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.

11 of 866 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Robots? by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  2. Don't take too much attention to this. by jcdr · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  3. Yanis Varoufakis by smugfunt · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:$2500 a month? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Instead of doing any of that, maybe you could use the time afforded to you by a UBI to take some reading classes?
    "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."
    Switzerland, not Greece.

  5. Re:Greece?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Greece's former finance minister probably has as much credibility in financial matters as Steve Jobs had on cancer treatment.

    Varoufakis has simply nothing to do with Greece's financial problems, he was in charge for less than 6 months in 2015, while Greece's problems started in 2011. And he resigned when Tsipras, the prime minister, betrayed the will of the Greek people - as expressed in a referendum - to break with the eurozone. His only "fault" was not to be on banks' and Troika's payroll.

    You are as informed about Greece as Steve Jobs was about cancer treatment, hence you should shut your mouth as much as his is now.

  6. Re:Robots? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1, Informative

    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.

    Is the world-renowned economics lecturer a fool, or is the pseudonymous nobody who calls him a fool the real fool? Modern production lines are hybrid systems. The components people who assemble iPhones stick together are made by robots out of items made by robots. It is surprising quite how much is still done by hand, but the hybridisation is there. I visited a fish factory recently, and I wouldn't have been able to predict beforehand which parts of the process were done by hand and which by machine. I'm sure more would be done by hand in a lower-wage economy, but with fresh produce, the first stage of prep needs to be done too near the harvest site for that to happen. Then there are other unoffshorable activities, like Amazon despatch -- the process involves people, but a major part of the retrieval process is robotic.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  7. Re:That's communism... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not communism -- communism is an industrial philosophy, and the key point about all industrial philosophies is who owns the means of production. Communism places ownership at the community level, socialism at the level of "society" (in oractical terms almost always defaulting to "state socialism"), cooperativism is about the workers, and capitalism states that ownership starts with money (so how do you get into the system in the first place?)

    The idea of a basic income is not directly related to the ownership of the means of production, so cannot be labelled with any of these terms. The reason I feel BI is fair and equitable is that the existence of "society" and the notion of "property" rely on relinquishing certain natural rights. Without society, I would be allowed to hunt, fish or gather wherever I wanted to. Because of society, though, there are rivers that I'm not allowed to fish and deer that I'm not allowed to stalk. Society has removed my right to feed myself for free, and forced me instead to buy food, and therefore has created the need for money. This process has made humanity more efficient and productive (a farmer with a combine harvester can feed hundreds, a hunter with a spear can feed a dozen or so) which improves the average standard of life immeasurably. But if one man can't eat because of that, where is the justice? What have we given him in return for the removal of his natural right to feed himself?

    Welfare systems and/or basic income schemes are how we compensate for the loss of those natural rights. Food that buys your hunting rights; housing that buys out your right to pitch a cowhide tent wherever you please.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  8. Re:Robots? by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    Because you're not looking. There's a reason the US is the second largest manufacturer in the world, and has grown in manufacturing capability over the last 15 years (except for a dip during the recession), while at the same time continueously employing fewer and fewer people in manufacturing jobs. It's called "robotics". Turns out it's cheaper in the US, where average/minimum wages are relatively high, to use robots than it is people, while in China, with it's much lower wages, it's still viable to use human labor. People are only cheaper if you live in a country with a shit average wage.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  9. Austerity didn't get them in trouble by Quila · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  10. "Oh look, the Greek is talking" by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  11. Re: So is he wrong? by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Informative

    Again, when you have a country that consumes 500,000,000,000 more than it produces the problem is clearly not lack of the want, they are consuming more than producing goddamnit, which part of that you don't get? They are not producing to pay for the consumption, they want the widgets, they are incapable to produce to pay for them, so they 'pay' with the printing press. USA cannot produce to pay for what it consumes from China and the rest of the world today and for the past 40 years and you are saying: they lack demand? No, they lack money and money is made by producing stuff. They lack production that pays salaries to pay for their consumption, so they export bonds to import TVs and seafood and everything.