Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/04/us-swiss-pay-idUSBRE9930O620131004

by selmnoo • 13 years ago

638 566 13 years ago

tikhonj2• 13 years ago

A Swiss franc is currently worth a little bit more than a dollar, so this works out to $2800/month or $33600/year. By US standards, this actually seems to be a good salary: significantly better than working full time at minimum wage.

It would cover all my current expenses handily. Of course, I'm young and single but by no means frugal. (I find that the little costs involved in worrying about my expenses easily outweigh the money saved.) So this is quite an income.

One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income. What I would really hope is that people would still do many of those jobs, but for far fewer hours--largely as a way to get money for incidental expenses and luxuries beyond the basic income. One problem I find with most jobs is that it's much easier to get more pay than less hours, even if I really want the latter. There is a large drop-off between full-time and part-time work.[1]

Beyond a certain level, I would value having more free time far more than making more money. Unfortunately, mostly for social reasons, it's hard to express this preference. A basic income could make this much easier to do.

While I suspect this might not pass, I think it would be very valuable for the entire world. One of the unfortunate realities in politics is that it is really hard to run experiments; small countries like Switzerland can act as a test subject for the entire world. Or perhaps like a tech early adopter for modern policies.

Either way, this passing would be very interesting.

[1]: For me, this is not quite as simple. In reality, there are plenty of jobs where I would be happy to work relatively long hours. But this stops being a question of pay, or even "work": after all, I'm happy to spend hours and hours programming for free. Being paid to do something I really like is wonderful, but it really changes the dynamics in ways that probably do not apply to most people.

ashray3• 13 years ago

Just bear in mind for your calculations that in Switzerland a cup of coffee often costs $6 as does a can of coke. Cost of living is extremely high. But still, this does look like a decent deal. Zurich is like San Francisco in terms of expenses.

tikhonj2• 13 years ago

For reference, I currently live in Berkeley. While not quite as expensive as SF, it's pretty close. I also live in one of the somewhat less cheap parts of the city (northside)--my rent is much higher than it could be. On the other hand, I do have a roommate--it all comes back to being young and single (but, again, not frugal).

seanmcdirmid6• 13 years ago

A can of coke can cost 6CHF at Zurich airport maybe, but the standard price is 2CHF, and even cheaper at some grocery stores. San Francisco is still much cheaper than Zurich in terms of expenses, only the rents are kind of comparable.

mkuhn• 13 years ago

Cost of living is indeed bad but nowhere nearly as bad as you portray it. While food and rent is really expensive compared to the surrounding countries other things (e.g. Gasoline, Electronics) are cheaper.

Also the high prices often also have a quality bias with the Swiss normally buying higher quality. An example of this is discounters such as Aldi or Lidl having a small market share even though they offer fresh products (which they do to a much lesser extent in other countries).

Ecio782• 13 years ago

You can compare the cost of living in the two cities using numbeo (posted here some months ago) http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?coun...

tluyben2• 13 years ago

Switzerland seems to be really expensive (I only went there on holiday a few times and then expensive doesn't matter too much as it's expected). I was going to rant about the fact not everyone lives in Zurich and in the countries I have lived the divide between rural and urban places is huge, price wise. Where I live, with the same behavioral patterns, living in a city is at least 5x more expensive than living in the country side and in the country side you get to live, for the same money, in a villa with a pool and tons of land instead of an apartment with concrete views. After checking housing prices, this difference does not seem to be as great in Switzerland. Is that true?

huhtenberg3• 13 years ago

Stop with this senseless FUD, will you.

A cup of coffee in Starbucks may cost $6. A cup of (a better) coffee in any cafe 2-3 CHF. Can of Coke is about the same if bought in a touristy place, but in a grocery shop it's a 2L bottle that will be that much.

Cost of living is extremely high.

It's not. Cost of luxurious living is extremely high. In Geneva, in Zurich, perhaps in Bern and Basel. But you drive 10 minutes out of these cities and you have people who earn 40K CHF and live safely and decently, while still working in Geneva, Zurich, Bern and Basel. Things do cost more than in other countries, on average, but then an average Swiss lives well enough not to ever need a Wallmart.

(edit) You can downvote me all you want. I lived in Switzerland for few years, so $6 can of Coke is the Swiss version of bears on Moscow's streets - it's a cute bullshit.

handzhiev• 13 years ago

What stops you get your basic income and fly to East Europe every month (cheap flights available for less than $100) where you can live pretty well with this money?

psuter6• 13 years ago

Depending on your age, previous employment, where you live and current situation, you may in fact get a similar total today in Switzerland by combining unemployment and social insurances with health insurance subsidies, and maybe even preferential housing conditions if you're lucky. Needless to say it would be a nightmare, because you continuously need to demonstrate need for each allowance separately, some come from the city, some from the state, etc.

evincarofautumn3• 13 years ago

You’re right on all points. Most people seem to get some enjoyment from what they do for work, or at least can find satisfaction in it at the end of the day. With a basic income, a person can worry less about making ends meet and more about doing what they want to do. In the short term, that might mean slacking off (and inflation)—but in the long term it seems like people would start being generally productive again, and much happier for it. A sizable chunk of people will just keep doing what they’re doing.

There is little worse than creating jobs—I equate that with creating inefficiency. (Creating careers is another story.) But the more things we can automate, the more humans can live leisurely, thoughtful, happy lives. I for one would enjoy nothing more than to work full-time on my programming language projects without worrying about where my next meal will come from.

P.S. Hi Tikhon! Coming to BA Haskell User Group on the 18th? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bahaskell/W0g4J-c5Dh...

option_greek• 13 years ago

Reminds me of spacers in Asimov novels. Hope this is a starting point from which all of humanity can benefit. If I don't have to worry about making ends meet I will focus fully on learning about and building robots.

dinkumthinkum12• 13 years ago

I think this is so disconnected from reality, though. It's posh and intellectual to think this way but its so not related to reality.

drob2• 13 years ago

Not to mention this does away with all the administrative overhead of the dozens of piecemeal welfare programs we have in the US. Rather than whitelisting narrow sets of allowed expenditures and making people prove that they're poor for each program, I suspect giving people an income that allows them to live decently without all the red tape and attached strings will make for a much more efficient way to fight poverty and improve quality of life.

That said, I don't think a basic income experiment with a successful outcome would cause us to take the notion seriously in the US.

Portugal's decriminalization of drugs in 2001 comes to mind. By all accounts, it was a great success, which we've largely ignored. The dozens of countries with single-payer health care systems that deliver better care for far less money are another regrettable example.

Here's hoping Switzerland undertakes what looks to be a fascinating experiment.

adventured2• 13 years ago

The piecemeal programs are on purpose. They're buying votes. The entire modern structure of the US Government is set up around vote buying, on both sides.

There's zero chance they'll switch to direct payments. It does away with the power, which is the entire point of having a sprawling bureaucracy - so people like Reid and Boehner and Pelosi can act like they're little kings.

kijin6• 13 years ago

One problem I find with most jobs is that it's much easier to get more pay than less hours, even if I really want the latter. There is a large drop-off between full-time and part-time work.

I wonder how much of that is due to habits and regulations that are necessary in the absence of basic income. When most people are full-time workers, and when most people need to be in order to survive, it's not surprising that the entire economic system gets optimized for full-time work.

Lots of government regulations are also designed with full-time workers in mind, with the assumption that most part-time workers want to "upgrade" to full-time a.s.a.p. For example, in some jurisdictions it is illegal for an employer to employ a part-time worker for more than X hours a week (nearly full-time) without giving them benefits equivalent to what full-time workers get. This makes it very difficult for an employer to maintain an ongoing relationship with someone who prefers to work 20 hours a week. Not enough hours to justify full-time employment but too many hours to keep on the part-time payroll.

Policies like that are necessary to protect workers in a world without basic income. In the long term, I imagine that a guaranteed basic income would make a lot of current employment-related regulations unnecessary, leading to more flexible terms of employment. But it will probably take a decade or more for Switzerland's economic system to adjust to basic income, and I really hope that the pain of the transition period doesn't make them call it a failure too soon. (I can already see the FOX News headline: 3 years after Switzerland implements basic income, their unemployment rate is up 20%! See what happens when Commies take over your country! etc. etc.)

yaddayadda2• 13 years ago

It also means that there are employers who see a full-time employee as more expensive than two part-time employees and therefore have exclusive or nearly exclusive part-time employment. For employees in this situation that need full-time income, they end up taking a second or even third part-time job, thus working full-time or more hours but without the expected benefits of full-time employment.

PeterisP3• 13 years ago

Your example about part-time workers seems very strange - the policies you state don't mean 'part time workers are bad, limit their usage', it simply means 'part time workers are just as okay as everyone else, and naturally they deserve "benefits" as well'.

We can (and most likely will) move towards a large part of society working part-time - why should that part have less labor rights than everyone else?

cabalamat6• 13 years ago

this works out to $2800/month or $33600/year.

Switzerland's per capita GDP is about USD 79000/year, so assuming 80% of the Swiss population are adults and citizens, this would cost about 34% of GDP, which may be unaffordable.

kijin6• 13 years ago

Define "unaffordable".

It's really annoying that people say "it's unaffordable" to mean "we don't want to pay", when the phrase is supposed to mean "we can't pay, we don't have enough money". I understand why people don't want to part with money, but at least let's be honest.

If you sort everyone from poorest to richest, and plot their incomes on a graph, basic income just means that the slope is flatter than before [1]. As long as the area under the graph (GDP) remains the same, it's technically affordable.

The flattening is accomplished by (a) taxing the rich more, and (b) a gradual reduction of salaries and/or working hours as the market finds a new equilibrium.

What matters is political will, and it seems that Switzerland has more of it than most of the other developed countries.

[1] http://i.imgur.com/IGkHoma.png (Sorry, it looks like crap because I just drew it in MS Paint.)

Edit: Fixed graph. The red line is now curved properly.

icebraining2• 13 years ago

Have you discounted the 20-25% of immigrants who are counted in the GDP per capita, but who almost certainly won't receive this income?

rb2k_2• 13 years ago

Also: Keep in mind that you could cut almost all social systems (unemployment insurance, the whole departments that manage that stuff currently, ...)

e12e2• 13 years ago

Keep in mind that part of that 80% are probably pensioners/not working -- thereby already receiving some sort of benefits already.

jkn• 13 years ago

Well it's not like the proposal is to divert 34% of the GDP into a black hole. A state cannot afford to divert 34% of its resources (materials, workforce, etc.) to build a fancy statue. But the only direct cost of this proposal to the economy is a small administrative overhead. All the resources that these 34% GDP represent are still there, unspent, in the hands of people.

We can argue of course about the indirect consequences to the economy, e.g. how it would affect the competitiveness of Switzerland if unpleasant jobs suddenly require a more attractive salary.

rsynnott5• 13 years ago

Remember, the basic income is taxable. Giving the basic income to someone earning, say, the equivalent of 100k USD doesn't actually mean giving them $33600, because it will all be taxed at the higher tax bracket. People will also buy things with the basic income, incurring VAT, and if they buy Swiss things, then the companies making them will also pay corporate tax on that.

So, yes, this programme would cost _something_, but it wouldn't cost 34% GDP.

mdkess• 13 years ago

The idea with a basic income is that it's taxed back from the wealthier. There's no way without knowing income distribution and tax rates, but I would imagine that someone making $150k pre basic income is not seeing any change in their take home salary post basic income, and someone making $500k before basic income will actually come home with a little bit less (that is just my hypothesis - I don't know the details surrounding this).

Basic income is just a redistribute tax mechanism, but it's one that tries to remove bureaucracy and politics from social security programs surrounding qualifications, etc.

icebraining2• 13 years ago

One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income.

The people who already do them: immigrants, which make up more than 20% of the population of Switzerland.

huhtenberg3• 13 years ago

Though heck of a lot of these immigrants work in CERN, Nestle, Fifa, Phillip-Morris and other internationals rather than washing toilets and sweeping streets.

batiste2• 13 years ago

I would think that most would would probably keep their jobs. But instead of bringing home only 3000-3500 they would probably bring close to 6000.

konstruktor• 13 years ago

One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income.

I think that with basic income, this question would not make sense, and that's exactly the reason that I like the idea so much. The reason why people do boring, dirty and dangerous work for little money is that there are folks who have no skills that would enable them to get a more fulfilling, cleaner, safer job that pays more. Those people depend on income, any income, to live, so they do the dirty jobs, and since there is a large pool of these workers, the shitty jobs can even pay just enough to survive.

With a decent basic income scheme, i.e. the basic needs of the people taken care of, the job market would probably flip: You would have to pay people very well for doing unpleasant work, and not so well for fulfilling jobs.

marcamillion2• 13 years ago

With a decent basic income scheme, i.e. the basic needs of the people taken care of, the job market would probably flip: You would have to pay people very well for doing unpleasant work, and not so well for fulfilling jobs.

This is an interesting premise.

It would probably cause a lot of firms to be started, that compete to do those 'shitty jobs' - that could potentially drive the cost down and be done much better.

This experiment would be VERY interesting indeed.

danenania• 13 years ago

It could also act as a strong incentive for developing automatic and robotic solutions to these needs.

sentenza• 13 years ago

Unfortunately, there is actual experimental evidence to the contrary. Some of the Arabian Emirates have cash payments to their ethnically Arabian citizens that are practically equivalent to a high basic income.

In those cases, all the "dirty" labor is done by legal/illegal immigrants that are not eligible for said basic income and thus willing to work for much less.

IMO this is the central problem with the idea of a basic income. Either it has to be so low that it is on the "just don't starve" level (thus making it unattractive compared to any job), or you have to lock your borders, shutting down migration.

svantana• 13 years ago

the job market would probably flip: You would have to pay people very well for doing unpleasant work, and not so well for fulfilling jobs.

Isn't that already the case? Boring jobs = accountant, lawyer, engineer (to most people), fun jobs = musician, actor, artist (again, to most people, or at least teenagers). I shudder to think what the median income is for those fun jobs.

homeomorphic2• 13 years ago

One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income.

My (probably wrong) impression was that hardly any Swiss work those kinds of jobs anymore as it is, and that the country relies on migrant temporary workers. How true is this?

Also, your comment is great in general. It really made me think.

maurits• 13 years ago

The poverty line is 2200, the median around 5700, and a starting cashier at one of the big supermarket chains will make 3200+ and benefits. [1]

[1] http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/03/04/bla...

adventured2• 13 years ago

100 million adults in the US currently hold no job.

$33,600 * 100 million = $3.36 trillion (20% of GDP)

Good luck with that. That by itself is about $900 billion more than the total federal tax haul for 2012. Then throw in the other 50 million adults making less than $33.6k per year, assume a solid added cost of at least 25% of GDP.

It's pure fantasy, and completely falls apart when you start doing the actual math.

homeomorphic2• 13 years ago

I don't think anybody has suggested introducing the basic income amount of a country with that from the country with (one of) the world's highest costs of living. $33.6k is, at least in comparably priced Norway, a very very low income. As in: way less than what a cleaner or a supermarket cashier would make. The amount would obviously be different in different countries.

ZeroGravitas2• 13 years ago

Basic income is given to everyone, not just the poor and/or unemployed.

It's actually a very good idea, supported by people all across the political spectrum. You should read up on it before dismissing it.

jre8• 13 years ago

Just to put things in perspective (I'm swiss), 2500CHF is a really low salary in Switzerland. There is another initiative asking for a minimum wage of 4000CHF per month. The median swiss salary is close to 6000CHF[1]. The administration says the poverty line is around 2200CHF per month for someone living alone [2].

You can't really just convert to $ and say it's a lot of money. A lot of basic stuff like food, transportation, housing are really expensive in Switzerland.

[1] http://archives.tdg.ch/actu/suisse/suisses-gagnent-moyenne-5...

[2] http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/fr/index/themen/20/03/bla...

001sky3• 13 years ago

The exchange rate that would equalise the price of a Swiss Big Mac with an American one is SFr1.55 to the dollar; the actual exchange rate is only 0.96. [1]

== Swiss Franc is most overvalued currency

[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/daily-c...

netcan4• 13 years ago

Is that 4000CHF after tax or before?

rmc2• 13 years ago

Here here. I've travelled through Switzerland, and can confirm that it's really expensive compared to many other countries. I made the mistake once of planning to stay overnight in Switzerland. That was expensive. About €40 to stay in a rural hostel.

swissass• 13 years ago

Live near the border with France. Buy everything there in EUR.

Border is nonexistent for all practical purposes so this is very doable.

Rylinks• 13 years ago

If you have a basic income, why do you need a minimum wage?

phunehehe0• 13 years ago

Another perspective here, I actually converted that into dollars and realized it's more than my salary (me being in Vietnam). However I quickly came to my senses and comfort myself that prices are different in Switzerland. Thanks for confirming this.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if you can use that money to live somewhere cheaper, maybe without letting the government know. If you can, I think that's a problem to solve before this deal can go through.

walshemj2• 13 years ago

I recall paying 7SF for a coke when skiing 20 years ago

X42• 13 years ago

For those who don't know what the idea behind the unconditional income is: I'll briefly explain it. Imagine you work hard and only get enough to live on the edge. Now imagine you're not even the average joe, but feel that you could really change things on the world. You haven't to be a genius in order to do that, but you need to be creative, innovative and willing to work without the command to work. Now let's get an eagle's perspective on what would happen, if encouraged people would not have to spent their entire lives working for the bare minimum that keeps them slaves of the economy and industry.

You would essentially create the startup-country #1. Everybody could now cherish their dreams again and make them real. You don't believe it right, that's "stupid eastern communism thinkblarg", right? How comes you Sir, Madam believe in Kickstarter, Crowdfunding, Bitcoin, P2P, Wikipedia.. and the individual freedom, so to say the american dream, when you actually have to rely on the mercy of the rich and your leading political party? Isn't that a wet dream reserverd for the 1:100.000? Let's chill and put into retrospect on what would happen if you were getting a salary that allowed you to get your basics needs fulfilled. You would be less sick, stressed, worn out. You would now be able to do what you always wanted to do in your life. Hey admit it, you wanted to buy a house at some time and have a wife and children and you knew that you'd have to work hard, the half of your life to get there. Believe it or not, but giving people freedom doesn't mean blindly trusting them. You are only one and the community you live in that government that likes to keep you locked into boundaries called country, consist of many of the smartest people on the world. Why not let them free, who do you trust if not them? We're far from a Star Trek world, where anybody get's free access to medicine and any food or resource he needs.

Dear patriots, don't be afraid that your Governments managed it to go bankrupt, they've managed that already and not for the first time. It's time you your friends, families understand that the people you thought were the cause, aren't the cause. It's your Government stupid. I don't say hate Governments, but do you blindly trust a complete stranger to care for your baby? Certainly not.

For those who're not still convinced that an unconditional income is a good idea:

Why do you blindly trust your Government word-by-word to judge on your and everbody else's life's? When these people cannot even cooperate with just a few hundred other politicians? You see how wrong it is to not trust all people, but a selected few. Let's get over the indoctrinated prejudices and get to know each other again. Hi =)

thenomad• 13 years ago

There's some evidence for this. Initial basic income test programs show that people tend to reinvest their basic income in starting businesses, in particular.

http://www.globalincome.org/English/BI-worldwide.html covers the tests - not unbiased but has useful facts and data on where to get more info.

m_mueller5• 13 years ago

As a Swiss I'm not completely opposed to the idea of basic income, I just think it's too early. Right now we still need most of the workforce to create our current level of wealth - our unemployed rate is pretty low, usually around 2-3%, and work efficiency is one of the best in the world - it's a well oiled machine where every cog still counts, including lower incomes. Even with the current GDP, paying that bill would be incredibly difficult, but I'd expect the GDP to even sink for some time, until positive effects can come in, making the whole thing a gamble with the well being of 8M people. Not worth it.

However, going some decades into the future the whole thing might look different. Given that we can manage to still gather the planets ressources without stagnating, uneducated jobs will become less and less important as more and more can be automated through robots, intelligent information systems such as Watson's successors and so on. At that point the ratio of revenue to salary will be extremely skewed towards highly educated jobs, making it (a) easier and (b) probably necessary to channel some of this wealth to insure everyone can keep up with education. Note that we already do that now through a wellfare system that allows anyone to get by and get a degree, even at the prestigous ETH Zurich (tuition 1400$/year). At some point a basic income may become cheaper than a welfare system, but that's not now.

StavrosK• 13 years ago

You're overlooking how expensive poverty is. I don't have numbers, but this may well end up being cheaper than the alternative.

Filligree• 13 years ago

As a Norwegian, I.. agree, but still hope you'll do it.

For the greater good of humanity (and Norwegians), Switzerland will make a useful laboratory. It might even work. Sorry, but that's how it is.

fab13n• 13 years ago

About poorly paid boring jobs: either they're socially necessary and will command higher wages, or they're not worth it, and we'll manage without them.

The main interest of minimal income is to shift the power balance between employer and employees: today, most employees have a choice between complying and starving. Actually in many countries they have to do both. With minimal income, it becomes a choice between compliance and comfort rather than survival. Negotiation between them and their employers can happen again (people still value comfort)

prostoalex4• 13 years ago

today, most employees have a choice between complying and starving

Really? What's the grand total number of starvation deaths in United States or Switzerland?

madaxe• 13 years ago

* > who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income *

Software and automation.

algorias• 13 years ago

I find with most jobs is that it's much easier to get more pay than less hours

Actually, this is less of a problem in Switzerland than in other countries. Specially at the low end of the income scale, it's easy to get jobs in the 30-50% range (100% being 40h/week). Just the fact that people here think in terms of an x% job should tip you off that it's pretty common.

rmc2• 13 years ago

* By US standards, this actually seems to be a good salary: significantly better than working full time at minimum wage.*

Switzerland is incredibly expensive. I don't really think it's accurate to do an actual comparison with exchange rates.

sergiosgc• 13 years ago

One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income.

Half jokingly, I would say "Portuguese immigrants". I once went to Zurich for a conference and, on the day of the flight, was unshaved, poorly dressed (two hour sleep night before the fligbt). Man, was I drilled by the border police about my intentions in Switzerland. They were convinced I'd be moving there to serve tables or such (I'm a s/w engineer...). Apparently, there is a huge flow of my compatriots over to Swiss menial jobs.

downandout• 13 years ago

I am not an economist, but this sounds like a recipe for massive inflation. At some point, the spending power of the basic income, regardless of the actual amount given, will approach zero. Free money, health care, food, and unicorns for everyone sounds great, but these models are notorious for not working out well.

fnordfnordfnord6• 13 years ago

these models are notorious for not working out well.

I guess you know because you've seen it tried so many times?

Here is a fact for your non-economist economic model. Automation is displacing labor.

And, here is a prediction: Automation will continue to displace labor until most menial labor tasks are gone.

6d0debc071• 13 years ago

One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income.

If it's more expensive to hire people to do crappy work, then the relative utility of robots goes up. It doesn't strike me as a particularly complex problem to make robots to collect people's trash, or similar jobs. Most of the low-wage jobs are very mechanical and routine in nature.

mizchief• 13 years ago

Unless they put in price controls for basic goods, nothing will really change when it comes to jobs. When everyone has an extra $2,800 a month to spend across the board, what do you think will happen to prices? Why would I give you my time when I get the money for free? Business will have to pay more to encourage people to continue to work for them, and increase prices to make up the difference.

api• 13 years ago

"One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income."

Computers and robots.

Not true quite yet, but will be in the next few decades.

TelmoMenezes• 13 years ago

One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income.

I believe this would not be a problem in the long run for the following reasons:

- A lot of boring low-pay work is unnecessary (dealing with the endless paper trail of over-complicated bureaucracies, lots of things that companies do, like telemarketing, just because it's so cheap, etc. etc.);

- A lot of it is necessary, so it would just become more expensive. At some price, people will be willing to do this work despite the basic income. Many people actually enjoy doing meaningful work, be it plumbing or being a doctor. It's the soul-crushing pointless work that is so depressing;

- This would then create strong economic pressure to finally use technology for what it's good: automatize labor. No longer would there be the job loss dilemma;

- Likewise, this would create strong economic pressure to simplify everything: no more pointless bureaucracy, no more over-complicated taxation schemes that require an army of accountants, much less pointless meetings and other corporate fat, and so on.

I'm filled with hope by this idea and honestly believe that it has a chance of working. It's time to step into the next era.

marknutter3• 13 years ago

I see it differently. If people are receiving a basic income their performance at a job becomes much less important. Why care if you do a good job if losing it doesn't really impact you that negatively?

malandrew2• 13 years ago

A lot of the necessary boring work could also be done by people who want additional disposable income. They just wouldn't be forced to work full time, instead opting to only work as many hours as is necessary to meet their disposable income needs.

On the other hand, I'm wondering what a minimum livable wage does pricewise and scarcity-wise for all goods and services that those on a minimum livable wage earn. There would probably be an upwards inflationary effect on the prices of those goods, countered by economies of scale. This would apply to pretty much all basic expenses except housing, which would largely only go up because you can't make more land in desirable places.

If there is a minimum livable wage, I would still imagine that opting to only use it and no other income would still force you to leave city centers where rent is too high to afford. You may still have to worry about losing your job, because the minimum livable wage wouldn't cover your rent or mortgage.

jordiae• 13 years ago

+1000

ams6110• 13 years ago

Converting $33,600 basic income (assuming this goes to every adult, 210 million people) to the entire population (318 million) is about $22,200 per capita.

Per capita income in the United States in 2012 was $42,693 [1]. Assuming that would remain unchanged, taxes to fund a basic income of $22,200 that would leave $20,500 per capita.

Per-capita state tax collections are already 2,435.11 [2] and federal tax collections are $8,528.22 [3]. Most states have to run a balanced budget but federal revenue only covers about 65% of outlays, so really we're looking at about $13,000 per capita federal spending that eventually needs to be paid for. So subtract $15,435 to cover current outlays.

Now we're at about $5,000 left over to pay for everything else: food, clothes, utilities, rent/mortgage, education, and all the other local taxes that fund essential services, e.g. local sales taxes, property taxes, various other fees and excise taxes.

Even if you did away with other "safety net" programs such as welfare and food stamps because they are replaced by basic income, there simply isn't enough REAL economic activity in the country to give everyone this kind of basic income.

1. http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

oneeyedpigeon3• 13 years ago

I believe similar points are made in Robert Tressell's 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists', in which he debunks a lot of the negativity surrounding socialism and makes very powerful arguments in favour of it. A wonderful book.

fnordfnordfnord6• 13 years ago

By US standards, this actually seems to be a good salary: significantly better than working full time at minimum wage.

The cost of living in Switzerland is among the highest in the world.

gcb13• 13 years ago

you cant say a salary is good without listing the cost of living.

that salary would barely cover my cheap rent, and maybe 3 month of food...

it is like living in san francisco with a "good salary" from the outskirts of idaho.

gwu78• 13 years ago

A well crafted comment.

But I have a thought experiment for you.

"One of the main questions about this is who would do boring, low paid work..."

First, let's assume we are starting from scratch and reassigning what "work" is compensated with pay and what work is not.

For the purposes of our thought experiment, ignore "low paid" and "high paid" below, because we have not yet decided what work will be compensated with pay, let alone how much pay. Hence "boring, low paid work" becomes just "boring work".

Next, let's further assume that "boring work" describes the type of work that people do not normally want to do.

And here's the though experiment: What if the converse of "boring work" (e.g., "interesting work") was not actually "work"?

That is, what if "interesting work" was not compensated? What if people were not paid for doing what they are naturally inclined to do, i.e., for doing what they love?

What if we only compensated people for doing "boring work"?

Remarkably, this actually does not sound too far from reality. Because that is exactly what many people do in order to be compensated: boring work. Similarly, many of us do plenty of "work" for which we are not compensated.

What's different about the thought experiment is that we reassess whether persons who refuse to do boring work in favor of interesting work should actually be paid. After all, they are doing what they love. And they would presumably do this regardless of payment.

If only the "grunt workers" get paid, then we have created an incentive to do grunt work. We have not removed the incentive to do more interesting, "higher level" work because that incentive does not find its basis in compensation, for this is the "work" that people actually want to do, regardless of payment. Or so that's what they always tell us.

ChuckMcM• 13 years ago

I hope this passes because it will put to the test some of the possible benefits of a basic income. This is an interesting question:

   "One of the main questions about something like this 
    is about who would do boring, low-paid work with 
    this sort of basic income. What I would really hope 
    is that people would still do many of those jobs, 
    but for far fewer hours--largely as a way to get 
    money for incidental expenses and luxuries beyond 
    the basic income. One problem I find with most jobs 
    is that it's much easier to get more pay than less
    hours, even if I really want the latter. There is a
    large drop-off between full-time and part-time work."

As I understand the theory, people will do this for exactly the reason you give, which is that it will add to their income for extras. The basic tenet of the BI concept (as I understand it) is that you provide subsistence wages and do not add an economic penalty for working, thus people will work because it won't cut down on their basic income (like it does with welfare) instead it will improve their income picture.

zem• 13 years ago

One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income.

people who talk about this always do so with the assumption that someone else would do the boring, low-paid work. but if you think about it, why should boring work be low-paid? it's unpleasant and time-consuming, so it should ideally be paid commensurately.

mcv2• 13 years ago

Keep in mind that with a $30,000/year basic income, a $30,000/year job would make your total income $60,000. There's definitely an incentive to work. Especially when compared to welfare, unemployment benefits etc, because you lose those when you get a job. You don't lose basic income. You always get ahead by working, even if it's something low paid for only a few hours a week.

But more than that, it's quite possible that boring, low paid, unattractive jobs will have to become better paid or more interesting if they're essential jobs, and they might disappear entirely if they're not essential. I think the quality of jobs is likely to increase because of this.

wavesounds3• 13 years ago

Meanwhile, in America, the government is shut down to try to stop poor people from receiving subsidies on their private health insurance.

Daniel_Newby3• 13 years ago

This is not an appropriate venue for chanting political slogans.

wavesounds3• 13 years ago

I stated a 100% true fact that is a direct comparison to the article in question. It's sad people would try to silence facts by dismissing them as 'political slogans'

crygin• 13 years ago

The GP is not a "political slogan", it's a statement of fact. If you'd like to rebut, which seems fairly unlikely, please provide both evidence of sloganhood (slogan, of course, means something specific: in part, that the aforementioned phrase has been used verbatim as a form of promotion. Cite the promotion) and additionally an actual rebuttal to the GP.

That would actually be what this is an appropriate venue for, not your contentless dismissal.

noarchy• 13 years ago

This entire thread is political. That much is clear from the get-go.

It will come down to the usual polarizing arguments that you see here every day.

psuter6• 13 years ago

Before anyone gets too excited, let's remember that this is also the country where the people voted against raising the required paid holidays (2012), for substantial cuts in unemployment allowances (2010), and for increasing the VAT (2009), just to give some recent examples. Regardless of its merits, it is going to be nearly impossible to gather popular support for an idea such as basic income. But hey, at least we'll talk about it.

zalew4• 13 years ago

just to give some recent examples

and the most recent (not necessarily on topic) http://idpc.net/alerts/2013/09/switzerland-decriminalises-ca...

psuter6• 13 years ago

That was not through referendum, though. The dynamics are very different. Interestingly enough, when asked, the parliament tends to be more open to change and experimentation than the people.

ojii4• 13 years ago

Yes we Swiss have this weird habit of voting against things that look like they would be a benefit for us (in the short term). I voted against more paid holidays as I think 4 weeks (minimum) is enough and forcing everyone to raise it to 5 would hurt the economy. Similarly I'd vote against this proposed bill if I still lived in Switzerland as I don't see how it could work, despite it being generally an intriguing idea.

psuter6• 13 years ago

We were going for 6, actually :P

ddoolin• 13 years ago

Now I'm curious about the possibility of immigrating to Switzerland...

Ha. Sort of seriously.

pyritschard2• 13 years ago

I voted against 6. I probably would have voted for 5 which many companies already allow.

sschueller3• 13 years ago

Because 6 was just too much. Most people would have votes for 5 since a lot already get that. 6 was just too greedy.

marcosdumay4• 13 years ago

raising the required paid holidays And thus reducing the part of the salary they get in monetary form.
cuts in unemployment allowances And thus increasing the part of the salary they get in monetary form.
increasing the VAT And thus making space for more government spending.

Those not as clear-cut propositions as you comment imply, and I'm now impressed by the amount of maturity the swiss population just displayed by making those calculations. I guess when you put some responsibility into the hand of The People, they stop acting like irresponsible children.

robomartin5• 13 years ago

Maybe I am too obtuse to understand how such things could work.

What happens if nobody has a job?

OK, that's a little extreme. Let's see, a family of five would get 12500 F per month unconditionally. That's probably a pretty good chunk of money for doing nothing.

I see images of five to ten people living together to collectively earn 25000 F per month.

In the same story they talk about limiting executive pay to 12x the salary of the lowest paid employee. Again, I just don't see it. In a global market I just don't see intelligent and capable people not looking past their borders seeking better compensation for what they have to offer.

How can you build a sustainable and competitive society this way? Again, I'll admit to not being mentally equipped to comprehend how this can work. Perhaps someone can educate me.

ojii4• 13 years ago

Every adult gets 2500/month, so a family of 2 adults + 3 children would get 5000/month which is nowhere near enough in most places in Switzerland.

robomartin5• 13 years ago

I was thinking of a family with five adults. No reason for the children to leave such a profitable nest.

The other scenario is a group of adult friends or relatives.

jrockway• 13 years ago

People always want more, so this will allow people to live comfortably while they, for example, acquire a more profitable skill than what they currently have. Then they will earn more, and pay more taxes, and the cycle continues.

Alternatively, the Swiss government may have enough money to invest it all and pay for this out of dividends. Just because the US is broke doesn't mean that everyone is.

robomartin5• 13 years ago

this will allow people to live comfortably while they, for example, acquire a more profitable skill than what they currently have.

Maybe some of them. If American welfare is any indications you'll have generations of people who will live within this free money system, do nothing, learn nothing and demand more and more over time. They will all have iPhones, huge flat screen TV's and never work a day in their lives.

Again, I just don't see it and admit that I don't get it. Nice, but I don't get it.

seanmcdirmid6• 13 years ago

The US is nowhere near broke compared even to most developed countries. The Swiss don't have a trust fund like Norway.

erichocean• 13 years ago

People always want more

Based on the reading I've done on the subject, in places where a minimum basic income well into the poverty range was given, people actually just cut back on everything until it covered their expenses, i.e. people preferred poverty to working low-wage jobs. That makes sense to me.

That said...I'm still in favor of a universal minimum basic income, because I always expect social regressions whenever people have little to no experience and culture to mitigate the most harmful effects (c.f. the Internet, Facebook, Reddit, 4chan, etc.).

My sense is that the first generation after a UBI was established would be lazy as hell, but the children would be less so, because work, art, etc. do produce meaningful life benefits for those that participate. By the third or fourth generation, life everywhere would be much, much better for—literally—everyone.

Anyway...my $0.02.

psuter6• 13 years ago

One thing to consider is that today in Switzerland if you don't work you can already get around 2000CHF/mo in social programs and health insurance subsidies. (Most) people work nevertheless, if only because working brings you much more than a wage.

rickjames28• 13 years ago

go for it. and let's see the extrapolation to a economic juggernaut like the U.S. It's always the "norway" argument. If Norway (pop 4 million or so) can do it so can the U.S.

Yes, I guess Los Angeles could do something like that, but..

unsigner• 13 years ago

4 million AND oil-rich.

e12e2• 13 years ago

Like North Dakota?

arjie2• 13 years ago

Not that I specifically care for that argument, but half of American states have lower population than Norway. Choosing to say "I guess Los Angeles could do it" may have a better ring to it than "I guess Colorado or Alabama or South Carolina or Louisiana or Kentucky or Oregon or Oklahoma or Connecticut or Iowa or Mississippi or Arkansas or Kansas or Utah or Nevada and New Mexico together or Nebraska and West Virginia and Idaho together or Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island together or Montana, Delaware, the Dakotas, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming together could do something like that", but it makes the US look like it has a lot more people than it does.

Now before anyone comes up with "population isn't everything", that's the problem parent decided to mention.

spikels• 13 years ago

I would greatly prefer a basic income to the thousands of poorly run programs that aim to help the poor. The poor are not helpless but simply don't make enough money for some minimal standard of living (i.e. they are poor). A side effect of many existing programs is that they make the poor dependent and actually discourage self-improvement. A basic income would minimize these unfortunate but real consequences of helping them.

More info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

evincarofautumn3• 13 years ago

A corollary from basic ecology: artificially adding prey to an area that cannot support more predators is tantamount to reducing competition amongst those predators, worsening the problem of motivation; or because of breeding, adding predators, worsening the problem of scarcity.

CrankyPants7• 13 years ago

Yeah, the basic income is tough because it doesn't address all of the elements that discourage self-improvement, but it does address some.

I'd be curious to see what the net decrease/increase in costs would be if the US wiped out the vast majority of assistance programs and switched over to a basic income. After that, someone would need to take a stab at seeing what the net increase/decrease is from the change in incentives and general societal structure.

mattlutze3• 13 years ago

Interesting here is everyone would get it. Making 200k, 500k CHF a year? You also get the basic income.

For mid-wage jobs, I imagine employers will reduce salaries to compensate, meaning the middle-class employee will likely net the same-ish. Or, rather, would stagnate raises for years until the salary equalizes. For people who make a lot of money and have more leverage over their salaries in negotiations, their salaries would likely not change, suggesting it'd be a government-sponsored raise.

I'm curious where the money for this will come from, what percentage of personal and corporate taxes will be increased.

pyritschard2• 13 years ago

I think it's worth explaining how swiss legislation works. There are several ways to propose a new law, one of which is for enough citizens to petition, which leads to a referendum style vote.

The basic income vote followed this process, and though it gathered enough interest to warrant people voting on it, it has little chance of passing.

Interestingly a similar vote recently passed which limited the income in a company to a factor of 12 (i.e: the CEO can not make more than 12 times the lowest salary of his company) which wasn't expected of switzerland (a rather liberal and conservative country)

psuter6• 13 years ago

The 1:12 project is at the same stage as the basic income one: up for referendum. Latest polls showed people were still undecided (vote is at the end of November).

riffraff• 13 years ago

I was under the impression the 1:12 vote already happened and was voted with an overwhelming majority, e.g.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21647937

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/03/switzerlan...

Could you explain the discrepancy ?

JDDunn9• 13 years ago

A country that values science, education, peace AND cares about the poor! Have I stepped into another dimension?

ojii4• 13 years ago

You forgot democracy. Note that this bill was introduced by the people, not the government. In Switzerland, as long as you can get 100'000 to sign a referendum, you can get a bill to be voted on. We also vote 4 times a year on bills, that is we the people, not we the politicians.

rodgerd• 13 years ago

And in 1990 women could even vote!

DrewRWx• 13 years ago

Meanwhile in California it is easier for corporate lobbyists to pass bills through the proposition system than it is to go through congress.

stretchwithme2• 13 years ago

Any petition getting enough signatures can place something on the ballot in Switzerland.

They've even voted on whether to abolish the military.

Kliment• 13 years ago

I don't see how that's unreasonable.

claudius• 13 years ago

They couldn’t accidentally invade Liechtenstein any more…

stretchwithme2• 13 years ago

it was voted down, of course.

Kiro• 13 years ago

Wouldn't basic income just lead to higher prices and inflation?

sjwright3• 13 years ago

At the income level they set, sadly yes.

ck22• 13 years ago

Exactly like how in the US, college costs magically rise to the amount students can get in loans.

It is a very bad idea to guarantee income instead of controlling costs. All it does is allow the people making money to make more money and possibly take that income out of their country for further investment.

comicjk2• 13 years ago

A redistribution of consumption does not increase prices overall, although in the short run you would expect apples to be more expensive and yachts to be cheaper. An overall increase in consumption, because poor people save a smaller fraction of their money, does lead to inflation, though also to economic growth.

notahacker• 13 years ago

It's redistributing from people that save most of their income (and often consume outside the Swiss economy) to people that consume most of their income (in Switzerland. The price of yachts on the world market won't move. The price of apples in Zurich will skyrocket, especially since the move simultaneously decreases the supply of low-end labour willing to work all month delivering or selling apples for 3200CHF per month. The combined effect of the two is likely to be massively inflationary.

I'd be a lot happier with the Basic Income if I owned-low end rental property in Zurich than if I had a job, unless BI is funded by a property tax...

justincormack• 13 years ago

The assumption is that the government will do this and still run a balanced budget; how realistic this is I do not know as there are no numbers. In which case its just redistribution, so no its not inflationary.

marvin5• 13 years ago

Remains to be seen. That's why it's a great idea that a small country like Switzerland might test out this at scale, because then we can see if the vocal opponents who use your argument are right.

You have a legitimate point, but I think a lot of the most vocal opponents of a basic income have a political agenda beyond wanting a system which is good for everyone.

dinkumthinkum12• 13 years ago

I'm not sure that a small country would yield applicable results, though.

ck22• 13 years ago

I like to think I am progressive but this minimum income idea is a horrible idea in my eyes.

It is like student loans in the USA, everything will rise to the maximum price that people can obtain money.

netcan4• 13 years ago

I think it's an interesting idea. Worth trying in a small country with competent government where a cockup has no effect on me.

drcode• 13 years ago

Yes, in all for letting the Swiss screw up their country with this idea.

Then I no longer have to spend energy explaining why this idea doesn't work.

frank_boyd• 13 years ago

Switzerland has twice the amount of asylum seekers per capita, compared to the EU average.

That seems to be the result of a fairly open asylum policy. Some people find it's too open and complain about that.

With the concept of a basic income like this, I suppose their asylum policy would have to become more restrictive.

sschueller3• 13 years ago

The problem isn't necessarily the asylum count but the free flow of people from the EU.

They can just come and if they get a job they can stay. Many recruiters are getting jobs for people from the EU before they even move.

On the other side, with a growing economy there aren't enough well educated Swiss to full the open positions.

rmoriz• 13 years ago

FYI: You have to live 12 years consecutively in Switzerland, pass a tests and a personal hearing done by the local government to get a citizenship by naturalization.

Switzerland has one of the most strict immigration rules in Europe.

Source: http://www.bfm.admin.ch/content/bfm/en/home/themen/buergerre...

swedev• 13 years ago

Interesting, I wonder how that would affect foreigners wanting to work in Swiss. If this bill were to pass it would be funded by either increasing taxes or lowering welfare On top of that prices would probably increase at least some. But foreigners would only get the negative effects of this change and not the basic income which would mean they'll probably require more pay to compensate for the loss.

I'm guessing that would affect companies who relies on foreign expertise.

VMG2• 13 years ago

So apparently everybody loves this highly nationalist, some might even say racist bill.

dinkumthinkum12• 13 years ago

That's really baiting. What is racist about this bill? I know the entire concept of an "country" or a "citizen" of some country is deeply disgusting to some people, but those are usually kind of weirdos. You can't seriously hold any one as really being a racist because they recognize such things.

sjwright3• 13 years ago

I've always liked the idea of a base salary for all citizens. However, this plan appears to set the base level far too high -- it needs to be barely enough to fund the most basic of life's essentials, and indexed to an inflation rate of essential commodities. Life on this salary needs to be difficult and unsatisfying.

The model I imagine would also:

* Be paid to all citizens from age zero. Which means it can replace many existing systems, from child support payments and old age pensions.

* Child salaries from ~3 onwards could come in the form of vouchers with limited scope, e.g. accredited education providers, accredited child care services.

And you need to combine it with some further reforms, e.g:

* No minimum wage.

* Pretty much all existing welfare scrapped.

* Reduced work rights (e.g. less onerous unfair dismissal rules)

The underlying goal of such a system would be to dramatically simplify the role of the welfare state, and put the responsibility back on the individual to manage their own welfare.

rndmize• 13 years ago

I can't see how paying citizens from age zero could possibly be a good idea. Either the government will have control on how that money can be spent (through regulation or otherwise) or the parents will, and I wouldn't consider either case good. Requiring accreditation for services that can be bought with the kids money won't prevent people from corrupting or exploiting the system, only delay them.

I also think that while basic income should only covers essentials initially, there's no reason not to increase it as our technology/efficiency/automation improves. This idea that "life needs to be basic and unsatisfying" - unless you work, is IMO not only one of the things basic income should be correcting; it also simply isn't effective. There's an infinity of entertainment out there now, for free, with nothing more than a computer and internet connection. So long as you can afford food to eat, a place to live and medical, I could see people living on only a little more comfortably.

The strength of basic income is, I think, that even if you have a chunk of the population that become solely consumers, a large number of people are freed from working on what they're forced to and can work on what they're interested in. There much more space for creativity and failure in all media, in business, in startups. You could potentially accelerate your economic growth by a pretty large degree because it takes so little to get things going today. And the people that do get something going and succeed at scale don't need tens of thousands of other people working for them to grow to a massive level anymore. How many people worked at IBM when they reached a billion dollar valuation in today's dollars? MS? Google? Facebook? I'm going to take a guess and say it was significantly less people with each succeeding company, and that trend is far from over. Plain and simple, we no longer need the whole population working when people can multiply their capabilities with robots, automation, frameworks, search functions, etc.

sjwright3• 13 years ago

There needs to be some incentive for tedious work to be done at a modest wage. Otherwise the supply of labor will crash through the floor.

As for accreditation of services, I agree to a limited extent. Personally I think government should -- where possible -- get out of the business of service delivery and focus on accreditation. The idea of a government selling pizza is absurd, but so is the idea of a government allowing a disgusting rat infested kitchen to sell pizza to the public. We effectively accredit vendors to sell food. The same model should work for education -- set minimum standards for everyone, then let the market decide.

marvin5• 13 years ago

2500CHF is just high enough to pay for the essentials. The United States is a lot cheaper than many parts of Europe.

Dewie6• 13 years ago

I've always liked the idea of a base salary for all citizens. However, this plan appears to set the base level far too high -- it needs to be barely enough to fund the most basic of life's essentials, and indexed to an inflation rate of essential commodities. Life on this salary needs to be difficult and unsatisfying.

Do you know the purchasing power parity of Switzerland? Switzerland is more expensive than most countries.

ivoras• 13 years ago

For those in the EU, there is currently an official (run by the European Comission) on-line petition in which EU citizens can vote for encouraging the application of the Basic Income idea at https://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/REQ-ECI-2012-000028... .

This is not a "let's apply this now!" thing, but a petition to study the ways and means of how it could be applied.

agilebyte• 13 years ago

Just to add to that, these are the countries with the highest amount of statements of support (out of threshold level needed to be reached):

  Slovenia - 79.95%
  Croatia - 56.12%
  Belgium - 37.32%
  Hungary - 31.04%
  Netherlands - 26.85%
  Austria - 25.33%
  France - 25.3%
  Germany - 24.39%
  Spain - 22.41%

sebilasse• 13 years ago

2'500 CHF is about the budget for a student life-style in Zurich. I expect a lot of young Swiss going on long holidays to cheaper places like south-east asia or eastern europe.

znowi• 13 years ago

A separate proposal to limit monthly executive pay to no more than what the company's lowest-paid staff earn in a year, the so-called 1:12 initiative, faces a popular vote on November 24.

This is a peculiar initiative. Surely, a plot by the commies, or is it not?

SCAQTony• 13 years ago

If they did that in America 50% of the population would quit working and prices would quickly shoot up to MARS!

Less workers, higher wages, more money in circulation... What an inflationary mess that would be.

astrange• 13 years ago

If they did that in America 50% of the population would quit working

And do startups!

What an inflationary mess that would be.

The US could use some more inflation. There's no reason this would cause an increase in the money supply though.

dinkumthinkum12• 13 years ago

You think they would quit working and do startups ... You know our community is a sheltered bubble right? ... Ok just going to assume you're joking. :)

nilkn• 13 years ago

I agree with you on your concerns about inflation. Personally though I think there is this (unhealthy?) competitive culture in America that would drive people to work the same amount.

It's like comparing now to the 50s. Almost all our households are dual income now. Surely that means each parent would work half as much, right? Nope. People are too busy competing on how fancy their houses are and therefore drove up housing prices sufficiently high that in many cities two middle class incomes are now necessary to swing the mortgage payments.

k-mcgrady• 13 years ago

I like this idea and think it's something that's going to become more common. As more and more jobs are automated it makes sense that governments would eventually generate money through automating societies least popular jobs and use the money generated through that to pay citizens a basic salary.

marcamillion2• 13 years ago

If this passes, I suspect that Switzerland would see a MAJOR, MAJOR spike in inbound immigration requests.

I would love to see what that spike would look like.

angularly2• 13 years ago

Not to talk about an enormous spike in unemployment rate, just like in all other countries where you get paid money for not doing anything. I.e. in Denmark where I come from, we have 400.000 people - out of a population of 6mill - who gain nothing or very little from working, to a point where it don't make sense to work at all, compared to just receiving unemployment pay. And logically people opt to just not work.

salvadors• 13 years ago

And logically people opt to just not work

Your logic isn't backed up by places that have experimented with this.

Yes, there will always be some people who are content to live at the poverty line if they don't have to do any work for it. They are not the people to base your system around.

There are many more people who are happy to do something to improve their quality of life even a little. A problem in many countries with an advanced welfare state is that doing even a little work reduces your benefits significantly enough (and introduces so much bureaucracy into your life) that it's not work it. With a basic income, that disappears.

scbrg• 13 years ago

The difference is that in Denmark (I assume) you trade unemployment benefits when not working to a roughly equivalent salary when you start working. So no, you don't gain anything. With the proposed Swiss system, any salary you earned would be in addition to the basic salary, so there would still be an incentive to work. It's just that it's not strictly necessary to survive.

I think the proposed system makes better, as the economical margin effect of working is not negligible, as it is when you just have unemployment benefits.

NB: I live in Sweden, and I'm assuming your system is similar to ours. It's a problem I have observed here and I suspect the same applies to you. I may be wrong if it works differently.

jpatokal2• 13 years ago

Probably not very big, since getting a Swiss residence permit pretty much requires a job, and it takes 12 years of residence to be able to apply for citizenship -- and only then would you qualify for basic income.

david927• 13 years ago

I didn't read the bill but I would venture this only applies to citizens, not those on work permits; and Switzerland has historically been an extraordinarily difficult place to get citizenship. (You, personally, have to be voted on, with your picture on the ballot, if I remember correctly.)

I lived there for almost ten years but since around 2008, as an American, I am not welcome anymore. The process for a company to hire non-EU citizens is essentially insurmountable.

vaibpuri• 13 years ago

This "might" lead to people actually working more in a certain sense. If a person is to receive an X amount of francs per month then employers will require 40 hour / weeks leading to approximately 15 francs per hour (€12.5), which for a place like Switzerland is kind of fair.

Those who choose not to work enough might have to face inflationary affects in housing etc. needing to catch up to the median (not average) population income levels.

Eitherways, if the Swiss go wrong on this their system of voting is flexible enough to allow for change back.

chmars4• 13 years ago

The text of the Swiss initiative can be found at http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/vi/vis423t.html. Please note that it does not mention 2'500 Swiss francs as a basic income.

Rough translation into English:

Federal People's Initiative 'For an uncoditional basic income'

The federal constituion shall be amended as follows:

Art. 110a (new) Unconditional Basic Income

(1) The Confederay introduces an unconditional basic income.

(2) The basic income shall allow the whole population a decent life and participlation in public activities.

(3) The law defines funding and amount of the basic income.

jre8• 13 years ago

As a swiss citizen, I'm really happy we'll have to vote on this. I'm not sure yet what I'm going to vote (I'm slightly bending towards a yes), but I think this is a very interesting debate to have. Especially because this is not a traditional left-right fight.

On the left, you have some unions saying this is going to be counter-productive and that it will reduce the leverage of employees in negotiation ("You've already got 2500, stop complaining"). Some other unions say it's going to give employee more leverage ("If you don't pay me more, I leave").

There are some people (including right-wing "economy-friendly" politician) who think this is a boost for innovation. By letting people work on what they want, without the risk of becoming homeless if it fails, you'll have more people trying to become independent / create companies.

And finally, you have what is still the majority reaction when told about this idea, which is that this is encouraging laziness.

omegant4• 13 years ago

Being from Spain and having seen the reaction to high quantities of money available. A system like this will need to be very well monitored, it can help immensely to those in need, but if done unconditionally it will certainly encourage laziness in a sector of the society. My wife is a doctor and before the crisis she used to have patients DEMAND the permanent disability, because they wanted to stop working. They were always saying "It´s my right, give MY disability!". They were regular people with no or little physical problems. Of course the people that really really needed the disability (very ill and in pain) didn´t want it. They just wanted to keep working and bringing money home. Now as there is no money, the former has almost disappeared from the hospital.

Radim• 13 years ago

Upvoted you back.

Discussing such things on HN must feel surreal if you're not the median HN reader (educated, white, entitled westerner with 1st world problems).

Talking about what the "poor" would do if this and that, based on your own "hunches", worldview and ambitions.

Mass social experiments designed by intellectuals from an ivory tower... uhh. Good luck to Switzerland though, they may be able to afford providing one much needed data point!

summerdown23• 13 years ago

A system like this will need to be very well monitored, it can help immensely to those in need, but if done unconditionally it will certainly encourage laziness in a sector of the society.

Thought experiment: If the overall effect of basic income is to make things better overall(1), does it really matter if some people become lazy?

(1) Through whatever metric you want to measure.

... To give some background, my question is whether the existence of laziness is a sufficient critique in itself. If things get better on average, but some people are enabled to sit around all day, is that really a problem?

I'm asking this because the UK government at the moment is constantly railing against lazy people taking benefits, as if it's self-evident that should be stopped. To me, this just sounds like the politics of envy and hate (though I admit I could be wrong).

Put another way: if a utopia involves some people getting benefits they don't deserve, would that be a bad thing?

Obviously, I'm not saying basic income will produce a better society. I think it might, but needs empirical testing. My question is more whether the existence of undeserving beneficiaries is sufficient to rule it out.

waterlesscloud2• 13 years ago

Is this for everyone? In other words, if you're working, is this on top of your income?

jre8• 13 years ago

Yes, this is unconditional and on top of any other income you get.

netcan4• 13 years ago

I know no more than I read in the last 10 minutes, so I have a question for you:

How serious is a referendum like this? When a government pushes a major change. They need to back it up with a lot of analysis. Where does the money come from? What the major economic impacts. What do the big businesses/industries/unions/Chambers of Commerce/ etc think of it.

The referendum system sounds like a good idea for issues that are mostly moral like abortion or gay marriage. They're all about what we think is right. This one is economic, its about feasibility and tricky second order effects. So basically what I'm saying is.. has anyone really checked that this actually possible?

jre8• 13 years ago

This is one of the question that will be central to the upcoming debate. Usually, when we vote on economic issues (like we voted on raise in VAT, more holidays, etc...), we usually have all kind of organisation explaining what their position is and why. So you obviously get the political parties opinions, but also the economic associations (the Swiss Business Federation for big companies, the Union of small-medium business), the employee unions and so on. On this topic, we'll most likely get a lot of opinion from the economics academic world as well.

Also, when you get your voting material, there is a leaflet that explains the position of the government and the parliament (in this case, they will most likely recommend a "no").

Now, the comittee that supports the basic income says that the real cost is 30 billions CHF. The rest of the 200 billions CHF comes from the part that is deduced from the salaries by the companies and from the suppression of a bunch of social programs (we already have a system where the state pays the basic necessities to the people without any other revenue, with some conditions). [1]

They also admit that the "dynamic effect" of the basic income are hard to estimate. This is likely to be the controversial part of the debate. It is such a big shift in paradigm that I think nobody, even the most brilliant economists, can predict what will happen. And it is most likely the reason why it will be refused. It's a big jump in the unknown.

Last but not least, the actual text of the initiative (translated in this comment [2]) doesn't fix the level of the basic income. 2500 CHF is just a proposition and if it is accepted, it's up to the parliament to come up with a law that regulates how this all works. So maybe it could be introduced incrementally.

[1] http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499949

rwallace2• 13 years ago

The big problem I see with it is the age discrimination, of which modern society already has far too much. Strike that clause (and in the case of children too young to understand money, give it to their parents to spend on their behalf), and I would see a good case for it being a net positive, but not the proposal as it currently stands.

thedufer2• 13 years ago

The problem is that this creates an _enormous_ incentive to have kids. Is that something you really want to incentive? Pushing it back until they're legal adults removes this.

That said, if this wouldn't be enough for someone with kids to live on, that could be a problem. Its a tough problem to solve.

alternize3• 13 years ago

i haven't yet made up my mind either. personally, i find the upcoming "1:12" vote [highest salary in a company may at most be 12x the lowest salary] much more dangerous to the swiss economy. the discussions on both votes are very interesting and healthy tho.

patatino• 13 years ago

We have about 3% unemployment rate in Switzerland. You have to know something about us, we love to work. Why? Because we are raised with the thought that's our strongest asset. Pretty small country with zero resources. Last year we voted for the increase of our holidays from 4 to 6 weeks. Result? 66,5% voted against it.

This vote will get something like 80% no votes because people are affraid this will change how people think about work.

angularly2• 13 years ago

Wow, I hope they vote no. I moved to Switzerland recently to avoid the dominant socialism in northern Europe. But they are one of the last liberal stands down here, so there is a good chance it will fall through.

eatitraw2• 13 years ago

There are so many people excited about all these "equality" bills, and nobody criticizes it.

So I'll just leave it there: http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html

Suncho5• 13 years ago

Paul Graham misses the mark here. I agree with him that it doesn't make sense to try to get rid of income inequality and that income inequality can actually be a positive driving force in the economy. However, it's possible to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, thereby making the poor richer, without preventing income inequality from continuing to increase. Just do it at a low enough rate. And it's not a good use of resources to "teach a man to fish" when "fishing" can be automated or there's not a specific demand for "fishermen."

The jobs of tomorrow are becoming less and less definable in terms of the jobs and skills of today. We should be giving people incentive to stay out of the labor force and to spend their time how they want. Some people will stay home and play Xbox. Some will come up with awesome new jobs. Some will do amazing work that benefits humanity and which nobody would have ever thought to pay them for. But it's important to remember that keeping the lazy people out of the labor force decreases the level of incompetence in the labor force. Those Xbox people are staying out of the way of folks who actually want to get things done. Sometimes the best way to contribute to the economy is to stay out of it.

DanI-S• 13 years ago

He also attempts to justify the social implications of his position by saying that we can still have high levels of risk-taking and innovation but without suffering an oligarchy by severing the connection between wealth and power.

This is a nice idea, but in reality the power that comes with wealth is an even greater motivator than the improved quality of life that comes with cash. He suggests that his motivation for becoming wealthy was increased security; well, what position is more secure than one of great power? There's no reason that removing the link between wealth and power would reduce motivation less than flattening top level income.

marknutter3• 13 years ago

But PG didn't write that essay in response to a basic income argument, he wrote specifically about the argument for eliminating income inequality. So yes, he missed the mark, but only because he wasn't trying to hit it in the first place.

The jobs of tomorrow are becoming less and less definable in terms of the jobs and skills of today.

The jobs of tomorrow are no less definable than they were 50 or 100 years ago. It's always been anybody's guess what people will be doing for a living in the future.

We should be giving people incentive to stay out of the labor force and to spend their time how they want. Some people will stay home and play Xbox. Some will come up with awesome new jobs. Some will do amazing work that benefits humanity and which nobody would have ever thought to pay them for.

This is very idealistic, but probably not realistic. Most people will stay home and consume entertainment.

But it's important to remember that keeping the lazy people out of the labor force decreases the level of incompetence in the labor force. Those Xbox people are staying out of the way of folks who actually want to get things done. Sometimes the best way to contribute to the economy is to stay out of it.

Competence isn't always the main requirement for jobs. In fact, for most jobs, it ranks lower than punctuality, politeness, and consistency. If you effectively remove all the people who are not that competent but able to do jobs that don't require that much competence (manufacturing, food services, etc.) you decrease the available labor pool required to provide the goods and services people like spending their basic income on.

crassus2• 13 years ago

What if competence is learned in the work force? Basic income decreases the competence of a civilization as a whole.

JDulin• 13 years ago

I agree with almost everything pg said in that essay. But I also agree that the the best economy of the future will (someday) include a minimum living wage like this.

That's because it's not a bill in pursuit of some Utopian equality: It's a survival bill. Giving someone $2,800 a month without explicitly taxing the rich to fund it is hardly an attempt at eliminating income inequality. I would call this type of wage a 'freedom-wage' more than anything else because it would give people (Like college students with mountains of debt or unskilled middle-age workers.) more economic freedom to do great things like start companies, learn new skills, and practice art. The goal here is survivability and freedom, not "fixing" massive inequality.

ericd2• 13 years ago

This hits the mark, hard. It would introduce so much more flexibility into the economy. Some people would abuse it, and critics of these bills generally harp on how no one would do anything, but that's overblown, and the flip side is that people will be free to reeducate and relocate themselves rather than getting stuck in poverty traps and becoming slaves to their short term needs. The lack of that severe risk will allow people to take much bolder risks. This won't eliminate people's drive to excel, become wealthy, etc - we're biologically driven to try to look better than other people to be more attractive, and to provide our children with a good start. This will just make the failure mode not so bad, and enable people to try again, or switch course.

If we can stomach the direct tax impact, I think this would be the most positive transformative change we could make in the near future. Being able to eliminate almost every other entitlement program and their associated bureacracies would be a nice side benefit.

icelancer• 13 years ago

It will also be necessary as productivity continues to climb through innovation and automation. Low/no-skill jobs are being removed from the economy in huge swaths.

seeken2• 13 years ago

There have been experiments with NIT (Negative Income Tax) in the US. My impression was that they were a disaster, but in looking for them I found this article,[1] which explains some of the history of NIT in the US.

http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_1_income-tax.html

alextingle7• 13 years ago

Negative income tax seems quite hard to administer when compared to a basic income. Why bother with all the bureaucracy required to deal with accounting for millions of minuscule incomes, when a simple flat payment would do the same job?

seeken2• 13 years ago

You have to do the income tax anyway, you might as well run the two programs together.

tpainton5• 13 years ago

Atlas shrugged... and the leaches attacked. I find it hard to believe Swit doesn't already have some welfare system that provides for those who actually need it... but now, 30k a year just for breathing? Sounds like communism to me.... only you don't have to produce anything. Utopianism like this doesn't last. Eventually you run out of payers. it's human nature to eventually grow tired of working hard so someone else doesn't have to. When that time comes, you either join the leaches or you leave the environment. Eventually, you always end up with a negative balance. It is doomed to failure.. Eventually.

da02• 13 years ago

Are you saying you are against: democratized wealth re-distribution, democratized theft, and charity at gunpoint?

How did you "see the light"? Was it Rand or someone else?

tpainton5• 13 years ago

Hard work and payoff. Food stamps and welfare doesn't buy trips to Bora Bora..

garg• 13 years ago

With the ongoing automation of everything and a population reaching 7.5 billion, a basic income or a standard of living is going to be inevitable.

tpainton5• 13 years ago

Right, we can't ever expect the masses to learn advanced skills that will be needed in the next cyclic revolution. This has to be the most negative thing I have heard all month. It's akin to saying, 'Our people are so incapable of moving with the times, we just have to throw them food.'

rsynnott5• 13 years ago

Sounds like communism to me...

Yes, this is exactly what happened in communist countries. That's why everyone hated Stalin so much; he kept giving people money for free.

In real life, basic income has mostly been a popular idea with liberal socialists and with libertarians; Bertrand Russell suggested it, but so did Milton Friedman. It very much isn't popular amongst communists, however.

tpainton5• 13 years ago

I agree. However, in communist countries (in which my co-workers lived (ex-Soviet)) The job was just a symbol. There would be department stores that sold hardly anything, with 3 people manning a cash register. This is no different than what Swit proposes.. It's just Swit has chosen to forgo the mock job.

wooter• 13 years ago

woah now, libertarians are very much against wealth redistribution which is what this is.

tpainton5• 13 years ago

I have to chuckle at the thought of forcing the wealthy to pay other wealthy a minimum income. Or is the 'wealthy' excluded from the definition of 'every adult'. What a complete waste of time and paper.

AndrewDucker• 13 years ago

I'd imagine that for most people this would make little difference - you can adjust income tax and remove the basic allowance so that it balances out somewhere near the median wage.

The main thing it would do is to remove the welfare trap - whereby you can earn less from starting work. Suddenly, every Franc you earn adds something onto your income. And you get rid of a whole tranche of bureaucracy at the same time.

jes• 13 years ago

Are the taxes to pay for this voluntary in Switzerland?

lettergram• 13 years ago

Economically speaking this is not going to help anyone... If every person makes a specific lower bound limit all that happens is prices are increased. It probably takes a year or so for the full effect to be felt, at which point there is the choice to either raise it to combat the prices or set limits on how much stuff will cost. Either option sets a limit goods or wages in your country that will not be beneficial.

Not to mention, in combination with the other stuff being passed by the swiss there country can have some major problems coming up here.

transfire• 13 years ago

It's a good idea, but that's too high. You want to keep people from starving and living on the streets; not keep them from doing something productive with their lives.

known• 13 years ago

Very much desirable to prevent wage slavery in globalization

namlem• 13 years ago

Can someone explain how they are going to pay such a large amount? Isn't this more than their entire national budget? I punched the numbers into wolfram alpha and they don't add up. Am I misunderstanding something?

danbmil993• 13 years ago

I'll be on the lookout for lots of great Swiss bands to hit the scene around 2017 (if this gets passed).

Also lots of alternative art shows, post-feminist poetry readings, etc.

Should be fun

badass• 13 years ago

A basic income only serves to maintain the status quo for those at the top. It's a release valve on political pressure to bring fundamental changes to the system to better serve the lower classes.

In the US, one can look how the Section 8 housing program serves a similar pressure-relief function in the housing rental market. By giving essentially free rent to those who cannot afford current market rate rents, it relieves political pressure to reform housing policies that keep rental rates high while also inflating rents and property values, heavily distorting the rental market. I think one can easily view the Section 8 program more as welfare program benefiting property owners rather than lower class renters.

A basic income would have a similar effect on the general cost of living, inflating values and benefiting the wealthy. Again, like the Section 8 program, this will be a welfare program benefiting the wealthy because this basic wage will simply flow upward and concentrate at the highest economic rungs.

varelse• 13 years ago

Purple Wage anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riders_of_the_Purple_Wage

negamax• 13 years ago

At the risk of mowed over by the crowd, I want to propose not calling it income. It's welfare. In no way should we equate it to result of someone's work.

eropple• 13 years ago

"Income" has nothing to do with work, but rather a sum total of all consumption and savings opportunity for an entity over time. This is basic economic terminology, which is why it's...you know...actually used here.

But don't worry! Your just-world rhetoric (wrapped, no less, in a pseudo-controversial, woe-is-me-I'm-going-to-get-downvoted "stand", aren't we noble) is noted.

jhaglund• 13 years ago

Do we call money made from investments or inheritance Welfare? In a post agrarian society, work and income are not related.

notdrunkatall• 13 years ago

Free money for everyone, what could go wrong?

LekkoscPiwa3• 13 years ago

So what happens if everyone in Switzerland is given 1,000,000 Francs? You really think they all will end up being millionaires? LOL, you will jut create a lot of inflation that's all. Amazing how economically illiterate leftists usually are.

avty• 13 years ago

Basic income is a basic human right.

ronaldx• 13 years ago

I expect massive inflation on particular necessities (likely rent/housing, utilities) as rent-seekers squeeze the available money.

Necessities within competitive, or border-crossing markets (likely food) might not be subject to such inflation.

The consequences for luxuries are harder to predict, but perhaps they would still be out of reach of the unemployed/underemployed. This could motivate a majority to continue work.

If this balances to the point that 'poor' people can maintain a fair lifestyle without working, wages for cheap/exploitative labour will rise wherever people don't find value in the work. This will be balanced by pressure to take on immigrants to work. (Based on my understanding of Swiss politics, it feels unlikely they will receive the same benefits)

Not without economic consequences but overall, exciting stuff. A lot of people will have vastly more freedom: risk-taking, entrepreneurialism and general creativity will boom.

iliis2• 13 years ago

As a swiss I'm quite excited about this. Even if I'm pessimistic about a successful vote.

I want to mention a side-point which I haven't encountered so far: In the 'problem of lazyness' (i.e. "who will do the boring work if you are paid anyway?") one answer that often comes up is automation. Menial/low-skill jobs will be done by robots.

It's a common image that in the future robots will clean our toilets and grill our burgers while the humans have ample time to enjoy life, build rockets and do fulfilling work.[1] However, if AI research has told us one thing it's that this view is quite wrong - the opposite is true. Things humans think of as 'easy' like walking around or doing laundry are actually very difficult engineering problems and 'hard' stuff like playing chess or doing rocket science are easier in an absolut sense.

The reason behind is simple: Evolution had millions of years to perfect walking on legs and interacting with the environment. Our bodies almost literally have an walkTo(Place) API, so the only thing 'we' (our conscious self) have to do is to call it. Abstract thinking is something new and our brains have to do it manually. It takes you less time to run over debris than to multiply large numbers and so we have a distorted picture of what is hard in an absolute sense.

The picture is true for humans but it falls apart when we want to automate it. We are still decades away of beating humans in soccer but Jeopardy is a solved problem.

I'm not convinced that 'low'-skill jobs are the first to fall into the hands of machines. [2]

---

[1] Ignore for the moment the fact that unclogging toilets can also be fulfilling.

[2] This is of course a broad argument. We still have no clue what Intelligence or Creativity actually is - It may still turn out to be very complicated. But I nevertheless think there's a good chance that we will figure out hard AI before you can buy a robot which washes your socks, mows the lawn and fixes your plumbing.

polarix• 13 years ago

So, if the low-skill jobs stay around, but nobody wants to do them, their price increases, because nobody is forced to do them to stay alive.

Then we have a greater incentive to automate and deprecated the immorally unfulfilling jobs.

iliis2• 13 years ago

Yes, the economic argument looks solid. Good old supply and demand.

Problem is, we may not be able to automate these jobs so easily.

marcosdumay4• 13 years ago

However, if AI research has told us one thing it's that this view is quite wrong - the opposite is true.

AI research has told us a lot of things in the last decades. We are in a point where we have a quite good idea on how hard it is to automate most tasks, and robots that clean toilets, build rockets and drive cars aren't very far away. But robots that decide that a rocket should be built or a toiled should be cleaned are.

hikarudo• 13 years ago

"It is an elementary requirement of economic incentive as well as justice that the man who works for a living should always be better off because of that, other things being equal, than the man who refuses to work for a living." [1]

[1] Henry Hazlitt, The Conquest of Poverty

dllthomas4• 13 years ago

That still happens, with a basic income.

sytelus2• 13 years ago

Obviously people proposing this aren't thinking it through or have no training in basic economics. Intuitively you can think of money as amount of labor that you owe from other human beings [1]. So let's say in some country you need minimum of $1000 /mo to satisfy your basic needs. What this means is that someone needs to grow your food, weave your cloths, run electricity plants etc and that amount of labor costs $1000 at the moment. Now imagine a government suddenly guarantees $2000 of income to everyone. What happens next? A lot of these people who were supposed to grow food for you, weave your cloths and run electricity plants for you will drop out of labor market. This means human labor gets in less supply and its demand suddenly increases. That means cost of labor suddenly increases. That means very soon $2000 is no longer enough to buy enough labor to satisfy your basic needs. In essence, $3000 would now be new minimum that is required for your basic needs. You are back to the square one with only effect being government essentially inflated the currency.

[1] In this simplification we assume that most raw material required to satisfy basic needs is available in sufficient quantity so the cost of goods is strongly a function of human labor rather than raw material.

chii• 13 years ago

This argument assumes that the efficiency cannot be increased, and stays at X amount of "work" per human.

Imagine if the basic income enabled large amount of people to try out different inventions, or perform research, such that it now takes only 1/2 X to produce food, where as before it was X. One way this could happen is that because labour costs increased, more automation is encouraged/deployed, and thus gain efficiency.

Of course, if the above _doesn't_ happen, then yes, your conclusion is pretty spot on.

dinkumthinkum12• 13 years ago

Sure, but we could also imagine a works with perpetual motion and infinite energy. Boy, this would be a great place to be. But I'm not sure what that has to do with reality. I don't want to rain on anyone's dreams ...

sytelus2• 13 years ago

This point is also very important to understand for all those people whose primary life goal is to retire before 30s or gain "financial independence" so you never have to work again. When you are working, you are making your portion of human labor available in exchange for other people's labor who are working to get food on your table or build roads for you or design safety for your car and so on. When you get out of contributing any labor to the market you are essentially sucking blood off of all the people are actually working to make your life style possible. So ethically, "retiring before 30" and "gaining financial independence" so you never have to worry about giving back to society while benefiting from everybody else's work is wrong. This I believe is also a reason why some people are uncomfortable disclosing these fantasies publicly.

lucaspiller• 13 years ago

It's an interesting point, but I'm not sure I agree. In order to work people are needed to drive the bus I take to work, make me coffee in Starbucks, make me lunch in McDonald's, clean and maintain the building I work in, etc. If I'm not working I don't need other people's human labour to do that, I can do those things myself. Ok you could argue that those people aren't needed for me to work, it is just the lifestyle I choose, but I think that is the point - most people who seek financial independence don't want to have the same lifestyle they currently have.

jmilloy• 13 years ago

Why should I spread out my labor across 40 years when I could be more efficient and spread it out across only 10? Not all labor is "equal", and the amount of money you receive for it is a* measure for its worth.

*I'm not making a comment on the accuracy of this measure, in the current systems.

habosa• 13 years ago

Economic question: won't this just eventually result in a rise in prices to reflect the fact that everyone has more money? I guess imported goods will remain about the same price, but things produced locally would almost definitely go up in price. If I knew all of my customers had $2500/month more, I'd raise prices.

marcosdumay4• 13 years ago

And I'd undercut you by selling at the older price, increasing my total profits... Except that I'd lose market too, because somebody would use the newly achieved scale to save costs and undercut me too.

Distributing money does not make capitalism go away.

yason• 13 years ago

I wonder if that just raises the bar and everything becomes the same again:

- everyone gets at least X for basic income

- for some people it makes more sense to not take low-paid shitty jobs because deducting commuting and lunch expenses from the low-paid salary you can probably make the same money on basic income, especially if you're willing to be a bit frugal

- more money gets offered for low-paid shitty jobs because there's high demand and low supply of workers

- the extra money is charged from the customers of the companies who employ the workers who do the not-so-low-paid shitty jobs

- the costs trickle upwards and cause inflated prices which in turn makes landlords raise rents accordingly

- the rents and price of food become painfully high for those who live on basic income

- we're back at square one: poor people have to take shitty, relatively low-paid jobs to make a living because the amount of basic income, X, is baked into pretty much all prices in the market

Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

Related Stories