In the Same Boat: A Pathway to Financial Security and Economic
Stability
In the Same Boat is a documentary directed by Rudy Gnutti, released in February 2016,
in which various thinkers, philosophers and economists, as well as ordinary people,
analyse current ideas such as Universal Basic Income, technological unemployment and
the paradox of the economy growing at the same time that employment decreases.
The documentary has three main points –the UBI, the positive and negative effects of
globalisation and technological development and its effects on employment– but it also
glosses over certain riveting topics, such as the relationship of the growing economy with
the environment, which is mentioned quite briefly. I usually take an interest in these issues
because I think they bring a kind of sour, comedic irony to the matter; exploiting a planet
with unlimited resources beyond its possibilities seems to perfectly represent the selfsabotaging nature of human beings. Even leaving aside the intrinsic disdain for nature –
or, avoiding moralistic platitudes, the austere resources that sustain our survival–, the
entire documentary shines such a pessimistic light on an ambiguous future—economists
simply throw theories into the air, hoping someone will pick them up and put them into
practice, and meanwhile the economic model is going to hell in a handbasket.
If we have to talk about globalisation, I consider it necessary to point out that it is an
intricate concept that has both positive and negative effects. The documentary provides
an in-depth look at the topic and its effects on people, countries, and the world as a whole.
Globalisation might simply mean that we all depend on one another. It is naturally
impossible to know in advance the consequences of something happening in whatever
place of the globe, which is probably the most negative impact of globalisation as it puts
us in a condition of chronic uncertainty. Different analysts in the film discuss the positive
and negative effects of globalisation and its clearly complex and multifaceted effects.
Within the obvious, it is evident that the positive effects of globalisation include
everything that allows us to gather the entire planet in a single fluctuating economy;
increased trade, access to a wider range of goods and services, improved communication,
and increased economic growth, just to mention a few of the sort. As highlighted within
the documentary, greater trade and investment mean that certain countries can access
certain goods which they would not have been able to access otherwise— this helps to
stimulate economic growth, which can, in turn, help to reduce poverty. Further, as a result
of globalisation, the increased communication and transportation networks enable people
to move freely between countries, leading to increased cultural exchange and promoting
peace and stability.
But, as for everything, there are also some significant negative effects of globalisation.
Globalisation has had a detrimental effect on the environment, with increased
transportation networks and production leading to more pollution. Additionally, the
expanded movement of people and goods has enabled the spread of diseases around the
world. One of the most convoluted points in the documentary exhibits how globalisation
has contributed to growing inequality, as multinational corporations are able to exploit
cheap labour in certain countries and pay fewer taxes. This means that there are winners
and losers in the global economy and some countries are much better off than others.
It is difficult –or impossible– to decide if globalisation is a good thing or a bad thing;
it just has too many layers and nuances to define it. Even so, that hasn’t stopped many
sociologists from trying. If we set out to relate globalisation and technological advance –
both fundamental posts of modern society– with other sociological theories, it would be
never-ending. Be that as it may, I believe that within the broad void that sociological
theories are, we can find some that contain the basic pillars that have led to what is today
a globalised world. Without going any further, back to Auguste Comte, the father of
EVA GARCÍA COUTO
1
philosophy, we find the Functionalist theory— which suggests that all aspects of
society, from the economy to religion, are interconnected and serve a purpose in
maintaining the social order. Globalisation is the process of increased interconnectedness
among countries, leading to increased cultural, economic, and political exchange.
Functionalism and globalisation are linked in that globalisation is the result of a
functionalist approach to international relations. By connecting countries, people, and
cultures, globalisation has helped to create a global social order and a global economy. In
this way, functionalism can be seen as a driving force behind globalisation. Or, if we
continue along the lines of talking about the founders of sociology, Max Weber's
writings are often cited in discussions of globalisation. He argued that the increasing
spread of rationalisation, legal-rational authority and bureaucracy had the potential to
undermine traditional forms of social organisation, leading to a more interconnected
world. Weber argued that the development of these rational forms of organisation was a
necessary precondition for the development of modern globalisation, as it allowed for
standardised and efficient practices to be adopted across large distances. Thus, Weber's
work can be seen as an important early contribution to the modern discourse on
globalisation.
And if I may, I also wish to pat myself on the back as a woman and mention the
influential American sociologist Judith Butler, who has written extensively about the
effects of globalisation on the body and identity, the politics of gender and sexuality, and
the increasing homogenisation of cultures through global capitalism. She has argued that
the rise of globalisation has led to a greater emphasis on individual freedom and
autonomy, which can be both empowering and oppressive for women. Butler has also
argued that globalisation has led to a flattening of cultural differences and the erosion of
certain identities, while at the same time creating new ones. In particular, she has
examined how globalisation has allowed for the emergence of transnational identities and
how this can create new forms of power and subjectivity. Her work on queer theory has
been instrumental in helping to shape the discourse on globalisation. In her book Gender
Trouble (1990), Butler argued that gender is not a fixed category, but rather a shifting and
dynamic construct that is shaped by social, economic, and political forces. She proposed
that queer identities could be seen as a form of resistance to hegemonic structures of
power that are reinforced through globalisation. Butler has argued that queer identities
can be used to challenge systems of power and create more equitable and inclusive global
societies.
But, whether or not Butler is right about globalisation helping to create a pawn for
debauchery and revolution, the undeniable thing is that it has increased the gap between
the rich and the poor. The rich have been able to capitalise on the opportunities provided
by globalisation, such as access to cheaper labour, capital, and technology, while the poor
are often left behind. There's a shrinking middle class in most developed countries. Living
standards have also risen for everyone; rich, poor and middle class. But we find more and
more that, as technology develops and wealth grows, many people don't get their piece of
the pie. The majority allows the selected few to continue privatising the rewards but
socialising the risk, which is the real trick of why we have innovation and inequality
going hand-in-hand. As I said at the beginning of my reflection, it seems that we simply
wait for every problem to vanish into thin air while the situation worsens for us all. Even
though it is true that via investing more in education or entrepreneurship you might lessen
the issue, just spending on research and development without welfare programs will not
get rid of the inequality problem over time because, as most people don’t quite seem to
grasp, the problems of today can't be solved by yesterday's mechanisms.
As a solution to this aggravating situation, the economists in the documentary present
the Universal Basic Income (UBI): a universal allocation to be given to absolutely the
entire population in a given geographic area, either from a government or some other
public institution, regardless of their income, employment status, or wealth.
EVA GARCÍA COUTO
2
I must foolishly admit that the idea of a Universal Basic Income completely bought me
when one of the economists in the documentary compared a reality in which everyone
had assigned basic earnings with a 'Digitalised Athens'. As giddy as it may sound, I find
the idea of living with the basics and spending your life nourishing your mind and
enjoying art particularly appealing. Misogyny and slavery aside, ancient Greece looks
like a perfect setting for me, and any means that can bring me closer to such a life of
knowledge and raw passion has won me over from the beginning. Even so, with the
intention of fulfilling this task in the most satisfactory way possible, I will attempt to
leave the idealistic utopian fantasies aside and be critical of the argument.
Up front, I would like to exemplify one of the biggest arguments against the Universal
Basic Income with a recent experience. The main statement against it is the concept of
‘feeding bums’, ‘filling society with parasites’ or ‘killing ambition’. Before starting, it's
worth mentioning that I don't consider laziness a sin worthy of not having your basic
needs covered, but I certainly won't be the one to get into moral debates. When I discussed
this topic with my peers, many of them commented on their indignation at the idea of ‘a
person not contributing anything to the system yet benefiting from it’. This was of course
very surprising to me, as a great portion of my colleagues are young adults who don't
work and live fully supported by their parents. I won’t elaborate further on the matter; I
believe that my point is self-explanatory enough.
I have a feeling that this lack of self-reflection is present in quite a large part of the
population; retirees, wealthy people without the need to work, hypocritical university
students… All, objectively speaking, are parasites of a system from which they benefit,
yet no one will make a fuss about parents supporting their student child.
Obviously, the main point in favour is that the Universal Basic Income would reduce
poverty and inequality by providing a basic level of income for everyone, securing people
who are unable to find stable employment, and also incentive people to work, as they
would have a guaranteed income regardless of their employment status. It could also be
used to stimulate economic activity by providing people with additional income to spend.
Not to mention improving people’s mental health and well-being as a whole.
In general, UBI is a system that sounds great on paper, but it's when we expose the
points against it that we understand why people define it as utopian. Despite having
mocked this earlier, it is undeniable that the UBI could create a disincentive to work, as
people may be less likely to seek employment or take on additional hours if they are
guaranteed a basic level of income. It could also be difficult to fund, as government
budgets are already strained and providing a basic income to everyone could be
expensive. It could encourage people to take risks or make poor decisions, as they would
have a guaranteed income even if their decisions are not successful. It would most
definitely lead to an increase in inflation, as more money would be circulating in the
economy. Lastly, it may not be able to address the underlying issues of poverty and
inequality, such as lack of education and job training, which require larger, more
comprehensive solutions.
Clearly, Universal Basic Income isn't enough to solve all of humanity's problems—no
one has said that, either. A welfare programme combined with investments in education
and entrepreneurship is the ideal model that would improve the situation from the ground
up. And yet, they talk about lazy people and citizens making bad financial decisions, as
if there weren’t people now, in the current declining economic situation we find ourselves
in, who are lazy and make the worst possible decisions. Having a safety net would benefit
EVA GARCÍA COUTO
3
them by not leaving them empty-handed. But for a certain sector apparently not being
able to meet your basic needs is a more than appropriate punishment for being a bit
sluggish or making a couple of bad decisions here and there. It is clear that there are
people who thrive living in the minefield that is capitalism, but I cannot say the same.
Like it was said in the documentary, we don't come here to worry about who's being
lazy or who’s contributing the most to society, we come here to be happy. We earn money
to live, not the other way around. We are moments in a life spanning centuries and
millennia, and yet we refuse in every way to make our lives easier and more fulfilling. I
hope we understand that before it's too late. May the snake stop eating its own tail and
may we all live in our own ‘digitized Athens’ without the simplest form of serene society
being considered a utopia.
Mentioned works
Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble. Routledge.
EVA GARCÍA COUTO
4