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.
Firstly, 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. Secondly, the only reason why the Swiss are "successful" (according to your unethical meaning of the word) is that they have allowed international tax fraud and money laundering for decades thanks to the introduction of banking secrecy in 1936, with the silly excuse to "protect the money of the jews from the nazis". I guess the Mexican drug cartels are "successful" too in your opinion.
The Constitution has been modified as follows:
Art. 110a (new) Unconditional basic income
The Confederation shall ensure the introduction of an unconditional basic income.
The basic income shall enable the whole population to live in human dignity and participate in public life.
The law shall particularly regulate the way in which the basic income is to be financed and the level at which it is set.
The 2500$ comes from the actual *poverty line* in Switzerland: believe me if you have such a low income in Switzerland you are not going to be happy, even if you do nothing to get it.
So if society collapses because the base-mechanisms of capitalism fail, that is fine with you? Talk about being self-centered _and_ stupid...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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!
If I won millions playing the lottery (unlikely because I buy maybe 1 or 2 tickets a year), I would still work. When I'm home for 10 days during our annual shut down, I get bored quickly. I doubt I would stay at my current job, even though it is pretty good. Most likely I'd try my hand at owning a small business... put that MBA to use.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
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.
What evidence do you have that people will not work if they have a state income? Have you lived in an inner city? Right now we have welfare for the rich. They control congress, they can do crimes and not go to jail, they buy influence and its getting worse. I average income of us 99 percenters have actually gone down, but not for the uber rich. Like it or not, they have declared war on the middle class and woe unto you if you try to fight them.
Why?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
If by natural rights you mean as found in nature, you'd find most animals are far more possessive of their territory and companions and far more likely to resort to acts of aggression and violence including lethal force than humans. It's all might make right and if you can take it and keep it then it's yours. It works both ways, sure you can't take other people's property but they can't take yours. And it's the little guy who needs protection, the rich and powerful protected themselves just fine long before society got involved.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The thing about communism is, it's born from the misery generated by the excesses of capitalism. As long as capitalism exists and people are greedy, the cycle of excesses, unrest, violent revolution or political adjustments and a period of calm will continue. It will end when one revolution gets it right through sheer dumb luck or when political adjustments have accumulated to build a society free from economic strife.
That's what "historical inevitability" means: any particular revolution or reform might fail, but as long as their cause remains, new ones will occur. Or, if you prefer an analogy to physics, less stable societies tend to spontaneously decay into more stable ones. It's just a matter of time.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
Care to defend your assertion? Please make a point to consider the rising illiteracy rate among high school GRADUATES, the inability of vast swaths of our population that are baffled by the prospect of having to make change for a cash purchase, and so on. Anecdotal evidence is against your position, so please defend your position.