Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MowCowWhoHow III

(2,103 posts)
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 07:22 AM Jun 2016

Nearly four of five Swiss reject guaranteed basic income plan-TV

Source: Reuters

Around 78 percent of Swiss voters have rejected a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for everyone living in the country, projections by the GFS polling group for Swiss broadcaster SRF showed on Sunday.

Supporters had said introducing a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,563) per adult and 625 francs per child under 18 would promote human dignity and public service at a time of increasing automation. Opponents, including the government, said it would cost too much and weaken the economy.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-vote-idUSKCN0YR0CW

101 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nearly four of five Swiss reject guaranteed basic income plan-TV (Original Post) MowCowWhoHow III Jun 2016 OP
That would have killed incentive. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #1
It doesn't do it for wealthy people - they routinely pass along millions, billions. jtuck004 Jun 2016 #4
Actually, many with inherited wealth lack incentive. That's why the Warren Buffetts and the Bill Trust Buster Jun 2016 #6
Why do Bill and Warren still work then Blues Heron Jun 2016 #21
You deflect. This is about the masses who must work to meet everyday expenses. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #23
No, we are comparing people who work and people who take from their labor. jtuck004 Jun 2016 #25
Some are driven by other things. Igel Jun 2016 #37
because they are hyper-motivated. geek tragedy Jun 2016 #42
I get the mentality. Munificence Jun 2016 #96
yeah, passion drives excellence moreso than mere talent nt geek tragedy Jun 2016 #97
Come on now, be serious - if I paid your rent*, but not your utilities, groceries, gas, etc would MillennialDem Jun 2016 #95
You sound like a Republican. Odin2005 Jun 2016 #47
No, I'm using reason. Pay people not to work and they won't work. Common sense is not political. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #64
Yeah, people hate money and being productive. nt killbotfactory Jun 2016 #65
Re-read the OP. 80% of the Swiss voted the measure down. You are in the minority. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #66
True. But according to the same OP they objected to the program mostly over concerns about cost. forest444 Jun 2016 #72
It's a radical idea, and I don't care if I'm in the minority. killbotfactory Jun 2016 #82
It's an idea very much in the public consciousness now. inanna Jun 2016 #83
a lot of people who don't have to work financially do work though treestar Jun 2016 #81
That is an incorrect common conservative narrative that isn't at all true. DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #57
money for nothing is a mistake Angel Martin Jun 2016 #63
But chicks for free, I can totally agree with. christx30 Jun 2016 #70
I'll schedule you, christx30 Skittles Jun 2016 #93
That was considerably less, though muriel_volestrangler Jun 2016 #68
Well under half, but was it enough to equal the value of the labor that built the world? DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #77
As I worked out on another thread, if we divided up the whole world's income evenly muriel_volestrangler Jun 2016 #78
Dividing the while worlds income implies that current wages are just. DemMomma4Sanders Jun 2016 #80
Even as a Socialist, I agree with you, but that took balls to post that. Xolodno Jun 2016 #79
Way, WAY too much. DetlefK Jun 2016 #2
Come on Detlef coyote Jun 2016 #5
Nope. LittleGirl Jun 2016 #10
WTF? Where do you live? Manhattan? Tokyo? DetlefK Jun 2016 #36
I know LittleGirl Jun 2016 #40
This message was self-deleted by its author Autumn Colors Jun 2016 #55
How familiar are you with the cost-of-living in Switzerland? PersonNumber503602 Jun 2016 #94
I live LittleGirl Jun 2016 #3
But you understand why that is right? 7962 Jun 2016 #16
Switzerland is a relatively low tax state Warren Stupidity Jun 2016 #26
There is no reason, it just is what it is. eom LittleGirl Jun 2016 #30
Correct. I was thinking about Denmark but couldnt check it. 7962 Jun 2016 #34
We don't get any social programs LittleGirl Jun 2016 #27
Here's a cost of living breakdown for Switzerland OnlinePoker Jun 2016 #7
That's very accurate. eom LittleGirl Jun 2016 #9
Very interesting. I switched to USD to get a clearer comparison for me. valerief Jun 2016 #18
Francs to dollars is 1:1 eom LittleGirl Jun 2016 #28
Oh, thanks. nt valerief Jun 2016 #48
Not surprising; polls showed defeat from early on. 7962 Jun 2016 #8
I would too rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #11
That's because the USA is not union Jnclr89 Jun 2016 #13
I agree completely rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #15
Actually, a guranteed income would force employers to raise wages, to get people to work. reformist2 Jun 2016 #17
The Swiss are renown for their secret banks, Jnclr89 Jun 2016 #12
me too. eom LittleGirl Jun 2016 #29
People don't get it yet, but at least it's being voted on. As automation and job losses grow... reformist2 Jun 2016 #14
I feel your a way ahead of the curb right now, unfortunately Jnclr89 Jun 2016 #20
You are probably right about being ahead of the curve. Most jwirr Jun 2016 #58
Stupid Swiss. Sure, let the rich keep it all. nt valerief Jun 2016 #19
The expectation to "get a job" worked fine when today's seniors citizens were employed Android3.14 Jun 2016 #22
Giving strangers something for nothing Califonz Jun 2016 #24
Average 85K, Median 35K, min to be 31K or 38K with 1 kid. Wow! Festivito Jun 2016 #31
Not surprising in the least. The proposed plan was far too generous. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #32
Compared to what country? LittleGirl Jun 2016 #53
There's an article in this weekend's Wall Street Journal SheilaT Jun 2016 #33
No one can live on $13,000 a year. But they know that. djean111 Jun 2016 #51
But if you were only making $20,000, christx30 Jun 2016 #67
But if you are retired and living on your Social Security, it is quite a cut for a lot of people. djean111 Jun 2016 #73
If certain costs of living were eliminated it's possible. mwooldri Jun 2016 #71
If those people lived here, they could not live on $13,000 - $3000 for insurance = $10,000. djean111 Jun 2016 #74
You're right - I acknowledged that... a moot point. mwooldri Jun 2016 #75
The problem is many people currently are receiving aid that exceeds $13,000/year in value... PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #62
Yes, my point exactly. SheilaT Jun 2016 #90
Switzerland has low unemployment and low poverty rates oberliner Jun 2016 #35
If I could get $2,563 a month for free, I would never work again. Shoulders of Giants Jun 2016 #38
consider a world where many people can't ever work again. Warren Stupidity Jun 2016 #39
You're actually making my point for me. Shoulders of Giants Jun 2016 #86
No one works, christx30 Jun 2016 #92
And bear in mind that it would be tax-free income, if I'm not mistaken. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #41
That's a good question but note that the income they got as a cashier would be in addition... PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #61
I don't believe that was the case. As I understand it, the plan was to pay each adult roughly $30K Just reading posts Jun 2016 #89
The Swiss plan was to give that amount to everyone, regardless of their wealth or employment income. PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #98
I appear to have been confusing it with a different plan. Thank you for the correction. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #100
With The Onslaught Of Coming Automation - Most Citizens Will Never Find Work Again cantbeserious Jun 2016 #44
I don't need to work snort Jun 2016 #45
"Most people actually do not want to sit on their butts." - but most people don't want to clean... PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #99
Lets face it, civilization needs people for it to run AZ Progressive Jun 2016 #54
the robots are taking over. That's the point. Warren Stupidity Jun 2016 #60
Let me guess. moondust Jun 2016 #43
Not surprised, the Swiss are a very conservative society. Odin2005 Jun 2016 #46
Ding, Ding, Ding...we have a winner! LittleGirl Jun 2016 #52
Bunch of Trump supporters... ileus Jun 2016 #49
The Swiss have enough safety nets in place elmac Jun 2016 #50
I would guess that it is the timing for this. All of Europe is jwirr Jun 2016 #56
I wonder if people were afraid that "immigrants" would get the money Democat Jun 2016 #59
Heard this on NPR (Now Parrots Republicans) warrprayer Jun 2016 #69
Oh ... Delphinus Jun 2016 #84
Money talks... warrprayer Jun 2016 #91
I am not surprised by the results. hrmjustin Jun 2016 #76
Idea definitely not going away (UK) inanna Jun 2016 #85
The idea of UBI is a good one ... Nihil Jun 2016 #101
I guess in the current climate they're worried Blue_Tires Jun 2016 #87
The idea won't go away daleo Jun 2016 #88
 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
4. It doesn't do it for wealthy people - they routinely pass along millions, billions.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 07:42 AM
Jun 2016

But let some working family try to get a bit, someone who isn't already wealthy and it kills their motivation?

Sounds like something the real estate swindler would say after he got his million-dollar gift from his daddy, and others who worked for it.

Maybe it would just free them from the thieves, bank$ters, politicians, and other traitors that take from them every day.

 

Trust Buster

(7,299 posts)
6. Actually, many with inherited wealth lack incentive. That's why the Warren Buffetts and the Bill
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 07:51 AM
Jun 2016

Gates of the world intend to give away the lion's share of their wealth. It was a poor analogy anyway because the wealthy can afford not to work. The masses must work.

Blues Heron

(5,898 posts)
21. Why do Bill and Warren still work then
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:52 AM
Jun 2016

Aren't they set for life already? Maybe a guaranteed basic income would result in more volunteer work, more part time work, a more laid back and friendly environment for all. Less desperation. Why can't everybody share in the bounty of the planet? Alaskans get a check from their states oil revenue - that should be global.

 

Trust Buster

(7,299 posts)
23. You deflect. This is about the masses who must work to meet everyday expenses.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:00 AM
Jun 2016

You are comparing apples and oranges.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
25. No, we are comparing people who work and people who take from their labor.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:16 AM
Jun 2016

For example - the bank$ters just committed a huge financial theft, aided by the laws changed by l. summers with the aid of b. clinton, and fueled by the worthless g. bush era.

But they were propped up by t. "killer" geithner with the aid of b. obama and given hundreds of billions of dollars for profit to divvy up between themselves, for losses incurred as a result of their criminal activity, the abrogation of the trust we place in them. The very same, identical crime we put S & L execs into prison for just a few years earlier.

The headlines screamed for the past few years about how much profit they were making, (on page two were the 8 million American FAMILIES foreclosed on, and the 20+ million children and adults added to the rolls of those needing food stamps, and the hundred million who have been moved down from "middle class" to poverty or working poor - where they will live out their lives without ever recovering what was taken from them.

Yet the thieving bank$ters haven't stopped creating new ways to obfuscate risk, they work harder than ever at it. And those people who made it possible increased their wealth by a few million, and haven't stopped making excuses.

So I think the comparison is very fair, but ymmv.

Igel

(35,197 posts)
37. Some are driven by other things.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:13 AM
Jun 2016

Take education. There are those who get multiple PhDs in difficult fields.

There are those who get PhDs or masters degrees.

Many get educated just for the sake of getting a job. It's a career certificate and nothing more. The education itself isn't the goal. They're after the $.

Same for high school. But even in high school, there's a decent percent that just want to pass instead of getting a good grade, and if they can get the passing grade by cheating or doing nothing that is all the better. Many of the latter are unconvinced that a high school degree, even, does much or that there's any connection between education and income. Heck, they've been taught there's not necessarily much of a connection between learning and getting a good grade.

Some are even unconvinced there's any connection between education and the kind of job they can get. "I failed chemistry, but want to be a chemistry teacher." Or "there are all these unemployed high school drop outs and all kinds of engineering jobs open, why can't they just hire the drop outs as engineers. Then they'd be engineers!" And I've known engineers who said they managed to pass without learning anything and now have trouble keeping an engineering job. Gee, ya think?

You'd think that if we were all the same we'd all just be happy getting our Ds in high school and moving on. But that's not how it works. Even with a lot, some still want more, while others want to do as little as possible.

In school we don't call it incentive. We call it motivation. Boils down to the same thing.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
42. because they are hyper-motivated.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:29 AM
Jun 2016

people who go out and attain their own multi-billion fortunes (instead of inheriting it) have a much different motor and personality than the vast majority.

these are people who aren't content to retire in luxury when they hit $300 million in personal wealth. Personally, I don't get the mentality.

Munificence

(493 posts)
96. I get the mentality.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 01:36 AM
Jun 2016

It's not different than say the Williams sisters in tennis or Tiger Woods in golf. It's no different than Hillary in Politics.

These folks strive for perfection and being experts in their fields. It can be athletes, actors, politicians, and even rich folks. It's notoriety, wealth, and power.

Have you ever been really really good at something? Was it a hobby or a passion?

 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
95. Come on now, be serious - if I paid your rent*, but not your utilities, groceries, gas, etc would
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 01:16 AM
Jun 2016

you downsize and stop working entirely?

*substitute mortgage for rent, as appropriate. Let's say your rent or mortgage is $1000. Would you drop down to a crappy $500 apartment and just scrape by on the other $500 for food/utils?

A basic income might have a few people do that but most will keep working, at least somewhat. Those that want to "downgrade" jobs are more likely (less hours/pay - think things like tutoring or house/pet sitting), but those jobs need to be done anyway and will free up their full time jobs for the unemployed and underemployed.

forest444

(5,902 posts)
72. True. But according to the same OP they objected to the program mostly over concerns about cost.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 03:14 PM
Jun 2016

Not over notions that it might disincentivize people.

killbotfactory

(13,566 posts)
82. It's a radical idea, and I don't care if I'm in the minority.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 04:43 PM
Jun 2016

I suspect when automation starts significantly gobbling up middle class jobs, this idea will be revisited.

inanna

(3,547 posts)
83. It's an idea very much in the public consciousness now.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 04:50 PM
Jun 2016

Several other European countries are wanting to experiment with basic income + Canada.

I think you are correct. This isn't over yet.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
81. a lot of people who don't have to work financially do work though
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 04:40 PM
Jun 2016

I don't think it is that simple.

And it would eliminate the problem of not being able to find a job - unemployment that is undesired and means a person can't pay for their basic needs.

IMO most people would work. When conservatives make this claim I tell them they are the ones who need the ax over them to work. I still would.

Also, with robots, etc., there might not be a need for so many workers.

If they didn't have to work and didn't, why would that be such a disaster? There would be jobs for people who wanted to get richer.

They could do the things volunteers do and there might be more of them.

 

DemMomma4Sanders

(274 posts)
57. That is an incorrect common conservative narrative that isn't at all true.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:51 PM
Jun 2016

Minicome studies took place all over North America during this time...none of the studies resulted in the calamatous drop in labor participation that conservatives had predicted.

Eve today, if we eliminated redundancies and account for efficienct technology, people could maintain middle class lifestyles in the western world and work a third less than they do today.


Between 1974 and 1979, the Canadian government tested the idea of a basic income guarantee (BIG) across an entire town, giving people enough money to survive in a way that no other place in North America has before or since. For those four years—until the project was cancelled and its findings packed away—the town's poorest residents were given monthly checks that supplemented what modest earnings they had and rewarded them for working more. And for that time, it seemed that the effects of poverty began to melt away. Doctor and hospital visits declined, mental health appeared to improve, and more teenagers completed high school.

“Do we have to behave in particular ways to justify compassion and support?” Evelyn Forget, a Canadian social scientist who unearthed ​some of the findings of the Dauphin experiment, asked me rhetorically when I reached her by phone. “Or is simply human dignity enough?”

Critics of basic income guarantees have insisted that giving the poor money would disincentivize them to work, and point to studies that show ​a drop in peoples' willingness to work under pilot programs. But in Dauphin—thought to be the largest such experiment conducted in North America—the experimenters found that the primary breadwinner in the families who received stipends were in fact not less motivated to work than before. Though there was some reduction in work effort from mothers of young children and teenagers still in high school—mothers wanted to stay at home longer with their newborns and teenagers weren’t under as much pressure to support their families—the reduction was not anywhere close to disastrous, as skeptics had predicted.


http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-mincome-experiment-dauphin

christx30

(6,241 posts)
70. But chicks for free, I can totally agree with.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 02:55 PM
Jun 2016

I hope this comment doesn't get me into dire straits with the admins.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
68. That was considerably less, though
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 02:47 PM
Jun 2016

Up to $5,800 Canadian dollars in 1978 for a family; that is $20,786 today. One Canadian dollar is worth 0.75 Swiss francs today; so that's 15,589 SFr per year for a family, or 1300 SFr per month. That compares with, per adult, the proposed 2,500 SFr, and 625 per child. or, if you use PPP exchange rates to allow for the cost of living, 1.22 Canadian dollars are worth 1.29 Swiss francs, which makes the Canadian experiment 1832 SFr per month for a family. So, still well under half what the Swiss proposal was.

 

DemMomma4Sanders

(274 posts)
77. Well under half, but was it enough to equal the value of the labor that built the world?
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 04:17 PM
Jun 2016

Would it have justly compensated the "breeders" who died in childbirth in order to maintain the bloated ranks of the poor in order to keep competition high and labor cheaper than dirt?

No.

Why is the idea of equitable compesation for labor such a divisive idea? The minicome study didn't justly compensate the plebs, the swiss referendum wouldn't have either....but they were both one hell of a step in the right direction.

We built the world. The laborers and the dregs enabled few men to live lives of luxury....kept enslaved by religious indoctrination during childhood and the fear of guns and shackles.

We built the world, and rightfully we own the fruits of our labor.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,154 posts)
78. As I worked out on another thread, if we divided up the whole world's income evenly
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 04:23 PM
Jun 2016

it would be about $5,400 per adult: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027882493#post11

So the Swiss proposal was considerably more than "the value of the labor that built the world". It was a rich part of the world considering a method of distribution for itself.

 

DemMomma4Sanders

(274 posts)
80. Dividing the while worlds income implies that current wages are just.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 04:32 PM
Jun 2016

That certainly is anything but the case.

Not only that but your 5,400 isn't put into context because no one could predict how valuable 5400 dollars would be considering the economic dynamics between the two systems....Socialist and Capatalist are antithetical to each other.

If all available "value" were put to use, as opposed to how trillions are hoarded today, what effect would that have on growth, inflation etc?

We'd first need to understand that before we can know the value of 5,400$.

Xolodno

(6,332 posts)
79. Even as a Socialist, I agree with you, but that took balls to post that.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 04:25 PM
Jun 2016

And given the responses in this thread, you definitely stepped into the hornets nest.

I agree with the basic premise of a basic income, but that's way too much of a broad brush to throw it out there for everyone irregardless of economic geography, education, ethics and as you stated, incentive. Self interest is always going to have a deciding factor, its human nature....unless we evolve to something like a "hive" where we put the community above ourselves.

Hence, a basic minimum wage adjusted to local regionalized cost of living makes more sense. Along with social nets that provide for sudden unemployment, job "extinction", disability, etc.

Given that, this is precisely why I argue against monetarism and the notion of an industry "policing itself". There is no incentive to "police itself". If I'm a CEO of a company and stand to gain significantly during a short tenure by instituting policies that will reap great rewards for the company and thereby bonuses for my self but will sacrifice long term longevity, vs. little reward but keep the company solid in the long term...which option is most likely to be chosen?

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
2. Way, WAY too much.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 07:36 AM
Jun 2016

That's not a BASIC income. That's more than people who actually work make in a month. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

coyote

(1,561 posts)
5. Come on Detlef
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 07:46 AM
Jun 2016

That's not much at all for Switzerland. What do you get on Hartz IV, 1800€/month, plus housing/medical/childcare? Where is the incentive in Germany to work?

I have friends in Germany who work and would probably be better off on Hartz IV.

LittleGirl

(8,261 posts)
10. Nope.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:04 AM
Jun 2016

Our apt which is less than 1000 sq ft is over 2500 a month and that doesn't include utilities.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
36. WTF? Where do you live? Manhattan? Tokyo?
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:03 AM
Jun 2016

Adjusted for size, I pay about a third of that. Including utilities!

Response to DetlefK (Reply #2)

PersonNumber503602

(1,134 posts)
94. How familiar are you with the cost-of-living in Switzerland?
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:50 AM
Jun 2016

I'm not sure myself, but I wouldn't feel comfortable making such statements without first doing some research on this.

LittleGirl

(8,261 posts)
3. I live
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 07:40 AM
Jun 2016

here in Switzerland. It's the most expensive place I've ever been. A bunch of strawberries are 5.50 a pint. Housing is out of the world expensive.

We're trying desperately to find a way out of here.
edit: word

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
16. But you understand why that is right?
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:17 AM
Jun 2016

Cost of living in Switzerland is something like 70% higher. But you've got all the social programs that must be paid for so everything else costs more. But the Swiss knew this proposal would be way over the top. It never had a chance.
From what I think Ive heard, the Swiss are considering pulling back on some of those programs. I may be thinking of the Dutch or Danes, but I know its being brought up over there. My crappy phone makes it frustrating to google.
If you do leave, where is your preference?

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
26. Switzerland is a relatively low tax state
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:20 AM
Jun 2016

and it's tax burden is comparable to ours. So please provide some data to back your assertion that social services are the cause of Switzerland's high cost of living.


 

7962

(11,841 posts)
34. Correct. I was thinking about Denmark but couldnt check it.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:59 AM
Jun 2016

Now that I could look at a real computer, I see I was confusing the two.
They actually have quite a high standard of living with a fairly low tax rate. Also very low unemployment as well. And as of last year, supposedly the happiest population in the world.
I imagine they'd like to keep it that way as they are pushing back against the size of allowed immigration

LittleGirl

(8,261 posts)
27. We don't get any social programs
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:38 AM
Jun 2016

because we're not Swiss. Income tax is about 10% but sales tax ranges from 9-19%. Food costs for us tripled when we moved here. We have universal health care which means we have to pay rates that are competitive to the market. For me that's 500 a month and for spouse another 300 with high deductibles. There is no single payer healthcare here that we qualify for because of our barely making it income (one salary). Which is triple what we paid in the states (with employer based rates).

if we leave, we will have to go where a job takes us because we're too young for social security and too young to retire.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
8. Not surprising; polls showed defeat from early on.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:01 AM
Jun 2016

The Swiss knew what this would bring. They are quite smart apparently.
Put that to a vote here and we'd be in real trouble

 

rjsquirrel

(4,762 posts)
11. I would too
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:07 AM
Jun 2016

If this were put to a vote in the US it would fail 90 percent to 10 percent I suspect.

The able bodied need to work for society to work. I'm fine with guaranteed income as a public employment of last resort program but not as an entitlement.

A higher minimum wage, counting caregiving as work, and much more public investment in job-producing projects is so much more logical. It is entirely possible to provide a safety net that incentivizes productivity.

 

Jnclr89

(128 posts)
13. That's because the USA is not union
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:14 AM
Jun 2016

if it was union, 30% of the people would support 70% of the people, that's not sustainable.

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
17. Actually, a guranteed income would force employers to raise wages, to get people to work.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:20 AM
Jun 2016

A decent minimum wage alone doesn't really make sense anymore, as reliable full-time jobs are becoming harder to find. If anything, it will speed up employers' move to automation, making guaranteed income even more necessary.

 

Jnclr89

(128 posts)
12. The Swiss are renown for their secret banks,
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:10 AM
Jun 2016

they hold most of the world's gold and silver. Look at their mints. I'd like to know what percentage of the worlds elite put their stock in the Swiss.

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
14. People don't get it yet, but at least it's being voted on. As automation and job losses grow...
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:15 AM
Jun 2016


people will realize that guaranteed income is more important than the minimum wage.... Because what does a good minimum wage matter, if you can't even find a full-time job!
 

Jnclr89

(128 posts)
20. I feel your a way ahead of the curb right now, unfortunately
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:51 AM
Jun 2016

We need jobs right now, don't matter pay, the middle class is desperate for jobs.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
58. You are probably right about being ahead of the curve. Most
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:53 PM
Jun 2016

of us have no idea what the rulers (rich and corporations) have in mind for us so we are still very sure we are going to get those jobs.

But there are small signs of it for us to see already. If you have not already read the book I suggest that you read: Get Ready People: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy by Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols.

 

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)
22. The expectation to "get a job" worked fine when today's seniors citizens were employed
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:57 AM
Jun 2016

Speaking to my fellow grey-haired DU-ers, advances in technology have made it nearly impossible for everyone to "do their share". In the eyes of those who were working before Betamax lost to VHS lost to DVDs lost to Netflix, it may seem that today's unemployed are just lazy, but the truth is that it takes multiple low-paying jobs to make ends meet, and there simply are not enough jobs out there to do that.

The idea that a guaranteed minimum income would harm a society by making everyone lazy is a concept that goes against research and is at odds with reasonable expectations based on the current demographic trends.

People tend to find something to do.

If we fail to start planning for a partial jobless society now, that coming societal revolution will be far more disruptive.

Festivito

(13,452 posts)
31. Average 85K, Median 35K, min to be 31K or 38K with 1 kid. Wow!
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:41 AM
Jun 2016

I like Germany's approach to unemployment. Rate goes up, everyone gets a new holiday or two or more until it comes back down.

But, paying non-workers more than the median? Hmm.

LittleGirl

(8,261 posts)
53. Compared to what country?
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:19 PM
Jun 2016

Switzerland is the most expensive place to live in Europe and they only recognize the EU on paper. They do not use euros, they use Swiss francs, their own money. It's not generous in the least. It would barely put you up in rent and you couldn't afford food or transportation here.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
33. There's an article in this weekend's Wall Street Journal
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:52 AM
Jun 2016

proposing a UBI in this country, but have it completely replace Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, every single sort of program like that.

The proposed amount? $13,000/year, deposited directly into a bank account. $3,000 would be required to be spent on health insurance, but the other $10k would be the citizen's to spend however he or she wanted.

I'm horrified, because my Social Security amount is slightly more than that right now, and will increase when I switch from my ex-husband's to my own when I turn 70. Right now my SS is about a third of my income, which is what was intended. I would be hurting if it were cut.

Here's a link to the article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586

I have been thinking recently that perhaps every citizen should get food stamps. No means testing, just some basic amount for everyone. Someone who doesn't really need them, could perhaps donate theirs to others in greater need. Or to a food bank or homeless shelter. I'm sure this will never happen, which is too bad.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
73. But if you are retired and living on your Social Security, it is quite a cut for a lot of people.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 03:18 PM
Jun 2016

Plus - right now, medicare is about $1200 a year, so having to use $3000 brings the amount down to $10,000 - and then there are co-pays, etc.

mwooldri

(10,291 posts)
71. If certain costs of living were eliminated it's possible.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 03:08 PM
Jun 2016

Many people around the world live on far less than $13,000 a year. However certain things essential to living means that in the us of a $13,000 doesn't even get you a roof over your head. Eliminate housing costs and a whole bunch of other living costs and a single person can live well on $13,000 a year.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
74. If those people lived here, they could not live on $13,000 - $3000 for insurance = $10,000.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 03:21 PM
Jun 2016

They don'y live here, so your point is moot. Unless you think Americans should be punished.

What living costs could be eliminated? Place to live, utilities, taxes, food, clothes, transportation - how can those be eliminated? Live in barracks?

mwooldri

(10,291 posts)
75. You're right - I acknowledged that... a moot point.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 03:27 PM
Jun 2016

You can't give everyone free housing, free utilities, free public transit, free healthcare, free education and free food without having a way of paying for it. There has to be work. There has to be an economy.

I suppose we can work our way toward a Star-Trek type economy one day.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
62. The problem is many people currently are receiving aid that exceeds $13,000/year in value...
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 02:17 PM
Jun 2016

and thus this would represent a cut for them.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
90. Yes, my point exactly.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:15 PM
Jun 2016

I'm retired. I get SS, a tiny pension, and have investments and savings that I also get income from. I'm not rich by most American standards, but I'm doing okay. I can afford the mortgage on my small home, I can take occasional trips, go to science fiction things that I like. This past weekend I was able to go to Tucson from Santa Fe to attend a high school reunion, and could afford the hotel.

If my Social Security were cut back, and I suddenly needed a lot more money for health care -- I'm currently on Medicare and like it very much -- I'd soon be hurting.

Sort of like all those people who played by the rules, stayed in a particular job for thirty, maybe even forty years, and were promised a decent pension. Only the company deliberately underfunded the pension, so now they're getting a whole lot less. Actually that also happened to me. Or they work for a state or local government and now those pensions are being cut. What the fuck?

I actually do think a minimum guaranteed income is a good idea, just not the way this guy is proposing. Yes, with that money a good number of younger people would be better off, and I think that's a good thing. But please stop trying to shaft older people.

38. If I could get $2,563 a month for free, I would never work again.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:39 AM
Jun 2016

I assume many other would make the same choice. I understand why this failed.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
39. consider a world where many people can't ever work again.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:45 AM
Jun 2016

how is such a world going to work? What's your plan?

86. You're actually making my point for me.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 05:59 PM
Jun 2016

That's my point. It would collapse any economy, because people would chose not to work.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
92. No one works,
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:26 PM
Jun 2016

no one pays taxes. That money that people are expecting dries up. It's got to come from somewhere.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
41. And bear in mind that it would be tax-free income, if I'm not mistaken.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:21 AM
Jun 2016

Why would anyone work as (for instance) a cashier for $30K a year when they could be paid the same amount to stay home?

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
61. That's a good question but note that the income they got as a cashier would be in addition...
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 02:15 PM
Jun 2016

to their "basic income" payment.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
89. I don't believe that was the case. As I understand it, the plan was to pay each adult roughly $30K
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 07:44 PM
Jun 2016

per year....but if one already made (for instance) 15K per year, it would only pay an additional $15K....enough to bring that person up to the $30K per year level.

And if you make more than $30K per year, you get nothing.

Again, that's just my understanding. If I'm wrong, perhaps someone will be so kind as to correct me.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
98. The Swiss plan was to give that amount to everyone, regardless of their wealth or employment income.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:26 AM
Jun 2016

This is why it was called "Unconditional Basic Income" rather than "Minimum Income".

http://www.basicincome.org/basic-income/

snort

(2,334 posts)
45. I don't need to work
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:37 PM
Jun 2016

but I do. Most people actually do not want to sit on their butts. Of course some are going to game the system, likely the same ones who are gaming it now. It's concern for the majority that drives this idea, not for the individual.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
99. "Most people actually do not want to sit on their butts." - but most people don't want to clean...
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:29 AM
Jun 2016

toilets for a living either. How many current jobs do you think people would still do
if they didn't pay anything?

AZ Progressive

(3,411 posts)
54. Lets face it, civilization needs people for it to run
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:25 PM
Jun 2016

Until the robots take over, people have to work in order for civilization to run.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
60. the robots are taking over. That's the point.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 02:10 PM
Jun 2016

Much like cars are getting "incremental autonomous mode", so is the rest of civilization's basic infrastructure. What is a future world of 9B people going to look like with half of those people not having a job?

In the developed countries it is quite likely that 40-50% of jobs are going to be replaced by machines over the next 10-20 years.

See for example http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf

In the rest of the world the situation is already terrible and likely to get far worse.

moondust

(19,917 posts)
43. Let me guess.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:17 PM
Jun 2016

Some greedy corporate/bank executives threatened to move their corporations out of the country and wreck what's left of the tax base if they're not allowed to continue exploiting poor workers and depressing wages as they see fit. They did that with the "1:12 Initiative" and managed to defeat that referendum as well. GBI would take away some of their leverage over the workplace.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
46. Not surprised, the Swiss are a very conservative society.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 12:43 PM
Jun 2016

Women didn't have the right to vote there until the 70s.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
56. I would guess that it is the timing for this. All of Europe is
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 01:36 PM
Jun 2016

in turmoil over several things - immigration/refugees, the failure of the Greece economy along with other economies that are weak, changes surrounding climate change and other large problems.

I also wonder if the amount they proposed is what they would get on a regular program for the poor. Are people assuming it is too large. Also will this eliminate other programs and were the people told it would?

Democat

(11,617 posts)
59. I wonder if people were afraid that "immigrants" would get the money
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 02:08 PM
Jun 2016

That could be one of the reasons for the no vote.

warrprayer

(4,734 posts)
69. Heard this on NPR (Now Parrots Republicans)
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 02:51 PM
Jun 2016

The propaganda machine is pushing back hard on this one.

"Rejected because people feel should work for income, not accept handouts"

Not a word about who specifically said this, it is "a sentiment"

"SOME people are saying"...

Gotta put a stop to this kind of thing, next thing you know they will be OVER HERE!

People in Switzerland are against this Bernie Sanders sort of stuff... after all, half the money that would fund something like that here is in THEIR SECRET BANKS!!! ...

NPR, made possible by a grant from Koch Industries.... ((actual ad on NPR )

warrprayer

(4,734 posts)
91. Money talks...
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 08:17 PM
Jun 2016

Because, according to Jane Mayer of the New Yorker, David Koch has donated upwards of $23 million to public television. And when you donate $23 million dollars to public television, you get more than just a tote bag or a coffee mug – you get to dictate the on-air programming.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/16538-the-corporate-dictatorship-of-pbs-and-npr

inanna

(3,547 posts)
85. Idea definitely not going away (UK)
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 05:40 PM
Jun 2016

Sunday 5 June 2016 13.30 BST


John McDonnell: Labour taking a close look at universal basic income

Shadow chancellor says the concept of an unconditional payment to all could prepare country for robotisation of the workforce


Labour is considering backing the idea of a universal basic income – a radical transformation of the welfare state that would ditch means-tested benefits in favour of a flat-rate payment.

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, who is keen to find policies to match his slogan of a “new economics,” will appear at the launch of a report on the proposal from the leftwing campaign group Compass in the House of Commons on Monday evening.

McDonnell said the research “makes an interesting case for a universal and unconditional payment to all, which could prepare our country for any revolution in jobs and technology to come – it is an idea Labour will be closely looking at over the next few years”.

A universal basic income (UBI) is regarded by some on the left as a response to the robotisation of the workforce, which it is feared could replace lower-skilled jobs and exacerbate inequality. It would be paid to everyone, whether or not they were in work.

...

Link: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/05/john-mcdonnell-labour-universal-basic-income-welfare-benefits-compass-report
 

Nihil

(13,508 posts)
101. The idea of UBI is a good one ...
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:25 AM
Jun 2016

Unfortunately, as it will be implemented by the same bunch of incompetent jobsworths
who run the current systems, there is little doubt that - as at present - the people
who *need* the help will jump through all manner of hoops to get it whilst the scum
who excel at "gaming the system" will simply continue to do so.

Migrants or natives, it will still end up benefiting the crooks and penalising the very ones
who should be receiving the help.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
87. I guess in the current climate they're worried
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 06:03 PM
Jun 2016

that the human trafficking pipelines from Africa and the Middle East will get diverted their way...

daleo

(21,317 posts)
88. The idea won't go away
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 07:44 PM
Jun 2016

It will take time, but it will prevail eventually. With jobs disappearing to AI, there will be no choice but to guarantee income to the general population It may be tied to some form of guaranteed employment, though.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Nearly four of five Swiss...