Greece's Former Finance Minister Explains Why A Universal Basic Income Could Save Us (fastcoexist.com) 866
Charlie Sorrel, writing for FastCoExist: Next time you're having a fight with somebody who doesn't like the idea of a universal basic income, you might employ some of these arguments from Yanis Varoufakis, Greece's former finance minister. In an interview with the Swiss newspaper Tages Anzeiger, he not only refutes the usual arguments against the concept that the government should give everyone a minimum check every month, but he makes them sound quite ridiculous. The interview was published ahead of the Switzerland's vote on a universal basic income (or UBI) in June. If successful, all Swiss adults would get $2,500 per month, and kids around $625 per month, whether or not they have a job. Here are some of Varoufakis's best answers.
First, on the need for a UBI: "For the first time in the history of technology more jobs are destroyed than created. Technical progress means that more and more high-paying jobs will disappear and thus shrink the middle class. This will in turn cause a further concentration of income and wealth in the upper classes. That's why I fight like a basic income for sociopolitical reforms. The robotization [of work] has long been underway, but robots don't buy products. Therefore, a basic income is needed to offset this change and stabilize a society which has an increasing wealth inequality." Then, on why you need a UBI if you already have a good job: "What good is a well-paying job, if you are afraid to lose it? This constant fear paralyzes."Good luck convincing many citizens to do actual work.
First, on the need for a UBI: "For the first time in the history of technology more jobs are destroyed than created. Technical progress means that more and more high-paying jobs will disappear and thus shrink the middle class. This will in turn cause a further concentration of income and wealth in the upper classes. That's why I fight like a basic income for sociopolitical reforms. The robotization [of work] has long been underway, but robots don't buy products. Therefore, a basic income is needed to offset this change and stabilize a society which has an increasing wealth inequality." Then, on why you need a UBI if you already have a good job: "What good is a well-paying job, if you are afraid to lose it? This constant fear paralyzes."Good luck convincing many citizens to do actual work.
And how much will the EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Have to pay Greece?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So is he wrong? (Score:3)
Taking advice from Greece on societal economics probably isn't that smartest choice. Seems like this guy wants to double down on the already failed bet.
So are you saying he's wrong?
Re: So is he wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
So if society collapses because the base-mechanisms of capitalism fail, that is fine with you? Talk about being self-centered _and_ stupid...
Re: So is he wrong? (Score:4)
The base mechanisms of capitalism have been failing since the 1980s. We've passed a boundary condition and what's passed for capitalism in the US since then is no longer viable.
Re: So is he wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a good thing that there are more than just the two choices then, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Those are all the inevitable result of Stage 4 Capitalism (except the Sherman Act, of course, which you're simply wrong about). When capit
Re: So is he wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Productivity is soaring and has been for over 20 years. the benefits of that productivity are not being shared in part due to the fact that productivity gains from automation and robotics go straight to Capital.
The U.S. is at record levels (about 25%) of disengaged workers between the ages of 16 to 50. They don't count as unemployed- but they don't have jobs.
Projections are for 38% to 45% of jobs in the united states to be automated over the next 17 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Productivity is soaring and has been for over 20 years.
Wrong [bls.gov]. Productivty growth is lower [usnews.com] than it has been at anytime since WW2.
productivity gains from automation and robotics go straight to Capital.
That already happened in agriculture a century ago, and in manufacturing 30 years ago. It is not happening in services.
Projections are for 38% to 45% of jobs in the united states to be automated over the next 17 years.
Lots of things are "projected". Finding actual evidence to support those projections is much harder. It is quite likely that AI/robots will automate many or most service jobs in the next 17 years, but there is NO SIGN of that happening today.
Re: (Score:3)
Productivity growth is down because output is down.
Output is down because consumption is down.
Consumption is down because everyone is broke.
Growth is driven by demand. Stop the demand and the growth will stop as well.
Re: So is he wrong? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: So is he wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
That really depends on what you use as predictors. Tech may have changed. I can assure you, we humans have not. Our basic human needs and desires are the same as they've always been.
Re: (Score:3)
If workers don't have money to buy anything that breaks the circular flow of income just as much as if there was nothing to buy.
The broken window fallacy involves intentional destruction of an existing asset.
Not the same thing at all.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: So is he wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Are you refering to the privileged landowning classes? Or to thier property...the farmers? Or would you also refer to American slaves as capitalists because they calculated to ROI and decided that picking cotton was more profitable then getting hanged?
Re: (Score:3)
No, actually we have not. People are not more stupid or lazy than before. But many people find that the skills that can acquire given their talents are not in demand anymore. That is quite a different problem.
OK, I'll bite. If it's that simple ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply its this: the world doesn't owe you a living, get over yourself and suck it up. Live or die on your own efforts, not mine.
Fine. If robots take my job and I don't get to have part in the production gain I'll just grab myself a Kalashnikov and take what I want.
Glad we could clear this up so quickly.
' be seeing you soon.
Re: OK, I'll bite. If it's that simple ... (Score:5, Insightful)
States fail when they fail their people.
There is a reason why the average country in Europe has a lower crime rate than the US. The best deterrent against crime is not some insane punishment for the minimal transgression, it's having something to lose. And over here, everyone has something to lose, even if he has barely anything.
When I have nothing left to lose, there is exactly zero reason for me not to kill you for what you have or die trying.
Re: OK, I'll bite. If it's that simple ... (Score:4, Funny)
That's right. There's also a reason why the average country in Europe has a greater level of economic liberty than the US and why the average European has a greater level of economic & social mobility than Americans.
Re: So is he wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're forgetting something - 2-3 centuries ago, that would have been easily possible - as long as you find a little plot of land somewhere (even if in the middle of a forest) then you would have a good chance of a means to support yourself.
Now - find a place, where you are allowed to plant something of your own - at first, you'd need to find a plot of land that doesn't belong to anyone - and that, by now, in Europe is almost impossible. If land is arable, it is owned by someone. If it's a forest, it's owned by someone. The times where you could make a living for yourself without being "dependent" on someone else - namely, someone who is willing to pay for your services.
So, what will the future hold for the "lower qualified" jobs that robots eat up? They can't _force_ a company (or _any_ company) to hire them to work for a living wage.
But, before you try your line "live and die by your own efforts, not mine" - before you go as far as declaring whose lives are worth being kept or allowed to starve - just think about how secure your own job will be 10-20 years down the line. I've seen my net "middle-class" income being reduced over the last 12 years (through cut-downs by some employers - and other employers not willing to pay as much as the previous ones -- even though they make more profits; so it's not a cost necessity to go through the cuts -- it's just that it's possible, as there is a lot more competition from outsourcing jobs to lower-wage countries).
Another thing you should think about is the implications of what you're saying - "living and dying by your own efforts", this sounds "natural" in the most basic sense - it's what happens in the animal kingdom, but do remember that this is also what drives conflict in nature (the fight for survival). While your sentence seems to imply "either earn your living or go die quietly somewhere away from me" - rest assured, that it will rather create MORE violence, not less. (all the while also foregoing those "low-earners" as customers for your businesses - which might also be a chance for growth.
The current system of capitalism is too transfixed on "optimizing" (think: economies of scale; automation; ...) - and at the same time leaving governments unable to really care for their citizens, as more high paying jobs (and hence high income tax payers) get eroded, while at the same time, profits are being moved across the globe so that the companies also don't pay taxes that would make up for the shortfall from the eroding income tax base.
Your "fight for yourself" approach has only a very short term usefulness - so it's a great model as far as people in their 80s are concerned: the kind of people who do not need to care whether the whole system will break down 10 years down the line -- because they most likely be gone by then.
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever the 'basic income' level is set at, rent at the cheapest, crappiest, bug-infested dump will go to 90-95% of this number. And you won't be able to save by splitting the rent, as they will write it into your rental agreement that every recipient of the basic income living there will have to pay the full amount.
You know, I've heard of this fairly often, but it's not entirely true. As a libertarian supporter of a BIG/UBI, I've studied the issue a fair amount.
First, you should probably realize that the vast majority of people receiving a BIG won't be living alone. Indeed, odds are you'll have somebody working in each household
Second, all it takes for this to not be true is for an owner of said dump to offer a better deal than this in order to get better customers. Not all UBI people will be as bad as others, for
Re: (Score:3)
"Same thing happened with college/university tuition. Loans became easier to get, like magic, tuition fee's rose to match. Oh, you can get a bigger loan, fee's just went up."
Which lends to an obvious conclusion: don't implement the "basic rent" principle by means of disposable money but by means of guaranteed services. In example: in USA you have to pay for education and that means prices go up to whatever you can afford. In Denmark you don't have to pay for education and that means prices don't go up (pr
Re: (Score:3)
Most developed nations already have a UBI:
No they don't.
It's called unemployment/retirement
No it's not. Unemployment is very different from UBI.
Re:And how much will the EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Insightful? Hardly. For one, this isn't the finance minister that got them into trouble. Those took their advice from the US, among others, and implemented austerity to try and get them out. This guy is the one who tried his best to claw them out, but the IMF and others told him and Greece to pound sand and that they would put forward punitive measures to get them to pay, even if Greece collapsed as a consequence. Greece saw great gains under him regardless and he is still well-respected, but banks could care less for his theories as they are firmly stuck in MBA land.
Re:And how much will the EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Austerity didn't get them into trouble. Spending like there was no limit got them into trouble. Apparently the solution when you've got too much debt is to spend more!
Re: (Score:3)
There's an overwhelming tendency to analyze finances on the national level in terms of a currency. You can't do that because a currency's value isn't fixed (in fact it needs to be free-floating or you can seriously screw up your economy). You have to analyze them in terms of the true fundamental currency - productivity.
Gree
Re: (Score:3)
It's not spending per se which got them into trouble. It was being on the Euro, and spending more than their citizens' productivity (valued in Euros) which got them into trouble.
Yes absolutely this! Single currencies without wealth redistribution are broken, otherwise money always flows one way and the regions losing money have no way of floating relative to the other regions to make goods and services cheaper.
Single stable currencies can be good, see e.g. the US dollar, but like the Euro must have, there
Austerity didn't get them in trouble (Score:3, Informative)
Overspending did. Cutting spending was a proposed solution to them spending too much. Others believe that when you dig yourself into a hole, you get out by digging further down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking advice from Greece on societal economics probably isn't that smartest choice.
Indeed. Wasn't this exactly was Greece was already doing with half of the population? By employing family and friends into clerk jobs, creating new positions as needed, handing out nifty paychecks and benifits for sitting around... Because of course there really wasn't any serious job to do for 80% of those positions.
That turned out pretty well... The EU had to bail them out and the Greeks blamed their misery on the Germans.
In all honesty, I see some sense in a strategy of basic income, if automation contin
Re:And how much will the EU (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't this exactly was Greece was already doing with half of the population?
Only in the same way that store vouchers and armed robbery are the same thing. Yes, in both of them some items from the store change hands to some other people with no money exchange, but that is where the similarities end.
Greece had a massive corruption problem and was intentionally thrown under the truck by the rest of the EU to make sure that no left-wing government with actual reforms would survive, because there were similar parties already getting ready in Spain, Portugal, Italy and elsewhere, and the neocons couldn't allow that to happen, it would've interrupted this whole class warfare from the top thing they are doing so successfully to move more money from everyone to the 0.1%
But the question is, who's going to pay for it?
Is that a real question? Are you kidding? We have trillions available to save some banks who lost big at the casino, but we're asking where to get the money to pay people a survival income?
Start taxing the rich folks and they'll just hide or move their money into places where it can't be touched.
That's why you need to start jailing them for tax evasion so this bullshit stops. Of course you need to tax the rich, at the moment they are the ones who don't work but still get free money, and not exactly $2500 a month.
But more importantly, where to get the money is actually not so difficult. It's a pretty well established fact that lower income people consume more of any additional income. If everyone suddenly has $2500 a month more, the 0.1% will just burn it on some shit or put it in some investment with the rest of it - no benefit to society. That is the main reason why the super-rich need to be cut down and brought back into productive society - investment today doesn't mean factories and jobs, it means gambling at the stock exchange.
But the 99.9%, what will they do? Buy better furniture, a new TV, a new iPhone, a new car. Money that immediately goes back into the economy, creates jobs and thus more wealth. Wealth that is taxed. This money will come back to the government in no time.
Re: And how much will the EU (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That is wrong. ...
First of all they could fix that by paying UBI only for the first 2 or 3 children.
Secondly the referendum is in June. Perhaps you might look on a calendar
Oh, I'm to lazy, I guess I have to write it like this: "Secondly the referendum is^H^Hwill be in June!"
Robots? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Robots? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I see people making pennies assembling iPhones in China, children working in sweatshops in Vietnam making Nike clothing.
Technically, that wouldn't stop with Universal Income. For instance, giving guaranteed income to anyone who is related to the Saudi family didn't stop poverty in Saudi Arabia. It only created a bigger vacuum for immigrants to fill in. This is already happening to an extent in Switzerland. Over 50% of the workers in Geneva already commute into the country every day. And this "Universal Income" certainly wouldn't apply to those folks.
Re:Robots? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't see robots doing work. I see people making pennies assembling iPhones in China, children working in sweatshops in Vietnam making Nike clothing. This man is a fool. The problem isn't robots. People are cheaper than robots are.
Because you're not looking. There's a reason the US is the second largest manufacturer in the world, and has grown in manufacturing capability over the last 15 years (except for a dip during the recession), while at the same time continueously employing fewer and fewer people in manufacturing jobs. It's called "robotics". Turns out it's cheaper in the US, where average/minimum wages are relatively high, to use robots than it is people, while in China, with it's much lower wages, it's still viable to use human labor. People are only cheaper if you live in a country with a shit average wage.
Re:Robots? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry kid, we are number 3 and dropping fast.
Mexico will outpace us in manufacturing by 2020. Mostly because American companies are moving there for the lax environmental laws and cheap labor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Robots? (Score:4, Insightful)
Moron. No one is saying robots don't exist. But they aren't taking the jobs. Jobs are being shifted to cheaper places. Vietnam, China, Singapore. You know who is going to replace you? Not a robot. Just a cheaper human.
You apparently have never worked a day in medium or heavy manufacturing, if you did you'd know that what you just said is bullshit.
Companies will hit a point where there is "simply no place to go for cheaper wages." And robotics will be the end of the job for building things, that's why the auto industry for example has pushed robotics so hard. Let's take a look at the auto industry, the auto plant near me currently employs 300 people per 8hr shift, 3 daily shifts in total. If the robotics weren't there, it would be closer to 1300 per shift, even the basic things like painting aren't done by humans anymore it's all robotics. A auto company could send their manufacturing plants to the 3rd world to build stuff, but it's actually cheaper to build them here for the intended market with a mix of robotics and people. Even the National Parts Distribution Centre's aka giant warehouse that provides OEM parts to dealerships, manufacturing plants and supply companies(like NAPA/Pepboys, etc) usually encompassing entire geographical areas of a content like the entire east-coast and part of east-central US or all of Central Canada, plus Ontario and Quebec. The NPDC I worked at few years ago just to make a couple of extra bucks, it ran with 50 people per shift including all supervisor and office staff. Back 30+ years ago a place like that would easily run 500-700 people per shift(usually 4 shifts) plus another 150-300 for management and front office staff.
The loss of people is directly attributed to computers, robotics, and JIT delivery systems.
Re: (Score:3)
You apparently have never worked a day in medium or heavy manufacturing, if you did you'd know that what you just said is bullshit.
I'm not sure he even attended school, considering the nonsense he is writing.
Anyway, my Grand Pa, who died about 10 years ago with age of 68 or so was working all his life for a single company: Kuehnle Kopp And Kausch, KKK ... yes not that KKK. They build turbochargers, world market leader for ship size chargers and had a niche business for chargers for cars.
He started working a
Uh huh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Greece?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Greece's former finance minister probably has as much credibility in financial matters as Steve Jobs had on cancer treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed (Score:2)
Why should we create miserable make work just because a few people are uncomfortable with the idea of someone not being miserable in a job 40-60 hours a week? What, specifically, makes you uncomfortable with t
Re: (Score:3)
If the goalposts are "market disruption" we're already there though. Why hire proles that need paychecks and benefits? All that matters is your bottom line, so the only number you need to know is how much upfront a robopicker costs.
Turns out the answer is "not cheap yet". Big Corporate does it, sure (even though they're quite good at using bottom tier humans like tissues) but because they know how to play l
Re:Greece?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Greece?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
maybe? (Score:2, Insightful)
more jobs are destroyed than created
Is this true? Is it *really* true. Or did we just ship all the jobs to lower wage countries? If it is not true then the reverse is true.
It sounds right but is there actually any numbers to back it up?
Don't take too much attention to this. (Score:5, Informative)
The Swiss vote on the universal basic income will only take place because it's part of the normal political process here. But even the promoters of it agree publicly that there is no chance at all to be adopted now. There only goal is to force discussion about simplification of the various social income administrations as there is many of them in Switzerland. There also openly admit that the proposed modification of the Swiss federal constitution will not give a clue about how to get the money, and this make the whole affaire just a joke from the point of view of many peoples here.
What about trying to... read the article? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yanis Varoufakis (Score:5, Informative)
Yanis Varoufakis is not the man who got Greece into its current mess, he's the guy who tried to negotiate a way out. The EU and IMF eventually refused to deal with him (he is much better at macroeconomics than they are) and forced the Greek PM to cave in to their demands. Veroufakis resigned as a result but not in disgrace; he was offered another government job but declined.
Re: (Score:3)
He tried to negotiate the way out by basically blackmailing the rest of the Euro zone. Is it surprising that the EU eventually refused to deal with a financial terrorist? Thanks to Varoufakis valuable time was lost and Greece got a worse deal than originally proposed.
not everyone is lazy (Score:5, Insightful)
"Good luck convincing many citizens to do actual work."
It wouldn't be that difficult, given how little "basic income" would pay. Adjusting for the cost of living difference between Switzerland and the US (rent, groceries, etc), their proposal would work out to about US$1500/month, or $18K/year. (This is in the range of what people who are judged too disabled to work get from Social Security.) Yes, there are people who are content to live on that. But not most people. Would you?
Anyone who aspires to a middle-class lifestyle would at least get a part-time job to supplement basic income (maybe regular freelance work, a half-time office job, gig-economy stuff as needed, a creative project that they never had time for, that business they were otherwise afraid to take a risk on, etc) or a full-time job that they might not otherwise be able to afford to take (e.g. teaching, social work, performing arts). And the kinds of people who are used to taking home $1500 or more every week would undoubtedly stick with the jobs they have already, and treat the basic-income grant as "mad money" to spend on something fun.
The idea needs to be tested thoroughly, before being tried on the scale of, say, the US, or even the UK. It may not work as projected based on how it's worked in a few small-population experiments so far. The amount definitely needs to be evaluated. But if you're ridiculing the idea based on the assumption that a just-above-poverty-level income is going to be really attractive to the masses... I'm pretty sure you're mistaken.
Re:not everyone is lazy (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would people be lazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea that people are inherently lazy and won't work without being forced to always puzzled me. Most of the people I know want to do something productive, but more often than not it's either not something they can get enough income from quickly enough to be able to drop their day job and start doing it full-time or it's not something they can get enough income from to keep the bills paid. Give them a guaranteed basic income and they won't sit around doing nothing, they'll start doing what they want to do (instead of the day job they have to have because it pays the bills).
And on the flip side, what does Donald Trump do exactly? I know he's rich and considered successful, but what work does he actually do? Or Kim Kardashian? It always seemed to me that the more successful you were, the more well-off you were, the less actual work you appeared to do each day. I know there's research involved in say running a major investment fund like Warren Buffet does, but he doesn't do the majority of it. 95% is delegated out to subordinates who do the legwork and write up the analyst reports, Buffet himself just goes over those reports and makes the final decisions. It's something only he can do, but he's not spending 40 hours a week nailed down to a desk poring over corporate reports and newspaper articles and stock trade data, running spreadsheet calculations to figure out what's behind the stock movements and what's likely to happen in the future.
To quote a mill supervisor, "I don't want the industrious guy who'll clean up the mess with a smile. I want the lazy bastard who'll figure out how to stop the mess from happening so he doesn't have to clean it up all the time.".
Re:Why would people be lazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea that people are inherently lazy and won't work without being forced to always puzzled me. Most of the people I know want to do something productive, but more often than not it's either not something they can get enough income from quickly enough to be able to drop their day job and start doing it full-time or it's not something they can get enough income from to keep the bills paid. Give them a guaranteed basic income and they won't sit around doing nothing, they'll start doing what they want to do (instead of the day job they have to have because it pays the bills).
Look, I have interests and hobbies and shit that I like to do so I wouldn't just sit on my ass. But would any of that have any payback to society? No, or if it did it'd at least be coincidental. And I wouldn't do any of the boring parts. And not on the days I don't feel like it. And I wouldn't really give a shit about anyone else's requirements, deadlines or whatever. It'd be what I feel like doing how I feel like doing it when I feel like doing it. I don't think "herding cats" would even begin to cover it.
I like to productive within the context of the work and the hours I put in anyway, no I'm not slacking or shirking as much as I could have. If it's my job to create something I take pride in the quality of my work and I do try to create solutions that'll work for real people in real life, not just the requirements. But I don't think you should underestimate the pay check as the overall framework for why I'm there and why I'm working on it at all. Or to put it another way, if I won' $100 million no matter how much I like my colleagues and the work is nice, I'd quit.
The other part is that there's shitty work that needs doing, if a sewage pipe burst I'm sure fixing it is not going to be at the top of anyone's list. So if you're paying everyone enough that they don't have to take the job, you have to pay them enough that they want to take the job. That'll drive wages up that'll drive prices up which means the "living wage" from basic income won't be enough. And then you're just right back where you started, if you raise basic income the shitty jobs won't get done again.
Re:Why would people be lazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I have interests and hobbies and shit that I like to do so I wouldn't just sit on my ass. But would any of that have any payback to society? No, or if it did it'd at least be coincidental.
A lot of the people we admire today for their contributions to art, literature, science, exploration and a dozen other things did not have day jobs that were of any benefit to society. A lot of them were wealthy landlords who were into science because they were curious and had nothing else to do.
And if we have one Newton for every one thousand people hanging around doing useless shit, as a species we would profit massively.
The other part is that there's shitty work that needs doing, if a sewage pipe burst I'm sure fixing it is not going to be at the top of anyone's list. So if you're paying everyone enough that they don't have to take the job, you have to pay them enough that they want to take the job. That'll drive wages up that'll drive prices up which means the "living wage" from basic income won't be enough. And then you're just right back where you started, if you raise basic income the shitty jobs won't get done again.
That used to be true 50 years ago. Today, you have two options:
a) pay enough money for shitty jobs so that someone actually does it. But there aren't so many shit-shovelling jobs anymore that it would affect prices. How many people fixing sewage pipes do you need in a city? Which fraction of one percent of the population? That will affect prices? Please.
b) since these shitty jobs will be high paid, there's incentive for someone to invent a robot to do it in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
billions of human leaches that provide nothing.
Please kill yourself. We don't need people with a view of humanity like that on this planet.
You are completely oblivious to anything going on in the world. Fear is a terrible motivator, we know enough psychology today to understand that it inhibits higher brain functions, preventing any kind of invention or progress. For slavery, that is actually a useful feature, but you don't even understand slavery and that it wasn't avoidance of being killed that made the system work.
So please, jump off a bridge somewhe
Re:Why would people be lazy? (Score:4, Insightful)
One catch is that there are a lot of jobs that noone really WANTS to do,but do anyway because it beats starving: untrained menial labor like cleaning toilets or picking crops in the hot sun, as well as backbreaking heavy labor like mining coal, etc. By effectively releasing a somewhat captive workforce from their NEED to continue doing those jobs, expect the salaries in such fields to have to rise dramatically overnight in order for them to remain sustainable when a large percentage of current workers say "screw this!" and quit. This would either lead to significiantly higher raises for some jobs, or could even make entire sectors and industries entirely non-viable when having to compete with other other countries without universal basic income.
Universal basic income will ripple through the entire economy: prices for a lot of products like produce grown in your own country are likely to increase significantly, while more spending money on the underside of society will also lead to an increased demand for certain goods raising their prices. If foreign-grown foods are a lot cheaper, you may end up killing your own agriculture industry and becoming almost fully dependent on other countries for feeding your nation: a dangerous situation to be in.
Whatever the determined amount of money would be, it may very well end up having a lot less purchasing power than people would anticipate ahead of time.
In the short term, i could be VERY disruptive to the economy, but of course only time will tell how this would play out over the long term.. Unfortunately it's the kind of thing that's hard to experiment with on any large scale, since having the revoke it if things don't work out could also have a potentially disastrous impact on many people's lives.
Re: (Score:3)
To quote a mill supervisor, "I don't want the industrious guy who'll clean up the mess with a smile. I want the lazy bastard who'll figure out how to stop the mess from happening so he doesn't have to clean it up all the time.".
Great quote.
As I've always said, "Lazy Engineers are the best Engineers. They manage their factory line in a way that avoids middle-of-the-night phone calls about screw-ups they'll have to fix."
Same for designs, R&D, etc.
Damn good money (Score:3)
"Swiss adults would get $2,500 per month, and kids around $625 per month"
That is more than many (most?) small farmers get now. This would mean a basic income of $52K per year for a family with three kids. I've had many years where I made $14K and supported our family fine. $52K would be luxury and that would be above the $14K - damn nice.
There are many reasons to like the universal income idea. I don't think it will actually make people stop working. People want more stuff. What it will do is give them the chance to do more interesting things. Some won't but many will.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is not "damn nice", it is barely enough and right at the poverty line. Cost-of-living in Switzerland is among the highest on the planet.
Where does the money *come* from? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the article glosses over implementation details like that.
Sure, I wouldn't mind an extra $2,500 every month. But is it truly an extra $2,500? If the taxes on my normal income will also go up by that $2,500, it's a wash. If inflation makes it so I don't have any real additional purchasing power, it's also a wash. So why add the additional level of complexity in those cases? And won't there be bureaucratic and administrative costs?
Show me the numbers. Show me where the money will come from such that I really will have an extra $30K take-home every year... that I actually benefit from and that won't be vacuumed away in taxes, bureaucracy, and inflation. Show me real, solid, numbers, and sure, I'll support the idea. But in my experience, things that sound too good to be true, usually are.
It will get corrupted somehow (Score:5, Interesting)
You want the government to give us free shit? How about we do away with the requirement for healthcare (or paying Danegeld to the IRS if you don't) and give us basic healthcare for FREE instead!? That would make WAY MORE sense than this UBI crap. I'm dead serious about this: If the U.S. Government can't manage to give every U.S. citizen free basic healthcare, then it sure as fuck can't afford to give everyone enough cash to live on every month. Call it a test case. I challenge the Government and everyone who supports this UBI nonsense to make free healthcare for everyone work, first; if that works for, say, a decade, THEN we can talk about your UBI. Deal?
Re: (Score:3)
Then there is the question of how much a UBI would cost. Let's see, there are something like 245 million adults and 50 million children. That's $7.4 trillion basic income for adults and $400 billion for children.
Here's a question, why are you assuming about $30k per adult? Going by what other posters have mentioned, that's actually closer to $12-18k in US terms if you go by cost of living.
So, first up, divide the $8T by about 3. Then, to pay for it, you 'simply' get rid of most other forms of welfare - no need for food stamps, housing assistance, all those need based schemes that are expensive to administrate and present welfare cliffs. In the more general sense, you get rid of things like the standard exemption
"Oh look, the Greek is talking" (Score:4, Informative)
Ok, since the majority of people here very obviously have ZERO clue about the situation in Greece and what role Varoufakis plays in the whole mess, allow me to clue you in.
The whole shit started WAY before Varoufakis was more or less pushed into that position. And he was one of the few intelligent people to grace that position with his presence (seriously, his predecessors were duds), but he had very little chance to actually do anything sensible. The IMF was calling the shots. And if you didn't notice by now, allow me to inform you: The very last thing you can use in your country is the IMF telling you what to do. It's almost granted that they will make matters worse, since they have no interest at all to "help" you. Their job is to ensure that whoever you owe money gets it. No matter how. As far as they're concerned, sell the organs of your people.
To give you an idea what Varoufakis' situation was and how sensible blaming him for the mess is: It's a bit like blaming whoever will be the next president of the USA for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with the mess with that Cuban prison.
Economist in Support (Score:5, Interesting)
I am hugely in favor of UBI. I think of it in 3 ways:
Is it doable?
Yes, of course. Existing social programs are very costly, and this will replace many of them. Furthermore, there are a lot of profits that have been created by technology in the last 50 years. And yet work weeks have increased, and many people have a lower quality of life than before. You might ask why this is. I'll give you a hint: the answer isn't population growth.
What is the cost?
Social disruption in the short term. Probably a cost to some or many very wealthy individuals. New regulations are required, but these may be less in total than existing regulations.
What is the benefit?
Many. Increased social stability. A simpler social safety net for one. A promise that each individual will be better off as technology improves and jobs may be destroyed.
That last piece I believe to be very important. The looming driverless car revolution has highlighted the risk of technology: jobs lost there have no promise of replacements.
It was tried before. Did not work. (Score:3, Interesting)
The universal income has been tried before in Soviet Socialism.
It has been above and beyond universal income. In a socialist system most of the people had a place to live, a job, education was free, healthcare was free, one or two years maternity and the pay was more or less the same for all professions. Socialism failed miserably and It will keep failing every single time.
It is called rationing. If healthcare is free, that means a random client/patient will be rationed. Education, even if it is free, is not available to everyone in their selected field. A job that paid something: people on average were non-productive and looking for opportunities to steal. Well, if housing is free everyone wants would want to live in most beautiful place. However there is not enough desirable places for everyone.
It was tried before. Did not work then will not work now. Imagine in US they make it a basic income, of, say, $2000 per month. Once rumors are confirmed by less fortunate 50% of the world population, you can guarantee that population of US will double in 10 years. Even Trump's wall will not help, for underground high through capacity tunnels will be developed to meet demand.
Once somebody becomes entitled for $2000 a month, and becomes a voter, it is impossible to change that habit.
Inflation? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, the Swiss are proverbially good at finance, and they're seriously considering the idea.
Re: (Score:3)
And if they implement it, they will actually cut all the other programs that a guaranteed income is supposed to replace. I doubt they'll pass it.
Which makes them unique among western democracies. The rest will just add basic income and never cut anything.
It's not an insane idea, but only if you actually follow through and cut the bureaucracy and all other handouts. Which never happens most places.
Re:Greece is giving financial advice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:$2500 a month? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Constitution has been modified as follows:
Art. 110a (new) Unconditional basic income
The Confederation shall ensure the introduction of an unconditional basic income.
The basic income shall enable the whole population to live in human dignity and participate in public life.
The law shall particularly regulate the way in which the basic income is to be financed and the level at which it is set.
The 2500$ comes from the actual *poverty line* in Switzerland: believe me if you have such a low income in Switzerland you are not going to be happy, even if you do nothing to get it.
Re: (Score:3)
You'll have a hard time getting it in Greece, since the referendum is being held in Switzerland...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope he is right. WHen I made that it was $2500 after taxes and Obamacare taxes. .72 x 45,000 is in that ballpark
Re:The only thing it will do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The only thing it will do (Score:4, Insightful)
Here, here, here!
I actually did start my own company, and it wasn't such a big success that it would pay the bills, so now I'm doing freelance work which pays nicely (I'm an information security consultant) but is more stressful than a regular job.
I have a long list of things that I would like to do, both in my field and outside. I just don't have time for it, if it doesn't in some way end up as profitable, at least a little bit. With a basic income, knowing myself the first month or two I would do some shit that I've just wanted to do for a long time, but then all the articles I wanted to write, the speeches I wanted to give, the software I wanted to create would appear.
Giving people a survival is the #1 humanity thing that a western society should feel itself morally obligated to do. If we can afford private jets and million dollar wedding parties for the super-rich, how can you possibly make any ethically justifiable argument that the same society has people looking for food in trash cans?
Re: The only thing it will do (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying it's better to have homeless people and empty housing? Because no other starting condition leads to your conclusion.
Re:Ask the Dutch About Homelessness (Score:5, Funny)
I suspect that after a year or so to adjust, we'd see higher employment rates than ever, at least if you count the sort of informal employment that becomes possible once basic needs are a given. Idleness actually gets old pretty fast.
As Carlin pointed out, pot leads to carpentry. So even with that, it might make an interesting new cottage industry.
Re: Ask the Dutch About Homelessness (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It would reduce involuntary unemployment and so would relieve general economic stress.
It would also allow for informal employment and contract work for people who otherwise couldn't afford to work. Both through removing the penalty for having an income that people on public assistance now face as well as through employers becoming more willing to meet potential workers half way. It would also be a boon for people on disability who can work a little bit on their own terms but couldn't afford the risk of a bu
Re: The only thing it will do (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think that wages will stay the same if everyone gets X per month from the government? I can imagine that every employee who doesn't have a contract with a dollar amount spelled out in it, would immediately get a letter from the CEO explaining why their pay will be cut the week UBI goes into effect. Lower private wages are one of the assumptions that the universal-basic-income model is based on.
Re: The only thing it will do (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You find it unsettling that it's well known that fast food jobs pay poorly and are generally unpleasant? Why? Were you not aware of this?
Right from the summary:
Re:That's communism... (Score:5, Insightful)
So? You are saying as if communism is automatically "bad".
In the USSR everybody had a job (it was actually mandatory for adults who are not studying), which means that 1) there was less time for drinking (showing up drunk at work was not OK) and 2) everybody had some money, there was no need to look for food in garbage bins.
Now that we are capitalists and free, a lot of people do not have a job. I guess one solution would be to let them starve to death, however, that tends to increase crime (since a hungry person is more likely to steal or rob) and some people oppose it for humanitarian reasons. So we have welfare - give free money to the poor. Most of that money gets spent on alcohol (well, you are poor and do not have a job, you have nothing better to do).
The side effect of capitalism is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, however, in the long run that is bad for the economy because more and more money is settling down in the bank accounts of the rich, which means there is less and less "active" money. The rich also find ways to avoid taxes and may end up paying less than a poor man who has a job (because he cannot afford to set up offshore companies for tax evasion purposes etc).
Technology increases productivity, which is great, now everybody can make more in the same time. Which means that in the future, everybody will be working for half the time and producing the same or more than we are now (a prediction from the past). Oh wait, currently instead of everybody working for half the time, half of the people are unemployed and those that have a job, work full time.
I personally believe that some communism would be great. That is, individuals should be free to do what they want (within reason) and private property should be respected, but large companies (companies, that have a too high influence on the market) should be kept on a very short leash - larger companies get a shorter leash.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:That's communism... (Score:4, Funny)
Shanty towns too? Awesome! (Score:3)
> I suggest cutting rent by 85%. Landlords do not need to be making that much money.
Average rent is about 110% of the cost to own the property- mortgage, property taxes, maintenance, etc. So a property that rents for $11,000/year costs the landlord about $10,000/ rentable year, including vacancy month.
You propose cutting the rent to about $900/year. The cost to the landlord being about $10,000, buying a house and renting it out would mean you'd lose $9,100/year. Obviously virtually nobody is stupid
Re:That's communism... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not communism -- communism is an industrial philosophy, and the key point about all industrial philosophies is who owns the means of production. Communism places ownership at the community level, socialism at the level of "society" (in oractical terms almost always defaulting to "state socialism"), cooperativism is about the workers, and capitalism states that ownership starts with money (so how do you get into the system in the first place?)
The idea of a basic income is not directly related to the ownership of the means of production, so cannot be labelled with any of these terms. The reason I feel BI is fair and equitable is that the existence of "society" and the notion of "property" rely on relinquishing certain natural rights. Without society, I would be allowed to hunt, fish or gather wherever I wanted to. Because of society, though, there are rivers that I'm not allowed to fish and deer that I'm not allowed to stalk. Society has removed my right to feed myself for free, and forced me instead to buy food, and therefore has created the need for money. This process has made humanity more efficient and productive (a farmer with a combine harvester can feed hundreds, a hunter with a spear can feed a dozen or so) which improves the average standard of life immeasurably. But if one man can't eat because of that, where is the justice? What have we given him in return for the removal of his natural right to feed himself?
Welfare systems and/or basic income schemes are how we compensate for the loss of those natural rights. Food that buys your hunting rights; housing that buys out your right to pitch a cowhide tent wherever you please.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The idea of a basic income is not directly related to the ownership of the means of production, so cannot be labelled with any of these terms. The reason I feel BI is fair and equitable is that the existence of "society" and the notion of "property" rely on relinquishing certain natural rights. Without society, I would be allowed to hunt, fish or gather wherever I wanted to.
If by natural rights you mean as found in nature, you'd find most animals are far more possessive of their territory and companions and far more likely to resort to acts of aggression and violence including lethal force than humans. It's all might make right and if you can take it and keep it then it's yours. It works both ways, sure you can't take other people's property but they can't take yours. And it's the little guy who needs protection, the rich and powerful protected themselves just fine long before
Re:Sure, let's all listen to Greek financial advic (Score:4, Insightful)
Whereas Capitalism fails only when human beings are no longer required to produce goods and services. i.e. real soon now.
Re: (Score:3)
And I contend that your scenario won't come about in the first place since far less than half of the people are willing to settle for the bare minimum when they have the opportunity to do better. Your premise is faulty. That does not bode well for your conclusion.