Basic Income
There’s a Stigma to Working for a Good Cause
And that stigma arises out of thoughtlessness.
Suppose you have a choice:
Option 1: You could take up a career that would earn you a lot of money, but would involve doing something which might actually be harmful to society as a whole. An obvious example would be a job that involves marketing very sugary drinks to kids — thus potentially causing all sorts of health problems.
Option 2: You could take up a career which pays very badly, but which would at least be making a very positive contribution to society — such as promoting a good cause of some kind.
You might think that people who choose the second option would be praised for their ethical behaviour — for choosing to do good, even at the cost of accepting a drastically lower income. But it doesn’t always work out like that. Indeed, there is something of a stigma attached to earning your living in a good cause.
The example I wish to put forward here is a personal one: I’m a skilled economist and I do a lot of work on behalf of what I consider to be a very good cause indeed: Basic Income. I write books and articles and create videos. I explain the many potential benefits of a Basic Income system. I debunk some of the myths about Basic Income. And I answer people’s questions.
It’s true that there are some people who don’t agree that this is a good cause at all. Their objections to the idea are often based on myth and misunderstanding, but until these misunderstandings are cleared up, it’s understandable that they don’t wish to support my efforts. They’re entitled to their viewpoints — and they’re not the people who really annoy me.
No, the people who really annoy me are the ones who agree that it is indeed a very good cause, but who take the attitude that, because it is a good cause, I should therefore contribute my time and efforts entirely for free. They may even refuse to support my efforts, in any way, unless I do so.
What’s particularly annoying about this attitude is that it arises out of sheer thoughtlessness. It’s as if these people imagine that because I work for a good cause, I therefore don’t need to eat and have no need for any form of shelter to protect me from the elements.
I would love to be able to make all my books and articles available for free — in support of this very good cause. Fairly obviously, however, my support of this good cause has not provided me with magical powers that mean I can get away without eating. I have to earn money for food. I have to eat, because if I don’t eat, I won’t be of much use to the good causes that I wish to support.
I suppose I could try waltzing past the tills at my local supermarket, with all my shopping, singing, “Basic Income, Basic Income!” instead of handing over my bank card, but I somehow don’t think the security staff would be OK with that.
I’ve asked my electricity supplier if they provide a 100% discount for people who work for good causes. They said the bill still has to be paid in full or else they’ll cut off my supply and take me to court.
And, unfortunately, the government does not say to me, “Hi Bob! You’re doing good work there, promoting an idea that could save us billions of pounds in administrative expenses every year. So don’t you worry about earning money. We’ll take care of your living expenses for you. It’s the least we can do!”
In view of this rather inflexible reality, therefore, whilst I do make a lot of my work available for free, I do charge a small amount for my books. And some of my articles are behind a paywall.
This seems very reasonable to me, but it doesn’t stop some thoughtless people coming up with trite phrases, such as,
If it’s such a good cause, you should be working for free.
It’s as if they believe it is fine to be doing bad things to earn a living, but somehow immoral to be earning a living from doing something good.
When questioned, they’re invariably unable to justify this attitude. Most are too prejudiced to even try. Sometimes they just say something like, ‘I’m not helping you sell your books!’ and refuse to engage in any further discussion. It’s not an attitude that makes any sense at all, when you think about it. But I guess that’s the problem; people take this attitude because they’ve never really stopped to seriously think about it at all.
And out of all the people who say I should make my books and articles free, how many have contributed to my Patreon account, so that I can afford to give stuff away? Surprise, surprise; a grand total of absolutely none of them!
The logic of the situation seems quite straightforward to me. People may frown on me trying to earn a living through supporting a good cause. But what’s the alternative?
If I donated my time for free, I would have to earn a living through some other means. And if that ‘other means’ involved doing something that was harmful — such as selling sugary drinks to kids — I’d effectively be giving with one hand, but taking back with the other. And I’d be spending most of my time doing harm and have relatively little time to support good causes. I might even end up doing more harm than good.
Even if what I did for a living were more ‘neutral’ — not specifically harmful — that would still severely limit the time I could spend on good causes. And this would be a ridiculous waste, because I have special skills of particular relevance to the good cause in question.
Instead, it is by far the best option for me to make my living directly through the work I do in support of good causes. This maximises the net good I can do for society, by making the best use of my specialist skills. The alternatives are wasteful, harmful or both.
So, to those people who object to me trying to make a living out of supporting a good cause, ask yourself this: Would it be better if I did bad things for a living instead?
No.
Would it be better if I did neutral things for a living and was then only able to spend a few hours a week working for a good cause?
No.
Any other options to suggest?
No.
So, what’s the problem? What’s wrong with me earning money in the way I do, when all the other options are inferior? Why should I be ‘doing it for free,’ if that would clearly be a worse option than what I actually do?
Yes, I sell books and articles, but the funds I receive aren’t going to waste. The books and articles are contributing to good causes. They’re helping to educate people and overcome prejudice. And the funds I receive are what enable me to pay for the essentials I required when I wrote the books and articles in the first place — thus enabling me to continue devoting my time in support of good causes.
As I say; there is a stigma to working for good causes. But there shouldn’t be.
So if you’re ever tempted to say to someone, ‘If it’s such a good cause, you should be doing it for free’ — please don’t. It’s not nice. It just demonstrates how thoughtless you’ve been. It’s giving vent to commonly-held prejudices and encouraging other people to adopt or uphold them too. And it’s inconsiderate, ungenerous and unfair to the person who may have sacrificed far more than they’re asking you to sacrifice.
It’s not at all pleasant to be treated as if you are somehow leeching off a good cause, for personal gain, especially when the reality is that you’ve given up a great deal — financially and otherwise — precisely in order to support that good cause in the best way you can.
We have a wise saying where I come from:
Please engage brain before opening gob!
You see; Basic Income isn’t the only good cause I support. I also work in the field of philosophy; encouraging people not to be thoughtless.