8 ms·

European Citizen's Initiative for Unconditional Basic Income

42 points by tharga8616 6y ago

djsumdog 6y ago
I use to think UBI was a good thing, but looking at what's happened in the past year, I was completely and totally wrong. UBI would likely be a complete disaster. It'd be less Star Trek and more The Expanse. This is a horrible idea.
- neuromanser 6y ago
  Can you expand on this? It seems you say you have less faith in humans. Correct?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- rubycon22 6y ago
  What happened? Some people got a one-time $1200 check. What could they have done with $1200 that made you lose faith in UBI? Or are you referring to the $600 that supplemented the unemployment insurance? But those went to people who were just recently working and had their livelihoods wrecked by government action and/or inaction. I'm pretty sure you would agree they deserve that money and it's okay for them to do what they damn please with it. Even if that means them not going back to work for some time because they have the freedom to. Imagine how less fucked we would be if we just paid the majority of non-essential workers to stay the hell home. Less competition for the essential jobs, so people who do really want to work can work and the essential jobs will be filled.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    It's not about what the people done and faith in them or their claims from moral or other points of views. These $1200 nearly destroyed the European economies. My country is forever indebted now, and they handed out much less and not even to everyone but a small portion of people.
    - rubycon22 6y ago
      What is the alternative in a situation where the government has forced many people out of work? You were going to have to pay one way or the other. It was just about a matter of when and what form of payment. Most of the world has decided that going into debt was better than paying with the lives of their people. You can renegotiate debt later on. It's just numbers in a excel sheet or some shit. Can't renegotiate the lives of dead people.
    - Scandiravian 6y ago
      National debt and private debt are two very different creatures. National debt is for the most part a good thing, since it's a measure of the amount of a national currency is in circulation Modern economic theory proposes that nations, with full control over their currency, have infinite spending power (aka can go into infinite debt) without any issues, as long as full-employment hasn't been reached This is of course not entirely possible for many EU countries, since being a member of the eurozone means the country does not have full control over its currency - which was a large contributor to, for instance, the Greek financial crisis
      - oblio 6y ago
        I don't know what kind of economic books you've read, but mine had terms such as "hyperinflation" in them :-) If anything, stuff like global currencies ($, €) bail out their respective owners because they're world reserve currencies. Some of the smaller Eurozone countries would have definitely defaulted, had hyperinflation, etc, without the Euro. Now they're in recession instead, which sucks a lot but still less than the alternative.
        js8 6y ago
        MMT doesn't say you can't have hyperinflation due to economic mismanagement, it just says you can bootstrap yourself out of unemployment (a crisis) by printing money. Just because a government is printing money it doesn't yet mean they practice a sane economic policy, which would be to increase the demand to meet the supply of labor.
        6y ago
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    It illustrates, if needed be, that handing meaningful amounts of money to all or most of the population in a recurring way is not sustainable. The responses to the covid lockdowns, which are incredibly expensive, were only considered because they were one-offs and time-limited. If payments are restricted to a minority, the poorest, then it boils down to what already exists in most European countries and the question is then "what's new?" In general UBI proposals are ideological solutions to ideologically-constructed problems. They are not realistic nor practical and thus thin on practical considerations and hard numbers.
    - chous 6y ago
      Most people are getting poorer. Their only way out is fighting for a job, but jobs are scarce, and the situation will get worse exponentially due to technological unemployment. That's not an ideologically-constructed problem. It's pure logic. What is ideologically-driven, in my opinion, is claiming that "other jobs will be created, so no need to worry". Which implies, on the other hand, that the poor deserve being poor, due to their own negligence, lack of education, or laziness. We don't need to care about them. We provide a capitalist system which rewards the brave and the competent, and it's meritocratic. That is pure ideology, not based on reality.
      - mytailorisrich 6y ago
        This not pure logic. This is a logical fallacy and a strawman argument. You do not put forward any argument to my previous comment, and in fact illustrates my point. At the moment there is an economic crisis due to the covid pandemic. This is a specific, time-limited issue and welfare has stepped up to help people, at an extreme cost. This is not sustainable and only considered because it is an emergency in nature. If jobs dry up due to automation then there will indeed be scope to discuss UBI based on taxing 'robots' (so a clear and plausible way of financing it) . This is not what UBI as proposed now is about. No-one has claimed that the poor deserve to be poor and/or do not deserve help. There are plenty of welfare schemes in Europe and quite a few of them result in effective UBI, but only for the poorer who actually need it.
- asciident 6y ago
  If you're talking about the stimulus checks, well they weren't universal, nor basic (but rather a long unpredictable negotiation), nor recurring income.
- vladimirralev 6y ago
  In the advertised forms, absolutely horrible idea, why would anyone introduce so much uncertainty in the monetary system is beyond me. There are smart ways to do it though, such as doing it in a second-tier currency that buys only essentials or directly in terms of food, shelter and education. Just a free STEM/business education will go a long way if we can find some way to keep students engaged and committed to put the effort to actually learn.
- jillesvangurp 6y ago
  Dismissing complex ideas in terms of cliches from popular fiction is not a great way to make policy. Based on the last year, you can conclude nothing because people, countries, and politicians were just panicking and trying to survive on incidental handouts which don't allow for planning a future. That's not basic income. Universal basic income would be living in the certainty that no matter what you will always have enough to take care of yourself and your family without obligations to do anything that you don't want to do. This is why libertarians like the idea because they don't agree being told how to live their lives by governments. UBI leads to different life choices; including maybe not spending your career working double jobs cleaning and flipping burgers in double jobs while still not making enough to cover rent, insurance, or the ability to retire. This kind of poverty exists in some places that are filthy rich (i.e. the US). But it is kind of an anomaly among other similarly wealthy (and even a lot less wealthy) countries. Elsewhere, it's basically what a lot of us already have except it's still surrounded in rules and morals that dictate that you have to live a "productive" life. IMHO UBI could just be formalizing that status quo. We're basically taken care of anyway and now we simply take care of everyone unconditionally. It's not that massive of a change once you accept that there's a cost per person in each country for sustaining them that these countries are basically already paying for. But just in a really convoluted way. Making that less convoluted would probably result in some savings and allow some of the poorest people in our society to get a grip on their life or make some different choices. Some people would qualify that as fairness. It could be as simple as if you don't work you receive X; no questions asked. If you do work, you also receive X and you now urn Y-X, where Y is your total income. If you get unemployed, you get X+benefits from your (optional) unemployment insurance. If you get sick, basic health care is part of your basic income but you can insure for benefits (optional). The hard part is establishing a value for X that is high enough that it matters and low enough that we don't destroy our economies. It would basically mean labor gets a lot cheaper and simpler for companies. Of course UBI has to come from somewhere. Like for example corporate, income taxes and part of what used to be separate insurances for e.g. unemployment, state pensions, etc. We can still have those insurances except that they would now be about insuring the difference to UBI so the cost would be lower. And we can also make those optional since UBI would be enough, thus making everything extra something you'd opt in for. For, many countries, this is effectively what they have already except that they tend to have these hugely inefficient bureaucracies to try to get you back to work. Which in the case of e.g. Spain with double digit unemployment numbers tends to be a bit futile. Hence, the discussions on UBI are a bit further there.
tharga8616 6y ago
Our aim is to establish the introduction of unconditional basic incomes throughout the EU which ensure every person’s material existence and opportunity to participate in society as part of its economic policy. This aim shall be reached while remaining within the competences conferred to the EU by the Treaties.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
The summary in the link means nothing as it does not address the key points: What is meant by "unconditional universal basic income"? How much would it be? How would it be financed? What are the expected effects? Why would that be 'better' than the existing welfare state schemes in the various EU countries? These are too often not described when discussing UBI or discussed without much facts or data.
- js8 6y ago
  It's just a petition. If it succeeds, the only thing EU has to do is to discuss it, and these things can be discussed. Personally, I would like UBI to be tied to GDP per capita, like say 10% of the GDP would be redistributed to every person. It would help to solve the wealth and income inequality problem that causes huge misallocation of resources (for example, EU has twice as many empty apartments than it has homeless people). IMHO, it is generally better than welfare because it is less overhead and less patronizing. It should replace a portion of existing welfare system. (Things like pensions are often considered welfare but they are really not.)
  - Aqua 6y ago
    So you're advocating for stealing these empty apartments from their owners and giving them to the poor, obviously, for free?
    - sofixa 6y ago
      Is it "stealing" if its something unused and actually needed for basic life and decency by other people?
      - Aqua 6y ago
        Unless you want to redefine the word "stealing" it totally is.
    - username90 6y ago
      Do empty apartments incentivize creativity and innovation? No, there is no reason to accommodate them, anyone who makes money by making life worse for others should expect society to take their stuff sooner or later.
tu7001 6y ago
Please bury this communist shit.
oh_sigh 6y ago
How does UBI work with different costs of living? Do city dwellers get more than rural folk?
- mantas 6y ago
  Also, how does UBI work with different life circumstances. Does a disabled person get extra to cover wheelchair maintenance? Does allergic person gets more to afford allergy-OK food? Does woman get more to cover pads/tampons?
  - refurb 6y ago
    Not sure why you’re downvoted. Completely reasonable question. Not everyone has the same needs. So UBI either has to be so high that everyone can have a basic standard of living (e.g. a nurse for a disabled person) or you retain a plethora of other social programs to address those needs. And I always ask - what about the drug addict that blows through their whole UBI on day 2? What then? Let them starve in the street? Of course not, there will be a separate social program for them as well.
  - username90 6y ago
    > Does woman get more to cover pads/tampons? Not sure why people repeat this so much when men's extra need for calories to fuel their larger bodies greatly outweighs that.
    - mantas 6y ago
      A tall woman needs as much as a tiny man. Should UBI account for body mass? What should it do with underweight or overweight people then? :)
      - username90 6y ago
        I don't think UBI should take anything into account, no, but an average man needs more money than an average woman. That some women needs more than some men doesn't really matter, women arguing that they as a group need more money than men is nonsense.
mkl95 6y ago
As a middle class Spaniard, these are a few things that stand out about my country's economy: 1) Unemployment rate is very high (16%+) 2) Under 25 unemployment is extremely high (40%+) 3) Inequality is very high, with 10M+ people struggling to make ends meet 4) The country lacks affordable housing (property and rent are expensive when compared to salaries) Some areas of Spain have implemented different forms of basic income for decades now (these usually go by names such as 'renta de gastos esenciales', 'renta de ingresos', etc). I have lived in two of those areas and I can say that this form of income only mitigates poverty and improves quality of life slightly. You don't just get rid of the four points I mentioned above.
- lcamach84 6y ago
  The aim of the economy before the covid is to produce things and this production is no longer synonymous with increased comfort. For example, Spain has many more houses than families but these families have more difficulty in paying rents. However this production has to exist in order to maintain a profit of a few and above all to give work to the rest. But what we have to do to avoid anthropocene is not compatible with this economy and so we have to think of a post-work society.
  - bassman9000 6y ago
    post-work society What does that mean?
    - fsflover 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-work_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-work_society
  - africanboy 6y ago
    > However this production has to exist in order to maintain a profit of a few and above all And to keep the jobs of those doing that kind of production. I read an article a few years ago about Spaniards living in small flats more than any other country in Europe. There are a few features of Spain that can explain why: - Spain is mostly empty space and population is concentrated in cities - Spaniards spend a lot of their time on the outside, so they don't need much space at home - There are 18.5 million of families in Spain, the largest group are families of two people (with children), the second largest are people living alone (4.5 million) that would explain why there are empty houses, many people living alone cannot afford or do not want to live alone and share an apartment. > so we have to think of a post-work society You mean the pre-work society, right? :) Work as the means of subsistence is a relatively recent invention. There are other factors beyond the economic value of work, most of them are non-rational. Take for example Christianity, for Christians until 19th century work was a form of redemption and salvation. The idea has never completely faded away among them. Calvinists and Protestants still believe that "born of poor parents and made his way up the ladder by sheer ability, self-reliance, and perseverance in the face of hardship. In short, he had to be "self made." The so-called Protestant Ethic then prevalent held that man was a sturdy and responsible individual, responsible to himself, his society, and his God. Anybody who could not measure up to that standard could not qualify for public office or even popular respect." Do you think that large segments of US population (just as an example) would believe that or what Martin Luther King jr. said? > We have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifice. The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor — both black and white, here and abroad More recently work for Christians has become a means of subsistence but it has become a way to express righteousness, as Weber said "Good works may express our devotion to values of care, compassion, or love for our neighbor, to a way of being that emulates the life of Jesus". So in a way people go to work for reasons other than simply the salary. To imagine a society without work one needs to also address the social and political issues revolving around it, it's not simply a technical solution to a technical problem, it's much more than that.
jdmoreira 6y ago
What I would like to support is a large and long term study involving multiple families in multiple European countries with multiple values.
- op03 6y ago
  Having seen quite a few EU funded software projects going no where for years and years, its hard to believe they have the capacity to pull off anything complex. Lots of good people and intentions but idk how it all fizzles. They are good at organizing conferences and barbeques though.
- enaaem 6y ago
  I don't think the outcome is very interesting. There are all ready subgroups in society who have some kind of UBI like pensioners and trust fund babies. I want so see the effects on the total economy. If for example UBI leads to massive inflation it would completely nullify the UBI. How about productivity? Saudi Arabia is an interesting example, since their economy pretty much runs on free oil money. Saudi nationals are notorious for having bad work ethics, and they have to import foreign workers to run the economy. I personally don't believe in UBI, but I'm willing to change my mind if proven wrong, as long as my own country is not part of the experiment.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    >I want so see the effects on the total economy. If for example UBI leads to massive inflation it would completely nullify the UBI. Actually that would be highly desireable because it would mean the UBI acts as "employment of last resort" rather than free money, except you don't have to do anything to keep your job. It also means that every job will pay more than UBI which means there is no incentive not to work. Considering the financing challenges you want as few people as possible on the UBI.
  - scotty79 6y ago
    > If for example UBI leads to massive inflation it would completely nullify the UBI. I think it will lead to inflation of rents untill landlords capture most of BI value. Unless it's specifically prevented by rent controls or progressive real estate tax that's fed straight back to BI funding.
02020202 6y ago
I can't wait! I love communism. So much death and suffering, it's better to live through it than to repeatedly read about in the books. I mean, they never did it properly and I am certain we'll do it right this time.
spenat 6y ago
A state job guarantee (everyone who wants a minimum wage job can get one), with or without the rest of the MMT package, would: 1) Be less repulsive to those who think that salaried work is virtuous in itself. 2) Not discourage work (people would still need to do something) These "jobs" could include any activity that is good for the person and/or society, like taking care of old/dependent people, studying, working for a non-profit, even looking for private employment, depending on the needs of the state. (Of course, if the person does not show up for work, then they get the pay docked) UBI would be ideal, but job guarantee might be a less radical approximation.
- scotty79 6y ago
  State job guarantee makes valuable workers go to useless jobs. It makes harder for private companies to recruit those workers. State job not only gives income that disincentives workers to search something better but also tire them and binds them with inertia. Just giving people money is way less harmful then giving them money and excuse of a job to take away their time and strength from them.
DeonPenny 6y ago
Why wouldn't any company of wealthy person just leave these countries. As these developing countries start to rise and compete. They get safer to live in. They built solid infrastructure. One may ask why live in these places
- scotty79 6y ago
  Why would you leave the country where people who spend all of their income have more money? You want to sell to them as much as possible, at inflated prices because they can afford it. Even manufacturing is not obviously a problem there. Sure you can't blackmail your employees with being destitute, but those who choose to work for you are doing so out of their free will which may improve quality of their work. Also more better quality employees migh be available there because they had time and flexibility for self-improvement instead of being forced to work any job just to sustain themselves.
  - DeonPenny 6y ago
    Easy because they wont be the only wealthy countries for long. Looking at their growth in wages since 2008 european countries barely grew compared to the US wages and developing country wages. What happens when developing countries have younger people who buy more things, better laws, and comparable wages. For example a former french president left france for russia cause of their taxes. Many people left california for much the same. Does california have more wealthy citizen than nevada or texas sure. But at a certain point the math tilts.
agumonkey 6y ago
I'm on state money right now, and volunteer to keep some sane life schedule. And going to a place to do things without thinking about salary blackmail is uplifting. You go there, see what's have to be done, do it, go home. Very interesting experience. That said I wonder, if done globally and long term, I wouldn't fall into laziness or very low productivity life (stress levels would sure fall to zero too, which is good)
Barrin92 6y ago
I dislike UBI a lot. (coming from the left side of the European political spectrum for what it's worth) for a few reasons. The first one is that I think work is a fundamental aspect of personal life and people feel deeply rewarded for being compensated for it. UBI is underpinned by a sort of Wall-E philosophy of human nature. It in a weird way presents itself as humanistic but is deeply apolitical and anti-social. Secondly it creates dependency between receivers and givers. I'd rather empower workers collectively than make people dependent on welfare. This, in contrast to UBI is I think viable across the spectrum and actually what people want. I think UBI rests on a sort of naive utilitarianism that overrates material equality and underestimates what's wrong with the system as it is and what really makes people angry and pessimistic. For that reason I also don't think it's ever going to get a political majority.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  Activity is important but the welfare dependency doesn't seem much worse than the normal job market / company dependency. I was harassed and conned a few times in my jobs and the notion that the people in front of me holds the power to my monthly finances was a heavy and dreadful feeling. And they know it.
- alex_duf 6y ago
  I don't think people stop working with UBI. What it does provide though, is a safety net to make sure you'll have food on the table but no more. Suddenly if you're hating your job, it's not that scary to tell your boss that their abuse is over. You can have some time to re-train, and be whatever you really wanted to be. There's also loads of activities that aren't counted as work that would suddenly become very developed such as volunteering. Yes, some people might suddenly realise that if they live on the cheap they might play video games all day, but I don't think it will be most people. It also depends how it's rolled-out, if its start at 50 EUR a month, then increases each year for the next 15 years, the economy will have the time to adapt, the citizens will have the time to adapt etc. It also present an interesting effect. Low paid jobs that aren't well valued such as cashier or delivery person will become less attractive and will have to be paid decently to be worth it. Contracts with a lower amount of hours would also become more common
dusted 6y ago
I've been a proponent of this idea until now that I am in a position to vote for it. Now I'm not sure if I'm convinced that people are ready for it. I've invested significant effort in working and having a job, and, I wouldn't have have done that if I knew I could have still "gotten by" without, I'd definitely not be where I am today without that outside pressure to _not_fail_. I'd be probably dead or at least morbidly obese from doing nothing but sitting and watching TV/playing videogames. I'm actually more in favor of entirely removing any economic support, that people can use to buy what they _want_, I'd much rather give people what they _need_ to survive, anything beyond that (tobacco, alcohol, entertainment, fashion clothing, cars, etc..) should be the privilege earned by working.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  From where I stand the most important part is rent, water, veggies and some meat. The rest most people can learn and do themselves on their free time. Maybe have fablabs generalized so you get access to space and tools and off you go.
- i_cannot_hack 6y ago
  > I'd much rather give people what they _need_ to survive, anything beyond that (tobacco, alcohol, entertainment, fashion clothing, cars, etc..) should be the privilege earned by working. How would not having a car affect their ability to get to the job interview? And how would not having a fashionable formal attire affect their ability to do a good impression on the interviewer? How would not having access to entertainment affect their mental health? People probably know more about what they themselves _need_ in their situation than you do. Give them the opportunity to divide resources on their own. And investing in people beyond merely keeping them alive will generally pay dividends and be a good investment in the long run. Vaguely related: Unconditional cash transfers in charity are generally successful and have a strong multiplier effect leading to increased long-term income (must people don't just spend them on alcohol and drugs, as some would believe) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387818300105 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438781...
  - 6y ago
laboratorymice 6y ago
Hasn't it been proven that showering money on an economy only helps to address isolated disruptions where the system's design prevents it from recovering quickly on its own? Why do we think UBI is necessary, when there are European countries such as Norway and Switzerland with near-zero unemployment and below-average inequality spanning decades (these two are very different countries, so I don't think we can attribute their success to some specific advantage no one else has). Imo the countries/people advocating UBI just don't want to come to terms with the reality that their institutions and particularly their culture needs to change in order to tackle the problems that they think UBI will magically solve.
tinoprieto 6y ago
I think UBI is necessary for The freedom of the human been and The evolution for the planet. On The Canary Island is urgent a inner change and in The sistem of all the peaple. Thanks.

42 points by tharga8616 6y ago

I use to think UBI was a good thing, but looking at what's happened in the past year, I was completely and totally wrong. UBI would likely be a complete disaster. It'd be less Star Trek and more The Expanse. This is a horrible idea.

neuromanser 6y ago
Can you expand on this? It seems you say you have less faith in humans. Correct?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rubycon22 6y ago
What happened? Some people got a one-time $1200 check. What could they have done with $1200 that made you lose faith in UBI? Or are you referring to the $600 that supplemented the unemployment insurance? But those went to people who were just recently working and had their livelihoods wrecked by government action and/or inaction. I'm pretty sure you would agree they deserve that money and it's okay for them to do what they damn please with it. Even if that means them not going back to work for some time because they have the freedom to. Imagine how less fucked we would be if we just paid the majority of non-essential workers to stay the hell home. Less competition for the essential jobs, so people who do really want to work can work and the essential jobs will be filled.
- emteycz 6y ago
  It's not about what the people done and faith in them or their claims from moral or other points of views. These $1200 nearly destroyed the European economies. My country is forever indebted now, and they handed out much less and not even to everyone but a small portion of people.
  - rubycon22 6y ago
    What is the alternative in a situation where the government has forced many people out of work? You were going to have to pay one way or the other. It was just about a matter of when and what form of payment. Most of the world has decided that going into debt was better than paying with the lives of their people. You can renegotiate debt later on. It's just numbers in a excel sheet or some shit. Can't renegotiate the lives of dead people.
  - Scandiravian 6y ago
    National debt and private debt are two very different creatures. National debt is for the most part a good thing, since it's a measure of the amount of a national currency is in circulation Modern economic theory proposes that nations, with full control over their currency, have infinite spending power (aka can go into infinite debt) without any issues, as long as full-employment hasn't been reached This is of course not entirely possible for many EU countries, since being a member of the eurozone means the country does not have full control over its currency - which was a large contributor to, for instance, the Greek financial crisis
    - oblio 6y ago
      I don't know what kind of economic books you've read, but mine had terms such as "hyperinflation" in them :-) If anything, stuff like global currencies ($, €) bail out their respective owners because they're world reserve currencies. Some of the smaller Eurozone countries would have definitely defaulted, had hyperinflation, etc, without the Euro. Now they're in recession instead, which sucks a lot but still less than the alternative.
      - js8 6y ago
        MMT doesn't say you can't have hyperinflation due to economic mismanagement, it just says you can bootstrap yourself out of unemployment (a crisis) by printing money. Just because a government is printing money it doesn't yet mean they practice a sane economic policy, which would be to increase the demand to meet the supply of labor.
      - 6y ago
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  It illustrates, if needed be, that handing meaningful amounts of money to all or most of the population in a recurring way is not sustainable. The responses to the covid lockdowns, which are incredibly expensive, were only considered because they were one-offs and time-limited. If payments are restricted to a minority, the poorest, then it boils down to what already exists in most European countries and the question is then "what's new?" In general UBI proposals are ideological solutions to ideologically-constructed problems. They are not realistic nor practical and thus thin on practical considerations and hard numbers.
  - chous 6y ago
    Most people are getting poorer. Their only way out is fighting for a job, but jobs are scarce, and the situation will get worse exponentially due to technological unemployment. That's not an ideologically-constructed problem. It's pure logic. What is ideologically-driven, in my opinion, is claiming that "other jobs will be created, so no need to worry". Which implies, on the other hand, that the poor deserve being poor, due to their own negligence, lack of education, or laziness. We don't need to care about them. We provide a capitalist system which rewards the brave and the competent, and it's meritocratic. That is pure ideology, not based on reality.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      This not pure logic. This is a logical fallacy and a strawman argument. You do not put forward any argument to my previous comment, and in fact illustrates my point. At the moment there is an economic crisis due to the covid pandemic. This is a specific, time-limited issue and welfare has stepped up to help people, at an extreme cost. This is not sustainable and only considered because it is an emergency in nature. If jobs dry up due to automation then there will indeed be scope to discuss UBI based on taxing 'robots' (so a clear and plausible way of financing it) . This is not what UBI as proposed now is about. No-one has claimed that the poor deserve to be poor and/or do not deserve help. There are plenty of welfare schemes in Europe and quite a few of them result in effective UBI, but only for the poorer who actually need it.
asciident 6y ago
If you're talking about the stimulus checks, well they weren't universal, nor basic (but rather a long unpredictable negotiation), nor recurring income.
vladimirralev 6y ago
In the advertised forms, absolutely horrible idea, why would anyone introduce so much uncertainty in the monetary system is beyond me. There are smart ways to do it though, such as doing it in a second-tier currency that buys only essentials or directly in terms of food, shelter and education. Just a free STEM/business education will go a long way if we can find some way to keep students engaged and committed to put the effort to actually learn.
jillesvangurp 6y ago
Dismissing complex ideas in terms of cliches from popular fiction is not a great way to make policy. Based on the last year, you can conclude nothing because people, countries, and politicians were just panicking and trying to survive on incidental handouts which don't allow for planning a future. That's not basic income. Universal basic income would be living in the certainty that no matter what you will always have enough to take care of yourself and your family without obligations to do anything that you don't want to do. This is why libertarians like the idea because they don't agree being told how to live their lives by governments. UBI leads to different life choices; including maybe not spending your career working double jobs cleaning and flipping burgers in double jobs while still not making enough to cover rent, insurance, or the ability to retire. This kind of poverty exists in some places that are filthy rich (i.e. the US). But it is kind of an anomaly among other similarly wealthy (and even a lot less wealthy) countries. Elsewhere, it's basically what a lot of us already have except it's still surrounded in rules and morals that dictate that you have to live a "productive" life. IMHO UBI could just be formalizing that status quo. We're basically taken care of anyway and now we simply take care of everyone unconditionally. It's not that massive of a change once you accept that there's a cost per person in each country for sustaining them that these countries are basically already paying for. But just in a really convoluted way. Making that less convoluted would probably result in some savings and allow some of the poorest people in our society to get a grip on their life or make some different choices. Some people would qualify that as fairness. It could be as simple as if you don't work you receive X; no questions asked. If you do work, you also receive X and you now urn Y-X, where Y is your total income. If you get unemployed, you get X+benefits from your (optional) unemployment insurance. If you get sick, basic health care is part of your basic income but you can insure for benefits (optional). The hard part is establishing a value for X that is high enough that it matters and low enough that we don't destroy our economies. It would basically mean labor gets a lot cheaper and simpler for companies. Of course UBI has to come from somewhere. Like for example corporate, income taxes and part of what used to be separate insurances for e.g. unemployment, state pensions, etc. We can still have those insurances except that they would now be about insuring the difference to UBI so the cost would be lower. And we can also make those optional since UBI would be enough, thus making everything extra something you'd opt in for. For, many countries, this is effectively what they have already except that they tend to have these hugely inefficient bureaucracies to try to get you back to work. Which in the case of e.g. Spain with double digit unemployment numbers tends to be a bit futile. Hence, the discussions on UBI are a bit further there.

tharga8616 6y ago

Our aim is to establish the introduction of unconditional basic incomes throughout the EU which ensure every person’s material existence and opportunity to participate in society as part of its economic policy. This aim shall be reached while remaining within the competences conferred to the EU by the Treaties.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

The summary in the link means nothing as it does not address the key points: What is meant by "unconditional universal basic income"? How much would it be? How would it be financed? What are the expected effects? Why would that be 'better' than the existing welfare state schemes in the various EU countries? These are too often not described when discussing UBI or discussed without much facts or data.

js8 6y ago
It's just a petition. If it succeeds, the only thing EU has to do is to discuss it, and these things can be discussed. Personally, I would like UBI to be tied to GDP per capita, like say 10% of the GDP would be redistributed to every person. It would help to solve the wealth and income inequality problem that causes huge misallocation of resources (for example, EU has twice as many empty apartments than it has homeless people). IMHO, it is generally better than welfare because it is less overhead and less patronizing. It should replace a portion of existing welfare system. (Things like pensions are often considered welfare but they are really not.)
- Aqua 6y ago
  So you're advocating for stealing these empty apartments from their owners and giving them to the poor, obviously, for free?
  - sofixa 6y ago
    Is it "stealing" if its something unused and actually needed for basic life and decency by other people?
    - Aqua 6y ago
      Unless you want to redefine the word "stealing" it totally is.
  - username90 6y ago
    Do empty apartments incentivize creativity and innovation? No, there is no reason to accommodate them, anyone who makes money by making life worse for others should expect society to take their stuff sooner or later.

tu7001 6y ago

Please bury this communist shit.

oh_sigh 6y ago

How does UBI work with different costs of living? Do city dwellers get more than rural folk?

mantas 6y ago
Also, how does UBI work with different life circumstances. Does a disabled person get extra to cover wheelchair maintenance? Does allergic person gets more to afford allergy-OK food? Does woman get more to cover pads/tampons?
- refurb 6y ago
  Not sure why you’re downvoted. Completely reasonable question. Not everyone has the same needs. So UBI either has to be so high that everyone can have a basic standard of living (e.g. a nurse for a disabled person) or you retain a plethora of other social programs to address those needs. And I always ask - what about the drug addict that blows through their whole UBI on day 2? What then? Let them starve in the street? Of course not, there will be a separate social program for them as well.
- username90 6y ago
  > Does woman get more to cover pads/tampons? Not sure why people repeat this so much when men's extra need for calories to fuel their larger bodies greatly outweighs that.
  - mantas 6y ago
    A tall woman needs as much as a tiny man. Should UBI account for body mass? What should it do with underweight or overweight people then? :)
    - username90 6y ago
      I don't think UBI should take anything into account, no, but an average man needs more money than an average woman. That some women needs more than some men doesn't really matter, women arguing that they as a group need more money than men is nonsense.

mkl95 6y ago

As a middle class Spaniard, these are a few things that stand out about my country's economy: 1) Unemployment rate is very high (16%+) 2) Under 25 unemployment is extremely high (40%+) 3) Inequality is very high, with 10M+ people struggling to make ends meet 4) The country lacks affordable housing (property and rent are expensive when compared to salaries) Some areas of Spain have implemented different forms of basic income for decades now (these usually go by names such as 'renta de gastos esenciales', 'renta de ingresos', etc). I have lived in two of those areas and I can say that this form of income only mitigates poverty and improves quality of life slightly. You don't just get rid of the four points I mentioned above.

lcamach84 6y ago
The aim of the economy before the covid is to produce things and this production is no longer synonymous with increased comfort. For example, Spain has many more houses than families but these families have more difficulty in paying rents. However this production has to exist in order to maintain a profit of a few and above all to give work to the rest. But what we have to do to avoid anthropocene is not compatible with this economy and so we have to think of a post-work society.
- bassman9000 6y ago
  post-work society What does that mean?
  - fsflover 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-work_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-work_society
- africanboy 6y ago
  > However this production has to exist in order to maintain a profit of a few and above all And to keep the jobs of those doing that kind of production. I read an article a few years ago about Spaniards living in small flats more than any other country in Europe. There are a few features of Spain that can explain why: - Spain is mostly empty space and population is concentrated in cities - Spaniards spend a lot of their time on the outside, so they don't need much space at home - There are 18.5 million of families in Spain, the largest group are families of two people (with children), the second largest are people living alone (4.5 million) that would explain why there are empty houses, many people living alone cannot afford or do not want to live alone and share an apartment. > so we have to think of a post-work society You mean the pre-work society, right? :) Work as the means of subsistence is a relatively recent invention. There are other factors beyond the economic value of work, most of them are non-rational. Take for example Christianity, for Christians until 19th century work was a form of redemption and salvation. The idea has never completely faded away among them. Calvinists and Protestants still believe that "born of poor parents and made his way up the ladder by sheer ability, self-reliance, and perseverance in the face of hardship. In short, he had to be "self made." The so-called Protestant Ethic then prevalent held that man was a sturdy and responsible individual, responsible to himself, his society, and his God. Anybody who could not measure up to that standard could not qualify for public office or even popular respect." Do you think that large segments of US population (just as an example) would believe that or what Martin Luther King jr. said? > We have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifice. The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor — both black and white, here and abroad More recently work for Christians has become a means of subsistence but it has become a way to express righteousness, as Weber said "Good works may express our devotion to values of care, compassion, or love for our neighbor, to a way of being that emulates the life of Jesus". So in a way people go to work for reasons other than simply the salary. To imagine a society without work one needs to also address the social and political issues revolving around it, it's not simply a technical solution to a technical problem, it's much more than that.

jdmoreira 6y ago

What I would like to support is a large and long term study involving multiple families in multiple European countries with multiple values.

op03 6y ago
Having seen quite a few EU funded software projects going no where for years and years, its hard to believe they have the capacity to pull off anything complex. Lots of good people and intentions but idk how it all fizzles. They are good at organizing conferences and barbeques though.
enaaem 6y ago
I don't think the outcome is very interesting. There are all ready subgroups in society who have some kind of UBI like pensioners and trust fund babies. I want so see the effects on the total economy. If for example UBI leads to massive inflation it would completely nullify the UBI. How about productivity? Saudi Arabia is an interesting example, since their economy pretty much runs on free oil money. Saudi nationals are notorious for having bad work ethics, and they have to import foreign workers to run the economy. I personally don't believe in UBI, but I'm willing to change my mind if proven wrong, as long as my own country is not part of the experiment.
- imtringued 6y ago
  >I want so see the effects on the total economy. If for example UBI leads to massive inflation it would completely nullify the UBI. Actually that would be highly desireable because it would mean the UBI acts as "employment of last resort" rather than free money, except you don't have to do anything to keep your job. It also means that every job will pay more than UBI which means there is no incentive not to work. Considering the financing challenges you want as few people as possible on the UBI.
- scotty79 6y ago
  > If for example UBI leads to massive inflation it would completely nullify the UBI. I think it will lead to inflation of rents untill landlords capture most of BI value. Unless it's specifically prevented by rent controls or progressive real estate tax that's fed straight back to BI funding.

02020202 6y ago

I can't wait! I love communism. So much death and suffering, it's better to live through it than to repeatedly read about in the books. I mean, they never did it properly and I am certain we'll do it right this time.

spenat 6y ago

A state job guarantee (everyone who wants a minimum wage job can get one), with or without the rest of the MMT package, would: 1) Be less repulsive to those who think that salaried work is virtuous in itself. 2) Not discourage work (people would still need to do something) These "jobs" could include any activity that is good for the person and/or society, like taking care of old/dependent people, studying, working for a non-profit, even looking for private employment, depending on the needs of the state. (Of course, if the person does not show up for work, then they get the pay docked) UBI would be ideal, but job guarantee might be a less radical approximation.

scotty79 6y ago
State job guarantee makes valuable workers go to useless jobs. It makes harder for private companies to recruit those workers. State job not only gives income that disincentives workers to search something better but also tire them and binds them with inertia. Just giving people money is way less harmful then giving them money and excuse of a job to take away their time and strength from them.

DeonPenny 6y ago

Why wouldn't any company of wealthy person just leave these countries. As these developing countries start to rise and compete. They get safer to live in. They built solid infrastructure. One may ask why live in these places

scotty79 6y ago
Why would you leave the country where people who spend all of their income have more money? You want to sell to them as much as possible, at inflated prices because they can afford it. Even manufacturing is not obviously a problem there. Sure you can't blackmail your employees with being destitute, but those who choose to work for you are doing so out of their free will which may improve quality of their work. Also more better quality employees migh be available there because they had time and flexibility for self-improvement instead of being forced to work any job just to sustain themselves.
- DeonPenny 6y ago
  Easy because they wont be the only wealthy countries for long. Looking at their growth in wages since 2008 european countries barely grew compared to the US wages and developing country wages. What happens when developing countries have younger people who buy more things, better laws, and comparable wages. For example a former french president left france for russia cause of their taxes. Many people left california for much the same. Does california have more wealthy citizen than nevada or texas sure. But at a certain point the math tilts.

agumonkey 6y ago

I'm on state money right now, and volunteer to keep some sane life schedule. And going to a place to do things without thinking about salary blackmail is uplifting. You go there, see what's have to be done, do it, go home. Very interesting experience. That said I wonder, if done globally and long term, I wouldn't fall into laziness or very low productivity life (stress levels would sure fall to zero too, which is good)

Barrin92 6y ago

I dislike UBI a lot. (coming from the left side of the European political spectrum for what it's worth) for a few reasons. The first one is that I think work is a fundamental aspect of personal life and people feel deeply rewarded for being compensated for it. UBI is underpinned by a sort of Wall-E philosophy of human nature. It in a weird way presents itself as humanistic but is deeply apolitical and anti-social. Secondly it creates dependency between receivers and givers. I'd rather empower workers collectively than make people dependent on welfare. This, in contrast to UBI is I think viable across the spectrum and actually what people want. I think UBI rests on a sort of naive utilitarianism that overrates material equality and underestimates what's wrong with the system as it is and what really makes people angry and pessimistic. For that reason I also don't think it's ever going to get a political majority.

agumonkey 6y ago
Activity is important but the welfare dependency doesn't seem much worse than the normal job market / company dependency. I was harassed and conned a few times in my jobs and the notion that the people in front of me holds the power to my monthly finances was a heavy and dreadful feeling. And they know it.
alex_duf 6y ago
I don't think people stop working with UBI. What it does provide though, is a safety net to make sure you'll have food on the table but no more. Suddenly if you're hating your job, it's not that scary to tell your boss that their abuse is over. You can have some time to re-train, and be whatever you really wanted to be. There's also loads of activities that aren't counted as work that would suddenly become very developed such as volunteering. Yes, some people might suddenly realise that if they live on the cheap they might play video games all day, but I don't think it will be most people. It also depends how it's rolled-out, if its start at 50 EUR a month, then increases each year for the next 15 years, the economy will have the time to adapt, the citizens will have the time to adapt etc. It also present an interesting effect. Low paid jobs that aren't well valued such as cashier or delivery person will become less attractive and will have to be paid decently to be worth it. Contracts with a lower amount of hours would also become more common

dusted 6y ago

I've been a proponent of this idea until now that I am in a position to vote for it. Now I'm not sure if I'm convinced that people are ready for it. I've invested significant effort in working and having a job, and, I wouldn't have have done that if I knew I could have still "gotten by" without, I'd definitely not be where I am today without that outside pressure to _not_fail_. I'd be probably dead or at least morbidly obese from doing nothing but sitting and watching TV/playing videogames. I'm actually more in favor of entirely removing any economic support, that people can use to buy what they _want_, I'd much rather give people what they _need_ to survive, anything beyond that (tobacco, alcohol, entertainment, fashion clothing, cars, etc..) should be the privilege earned by working.

agumonkey 6y ago
From where I stand the most important part is rent, water, veggies and some meat. The rest most people can learn and do themselves on their free time. Maybe have fablabs generalized so you get access to space and tools and off you go.
i_cannot_hack 6y ago
> I'd much rather give people what they _need_ to survive, anything beyond that (tobacco, alcohol, entertainment, fashion clothing, cars, etc..) should be the privilege earned by working. How would not having a car affect their ability to get to the job interview? And how would not having a fashionable formal attire affect their ability to do a good impression on the interviewer? How would not having access to entertainment affect their mental health? People probably know more about what they themselves _need_ in their situation than you do. Give them the opportunity to divide resources on their own. And investing in people beyond merely keeping them alive will generally pay dividends and be a good investment in the long run. Vaguely related: Unconditional cash transfers in charity are generally successful and have a strong multiplier effect leading to increased long-term income (must people don't just spend them on alcohol and drugs, as some would believe) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387818300105 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438781...
- 6y ago

laboratorymice 6y ago

Hasn't it been proven that showering money on an economy only helps to address isolated disruptions where the system's design prevents it from recovering quickly on its own? Why do we think UBI is necessary, when there are European countries such as Norway and Switzerland with near-zero unemployment and below-average inequality spanning decades (these two are very different countries, so I don't think we can attribute their success to some specific advantage no one else has). Imo the countries/people advocating UBI just don't want to come to terms with the reality that their institutions and particularly their culture needs to change in order to tackle the problems that they think UBI will magically solve.

tinoprieto 6y ago

I think UBI is necessary for The freedom of the human been and The evolution for the planet. On The Canary Island is urgent a inner change and in The sistem of all the peaple. Thanks.