471–480 of 582 posts
At the risk of mowed over by the crowd, I want to propose not calling it income. It's welfare. In no way should we equate it to result of someone's work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly does basic income solve the same problem as the military?
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 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 significantly to overall cost. In the 1990's, the US and NATO managed to put an end to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia through direct military action without incurring any significant casualties. In 1991, the UN-mandated Persian Gulf War incurred so few friendly casualties, it was statistically safer for coalition troops to serve in the Persian Gulf than to stay at home simply because the added casualties from combat were less than the reduced casualties from car accidents.
In any case, there's a much better way of overlapping the two: require 2-4 years of national service and then designate the basic income guarantee as a veterans' benefit. (It wouldn't have to be military as there would be other options for conscientious objectors). This would increase military manpower, make it less likely to go to war unnecessarily, reduce youth unemployment, provide near-universal job training to reduce unemployment in the long run, solve the college debt problem via the GI Bill, and reduce social stratification by throwing everyone into the same situation early in life. And if you don't want to do it, then you don't get basic income and you don't get to vote. But that would never happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As always, you are welcome to take up a very big CHF loan and put your money where your mouth is ;) I expect you have a 50% chance of making money. The actual explanation is a lot simpler; McDonalds employees are more expensive in Switzerland than in the US. You can see the same effect where I live, in Norway.
TBH, of all the different companies out there, McDonald's is the one that I am shocked has not become far more automated. They operate on a scale that no other food industry business operates, yet many of the tasks are still done by people. Why don't we have fully automatic fry machines by now for example?
You can say the same for any corporation or institution out there. Why are colleges still teaching the same way since 1850?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As always, you are welcome to take up a very big CHF loan and put your money where your mouth is ;) I expect you have a 50% chance of making money. The actual explanation is a lot simpler; McDonalds employees are more expensive in Switzerland than in the US. You can see the same effect where I live, in Norway.
TBH, of all the different companies out there, McDonald's is the one that I am shocked has not become far more automated. They operate on a scale that no other food industry business operates, yet many of the tasks are still done by people. Why don't we have fully automatic fry machines by now for example?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this will allow people to live comfortably while they, for example, acquire a more profitable skill than what they currently have. Maybe some of them. If American welfare is any indications you'll have generations of people who will live within this free money system, do nothing, learn nothing and demand more and more over time. They will all have iPhones, huge flat screen TV's and never work a day in their lives.…
This is one of the arguments against Basic Income and related topics i find most biased against lower income workers. If your goal is to make everyone work, you have to fight wealth accumulation. You sold a company for 5B$ ? doesnt matter, you should be taxed until you have almost no money, so you have to keep working. Your parents made rich money? tough luck. No inheritance. Get to work. But I have yet to hear someo…
Wealth accumulation is the reason businesses thrive in the first place. Without businesses, who is going to provide jobs for those lower-income workers? The government?
"You sold a company for 5B$ ? doesnt matter, you should be taxed until you have almost no money"
If I knew this would happen, I would most likely move my company overseas. There is a reason IKEA is a non-profit organization and many actors renounce their European country citizenship.
"Your parents made rich money? tough luck. No inheritance. Get to work."
Now you just sound bitter and jealous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This assumes a static proportion of "lazy" or unethical people. I think the counterargument is one of moral hazard: if you reward laziness, more and more people will decide to be lazy. There is also a motivational issue -- many people (I suspect) will find it harder to work for a living if they sense that their hard-earned money is taxed and given away to freeloaders.
But why would you equate "lazy" with unethical? That's already an assumption that could be challenged. We now don't deem someone who's unwilling to work from sun up to sun down in the rice fields as lazy or unethical, but 300 years ago that might have been the case. Why? Because now a few people grow our food so efficiently that most people can afford to be "lazy" and work 40 hours a week in an office job, or at leas…
Fairness matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is unconditional and on top of any other income you get.
I did not see this anywhere in the article and most models of basic income i know do not do this. They instead only fill you up until you got amount X of money.
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…
The big problem I see with it is the age discrimination, of which modern society already has far too much. Strike that clause (and in the case of children too young to understand money, give it to their parents to spend on their behalf), and I would see a good case for it being a net positive, but not the proposal as it currently stands.
That said, if this wouldn't be enough for someone with kids to live on, that could be a problem. Its a tough problem to solve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just for the record, I am not currently arguing with you, but I just thought I would point out something from real-world experience which starkly contradicts the "ideal" economic equilibrium you describe. In my experience as a Norwegian, the parity argument isn't even close to true in the real world. There are lots of non-perishable goods here which are imported but are a lot more expensive than they are in the US. F…
A friend of mine touring through Norway decided to get a pizza and a 6 pack of beer. Ended up costing him ~$65.
I understood I was getting 'western' luxuries in an expensive city, but it really drove home the concept of "cost of living" someplace moreso than abstract calculators. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why care if you do a good job if losing it doesn't really impact you that negatively? That statement says a lot about how you think; everyone is not like you. Many people take pride in what they do and do it well regardless of compensation, it's not about the money, it's about the fulfillment one gets from a job well done.
Yes in some cases, like software, I agree that positive motivation naturally exists. Negative motivation may also naturally exist. For example, if you enjoy your work, and the work is desirable, you'll be anxious about losing it. However, I wonder whether it's quixotic to think this applies to all types of work. I would love to see a small country like Switzerland incubate this policy.