Slashdot Mirror
Greece's Former Finance Minister Explains Why A Universal Basic Income Could Save Us (fastcoexist.com)
Charlie Sorrel, writing for FastCoExist: Next time you're having a fight with somebody who doesn't like the idea of a universal basic income, you might employ some of these arguments from Yanis Varoufakis, Greece's former finance minister. In an interview with the Swiss newspaper Tages Anzeiger, he not only refutes the usual arguments against the concept that the government should give everyone a minimum check every month, but he makes them sound quite ridiculous. The interview was published ahead of the Switzerland's vote on a universal basic income (or UBI) in June. If successful, all Swiss adults would get $2,500 per month, and kids around $625 per month, whether or not they have a job. Here are some of Varoufakis's best answers.
First, on the need for a UBI: "For the first time in the history of technology more jobs are destroyed than created. Technical progress means that more and more high-paying jobs will disappear and thus shrink the middle class. This will in turn cause a further concentration of income and wealth in the upper classes. That's why I fight like a basic income for sociopolitical reforms. The robotization [of work] has long been underway, but robots don't buy products. Therefore, a basic income is needed to offset this change and stabilize a society which has an increasing wealth inequality." Then, on why you need a UBI if you already have a good job: "What good is a well-paying job, if you are afraid to lose it? This constant fear paralyzes."Good luck convincing many citizens to do actual work.
First, on the need for a UBI: "For the first time in the history of technology more jobs are destroyed than created. Technical progress means that more and more high-paying jobs will disappear and thus shrink the middle class. This will in turn cause a further concentration of income and wealth in the upper classes. That's why I fight like a basic income for sociopolitical reforms. The robotization [of work] has long been underway, but robots don't buy products. Therefore, a basic income is needed to offset this change and stabilize a society which has an increasing wealth inequality." Then, on why you need a UBI if you already have a good job: "What good is a well-paying job, if you are afraid to lose it? This constant fear paralyzes."Good luck convincing many citizens to do actual work.
Have to pay Greece?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
is promote mediocracy.
Oh, and instant inflation as those with their new found cash spend it on crap.
I don't see robots doing work. I see people making pennies assembling iPhones in China, children working in sweatshops in Vietnam making Nike clothing. This man is a fool. The problem isn't robots. People are cheaper than robots are.
This is a communist idea... giving everybody some money just for living in their zone, with no work required. There's still some reward for working, but most people can get by without a job. This doesn't sound very stable to me, but Greece has always had a fluctuating currency and their main source of GDP has been American bailouts.
Building robots with guns will be cheaper.
Taking financial advice from the Greeks would be like taking Civil liberties advice from the Saudis or N. Koreans.
The fact the Greeks are for it should be enough to get it laughed out of the room.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I bring home less than that, albeit by just a hair, working my ass off at a full-time IT job in the midwest USA. So I can get a mid-$40k/year income just by sitting on my ass in Greece? I'm a Republican and have always been against handouts, but you know what, fuck it. I'm done, sign me up to sit on my ass and smoke dope and play video games. What the fuck does it even matter anymore?
How about we put a big fat asterisk next to the output of a resigned-in-disgrace former finance minister from a broke, crooked, can't-stop-capital-flight, had-a-coup-in-living-memory, too-big-to-make-Europe-fail country? Just a thought.
Ah yes, when I think of where I want financial advice from the first place I think of is Greece........... /s
Relative to the amount of free income being doled out.
Anyways, Greece thinks this is a good idea because Greece is completely fucked.
Greece's former finance minister probably has as much credibility in financial matters as Steve Jobs had on cancer treatment.
Are you seriously proposing we take advice from a guy responsible for Greece's present condition?! Are you incapable of learning or just a stark, raving, mad lunatic with a death wish?
more jobs are destroyed than created
Is this true? Is it *really* true. Or did we just ship all the jobs to lower wage countries? If it is not true then the reverse is true.
It sounds right but is there actually any numbers to back it up?
We are nowhere even close to close to being in a position to accomplish something like that on earth. Dust -> wind. At some point we are really going to need to acknowledge reality and the confines of it and address our problems realistically.
Well, if they want to have a toilet that flushes, somebody will have to fix it. DIY is the next big thing, I guess.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Just sign a deal with Netflx, so when You query words like "marijuana" on Google, their retarded search engine suggests advertisements amidst useful information. I hate that because I don't like to remember things that I don't like. For example, I hate stoner movies in general.
The Swiss vote on the universal basic income will only take place because it's part of the normal political process here. But even the promoters of it agree publicly that there is no chance at all to be adopted now. There only goal is to force discussion about simplification of the various social income administrations as there is many of them in Switzerland. There also openly admit that the proposed modification of the Swiss federal constitution will not give a clue about how to get the money, and this make the whole affaire just a joke from the point of view of many peoples here.
It's funny to see all the comments dismissing the all article without even reading it. Oh wait, I forgot this is Slashdot after all.
Yanis Varoufakis is not the man who got Greece into its current mess, he's the guy who tried to negotiate a way out. The EU and IMF eventually refused to deal with him (he is much better at macroeconomics than they are) and forced the Greek PM to cave in to their demands. Veroufakis resigned as a result but not in disgrace; he was offered another government job but declined.
... and this underscores the fact. In societies that provide goods and services for their citizens, adding currency to the mix just democratizes spending. How is this any different than e.g. the US Congress awarding contracts in appropriations bills?
In which alternative universe is taking economic advice from Greek government officials a good idea? And how do we visit it?
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
there's been massive increases in automation and productivity. So much so that China has warned Foxconn not to automate too much to keep from causing social unrest. We already produce enough food to feed everyone. The problem is logistics. What I'm saying is the world doesn't need ditch diggers too.
Why should we create miserable make work just because a few people are uncomfortable with the idea of someone not being miserable in a job 40-60 hours a week? What, specifically, makes you uncomfortable with the idea that when people don't need to work we don't make them?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Good luck convincing many citizens to do actual work."
It wouldn't be that difficult, given how little "basic income" would pay. Adjusting for the cost of living difference between Switzerland and the US (rent, groceries, etc), their proposal would work out to about US$1500/month, or $18K/year. (This is in the range of what people who are judged too disabled to work get from Social Security.) Yes, there are people who are content to live on that. But not most people. Would you?
Anyone who aspires to a middle-class lifestyle would at least get a part-time job to supplement basic income (maybe regular freelance work, a half-time office job, gig-economy stuff as needed, a creative project that they never had time for, that business they were otherwise afraid to take a risk on, etc) or a full-time job that they might not otherwise be able to afford to take (e.g. teaching, social work, performing arts). And the kinds of people who are used to taking home $1500 or more every week would undoubtedly stick with the jobs they have already, and treat the basic-income grant as "mad money" to spend on something fun.
The idea needs to be tested thoroughly, before being tried on the scale of, say, the US, or even the UK. It may not work as projected based on how it's worked in a few small-population experiments so far. The amount definitely needs to be evaluated. But if you're ridiculing the idea based on the assumption that a just-above-poverty-level income is going to be really attractive to the masses... I'm pretty sure you're mistaken.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
its easier for people to ignore that fact and attach bad history to someone who didn't cause it.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Taking advice from Greece on societal economics probably isn't that smartest choice. Seems like this guy wants to double down on the already failed bet.
So are you saying he's wrong?
"Good luck convincing many citizens to do actual work".
IMO the huge majority of people who would be perfectly happy to sit around doing nothing with a basic income wouldn't be producing any work/effort of significance anyhow even with our current day standard of "no money with no job". Call center lifers. Fast food lifers. Minimum wage lifers in general.
Add to this the fact that you would then completely scrap the current unemployment/disability benefit systems and the increase in cost across society in tax load wouldn't increase as much as feared. It would increase. Especially on companies and the richest 10% of people.
Yes we can learn a great deal about the former finance minister of a bankrupt country. Almost as much as we can learn about world peace from the US Pentagon.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
No. I'm fairly sure that the vast majority of people will want more than the basics. At least one of them will be good enough at plumbing that you will want to hire him for a rate he will accept in order to fix your toilet.
The whole idea that people are inherently lazy and won't work without being forced to always puzzled me. Most of the people I know want to do something productive, but more often than not it's either not something they can get enough income from quickly enough to be able to drop their day job and start doing it full-time or it's not something they can get enough income from to keep the bills paid. Give them a guaranteed basic income and they won't sit around doing nothing, they'll start doing what they want to do (instead of the day job they have to have because it pays the bills).
And on the flip side, what does Donald Trump do exactly? I know he's rich and considered successful, but what work does he actually do? Or Kim Kardashian? It always seemed to me that the more successful you were, the more well-off you were, the less actual work you appeared to do each day. I know there's research involved in say running a major investment fund like Warren Buffet does, but he doesn't do the majority of it. 95% is delegated out to subordinates who do the legwork and write up the analyst reports, Buffet himself just goes over those reports and makes the final decisions. It's something only he can do, but he's not spending 40 hours a week nailed down to a desk poring over corporate reports and newspaper articles and stock trade data, running spreadsheet calculations to figure out what's behind the stock movements and what's likely to happen in the future.
To quote a mill supervisor, "I don't want the industrious guy who'll clean up the mess with a smile. I want the lazy bastard who'll figure out how to stop the mess from happening so he doesn't have to clean it up all the time.".
He wants to do for the rest of Europe what he has done for Greece! Rejoice!
> In the USSR everybody had a job (it was actually mandatory for adults who are not studying),
Mandatory via the government, you say? Meaning the police would show up and drag you to work if you didn't show up on time? Sounds awesome!
> which means that 1) there was less time for drinking (showing up drunk at work was not OK)
Yeah NOBODY drinks in Russia. They don't have a HUGE problem with alcoholism.
> and 2) everybody had some money
1/9th as much as their peers in the USA, to be exact. (About $400/month)
http://www.tradingeconomics.co...
http://www.tradingeconomics.co...
You're seriously suggesting that cutting average income by over 85% is a good idea? You REALLY want to live on $400 per month? You can do that already, if that's what you really want.
I have a friend from The Netherlands.
It's interesting. It certainly saved her bacon when she was down and out, and she is doing VERY well right now.
This may come as a shock to some, but a lot fewer folks than you'd imagine like being idle.
Oh, wait...legal pot. I stand corrected. My friend doesn't partake, so I guess she's missing out.
Alot of the current posts suggests that it is redicules to listen to a former minister of economics from Greece, Yanis Varoufakis, on economics. He is also "Professor of Economic Theory at the University of Athens and a private consultant for Valve Corporation" (Wikipedia), however.
While being minister of economics from Greece might not be good for your credentials (not with standing that he was the guy Greece called in to deal witht the crisis), being a professor at University of Athens and a private consultant for Valve does sound fairly good.
You don't think living above the poverty line will be reason enough for people to become plumbers? Interesting stance.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Bitcoin can't buy enough of the Kool-Aid for you to drink?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Who's paying to astroturf websites with this basic income garbage?
That's who we should pay attention to on economics issues. Greece.
I find it telling that Varoufakis spent most of his 7 month tenure as finance minister trying to get the EU to absolve the debt that Greece owed it. Clearly Varoufakis represents the type of person who just wants to eat the fruits of other people's labor.
all the welfare programs that basic income was meant to replace will be back. Because politicians like creating dependents who will vote for them.
I'm going to listen to anything this lazy, stupid, incompetent little boy has to say. He sounded like a child when he tried to defend his stupidity and incompetence before leaving his post as so called finance minister. He is either a liar or has no understanding of finance.
"Swiss adults would get $2,500 per month, and kids around $625 per month"
That is more than many (most?) small farmers get now. This would mean a basic income of $52K per year for a family with three kids. I've had many years where I made $14K and supported our family fine. $52K would be luxury and that would be above the $14K - damn nice.
There are many reasons to like the universal income idea. I don't think it will actually make people stop working. People want more stuff. What it will do is give them the chance to do more interesting things. Some won't but many will.
Of course, the article glosses over implementation details like that.
Sure, I wouldn't mind an extra $2,500 every month. But is it truly an extra $2,500? If the taxes on my normal income will also go up by that $2,500, it's a wash. If inflation makes it so I don't have any real additional purchasing power, it's also a wash. So why add the additional level of complexity in those cases? And won't there be bureaucratic and administrative costs?
Show me the numbers. Show me where the money will come from such that I really will have an extra $30K take-home every year... that I actually benefit from and that won't be vacuumed away in taxes, bureaucracy, and inflation. Show me real, solid, numbers, and sure, I'll support the idea. But in my experience, things that sound too good to be true, usually are.
Imagine all the people...
The big mystery to me, which isn't addressed, is where the money comes from. Do they raise it from income tax? Or from VAT? Is it just going to be one arbitrarily defined class of people paying in and another arbitrarily defined class of people receiving? Or do they think they can just "print" money from thin air as needed? Somehow I don't see that working.
If I were, in fact, called upon to design such a system and attempt to maximize its efficiency, I would suggest. . . An energy tax. Tax the production and import of energy sources. All of them. The most efficient way to raise revenue is by taxing economic activity at its foundation. In agricultural societies, it was land. In a modern industrial society, everything requires energy. Tax it at the source, and then let the energy companies pass the cost on down to their customers. Indirectly it would end up taxing all consumption, but in a much less meddlesome way than VAT. (And we can throw VAT and income taxes alike into the trash bin of history!)
I've got a feeling though, that a lot of politicians would feel threatened by a simple and neutral method of raising revenues. They'd rather have a complex tax code that they can continually wrangle of the details of, and try to score points with various constituents or enact various "social engineering" schemes to encourage this behavior, punish that behavior, etc.
He's JUST the person I would go to for economic advice! I mean, look how well Greece has been run.
Education, day care, police work, and Medicine are still labor intensive.
Here in Scotland there's a pilot "virtual high school" being implemented to try and address a shortage of teachers by getting remote teachers to teach kids from multiple locations. There are always ways to reduce labour.
People still like labor intensive restaurants. I want a lot more unemployment before I will give basic income further consideration.
Labour intensive restaurants are part of what basic income is about. In a post-scarcity economy, subsistence shouldn't need to be an incentive for work -- luxury and leisure should do the job quite nicely. If I have clothes to wear, food to eat and a house to sleep in, then one day's work pays for eating out all week. A week's work, and I might buy myself a basic tailored suit. And for the chef and the tailor, every penny they earn is reward, not survival.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Whereas Capitalism fails only when human beings are no longer required to produce goods and services. i.e. real soon now.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
It will do at least one other thing: start a black market.
Just look to Seattle. The $15 Now movement (not even a UBI and not completely implemented yet) just drove rent prices through the roof and the bottom tier of our economy into tents under the interstate.
This sort of crap is pushed by big business and property developers. Instead of putting downward pressure on necessities, this just dumps money into the demand side of the economy, pushing prices and profits up.
Have gnu, will travel.
Simply its this: the world doesn't owe you a living, get over yourself and suck it up. Live or die on your own efforts, not mine.
Fine. If robots take my job and I don't get to have part in the production gain I'll just grab myself a Kalashnikov and take what I want.
Glad we could clear this up so quickly.
' be seeing you soon.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I don't really care about anybodys arguments for this UBI concept, I know one thing for sure: Somehow, it'll get corrupted, so that I get screwed out of it, have to work, my taxes jacked up, and I'll be paying for some jackoffs to smoke weed, drink beer, and play video games all day long, while I get my pay cut, and as mentioned above, my taxes increased to pay for losers to play all day. I just KNOW it will happen that way.
You want the government to give us free shit? How about we do away with the requirement for healthcare (or paying Danegeld to the IRS if you don't) and give us basic healthcare for FREE instead!? That would make WAY MORE sense than this UBI crap. I'm dead serious about this: If the U.S. Government can't manage to give every U.S. citizen free basic healthcare, then it sure as fuck can't afford to give everyone enough cash to live on every month. Call it a test case. I challenge the Government and everyone who supports this UBI nonsense to make free healthcare for everyone work, first; if that works for, say, a decade, THEN we can talk about your UBI. Deal?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Just imagine how hard the transport sector alone will be hit by layoffs in the coming decades. A quick peak reveals that transportation currently employs 7.4% of the American population. What if they fire 50% of the work force due to increased automation? Or worse.
Politicians may stall the inevitable by restricting progress to save jobs, but we know it will get to a point where human error is so unacceptable that insurance firms will demand it.
This guy's comments could have been replaced with a random phrase generator and made just as much sense. Every conclusion is a non sequitur.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Give them free money for VR headsets and caffeinated sugar drinks so that type two diabetes can solve the employment problem for you. Yeah that will work, but the unintended evil of it is undeniable.
Given the complete collapse of the Greek economy, they are the last ones on the planet who should be offering economic advice.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Overspending did. Cutting spending was a proposed solution to them spending too much. Others believe that when you dig yourself into a hole, you get out by digging further down.
> Seeing as you are posting economic data from the last decade
The word "decade" means ten years. Same root as "decimal". Twenty-five or thirty years years ago is a tad more than a decade.
Interesting listen
> If someone (hypothetically) lives in an area where the income is $100 a month, but basic amenities are free
The $400/month includes ALL value available, whether that's delivered via government (what you call "free") or by any other means whatever. You compare different economic systems by looking at GDP per capita. That's the total "stuff" produced by a country (food, cars, gas, radios, medicine, everything ) divided by the total number of people. The Soviet Union produced $400 worth of stuff per person.
How it's delivered, whether by taxation and government allocation, private purchases, or any other method doesn't affect it. Each person in the US got nine times as much stuff each month, on average, because the competitive economy produced nine times as much stuff.
Ok, since the majority of people here very obviously have ZERO clue about the situation in Greece and what role Varoufakis plays in the whole mess, allow me to clue you in.
The whole shit started WAY before Varoufakis was more or less pushed into that position. And he was one of the few intelligent people to grace that position with his presence (seriously, his predecessors were duds), but he had very little chance to actually do anything sensible. The IMF was calling the shots. And if you didn't notice by now, allow me to inform you: The very last thing you can use in your country is the IMF telling you what to do. It's almost granted that they will make matters worse, since they have no interest at all to "help" you. Their job is to ensure that whoever you owe money gets it. No matter how. As far as they're concerned, sell the organs of your people.
To give you an idea what Varoufakis' situation was and how sensible blaming him for the mess is: It's a bit like blaming whoever will be the next president of the USA for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with the mess with that Cuban prison.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Money makes money and those with it can so easily take advantage of those without it. the system desperately needs something which works the other way and shares the resources back out again
This will work up to the point where, say 50% + 1, of the population decides that smoking pot, watching porn, and playing video games on everyone else's dime is A-OK. Before that point, there will be enough working people to keep the whole thing going. After that point, it'll be a downward spiral of everyone getting their 2500 MarxBux a month, but not being able to buy anything with it because too many people expect to get free shit for doing nothing to keep the store shelves stocked for everyone else.
The best social program is gainful employment. UBI is a fast track to creating a permanent underclass that lives in squalor and a productive class that will stop wanting to subsidize laziness.
The idea needs to be tested thoroughly, before being tried on the scale of, say, the US, or even the UK.
Exactly - on the face of it it seems to offer many advantages: it massively simplifies the system of welfare payments and could also make a lot of employment laws unnecessary e.g. minimum wage, unemployment insurance etc. However if it means that lots of people will sit around and do nothing it will have a huge negative impact on the economy. In fact perhaps what is needed is some negative feedback system so the fewer people working the less the payments are this way the more people who sit around not working the less everyone gets until more people start to work.
I'm an economist; I recently finished my PhD and am now working in the tech industry.
I am hugely in favor of UBI. I think of it in 3 ways:
Is it doable?
Yes, of course. Existing social programs are very costly, and this will replace many of them. Furthermore, there are a lot of profits that have been created by technology in the last 50 years. And yet work weeks have increased, and many people have a lower quality of life than before. You might ask why this is. I'll give you a hint: the answer isn't population growth.
What is the cost?
Social disruption in the short term. Probably a cost to some or many very wealthy individuals. New regulations are required, but these may be less in total than existing regulations.
What is the benefit?
Many. Increased social stability. A simpler social safety net for one. A promise that each individual will be better off as technology improves and jobs may be destroyed.
That last piece I believe to be very important. The looming driverless car revolution has highlighted the risk of technology: jobs lost there have no promise of replacements.
> I suggest cutting rent by 85%. Landlords do not need to be making that much money.
Average rent is about 110% of the cost to own the property- mortgage, property taxes, maintenance, etc. So a property that rents for $11,000/year costs the landlord about $10,000/ rentable year, including vacancy month.
You propose cutting the rent to about $900/year. The cost to the landlord being about $10,000, buying a house and renting it out would mean you'd lose $9,100/year. Obviously virtually nobody is stupid enough to do that; nobody would rent out a house. That's how you end up with shanty towns like you see in Mexico city.
Three years ago, I went back to school. I highly recommend it. Having a clue is nice.
Let's see, decade means "ten years", so the last ten years. Do the data cover just the last ten years? Nope.
Or, you can say decade as in 1980s, 1990s, etc. This is the 2010s, so the previous decade would be the 2000s. Does the data stop before 2000? Nope.
Why don't you tell me which definition of "decade" you're using that makes any sense whatsoever.
Even better, why not look at more data, going all the way back to the founding of the Soviet Union. Notice how GDP and other measures of prosperity are ALWAYS at least 90% or so lower than the US during the same time period? Notice how it was so bad the country failed, ceased to exist?
So you contend that given a choice, people will not work for better conditions in their life even if employment is available and on fair terms? In other words, that our current system is based on forced labor?
You also forget that it wasn't that long ago that it took a crew of 20 to do what one guy on a backhoe accomplishes today and that the guy dinking on a spreadsheet used to be 50 guys with adding machines.
Yanis likes to gamble w/ other peoples money.. He also likes to be generous w/ other peoples money............ But this is nice if I want to argue w/ people using hyperbole & anecdotal sound bites. I'll use quotes from Yanis' arguement.
Not too hard to look up Germany too:
http://www.tradingeconomics.co...
We see that Germany's per gdp (production per person) is about 18% lower than the US. Of that, government consumption per capita is higher by a similar amount. So the country has a bit less, and the government takes a bit more.
There is nothing wrong with a UBI. In fact it is very good idea if it replaces the other means tested welfare programs and the amount isn't too high. But even if it is too high, inflation will adjust quickly to correct. A UBI is not anti-Capitalistic, rather it is just a variable in the equations of Capitalism that is overlooked b/c it is assumed to be zero. Kind of like the cosmological constant was in physics. (One perk that might convince conservatives: with a UBI it would be feasible to get rid of the minimum wage.)
The Swiss vote promises an amount of $2,500, which is surely too high, but not as high as most non-Swiss probably think because the average wage there is over $90,000 a year.
:T:R:A:N:S:
Well there's only one and it amounts to genetics. Will you spend your tax dollars on people who might be plausibly distant cousins? Evolution says yes, because you share considerable genetic code that is unique to you, with your distantly related cousins, which is what race/ethnicity boils down to when you get at it.
Will Greeks starve themselves to death and work themselves to death when half of Africa pours in to get a UBI? When not if half of Africa pours into Europe, how will Europeans deprive them of ALL those social welfare goodies? And how will Europe pay for both the considerable needs of an aging population and the never ending and constantly expanding needs of mostly Hunter-Gatherer/primitive Agriculture peoples (Africans) or tribal herders (Muslims and Sahel Africans) totally unsuited in every way genetically for the demands of an industrial society: good treatment of women, delayed gratification,low male violence, low male competition, high male trust, etc?
Neither Africans nor ME people are untermenschen but they are different and demonstrably cannot (because they never have) live as Europeans, Japanese, or NE Chinese live: cooperatively, law abidingly, monogamously (no harems/multiple wives) in vast urban cities requiring constant upkeep.
UBI is totally incompatible with open borders and really any significant amount of refugees and family reunification policies. IT could possibly work in Japan (it might fail), there is NO ZERO NADA ZILCH chance of it working in Europe as there will be no money to pay for it and European tax payers will not work themselves to death to pay for some African man and his 17 kids and five wives.
Let me put it to everyone this way -- I wish Africans well, in Africa, but if it came down to me and my family and property and income, I'd happily consign every single African on the planet into radioactive ash and if they are honest so would the vast 99.999% of non Africans as well. I certainly don't want that, at all. Neither do I wish to slave in a hovel so some illiterate African can support his kids which he shouldn't have in the first place being too poor for that many.
I contend that if you have one million people generating 60k per year of economic activity, and one million sitting on their assets being content with the bare minimum of collecting 30k a year of free stuff, where the bare minimum is specifically meant to give you all you need, then: a) it's not sustainable from the point of view of resentment from the productive class, b) the slobs are just as likely to demand a hike in their sole to get more free shit as they are to try to work for it, and finally c) Attenborough time of perfect break-even, no one will have any capital to invest in that one virtuous slob's attempt to better his station by entrepreneurship.
And I contend that your scenario won't come about in the first place since far less than half of the people are willing to settle for the bare minimum when they have the opportunity to do better. Your premise is faulty. That does not bode well for your conclusion.
Here's why UBI on't work. Joe has no job. We give him $2k in UBI on Sunday. Joe blows it all in booze and hookers by Tuesday. By Thursday, he's cold (it rained on Wednesday and all the underpasses were already staked out) and hungry (hangover has worn off completely). Joe shows up at the UBI office.
Serious question: what do you tell Joe? To go die? Or do we create the same social programs UBI is replacing to ensure Joe stays alive?
If you're thinking, "Well Joe is clearly mentally unsound and should get help!" - if we could do that and did that then I guess we wouldn't need a UBI in the first place as everyone who could work would because that's what sane people do.
After reading through the higher moderated comments here all I can say is this: if you still believe in individual rights, if you run your own business or trying to start one, learn Chinese, because USA (and many other Western countries) are completely screwed up. The prevailing attitude seems to be that the collective is above the individual, that individual rights are outdated, that private property must be stolen and redistributed.
Diversify, outsource, find alternative means of income in countries that are not displaying this level of decay and rot. It is quite ironic that one of the most capitalist countries out there still has Communism in its name.
If you want to stay a free individual make sure to pay attention to these comments, this trend is a very clear and present danger to everything that respects individual rights.
You can't handle the truth.
> "For the first time in the history of technology more jobs are destroyed than created.
Nah, just people are whining more than ever before.
There's the solution: make shopping bots who wear fancy dresses and jewelry. Liberacebot
Table-ized A.I.
With a UBI people won't feel the need, as they do in under developed countries, to breed as many children as they can in order to ensure that some of them will support them when they grow old.
A general observation is that the wealthier the people, the lower the population growth, even reaching negative numbers.
It still would have to be proven, but if this works the same way when people can be assured that they will receive a UBI during their whole life that will at least be able to sustain them on a minimally required level until their demise, then it will be a huge advantage of the UBI which I'm afraid Varoufakis forgot to mention or consider.
With the current trend to austerity, eradication of the middle class and impoverisation of the 99.9% by 'the elite' (who by the way don't work so hard themselves either), their is a serious risk of reversal of this 'natural' depopulation trend (as opposed to vaccines, gmo, pesticides etc. being proposed by 'the elite').
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
> The whole idea that people are inherently lazy and won't work without being forced to always puzzled me.
Why don't we take a poll. Compare the number of hours of volunteer work done this week to the number of hours playing video games.
Would those results also puzzle you?
Either way, I'm pretty sure neither 1960 nor 1990 is the within the last decade.
> So? You are saying as if communism is automatically "bad".
Well, other than the part where millions starved, millions were purged and millions were forced to live as slaves of the State, such that they had to be fenced in lest they escape, Communism worked out just great!
But I'm sure that none of the people practiced actual Communism, right? That was supposed to be a utopia so it's really surprising that it never once worked out. It's okay, though, THIS time it will be better, right? If only they had practiced TRUE Communism it'd have been great!
I'd take financial advice from Kanye West before I'd take it from that moron.
So you contend that given a choice, people will not work for better conditions in their life even if employment is available and on fair terms?
I'm not sure why you think the terms will be any fairer than they are now. And don't forget that the work they choose to do will be heavily taxed to pay for the UBI.
Whereas Capitalism fails only when human beings are no longer required to produce goods and services. i.e. real soon now.
Yep. Macroeconomics 101. The supply-demand curve.
If no one has money to buy your product (no purchasing-power == no demand), then prices will plummet. With no purchases, there is no tax base for government (maintaining roads, law-enforcement, utilities), so your country soon turns into Somalia.
Once everyone gets let's say 250 USD/month, the cost of living will suddenly increase exactly by that much.
Fact is jobs are going a way more tehcnology develops forward.. Robotic cars are coming, so human taxi drivers are clearly next human job that might loose it jobs..
Fact is most of us would still find something usefull to do. basic Income just makes sure if you loose a job ( you loose it now days mostly because owner of company wants extra profits).
Personally i would probably just switch careers, from brewery worker to teacher/maker..
It will be more fair because otherwise people won't do it. Most of the unfair employment offers out there depend on potential employees being desperate. Once they can afford to say no, the terms will get better.
As for the taxes, it won't be a big problem if they are progressive.
And being so few people their revolt will be easily crushed. If the 50% bottom rung riot, you're fucked. If Bill Gates riots, you get a damn good laugh.
A very small scale. Possibly a few hundred or thousand would be the largest these groups should get. Have a group of this size associate into a collective and support the collective collectively.
Basically like communes. Which is entirely viable in urban as well as suburban as well as rural contexts. If the collective cannot support itself then it isn't going to work on a larger scale either. All going large will do is throw the stone harder... which won't make it "fly"... The stone either flies or it doesn't.
I am a big fan of communes. They educate people on how communal living works and will demystify the elements that people often have so many misapprehensions about. Such as people not needing to work.
And something that is nice about keeping things small is that it maintains accountability. Go big and no one can keep track of anything. People start cashing checks and doing nothing... including not even picking up litter. Nothing. Look at how many cities there are that are full of people on welfare doing nothing whilst the cities are themselves filthy. In a commune that wouldn't happen. If someone has nothing to do, the commune will find something for them to do. It might mean picking things up, cleaning, organizing, basic maintenance.
There is no labor shortage because there is no shortage of things that need to be done. Look at cities that are dirty and falling apart... no work? Things clearly are not being taken care of so clearly there is work to be done. It simply isn't being assigned.
Here people will disagree without actually thinking about it. My point is counter dogmas that people have bought into sadly.
The self supporting commune is the solution. And by self supporting, I do not mean it grows its own food. I mean its needs are met without subsidy. A collective of a thousand people should be able to produce goods and services sufficient to buy what the collective needs. And if it doesn't, then it is being managed by idiots. And a commune that allows itself to be run by idiots is populated by idiots. As to how you deal with idiots... spread them around and dilute their effect on any collective. A failed collective can be dissolved and have its population spread around the successes.
The other thing that is ideal about this situation is that it is entirely the individual's choice if they join and which one they join. If you don't join... then you should not expect to have your basic needs taken care of by a collective. The state should not act as a collective in this context. The basic day to day needs of people should either be taken care of personally through the personal industry of the individual or they should be provided by a collective of consenting adults that are personally aware of the other members of the collective and assign tasks the community needs done collectively.
Look at Greece... does it strike you as a place that is well maintained? They hand out a lot of money for people to do nothing. By all means. Have them get paid. But they should get paid from community resources generated from community profits and those that receive that money should live and work in a way that takes into consideration how they are supported.
What I have a hard time with are people that demand my money but refuse to be at all accountable to me for how they spend it or how they spend their time. That means I give something and get nothing. That is not sustainable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
...and what's more we've just spent the last 50 years breeding stupid-useless-lazy people who are getting more useless every year.
/sarc/, sliding faster to the Matrix or some other dystopia
A great way to enter the Age of AI
It's almost as if we watched millions of people starve, get purged for disagreeing with the regime, etc.
But none of those were true Communism, of course! No, this time it will be better. This time it won't get corrupted by reality, just you wait and see!
There won't be purchase "power", but rest assured the demand will very much still be there.
Supply is abundantly made available thanks to brilliant advances in several areas of engineering from biological to robotic/automation technology "freeing" humanity to pursue something, for the time being and sadly foreseeable future it is poverty and social exclusion. Unfortunately suicide rates too.
How that demand without purchasing "power" would eventually be "acquired" or satisfied by basic necessity to live without suffering, would be the interesting side of the hypothetical story.
Wake me when the garbage man and all the plumbers are robots.
Was exactly about that back in 1780s America.
All the revolutionary soldiers came back from fighting Britain only to find out there was no work to be had, the economy was in the shitter, and all those debts they had prior to the war were now in collections.
The result? Thousands of people being sent to debtor's prison.
I don't remember if that got remedied before or after the Constitutional Congress, but it goes to show that even the founding fathers weren't that keen on helping the common man economically, even AFTER he'd served the cause.
It's good if it cuts down on Administrative self-importance syndrome (better known as ASS).
Self-importance from harvest or manual labour seems long gone...
Why work at all? Let some other dude carry the weight.
Communist ideas are still communist.
It is enough that one country will continue respecting the right to own stuff and all the able people will run there. You will be left with enough stuff to survive for 50 years but then people will start starving.
Here in the Netherlands, there are a bunch of people who are on welfare. Or social security, or whatever you may call it. They are in the situation that when they start to work, they will lose their right to that. So the first $1500 they earn each month, they get to keep... almost nothing. Now you wonder why they hang around and do nothing?
If, as a society, we provide everyone with a basic income. Disabled, without a job due to no fault of the person him/herself, too old to work or just plain lazy. Then for every dollar you earn, you get to keep most of it. No reason to cheat by working illegally, not a huge discontinuity when going from "can't work due to medial reasons" to "might be able to work part-time in another line of work".
Mind you.... The $2500 is way too much (at least here). The basic income should be enough that you can live in basic circumstances, but without many luxuries. If you want a car, work for it. If you want a vacation, work for it.
That "universal basic income" tirade comes straight from the "The Report from Iron Mountain"
The universal income has been tried before in Soviet Socialism.
It has been above and beyond universal income. In a socialist system most of the people had a place to live, a job, education was free, healthcare was free, one or two years maternity and the pay was more or less the same for all professions. Socialism failed miserably and It will keep failing every single time.
It is called rationing. If healthcare is free, that means a random client/patient will be rationed. Education, even if it is free, is not available to everyone in their selected field. A job that paid something: people on average were non-productive and looking for opportunities to steal. Well, if housing is free everyone wants would want to live in most beautiful place. However there is not enough desirable places for everyone.
It was tried before. Did not work then will not work now. Imagine in US they make it a basic income, of, say, $2000 per month. Once rumors are confirmed by less fortunate 50% of the world population, you can guarantee that population of US will double in 10 years. Even Trump's wall will not help, for underground high through capacity tunnels will be developed to meet demand.
Once somebody becomes entitled for $2000 a month, and becomes a voter, it is impossible to change that habit.
The largest effect of the UBI would be at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Many people who are well paid are very good at their job... and they like it. You do well at what you like. The highest paid are the most skilled. There is a pleasure in doing skilled work well.
At the other end of the ladder, people who are low paid generally do work that is unpleasant, repetitive, and un-satisfying. But they do it because they need the money. With the UBI they no longer need the money to survive. So they quit, and live on the UBI if that's the best they can do. So much less skilled work goes undone. But that work is still necessary to society. Some of it can be automated, but much can't be automated, at least in a cost effective way.
So salary (and working conditions) for low paid jobs goes way up. The salary for the garbage collector now reflects a new scarcity in the labor market. People doing unpleasant work may then be paid more than people doing more skilled and pleasant work. Construction workers may be paid more than lawyers. Neither can do the work of the other. Which is more important to society? Which job is harder to automate?
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
Greece would require some pretty major changes in order to be able to work UBI.
UBI would work in many countries perfectly fine, UK, Germany, even the US after all the "MUH TAXES" retards shut up.
But in Greece, the whole reason their country shit itself was because of welfare system gone awry.
UBI should be able to help people to slow down, have time to think in order to figure out what to do with their lives.
It is the opposite of a punishing welfare state where you get a minimum (or even less than minimum) amount of money to live in order to pressure you back to employment. This has never ever worked successfully and has only lead to massive numbers of people falling ill in the SHORT-term, never mind long-term.
Not only that, it drives many people to crime in order to just live uncomfortably, which is a relief in the case of some of the lives people lead on punishing welfare systems. (unless it is the UK, in which case spit out a few babies and you will be a billionaire in no time. FAMILY!)
UBI attempts around the world have generally improved situations, less health issues, less crime, more people in employment overall, with the only ones out being students and occasional 30-40s wanting to switch careers. (which UBI helps with itself because it gives them some time to experiment)
Having people stuck in a job they dislike but are good at is a crushing thing for the mind.
UBI would also help a considerable number of people get in to starting their own businesses and probably become The Next Big Thing in their local area.
This is also why we need to get multinational tax situations under control. These people have abused the system to get to where they are now, and the benefits do not outweigh the costs to local business. At all. (especially when a lot of these businesses pay abysmal wages)
I'd hardly miss most multinational companies if they stopped operations in areas that decide to clamp down on tax havens harshly.
They are not the foundations of a healthy economy, they created the unhealthy economy. Literally.
The largest effect would be at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. The lowest paid will be able to quit unpleasant jobs. But that work is still necessary to society. So work that can't be automated will see a big increase in salary. The garbage man may be paid better than a lawyer. Neither can do the work of the other. Which is more necessary? Which is harder to automate?
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
disclaimer: not a native speaker, so my choice words might be very dumb. ask if something needs to be rephrased. For situational reference, i'm a Finn so i'm thinking in Finnish context
The key with basic income the right amount. if set it so that folks pay their rents and barely anything else (or even NOTHING else), you've magically created a will to work because every dime goes towards the quality of life. Your life is literally what you make of it. Don't want work? well, you're not going to live in downtown then. you're moving so far into middle of nowhere, you actually have to travel far to reach the backend of nowhere... with the rest of folks who only want to drink beer and sleep.
However, if you get a nice job, everything you make goes to purchases, services, possibly luxuries. Tl;dr = it returns to circulation better than it regularly would
Human employment is vanishing. Better technology simply eliminates the need for workers. Where I differ from the man is that we don't need a basic income as it will not sustain the system. Each individual must have disposable income above and beyond meeting their basic needs. The simple reason is that businesses can not make sales unless people have extra income. Businesses still have to compete. Suppose for example that fifty different companies in the US make tennis rackets. The buyer wants the best racket at the least price. So no matter what each manufacturer must compete. The buyer will make the best choice that he can. But if the buyer can only pay for the basics in life that buyer will not buy any tennis rackets at all. Businesses will be forced to do better, simply because the businesses will be paying the taxes that the workers used to pay, in order for the government to send out those paychecks to those that do not work. If we do not confront this now we will have upheaval so radical that we may not survive the issue. The fact is that people are not usually willing to starve and suffer silently. At some point poverty reaches out and touches others, often with a brick or a knife or gun.
If everyone had an extra $1000 a month to spend, I could see prices simply increasing in proportion. For example, housing, which in the US is mostly bought and sold in a competitive market. If you and I have an extra $10,000 to bid on a house, guess what? The price of the house simply goes up, absorbing the UBI and negating its utility everywhere else. So housing becomes more expensive for a person with no other income, reducing the benefit of the UBI for food and other necessities.
A lot of the people we admire today for their contributions to art, literature, science, exploration and a dozen other things did not have day jobs that were of any benefit to society. A lot of them were wealthy landlords who were into science because they were curious and had nothing else to do.
And if we have one Newton for every one thousand people hanging around doing useless shit, as a species we would profit massively.
How many newtons have there been in the last 300 years? How many billion people have been born in that time frame?
There may or may not be advances for mankind in your panacea like vision of Newtons everywhere, but those advances would definitely pale in comparison to the billions of human leaches that provide nothing. No matter how brilliant the idea, nothing happens without back breaking labor and NO ONE is doing that for their own self gratification. The ONLY reason they do it is because they are forced to. Early on, and in a few hellish places today, they(slaves) were forced to work to avoid being killed. Today, the laborers work slavishly to get the few dollars they need to survive in today's society. NO ONE is mucking out Newton's septic system for their own pleasure or selflessness.
Even in your own example, the people who didn't have day jobs had great wealth and contributed to their society and economy by paying others to do the work. No matter what, work doesn't get done without a motivator and good will is not a motivator!
Americans commenting on Finances is hilarious.
They are so deluded by Capitalism it hurts. (to breathe)
The funnier thing is they think their state (government) is small with low overhead.
The US government is one of the biggest.
This is why your lives cost so much compared to a similar state, and why your dollar is pathetic.
Businesses will simply cut wages over time, so that the Basic Income effectively becomes a business subsidy - paying part of the wages, that businesses would otherwise be paying.
The Basic Income will also cause the consolidation of most other Welfare programs into one single payment - and then the Basic Income (and Welfare overall...) will be destroyed or decimated when a big enough economic crisis hits - leading to the successful achievement, of the long-term right-wing goal, of completely destroying Welfare.
The Basic Income is one of the most dangerous trojan horse policy out there. Look at the ways it can be exploited, to see that it is a trap.
A real alternative, is a Job Guarantee - don't guarantee people wages, guarantee them an opportunity to work for those wages - this can't be exploited, in the dangerous ways that the Basic Income can be.
I have tried to post on Basic Income subjects 3-4 times in the past, and every single time, my comment has disappeared - why?
There is some kind of invisible fucking blocklist on Slashdot, where your comments don't even get submitted for user-moderation - eating up perfectly good comments!
This kind of bullshit, where you have to spend ages tweaking your message, to find the 'magic word' or phrase that triggers the blocklist, is a massive pain in the hole - and it's very weird, that I can make an expletive-laden complaint like this, yet somehow my more measured politically-laden post on the Basic Income, is triggering a blocklist of some kind.
What fucking words are in the blocklist, that are stopping my comment from showing up? Is Slashdot engaging in blocking posts, based on political terms?
Fix this shit. Don't magically disappear posts using a random-fail algorithm, without telling users what got the post rejected!
Because Slashdot is randomly invisibly-failing all my posts, using some kind of ballsed-up filter algorithm, which gives ZERO user feedback, as to why the post was rejected, is rejecting every single post I make...so I have to make this worthless comment, to see if I can get any posts at all to turn up...
Because of the “commies” (a term created out of our fear of the Russians and other communist countries), we have an irrational fear of socialism. Now, while I generally feel that people should earn their income, I also don’t think we should let them starve to death.
The main argument that convinces me in favor of UBI is that it would eliminate the waste of the welfare system. All this administration throws away a ton of money just to evaluate people for their fitness for welfare and keep checking up on them. If instead we just indiscrimately gave everyone the same redistrubtion of tax money, it might actually cost less over-all. Also, the welfare system has a disincentive to leave, because if you make too much income, you lose welfare and may end up making less money for your efforts. UBI would eliminate that problem.
UBI would make SOME people lazy, but a UBI of $30K is barely enough to live in some of the cheapest parts of the US. There’s still an incentive to go out and earn more in order to have some disposable income.
One of the things that keeps people from bettering themselves is the fear of becoming destitute. They work low paying jobs merely to survive, with no time or mental energy left to get more education or look for a better job.
And imagine what UBI would do for the homeless. I’d want open up an efficient apartment complex near one of the four-year SUNY schools in upstate new york with bus service to the school. Send the homeless there.
UBI could actually go part way to making socialized medical system work better. If medical treatment has zero marginal cost, then people will abuse it. If there’s a small amount people have to pay out of pocket, then they’ll think twice. Never mind that that money might have come from UBI.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but an economy driven by automation where the people receive enough of the work product (either directly or as currency) to survive is neither communism or socialism. It's a mode that has yet to be tried.
Consequently, most of the posts above (I've not read the ones below yet) are completely missing the point.
If you want to argue this -- either way -- you have to start from the premise that jobs simply will not be available.
Then: What should be done, and how should it work, or, what should not be done, and why not?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
... and that is to mention that UBI will prevent overpopulation.
With the current austerity and impoverization agendas going on, people will have to rely again on their children to provide them with sustenance when they grow old.
In the underdeveloped world this is custom. Poor people 'get' up to 10 children to make sure their pension is safe, and with the growing wealth of the western countries the population growth has reduced considerably, in some countries even reached a negative value.
Giving (and ensuring--and that is the difficult part with politics) a UBI to people up until their death will take away their necessity for a large offspring and will prevent the population growth from recurring in a more or less natural manner, contrary to the elite's (highly profitable: look at the costs of health care) agenda of gmo, vaccines, pesticides and what not.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Whereas Capitalism fails only when human beings are no longer required to produce goods and services. i.e. real soon now.
Dude, where's my flying car already?
The current austerity measures will lead to impoverisation of the West, leading to a big rise in population growth because, as is custom in underdeveloped countries, people will have to rely again on their offspring for their sustenance once they get too old to work (as if their will be any jobs by then).
UBI removes this necessity and will keep the population growth in check.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Yeah, let's listen to Greece.
Um, can't any of you folks do math? There are about 250 million adults in the US: 2.5 x 10^8 . And $2500 a month is 30,000 per year: 3 x 10^4 Put those together (you can do it in your head) and it's 7.5 x 10^12. That's $7.5 TRILLION dollars PER YEAR for this nonsense. The current total federal government budget is $3.8 trillion (and a LOT of that is borrowed). Where does the money come from? What about all of the social security taxes people have paid in over their lifetime? Do they just lose all that and get what everyone else gets?
This is insanely stupid, even by Slashdot standards.
This guy has a GREAT track record, listen to him!
And on the flip side, what does Donald Trump do exactly? I know he's rich and considered successful, but what work does he actually do? Or Kim Kardashian?
Kim Kardashian has started several successful businesses using microloans and know-how from her father, who had defended O.J. Simpson among other things.
For the first time in the history of technology more jobs are destroyed than created.
The problem with this assertion is that it's wrong. Just because the US or the shittier countries of the EU have trouble with employment doesn't mean that the world does. Instead, we see huge job growth coupled with increasing automation - just as it's been for the past few centuries.
Once again, how about we consider the places that aren't having the problems rather than only the places which are?
That's not a failure, that's a triumph of Capitalism. Not requiring people to fulfil current jobs but automating all of that away would be an enormous testament to the virtue of Capitalism, its ability to produce everything that people need without requiring those people to do the tasks themselves. It's basically paradise.
Now, having that type of productive ability means a huge abundance of supply and this creates huge pressures to lower prices, if there is no human involved, the prices can drop all the way to the cost of mining materials and energy and distribution chain and management of the involved resources. Nothing will be free but the prices will be extremely low compared to prices of today.
In an economy with extremely low prices all you need is freedom from government intervention to allow people to create/run more businesses that would provide the income for the now many unemployed.
With more and more automation and productivity based on it prices should be falling, instead of-course governments prevent prices from falling by pumping more and more fake liquidity into the system (fake, as in nobody worked to create it, it was conjured up out of thin air by the magic of the Federal reserve and the likes of them).
Pumping prices up lets government pretend that the nominal GDP is growing, which lets the government to collect more taxes in absolute values. The entire 'inflation is good' notion is absolutely erroneous, government manipulating money supply, interest rates, inflation numbers, GDP numbers, employment records, all this stuff is what is leading to destruction of the economies and of the societies built by these economies.
Production and automation is the good thing, regulation, manipulation of money supply, interest rates, taxation of income (slavery) is a bad thing. In simple terms: you want more of the good thing and less of the bad thing.
You can't handle the truth.
This is ridiculous. You will always need people taking care of the machines and developing new ones.
Just take out a cable-subscription for your Roomba, too.
And another paid iCloud account for your iCar.
Problem solved!
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Personally, I believe it could work - if managed properly (which would not be simple - but what is simple in a complex world?)
I also believe it is not going to happen any time soon, and for a whole different reason.
I think somebody (a Latin author? maybe Horatio?) once said, "I do not love money, but it makes me feel safe."
An universal basic income, to some extent, would make people feel less afraid.
And that would be unfortunate, because so many structures of our civilization are built on fear. (I am sure anyone here could make some example of this.) And significantly reducing the amount of fear in most people's lives would have a dramatic disestablishing effect. So... it is not going to happen any time soon.
However, we tend to forget that civilizations are intrinsically transient - they have been rising and falling for the last 12000 years at least - and this one is not looking good. (My personal opinion - and I may be wrong - is that we jumped the shark sometimes between the 70s and the 80s of last century.) So it is possible that a future civilization, built on different premises, will make it work for good... (The heck, in a few centuries historians will look back to this time of history, and wonder what in hell we were sniffing, smoking, or assuming by any other means!)
In the long run we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
they were paying people to retire at 50, and then promising them benefits for the rest of their lives. Add in massive corruption and a shadow economy and they had the worst of both crony capitalism and socialism
The answer might be "simple" (cut welfare benefits, root out corruption, make business friendly changes to the tax code that encourage "free market" capitalism) - but by no means easy.
The EU is collapsing, so Greece will default soon anyway ...
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
...the former Finance Minister of *Greece* is a really good idea! Trust us!
How many times have they been bailed out again? How many times have they defaulted on repayment of their debts again?
We've going to need some mechanism to provide basic needs for the countless tens of millions that will be become refugees. Few will have job skills, all will need housing shelter and a commonly agreed upon measure of human dignity. Not all should be cash and some economies of scale will be needed to keep it all affordable. I can see a lot of people going back to a village based agrarian life style and their going to need arable land. A lot of things are going to have to change.
"First, on the need for a UBI: "For the first time in the history of technology more jobs are destroyed than created."
This isn't true - the original Industrial Revolution did the same thing. Most everyone employed in the textile trade in Britain around 1770 had their livelihoods destroyed permanently. The various phases of textile manufacture was by far the largest industry in Britain, and in two decades the entire craft-based spinning, weaving and sewing industry was wiped out. Even producers of traditional textile raw materials, like linen and wool, took a major hit as the new mechanized industry was based on imported cotton at first. By 1800 20% of the population of Britain were paupers. A balance between labor and employment was not reached until 1840 at the earliest, giving 60-70 years (two working lifetimes, four generations) of economic misery to the lower classes. Demographic data show heights and weights of British citizens falling, and lifespans shortening, through the first half of 18th century.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
And you're wise enough to make this generalization because...?
Such pedantry, while irrefutable, could also be incorrect.
Greece has been known for its generous social programs. It might not have actually been a basic income, but close to it. It couldn't figure out how to stay afloat and pay for all the freebies.
It's kind of ironic that a man responsible for the finances of a bankrupt country would be giving financial advice to other countries that are doing much better!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Each person in the US got nine times as much stuff each month, on average
Nope. Each person on average gets stuff that costs nine times as much. Probably it is neither "more" stuff, nor "more valuable" stuff.
Comparisons on GDP make no sense. If you eat 100 fine breads a year and drink 100 super fine bottles of wine and pay $200 for all of that and I pay $400 for the same, my "GDP" is twice than yours. For no particular reason except that everything is more expensive in my country. GDPs based on values like that are completely meaningless.
because the competitive economy produced nine times as much stuff.
No it does not. It produces goods that would have nine times the value on the US market. And that says nothing about the market in the respective country. And it does not say anything about the amount of goods produced.
I would suggest to go once in a poor country, and figure how rich they are. E.g. Thailand or Vietnam. In terms of dollars they are poor. But tin terms of quality of life, health care, food, housing etc. they are rich ... absolutely not comparable to a middle class american or european. When I'm there I have "more money" than they have, but the simplest living people there have a own house, own several cars, a motor bike or two, probably a second house at the sea or in the rural area they come from. In comparison to me: the poor bastards there who only earn $200 a month: are rich Because with those $200 in their country they can afford 10 times more than I can afford with my $10,000 in my country. Ah, let me calculate it correctly: 13,000 Bath / 39 = 333 Euro = $400... ah well, my $200 were a bit off. 13,000 - 15,000 Bath is what a typical person earns there. And from that money they live like upper middle class in Germany. Only a small percentage of Germans has such a decent live style like the average "poor" in a country as Thailand has.
Comparing live quality and even production based on GDP is complete bollocks. In Russia they produce as many breads as they need, farm a many grain as they need have as many cows as they need make as many beer as they need have as many houses as they need, build as many planes as they need have as many dentists as they need, have as many operas as they need etc. p.p. That their GDP looks puny is only because their currency has a different value versus the dollar or euro.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes, because Greece knows all about finance. They're the last people to listen to on this.
As for his argument, it has to be crap. Just talk to black leaders in American and welfare. No, not Sharpton ass hole, a real leader that knows something about the black community. They often tell you how the Republican welfare to work program really worked. I work with some people that benefited from that program. How Democrats keep them slaves to the government. No hope, no way out if they can help it.
Give people money, they'll be like cats. They'll be there like clockwork to collect that check. It's stupidity from a country full of stupid leaders.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm
Casteism
"The greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects; In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings."
http://www.boston.com/news/glo...
Casteism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... oppose UBI because they fear you will NOT be subservient to them
Casteism
....from the former finance minister of GREECE?
I would frankly rather insert my gentleman's sausage into a garbage disposal.
There won't be purchase "power", but rest assured the demand will very much still be there.
Supply is abundantly made available thanks to brilliant advances in several areas of engineering from biological to robotic/automation technology "freeing" humanity to pursue something, for the time being and sadly foreseeable future it is poverty and social exclusion. Unfortunately suicide rates too.
How that demand without purchasing "power" would eventually be "acquired" or satisfied by basic necessity to live without suffering, would be the interesting side of the hypothetical story.
Most suburban back-yards are of sufficient area for a family to grown their own food. And chickens.
So, OK, people would have to buy a new shovel once in a while. Big deal. It is easy to make your own, especially when that 'supply-heavy' curve makes sheet metal super-cheap. Oh, or anyways, shovels themselves. Buy one, and you are set for 20 years. If made by robots, and with an over-supply, such purchases will be trivially cheap.
Even in the hearts of the largest cities in the world, "roof-top farming" is taking off.
The cycle of capitalism requires that demand must always increase, otherwise there are no profits to be had.
the solution when you've got too much debt is to spend more
Spending more (i.e. expanding government, rather than reducing it) is the "solution" to every government failure. For example, the solution to drug-related crime is to "get tougher" (i.e. spend more), rather than admit that prohibition (spending more) created the crime in the first place.
They want a global currently so they can run up debts and have it spread across countries so we can all feel the burden of countries who don't pay their debts. They already did this with Germany, by making Germany get on the Euro because Germany out produces all the other countries in Europe. Fiat currency is a complete failure and putting us all on a global fiat currency is one of the stupidest ideas imaginable. It only helps countries who do not produce and carry their weight while punishing successful countries.
If you can do math, it seems you have a freakin' superpower, 'cuz no one seems to be able to do it!
What should the proper UBI should be? $15/hr seems to be a popular number. Full time work at $15/hr is $31,200/year. Round down to $30,000/yr. Fair?
$30,000 per adult. 225 million adults in the USA. (wikipedia) (80-90 million kids, but no extra payments for kids, let's keep it simple)
Basic math says that costs $6.75 TRILLION.
The entire United States' spending is $3.7 trillion.
That's everything - military, social security, roads, healthcare, science, government salaries, environment, interest on debt - EVERYTHING.
Absolutely everything the government spends could be shifted to paying for a UBI, and we'd still be wildly short of being able to pay for it.
Let's raise taxes on the rich! Everyone above $200,000 / year income has to pay 100% of their income in taxes! That'll teach the greedy SOBs and it'll solve the problem!
Except ... that only comes up to an extra $2.2 trillion. We're still nearly a TRILLION dollars short of being able to pay for it. (and still not able to add in little things like roads and stuff)
Learn basic, 6th grade math. It'll turn you into a flippin' superhero with crazy-awesome powers of common sense, able to see stupid for what it is.
That's not a failure, that's a triumph of Capitalism. Not requiring people to fulfil current jobs but automating all of that away would be an enormous testament to the virtue of Capitalism, its ability to produce everything that people need without requiring those people to do the tasks themselves. It's basically paradise.
It's paradise if you have some sort of income, sure. But capitalism does not (AFAICT) provide any remedy for those who have no income because they have been rendered unemployable. Either there will have to be some sort of non-capitalist way to provide them with money (e.g. UBI or some other form of welfare), or they will have to resort to stealing to support themselves.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Drug dealer refutes the normal reasons why heroin is a bad thing and how if everyone just got high all the time the world would be a better place. Taking advice from a bankrupt country on how to run things sounds like a fantastic idea!
It is truly astonishing to see that almost no one here seems to grasp that government produces nothing and has no way to pay for the money it gives away other than taxation. There are some exceptions like Norway, which has state-owned industries that sell energy, fuel, and natural resources enough to finance a generous welfare state. But countries not blessed with that happy condition have parasitic government, and increasing spending is economically unsustainable.
And it is an inviolable rule of economics that a situation that is unsustainable [such as a universal income given away by a government that produces nothing] WILL come to an end. The only question is how sudden and how violent the end will be.