Income taken care of, for life. Thoughts?

[LadyMoonlight]

Universal Basic Income Switzerland referendum due on June 5

 

[foadi]

US$2500-3500/mo isn't much. Honestly though, if I was receiving that, would not work that much. Would probably spend most of my time living in cheap countries.

 

[Winchester]

Universal Basic Income Switzerland referendum due on June 5

It won't pass, but holy **** the trainwreck if it did.

 

[imagep]

It won't pass, but holy **** the trainwreck if it did.

You are probably right about it not passing. However, I would love to see it pass, just so that we don't have to conjecture what the results would be. Would make for some good entertainment also.

 

[imagep]

US$2500-3500/mo isn't much. Honestly though, if I was receiving that, would not work that much. Would probably spend most of my time living in cheap countries.

If that is per person, then that's not bad. I have three adults living in my household, so at $35/mth, that would be over $100k a year.

 

[Gaius46]

So people who decide to up and quit working get supported by those who continue to work? Aside for the sheer wrongness of that idea what do you do if a significant number of people decide to take the free ride? Where does the money come from with a much reduced working class? What do you do when you reach the tipping point and people are taxes to the point where they don't even bring home the basic stipend? Or do you just pray that that doesn't happen? Praying is not a way to plan a budget.

This seems like idiocy.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

so...what's my motivation to work if you're giving me a comfortable living income for nothing?

 

[imagep]

Universal Basic Income Switzerland referendum due on June 5

I think the time for the UBI (aka BIG) will eventually come. But until technology has replaced the need for human labor, to the point that there are no longer enough decent paying jobs for every family to have one, I don't believe that it's time for "free money for nothing".

Most likely, we will have multiple steps to take in our economy, and with the psychological acceptance of the fact that the need for human labor is gradually being replaced by technology.

I don't see a UBI becoming politically feasible before we have universal healthcare or universal health insurance, because the concept of universal benefits is the bases for the UBI. I don't see the UBI becoming politically feasible before the majority of us are willing to accept the concept that redistribution is absolutely essential for our free market economy to be long term sustainable. I don't see the UBI becoming politically feasible when we have politicians discussing cutting SS/medicare benefits or increasing the retirement age. I don't see the UBI becoming politically feasible when such a large portion of our population believes that the only worthwhile endeavors for individuals are ones that result in immediate production of basic goods and services (many people reject that art or pure research has any value to humanity).

Some of the steps that will most likely have to happen before we get tot the UBI are:

1) Significantly decreasing our "full time" workweek. Most likely accomplished by mandating overtime pay on hours above a gradually shorter workweek. this isn't likely to happen until we have mass shortages of jobs. Ultimately, before we get to the UBI, our workweek may have to be much like George Jetsons workweek: 3 hours a day, three days a week.

2) Gradual expansion of SS and/or unemployment benefits to include things like paid family leave time (paid for out of the government program, not on the backs of the employers) more vacation time, "life experience sabaticals", earlier retirement age, etc.

3) the realization that the LFPR will continue to fall...forever. And that a falling LFPR isn't a bad thing, it's an indication that we as a society are becoming wealthier, and thus have less of a financial need to work long hours for 45+ years.

 

[Arcana XV]

All the polls so far indicate that it will not pass. Personally, I'm voting against it. Not because I think it's a bad idea, but because now is not yet the time to implement anything like that.

Eventually, though, most industrialized countries will have to figure out a way to deal with all the job losses that advances in technology and robotics will inevitably bring. There's going to come a time when machines will do almost everything humans do, including maintenance and repairs, and millions of people will be out of a job.

Then what do we do?...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Everyone that works will surely vote to have their salary cut by $3,500/month to help support those that do not elect to work.

 

[Winchester]

All the polls so far indicate that it will not pass. Personally, I'm voting against it. Not because I think it's a bad idea, but because now is not yet the time to implement anything like that.

Eventually, though, most industrialized countries will have to figure out a way to deal with all the job losses that advances in technology and robotics will inevitably bring. There's going to come a time when machines will do almost everything humans do, including maintenance and repairs, and millions of people will be out of a job.

Then what do we do?...

 

[imagep]

so...what's my motivation to work if you're giving me a comfortable living income for nothing?

That's part of the plan.

It's to reduce the number of people in our labor force, because technology is gradually reducing the number that are needed. With fewer people desiring to work, then jobs will be more plentiful for those of us who still wish to work, and compensation will increase.

However, the amounts that I have seen suggested for the US aren't nearly as generous as what the Swiss are voting on. I've seen suggested amounts ranging from $4k to $15k per year, which would scarcely make anyone "comfortable".

The theory is that many of us would continue to work even if we didn't absolutely have to work for income purposes, and that there are enough people who enjoy working that our need for human labor would still be satisfied even if slackers and lazy people dropped out of the workforce (how much do they really contribute anyhow)? And why should we try to financially force people to work, when automation has obsoleted much of the need for human labor?

Also, there is a basic fairness issue. I'm not saying that I agree with this, but it is a point to ponder. Why should we give some people free money (welfare), but not provide the exact same benefits to the people who pay the most in taxes? Shouldn't everyone be treated identically by the government? If something is so important that our gov must provide it (medicaid, foodstamps, free school lunch, etc), then shouldn't our gov provide those benefits to everyone equally? The UBI creates a safety net, but it does so without locking anyone into poverty (because they don't loose their benefits if they make more money from a job).

 

[Hannes]

It won't pass, but holy **** the trainwreck if it did.

It will not be a "trainwreck" if it passed. The Swiss are a hard-working people with high social trust and capital, and the freest economy in Europe, so the society would not collapse with this kind of egalitarian measure.

However the economics behind the idea I feel is unsound.

 

[imagep]

Everyone that works will surely vote to have their salary cut by $3,500/month to help support those that do not elect to work.

Workers would also get the exact same UBI payment, and that payment will come from the government, not from employers. At least thats the way I understand it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Workers would also get the exact same UBI payment, and that payment will come from the government, not from employers. At least thats the way I understand it.

Perhaps you can explain how much an employee with a job now paying $3500/month (from an employer) would get under the new scheme. I took the OP link to mean that any salary would be reduced by $3500/month. Was I mistaken in that impression?

 

[Helix]

I think the time for the UBI (aka BIG) will eventually come. But until technology has replaced the need for human labor, to the point that there are no longer enough decent paying jobs for every family to have one, I don't believe that it's time for "free money for nothing".

Most likely, we will have multiple steps to take in our economy, and with the psychological acceptance of the fact that the need for human labor is gradually being replaced by technology.

I don't see a UBI becoming politically feasible before we have universal healthcare or universal health insurance, because the concept of universal benefits is the bases for the UBI. I don't see the UBI becoming politically feasible before the majority of us are willing to accept the concept that redistribution is absolutely essential for our free market economy to be long term sustainable. I don't see the UBI becoming politically feasible when we have politicians discussing cutting SS/medicare benefits or increasing the retirement age. I don't see the UBI becoming politically feasible when such a large portion of our population believes that the only worthwhile endeavors for individuals are ones that result in immediate production of basic goods and services (many people reject that art or pure research has any value to humanity).

Some of the steps that will most likely have to happen before we get tot the UBI are:

1) Significantly decreasing our "full time" workweek. Most likely accomplished by mandating overtime pay on hours above a gradually shorter workweek. this isn't likely to happen until we have mass shortages of jobs. Ultimately, before we get to the UBI, our workweek may have to be much like George Jetsons workweek: 3 hours a day, three days a week.

2) Gradual expansion of SS and/or unemployment benefits to include things like paid family leave time (paid for out of the government program, not on the backs of the employers) more vacation time, "life experience sabaticals", earlier retirement age, etc.

3) the realization that the LFPR will continue to fall...forever. And that a falling LFPR isn't a bad thing, it's an indication that we as a society are becoming wealthier, and thus have less of a financial need to work long hours for 45+ years.

i pretty much agree with your analysis. we're heading towards it slowly, but we aren't there yet. a 35 hour full time work week is more likely to happen than that, and, especially in America, more vacation time. the average PTO here is pretty lean. i will say that i support giving members of congress the average pay, vacation, and benefits that the rest of the country currently enjoys, though. that's about $46k and two weeks of vacation, last time i checked.

 

[Cyrylek]

Universal Basic Income Switzerland referendum due on June 5

And a free St.Bernard puppy for every Swiss kid. Because without the puppy this idiocy has no chance.

 

[Lutherf]

So you either sit around and let the government pay you $42k/yr or go get a job that pays $50k/yr which is really only an $8k/yr increase over what you'd get for doing nothing? OK...how much would that additional $8k be taxed? Would you actually get the additional $8k or would it be taxed at 50% so you really only got another $4k?

Problem #1 - If you go with this hairball plan you'll need to pay the french fry guy at McDonald's $75k just so he feels like he's making money
Problem #2 - If you don't tax the french fry guy something like 90% of whatever he's making over the guarantee you won't be able to afford the guarantee
Problem #3 - If you have to pay everyone twice or three times what they were making before but you're taxing it at some exorbitant rate people are just going to say "screw it" and stop working
Problem #4 - If labor cost goes up 300% or more the cost of everything that requires labor (food, utilities, etc) is going to skyrocket. That increase will decrease the purchasing power of the guarantee.
Problem #5 - Let's say the plan went on for a year before it became apparent that it wouldn't work...how are you going to reverse it?

The fun part of this is that people really are stupid enough to buy into a scheme like this so it should be fun to see it in action when it happens.

 

[imagep]

Perhaps you can explain how much an employee with a job now paying $3500/month (from an employer) would get under the new scheme. I took the OP link to mean that any salary would be reduced by $3500/month. Was I mistaken in that impression?

It's my understanding that he would get his current income from work, plus the UBI. Thats what the "U" stands for - universal, meaning that everyone gets that, if one choses to work, it's just extra money. the UBI isn't means tested.

 

[imagep]

So you either sit around and let the government pay you $42k/yr or go get a job that pays $50k/yr which is really only an $8k/yr increase over what you'd get for doing nothing? ...

I don't think thats how this works. If you get the $50k job, you still get the UBI, so you would have $92k in gross income.

Now I don't exactly know how they are planning on paying for this. Maybe higher income taxes on the rich, maybe a higher consumption tax, or maybe they will just print the money (Swizerland does not use the Euro).

I dunno how this would work out, it would be interesting to see though. Could be entertaining also.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's my understanding that he would get his current income from work, plus the UBI. Thats what the "U" stands for - universal, meaning that everyone gets that, if one choses to work, it's just extra money. the UBI isn't means tested.

What does the following sentence from the OP link mean to you?

Those with a job could still work but would have the monthly income deducted from their salary.

 

[Lutherf]

I don't think thats how this works. If you get the $50k job, you still get the UBI, so you would have $92k in gross income.

Now I don't exactly know how they are planning on paying for this. Maybe higher income taxes on the rich, maybe a higher consumption tax, or maybe they will just print the money (Swizerland does not use the Euro).

I dunno how this would work out, it would be interesting to see though. Could be entertaining also.

From the article -

Those with a job could still work but would have the monthly income deducted from their salary.

Sure sounds to me like there won't be any double dipping.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Who pays? This type of socialism has always hit me as being similar to the myth of perpetual motion.

 

[Gaius46]

It's my understanding that he would get his current income from work, plus the UBI. Thats what the "U" stands for - universal, meaning that everyone gets that, if one choses to work, it's just extra money. the UBI isn't means tested.

But isn't he also funding the UBI?

 

[Gaius46]

Who pays? This type of socialism has always hit me as being similar to the myth of perpetual motion.

I was thinking pyramid scheme myself.