181–190 of 582 posts
Wouldn't basic income just lead to higher prices and inflation?
You have a legitimate point, but I think a lot of the most vocal opponents of a basic income have a political agenda beyond wanting a system which is good for everyone.
If this passes, I suspect that Switzerland would see a MAJOR, MAJOR spike in inbound immigration requests. I would love to see what that spike would look like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just gonna throw this out there as a fellow Bay Area person. I like bragging about how bad I have it as much as the next social network self-flaggelator. But our costs aren't even remotely comparable to Zurich's. You need a lot more money to live there, especially if you even semi-regularly go out to eat. It's bad enough that when Swiss people come back through customs from other countries, their trunks are searc…
Well at least no-one tries wrapping an artichoke in a condom and swallowing it to get past customs. Not even the Swiss German speakers ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The exchange rate that would equalise the price of a Swiss Big Mac with an American one is SFr1.55 to the dollar; the actual exchange rate is only 0.96. [1] == Swiss Franc is most overvalued currency [1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/daily-c...
I get your point, however is it really true to say that? If it were, people would sell the currency to get out while the going is good wouldn't they? How could it stay consistently over priced?
So, in terms of this limited real-asset convertability, yes it would be true (see footnote above).
A Swiss franc is currently worth a little bit more than a dollar, so this works out to $2800/month or $33600/year. By US standards, this actually seems to be a good salary: significantly better than working full time at minimum wage. It would cover all my current expenses handily. Of course, I'm young and single but by no means frugal. (I find that the little costs involved in worrying about my expenses easily outwei…
> this works out to $2800/month or $33600/year. Switzerland's per capita GDP is about USD 79000/year, so assuming 80% of the Swiss population are adults and citizens, this would cost about 34% of GDP, which may be unaffordable.
We can argue of course about the indirect consequences to the economy, e.g. how it would affect the competitiveness of Switzerland if unpleasant jobs suddenly require a more attractive salary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a Swiss I'm not completely opposed to the idea of basic income, I just think it's too early. Right now we still need most of the workforce to create our current level of wealth - our unemployed rate is pretty low, usually around 2-3%, and work efficiency is one of the best in the world - it's a well oiled machine where every cog still counts, including lower incomes. Even with the current GDP, paying that bill wou…
You're overlooking how expensive poverty is. I don't have numbers, but this may well end up being cheaper than the alternative.
The proposed basic income seems to come out at around 34%. Now tell me (a) what basic income will achieve more than what we have already in Switzerland and (b) how we should come up with the remaining 14%.
[1] http://www.pa.uzh.ch/news/NeueLohnreglemente/Sozialversicher...; left column: percentage of salary paid by employee, right column: percentage paid by employer, so just add all those numbers up
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Listen to Boheners reasoning when he refused to allow a vote on the senate bill[1]. He sites employers not wanting to hire people because they have to subsidize their insurance, and a medical device tax that goes towards providing subsidies to individuals. 1. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/153432/Speaker_John_...
Which sounds awfully different from saying that poor people shouldn't get subsidies. But, since you bring it up, why should or shouldn't healthcare be coupled to employment? One could argue it's the cause for much of the trouble we're in, with a lack of portability, increasing costs (same reason sports seats have become prohibitively expensive for many individuals), so what's inherently evil about employers admitting…
The first-order cynical answer is that medical devices are primarily used by rich Republicans who can easily afford a few percent extra on their artificial knees. It requires no imagination to see why a left wing moonbat would vote for such blatant pandering.
The second-order cynical answer is that poor minorities have worse health, and a huge unfulfilled need for medical devices. Thus the device tax is a ghastly unintended consequence of well-meaning liberals.
The third-order cynical answer is that it is an intended consequence. They want Lashonda's artificial pancreas to pay for little Cindy's counseling. Much like lotteries exist to get poor people to send rich kids to college.
The fourth-order cynical answer is that the whole thing is secretly a ploy to generate plot material for someone's Dune/Washington, D.C. crossover fan fiction.
As a swiss citizen, I'm really happy we'll have to vote on this. I'm not sure yet what I'm going to vote (I'm slightly bending towards a yes), but I think this is a very interesting debate to have. Especially because this is not a traditional left-right fight. On the left, you have some unions saying this is going to be counter-productive and that it will reduce the leverage of employees in negotiation ("You've alrea…
How serious is a referendum like this? When a government pushes a major change. They need to back it up with a lot of analysis. Where does the money come from? What the major economic impacts. What do the big businesses/industries/unions/Chambers of Commerce/ etc think of it.
The referendum system sounds like a good idea for issues that are mostly moral like abortion or gay marriage. They're all about what we think is right. This one is economic, its about feasibility and tricky second order effects. So basically what I'm saying is.. has anyone really checked that this actually possible?
As a swiss citizen, I'm really happy we'll have to vote on this. I'm not sure yet what I'm going to vote (I'm slightly bending towards a yes), but I think this is a very interesting debate to have. Especially because this is not a traditional left-right fight. On the left, you have some unions saying this is going to be counter-productive and that it will reduce the leverage of employees in negotiation ("You've alrea…
Is this for everyone ? In other words, if you're working, is this on top of your income?
A Swiss franc is currently worth a little bit more than a dollar, so this works out to $2800/month or $33600/year. By US standards, this actually seems to be a good salary: significantly better than working full time at minimum wage. It would cover all my current expenses handily. Of course, I'm young and single but by no means frugal. (I find that the little costs involved in worrying about my expenses easily outwei…
Software and automation.