Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

swissinfo.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 600 posts

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#291

Post by shreyassaxena »

a-saleh wrote: post #71
Zarkonnen wrote: post #24

Coming from Switzerland, this is not at all surprising. No one expected this initiative to pass. It was really more of an attempt to get a conversation started, and it's succeeded in that. As a (tentative) supporter of basic income, I'm already quite happy that something like a fifth to a quarter of voters went for it.

Question, how does Switzerland avoid becoming more polarized country with so many referendum questions each year? Do you think there is a risk passing a referendum resolution that passed just by a small margin? I have been thinking about this since the result of Austrian presidental elections, and how more polarized the politics in Europe is becoming, while trying to figure out if there is a way how to move politics…

I guess they should add a minimum margin for the referendum to pass a resolution.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#292

Post by jessaustin »

s3nnyy wrote: post #257
jessaustin wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're suggesting what, gardening? Gardening is great, but it's not responsive to, "the price of food in Switzerland was insane..."

In Switzerland, imported and unprocessed food is surprisingly cheap. Veggies are maybe 20-30% more expensive than Germany. Processed food like frozen pizza is expensive as a substantial amount of (manual?), well-paid labour goes into convenience food.

In Switzerland, imported and unprocessed food is surprisingly cheap. Veggies are maybe 20-30% more expensive than Germany.

I must be misunderstanding something, because these two sentences seem to contradict. In Germany itself, "unprocessed food" is more expensive than in most of the rest of the world.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#293

Post by mortehu »

tptacek wrote: post #233
etatoby wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think even in the US nobody really buys a house (with land) in the city, but in the suburbs. Big difference and much more similar to the 1 hour drive discussed above.

Most of Chicago, the third-largest city in the US, is single-family houses with yards. For that matter, when I lived in San Francisco back in 99-2001, I had a yard.

But by European standards, Chicago is a small city of about 100,000 people surrounded by an enormous commuter town.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#294

Post by vidarh »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #228
funkyy wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you can buy studio in the city and huge farm house with land 1 hour drive away... Then weekends spend in your farm house and weekdays in your studio... It would be close enough to pop in in week days also. 1 hour drive aint bad.

A two hour daily commute is like 12% of your waking hours crumpled and thrown away. That sounds like hell. Two hours is a long time! Sit around for the two hours doing nothing, you'll see.

I have done hour each way commutes for many years, and while I don't miss it, it's not nearly that much of a waste. It's not "sit around doing nothing" (though, I wish I had two hours a day to sit around doing nothing - it'd be fantastic). It's time people spend listening to music, reading, napping, catching up on e-mail, playing games.

As much as I like currently not having a commute, it was certainly not time that was "crumpled and thrown away".

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#295

Post by yummyfajitas »

jessaustin wrote: post #258
yummyfajitas wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those countries wish to keep their slaves inside, they are free to build their own Berlin wall or other barriers to exit. Meanwhile, back in civilization, people aren't property. Similarly, I'm an American working for an Indian company attempting to disrupt multiple US industries. I have no plans to remain remotely attached to the US once our demographic issues start to collapse. Should the US create some sort of…

...once our demographic issues start to collapse. It's probably a mistake for me to respond to something so vague, but do you think this will happen in USA before most of the rest of the world? Unless you "escape" to Africa, I don't see anywhere better-suited for riding out the Great Aging, in the long term.

There are two sorts of demographic issues.

The first is a mere shift in demographic profiles. This leads to a desire for more consumption and a reduction in production - nothing capitalism can't handle. Prices will change a bit, that's all.

The second is a kleptocratic wealth transfer from the young to the old. Witness contemporary Greece, Detroit, Italy, and similar locales. Then look at many US localities (Texas being one of the few exceptions [1]) and recognize what the future contains.

The latter makes me very afraid, and that's what I seek to escape. Not all countries are set up for that.

In terms of mitigating the impact of the first, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Phillipines all have relatively favorable age profiles. Singapore can also maintain a good age profile via immigration - given how well governed they are, I expect that to occur.

[1] Although Texas is well governed and has a solid economic future, it's unfortunately tethered to NY and CA by being in the US. Further, it's unclear that Texas' good governance will continue given how much immigration it's getting from the rest of the US.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#296

Post by alkonaut »

tremon wrote: post #271
alkonaut wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The story of Switzerland's direct democracy is exaggerated. There is no such thing as a complete direct democracy, even if a few individual questions are decided by popular vote. The only questions you can decide by referendum is things that either have no budgetary consequences or things that set a long term political direction (join the EU, basic income, ...). Anything that has a shorter horizon needs to be tightly…

What are you talking about? Giving every Swiss a basic income definitely has budgetary consequences...

So does definitely joining the EU or NATO too - which is why I explicitly listed those as the exceptions as long term political issues. You don't join the EU or adopt BI for a term. Those issues would be referendums in most all EU countries.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#297

Post by ams6110 »

ZeroFries wrote: post #247
trgn wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be the best of city living (practical, all amenities in walking distance, low maintenance, social), and the best of rural living (bucolic, silent, spacious, reserved). It's much better to separate it out than try to combine it in one suburban house.

How do you account for all the wasted space when the houses aren't in use? The extra costs?

It's accounted for in the value of the land and the farmhouse, which the owner has paid for.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#298

Post by omonra »

ZeroFries wrote: post #247
trgn wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be the best of city living (practical, all amenities in walking distance, low maintenance, social), and the best of rural living (bucolic, silent, spacious, reserved). It's much better to separate it out than try to combine it in one suburban house.

How do you account for all the wasted space when the houses aren't in use? The extra costs?

Same way you account for the time your car is not being driven - you consider the total cost of ownership vs benefits and your ability to afford it.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#299

Post by Ressuder »

krisdol wrote: post #98
_nalply wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downside are populistic decisions like the Swiss minaret referendum. Now we have the sentence «The construction of minarets is prohibited.» in the constitution. ( https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/... ) I think such regulations should be decreed as a law and not as a constitution norm if at all. But if everybody has a say you get bikeshedding in the constitution.

I'm not sure that's a downside, unless you prefer hearing prayer 5 times a day. I fled Bosnia during the war, but I visit it occasionally and each time it appears more religiously extremist than the last. All other countries should take a look at what has happened there and consider the importance of implementing cultural integration in addition to economic integration when accepting large incoming migrant population…

You deal with that by restrictions of noise. Outlawing minarets to stop noise is like banning vodka to stop alcohol drinking. It doesn't make any sense.

Re: Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

#300

Post by vikascoder »

funkyy wrote: post #145
akerro wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As already mentioned, you're ignoring a fact that even by working there for 10 years, it's close to impossible to buy a part of land and build a house anywhere near a city. Land and house prices are too high to stay there for live. It's only profitable to live there, make savings and buy 2-3 houses in Uk/Germany for it. Like two of my co-workers did.

Or you can buy studio in the city and huge farm house with land 1 hour drive away... Then weekends spend in your farm house and weekdays in your studio... It would be close enough to pop in in week days also. 1 hour drive aint bad.

Or that a Doner Kebab in Zurich is 20 dollars and up. That's US salary alright bit US price of living? Hell no
Post reply on HN