Economic questions: the Guy Standing question

Posted on April 15 2026

This is one of a series of posts that will ask what the most pertinent question raised by a prominent influencer of political economy might have been, and what the relevance of that question might be today. There is a list of all posts in the series at the end of each entry. The origin of this series is noted here.

This series has been produced using what I describe as directed AI searches to establish positions with which I agree, followed by final editing before publication.

Why is Guy Standing in this series? That is because he has argued that contemporary capitalism is producing a new social class: the precariat. Unlike the traditional working class, whose identity was tied to stable employment, the precariat is defined by precarity, meaning that they have insecure jobs, unpredictable income, lack of rights, and an absence of long-term prospects.

Standing's work, particularly in The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, suggests that this is not a marginal phenomenon. It is a structural transformation of labour markets driven by globalisation, technological change, deregulation and the erosion of social protections. The implications of this are profound. In Guy's opinion, work no longer guarantees security, identity or dignity.

I came to respect Guy's opinion during the run-up to Covid, when we were both members of the Progressive Economic Forum, which eventually proved itself to be anything but progressive on the issue of modern monetary theory, as a result of which I was expelled from membership. That said, whilst I was there, Guy and I often sat next to each other during meetings and during the conversations we had then, and in later correspondence, I got to know a man committed to the betterment of the human condition through tackling issues around work, the creation of a universal basic income, and the reclaiming of the commons for the benefit of all. That is why he is in this series.

Hence, the Guy Standing Question:If a growing share of the population lives with chronic economic insecurity, without stable work, rights or identity, can we still claim to have a functioning and fair economy?

The rise of the precariat

Guy Standing identified the precariat as a class characterised by uncertainty. Members of the precariat often experience:

short-term or zero-hours contracts,
fluctuating income,
limited access to benefits or protections,
lack of occupational identity,
and minimal control over working conditions.

This is not simply low pay. It is a condition of permanent instability. The precariat cannot plan, save, or build a secure future.

Guy argues that this condition is becoming the norm rather than the exception.

The erosion of labour rights

Traditional labour markets offered a degree of stability: long-term employment, predictable wages, and access to social security. These arrangements were supported by unions, regulation and welfare systems.

In recent decades, many of these protections have been deliberately weakened. Labour markets have become more flexible, shifting risk from employers to workers. Individuals are now expected to absorb fluctuations in demand, income, and employment, whereas in the pre-neoliberal era, employers did. The result has been a transfer of insecurity from institutions to individuals.

Work without identity

Guy Standing emphasises that work is not only a source of income but also of identity and social belonging. Stable occupations provide a sense of purpose, skill and recognition.

His argument is that the precariat lacks this foundation. Jobs are often fragmented, temporary and interchangeable. As a result, workers may move frequently between roles without developing a coherent career or professional identity.

This has psychological and social consequences. Without stable roles, individuals can feel disconnected from both their work and their communities.

The politics of insecurity

Standing describes the precariat as a “dangerous class” not because it is inherently disruptive, but because insecurity breeds frustration, resentment and vulnerability to political manipulation.

When people lack stability and voice, they may turn to populist movements, authoritarian leaders or divisive narratives that promise certainty. Economic insecurity can therefore translate into political instability. We are now seeing the consequences of that: Guy's forecasts were prescient.

The condition of the precariat is not only an economic issue. It is a democratic one.

Basic income as a response

Guy Standing has been a prominent advocate of universal basic income (UBI) as a way to address precarity. A guaranteed income, he argues, would provide a foundation of security, enabling individuals to make choices about work, education and participation without constant fear of destitution.

UBI is not intended, in Guy's view, as a replacement for work, but as a means of restoring autonomy and dignity in a labour market that no longer provides them reliably. Whether or not one agrees with this proposal, it reflects the scale of the problem Standing identifies.

What answering the Guy Standing Question would require

Taking Guy Standing's analysis seriously would require confronting the structural nature of precarity. At minimum, this would involve:

Restoring economic security and ensuring that individuals are not exposed to constant income instability.
Rebuilding labour rights and protections, adapting them to new forms of work.
Recognising the social value of work beyond wages, including care and community roles.
Exploring mechanisms such as a universal basic income to provide a stable foundation.
Addressing the broader causes of insecurity, including inequality and market deregulation.

These changes would not eliminate flexibility. They would rebalance risk.

Inference

The Guy Standing Question highlights a transformation at the heart of modern economies. Work no longer guarantees stability, and insecurity is becoming a defining feature of economic life. This challenges the assumption that labour markets naturally provide both income and social integration.

If large segments of the population live without security, identity or voice, the consequences extend beyond economics into politics and social cohesion.

To answer Guy Standing's question is to recognise that an economy built on widespread precarity cannot be considered either efficient or just, and that restoring security is not a secondary concern, but a central requirement for a stable and functioning society.

Previous posts in this series:

PDF of article

Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:

There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.

You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.

And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:

Comments

When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.

6 Responses

John Boxall says:

April 15 2026 at 7:24 am

Looking at the dates of what is posted on its website it seems as though the Progressive Economic Forum may be dying on its feet………….

Reply
- Richard Murphy says:
  
  April 15 2026 at 7:39 am
  
  I hope so
  
  Reply
Pilgrim Slight Return says:

April 15 2026 at 7:58 am

A worthwhile addition to this series.

In the study of housing in the late 90’s there was much talk about ‘the underclass’ as we saw council housing being residualised – the housing of last resort for people who had less life skills and precarious employment, health and family circumstances.

Standing’s discussion about the contribution of precarious living to instability in society is what hit me in the face. He mentions people like Sarah Palin, Berlusconi and the Nazis and how personalities/movements like that can basically exploit the concerns of the precariat. Standing was very prescient – I mean, look at us now? He spoke I think of the ‘politics of paradise’ in order to remedy the situation.

Reply
- Richard Murphy says:
  
  April 15 2026 at 7:59 am
  
  Thanks
  
  Not many to go now before we move towards finishing the book (three, I think)
  
  Reply
Robert Lilburn says:

April 15 2026 at 9:23 am

I can think of many people whose situation seems to fall within the category of precarious. Some have almost never found work and some work really hard. It seems to be a growing cohort compared to the previous generations since the 1940s. I think that policies of austerity and the growth of the rentier economy are significant factors in precariousness.

Reply
- Richard Murphy says:
  
  April 15 2026 at 11:57 am
  
  Agreed
  
  Reply

By leaving a comment you consent to your name and email address being stored on the site. We won't spam you or pass it on to anyone else.