ABSTRACT
What have I done in this book? By criticising the premises and arguments of the ‘end of work’ scenario envisaged by the post-industrial left, I have set out a three-way comparison of models for regulating work, which first considered the dominant US model of employment creation through deregulated labour markets, and then considered two alternatives, a basic income model guaranteeing a minimum income that is independent of employment status, and a full employment model of job creation that depends on a renewed political coalition built around stronger labour movements. I claim that these alternatives are a set of choices regulated by institutional factors and economic and political power as much as they are ‘determined’ by brute technological and economic constraints. These choices attach different priorities to employment in overall institutional design and to equality in the labour market. The result can be summarised as a choice between a ‘jobs with inequality’ approach (the US model), an ‘equality without jobs’ approach (the basic income model), and a ‘jobs with equality’ approach (a full employment model). I shall return to these three options to clarify my overall argument. But first some comments about the ‘end of work’ scenario, particularly about how it understands social change and, more broadly, about its place in the social sciences.
