by Louise Perry
Thursday, 28
May 2020
Response
11:53

Universal Basic Income: A solution to Wokenomics?

by Louise Perry
Feminists have argued for half a century that childcare and housework should be viewed as economic labour

Peter Franklin is critical of a political analysis he describes as “Wokenomics”, and I agree with him — mostly.

Proponents of this analysis (“wokeonomists”?) are wont to describe almost all activity as a form of “labour” which must be itemised and monetised, stripping away meaning and intimacy from human relationships. Sophie Lewis, for instance, author of a recent book on the family, argues that the surrogacy industry should be understood in coldly economic terms, with surrogates as workers, babies as products, and abortion as a form of wildcat strike. Franklin is quite right to describe such an approach as “moral madness”.

Lewis is elaborating on an idea that has existed within feminism for half a century: that childcare and housework should be viewed as forms of economic labour and that these labourers should be financially compensated by the state. Franklin is wary of this proposal:

[T]he state, in taking responsibility for payment, would thereby take control. That, after all, is the thing about getting paid — your employer decides what you do and how you do it. They also get to own what you produce. Is this really an arrangement we want to apply to motherhood?
- Peter Franklin, UnHerd

True enough, but there is a problem with this argument. Traditionally it is already the case that mothers are vulnerable to an “employer”, of sorts: their husbands. Perhaps “patron” would be a better term, since this system depends upon one person (typically the father) financially supporting a mother while she’s pregnant, nursing, or otherwise unable to earn enough money to support herself and her children.

For some people, this patronage system works just fine, and those people might well resent the intrusion of the state into their private affairs. But it does not work for single mothers (roughly a quarter of UK families with children are headed by a single mother) nor for women in abusive relationships. Without a dependable partner, these women are acutely economically vulnerable, and so might very well prefer patronage by the state, which in the UK has been available in a very modest form for more than a hundred years in the form of child benefits.

A Universal Basic Income might provide a way forward, allowing us to negotiate a compromise between the ‘“Wokenomics” ideal and the current model. The key advantage of a UBI system is that, by offering everyone the same degree of unconditional financial support, we are not required to tally up every hour of “labour” performed, at mothering or anything else, thus avoiding some of the pitfalls that Franklin identifies.

Comment


  • May 29, 2020
    "financially supporting a mother while she’s pregnant, nursing, or otherwise unable to earn enough money to support herself and her children" - ah yes, biology is just so sexist Read more

  • May 29, 2020
    Apparently everything can be twisted into an argument for a UBI these days Read more

  • May 28, 2020
    Whilst I am all in favour of fathers paying to support their children, even if they have no access to them - they should have behaved better when they were together with the mother. I think the concept that house work is women's work is utter nonsense in this day and age. It certainly is not that... Read more

To get involved in the discussion and stay up to date, join UnHerd.

It's simple, quick and free.

Sign me up