Re: Would you work if you didn’t have to?

[wirelesswarrior at Safe-mail.net]

I recently watched Zeitgeist 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist_%28film_series%29#Synopsis_2 
At least for the documentary's first half offers a very good and accessible indictment of the global monetary system and capitalism (as its practiced).

-------- Original Message --------
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net>
Apparently from: cypherpunks-bounces at cpunks.org
To: Jim <jim.sovereign at optusnet.com.au>
Cc: cypherpunks at cpunks.org
Subject: Re: Would you work if you didn’t have to?
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:33:40 +0000

> 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 at 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/story-fnu2pycd-1227531288369
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >