Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Basic Income hasn't been voted on yet in Switzerland. You're probably thinking of the 1:12 pay scale referendum. And yes, the numbers do work. You just need relatively high tax rates (>= 50%) to support the Basic Income -- but no higher than already exist in many European countries.
Well, only kinda. For example here in the UK we could scrap our welfare system and give every man, woman and child in the country £3000/year no questions asked no strings attached, for what the welfare system costs now. A family of 4 could live on £12000/year not luxuriously but with the basics, somewhere like Wales. A single person could not live on £3000/year in London.
The indignity of no work
81–90 of 268 posts
Re: The indignity of no work
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea of a basic income is still sci-fi. There just isn't that much money. Freeing people to work on things they desire will mean no one will ever wash dishes at a restaurant, no one will pick up trash, no one will spend time wiring your house for internet, or fix your computer, or do a large swath of jobs. The argument that with UBI people will still do that only for more money is crazy, since the taxes would hav…
Washing dishes is so incredibly dumb. What should have been done long ago is standardising plates, cups and cutlery and creating integrated dish cabinet/washer that can wash those standardised items and store them. The fact that in 2014 we still rely on manual work to wash the dishes is a disgrace perpetrated by oversupply of cheap human work.
And what, exactly, do you propose that we do about this "oversupply of cheap human work"? If we simply ignore it, there'll be hell to pay. The old saying, idle hands are the devil's workshop, is based on millennia of human experience.
Suppose that all the dishwashers in the U.S. were suddenly to find themselves both (1) out of a job, and (2) as a result, unable to earn enough money to feed themselves and their families.
Now consider that for some of these people, retraining them to seek out and hold other jobs might not be much of an option. There are some people who, for whatever reason, simply can't learn the necessary skills / behaviors / motivations. (If you're inclined to scorn that notion, or such people, consider how little we really know about human learning abilities and motivation; such people are more common than you perhaps imagine.)
Are our unemployed dishwashers going to sit around passively and accept their fate, watching their families do without while they see others around them prospering? Not bloody likely --- they're going to try to do something about it. And some percentage of them are going to make trouble, e.g., by robbing or cheating others, dealing drugs, rioting, etc.
From a purely-pragmatic perspective, if we want to keep our vaunted social order intact, then we're going to have to figure out how to keep people (A) occupied in reasonable contentment, and (B) reasonably-well fed, -clothed, -housed, etc. This is a brute fact, which we can like or not, but which we disregard at our peril.
Re: The indignity of no work
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, only kinda. For example here in the UK we could scrap our welfare system and give every man, woman and child in the country £3000/year no questions asked no strings attached, for what the welfare system costs now. A family of 4 could live on £12000/year not luxuriously but with the basics, somewhere like Wales. A single person could not live on £3000/year in London.
And just how far would £3000 go if you had anything at all serious remember that US guy who had to pay $50k for a one night stay appendix removal.
Re: The indignity of no work
#84So we are saying that most of the people out there are of no use to the economy and thus, most probably, to society. Well, welcome to fascism 2.0, this vision is elitist, it creates a huge power lobby (the entity paying up the basic incomes...), and it sees people as sheep with no brains.
How exactly do you come up with that? I understand the concept, agree with it to a point (it is rather exaggerated) and I am no facist and do not have enough power, percieved or monetary, to be able to be an effective elitist. I'm anti-huge power lobby, unless you can find one that does much more good than harm. People are under pressure to be sheep already if you work one of these 'jobs'. I take the notion and look…
This is the core of the thinking behind a dictatorship
> People are under pressure to be sheep already if you work one of these 'jobs'
What pressure? People are asked to work in exchange of money. Which means this system, however imperfect, still sees people as useful and productive and, thus, still gives them a chance
And it's elitist because you are creating a clear division between those that are productive and those that bring no value and that actually are a negative investment (because they do "fake" jobs). You really think you can put a mentality like that in place without creating elitism and potentially an even more uneven society than today?
Re: The indignity of no work
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
In switzerland it was voted down because it doesn't make economic sense. Look at the numbers, they don't work.
So what? Do the Medicare numbers work for anyone? Health insurance in the USA is the worst in the world and costs more than anyone's else. USA citizens still use it and actively fight any substantial towards a more rational scheme that will offer more and cost less (ultimately). This as the basic income, is not about math - it's about politics. NOTE: I don't mean politics in the negative sense, I mean it in the sense…
He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. The money for UBI has to come from somewhere, and any money a government has at its disposal comes from: 1) extortion (ie. taxation), 2) printing, 3) borrowing.
Those are the three options, and none of them are a sustainable way to fund UBI, because the amount of money needed is so massive. You can't get something from nothing, and everyone can't get something from everyone else.
Re: The indignity of no work
#86> A world in which a healthy adult has the reasonable expectation of earning a decent living while working full-time at a market wage is absolutely a world in which the dignity of work is a useful social value to cultivate. In a world in which that is not a reasonable expectation, the dignity of work can be a harmful concept. Interesting times ahead. It's going to be painful getting there, if we get there at all, but…
Here is an interesting basic income calculator: http://mattbruenig.com/basicincomecalculator/ Happily, it suggests lots of proverty reduction is achievable with a very manageable percentage of GDP.
One of the first serious issues you'd have to consider is migration from other countries to your model country with basic income. There's billions of people out there who'd happily live on basic income in some first world country and I'd absolutely encourage them to do so, given what the first world's riches are built on (but I digress...).
Re: The indignity of no work
#87I think there's several separate issues: Krugman correctly points out that work disincentives are different from job destruction. However there are different kind of work disincentives: it is certainly hard to view people working _just_ for healthcare (as opposed to switching jobs, retiring early, or starting their own business) as something positive. By all means, disentangling healthcare from employment is at least…
If this is not negative, then how is it different for healthcare? It's the same money, only spent in a different way, mostly because american tax code is weird and the government tried to mess with pay arrangements repeatedly which gave birth to various fringe benefits including employer-sponsored healthcare. But at the end of it, it's the same money, isn't it?
>>> one can't afford this on a teacher's salary in most parts of Bay Area.
If you raise salaries for a wide class of employees - what do you think will happen to the housing prices? Also, where would the money come from? California has about 300K teachers. Each 10K of salary increase would cost 3 billion dollars (not counting pension costs, employer's part in taxes, etc. so actually more). Where those additional billions would come from?
But teacher's salary in Bay Are is not so far from software engineer's: http://rossieronline.usc.edu/teaching-salary-california/
The second and third highest paying districts are both located in Santa Clara County, which is also home to Silicon Valley. The average salary in the Mountain View-Los Altos Union district is $100,530, while Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union has an average salary of $92,636.
Considering other benefits like pensions, I'd say not so far from that of many software engineers.
Re: The indignity of no work
#88> A world in which a healthy adult has the reasonable expectation of earning a decent living while working full-time at a market wage is absolutely a world in which the dignity of work is a useful social value to cultivate. In a world in which that is not a reasonable expectation, the dignity of work can be a harmful concept. Interesting times ahead. It's going to be painful getting there, if we get there at all, but…
The few soft UBI trials commonly found in citations were too short-lived to tell whether we were simply observing a Hawthorne Effect at work or if the outcomes were sustainable.
Re: The indignity of no work
#89Whenever I hear the phrase "the dignity of work", I'm reminded of Jeffrey Bernard's quote: "As if there was something romantic and glamorous about hard work ... if there was something romantic about it, the Duke of Westminster would be digging his own fucking garden, wouldn't he?" http://www.rense.com/general56/thevirtueofidleness.htm
(he also wrote a couple of books about organic gardening)
Re: The indignity of no work
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what? Do the Medicare numbers work for anyone? Health insurance in the USA is the worst in the world and costs more than anyone's else. USA citizens still use it and actively fight any substantial towards a more rational scheme that will offer more and cost less (ultimately). This as the basic income, is not about math - it's about politics. NOTE: I don't mean politics in the negative sense, I mean it in the sense…
> So what? He's pointing out that it's a practical impossibility. The money for UBI has to come from somewhere , and any money a government has at its disposal comes from: 1) extortion (ie. taxation), 2) printing, 3) borrowing. Those are the three options, and none of them are a sustainable way to fund UBI, because the amount of money needed is so massive. You can't get something from nothing, and everyone can't get…
I'm not convinced that it is NOT financially viable. Especially in Switzerland where the governance is exemplary compared to other countries. I believe it is, only a real world example will convince me and Switzerland IMHO is the perfect country to run this experiment.
The fact that you equate taxation with extortion for example, shows that you have a different, not necessarily wrong, starting point than me.