulating- to effectively tax income and profit very stringently to ensure that the theoretical value this profit generates is not sucked out of the system. To ensure that everyone gets their fair share of the output of labour that is performed by, at the end of the day, no-one.
So, ironically, government becomes the guarantor of income for the population by administering the profits of private enterprise and distributing them. This is not new- in the early- mid 20th century, taxes on the income of high earners were higher, and stringently applied, then pumped back into the general infrastructure of the country***. The difference here is that I'm suggesting that salaries below a certain level be abolished entirely, paid by governments, call it UBI if you want. The small businesses that still exist get to keep all their profits (except what they return to society in taxes), and continue existing and serving their communities. Businesses employing more than 10 employees (for instance) have to start paying out of pocket for workers, or for part of the salaries- after all, they are draining the market of a valuable resource and that comes at a price- which cannot be below what the market has dictated in the form of UBI. This replaces unemployment and social benefits already being paid to millions across the globe, and is paid monthly, to every citizen of a country. It is hard-coded into the system so as to require a minimum of bureaucracy- the payment only gets suspended if you get a well-paid job.
As neoliberal enterprise is based on an universal extraction resources, this should satisfy the need for labour with minimal remuneration, but also create a safety net for workers in the form that they are not required to perform genuflections of loyalty, or be dependent on the whims of their employers. They can go to work, do their chosen job well, then go home in the knowledge of a job well done, food on the table and medical assistance when needed, rather than worry where the next meal is going to come from or how to pay for emergencies. It would be an improvement over current insecurities and abuses in many fields of work- a general increase in the value of profits, rather than enabling the hoarding of capital.
It may even have beneficial side effects- knowing that profits cannot be infinite, the economy would slow down a bit. While this may horrify some, it would bring relief to FOMO-afflicted people everywhere due to the decrease in constant whispers to spend on the newest thing. It would enable policies to work against climate change- both workers and governments would have leverage in choosing to support companies that enact climate-friendly policies. And in an age of ubiquitous automation and continuing profit, it would ensure that no-one is alone in facing the consequences of our economic, cultural and human activity since the late 1800's.
I believe that some countries have included a form of emergency UBI in their relief packages for those affected by quarantine measures or being unable to work due to restrictions on public life. As this is a cycle that we will probably see repeated over the next period, this may be a good time to think of this, amongst many other ways we can create an economy that serves all, rather than force humans to abandon their humanity to engage in a system that never will give anyone more than temporary relief.****
Meanwhile, let's remember that applause is nice, but won't pay bills.*****
Part V of the current IGAF: Money, Politics and People- Distributing Profit a bit more fairly
Part IV of the current IGAF: Dystopia
Part III of the current IGAF: Keeping a shop open
Part II of the current IGAF: How are we going to pay for THAT?
*with all the discussions about identity politics, let's not forget that white supremacy is a system that is happy to include people who are not white of skin, as long as they serve its ends. While we're at it, a reminder that cultural participation without economic inclusion is nice, but ultimately changes nothing.
** or, if we want to go by Bourdieu, Capital
*** I don't understand exactly how this works between income taxes, estate taxes, wealth taxes and all the other taxes. I'm a graphic designer, not an economist, Jim. All I do understand is that no-one needs to have a net income of several million a year, and a family fortune in the bank. Maybe people with an established fortune could just happily live off the interest and let the rest of us get on with our lives? I didn't think so.
**** I'm still a graphic designer. I come at this from a position of naïve optimism for the future and the hope that we find solutions to relieve many people of the burdens the current systems impose on them.
***** but it's always nice to be appreciated :)
Comments