Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
8 Comments
radxsays...The devil is in the details, isn't it?
For instance, what kind of guaranteed minimum income are we talking about?
The context they used (automatisation, labour supply) suggests to me something along the lines of an unconditional basic income. If that's the case, it cannot be compared to a minimum wage at all, since it has effects that go far beyond the labour market and the income situation. It's a massive reshaping of how we organise society. And it becomes a pain in the ass to even conceptualise properly once you talk about how to finance it...
A minimum wage, no matter how decent it is, doesn't even put a dent into the disparity between income from labour and income from capital. It makes life less horrible for those it applies to and it somewhat curtails the welfare queens among corporations who like their wage slaves being paid for by society. Yes, I'm looking at you, Walmart! Still, on its own, it does very little about income inequality, and nothing at all about wealth inequality.
How would I address income inequality?
In German, the words for taxes and steering are the same: "Steuern". If you want to steer the income towards a more equal distribution, taxation might be the easiest way to go about it. Treat all forms of income equally in terms of taxation. Or go one step further and treat wages preferentially to support employment.
However, redistribution will only get you so far. So why not address it at an earlier stage: distribution. Mondragon serves as a successful example of how a cooperative structure puts democratic checks and balances on the wage structure within a corporation. One person, one vote puts the lid on any attempts by higher-ups to rake in 300 times as much as the peasants on the factory floor.
Yet it doesn't do anything about the inequality between wages and capital income. Even a combination of progressive taxation and fixed income-ratios doesn't do much about it. Especially since non-wage income can evade taxation in a million different ways and most politicians in every country in the world seem more than eager to protect what loopholes they created over the decades.
So what's my suggestion? Well, progressive taxation of both income and wealth, living wage plus job guarantee, support of democratic structures at the workplace, international pressure on tax havens (which includes my own fecking country). Realistic? No. But neither was our welfare system until it was implemented.
Stormsingersays...Given the increasing capabilities of automation, it seems quite obvious that full employment will never again be seen. Given that, a guaranteed basic income is the only way to stave off a violent revolution by those who have been abandoned by the system. Because they're not likely to just lay down and die simply because they can't do a job as economically as a machine can.
So I'm not sure that calling a guaranteed basic income "unrealistic" is accurate.
radxsays...At some point, yes. But for the time being, increases in productivity (automation) are less of a job killer than your everyday policies and ideologies.
Speaking of my own country, the amount of work not being done is enormous, and the aggregate of work not having been done over the last decades is absolutely staggering. The current economic system not only unloaded a great number of burdens onto society, it also never found a way to come up with a way to integrate the aforementioned work. No one is willing to pay for it, so it doesn't get done, period. The most prominent examples would be infrastructure works of all kinds (energy, most of all), ecological restauration and care for the elderly. Our national railroad alone could hire 100,000 people and still be understaffed.
You can have full employment next year, but not if you expect the private sector to provide the jobs within the current system. The public sector could create them, if you use a sovereign, free-floating currency, but ideology doesn't allow for it.
As long as we focus on finding people for a given job, there'll be mass unemployment, no matter what. Reverse the process, create/find jobs for a given people and we might make some headway.
Again, ideology doesn't allow for it. And that's also what made me stop advocating for an unconditional basic income (UBI). The financial details of it can be a nightmare, yes, and it would be a break with a social welfare system that survived two world wars. But the deal breaker for me was politics.
A UBI would mean taking the boot of the peasants' necks. Liberty and (some) equality made real. Love it.
But look at how vicious the Greeks are attacked these days, not just by the elite, but by our fellow worker bees. They're not just burying the last bit of European solidarity in Greece, they're unloading all their frustrations onto the schmucks who had very little to begin with. It's despicable. And it indicates to me that any attempt to introduce a system that would take from people the need to work would unleash unimaginable hatred from the usual suspects. And significant portions of the public would go along with it, given how easy it already is to channel their frustrations towards "welfare queens" and "moochers".
So yeah, a UBI would be lovely. Finally some liberty, finally more negotiating power for the worker (can decline any job offer without repression). But the shit would need to hit the fan hard before there can be any room within the political sphere for it.
Given the increasing capabilities of automation, it seems quite obvious that full employment will never again be seen. Given that, a guaranteed basic income is the only way to stave off a violent revolution by those who have been abandoned by the system.
notarobotsays...What would it take for a Basic Income to finally take hold?
So yeah, a UBI would be lovely. Finally some liberty, finally more negotiating power for the worker (can decline any job offer without repression). But the shit would need to hit the fan hard before there can be any room within the political sphere for it.
radxsays...Beats me.
Organized mass movement, probably. You're not just dealing with an elite who has very little interest in such things, but also a public who has been, for a lack of a better word, conditioned to be suspicious of everything that breaks with existing structures. Given how many people dislike their jobs, you can't even blame them for assuming that no work will get done if there's an alternative in the form of an UBI. International treaties and trade deals are just the icing on top.
But again, who knows. I sure as hell don't. Been proven wrong too many times to have any claims to wisdom.
What would it take for a Basic Income to finally take hold?
MrFisksays...*controversy
siftbotsays...Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.
siftbotsays...Moving this video to notarobot's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.