Darkflight
Prince
I understand that, but it still is closer then anything else yet. And I do have high hopes for it.
Unconditional base income?
- Thread starter Grisu
- Start date
I understand that, but it still is closer then anything else yet. And I do have high hopes for it.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
From my understanding there was a de facto unconditional income in East Germany.
I'd be really concerned about 1) inflation and 2) a total lack of incentive to work lower level jobs. Somebody has to mop floors, flip burgers, take out the trash, and either those salaries will need to jump a lot at once (which could spike across the board inflation), or people would smartly decide to simply not work those jobs.
I kinda like the principle, but I'm not sure how it would work.
I kinda like the principle, but I'm not sure how it would work.
Don't CEOs make enough to mop floors, flip burgers, and take out the trash? If they are too lazy to do so, just deduct enough from their salary to get someone else to do it.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
And who would work for the business serving customers now that everyone has a free lunch?
Those who want something more than a free lunch.
Well, I don't think anyone needs to flip burgers, I'd like to see all those places shut down.
Hopefully the increased cost of mopping floors would convince large companies that it would make financial sense to hire a bunch of engineers to figure out a cheap automated way of washing floors.
What incentives do the wealthiest have in working at increasing their wealth further? They can already sit back and get a constant free lunch.
Heck, one year of being a CEO will make a person enough money to do nothing else for the rest of their lives. This is what we're observing in real life, due to "human nature", right?
Heck, one year of being a CEO will make a person enough money to do nothing else for the rest of their lives. This is what we're observing in real life, due to "human nature", right?
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
A lot of rich people just basically sit there and not do much, especially those that inherited their wealth. You'd only be left with a minority of people who actually do jobs that make society run and the rest of everyone else doing "fun" things while hoping to leech off them.
Even better, I wish Switzerland luck.
Is there any evidence to support this?
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
Then somebody needs to wash the dishes at all the fancy vegan restaurants, or pick the fruit, or build the roads, work the retail, etc.
Look, it's cute to think that 100% of low wage labor can be automated, but it can't, at least, not in the near future. Somebody has to still do those jobs. Maybe in 150 years we'll have figured that stuff out, but Switzerland isn't evaluating this policy to go into effect in 150 years.
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
I think they would be too. Although some would disagree, this would change complete attitudes in consumer spending for Switzerland. Perhaps it may just lead to a re-focusing and a lower-end locus, so it might only be a transitory shift but it should be a relatively positive subs effect vs scale effect
The dis-incentivizing labor effects of this program would mean for lower end workers to continue to work at current rates they would require higher wages. This would probably mean relatively higher unemployment initially but with communities with a guaranteed "wage" developing a new internal market could emerge entirely within this demographic sector.
Seems like it could be either a complete success or a complete failure. Quite intriguing, but the real question is... does anyone know what are the political odds of this ever actually being implemented in Switzerland?
I don't think that we need all of those low wage jobs, nor that they can all be automated.
I'm not convinced that a combination of automation, elimination of jobs (ie. people should stay home and cook instead of eating out and order high quality products online instead of cheap crap at retail) and higher wages for the remaining jobs couldn't work.
Now it could cause problems, but I don't think we have enough information to necessarily claim that it would.
Those things really aren't problems.
Inflation is not a problem because we aren't talking about much more money than what welfare already amounts to now. Certainly not enough money to be distorting on the macro level. It would have an upward pressure on entry level wages, but those wages are a long ways short of where they should be in any case.
As to the incentive for entry level jobs, it would just force those employers to pay more. Or, even not, depending on which structure of a guaranteed basic income was chosen for the system. There are 2 basic proposals (with variations). 1) Give every adult an income, say $12k is a number I've seen mentioned, a smaller number for each child, no strings, no nothing, attached. Now consider, that's a sum that most people might be able to live on most places. But it's hardly a good income. So every dollar earned in any work is on top of that. So every dollar earned is a net benefit. So really only the most useless people aren't going to try to earn anything. And if the most useless people drop out of the labor market, well the labor market hasn't actually lost anything of significance from that. I mean, seriously, good riddance.
As to the crap jobs with the crap pay, employers will simply have to pay more and offer better conditions. The more ambitious poor (often immigrants) will take these jobs. If that's not enough, better pay and conditions will attract all the labor needed. Keep in mind that in the US today the major problem is that labor has no bargaining power, and so wages are too low. So this proposal largely solves the foundational problem with the US economy. Now over time as wages rise, employers will increase productivity. This is a net win for everyone.
There really is not an economic downside to this. It's win-win across the board.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Switzerland should definitely have an unconditional yearly chocolate ration. There`s your social harmony right there.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
That's only with your lefty reasoning. $30,000 isn't that bad to live on. There's a good chance that a large number of the people will just stop doing anything really needed and do things that they "enjoy", which unfortunately, doesn't actually produce anything. $30k for each adult is significantly more than what we have now for welfare. Welfare right now is capped at five years. The $2500 a month they are offering forever in this proposal would rent you a nice place and you could eat pretty well as well. As well, forget saving, because why? You'll get $2500 per month forever. Heck, you could even go o vacations every once in a while on that dime. So why do anything except hobbies all day?
I'm pretty sure this is going to happen to some extent with the amount that they are giving. If your giving something like $10,000 a year, yes it will still cause some issues, but not as much as the proposal they are giving. You provide a decently comfortable life without ever having need to work and people will stop working on crucial jobs and pursue hobbies because they think someone else will pick up the slack.
Your going to lack things like Doctors and Engineers even more than now because part of the financial incentive is now gone to pursue these difficult professions. Now, there are some people who study these fields because of interest but most people I've talked to are in most or at least somewhat motivated by the high-paying jobs these fields bring as a reason for going down this route. There are going to be very few people willing to pull those midnight shifts performing surgery or meeting deadlines now that money isn't such a big factor.
You'd get even more fine arts and humanities majors than now because those majors are easy in college and kids can party more. Even with the massive incentive now kids do it. Its stupid to suppose they won't do it when there's much less financial incentive to pursue more difficult fields of study.
There are a ton of rich scions living off their inherited wealth today that aren't doing much productive things because they don't need to worry about ever supporting themselves. Pursuing hobbies is fine, but most of the time, that isn't productive to society's needs.
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
I wouldn't say they "wouldn't produce anything".
Lets use theoretical numbers here. Say 10% of the workforce agrees to leave their jobs after this proposal's implementation. This 10% still purchases goods just like any other demo but aren't directly contributing to the workforce. We assume every human being is a utility maximizer - therefore people will quit, but as utility curves shift over time we see that 10% who quit forced into two options:
1. Go back to work to meet a scalar equivalent
2. Find ways to profit off to live and profit off the other 10% too.
In this theoretical scenario the numbers are much higher than they would ever be in real life, but the laborers we do remove from the workforce now mean the free hand of the market is more able to be applied. Labor Economics shows that in this multi-period theoretical that people should be paid exactly what they are worth (I am forgetting what this principle is called - if someone knows remind me). Meaning low skilled workers will be able to easier find their true wage as will high skill workers.
When Cutlass says not gonna happen, he means your 80% exaggeration. Pretty much every study on EITC here in the US projects fairly minimal workforce reduction due to kinks and direct subsidies don't reduce workforce hours that much more either (but of course they do). 80% is completely unrealistic
Having a smaller temporary workforce (as workforce reductions occur), particularly for the developed and somewhat linear Switzerland would mean less competition for jobs. Frankly in Switzerland's case having more "lazy" people would probably end up being a good thing.
Lets use theoretical numbers here. Say 10% of the workforce agrees to leave their jobs after this proposal's implementation. This 10% still purchases goods just like any other demo but aren't directly contributing to the workforce. We assume every human being is a utility maximizer - therefore people will quit, but as utility curves shift over time we see that 10% who quit forced into two options:
1. Go back to work to meet a scalar equivalent
2. Find ways to profit off to live and profit off the other 10% too.
In this theoretical scenario the numbers are much higher than they would ever be in real life, but the laborers we do remove from the workforce now mean the free hand of the market is more able to be applied. Labor Economics shows that in this multi-period theoretical that people should be paid exactly what they are worth (I am forgetting what this principle is called - if someone knows remind me). Meaning low skilled workers will be able to easier find their true wage as will high skill workers.
When Cutlass says not gonna happen, he means your 80% exaggeration. Pretty much every study on EITC here in the US projects fairly minimal workforce reduction due to kinks and direct subsidies don't reduce workforce hours that much more either (but of course they do). 80% is completely unrealistic
Having a smaller temporary workforce (as workforce reductions occur), particularly for the developed and somewhat linear Switzerland would mean less competition for jobs. Frankly in Switzerland's case having more "lazy" people would probably end up being a good thing.
Similar threads
