Is it only corporate greed? Isn't it customer greed as well (let's buy cheaper with no questions about living standards of foreign manufacturers)?
A short comment of mine from some time ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13071845
No its not "only" but I would argue maybe that corporate is the prime mover as their goal is simply to satisfy share holders, whose expectations are to see ever increasing returns "ad infinitum." I guess you have to question how sustainable is that? At a certain point is that only achievable by off shoring, bringing in robots and chasing tax inversions with foreign domiciles etc. All of which seem somewhat extreme practices compared to 30 or 40 years ago. When I think about it I sometimes have to wonder "who is this economy for?"
Using a horse to carry things instead of hiring a few extra people to do so is no different from using a robot.
We've all been doing the same things for thousands of years, and we've all been worried in the same way.
It's very different. If I establish a company I choose to start a company if possible in a place that has a favorable business climate and by that I mean, there is access to labor, and capital, there's a mature legal system, a stable currency and a stable government.
If I become wildly successful and decide that I am going to rent a mailbox on Grand Cayman and say my company is "based in the Cayman Island" despite having no people or office there, I think that qualifies as extreme behavior.
I still want all of the protections and freedoms associated with the country where my actual headquarters is, I just don't want to play by the rules now . Even though its still that same favorable business environment that enabled me to become wildly successful. This is extreme.
You can argue about corporate tax rates all you want but you knew what those were when you incorporated.
>"Using a horse to carry things instead of hiring a few extra people to do so is no different from using a robot."
I'm sorry what year were horses discovered? There was no discovery of horses that caused paradigm shift that led to precipitous large scale unemployment. Please point me to that bit of history.
>"We've all been doing the same things for thousands of years, and we've all been worried in the same way"
No we have not. It was a generation ago, you would work for "the company" until you were 65. And they would give you gold wrist watch on the day you retired.
But do you realize that this model lasted for about a generation, and only a small % of the world population (probably <5%) benefited from it? There's more to the world than the European and American middle class. That is irrelevant in the long term.
Did you read this article? Its exactly about the European middle class! One of the reasons these types of stories have been such a part of the news cycle lately is precisely because it is effecting the once safe middle class in both America and Europe.
Also why is the fact that it lasted a generation relevant? We are always guided by our recent history. Things like education, retirement, labor polices are all "informed" by our recent history.
Not horses but
What would be the point of that?
Take a trip down the Rhein river some day. There's a medieval castle at every opportunity next to the river. They were built to extract tax from the river traffic. The Rhein was the highway through Germany until railroads.
People get greedy in business all the time. That doesn't not mean their intent is to inflict harm other people.
Just because a word has a negative connotation does mean its has the same meaning as another word with a negative connotation.
Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for all.
Final results from Sunday's referendum showed that nearly 77% opposed the plan, with only 23% backing it.
The thinking is that the existence of extensive gov't social welfare programs make people feel as if they have contributed (via taxes) and this reduce their personal responsibility to work on behalf of the less fortunate. Likewise, it undermines their empathy for the less fortunate because "well, they already receive welfare - so if they remain poor it must be because they [are lazy/addicted to drugs/antisocial/etc.]".
I don't know if I agree with this argument; however, the cultural ramifications of BIG are certainly an important question to wrestle with.
Edit: clarification - the argument is that this belief ("I've done my part") is extended because BIG covers all sources of welfare rather than targeted toward specific populations or purposes (children, mothers, food, etc). When everyone receives social welfare payments (rather than just specific kinds of people) it more fully extends the "I've done my part" feeling to the larger population (rather than specific slices of the population) and reduces overall charitable action.
How? It's the same amount of money, just redirected from existing welfare programs and redistributed via taxes.
Then wouldn't it follow that inflation would then take place all but entirely removing the utility of the basic income?
If you're making $10k/year and get another $10k from basic income, you'll be much better off even if somehow there is significant inflation.
Basic income isn't a magic wand to make everyone richer. It's an efficient way of guaranteeing that everyone can cover their basic needs, without the inefficiencies and harmful incentives of the current system.
I'm not even that conservative and I think that's ridiculous for an amount of money that doesn't even cover the rent in most cities.
The average spending per welfare recipient is roughly $25 a day[0] in the US that adds up to $9125 per person. 23%[1] of households currently receive some type of government benefit, while half of working individuals make less than 30 thousand dollars a year[2]. If you wished to provide basic income to just those making under 30 thousand a year my back of a napkin math says you would at a conservative estimate double the current expenditures and that program isn't basic income as much as welfare expansion.
>If you're making $10k/year and get another $10k from basic income, you'll be much better off even if somehow there is significant inflation.
If you doubled everyone's salaries, due to supply and demand, the price of every good would then double. Money is used to purchase goods and services that are produced using a finite set of resources. Those resources don't grow simply because you have printed more money.
[0]http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/05/04/the-avera...
[1]http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/28/...
[2]http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/25/1-in-2-working-americans-m...
While there might be some inflation as the supply of money available to those with low- to median income increase spending, I don't think it would be sufficient to offset the base change.
On the other hand you would need to significantly increase taxes on upper-middle+ brackets to ensure no new money is introduced. After all they receive BI under this system too, which they'd effectively have to pay back and then some....
I'd support a move to a "Star Trek" economy but I just don't see how you pull it off.
Warning! Swiss unemployment statistics often consider only people who have been looking for a job for at most two years. After two years, you can apply for long-term social care and, astonishingly(?), you are not counted any more as "unemployed".
Another trend is we simply don't work as much. The age of the robots may be that we start working 24 hours a week for more money (and still bitching about going back to work on mondays)
No, that's just what happened a few times in the past. Not some natural law. The previous times farming jobs got replaced by factory jobs (which were enough because of a huge increase in the manufactoring sector) and when those dwindled by robots and more efficient factories, they got replaced by the services industry. This time automation and software/AI depletes factory and service jobs, and we don't have much room for any other kind of jobs.
Any job we'll come up with will either be able to be done by robots, or be replaced by advanced AI. The exceptions where human touch will be still (always?) needed (artistic work, prostitution, etc) are not enough to make a living even today, much less in an oversaturated future market.
Finally, you always need a reserve of able-bodied humans who can be trained to become soldiers. Remember that a lack of trained bodies is one of the reasons why a nation like Japan lost.
In the context of basic income it means such a populist policy would be have different political barriers.
Just for the record, that's not as wonderful as it may seem at a first look. Direct democracy has shown its limits some times during the last year. The fundamental issues being that you can only vote yes or no for a fixed text, while a law is usually supposed to be discussed in a parliament in every detail until an agreement can be found.
1. An addition to the constitution. The parlament then has to implement that into law.
2. A referendum on a law that has been passed by parlament. This allows the citizens to revert a parlamentary decision.
There is no way to vote on a new law directly. However you can get close by just having a very detailed constitutional change that doesn't leave a lot of options for implementation open.
You can never eliminate the poverty line. You can only shift it. Poverty in the 1400s meant you lived in squalor with no utilities and no sanitization and very few public services.
Poverty in 2017 means (for the most part) you have a small or shared condo with running water, electricity, refrigerator, television, smartphone, access to lots of public services (libraries, parks, hospitals, etc) and more. The poor people of today have it better than kings of old, but very few people hold that perspective.
Under UBI poverty will just get shifted to the new standard, but people will only be temporarily happier with their new standard of living. The next generation will be discontented with their standard of living. People will complain that UBI isn't enough to live on, etc. How is the end game not communism? Who gets to say: "stop complaining, UBI is enough for you." Won't it be more tempting for the politicians to say: "You're right, this is outrageous! The rich have oppressed you enough, we need to tax them more to raise your UBI."
Anyone would agree that this is a desirable thing, right? I wouldn't mind if poverty meant not having a personal yacht and living in an apartment instead of a suburban house in 2040.
If you allowed people to choose, be poor in 2017 or be poor in 1400, most would still prefer 2017. Which means it's an improvement, regardless of how happy people say they are.
>How is the end game not communism?
The main issue with communism/socialism is that it doesn't work, that the working class is not better off than the working class in a capitalist society. It doesn't make sense to worry about something being technically communism or not, when the tangible result is that people are better off on average.
UBI doesn't seem very different from subsidies for failing industries, only it's broader so there isn't any incentive for one single group to push it through.
>Who gets to say: "stop complaining, UBI is enough for you."
You could make this argument about any wealth redistribution scheme ever.
I absolutely think this is a great thing. I just think a lot of people don't realize how great it truly is to be living in the USA in 2017. I think we as a society have a hard time keeping things in perspective[1][2].
> I wouldn't mind if poverty meant not having a personal yacht and living in an apartment instead of a suburban house in 2040.
Yeah, but you'll be able to keep things in perspective having lived in 2017. The rising generation in 2040 will have no perspective, and to them a yacht will be a "basic necessity needed to function" in society and anything less is poverty (or whatever, that was a contrived example).
> If you allowed people to choose, be poor in 2017 or be poor in 1400, most would still prefer 2017.
Not only that, if you allowed people to choose to be poor in 2017 or be rich in 1400, most people would either choose poor 2017 or they would choose rich 1400 and then regret it once they realize how much they've lost (smooth roads, suspension systems on modern transportation, climate control, etc.).
> Which means it's an improvement, regardless of how happy people say they are.
I agree. But if improvements don't result in a net increase in happiness, what's the point of making the improvements? I agree we should continue to make improvements, but clearly there is some other special sauce required to increase happiness that we are missing here. The poor of 2017 have it 1000x better than the poor in the 1400s, yet are the current poor 1000x happier? Or are they still sad?
> The main issue with communism/socialism is that it doesn't work
Ok, I'm following you
> It doesn't make sense to worry about something being technically communism or not, when the tangible result is that people are better off on average.
But wait, if communism doesn't work, shouldn't you be worried about a scheme whose end-game turns your government into communism? I'm still trying to understand how UBI doesn't eventually end up as communism. Who draws the line and says we've redistributed enough? How to we prevent the line from moving to the point where all wealth is redistributed (aka communism)?
> You could make this argument about any wealth redistribution scheme ever.
Which is why I'm generally against them. There are exceptions, but in general, wealth redistribution schemes are not wise long-term decisions.
You start with "communism doesn't work" and you want to know whether UBI works (improves lives, etc).
So you can do "does UBI lead to communism?", and then decide the "does UBI work?" accordingly.
But you could also just ask "does UBI work?", without needing to assume that UBI leading to communism (I guess you could also test whether or not it leads there, but that's just as hard as testing whether it works).
I agree. 600 years ago, the only things kings had more of than today's welfare recipients are power, servants, and estate. Just go to the supermarket in the winter and you'll find a bigger selection of fresh fruits and vegetables than they ever had.
Go back to 1917 and the idea that every welfare recipient deserves not just food, clean water and shelter, but also warm water, electricity, a fridge, central heating, and his/her own room (not to mention a phone, a TV, and Internet access), would sound ridiculous. And yet, today all these are considered basic needs that a state has to satisfy for everyone – and rightly so, in my opinion.
However, I don't think it's a given that the socially agreed-upon minimal standard of living will rise faster than the average standard of living will rise due to increased automation. But even if it only rises by the same factor, it would mean that there will always by a layer of society which is considered to be "poor".
So the main thing that matters to humans as human beings? As opposed to mere animals who need shelter and food?
Speak for yourself. I'd rather have convenience, good medical care, and the Internet than the power to let 100 peasants bow down before me.
And "power" is not about having "peasants bow", it's about having an impact, and being able to influence things.
Look outside the US (to Germany, for example), and you'll see that this is not necessarily true.
Edit: I don't want to make this sound like I don't care about hunger, clearly kids should not have to go hungry in our present day society. Its on us to provide the poor with avenues and incentives to work and earn living wages. Adults who refuse to work help themselves, well hunger can be a needed incentive.
Maybe I'm alone, but I would rather be a poor person in 2017 than a rich person in the 1400s. The internet itself is enough of a benefit for me.
For myself - that would a be a tough choice.
There were still things that wealthy people back then (especially the ruling class) could command that ordinary people - even wealthy ones - of today can't touch.
The amount of land and property owned, and in the case of the ruling class the ability to raise and have "armies", as well as how laws and such applied...all skew toward them.
Granted, there are many, many things of today that people of the 1400s could only dream about, if even that. Our technology, our medicine, our easy access to food...all of that and more would have been impossible for even the ruling class of the 1400s to access.
But again - there were things they could access that only governments of today, or the extremely wealthy (billionaires - but even there are limits) can access today. Not only what I've mentioned, but also political and other circles (people, money, laws, etc) - that the ordinary person of today have no access to - they didn't then, nor now.
I see it as the reverse. In the age where people want a minimum wage of $15 without increasing their skills and asking other members of society to pay for it (either the employer or every productive person through taxation), the productive members are feeling the pressure to produce more and increase efficiency.
Basic income will only ensure that more members of the productive class move to the dependent class which would only exacerbate the problem.
Andrew Ng discusses "basic income" where people need to learn:
The basic income is a terrible idea that could be a great idea with a few tweaks. One of the worst economic policies is minimum wage, it attempts to help the poor but at the cost of a loss in some jobs, and some of it's benefits to upper middle class (kids and wives) that don't need it. It's inefficient, and can be counterproductive for those most in need.
Those at most risk of losing jobs because of it are the ones that need it the most, unskilled, single parents, etc. An employer is biased keep jonny college kid over suzy single mom when they cut a position, because jonny might come back as a manager after finishing school. Minimum wages also can create that situation where it's so damn hard to get that first job that you need to get your next job.
A minimum wage that is paid for by the government is a far better option. As long as you work, we don't care what your employer pays you, $4, $8 hour, you should get government benefits that round you up to a living wage based on your life situation. Which means more for the single parent, a little bit less for the single worker, and nothing for the high school/college kids living at home or executive wife taking a second job.
And this means more jobs, and makes it much easier to find employment (and have job mobility). Also more jobs means more output, which means higher GDP.
Or so neoliberal economists say. It's not clear cut at all.
The basic income is the solution in my opinion. Let all citizens live to a basic level, but not too good a level that the incentive to innovate or do more is gone. The basic income will, in my opinion, lead to a more entrepreneurial society where risk takers are supported - and also a more socially responsible and caring society, where people can donate their time to help others.