Switzerland and Guaranteed Income--Would it work here?

[sdmdwct]

This has probably been mentioned before, but if $10,000 was provided to everyone that is a citizen, over 21 and not in jail, it may end up saving money on HUD etc. Switzerland, as most of us know, is currently considering this type of program...

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2013 ... ?src=rechp

Similarly, it would allow most people on this board to retire. Huzzah!

[Felix]

One would need to see if the corresponding savings in healthcare, elderly care, childcare, reduced crime, a better educated population can make up for the costs of the payments. The research suggests quite some savings as a result.

Here are the results of a mincome-experiment in Canada:

http://vimeo.com/56648023

Usually, these are also meant to replace existing social systems, adding savings in administration costs to the equation.

Here's a link to some calculations claiming that 10.000$ can be financed in the US:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/11/a-basi ... er-us.html

If you're from Europe, you can sign a petition to have the EU look into this.
https://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiativ ... c/index.do

My guess would be that more is possible. Given the 80% rise in productivity and the complete stagnation in real wages (minimum wage would be over 20$ it had been raised with productivity), there's a lot of money currently funneled out of the productive economy into savings for a small minority of people that I think should be up for grabs. (http://prospect.org/article/40-year-slump)

In a famous paper, Keynes predicted the massive rise in productivity and concluded that it would lead to a massive increase in leisure. This book goes into why this didn't happen:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Much-Enough-M ... 991&sr=1-1

Also, given that robotics is just beginning to reap its economic rewards by essentially making humans more and more obsolete in physical production and to increasing degree also in information processing, this trend is currently going upward.

The technological and scientific progress of the past is a general human heritage in my view, so is the wealth provided by the mere existence of the planet and nature itself, hence the idea of a basic social dividend paid to everyone underlying a market economy makes very much sense to me.

Hence a basic income would simply provide people with the freedom of deciding if they want to spend their lives in the pursuit of stuff or spend their time otherwise and it would make the availability of that choice obvious.

I also hold the heretic view that the economy exists to serve people and not the other way around leading me to ideas of sacrificing business interests in ever-rising production to quality of life for the population, but that is my personal opinion and sometimes stirs up controversy.

I would really like to see the Swiss try this.

After all, this is basically a government mandated ERE for everyone, only that people can get a 5 year headstart without having to walk through the valley of lentils before they reach the kingdom of heavens.

We also already have a few threads on the subject. Feel free to dig in:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3410
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4286
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3653
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2234

[champ0608]

I don't see why it wouldn't work. Money that would go into such a fund could be taken in part from food stamps, unemployment, even social security. A minimum basic income for all citizens could greatly reduce poverty, crime, illness, malnutrition, homelessness, etc. Not to mention it would increase the quality of life of those who already have nice life. Some folks would dump it right back into the consumer society, some would save it and invest it, some would use it to fund new ventures. I don't see how anyone could see it as a bad thing, but surely many do.

I hope it does pass in Switzerland. I daydream about switching nationalities and living a wonderful life in one of the most beautiful countries on earth, and I also daydream of it being a beacon for rich countries to provide more for their citizens, just as perks for being part of the "team."

[workathome]

What about those who are completely and chronically incapable of even the most basic financial management? It would work for people here, but we're an extreme minority of the population. You would need at least some kind of basic intelligence test to determine who gets cash versus food stamps + housing assistance + some other direct need assistance program.

[Felix]

They'd have more money to mismanage than they have now. What do we do for those people now?

In Germany, there are social services helping people in dire social situations like struggling families with drug problems, domestic violence, lack of child care, etc.

[Chad]

I hope they pass it, as it would give us a real world example. A small rather eccentric one, but an example none the less.

[jacob]

Sure, that would be nice.

Here's the problem: If you know how to live well off of $10k, you probably don't need the money. If you don't know how, you're probably gonna squander the $10k.---It's not going to be enough for you!

If I had a dollar for every complainypants who said that it's impossible to survive for less than $30k---slightly less than the median income---well, I'd be somewhat richer ;-P

What it really comes down to, therefore, is the question of the extent of how much [stupid] people should be managed by systems put in place. The whole idea that "everybody should be treated equally" puts severe restraints on possible policy actions.

[sdmdwct]

This is the only and last time I will ever attribute something to Michele Bachman, but once this type of expense stream from the government starts, it would be impossible to end (in the event that it didn't solve the problems that the policy makers intended). As Jacob said, it probably wouldn't be enough for most people to consider living on entirely. Simultaneously, what good is being the wealthiest country in the world if we cannot provide a basic standard of living for everyone in an efficient manner?

Slightly unrelated, but today I was at Target behind a kid who was probably not much older than 19. He bought some name brand processed food with an EBT card (food stamps) and bought a $15 polo shirt and some other items in cash. I have a good income and would be reluctant to spend that much on a shirt I could buy at a thrift store. The standard of living for even low income Americans that can qualify for food stamps is still very good.

My friends also just started renting a studio apartment for around $550. My mortgage is around $650 for a two bedroom house (and yes, I know this does not encompass all costs of home ownership). Ownership and other simple measures can provide greater efficiency in living expenses, but it just goes to show that our society is not set up for absolute efficiency for its citizens. I am considering buying a house with a separate rental house in place of a garage. What if every homeowner had a rental property instead of a garage that is mostly dormant?

[Felix]

Most people are not maximally efficient. I do not see why they should be. The non-efficient life is the one being deliberately promoted 24-7 in all advertising and media, linking conspicuous consumption with social status. Training consumers for inefficiency is just a smart market move. It allows for ample business opportunity. Five bucks for a cup of coffee, 200 dollars for a pair of plastic shoes. People basically do what they know. Maybe courses on how to live on that money would be useful - maybe not.

Many of us used to live like that (maybe not to the full extent, but I would guess we all learned something here), spending our money on fancy gadgets, living in a house beyond our means, two cars, etc. That's simply the standard. We can't just pick us extreme savers as the yardstick. I know I learned a lot from reading YMOYL, even though it's stupidly simple: I don't have to spend my whole paycheck. I had to double-check at first, but it made sense. It just never occured to me in my 20-something years of my life. And that's the point. It's hard to discover water when you are a fish.

[Felix]

An article in Business Insider:
http://www.businessinsider.com/giving-a ... ty-2013-11

[MountainMan]

Interesting idea, but the NYT article made me laugh when they compared Switzerland to "other less socialist countries...". Switzerland is very conservative, this is never going to pass.

[GandK]

I hope they pass it, as it would give us a real world example. A small rather eccentric one, but an example none the less.

I agree with this. I want to watch.

[Seneca]

Interesting idea, but the NYT article made me laugh when they compared Switzerland to "other less socialist countries...". Switzerland is very conservative, this is never going to pass.

Cracks me up when I see that kind of stuff written about Switzerland.

Taleb did a great job describing the decentralized, direct democracy of the Swiss, and their attitudes in Anti-Fragile. I would be shocked, and quite saddened, if this passed. This is a big federalist step. I am quite curious about the outcome if a country were to try it.

The only good thing I have to say about guaranteed income is it is the cheapest form of welfare. At least, in the short term.

[Felix]

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/establ ... sic-income

Hey, even the US has a shot at it now. Sign it if you like.

[Felix]

Also: Fox News surprisingly positive on Basic Income: "Well, now that you explain it, I think it's a great idea."
http://youtu.be/07F1b3uPoGs

This was unexpected.

[Felix]

Someone pinch me. I must be dreaming. Reality is malfunctioning. Error.

[jennypenny]

I'm in if they give to it everyone over 18. (everyone, with no means test--just like SSI) It could function like the Alaskan PFD. In my dreams it would have a minimum distribution, and then surplus tax collected could be distributed as well each year.

I would think it would appeal to the left (welfare for all) and the right (smaller government with the elimination of many entitlement programs including things like federally-subsidized student loans).

[Seneca]

Also: Fox News surprisingly positive on Basic Income: "Well, now that you explain it, I think it's a great idea."
http://youtu.be/07F1b3uPoGs

This was unexpected.

She mentions one of my biggest negatives halfway through, not only will it never pass in the US because there are 126 anti-poverty fiefdoms(same reason we won't get a flat tax, or abolished income for consumption tax), and even if we wiped them all out, no way it'd stay basic income only.

[jennypenny]

I would be willing to agree to a minimum income for all and a progressive flat tax if it meant eliminating all other social welfare programs (and all of the corresponding government agencies).

[jacob]

"progressive flat" ... eh, isn't that an oxymoron?