interesting, as bob haugen says, for many people, especially in the US, capitalism is the only horizon they know, and they seek to improve it,
but it rather disproves the idea of a neoliberal plot, since this seems a genuine attempt to improve some of the ills of the system as the author perceives it, i happen to disagree with the premises, but it shows the possibility of a broad coalition of moving towards a UBI, that goes beyond the majority of left-oriented citizens who already favour it, to sectors such as social enterpreneurships, fair trade and associated social liberal types, Michel On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Theodoros Karyotis <[email protected]> wrote: > The previous article in the series by the same author. Highlighting is > mine. > > > *Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?* > *An answer to a growing question of the 21st century* > > *What would you do?* > > So what exactly would you do, if you were guaranteed $1,000 per month for > the rest of your life? And yes, that’s around what the amount would most > likely be here in the United States, at least at first. So think about that > amount for a moment, and don’t think about what others might do with it, > think about what you would do with it. Perhaps you would do more of what > you enjoy. So what is that? > > *Didn’t they try this in Russia?* > > You’ve compared this idea to communism, so let’s focus on that first. In > doing so, let’s also talk about what was actually done in the former Soviet > Union and not what was intended. What they actually did there, simply put, > was transfer the means of production from those who ran the businesses > based on market forces, into the hands of a bureaucracy who made decisions > based not on market forces but on politics and cronyism. This is a terrible > idea. But why is this a terrible idea? > The market works because it is a means of figuring out what people want, > the degree to which they want it, and the means of getting it to them. > Let’s take bread as an example. In Russia, they thought everyone should > have bread. That was a decision made by those in power, and they then tried > to make that happen, whether everyone wanted bread or not. This did not > work so well, and there were shortages. Plus, those with the connections > got more than enough while others got none. Trying to give bread to > everyone, although noble in gesture, was a failure. > > *The magic of markets* > > So how do we do it here in America right now? The makers of bread make > bread, and sell it to stores, so that people with the money to buy bread, > can buy bread. If bread isn’t getting bought, less bread is made. If all > the bread is getting bought, more bread is made. Those who make the bread > aren’t making a top-down decision on how much bread to make. They are > listening to market forces, and the decision is bottom-up. This is perfect, > right? Just the right amount of bread is getting made and at just the right > price. No, it’s not. Why? And how can this be improved? > Right now only those with the means to pay for bread have a voice for > bread. We love to use the term, “voting with our dollars”. So is the > outcome of that daily election accurate? Does everyone have a voice for > bread? No, they don’t. There are people with no voice, because they have no > dollars. The only way to make sure the market is working as efficiently > and effectively as possible to determine what should be getting made, how > much to make of it, and where to distribute it, is to make sure everyone > has at the very minimum, the means to vote for bread. If they have that > money and don’t buy bread, there’s no need to make and distribute that > bread. If the bread is bought, that shows people actually want that bread. So > how do we accomplish this improvement of capitalistic markets? > > *With unconditional basic income (UBI).* > > By guaranteeing everyone has at the very least, the minimum amount of > voice with which to speak in the marketplace for basic goods and services, > we can make sure that the basics needs of life — those specific and > universally important to all goods and services like food and shelter — are > being created and distributed more efficiently. It makes no sense to make > sure 100% of the population gets exactly the same amount of bread. Some may > want more than others, and some may want less. It also doesn’t make sense > to only make bread for 70% of the population, thinking that is the true > demand for bread, when actually 80% of the population wants it, but 10% > have zero means to voice their demand in the market. Bread makers would > happily sell more bread and bread eaters would happily buy more bread. It’s > a win-win to more accurately determine just the right amount. > And that’s basic income. It’s a win-win for the market and those who > comprise the market. It’s a way to improve on capitalism and even > democracy, by making sure everyone has the minimum amount of voice. > > *Can we really improve capitalism or is this just theory?* > > If you want actual evidence of how much better capitalism would work with > basic income, look at the pilot project in Namibia: > “The village school reported higher attendance rates and that the children > were better fed and more attentive. Police statistics showed a 36.5% drop > in crime since the introduction of the grants. Poverty rates declined from > 86% to 68% (97% to 43% when controlled for migration). Unemployment dropped > as well, from 60% to 45%, and there was a 29% increase in average earned > income, excluding the basic income grant. These results indicate that basic > income grants can not only alleviate poverty in purely economic terms, but > may also jolt the poor out of the poverty cycle, helping them find work, > start their own businesses, and attend school.” > Think about that for a second. Crime plummeted and people given a basic > income actually created their own jobs and actually ended up with even > greater earnings as a result. > Or how about this psychology experiment as evidence for increased > productivity? > “The participants given a choice between either two or three puzzles each > spent about 5 minutes working on the puzzle they selected. But those who > were also given the option not to participate spent about 7 minutes working > on their selected puzzle. Explicitly choosing to do something rather than > not to do it greatly increased the amount of time people spent on the task.” > This suggests that if we create the option for people to be able to choose > not to work, genuinely choosing to work may result in even greater > commitment, because it is suddenly a matter of choice and not force. Choice > is a powerful motivator. > Speaking of motivation, what does the science have to say about money as > an effective motivator for complex and creative tasks? > > *Larger rewards lead to poorer performance.* > > “This is one of the most robust findings in social science, and also one > of the most ignored. I spent the last couple of years looking at the > science of human motivation, particularly the dynamics of extrinsic > motivators and intrinsic motivators. And I’m telling you, it’s not even > close. If you look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science > knows and what business does... That’s actually fine for many kinds of 20th > century tasks. But for 21st century tasks, that mechanistic, > reward-and-punishment approach doesn’t work, often doesn’t work, and often > does harm.” —Dan Pink > In the 21st century, as we continue quickly automating away half our jobs > in the next 20 years — jobs less cognitively-complex and more > physically-laborious — we need to enable ourselves to freely pursue our > more creative and complex ventures. Some of the best work happening right > now, is the stuff being done in our free time — that is unpaid — like > Wikipedia and our many other open-source community creations, not to > mention all the care work performed for our young and elderly. Basic income > is a means of recognizing this unpaid work as having great societal value, > and further enabling it. > Or how about the multiplier effect as evidence of enhanced capitalism? > “All those dollars low-wage workers spend create an economic ripple > effect. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers, > standard economic multiplier models tell us, adds about $1.21 to the > national economy. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of a > high-income American, by contrast, only adds about 39 cents to the GDP.” > This means that by redirecting that money pooling at the top doing > comparatively very little, accumulating in ever increasing amounts through > continual redistribution upwards from the bottom and middle of the income > spectrum, and recirculating that clotted money back down to the bottom and > middle, this would actually expand the entire economy while making it more > sustainable and more inclusive. This is how the body works. This is how > engines work. This is how systems work. > A system cannot exist in perpetuity that is designed for one-way flow. > Thomas Piketty has recently demonstrated in his sweeping Capital in the > 21st Century that our current system is exactly that — one way. It is up to > us to create a true circulatory system for the engine of capitalism. > Without monetary circulation, the system as a whole will come to a grinding > halt. If Piketty is right, then holding on to an ideology of income and > wealth redistribution as “theft” may just be like a heart refusing to pump > blood anywhere but the brain. > > *Capitalism 2.0 sounds great and all but can we afford it?* > > Basic income is entirely affordable given all the current and hugely > wasteful means-tested programs full of unnecessary bureaucracy that can be > consolidated into it. And the cost also depends greatly on the chosen plan. > A plan of $12,000 per U.S. citizen over 18, and $4,000 per citizen under 18 > amounts to a revenue need of $2.98 trillion, which after all the programs > that can be eliminated are rolled into it, requires an additional need of > $1.28 trillion or so. So where do we come up with an additional $1.28 > trillion? > • A land value tax has been estimated to be a source of revenue of about > $1.7 trillion. > • A flat tax of around 40% would be sufficient. Due to the way such a tax > works in combination with UBI, this would effectively be a reduction in > taxes for about 80% of the population. > • A 10% value added tax (VAT) has been estimated to be a source of revenue > of about $750 billion. That could be increased to reach $1.3 trillion or > added to other sources of additional revenue. > • These other sources of revenue could be a financial transaction tax > ($350 billion), a carbon tax ($125 billion), or taxing capital gains like > ordinary income and creating new upper tax brackets ($160 billion). Did you > know that for fifty years — between 1932 and 1982 — the top income tax rate > averaged 82%? Our current highest rate is 39%. > • There is a place in the world that already pays a regular dividend to > everyone living there, universally to child and adult, through a wealth > fund it has created through royalty fees paid by companies for the rights > to profit from its natural resources. This place is Alaska, and the > “Alaska Model” could be applied anywhere as a means of granting a basic > income as the social dividend from a sovereign wealth fund of > resource-based revenue. > • We could even get more creative by thinking about how we go about giving > away other forms of shared resources royalty-free to corporations, like the > use of our public airwaves, and patents/copyrights that should have entered > the public domain long ago but haven’t thanks to corporate lobbying from > those like Disney to protect their profits off of creations like Mickey > Mouse. Did you know the Happy Birthday song isn’t even in the public > domain? Companies should pay us instead of politicians to keep things out > of the public domain, and we could use this revenue as an additional > means of growing a resource-based wealth fund. > Suffice to say, there exist plenty of funding options, any one of which > are more than sufficient, that if combined could potentially allow for a > larger basic income, or a reduction or even elimination of income taxes > entirely. > > *Okay, it’s affordable… but wouldn’t people stop working?* > > We studied this question in the 1970s here in the United States, back when > Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) was a goal of President Nixon and the House > even successfully passed a bill for it. The findings from the accompanying > large-scale experiments done in cities like Seattle and Denver found that > surprisingly, hardly anyone actually stopped working, and instead reduced > their hours slightly, with men reducing their hours the least — by a > maximum of 8%. This slight reduction in hours was then replicated to even > less of a degree in Canada’s Minimum Income (Mincome) experiment, with men > choosing to work as little as 1% fewer hours. > Meanwhile, we find ourselves today working too much. Having drifted away > from the 40-hour work week, we now find 1 out of every 3 of us working more > than 50 hours, with many even working more than 60 hours. And what are the > effects of this? > “New studies show that working more very seldom produces better results. > Employees work many more hours now than they have in the past, but it’s > coming at the expense of health, happiness, and even productivity. While it > looks good to be the first to arrive and the last to leave work each day, > it turns out that putting in 60 hours of work each week may do more harm > than good in achieving end results. Through the data, one thing becomes > extremely clear: to boost productivity and foster excellent employees, the > best thing businesses can do is to bring back the 40-hour work week.” > We want to start working less. It would be good for overall productivity > to be working less. In fact, in certain circumstances, we shouldn’t even be > working at all. It’s called presenteeism, and happens when people refuse to > call in sick. > “According to various studies, the total cost of presenteeism to U.S. > employers falls anywhere between $150 billion to $250 billion each year, > and those costs are on the rise as presenteeism becomes more frequent in > tight economic times.” > Right now people are going to work when they actually should not be going > to work, and this is having a negative effect on the entire economy and > even our overall health. We need people who are feeling sick to stay home > when they should be staying home and not feeling forced to work because > they absolutely have to earn that money, or out of fear of losing their > jobs if they actually take a sick day. > It’s kind of curious isn’t it? Here we are worrying people will work less > if we guarantee a basic income, and the reality of the situation is that > people are presently working too much, and it is costing all of us. Combine > this with the fact there’s 3 people seeking every 1 available job, and the > obvious solution is that we actually want people to be able to choose to > work less, to free up more positions for those seeking jobs who are > currently being excluded from the labor market. > But still, what about those few who WOULD stop working? > Through the elimination of the welfare trap thanks to basic income, this > would mean that anyone choosing not to work — instead opting to just live > off their basic incomes — would be earning less than everyone choosing to > work for additional income. This could not only decrease unemployment and > increase productivity, but simultaneously fix the situation we have right > now, where it’s possible for the unemployed to actually earn more in > equivalent benefits than the cash incomes of those who are employed. > Plus, the very ability of people to not need a job, makes it that much > harder for employers to exploit employees with insufficient wages and poor > working conditions. The ability to actually say “No”, means the > empowerment of labor on an individual level — no unions required. > Simply put, basic income makes work actually pay. > > *Why would (insert who you dislike) ever agree to this?* > > The idea of basic income cuts across all party lines. From the extreme > right to the extreme left, we are hearing calls for basic income. Those on > the right love its potential to shrink the size of government and do away > with minimum wage laws, while those on the left love its potential to > reduce inequality and once and for all put an end to poverty. Basic income > is not “left” or “right”. It’s forward. > So why should you support unconditional basic income? Why should you have > supported the abolition of slavery back in the late 19th century? Why > should you have supported the right for people other than rich white men to > vote? Why should you have supported our landing on the Moon? Why should you > have supported the ending of the Vietnam war, or the beginning of LBJ’s war > on poverty? > Because you want to make our world a better place. That’s why. > > autonomias.net > twitter.com/TebeoTeo > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------- > ...buscar y saber reconocer quién y qué, en medio del infierno, no es > infierno, y hacer que dure, y dejarle espacio... > > On 10 August 2016 at 20:27, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> this is a good article on the subject: >> >> https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic- >> income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7#.ob51tv878 >> >> -- >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >> http://commonstransition.org >> >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: >> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >> >> > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
