Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult • Hacker News Board

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#541

Post by philwelch » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 5:54 PM UTC

kolinko wrote: post #518

freyr wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't promote compulsory military service, but what would prevent someone from being an entrepreneur after finishing their military service? Consider that many developed nations have compulsory military service (Finland, Norway, South Korea, Singapore, Israel, Switzerland, etc.), and yet people still manage to start new companies there.

On the other hand, Poland recently abandoned it's compulsory military service. If the service is obligatory for all, it means you're taking a million of people at the peak of their intellectual capabilities, and force them to do mundane tasks for half a year, or a year. Also, some people will fake their medical records to get out of this. If it's not obligatory for students (like it was in Poland), people will find s…

It's no more costly than a guaranteed basic income, is it?

If you reduce national service age and compulsory education age to 16, then national service would take place between ages 16 and 20. Beginning university at 20 after four years of life experience would probably be more beneficial than detrimental, and you've subsidized the training of lots of skilled workers in the process.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#542

Post by Someone » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 6:01 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #472

fleitz wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What problems does a $1 trillion military solve that a $200 billion military doesn't. I'd hazard a guess that a $200 billion military generates significant funding cuts above and beyond because it's a bit difficult to get into unilateral quagmires at that funding level.

The US military budget is probably not too high for the existing requirements of the US. The US is obligated, by treaty and policy, to provide mutual defense to most of the world. The US military has additional moral obligations to minimize civilian casualties, as well as political obligations to minimize both time expenditure and friendly casualties. These requirements are historically unprecedented and contributes…

"The US is obligated, by treaty and policy, to provide mutual defense to most of the world."

The parties at the other end of those mutual obligations manage to do so at way lower (in absolute, but also in relative terms) budgets. The obligation is not "the USA will save you", but "we will help each other", and that, somehow, has become "the USA will produce an extraordinary amount of weaponry and keep an enormous military force; in exchange, we keep pretending that the US dollar is a sound investment".

Also, nitpicking: I don't think it is most of the world, as it excludes, at the least, almost the entire former USSR, China, and Pakistan.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#543

Post by oneeyedpigeon » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 6:13 PM UTC

WCityMike wrote: post #532

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of them are phrases. Everyone understands the, strictly speaking, incorrect one. It's nice to know the origins of the phrase, but when more people use the 'incorrect' variant than the 'correct' one, it becomes 'correct'; that's the nature of language.

Under that theory, texting will swiftly become 'correct' English, and I refuse to believe THAT.

Not really; it's a totally different medium. But there's no doubt it will have SOME effect, and - since the context we're talking about is a comment on a website - you surely have no problem with abbreviations, emoticons, etc.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#544

Post by wooter » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 6:47 PM UTC

rsynnott wrote: post #322

tpainton wrote: post #236

Atlas shrugged... and the leaches attacked. I find it hard to believe Swit doesn't already have some welfare system that provides for those who actually need it... but now, 30k a year just for breathing? Sounds like communism to me.... only you don't have to produce anything. Utopianism like this doesn't last. Eventually you run out of payers. it's human nature to eventually grow tired of working hard so someone else…

> Sounds like communism to me... Yes, this is exactly what happened in communist countries. That's why everyone hated Stalin so much; he kept giving people money for free. In real life, basic income has mostly been a popular idea with liberal socialists and with libertarians; Bertrand Russell suggested it, but so did Milton Friedman. It very much isn't popular amongst communists, however.

woah now, libertarians are very much against wealth redistribution which is what this is.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#545

Post by mercurial » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 6:47 PM UTC

Camillo wrote: post #337

Systemic33 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny you should mention that last part, because that's exactly the situation in Denmark. We have in my opinion a waaay too high basic income, and there is a growing problem, with people who'd rather live on governement payouts, than get a job. And the nationalists are getting anxious about immigration, so there is a populist party that is against immigration, that is getting bigger and bigger support. It is ove…

As a member of the EU, how do you keep people from other EU countries from just moving to Denmark and claiming benefits?

A citizen of the EU can get a registration certificate if (s)he [1]:

> is in paid employment

> is self-employed

> provides services in Denmark

> is a retired worker, retired self-employed person or retired service provider

> has been seconded

> is a student at an educational institution accredited or financed by public authorities, and s/he is able to support him/herself during the period of residence in Denmark or

> disposes of such sufficient income or means so that s/he is presumed not to become a burden on the public authorities

There is also a family reunification clause, which I've been told is very rarely granted. As for the registration certificate, it gives you a social security number, without which you are a non-person in Denmark.

In general, the previous Conservative, extreme right-wing supported government toughened the laws on immigration.

1: http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/eu_and_nordic_ci...

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#546

Post by rmchugh » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 6:56 PM UTC

Systemic33 wrote: post #523

rmchugh wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, you're wrong. According to this article ( http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_minimum_wage_and_the_danis.... ) "The average full-time equivalent McDonald’s employee in Denmark makes about $45,000 a year in total compensation." If you are on bistand (Danish unemployment benefit) you get about $22,894 per year ( https://www.borger.dk/Sider/Kontanthjaelp.aspx ). Obviously the figure is higher if you are on dagpen…

You don't have to earn the same thing for it not to be incentive enough, you have to take into consideration that living on government money means you then have week of for being lazy.

Do you have any evidence for what you're saying or is it just ideology speaking? Being on bistand does not mean having the week off. It means regular meetings in the job centre, a fixed quota of job applications to submit and often forced activation involving CV writing courses and other drudgery. It is not fun. I really don't know what you have against unemployed people, but try and remember that you could be in their situation if you are unlucky in the job market when you graduate. Best of luck with your career.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#547

Post by PeterisP » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 7:01 PM UTC

kijin wrote: post #87

tikhonj wrote: post #2

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…

> One problem I find with most jobs is that it's much easier to get more pay than less hours, even if I really want the latter. There is a large drop-off between full-time and part-time work. I wonder how much of that is due to habits and regulations that are necessary in the absence of basic income. When most people are full-time workers, and when most people need to be in order to survive, it's not surprising that…

Your example about part-time workers seems very strange - the policies you state don't mean 'part time workers are bad, limit their usage', it simply means 'part time workers are just as okay as everyone else, and naturally they deserve "benefits" as well'.

We can (and most likely will) move towards a large part of society working part-time - why should that part have less labor rights than everyone else?

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#548

Post by ekimekim » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 7:02 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #466

m_mueller wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our ancestors have put up a direct democratic system for a reason: In the believe that it will serve as a sufficient check on political groups not to perform experiments on our society that the majority of people don't agree with. Sorry, but there's just no way this is going to happen. On a related note: In the light of recent history I more and more come to believe that exactly these checks are what's missing in the…

Yeah, but he is the President...

I thought the parent was referring to a filibuster.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#549

Post by philwelch » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 7:06 PM UTC

Someone wrote: post #542

philwelch wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US military budget is probably not too high for the existing requirements of the US. The US is obligated, by treaty and policy, to provide mutual defense to most of the world. The US military has additional moral obligations to minimize civilian casualties, as well as political obligations to minimize both time expenditure and friendly casualties. These requirements are historically unprecedented and contributes…

"The US is obligated, by treaty and policy, to provide mutual defense to most of the world." The parties at the other end of those mutual obligations manage to do so at way lower (in absolute, but also in relative terms) budgets. The obligation is not "the USA will save you", but "we will help each other", and that, somehow, has become "the USA will produce an extraordinary amount of weaponry and keep an enormous mil…

The Monroe Doctrine requires the US to protect the Americas as a whole from foreign incursion. The US is obligated by treaty or law to defend Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, and practically all of Europe (NATO extends as far as parts of the former Soviet Union). Not all of these defensive arrangements are fully mutual, either in practice (the US has troops stationed to defend Germany but not vice-versa) or indeed in law (Japan has no obligations to the United States).

This is also far from the sole requirement that keeps costs up. Probably the more important factor is the incredible amount of cost expended to minimize friendly casualties. It's not enough to simply win a war, we have to win it very quickly and with very few casualties. China, as a counterexample, has no political need to make sure the war is wrapped up before the next election, nor any PR requirement to keep their own casualties exceptionally low. Instead, they can control their own media and--thanks to the one child policy--practically have a surplus of young men.

Re: Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

#550

Post by PeterisP » Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 7:07 PM UTC

seszett wrote: post #159

Udo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 50% of the population aren't allowed to vote, it's not a pure democracy.

It's easy to say after the facts, but if women aren't allowed to vote and aren't citizens, then 100% of citizens do vote. Most systems we call democracies don't consider their population under 18 as citizens, thus don't allow them to vote, and that's usually around 20% of population. Most also don't consider that immigrants should vote, and in the case of Switzerland that's another 20 or 25%. I'm obviously not saying…

Are you sure about what you're saying on the term "citizen"?

Ancient Greece was different, however, long before women voting rights, all of them had citizenship and laws detailing when and how that citizenship can be obtained; similarly right now month old infants definitely have citizenship and there are even some legal issues on how double citizenship is resolved for such kids.