The Last Whip
Posted by Pete Hague on 12 Apr 2012
In computer game series "Civilization", a player controls a number of cities making up a nation, and have to lead that nation to victory over all others. One tool available to the player is 'whipping' or 'pop-rushing', which sacrifices some of the population of a city in exchange for a boost in production. This mechanic represents a brutal tyrant working his people to death for some goal (and is thus only available if you have selected a suitably heartless form of government.)
Despite the best efforts of the game designers to make pure evil slightly less rewarding, it remains one of the most potent tactics in the game, but generally only provides benefits in the earlier part of the game, when your nation is primitive, or when your nation is at war and needs to churn out weapons at any cost.
The designers of the game clearly understood human history. Until quite recently the normal mode of human production was to threaten someone weaker with suffering or death unless they did your bidding. Slavery has been a constant in human society far longer than it has been decisively rejected in most places. Religions have often threatened those who did not want to work (fairly or unfairly categorised as lazy) with eternal damnation. The history of human society can be viewed as the history of ways which the powerful bullied the weak into doing work for them.
Thankfully, slavery and other forms of direct coercion have gone away in most of the world. They didn't go away because those in power suddenly decided they didn't need to coerce people into doing their bidding, it went away because they found a better way of doing it - money. The industrial revolution created enough prosperity that a small amount could be shared with the general population. Not only did this make them happier and less likely to revolt, it also made them more productive. Motivation people through the promise of payment produced better results than threatening them with violence, and as a result there now exist societies on Earth (one of which I am lucky enough to live in) where violence is at an incredible low level, historically speaking.
But we haven't reached the end of history (contrary to some opinions) because there is still a threat in place. A system where money is the reward for work, but money is also required for living costs, implicitly uses the threat of destitution to motivate people. Sometimes, especially when espoused in conservative political circles, it explicitly makes this threat. There is one last means that our leaders (political and economic) can use to 'whip' us into productivity.
Its all about the money
James Firth at Bad Culture recently made loosely related points in the context of copyright. He argues (and I agree) that paying people a wage does not motivate people towards creativity, and that as creativity is central to a modern knowledge economy, this means we have a serious structural problem with our economy. His proposed solution is a reformed version of copyright.
That blog post inspired me to discuss an idea - one I've believed in for a long time - of a citizen's income. A sum of money is collected through taxes (possibly on incomes, but often when it is proposed, on land and natural resources) and this sum of money divided equally up amongst the population, with no bias or means test. The only requirement is citizenship. To work to its full extend, this money must be a basic level of income, so that without any other source of income a person could still live a minimal, but safe, healthy and reasonably comfortable, lifestyle.
The idea in itself has many advantages: It tackles poverty directly and effectively, it increases the income gained for a person moving from unemployment to employment (at present, one loses all unemployment benefits on starting work) and it removes the stigma and resentment that is often associated (largely by a malignant press) with state benefits because everybody gets the same. It also means that people can be creative without having (necessarily) to link their creative output to an income, and thus it provides a viable alternative to an excessive copyright regime (this being the initial link with James' argument.)
There are two main disadvantages to a citizens income often cited; and which one a person first comes up with when presented with the idea can, in my opinion, tell you something about their worldview.
The first is cost. A decent citizens income is a very expensive proposition. Back-of-the-envelope calculations tell me that in the UK, it would cost more than any single government budget item, including the NHS. This is a reasonable objection, and any plan to implement a citizens income would have to address this. I don't, however, see any compelling evidence that it is an absolute showstopper.
The second objection is motivation. Opponents of the idea claim that, if people don't have to work to live, then they will not work at all. They will just take their citizen income, and sit at home not contributing anything. This will, the critic claims, inevitably lead to the collapse of any such scheme.
Consider this objection in the context of the above discussion; the critic is claiming that some form of threat is required to drive people to work. I believe this objection is based on fear; fear that other people - people Not Like Us - simply cannot be trusted to pull their weight without a boot on their neck. It seems to me that this objection can be countered by showing that the critic's fellow citizens are more benign, and more useful without being threatened, than he or she believes.
The big picture
This comes back to the distinct problem that James was addressing; offering a wage, which as I argued above is more effective than threat at motivating people, is itself progressively less effective at motivating people as the need for creativity increases. James illustrated the problem of motivating people through money by citing the Candle problem - where people asked to solve a simple, but creative, problem perform worse when offered monetary incentives.
Our society has moved from being dependent on unskilled manual labour (which was adequately motivated by threat) through to more skilled manual labour (which can be adequately motivated by the promise of money) and is now entering a time where we are more depending on mental labour - which cannot be motivated by threat and can only be only poorly motivated by money. Yet, our leaders still use both to try and squeeze more and more productivity out of us.
Why then, is there the dual insistence that some people, normally rich, will only be productive in return for extensive financial reward and others, normally poor, will only be productive when faced with some form of threat? We understand where our most productive activity comes from, and we also understand that productivity there is not very well motivated by promises of wealth or threats of poverty. So is now the time to, perhaps against many people's intuition, start removing the link between work and having enough money to live on?
I've done two political posts in a row now, which is more politics density than I originally intended for this blog; I will make my next post a more science related one.
13 Comments
Posted by Freddie on 12 Apr 2012
"the critic is claiming that some form of threat is required to drive people to work"
I don't think that's true. I think it's more likely that some sort of incentive is required. If the necessity of a wage is taken away then people will decided whether to do a job almost purely on how interested they are in it (unless the wage is incredibly high).
I don't think it's impossible that there are jobs out there that need doing, and that have almost no people interested in doing them.
I think that with a citizen's income people will be far more picky with what jobs are worth their time doing.
Posted by James Firth on 12 Apr 2012
Hi Pete,
Some people will just sit around, but there will still be some - heavily taxed - additional income on offer for people who choose to work. So in theory there is still a motivator sufficient to get the staff-hours tasks done which need to be done.
So there is still a motivator for non-creative tasks, yet a removal of the threat of destitution. One could argue in the UK that this scheme already exists through means-tested benefits but that's a moot point. Councils in theory have an obligation to house.
The problem though still exists. How to switch from employment-focus to some other way of rewarding creative contribution. Otherwise we're stuck with the mixture of employment or Shirkey's Coassian Floor (create for free)..
Posted by Pete on 12 Apr 2012
Fred:
Work that can be motivated by cash, will still be motivated by cash - because a citizen income doesn't preclude you earning more on top.
James:
The current UK benefits system is not designed to give adequate, long term support. On paper, it is a (quite modest) safety net - but in practice it is all too often part of the 'boot' on the neck of the people it is supposed to help.
Posted by Freddie on 12 Apr 2012
So you think that prices of goods won't shift to reflect the situation where more people have more money? All you may do is move the destitution limit.
How do you know the citizen's income will continue to provide a good standard of living?
Posted by Pete on 12 Apr 2012
The price of labour will change, almost certainly. The price of raw materials etc. wouldn't notice that much. Inflation isn't just magic that automatically cancels out any increase in incomes.
That said, there would probably have to be some rent controls. The current situation with housing benefit, where private landlords just milk the government, could be exacerbated.
Posted by Freddie on 12 Apr 2012
The price of labour would probably go up as people will require more of a monetary incentive to work, which means the price of goods would have to go up to stop companies going bust.
You can't honestly think that bringing everyone up to the same standard of income will have no effect on other aspects of the economy?
Posted by Pete on 12 Apr 2012
Bear in mind that this isn't entirely theoretical. It has been tried in places, and not caused a collapse of productivity or massive inflation. Admittedly, it hasn't been tried on a national scale.
I don't dispute it will have some effects, I just think that you would have to prove those effects would be as catastrophic as you seem to think they would.
Posted by Rob Hague on 15 Apr 2012
I like the idea of a citizens income in theory, and I think the practical problems - how much is it, who gets it, and so on - could be solved. However, I fail to see the connection to copyright, unless you're suggesting that intellectual work is not worth laying for. I have a post on the subject that's been sitting half-written for ages now; once I get round to finishing it, I'll be sure to take the above into consideration.
A second point I'd make is that you've grossly mischaracterised the objection based on motivation as a "boot to the neck". Few people, if any, would seriously regard paid employment in these terms; rather, people are rewarded for doing something useful that would otherwise not get done. To suggest that working for money is akin to working under the threat of violence is a ludicrous exaggeration, and detracts from your key point (which, as I've said, has a lot in its favour).
In any case, an interesting post. I'd have no objection to more political ones, if they're as thought-provoking as this.
Posted by Pete on 15 Apr 2012
Rob:
The phrase 'worth paying for' is the problem. It frames the debate because it contains the implicit assumption that if something is worth doing, someone will pay for it. Not all worthwhile creative work attracts money, and not all work that attracts money is worthwhile (how many "Fast and Furious" movies have there been now?)
The point of IP is (in theory) to provide a living for people who do creative work as opposed to physical work. This requirement is no longer there if everyone receives a living income regardless. People can pursue any creative avenue without risk of being dumped into poverty.
And objection must be a demand for a threat, because under a citizen income people still can earn money. They in fact have more options to earn money at the low end of the pay scale as they are not constrained by benefit rules designed to shoehorn people into 40 hour workweeks. I never said working for money was a threat; I said that having to work for money, or else face absolute poverty, is a threat.
It isn't direct violence (although it can be if you are evicted from your home) but it is a threat nonetheless. Being unable to buy sufficient nutritious food for your family isn't being subject to violence, but it has a physical effect (and possibly a long term one, as poor nutrition in childhood has consequences in adulthood).
The 'last whip' isn't as overt as previous methods of coercion, but it is still there.
Posted by Rob Hague on 15 Apr 2012
As long as you make the distinction between absolute and relative poverty, fair enough. There's still an objection based on fairness that you don't address - why should those who work (and pay the taxes to fund the income) pay for those who don't - but that applies to all forms of welfare, and the arguments on both sides are well rehearsed. For what it's worth, I don't see it as a reasonable objection, provided that working does not disadvantage you over choosing not to.
On copyright, though, I think you're conflating two separate things. The issue of whether you can make money from intellectual work is distinct from the issue of you starving if you don't. It's a question of what society puts value on, and that's the subject of planned blog post (which I'll have to actually finish, now I've trailed it do much).
Posted by Pete on 15 Apr 2012
There is a 'benefits trap' in the UK - where a person moving from benefits to work loses their benefits, thus reducing the gain in income from going into work. Using a citizen income, money gained from work is never offset by a loss in benefit. For the people on the bottom of the income ladder, who to be blunt will likely be doing mostly non-creative work, the incentives are actually greater.
Posted by S on 16 Apr 2012
Is it really a good idea to create a system which enables people — most of whom are spectacularly untalented — so spend their time creating stuff — almost all of which will be utterly worthless, because cf 'untalented' — without having to worry about starving, which is usually the thing that gets untalented people to stop trying to be singers/writers/artists when they have no hope of producing anything worthwhile, and forces them to grow up and get a job instead?
If you give people an unlimited income (rather than the limited-to-six-months JSA currently) what is to stop people living on that indefinitely while they try to become musicians/actors/models/writers/whatever, despite it being obvious to all but themselves that they utterly lack the ability to do so (and, often, even the drive to actually finish anything they start — and why would they, if they have no deadlines, and can spend all their time 'waiting for inspiration')?
Posted by Pete on 17 Apr 2012
Firstly, I considered not posting the above comment, as it is anonymous. I'd rather people not comment without giving their real name (or at least a recognisable online identity.)
It seems 'S' did not read the post very well, and is expressing the very fear of others that I was talking about. The "grow up and get a job" attitude is not helpful socially or economically (for reasons I outlined above), and only serves as catharsis for people like Jeremy Kyle.
If you think (and 'S' clearly does) that people must be threatened with starvation to force them to contribute to society, you are a tyrant. Killing someone by starvation if they don't do your bidding is functionally equivalent to shooting them for the same, except it is a more tortuous way to die. This is not hypothetical either. Execution by starvation was used as a form of discipline in Auschwitz, for instance.
I don't believe Godwin's Law should be used against me here; 'S' was actually talking about using starvation as a means of discipline, and that is something the Nazis did - and was a defining characteristic of their brutality (unlike, say, Hitler's opposition to smoking.)
