Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult

[Lohoris]

Actual communism looks like living in rubble homes with no electricity, 3rd world setting for workers, or you in the gulag for writing's, etc.

Actual communism has never been implemented.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Still waiting on the outcome of Chinese Socialism should take another 100-200 years since China likes to scale on long timeframes
My digitalized brain will observe the outcome XD

[Topazan]

I'd rather have a basic income than the bureaucratic mess of social programs we have today.  I understand the arguments against social spending, but if you have to have it, a basic income seems the way to go.  At least that way, you take away the perverse incentives and the cost of "means testing".

[Rassah]

A huge purpose for a price, whether that is for a product or for a job, is to signal the demand for it. Lower wages in certain jobs indicates their demand, or need, in a society. Obviously a teacher is way more important to society and economy than a garbage collector or a janitor. If this gets implemented, the result may be huge distortions in labor wage signals. Basically the reason some jobs pay more than others is because some jobs are more needed than others, and things that people may just want to do as a hobby, which may normally not pay enough, are just not needed in society. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people decide to work as videogame testers, for pennies an hour (huge influx of such workers = reduced wages), which would basically really stagnate their economy.

[Lohoris]

A huge purpose for a price, whether that is for a product or for a job, is to signal the demand for it. Lower wages in certain jobs indicates their demand, or need, in a society. Obviously a teacher is way more important to society and economy than a garbage collector or a janitor. If this gets implemented, the result may be huge distortions in labor wage signals. Basically the reason some jobs pay more than others is because some jobs are more needed that others, and things that people may just want to do as a hobby, which may normally not pay enough, are just not needed in society. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people decide to work as videogame testers, for pennies an hour (huge influx of such workers = reduced wages), which would basically really stagnate their economy.

This is already happening anyway.

Competence being equal, you are usually paid less to do a job which more people want to do, because more people apply to position, lowering the salary.

It wouldn't change anything.

[westkybitcoins]

A huge purpose for a price, whether that is for a product or for a job, is to signal the demand for it. Lower wages in certain jobs indicates their demand, or need, in a society. Obviously a teacher is way more important to society and economy than a garbage collector or a janitor. If this gets implemented, the result may be huge distortions in labor wage signals. Basically the reason some jobs pay more than others is because some jobs are more needed that others, and things that people may just want to do as a hobby, which may normally not pay enough, are just not needed in society. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people decide to work as videogame testers, for pennies an hour (huge influx of such workers = reduced wages), which would basically really stagnate their economy.

This is already happening anyway.

Competence being equal, you are usually paid less to do a job which more people want to do, because more people apply to position, lowering the salary.

But a minimum income would accelerate the shift of people toward lower-paying jobs, simply because many people would no longer be fighting the trend, they would be actively seeking those lower-paying jobs (specifically, the ones that are easy.)

This comes to mind when I think of this proposal...

http://www.youtube.com/v/ZclddLcOYYA

Obviously it wouldn't immediately apply to all Swiss, but it would immediately apply to some, and would slowly apply to more and more over time. Get enough people choosing to not work, or just be substantially less productive, and the whole scheme collapses.

[Rassah]

A huge purpose for a price, whether that is for a product or for a job, is to signal the demand for it. Lower wages in certain jobs indicates their demand, or need, in a society. Obviously a teacher is way more important to society and economy than a garbage collector or a janitor. If this gets implemented, the result may be huge distortions in labor wage signals. Basically the reason some jobs pay more than others is because some jobs are more needed that others, and things that people may just want to do as a hobby, which may normally not pay enough, are just not needed in society. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people decide to work as videogame testers, for pennies an hour (huge influx of such workers = reduced wages), which would basically really stagnate their economy.

This is already happening anyway.

Competence being equal, you are usually paid less to do a job which more people want to do, because more people apply to position, lowering the salary.

It wouldn't change anything.

But the low wage still signals to potential employees that the supply of labor for that particulat type of job is too high, and thus they would be better off educating or specializing themselves into a field that is in higher demand in that economy. If there are too few people who can do surgery or programming, and plenty of people who can do janitoreal work, the wages reflect that, and people strive to get into the higher paying jobs, until that job market gets saturated (it has enough workers to satisfy demand), at which point they distribute to other jobs that are in demand. If both of those jobs pay nearly the same, or even if the difference in wage is not as high as it would be in a "natural" state, people may either believe that surgeons/programmers aren't in as high demand as they really are, or that janitors are in a much higher demand than they are. This will cause high unemployment among janitors (too many people seeking too few such easy jobs), and a shortage of skilled labor (too few people looking for such a position, and pay difference is not high enough to compensate for the vastly increased level of skill required).

[giantdragon]

Still waiting on the outcome of Chinese Socialism should take another 100-200 years since China likes to scale on long timeframes
My digitalized brain will observe the outcome XD

Chinese govt have abandoned socialism for previous 30 years since Deng Xiaoping reforms. Current model is more like to "wild capitalism" with almost no welfare, income disparity and low wages.

[RodeoX]

Oh, the Americans are telling the Swiss about money.  Just the help they need.

[Topazan]

But the low wage still signals to potential employees that the supply of labor for that particulat type of job is too high, and thus they would be better off educating or specializing themselves into a field that is in higher demand in that economy. If there are too few people who can do surgery or programming, and plenty of people who can do janitoreal work, the wages reflect that, and people strive to get into the higher paying jobs, until that job market gets saturated (it has enough workers to satisfy demand), at which point they distribute to other jobs that are in demand. If both of those jobs pay nearly the same, or even if the difference in wage is not as high as it would be in a "natural" state, people may either believe that surgeons/programmers aren't in as high demand as they really are, or that janitors are in a much higher demand than they are. This will cause high unemployment among janitors (too many people seeking too few such easy jobs), and a shortage of skilled labor (too few people looking for such a position, and pay difference is not high enough to compensate for the vastly increased level of skill required).

A basic income is unconditional.  Each Swiss citizen would get the same 2500 francs regardless of employment status, in addition to what they make at their job.

In absolute terms, the difference between what a programmer and a janitor makes would be the same, except the baseline would be 2500 rather than 0.

I suppose you could make the argument that, as a percentage of total income, the difference in salary has been reduced, but that shouldn't be a problem unless the basic income is ridiculously high.

[Lohoris]

But the low wage still signals to potential employees that the supply of labor for that particulat type of job is too high, and thus they would be better off educating or specializing themselves into a field that is in higher demand in that economy. If there are too few people who can do surgery or programming, and plenty of people who can do janitoreal work, the wages reflect that, and people strive to get into the higher paying jobs, until that job market gets saturated (it has enough workers to satisfy demand), at which point they distribute to other jobs that are in demand. If both of those jobs pay nearly the same, or even if the difference in wage is not as high as it would be in a "natural" state, people may either believe that surgeons/programmers aren't in as high demand as they really are, or that janitors are in a much higher demand than they are. This will cause high unemployment among janitors (too many people seeking too few such easy jobs), and a shortage of skilled labor (too few people looking for such a position, and pay difference is not high enough to compensate for the vastly increased level of skill required).

IMHO this is totally wrong.
The market doesn't always auto-adjust, but this is one occasion were I think it definitely will.
It's quite simple: if what you said was right, and people stopped doing some jobs... then the salary for that job would rise, and people would start doing it anyway.
BTW if I'm specialised I obviously won't accept an "inferior" job even if the pay is the same, I would feel a failure.

[Lohoris]

A basic income is unconditional.  Each Swiss citizen would get the same 2500 francs regardless of employment status, in addition to what they make at their job.

In absolute terms, the difference between what a programmer and a janitor makes would be the same, except the baseline would be 2500 rather than 0.

I suppose you could make the argument that, as a percentage of total income, the difference in salary has been reduced, but that shouldn't be a problem unless the basic income is ridiculously high.

Sure, but since you would have a basic income and nobody forces you to do any job (which is correct, or it wouldn't be a "basic income" in the first place and would completely defeat the purpose), people would quite the "bad" jobs, since they wouldn't need it anymore.
Hence the salary for those jobs would rise, since someone has to do it, and someone would definitely like a high salary.
And I see no problem with that (still quite unsure what problem does he see).

[Topazan]

Good point, I didn't think of it that way.

So, I suppose having a basic income basically means artificially reducing the supply of "bad" jobs.  Slightly short of economically optimal, but far better than the bureaucratic mess that is our current welfare system.  Might even lead to some positive externalities.

[lclc]

The actual law we can vote on doesn't have any numbers included. 2'500 is just a suggestion.

There are two parties who like this idea:
The socialists: They want the basic income additional to all the other social insurance we have so far. (mostly people who never really worked or work for the government)
The liberals (European version): They want to cancel all the social insurances and save the billions it's bureaucracy costs and just give everyone 2.5k.

I'd like the second one because of the following reasons:
If people don't want to work they never will with the system we have today. There are so many insurances you can get money from. So we better stop trying to force them and just give them the 2.5k (or lower). We could reduce the state massively (also: less people working for the government -> less people who vote for higher taxes to get a higher income...).

Also a survey showed that 90% of the people said they would still work, but in the same time most people believed that most other people would stop working^^

Of course we'd have to limit this basic income to Swiss people only and make it even harder (or IMO better impossible) to get a Swiss passport, otherwise we'll have an even bigger amount of immigrants, which we just can't handle (right now already >30% of the people living in Switzerland are immigrants).

[Hfleer]

That's a decent amount of money to get for free, depending on how high the cost of living is there.  Would be interesting to see the effects of this.

[Lohoris]

Of course we'd have to limit this basic income to Swiss people only and make it even harder (or IMO better impossible) to get a Swiss passport

Impossible makes no sense, but it definitely shouldn't be easy, of course.

Also notice that you'll have problem with foreing workers - there are many specialised ones in your country - which obviously won't be able to accept the same salary of internal ones who also get the basic income.

So either you profide the basic income even to people who reside there even if they are not citizens, or they'll just leave.

[Ekaros]

I'm not sure about if 2500 francs is too much. But with good tax structure it could allow people who work at jobs with short or irregular hours just for some extra income over the basic income.

Currently the system in Finland really doesn't support short term work, either you lose the benefit to nearly 1:1 and/or you have to re-apply for benefits and be without them for weeks or months...

[al.matic]

The question here is about human nature. One must be careful when reasoning about it, because all people are not the same (like oneself, for example):
- "all people think like me, and I would (not) work, so the system would be great (not)"
- or "I work exclusively for money, thus nobody works for fun or any other motive"
- or "I would not work as a janitor, so nobody would"

Nobody even considers other possibilities to get something done; that is maybe there would be no janitors in Switzerland: even if there is no official janitor in some facility, maybe people would do simple janitorial work themselves. Or not, who knows. The point is it is better to try change the system BEFORE the system destroys itself.

[Lohoris]

The question here is about human nature. One must be careful when reasoning about it, because all people are not the same (like oneself, for example):
- "all people think like me, and I would (not) work, so the system would be great (not)"
- or "I work exclusively for money, thus nobody works for fun or any other motive"
- or "I would not work as a janitor, so nobody would"

Nobody even considers other possibilities to get something done

Big +1

[Lohoris]

The only fault I see with it is there don't seem to be any measures to contain it

The biggest problem IMO is that it is subject to inflation, hence either you inflate the base supply causing even more inflation, or inflation will de-facto destroy that base supply to be worthless.

Solution would be instead of giving a money base supply, provinding for free everything you need to live (and I do mean everything), and using money only for people who actually work and want to spend on "extras".