To: Canadians concerned about prosperity From: Don Wright Date: September 4, 2024 Re: Some Basic Living Standard Arithmetic for Governments
Governments often talk about “creating jobs,” but what they really do is choose some jobs at the expense of others. With their myriad spending, taxing and regulatory decisions, all governments try to direct job growth to different sectors – public or private, services or goods, resources or non-resources, and so on.
We all hope governments choose wisely.
It would help if they started paying more explicit attention to one factor: The impact of their decisions on Canadians’ standard of living.
A country’s standard of living is largely determined by the wages and net government revenue its tradeable goods and services sector can pay while remaining competitive against international competitors. If a company or sector is uncompetitive, it will have to either lower its wages, pay less tax or go out of business. These pressures on companies are never-ending. They determine both the wages a sector can afford to pay, and, through the interconnectedness of labour markets, average wages across the economy.
Some industries are so productive they can pay relatively high wages and significant taxes and yet remain competitive.
Industries that aren’t as productive can only pay lower wages and less tax.
Governments whose policies have the effect of moving labour from one sector to another had better pay attention to such facts.
Canadians may not like it but many of the country’s best-paying and most tax-rich jobs are found in natural resources. I was head of British Columbia’s public service. For most of B.C.’s history the province’s economic base has been dominated by natural resource industries – forestry, mining, oil and gas, agriculture and fishing. For a variety of reasons, these industries face strong political headwinds. Many groups press to constrain them and diversify away from them. The alternatives proposed include technology, film and tourism.
A few years ago, I asked officials in the province’s finance ministry to assess the relative performance of these different industries along the two key dimensions of average wages and net government revenue. In 2019-20 B.C. spent approximately $11,700 per citizen. Half the population was employed that year. So, to “break even” (i.e., have a balanced budget), the province had to collect $23,400 per employed person. If you look at things this way, each industry’s “profit” or “loss” is simply its revenue per employee less $23,400.
No such calculation will be exact, of course.
Several assumptions have to be made to get to an average “profit” or “loss” per employee. But, with that caveat, the numbers the officials brought back were telling. The industry with the biggest return to the province was oil and gas, at $35,500 per employee. Forestry was next, at $32,900. Then mining, at $14,900, and technology, though only at $900.
By this measure of profit and loss, however, film was a money loser, at -$13,400, and so was tourism, at -$6,900.
The negative numbers for the film industry reflect the very significant subsidies that B.C. (like many other provinces) provides to this sector. The negative number for the tourism sector primarily reflects low average wages per employee, which translate into relatively low personal income tax, sales tax and other taxes paid by employees.
These “profit or loss” numbers are not in any way a judgment about workers in these sectors. People find the best employment available to them in the labour market. Relative demands in that market are determined by many factors, none of which workers control. That said, if governments consciously move resources from the “profit” industries to the “loss” industries, they had better be aware of the consequences for wages, taxes and the overall standard of living.
The numbers I’ve cited were for a single year in British Columbia. The same analysis for other provinces or for Canada as a whole would likely produce different numbers – though I’d be surprised if the overall pattern were much different. Voters will draw their own conclusions about the impact on British Columbians’ standard of living from constraining the resource industries and promoting other industries instead.
Unfortunately, this type of analysis is rarely done when Canadian governments make decisions about what types of jobs they want to give preference to through their taxation, spending and regulatory decisions. They should do more of it. Ultimately, if [they] care about Canadians’ standard of living, governments need to start paying attention to the basic arithmetic of that standard of living.
Don Wright, senior fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute and senior counsel at Global Public Affairs, previously served as deputy minister to B.C.’s premier, cabinet secretary and head of the public service.
Revealing reports are exposing the extent to which Gen Z is grappling with a far tougher job market than ever before, spurring overwhelming financial angst and uncertainty. Below Gen Z authority, attorney and legislative policy pundit Cheyenne Hunt, J.D. — a TikTok influencer with 93.3K followers and 3.7M likes on the platform — provides front-line perspective on the trending topic. “The challenges we Gen Z’ers face in today’s job market are unique and complex as we navigate unprecedented economic shifts and evolving workplace dynamics,” she said. “A better understanding of the systemic hurdles and barriers hindering Gen Z’s professional growth is needed to spark dialogue and help employers, policymakers and career advisors develop strategies to support this highly consequential generation of talent.”
6 Issues Stifling Gen Z Career Advancement
Gen Z, of which I am a part, has been dealt a rough hand with regard to this generation’s entrance into the workforce at large. We’ve collectively experienced so many “unprecedented” events throughout our formative years that have caused many to lose their meaning and purpose in their professional and personal life. For executives seeking to understand, and aptly integrate, Gen Z into staff teams, it’s essential to recognize and address the unique challenges and needs of this consequential generation greatly influencing the workforce. While there are a litany of issues undermining Gen Z career prospects, there are a few key set of obstacles that must be overcome to bolster this generation’s advancement opportunities:
1. Economic Inequality Gen Z enters the job market with significant financial burdens, including high costs of living, especially in urban centers. To attract and retain these young talents, consider implementing comprehensive benefits packages that alleviate these pressures. This could include competitive salaries, housing stipends, or student loan repayment programs. By addressing economic barriers directly, your company can become a more attractive and viable option for Gen Z candidates who are often forced to make career decisions based heavily on financial factors.
2. Job Market Instability Gen Z values stability as much as flexibility. In response to the economic volatility they’ve witnessed, it’s important to emphasize job security and long-term career prospects within your company. Develop clear career pathways and foster a culture that rewards dedication and innovation. Regularly communicate these pathways and growth opportunities to ensure young employees see a future within your organization.
3. Lack of Internal Opportunities for Upward Mobility As outside hires for managerial rolls continue to increase in popularity, Gen Z struggles to find a purpose in work that does not present opportunities to be recognized by a promotion in status or salary in conjunction with increased skill and responsibility. In fact, many studies have found that young workers are more likely to achieve career advancement by jumping ship to a new employer every three years or less.
4. Technological Disruption Rapid technological advancements lead to job displacement and the need for continuous upskilling, which can be particularly challenging for Gen Z entering the workforce. Automation threatens traditional entry-level roles, requiring Gen Z to adapt and acquire new skills to remain competitive in a job market they may not have even found a place in yet. Consider, leveraging Gen Z’s tech-savviness by involving them in digital transformation initiatives within your company. Offer roles that challenge them and allow them to work with cutting-edge technologies.
5. Lack of Mentorship and Networking Opportunities Gen Z may lack access to mentors and professional networks that can provide guidance and opportunities for career advancement. Remote work creates fewer opportunities to make advantageous connections intentionally or even in passing. Traditional networking avenues may be inaccessible or less effective for Gen Z, who often rely on digital platforms for networking, which may not offer the same depth of connection.
6. Student Debt Crisis Student debt is a pervasive concern for Gen Z, shaping their career paths and life choices. As an employer, offering programs such as tuition reimbursement or scholarships for further education can set your company apart. Additionally, support flexible work arrangements that allow for continuing education, enabling employees to pursue degrees or certifications that enhance their career growth while gaining valuable work experience.
Addressing these issues requires systemic changes in education, employment policies and societal attitudes to ensure more equitable opportunities for Gen Z career advancement. Given this generation is poised to soon become the largest sector of the workforce, it’s in everyone’s best interest to better set Gen Z up for success as a matter of public policy, economic stewardship and plain old good business practices. For the Silo, Cheyenne Hunt, J.D.
Cheyenne Hunt, J.D. is a progressive advocate and attorney specializing in progressive activism, legislative advocacy, communications and democracy-focused tech policy. She currently serves as a Big Tech Accountability Advocate with Public Citizen. Hunt graduated from the University of California Irvine School of Law, has earned Dual Degrees in Political Science and Public Policy from the University of Denver and serves as a board member for The Women of Global Change.
As a double immigrant who worked his way through high school and university, I am a big believer in the lifelong benefits of working on the front line, early in life. My first job was an eye opener to say the least.
As a double immigrant who worked his way through high school and university, I am a big believer in the lifelong benefits of working on the front line. My first job was in frontline customer service at age 16 for Canada’s largest sports store chain, Collegiate Sports (now Sport Chek), in a flagship mall in Toronto. I started as a salesclerk selling shoes, retail apparel, ski equipment, and stringing tennis racquets.
As a student athlete, I was fortunate to work in a large sports department store situated in a multicultural city and to serve all kinds of people across various ages and income groups.
Our customers ranged from consummate “old stock Canadian” athletes, who were fanatical about every detail when ordering custom equipment, to wide-eyed gullible immigrants whose children were seeking to learn a new sport like ice hockey or snowboarding. It was a fast paced atmosphere with dense traffic in the evenings and buzzing with energy on the weekends like a casino hotel on the Las Vegas strip.
It was also a very demanding job because it required being on your feet for 8 hours per shift and being constantly “switched on” to anticipate customer needs. Employees engaged in their first front line customer service role developed emotional intelligence through hundreds of daily interactions with customers. Over time, I learned how to read customers’ non-verbal facial expressions and body language, which varied widely by their ethnicities, stage of life, and other factors.
The job required meticulous knowledge of every major sporting activity, current and incoming inventory, and prices for disparate product lines and brands while also including labor intensive tasks such as tagging the products, stocking the shelves, and cleaning the store after hours. Determining the best allocation of shelf space was a key decision. There were no “smart technologies” such as sensors, cameras, big data, and analytics used by retailers today to manage inventories and shelf-space. Hence arranging the optimal product assortment on the floor to generate traffic was an essential part of the job that required teamwork and an entrepreneurial mindset of experimentation through trial and error.
The store manager was a flamboyant French-Canadian named Guy who was a die-hard Montreal Canadiens fan with a profound sense of humor.
Typical of 1980s Toronto, the staff was composed of up-and-comers, including many Asian, European, and Caribbean immigrants. Guy was great at motivating staff, casting people in the right departments, creating internal sales contests, and holding us accountable. He had a keen eye for talent and was adept at identifying and investing in adaptive learners who could conquer a multifaceted department such as ski equipment or hockey skates by efficiently conveying product knowledge to outsell others.
Guy’s greatest skill was building an informal talent marketplace to grow the business in one of the world’s most diverse cities. He understood that a high performing diverse team of employees who felt like the store was their own business would not just generate loyal customers but grow the sports retail business by engaging new communities. Under his leadership, the store became an incredibly diverse meritocracy of over 500 full time and part time employees: Caribbean kids rose from selling track shoes to managing winter sports and Asian women ascended from selling apparel to assistant manager roles overseeing budgets and purchasing. I remember training a Jamaican immigrant, who happened to be the best sprinter in Toronto, how to string tennis racquets at optimal tensions depending on the player’s style, and she taught me about the subtle differences in track and field spikes depending on specific events and surfaces.
Like any store environment, it was not always pleasant. When the store missed its numbers by a wide margin, Guy scolded us for not being sufficiently productive.
He would curse at us with Quebecois nouns, poke fun at our beloved Toronto Maple Leafs, and if revenues were under budget, walk us back to his office which doubled as “banc des pénalités” (“penalty box”). His diminutive office was adjacent to the boisterous warehouse receiving truck shipments, welding, and assembling equipment. Here Guy would shout out the disappointing financial results and present the dormant inventory and the blue-collar workers whose strenuous labor made it possible for us to sell these products on the floor. He reminded us that even the most talented players end up in the penalty box and cost their team when they fail to play together and trust their teammates.
Over the course of four years, this job taught me three things I would use in the rest of my career: First, the benefits of building a high-performing team of diverse colleagues who could teach each other through an apprenticeship model rather than formal training; second, how professional development is accelerated by highly demanding customers who make purchase decisions in a matter of seconds; and third, how the real world has a magical way of revealing where your greatest talents reside, even if it contradicts what your teachers and test scores suggest are your perceived strengths.
In my last year on the job, Guy got promoted to regional VP overseeing 100 stores in Eastern Canada.
Still, he sought me out once every few months. In our last few meetings, he expressed his gratitude that I helped recruit tens of what he called “gens talentueux” or highly talented and diverse employees – mostly high school athletes and musicians – that drew waves of new customers into his stores and grew the business. The last few times we met, Guy tried to persuade me to become a store manager and retail executive like he was. As an Asian immigrant with Ivy League dreams, I was not ready to take the store manager career path.
However, years later after graduate school and a stint in management consulting, I joined the hospitality industry where I was able to harness this cross-cultural competence to achieve breakthrough results. And when I became an operating executive and eventually a hospitality CEO, it made an even bigger difference. Thanks to years on the front line, I was able to swiftly unearth customer needs, connect deeply with front line employees and build collaborative cross-cultural teams. My front line experience was most helpful in relating to employees in emerging markets such as Shanghai where I had no prior work experience, did not speak the language, and had to motivate migrant workers, mostly mothers living apart from their children.
It was my years serving on the frontline in retail, sports, and healthcare that taught me to how to collaborate with colleagues, look customers in the eye and resolve their complaints, form teams to solve thorny problems, and meet the litmus test of becoming a leader by identifying and developing other people’s talents.
Service industries are not just the largest employers: they are engines of human development for communities, cities, countries, and entire civilizations. From the United States to China and Saudi Arabia, business, and government leaders “get it” and are investing billions to rebuild human capital in hospitality centric service industries after the pandemic. These diverse stakeholders recognize the critical role of service industries in rebuilding their countries, diversifying their economies, and facilitating meritocracy for domestic and foreign employees of all ages, races, ethnicities, and genders.
Surprisingly, their efforts are increasingly lost on the workforce. Instead, a talent disruption, powered by innovative technologies such as generative AI, changing attitudes towards work-life balance, and a growing mistrust of capitalism and governments is changing the equation. Millions of Gen Xers and Millennials are choosing the gig economy or hybrid jobs where they can effortlessly circumvent human interaction and avoid the discomfort of face-to-face conflicts. Groundbreaking technologies such as generative AI may accelerate this talent disruption, further distancing employees and contract workers and hence brands from their customers.
Consequently, brands that achieved differentiation through personalized service may suffer from commoditization. What is more troubling are the long-term career development implications for individuals, especially Gen Xers and Millennials who are set to become the next generation of service managers and grew up performing these gig economy jobs.
Driving around town and leaving bags at a front door with pictures, communicating via text confirmations, and receiving tips based on algorithms is not an equivalent experience to being on the frontline in a service operation.
It may provide contractors with flexibility and income, but it comes at the cost of a lack of learning and customer contact that will serve to stunt their professional growth. What is the solution here? Given this historic talent disruption, what is the path forward for business and government leaders in industries such as hospitality, retail, and healthcare that are experiencing long-term labor shortages and growing unionization? Should employers, including entrepreneurs such as franchisees, increase their investments in acquiring, developing, and compensating talents? Or should they invest in AI and other technologies to automate and reduce their investments in building human capital? What other alternatives, if any, exist?
Royalties Are Bullshit: A Musician’s Case For Basic Income….. “This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”
-Woody Guthrie, copyright notice, This Land Is Your Land
Royalties are bullshit.
I say this as a musician, and as a songwriter. But let me go a step further: royalties have always been bullshit. The first problem? They’re not going to musicians, and they never have.
If money is being made, something is being sold. That something has to be a product, something that can be counted. Originally it would have been sheet music, before recorded music was widely available. Later on, it meant records, then tapes, CDs, downloads, streams, as well as licensing rights – use in a specific film, or for a particular commercial. There is a product. Someone is buying it. Some of that money goes towards the cost of producing, distributing, and marketing that product; some of it goes to the artist, as royalties.
Well, a little bit of it goes to the artist.
As Billboard notes, “An accurate map of royalty pathways would be a tangled mess.” It’s not easy to get paid.
Some royalties are set by the government, some are negotiated, some are paid through groups. For example, I license my music through TuneCore, which strikes deals with a series of digital music outlets, like iTunes and Spotify, each of which offers different terms of payment. Spotify pays artists, on average, $0.007 cents per stream.
Example of royalties earned for artist Jarrod Barker. Russian streamer Yandex awarded 8/100th of a penny for track streaming. Mr. Barker would need 99,992 additional streams to earn a dollar!
Beyond that, if you are “fortunate” enough to work with a major record label, there are restrictive terms and conditions. Techdirt quotes Tim Quirk of Too Much Joy explaining the Kafkaesque math [emphasis mine]:
A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn’t mean Warner “lost” nearly $400,000 on the band. That’s how much they spent on us, and we don’t see any royalty checks until it’s paid back, but it doesn’t get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band’s share of every album sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let’s say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.
Of course, none of this is new, really. The history of artistsgettingscrewed by record labels is as long as the history of record labels, and includes everything from the creative math above to outright theft, failure to count sales, or inventive stunts like Fantasy Records accusing John Fogerty of plagiarizing himself. But bear with me, because it gets worse.
In the music industry today, there are a few people who are making money from royalties- and they’re making nearly all of it. More specifically, the top one percent of earners are taking in 77% of the recorded music revenue. Strikingly, these are many of the same artists who are now “at war” with YouTube. Artists such as Taylor Swift and Paul McCartney are convinced that YouTube is making money from their music by selling ads and subscriptions, and not paying adequate royalties. And they’re not wrong; YouTube is definitely making money by selling ads and subscriptions, and there’s no question that most of that is not going to the artists.
However, this is a stupid argument.
It’s a stupid argument because a tiny group of people that’s making the lion’s share of all recorded musical income is concerned that a new service doesn’t adequately compensate them; the major record labels feel the same way, of course. It’s a “war” that leaves out 99% of the musicians out there trying to make music and make a living, and it doesn’t really matter how they settle the conflict.
So let’s say, hypothetically, that we eliminate royalties. This raises a fundamental question.
How do we compensate and credit artists for their work?
I believe the answer is basic income, but first let’s take a closer look at that question. At a glance, it seems like it should be simple: pay them for their music. But what does that mean? It quickly gets complicated.
Part of the problem is that we as a culture equate value with ownership. If musicians have created a song, this thinking goes, and that song has value, they must own it, like any other form of property. But that’s ridiculous, and it’s pretty easy to see how quickly it becomes truly absurd.
For example, take a classic blues song, like Big Mama Thornton’s “Hound Dog.” Is that her tune? Yes! Does she deserve credit for it? Absolutely. Big Mama Thornton has a special place in blues history, and rightly so. But is it the first example of a 12-bar blues? No, of course not. Is it the first time someone used lyrics about a dog? Is it the first time someone used the call-and-response verse structure of a repeated first line and different last line? No, and no. And even though she made it a hit, the lyrics were by Leiber and Stoller. So which part of the song does she “own”? Is it just that specific recording? If so, how much does the bass player own, or the drummer? Do you pay royalties for playing it on the radio? What if it’s on the radio, and you tape it? What if you give that tape to a friend? I know, I know, nobody tapes anything off the radio anymore. What if you cover it in a bar? What if you sing it in your living room? What if you sing it in your living room and upload it to YouTube? What if you share the MP3? Where do we draw the lines?
Woody Guthrie, speaking from the folk music tradition, said “New words, new song.” Bob Dylan took that lesson to heart, both in early works like “Masters of War,” which took a melody from an English folk song called “Nottamun Town,” and in more recent releases. On Modern Times he lifted lines from a Civil War era Confederate poet named Henry Timrod, and used the arrangement of Muddy Waters’ “Rollin’ and Tumblin'” with re-written lyrics and the same title.
I don’t mean to discount Big Mama Thornton, or disparage Bob Dylan. I’m a big fan of both. What I want to illustrate is that “property” and “ownership” is a meaningless way to look at music, because it’s a living, inherited tradition. Everybody got something from somebody. Every electric guitar player owes something to T-Bone Walker, and T-Bone owes something to Blind Lemon Jefferson. Every folk singer owes something to Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger. And more to the point, if you ask any great musician, they will tell you who they got it from. Eric Clapton tells people about Buddy Guy, but if you put a microphone in front of Buddy he’s going to tell you about Muddy Waters, BB King, Guitar Slim. The greats are always ready to turn around and credit the people who came before them, because that’s how a living musical tradition works.
So again: how do we compensate and credit artists for their work?
Splitting the question
One answer is to split up the question. When you think about it, it’s really two different questions. Let’s look at the second part first: how do we acknowledge and appreciate and credit the work that artists do? This is especially important because many important contributions to music, art, and human history generally, were made by people who get erased from popular culture- in particular women, LGBTQ folks, and people of color (Ma Rainey, for example, was all three). They are erased, in part, because there is money to be made by erasing them.
The uninformed still think “Hound Dog” and “That’s All Right” are Elvis Presley tunes. And while Presley himself was quick to credit his influences, most people have never heard of Arthur Crudup, and everyone’s heard of Elvis. Sometimes people were erased several times over; early blues music was driven by women like Bessie Smith, Ma Rainey, and Sister Rosetta Tharpe, who were largely displaced by black men, who then had their music co-opted by white guys playing rock’n’roll versions of the same songs. Some made serious efforts to show people where the music had its roots – The Rolling Stones, appearing on the show Shindig in 1965, insisted that Howlin’ Wolf also get to perform. On the other hand, Led Zeppelin took Willie Dixon’s song “You Need Love,” and recorded it as “Whole Lotta Love,” without ever mentioning where they got it. It’s ironic, since Dixon himself was notorious for taking credit and royalties for other people’s work, often by offering to “take care of the paperwork” on a new tune.
So how do we make sure we credit and acknowledge artists? One way, I believe, is to end a system of compensation based on owning something that cannot be owned. In a system like we have now, where the focus is on ownership of a particular sound, or song, or style, there is a real financial incentive to take credit. In the case of the record labels, you can even get the actual rights to an artist’s songs. If we disconnect the money from the “ownership” of the music, we are removing part of the incentive to pretend that new music doesn’t freely flow from old music.
Universal Basic Income
To be clear, I’m not suggesting artists should not be paid. There are different ways to support artists, and the internet has allowed for a lot of direct interaction between artists and fans. There are crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and Patreon, there are independent music platforms like BandCamp and CDBaby. They’ve got their advantages and disadvantages, but what I’m advocating is something simpler, more widespread and direct: universal basic income.
Universal basic income, sometimes called emancipatory basic income or simply “basic income,” is an easy idea to understand: you give everybody money. Everybody. Rich people, poor people, working people, the unemployed, the young, the old, everybody. Everybody gets a salary. It’s not a lucrative salary, but enough to make sure you can provide for yourself.
First, let me clear something up: this is not a wild, crazy, utopian idea. It’s a serious proposal, that is increasinglybeingtreated as such. Even Forbes ran a piece called “Universal Basic Income Is Not Crazy.” Of course, it works better if you already have some of the social framework much of the world takes for granted: child care, family leave, health care. But let’s leave those aside for a moment to look at basic income from the musician’s perspective. What is the impact for working musicians?
Quit Your Day Job
Many, if not most, working musicians [and artists CP] support themselves with a day job. This includes long-time performers with steady gigs, people who have gone on world tours and recorded on dozens of albums. Buddy Guy drove a tow truck into his thirties. Composer Philip Glass worked as a plumber and taxi driver until he was 41. Wes Montgomery worked in a factory from 7am to 3pm and played gigs until 2am.
Let me tell you: it’s not easy. As a musician, you already have to balance many competing demands: playing gigs, traveling, booking and promoting shows, recording new material, rehearsing a band. Being a professional musician is, effectively, more than one job already. Now try to schedule all that around a conventional job structure that wants you working at 8 or 9 in the morning, 5 days a week, regardless of where you played last night or when you got home. It’s hard to fit all of it in, and that’s without stopping to consider that it might be nice to sleep occasionally or even see your family now and then.
One reason basic income is sometimes called “emancipatory” is because it frees you from this burden. You’re still going to be out there hustling for gigs, scheduling sessions, trying to record and promote and – let’s be real – get paid. Basic income doesn’t eliminate the desire or possibility for people to make money by working, it just means you don’t have to worry about starving or getting evicted while you do it. And let’s remember, most of the money musicians make doesn’t come from royalties anyway. People are getting paid for gigs, for shows, for studio sessions, for tours, sometimes for merchandise or direct sales (in particular if you’re producing your stuff independently).
Make The Music You Want To Make
Musicians make compromises all the time. Sometimes it’s about timing: you want to put something out, and you can’t afford to wait, so you settle- you keep a take that could have been better, you scratch a song that needs a few more sessions to come together. Sometimes it’s about the sound: a record label wants to market you a particular way, a track needs to be “radio friendly” to get airplay. Sometimes it’s just about resources: recording and producing music, even with all the advances in digital technology, is a laborious, expensive process. For some players, there’s also the trade-off between taking gigs that might pay better but be musically unfulfilling (think wedding band or corporate events) versus pursuing a musical vision that might not have a ready-made market. And, of course, there’s that most precious of all resources, time, which is often given over in huge amounts to the aforementioned day job.
Basic income removes the immediacy of financial pressures, and frees up a lot of time. Does that mean we won’t have choices to make? No, of course not. There are always choices, and there are always constraints, and even if we get basic income that won’t turn time itself into a limitless resource. But it changes the balance of the decision.
Creative Liberation: Supported By Research
Right now, across the country, there are brilliant artists whose music could change and enrich our culture in ways we can’t imagine, and we don’t get to hear them. They’re stuck working day jobs, playing the gigs that pay the bills, and trying to fit their creativity into commercial constraints. Pause for a moment, and imagine the explosion of new sounds and ideas we can liberate with basic income.
As a musician, that paragraph felt intuitively true to me. However, a number of people who were kind enough to review an early draft of this essay suggested that my point might be better served if I backed it up with “evidence” and “examples.” Of course, there’s not exactly a one-to-one comparison available, so I’m going to draw on some similar programs and related ideas.
First: the MacArthur “Genius” grants. These fellowships are awarded to people who are already recognized to be exceptional; they provide a no-strings-attached stipend of USD$625,000 over five years. Obviously that’s a lot more than “basic” income, but they underpin the idea that simply providing creative people with resources allows them greater freedom to explore, discover, and create. In a review of their program and its effectiveness, The MacArthur Foundation found that 93% of the fellows reported greater financial stability (no surprise) and 88% reported an increased opportunity to express creativity. Three quarters felt it lead them to make riskier, more ambitious choices in their work.
Some might argue that the fellowships exhibit a selection bias, since they go to people already known to be creative. However, there’s good reason to believe that supporting the poorest and most marginalized offers even greater benefits. Dissent magazine recounts the history of the Federal Writers Project, which offered “unemployed” writers guaranteed income by giving a fixed salary to produce travelogues or other commissioned writings:
…with regular paychecks, FWP writers could experiment with more creative projects at the same time. Over the course of eight years, the program employed over 6,600 writers, including Nelson Algren, Jack Conroy, Zora Neale Hurston, Richard Wright, and Ralph Ellison. The FWP enabled new classes of Americans to become “professional” writers.
While employed by the FWP, these writers—most notably writers of color—wrote fiction that challenged the political status quo, and they revolutionized literary form in order to do so. To be sure, many of these writers developed their politics in pre-FWP years, but stable employment facilitated their political and artistic ambitions—by providing them with steady income, connecting them to other writers, and offering literary inspiration. From 1936–37, between posts at the Federal Theatre Project and the FWP, Hurston wrote her beautiful and troubling novel Their Eyes Were Watching God, a book celebrated today for its inventive use of black vernacular. Wright spearheaded the “Chicago Renaissance,” a creative community strengthened and supported by FWP projects in the state of Illinois. Meanwhile, in New York City, Ellison was conducting FWP oral histories when, as he reported it, he stumbled across a man who described himself as “invisible.” This encounter would be the genesis for his Invisible Man, surely one of the strangest and most significant novels of the twentieth century.
I recognize that the subjective self-evaluation of MacArthur fellows and even the impressive work of FWP authors can be considered, to some extent, anecdotal evidence. But there is also controlled research, and what it shows is the flip side of the coin: that poverty impedes cognitive function. Lead by Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan, the team found that “experimentally induced thoughts about finances reduced cognitive performance among poor but not in well-off participants.” They also found that farmers showed diminished cognitive ability before harvest, when they were poor, compared to after harvest when they were relatively rich. That’s after controlling for free time, nutrition, work effort, and stress.
If you’ve ever been broke and had bills to pay, this is not news. It’s hard to focus when you have a huge bill hanging over your head and no immediate prospect for paying it off. When you’re in a position of financial hardship, a portion of your brain is effectively set aside to repeating over and over again, “AAAH THE RENT AAAH THE RENT AAAH THE RENT.” Or the hospital bill, or the car payment, etc. You know the classic sci-fi trope that imagines what you could do if you could harness the full power of your brain? Turns out it doesn’t require genetic engineering – you just need to be able to pay your bills.
I would argue that we are effectively paying a cultural opportunity cost in the form of lost creativity. Coming back to music, anthropologist David Graeber puts it this way:
“Back in the 20th century, every decade or so, England would create an incredible musical movement that would take over the world. Why is it not happening anymore? Well, all these bands were living on welfare! Take a bunch of working class kids, give them enough money for them to hang around and play together, and you get the Beatles. Where is the next John Lennon? Probably packing boxes in a supermarket somewhere.”
The Robot Imperative – It’s Not Just About Musicians
I realize we’re covering a lot of ground here, and we’re about to talk about robots. So first, a quick recap
Royalties don’t go to (most) musicians.
Royalties don’t make sense because they rely on ownership of something that cannot be meaningfully owned.
This system of ownership creates financial incentives to take credit for other people’s work.
Eliminating royalties forces us to confront the fundamental question of how we credit and compensate artists for their work.
Basic income answers part of that question – compensation – while eliminating royalties removes, at least in part, the financial incentive to take credit.
Basic income liberates musicians from the constraints of a day job and the pressures of commercial music.
Evidence supports the idea that this liberation leads to more, and more adventurous, creative work.
In short, basic income separates the idea that people have value from the idea that they must own something valuable.
All of that has been true for quite some time, and in fact arguments for basic income are as old as Thomas Paine. But there is a huge, disruptive change happening that makes this a much more urgent question, not just for musicians but for everyone. Namely, robots. Robots and computer automation are about to eliminate huge numbers of jobs (think tens of millions). Some are in the news right now: Uber is testing self-driving cars in Pittsburgh. Driverless trucking is not far behind, taking 3.5 million jobs with it. And it’s not just truckers: designers, fast food workers, accountants, financial analysts, doctors, hotel concierges. Thousands of news stories are being written by robots. An Oxford University study estimates that 47% of total employment may be at risk. Even jazz musicians have to be worried.
In short, the day job could be going away, and not just for musicians. The question is, what will we do with these millions of people, once they’re out of work? Will we insist that truckers can all get jobs doing social media? Will a few wealthy people retreat behind high walls and leave the rest of us to fight for the scraps of employment through a fog of financial worry and expensive, short term trade-offs?
Or will we embrace basic income, recognize that people have innate value, and unleash a wild torrent of creative exploration the likes of which we’ve never heard before? For the Silo, Anthony Moser.www.anthonymoser.com
@mosermusic
PS – My music is available on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, Bandcamp, and a host of other digital music services. If you catch me at a gig, you can buy an album for name-your-price. And if anyone ever uploads it to The Pirate Bay, torrent with my blessing. As Woody Guthrie would say, “Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”
LOS ANGELES—Automation is no longer an option, automation is the key to surviving the Great Reset.
In 2021, more than 47 million American workers resigned, an annual record. In Canada numbers are harder to determine since accurate resignation numbers are not readily available. However, Statistics Canada has published the results of a survey pitched towards Canadian workers.
With no sense of the number of people surveyed and the accuracy of the data gathering the results should perhaps be best taken at face value: “In January, respondents were asked whether they were planning to leave their current job, and whether quality of employment considerations were among the reasons for doing so. Fewer than 1 in 10 Canadian workers aged 15 to 69 (7.3%) were planning to leave their current job within the next 12 months, compared with 16.1% in 2016, when respondents to the General Social Survey were asked the same question (not seasonally adjusted). When January 2022 LFS respondents were asked to report their main reason for planning to leave their job, preliminary results show that at least 1 in 5 of those planning to leave (22.2%) reported reasons related to quality of employment, including low pay (15.7%), heavy workload (4.3%) and inability to do their current job from home (2.2%). The trend is continuing. Surveys and data show that 6 in 10 young professionals have changed jobs or plan to and that 4.5 million workers quit their jobs in March.”
Businesses face continuously evolving markets and societal pressures that are transforming the way employees and employers put in exchange with each other to provide value to consumers and clients.
Staffing agencies especially have been under pressure during the pandemic and navigating the Great Reset.
Bilflo automates back-office tasks and helps staffing manage hundreds of contractors and direct hires on a single, simple platform. This allows organizations to conserve time and labor while expanding business operations and profits. The ability to pull in live performance metrics makes it easy for businesses and teams to track their progress on goals.
“The pandemic was a catalyst for development and expansion, springing from a strong foundation. We spent the past decade developing Bilflo to provide value to clients, especially during a turbulent time,” said Bilflo CEO Barrett Kuethen. “Bilflo was built by staffing industry experts to specifically serve the industry and address the unique operational pains to bridge process gaps.”
As of 2022, Bilflo has an extensive integration roadmap that has started with ATS platforms: Bullhorn and Jobadder along with accounting systems like Quickbooks. The company is expanding with key offerings such as Importing External Time, which will support staffing companies by eliminating redundancy and manual errors from VMS tools and other client time portals. Bilfo’s developers and leadership update the platform responsively to customers to provide optimized results.
Bilflo is outcome-driven and their case studies with leading companies bring to life their platform and services. Amtec, a 60-year-old staffing company which employs over 1,000 contractors every year, provides talent to industries like health care, IT, aerospace and more. After adopting Bilflo the company reduced back-office labor by 75 percent, doubled capacity and achieved 49 percent annual cost savings. Extension, a 20-year-old full recruitment and staffing company handles up to hundreds of employees per week, and similarly achieved success through Bilflo, saving more than $20,000 usd a year and eliminating 16 hours a week in manual workload.
Bilflo founders held a webinar, in association with Staffing Industry Analysts (SIA), to discuss why and how to automate staffing companies’ back-office processes. Bilflo has already seen success after emerging in the market early this year and has received 3rd party validation from industry leaders like G2.com. Bilflo received recognition as a high performer for 2022 including generally, and for small business, mid-market, “easiest to use,” “easiest to do business with” and for “best support.” G2 features Bilflo reviews and case studies here on back office management, and tech stacks.
Bilflo’s APIs (application program interface) communicate with organizations’ ATS to retrieve information. This eliminates the need for someone to spend hours manually entering data.
Bilflo makes it so that companies can store contract job information such as rates, burdens, timecard types, overtime rules, job site addresses, workers’ comp codes and rates, and more.
In the era of remote work and asynchronous collaboration, companies need systems in place to handle timecard and expense management.
Compliance is more difficult to manage than ever. Bilflo solves these problems by calculating overtime in all states and provinces. Payroll integration and automated invoicing rapidly handle complex payment terms, billing addresses, line item information, and real-time reports.
Debt is much more common than you think. Almost everyone has encountered it at least once in his or her life, and it’s nothing to be ashamed of. What is most important is being able to recognize it and address that you need help.
One way to get help is by consulting a not-for-profit credit counselling agency that offers holistic support in all aspects of debt maintenance. The right agency will offer advice on everything from how to spot and avoid credit repair scams to delivering judgment-free credit rebuilding advice through wise credit and money management.
To avoid future situations of financial uncertainty start saving for an emergency fund once you’ve been able to knock off some of your debt. Having a safety net will make you feel more stable in years to come, and as the title suggests, it’s always an excellent idea to have funds available if any sort of emergency takes place.
It takes time and dedication, but you’ll thank yourself later on when you can pay debts off in half the amount of time as it would normally take.
How Much Should You Save?
Of course, everyone’s situation is different. Depending on if you have a family or you live on your own, if there is a beloved pet that may require medical care — there are many factors that can affect how you should consider initiating your emergency fund.
It’s a common belief that a typical person should be able to access six-months of salary at any time. This is incredibly unrealistic for most people, but it can be a long-term goal.
Look at what you earn per month, and think of an amount that makes sense to set aside in a savings account each paycheque.
How to Build the Emergency Fund
Speak with your Credit Counsellor first to gain some insight on what your emergency fund could look like, and consider these ideas.
The first step is to save one month of living expenses. Sit down and plan out how much your food, entertainment, bills, rent, and so on cost. Work out how long it would take to save that amount, and set aside a chunk of money each month. Even if takes a few months, the point is that you’re working toward a goal.
If time and health allow, get supplemental income. Are you free on weekends to work a few shifts at your friend’s store? Perhaps you could take on an additional freelance writing or design gig to chip away at in the evenings. It’s hard work, but if you’re able to take on something a little extra, it will pay off.
Save your tax refund. It might not be possible to save the entire amount, but if you’re able to, do it! After you’ve filed your taxes and if you qualify for a refund, saving it can be a simple way to boost your savings.
Think about the benefits of opening an emergency fund. You’ll feel so much more secure and calm knowing that there are funds available in case something unpredictable happens.
You will get back on track and you can plan for the future.
Gen Z, of which I am a part, has been dealt a rough hand with regard to this generation’s entrance into the workforce at large. We’ve collectively experienced so many “unprecedented” events throughout our formative years that have caused many to lose their meaning and purpose in their professional and personal life. For executives seeking to understand, and aptly integrate, Gen Z into staff teams, it’s essential to recognize and address the unique challenges and needs of this consequential generation greatly influencing the workforce. While there are a litany of issues undermining Gen Z career prospects, there are a few key set of obstacles that must be overcome to bolster this generation’s advancement opportunities:
