Basic Income: English Black Tragicomedy Version
Why are basic income and Spinghamland’s law two sides of the same coin? Let’s dig deep this time. Until the 18th century and back to the 21st. We find out how the poor differ in 1975 and in 2018 and why “then" it was impossible to distribute money “for nothing”, but “today” it is possible.
British retro remake of Basic Income
1975 England. The dawn of the industrial revolution is breaking over the working class. Changes are coming. A vague anxiety suits the gloomy alleys of London very well. But our story is about the south of England. Here, in a deplorable environment of poverty and hunger, citizens have finally received something unusual from the government – money is distributed to those in need. And even if you have a job, you still get this bonus. Just. They will not need to be processed. Just don’t starve, please. Sensitively from the side of the apparatus of power, isn’t it?
This is how Speenhamland’s law looked when the workers had not yet had time to "taste" it. It is very similar to the idea behind the basic income concept.
But life will not be long. This happens with laws passed at the peak of a crisis. Even the best intentions do not guarantee that it will work or be understood.
What happened to them with the basic income program
In the 60s in the south of England, the poor were preparing to die of hunger. The institution of power went to meet people, organizing regular payments for those in need, tied to the price of bread. This money was paid regardless of the availability of work for each person. If an Englishman lost his job, the payments continued. If he found a profitable one, no one blocked the “charity tap”, the money continued to flow, but the amount could become a little less if the person was doing well.
What happened to those who received the money
Nothing good, you should be warned. The working class, which by all accounts should have starved to death, survived. And this, of course, is good news. For these people. But not for the country’s economy. The bad news is that people refused to work en masse, and the percentage that the state allocated to them only increased. basic incomedemoralized the poorer sections of the population. The degradation was the most obvious side effect of the gratuitous strategy in England. Because people didn’t need a “freebie” even in the form of support, they needed a strategy and clear instructions. They would act because they are used to it. But ordinary workers are not used to getting something for nothing. Therefore, they were confused. And they started misbehaving. The streets were filled with loafers, and some neighborhoods looked like they were winning the lottery every day.
And yet, why didn’t it work? What did they miss implementing the Speenhamland law?
Not starved, but degraded: this is how basic income “ finished off” the economy of the whole country
Everything has its place and time. Buds do not bloom before spring. Just like people, they gradually move away from revolutions, wars and other losses. Inhale after exhale. But it also happens that there is not enough data to make a decision. And it happens that all negative factors get together in one tangle of events and decisions, which, clinging to one another, form a “local fate”.
Why Innovation and Generosity Don’t Work in a Crisis
The depletion of the country’s economy greatly distracts from the subtle points of the issue. It is unlikely that anyone in the 60s thought about the psychological aspects of the hunger crisis, identified the needs of the working class and analyzed what the average person wants besides just eating and surviving.
When survival is at stake, rarely does anyone engage in long-term planning, weighing all the same barely noticeable transparent psychological aspects. Usually, this is not visible in the thick of the process. Subtle influences become possible to consider with time. In a historical perspective. This is what we are doing now. We analyze the past so as not to repeat its mistakes in the present.
What specifically could not be seen
In the bustle of the crisis, no one could look from the outside. All participants were too involved. And no one understood that giving the emaciated poor access to money is the most destructive and cruel thing you can think of.
What could the government do for its citizens?
For example, with strategic empathy at the right time, they would have learned that in order to develop a healthy concept of a basic income, it was not worth limiting itself to paying only to those in need. The thinking of a person who spent most of his life in hardships is not able to generate a strategy for self-development. It takes such people a long time to realize that they are safe, deprivation, things of bygone days. In the modern world, it takes psychiatrists years to bring out of the stupor the participants in hostilities, or residents of territories where something difficult is happening (war, poverty, famine, ecology on the verge of catastrophe).
It is unlikely that the southerners felt healthy
Especially since about 50 years ago, England experienced the largest strike in history. It also became a stress for society, not to mention social conditions and financial security in general. It doesn’t matter if people realize it or not – if they have experienced something on the verge of life and death, they will not think about the country. And they certainly will not be ready to dispose of the suddenly fallen cash bonuses, even if this is the most logical and correct step from the point of view of the management apparatus. From there, from above, not everything is visible. As it is paradoxical. The Crisis has many layers. And it is almost never possible to get out of them completely and see how it all ends.
It’s like flying a plane in a storm.
No one took into account in those years the difference between the thinking of wealthy citizens and the poor. There was a class that knew what was best, while others obeyed or went on strike when it became completely unbearable. The strategies of the ruling class would be much more profitable if they tried to understand what was happening to the little men in their coal mines. What do they dream about, what drinks do they like and what do they think about their work, do they love the Queen…
Why are we focusing you, reader, on a strange topic:
We are well aware that you must have found us, because you have a specific goal – to make money on the Internet. In order for you to reach this goal with a result that will exceed even your expectations, we are digging – to the very core – the topic of financial literacy and earnings.
We delved into history to show you how the same idea “enters” at different stages of the development of society. How people accept it and how it unfolds in an event perspective. The author has infiltrated the ruling class of the United Kingdom, not just like that, not for the sake of the volume of the text.
Looking for what not to do
This Speenhamland law story could make a great tragicomedy. It is strange that the writers of the BBC have not yet got to this topic. But it’s not about that. We want to help you make money online. Therefore, we are looking not only for world-famous examples of success, but also examples of global failures.
It is said that it is easier to learn from the mistakes of others. This is a hack. So, let’s look at the example of England, what the banal inattention of one layer of society to another leads to:
In 1927, the government resolved the issue – it simply forbade strikes. Yes, trade union members were required by law to remain silent. This is where the brief historical background ends. We return to the theme of the thinking of the poor and the rich. After all, we publish all these pages of history on the blog for a reason.
Thinking determines your actions – this includes earnings
Consider articles of this kind as “reminders” calling for observation of yourself and your thoughts. This is something that no one but you will do. It’s free. You don’t need a coach for this. Watch. But don’t become meticulously paranoid. Learn to do it with ease. Remember how you mastered something very interesting and try to acquire the skill of observing yourself – in the same way.
But if you don’t change your thinking, you won’t change the situation you’re in right now.
What situation am I in right now?
Do you think that you are already normal? Then here’s your homework. Write on a piece of paper or here in the comments your desires. All. All. All. And then calculate how much it costs to implement each. Then add up the amount. Do you have that much money now?
If yes, then it is not clear why you are reading this blog. We offer you cooperation as an author and consultant. If, nevertheless, the full amount is not collected, we continue to learn to think as if you already have all the necessary funds to implement your plan. As if you are rich, successful and educated in financial matters.
To get started doing the right thing, let’s first figure out how not to.
Basic income is useless to you if you have a poor mindset
When a person realizes that he was able to survive, when a coal mine worker experiences almost his own death, thinking changes. It is difficult to say what is on the minds of hundreds of people dying of hunger until you become one of the voices in the general choir of lamentations. But it’s easy to imagine what a no-obligation payment is like for a poor man who is not trained in financial literacy and has just realized that he has survived.
Without labor – there is no fish or pond
This is all you need to know about earning a person in the 8th century. Especially if from generation to generation he performs monotonous physically difficult and dangerous work in production: extracting coal in mines, for example. And he heard about the fish and the pond from his father, and that from his grandfather .. well, you understand? the algorithm is simple.
And now a warm-up for the imagination. Imagine yourself in the place of a coal miner. What do you think if a trade union tells you something like this:
“Now we will be paid money just like that. We do not have to do anything – these payments are a gift from the government for us. They don’t want us to starve."
Imagine yourself in the place of a coal miner
We presented and this is what happened: “I am David Black. A collier from Berkshire in the south of Britain. Today, after the shift, the foreman told our team the news – each of us will receive money from the state just like that. I think some of the Gods heard my prayers. After all, I so asked heaven – to save me from hard work and let me live in pleasure. Almost 50 years ago we went through hard times
What will I do now? Drink and relax. I deserve this. We deserve everything. Workers are valuable resources. Coal is not paid for being coal. And we get paid to be human. Working class."
Coal mines, factory floors… you know, right?
The English from the bottom en masse refused to work. Group layoffs have flooded Spinghamland. And all this was financed by the government, which undertook not to condemn people and not to demand anything in return for monetary payments.
Basic income can demoralize the poor, but it’s not their fault
In their upbringing, “easy” is not provided. So England got the opposite effect of what she expected. On the one hand, a basic income saved a whole layer of needy citizens from starvation. On the other hand, this segment of the population pushed the economy of the entire country to collapse. There is also a third side – this is the "neutral waters of economic theories." Here nests another possibility, more subtle. Everything was predetermined. England historically found itself in a situation where it was necessary to suffer losses. All they could do in parliament was to choose what exactly they were ready to lose. People or money?
What would you choose?
Don’t rush to answer. It’s complicated.
Everything that happens in the roots of a tree is reflected in the development of its crown. So it is with society. Everything is connected, and everything influences everything.