上周在蘇黎世舉辦的“工作的未來”大會上，討論的話題紛紛轉向了一個有趣的問題：如果有一天許多人選擇不工作該怎么辦？

或者，至少他們的工作方式，可能不同于我們今天對“工作”的定義。

前美國勞工部長羅伯特?雷克對300位觀眾表示：“這個世界上，多數人都在從事自己不愿意做卻不得不做的工作。富裕國家能否努力給國民更多選擇，讓他們可以少做自己不愿意做的工作，去追求自己的夢想？我認為，答案很顯然是肯定的。”

理查德繼續道，或許人們“想要創作音樂，有的人想要搞發明，有人想要做一些能夠給自己其帶來啟發的事業”，比如參加志愿者活動。但人們做不到，因為他們要靠老板的工資維持生計。

正如蘇黎世大會上許多令人印象深刻的聲音（比如左翼的羅斯福研究所和右翼的卡托研究所）所闡述的那樣，要想給人們提供更多選擇，最有效的方式是建立一種我之前曾經講過的機制：全面的基本收入。在這種方案下，政府將無條件給每個人發放一筆現金，用于支付基本生活需求。

至于你是否接受這種理念，或許取決于你對人類天性的根本認識。獲得基本收入后，是否多數人就會游手好閑，無所事事？還是說，絕大多數人會保持高效率，去追求一種目標感和成就感，比如去做一些不屬于今天的“工作”范疇的事情？

我相信肯定是后者——所以我才會認為，基本收入這種理念遲早會登堂入室，成為主流。

下個月，瑞士將舉行公投，決定是否應該按月為國民提供足以過上“體面生活”的基本收入——目前尚不確定具體金額（瑞士議會將在晚些時候公布）。與此同時，荷蘭、芬蘭和加拿大部分地區，也開始嘗試類似的方案。

在美國，創業孵化器Y Combinator發起了一項為期5年的研究項目，試圖弄清楚，基本收入計劃在美國能否行得通。美國是一個重視個人自由的國家，但它又在20年前進行了福利體系改革，試圖迫使國民從事正式工作。

有兩個因素正在推動基本收入運動的發展。首先是人們對于快速發展的科技搶走的工作崗位將超過其創造的就業的擔憂。但為什么不反過來看待這個問題，尤其是在機器人可以處理所有枯燥工作的情況下，為何不讓人們去發揮自己的創造力呢？其次，我有一種強烈的感覺，即發達國家已經步入了物質極其豐富的時代；只是分配方式不當而已。

但目前仍有大量棘手的難題。比如，基本收入的資金從何而來——是征收廣泛的消費稅或者金融交易稅，還是通過其他來源獲取資金？基本收入中“基本”的標準是什么——是讓沒有其他收入來源的接收者維持在貧困線左右，還是相當于一筆更慷慨的“生活工資”？其他多數社會保障計劃是否保持不變，還是由基本收入取而代之？

除了融資和框架問題外，還有一個問題同樣難以解決：我們能否重新設想，做一個對社會有貢獻的人到底意味著什么？

前服務行業雇員國際工會（Service Employees International Union，SEIU）主席安迪?斯特恩問道：“生活是為了什么？可能是為社區做事，或者陪伴家人，或者實現個人生活富足。但仔細想想，這些“工作”并不屬于‘職業’的范疇。

斯特恩告訴我，要想抓住這個巨大的“未被開發的機會”，關鍵在于“將收入與工作區分開來。因為這兩者是截然不同的。”

在蘇黎世大會上基本收入的眾多支持者當中，至少從表面上看，斯特恩無疑最令人感到意外。因為作為一家勞工組織的領導人，他付出了很長的職業生涯，拉近工作與收入的關系，努力確保SEIU的普通成員，如清潔工、家庭護工和保安等，能夠從雇主那里得到越來越高的報酬。

不過，在《奧巴馬醫保法案》（Obamacare）被簽署，并成為法律的那一刻，斯特恩突然明白了一個道理。他最近寫了一本宣傳基本收入的書《提高下限》（Raising the Floor）。他表示：“我考慮過自己在談判桌上花了多少時間；然后突然之間，便有2,000萬人得到了醫保。”

這項立法讓許多人不用再擔心生病了該怎么辦，同樣，斯特恩認為，基本收入也可以讓人們不必再擔心下個月的工資從哪里來。沒有了這些擔憂，人們可以自由地追求各種夢想，比如創業，或者追求藝術。（當然許多人會繼續為正常的雇主工作，來獲得更多的收入，但至少他們將擁有更高的靈活性。）

斯特恩說道：“我很好奇這種安全感能夠帶來什么。誰會成為哲學家，誰將是夢想家？”

有許多人批評基本收入計劃，認為這只是烏托邦式的幻想。也有人認為，提供基本收入，會讓懶惰和不負責任的人受益。但正如支持基本收入的前希臘財政部長雅尼?瓦魯費克斯所說的那樣，事實上，反對者們需要承認的是，有些錢肯定會落到“流浪漢”的手中，這是不可避免的。

因為各種各樣的擔憂，瑞士的全民公投預計很難通過。但不可否認，這將是一個重要的里程碑，因為越來越多人會開始重新思考到底是什么構成了“工作”——又應該由誰來埋單？

本文作者里克?沃茲曼是克萊蒙研究大學（Claremont Graduate University）德魯克研究會（Drucker Institute）的高級顧問。他是五本書的作者或編者，目前正在寫一本記述二戰結束以來美國勞資雙方社會契約的變化歷史的書。（財富中文網）

譯者：劉進龍/汪皓

At a Future of Work conference in Zurich last week, much of the discussion turned, intriguingly, to a day when lots of people might choose not to work at all.

Or at least they might not do so in the way that many of us currently define “work.”

“Most people in this world are doing work that they really would rather not do, but they have to do,” Robert Reich, the former U.S. Labor Secretary, told an audience of about 300 or so. “Can’t a rich country aspire to give more of its citizens the possibility of doing less of what they don’t want to do and more of what they do want to do? Obviously, the answer should be, in my view, yes.”

Perhaps, Reich continued, people “want to write music, or maybe they want to invent, or maybe they want to do something that is very deeply inspiring to them,” like volunteering. But they can’t, he noted, because they’re totally dependent on pay from their employer.

As articulated by a striking array of voices in Zurich—including those from the Roosevelt Institute on the left and the Cato Institute on the right—the most effective approach for people to have more choice is through a mechanism that I’ve written about before: a universal basic income. Under such a plan, the government would give everyone, unconditionally, a slug of cash to cover his or her essential needs.

Whether you embrace this concept will likely hinge on what you fundamentally believe about human nature. Would most people on a basic income sit around and do nothing? Or would the vast majority seek a sense of purpose and fulfillment by being highly productive—in many cases, by doing wonderful things that we might not be ready to call “work” today?

My bet is squarely on the latter—and it’s why I think that the idea of a basic income will ultimately move from the fringe to the fore.

Next month, Switzerland will vote whether the country should provide people with a monthly basic income—an as-yet-unspecified amount (to be figured out later by parliament) that will allow them “to live in a dignified manner.” Meanwhile, parts of the Netherlands, Finland, and Canada are starting to experiment with similar schemes.

In the United States, the startup incubator Y Combinator is sponsoring a five-year research project to see if a basic income makes sense in a nation that cherishes individual freedom but, at the same time, completely overhauled its welfare systemtwo decades ago to try to push people into gainful employment.

Two factors are driving the basic-income movement. First, there’s the fear that rapidly advancing technology is going to kill many more jobs than it will produce. Why not turn that problem on its head and unleash people to be more creative, especially if the robots are going to handle all of the menial tasks anyway? Second, there’s a strong feeling that the developed world is enjoying an era of great abundance; it’s just not being shared appropriately.

A host of sticky issues remain. How would a basic income be funded—with a broad-based consumption tax or a financial-transactions tax or through some other source? How basic is “basic”—just enough money to leave a recipient who has no other sources of remuneration right at the poverty line, or a sum that equates to a more generous“living wage”? Do you keep most other social safety-net programs intact, or should a basic income replace them all?

Yet as difficult as it will be to sort out the financing and framing, another question looms just as large: Can we reimagine what it means to be a contributing member of society?

“What is life for?” asks Andy Stern, the former president of the Service Employees International Union. “It could be doing something in the community or with family or for personal enrichment. All of that is ‘working’—but not in a ‘job’ as we think of it.”

The key to capitalizing on this tremendous “untapped opportunity,” Stern told me, will be to “separate income and jobs. They’re two very distinct things.”

Of those in Zurich advocating for a basic income, Stern was arguably the most surprising, at least on the face of it. As a leader of organized labor, he spent a long career tightening the link between jobs and income by trying to make sure that the SEIU’s rank-and-file—janitors, home healthcare workers, and security guards—were better and better compensated by their employers.

But Stern, who has just written a book promoting basic income called Raising the Floor, had an epiphany when Obamacare was signed into law. “I thought about how many hours I had spent at the bargaining table, and then in one fell swoop 20 million got healthcare,” he says.

In the same way that this single piece of legislation has made so many people stop worrying about what would happen if they got sick, Stern suggests, a basic income would allow folks to stop being so anxious about where their next paycheck is coming from. And that would liberate them to tackle all sorts of pursuits, including the entrepreneurial and the artistic. (Many, of course, would continue to work for a regular employer to supplement their basic income, but they’d still have much more flexibility than they do now.)

“I’m really curious,” Stern says, “what would that security guard do? Who are the philosophers and the dreamers?”

There are plenty of critics who dismiss all of this as a utopian fantasy. Others hate that under a basic income, the lazy and irresponsible would benefit. In fact, proponents need to acknowledge that some of the money is inevitably going to be handed “to the beach bums,” remarked Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek Finance Minister, who favors a basic income.

Because of these and other concerns, the Swiss referendum isn’t expected to pass. But it is an important milestone nonetheless, as more and more people begin to reconsider what constitutes “work”— and who should pay for it.

Rick Wartzman is senior advisor to the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University. The author or editor of five books, he is currently writing a narrative history of how the social contract between employer and employee in America has changed since the end of World War II.