Re: Would you work if you didn’t have to?
Hi Jim, I remember suggesting this to M about 5 or 6 years ago. I have not looked into the economics of it (i.e. how Australia's national budget could make it work) and so it was heartwarming, or at least very interesting to me, to read the article you forwarded which had a few (small) examples in the last century where this has been trialed - and that in at least one example, inflation went down, not up, quite contrary to "normal economist" expectations! Very, very interesting. What this tells us, is that "the abundance community" (or rather nation), can indeed work - and with robotics and automation being spearheaded heavily this year by Japan we may well need such a new economic model for nations in general. The fact that it has been shown it works in at least a couple examples, is generally great news of course. I experience in the "free software"/"libre computing" community - Debian GNU/Linux, RedHat/Fedora and more, and from me-as-programmer experience, it is a world of abundance - hackers (the good ones - i.e. those who do stuff to benefit the community) essentially have an abundance of the raw material or tools of trade - i.e. all you need is a computer and away you go, you can write whatever program you think people might enjoy using - since electricity to run your computer is close to free - add a few solar cells and it is free. So in truth all the "information worker" needs to manifest their creativity (besides their computer) is food and shelter - same for musicians and certain other creative artists etc. And since the marginal cost (incremental cost) of duplicating a (digital) song, or computer program, is very close to zero dollars (just download it for a tiny bit of electricity expense), then when I give my computer program to society as free/libre software, I am causing an exponential benefit to society, since as many people as have computers, can benefit from my creation. This is an "abundance economy" in action, and although I don't get wealth in this situation where I give my computer program away, I get credos/ ego satisfaction, recognition, esteem from my peers and or the users of my program, and potentially a job doing something I really enjoy (supporting users who benefit financially from my program, who are willing to pay for some support, training, and or enhancements to my computer program - this will normally just be the companies that use my program - but RedHat demonstrates that it's possible to build a billion-dollar company just supporting free software which is pretty cool). As long as I can do a bit of travel, have food in my belly and a warm couple of rooms to live in, I'm basically content and happy with life, since it is my nature to be creative (with computers) and to give away my creations. Regards, Z On 9/18/15, Jim <jim.sovereign@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
The idea of universal basic income will likely become a human rights issue implemented by many countries due to rising under employment and unemployment, caused by increased technology automation reducing the demand for many jobs requiring menial or repetitive labour.
Jim
Would you work if you didn’t have to?
news.com.au Frank Chung September 17, 2015
IF YOU were paid $30,000 by the government every year without having to lift a finger, would you still try to find work? And if you did, would you settle for a menial job cleaning toilets, or would you demand something more glamorous?
More importantly, if in the next, say, 20 years, those toilets are being cleaned by robots, shouldn’t those now out-of-work toilet cleaners have a right to that $30,000?
These are the questions at the heart of the debate over unconditional basic income — an unconventional policy idea which argues every person should be paid a standard amount, regardless of whether they are working or not.
Like the dole, it’s meant to make sure every person in society can meet basic living standards. But it differs, in that there is no work requirement or means test — meaning you could have a job and pocket the $30,000 cash on top of your wage, or not work at all and live off the $30,000 alone.
Some conservatives like the idea because it would theoretically streamline and simplify complex systems of social security payments and subsidies, cutting down administrative costs.
It’s already being trialled in the Netherlands with 300 residents of the town of Utrecht among a number of Dutch pilot sites, while the Indian government has also embraced the idea, and previous small-scale experiments have been hailed as great successes.
A new lobby group has formed in the US, Basic Income Action, to coincide with the eighth International Basic Income Week, and the campaign to give every human being a basic minimum wage, no questions asked, appears to be picking up steam.
The group, taking a cue from recent similar campaigns around gay marriage and marijuana legalisation, has launched a petition calling on US presidential candidates to support basic income.
“Basic income is a remarkably powerful and timely idea, and Basic Income Action will be a great resource for longtime activists and people who are learning about this for the first time,” said Steven Shafarman, author of the upcoming book The Basic Income Imperative.
It’s not a new idea, but with rising under- and unemployment, increasing cost of living and low to negative real wage growth — not to mention the growing automation of menial jobs — basic income has become a popular cause of the Left.
Canadian author Naomi Klein recently released a manifesto which, along with universal childcare and an end to international trade deals, called for a universal basic income.
Next year, Switzerland will hold a referendum on the issue after a petition gained more than 100,000 signatures, although the government has come out against the idea, urging its citizens to vote ‘no’.
It’s an idea which appeals to both sides of the political spectrum.
Classic liberal economists including Milton Friedman supported the idea in the form of a ‘reverse tax’, or a threshold under which, rather than the government taking your money, it pays you.
Progressives, who often throw around terms like ‘wage slavery’ when discussing universal income, see it as a way of expanding the social safety net and elevating the human condition above the drudgery of performing soul-crushing jobs just to survive.
The key question is whether people can be trusted not to sit around doing nothing. Conservatives naturally assume the worst of people, while progressives hope for the best.
Arguments against the idea are generally that one, we can’t possibly afford it; and two, it would dampen labour market participation by removing incentive to work, putting greater tax pressure on those who do.
A study conducted 40 years ago in the tiny Canadian farming town of Dauphin, Manitoba, found the payments actually had a “social multiplier effect”, and despite the fears of a dip in labour, people still had the incentive to work more hours rather than less.
One big danger in implementing such a system, however, would be pressure from the welfare lobby to apply different loadings for various interest groups, undermining the generic distribution.
Mikayla Novak, senior research fellow with free-market think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs, wrote in 2013 that while basic income was a seductive idea for people of “varied philosophical persuasions”, it could “risk ending up as another initiative in which good intentions do not align with desirable results”.
Another common criticism of basic income is that it would lead to inflation — if everyone has more money, everything would cost more.
Writing in Medium, basic income advocate Scott Santens provides two real-world examples where that proved not to be the case: Alaska in 1982, and Kuwait in 2011. In both cases, inflation actually decreased after the government introduced a partial basic income to citizens.
Supporters argue that in general, since the income is provided by the government through existing, not printed money, the inflationary effects should be minimal.
He told Motherboard the momentum which was lost in the 1970s was coming back and, due to advances in technology, was “here to stay”.
“Step one to all of this is growing the conversation for basic income to a critical mass and connecting the people who believe it needs to happen,” he said. “And that’s what BIA is for, to grow and connect, and to win.”
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/would-you-work-if-you-didnt-have-to/s...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I'd feel a bit less anxious in general, knowing the worst that could happen is living in good comfort. I think 30k per person is too much though, 15k is really quite enough (at least in NL). This also to prevent complete perversion of reward-for-labor. I think the "digital nomad"-compatible family of jobs will lose their associated risk (if it doesn't work out, you're still fine) and that will help them. Jobs that are highly paid will likely still be pretty rewarding, too. It's the jobs that pay little now that get the serious change in their economics. Who wants to pick up garbage for almost no money, when you have enough money? It is also hard to estimate how many people will prefer entirely useless work, or a minimal lifestyle. Given a tease more automation that should not be a problem. But, remember, as automation increases the basic income can become less; as a certain level of comfort is achieved at a lower price. This also gives governments some new and interesting incentives. The gamble sometimes seems to be whether some "successful creative and risky business" produces more value than "cheap labor". (And, well, what those lousy-job-people will do when they get a lot of time on their hands!)
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
15k is really quite enough (at least in NL). This also to prevent complete
Subsistance is the correct level, possibly less, but no more. The makeup / more comes from work in your areas of interest. Subsistance is also trends pointless status quo, which is fine if you don't wish to get off the rock. Also, other than energy from the Sun, we are ultimately closed system. Thus if everyone adopts strict subsistance with no extra interest work to support it, and you're not 100% precise at redistribution with no loss, it fails. Market royalties depend on tapping extra work of others. BI is just another take on socialism, like any other system it works good until it is pushed further than natural control factors allow. Systems at law are enforced means to get what you want, or balance things, at others expense, beyond inherent puppetability and usury of free markets. Some balancing is needed, so we talk of BI, wealth leveling, universal healthcare, education, etc. This is natural control, happens when puppeteers make up 1% of 99% puppeted. As in history, if left unbalanced too long or deep, the slaves revolt and reboot.
2015-09-18 18:33 GMT+02:00 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>:
Some balancing is needed, so we talk of BI, wealth leveling, universal healthcare, education, etc. This is natural control, happens when puppeteers make up 1% of 99% puppeted. As in history, if left unbalanced too long or deep, the slaves revolt and reboot.
This is one possible outcome -- but this is FAR from a revolt. Just as likely is the outcome where Basic Income cattle is herded into cheap everything arrangements, where they're offered "fun and fulfilling" work for non-market pay. These humans will be entirely economically detached. The overlords will reap their Basic Income, and allow them to live month by month. (note: this already happens, you walk in a Hyundai/Samsung build appartment block, where Lotte runs all the supermarkets, and all the entertainment is provided by CJ, Koreans don't fear big-corps, so they don't hide it, but I think this is probably true in many places of the world) Or, as in the amazing Cloud Atlas, we will create a caste-like society with "producers", "consumers" and perhaps some other groups ("politicians"? "Celebrities"?). We may move from 99% to 99.9% puppets. It's just a way to generalize the population, to silence the masses, to present happiness and freedom to be guaranteed for all. Without alarm the watchers will turn to sleep, and under that dark moon the world will change. Simply put, it solves some problems but not all of them. BI can potentially worsen the situation. I think the immediate gain of guaranteed personal freedoms; freedom from labor, freedom to self-improve, freedom to perform altruism, freedom to perform art, and yes, even freedom to party, are worth a great deal. Yet, it will create a future where nobody is willing to revolt, and the state is in even further reaching control. It also just upsets my minimal-government-preference somewhat. I just don't like the idea of people living off of money I earned. It only makes sense because money is already an abstract and perverted item, and because basic needs will soon drop much further in their cost. (Especially if cheap living becomes a greater priority)
I think I can rephrase to clarify. 2015-09-21 1:04 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl>:
We may move from 99% to 99.9% puppets. It's just a way to generalize the population, to silence the masses, to present happiness and freedom to be guaranteed for all. Without alarm the watchers will turn to sleep, and under that dark moon the world will change.
I meant this would practically guarantee everyone the funds to be healthy, choose one's daily activity freely, and for lack of want be happy. That guarantee seems so sufficient that it's as if there will be no more injustice due to power imbalance. As if the injustice done by the wealthy is only because of the existence of the "too poor". I think it will lead to a greater divergence in wealth. I'm not actually sure if that will be a problem, but if wealth remains so direct a means for power, well, it very well could be a problem. (note: democracy is more sensitive to wealth==power due to the effectiveness of funding popular opinion campaigns, advertising, new magazines, popular culture inserts, etc)
I think the immediate gain of guaranteed personal freedoms; freedom from labor, freedom to self-improve, freedom to perform altruism, freedom to perform art, and yes, even freedom to party, are worth a great deal. Yet, it will create a future where nobody is willing to revolt, and the state is in even further reaching control.
The peace of mind for being guaranteed a minimum of wealth, and the ability to do what you believe is right. Dwarf Fortress is a unique game started by someone support by his brother, and it became the inspiration of Minecraft, which became quite a valuable company. Without years and years of seemingly unprofitable development, that could not have happened, as Dwarf Fortress seems to far out to invest in. I can't even phantom how much better Open Source software would become =) "Don't bite the hand that feeds" will become very applicable to government. I think that's a risk. Sometimes the hand of government needs a bite, just to keep it from fondling too much. I suppose I'm worried popular perception will move in favor of deep government involvement, also as part of improved democratic participation and controls, with aspects of economy and personal life. (ex: why should you own property? If the state owns it and rents it to people, it's much more manageable! We can make sure all buildings are in good order, politely force people to move for new construction, ensure regionally consistent housing, etc) We'll see. I like BI as a generalized welfare program, the culture will be whatever the culture develops into. It could be Star Trek <http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/18/star_trek_economy_federation_is_only_mostly_post_scarcity.html> level *amazing*, or it could be Idiocracy <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/> level *disappointing*. Hell, it could be both at the same time!
On 2015-09-21 9:55 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
I meant this would practically guarantee everyone the funds to be healthy, choose one's daily activity freely, and for lack of want be happy.
Poor people are not poor for lack of money. They can win the lottery, and still remain poor.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 I agree with l. Essentially what a true BI would do (implemented broadly across the globe, at least) is to make this society even worse than it already is, with Cloud Atlas being a good analogy. It's interesting that few have paused to consider the potential ramifications of guaranteeing resources for anyone (and I don't think rehashing examples from Alaska and Saudi Arabia are helpful), but haven't hesitated to demand that your resources be taken by and allocated here and there by actors and representatives of dubious quality so that their plans for social and economic control can be implemented. Not to mention that the whole BI enterprise, to the extent that it is reliant upon governments, is backed by coercion and use of force. (To the extent that a BI scheme is non-governmental, and thus not backed by state threat of violence, imprisonment, etc., for failure to comply, it would be less objectionable, but still come with a variety of problems, as there would always be "BI allocators" (e.g. BI policy or BI core developers, whose decisions affect groups or populations) and corporate or autonomous actors whose interests would automatically disregard those of individuals and collectively organized resistance entities (COREs)). I consider that these concerns, which I think l. has properly identified and which I also echo here, apply to http://groupcurrency.org/ and other ideas which are similar in concept. As l. correctly stated, "(BI) will create a future where nobody is willing to revolt, and the state is in even further reaching control." I would propose as a better system than BI would be a truly voluntary system (that does not include BI, but which would allow people to conduct any sort of transactions they like) where people have the opportunity to choose what sort of direction they want their resources to go while also opening the door to helping as many people as possible in the context of their transactions ~ without relying upon statism, violence, or use of force. In the coming days, please see https://bytecoin.org/ where there will soon be some updates relative to this very notion (two use cases of ABIS (http://abis.io) in BCN), to be in the 1.0.8 graphic wallet version, currently scheduled for release on Sep 29 or 30, 2015. (This version may possibly end up coming out a bit later, as date of release is estimated, thus keep your eyes peeled.) - -O Lodewijk andré de la porte:
2015-09-18 18:33 GMT+02:00 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>:
Some balancing is needed, so we talk of BI, wealth leveling, universal healthcare, education, etc. This is natural control, happens when puppeteers make up 1% of 99% puppeted. As in history, if left unbalanced too long or deep, the slaves revolt and reboot.
This is one possible outcome -- but this is FAR from a revolt.
Just as likely is the outcome where Basic Income cattle is herded into cheap everything arrangements, where they're offered "fun and fulfilling" work for non-market pay. These humans will be entirely economically detached. The overlords will reap their Basic Income, and allow them to live month by month. (note: this already happens, you walk in a Hyundai/Samsung build appartment block, where Lotte runs all the supermarkets, and all the entertainment is provided by CJ, Koreans don't fear big-corps, so they don't hide it, but I think this is probably true in many places of the world)
Or, as in the amazing Cloud Atlas, we will create a caste-like society with "producers", "consumers" and perhaps some other groups ("politicians"? "Celebrities"?).
We may move from 99% to 99.9% puppets. It's just a way to generalize the population, to silence the masses, to present happiness and freedom to be guaranteed for all. Without alarm the watchers will turn to sleep, and under that dark moon the world will change.
Simply put, it solves some problems but not all of them. BI can potentially worsen the situation.
I think the immediate gain of guaranteed personal freedoms; freedom from labor, freedom to self-improve, freedom to perform altruism, freedom to perform art, and yes, even freedom to party, are worth a great deal. Yet, it will create a future where nobody is willing to revolt, and the state is in even further reaching control.
It also just upsets my minimal-government-preference somewhat. I just don't like the idea of people living off of money I earned. It only makes sense because money is already an abstract and perverted item, and because basic needs will soon drop much further in their cost. (Especially if cheap living becomes a greater priority)
- -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWANPQAAoJEGxwq/inSG8C7kEH/isEUGX5uI+yNGvT+y9KAKIl cm5IQ4JyQD/h50E6NEp5+AzbvE4e3fZHimX6x8FmvX+cO+QIaD/1KiXXscHio0dP e8WmSJb133H1OIM3pYlHT/TrBrPEcoIIthRiVSVQZ287G/QmziLlDJYF4sntZLyQ Ql7VBtcYuoyQpraa2Lo0bHgTbjmhQ5nSs3HjosONkQOfsX6ag2Mtlde91hie1RVP k1vBKrhlJP4b/ZFkh3TRX6ID1JtIDdDjNH8rP3TttUpN2wSSMZkZ/V2buyCwMNZm 5tlkotmdXbt6m003N2X0+xzuCNVc+4WezxBjY61Z7Sb1tWku97xpYaTm0dEusD4= =Tr2s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (5)
-
grarpamp -
James A. Donald -
Lodewijk andré de la porte -
odinn -
Zenaan Harkness