[Strummer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rune', 'T')he more I learn about Switzerland's government, finance and healthcare, the more it seems like a model for the whole world.

[vision-master]

Let me guess, your German?

[Strummer]

Why would you want to guess my German?

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Strummer', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rune', 'T')he more I learn about Switzerland's government, finance and healthcare, the more it seems like a model for the whole world.

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rollin', '
')Forgot the 12 months -ooopps! Multiplied by .75 because it only goes to adults, that gives about 48%.

[Rune]

I would not imagine that Basic Income will become an issue in the US until the mid to late 2020s. Probably after the advent and acceptance of driverless cars, trucks and all that.

I suspect by that time, if you call your bank, you'll get a voice that actually sounds human and responds quickly to whatever you want and will sound very intelligent - a Watson-like knowledge base to draw from.

Imagine that you could have a conversation with the internet. what kinds of things could you imagine? Psychotherapy, life and financial counseling, education...

Further advanced factory automation of course. Probably incredible things in 3D-printing and flexible, localized manufacture of goods.

These kinds of things are on the way. You don't necessarily have to have a generalized human IQ machine to enable them - just lots of processing power, massive amounts of data, all that.

Before they arrive in toto, there will be cries for Basic Income.

[Loki]

For once you may be right Rune.

Automation is that fifth horseman that many peak oil types overlook. I think it's already done more to lower the standard of living for more Americans than globalization and peak oil combined.

[ralfy]

Also, whatever is produced thanks to automation has to be sold so that manufacturers will profit and investors will get their returns. But ultimately the ones who will buy what is produced may include those displaced due to automation.

And as manufacturers need to produce and sell more due to competition, then those who are supposed to buy what is produced must have increasing living standards.

[careinke]

I really like this idea. It has several benefits. With no means testing and no work requirement we could eliminate a lot of bureaucracy in the government. No more EBT, Social Security, etc.. Just a computer generated check.

Then I got to thinking, would not Hansen's proposal of taxing oil and returning the revenue directly to the citizens not accomplish the same thing, while at the same time discouraging the use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, after congratulating myself for saving the world, ending poverty and generally saving the earth......I did the math.

In order to pay every citizen in the US $2,800 per month, we would have to tax oil at $1,500 a barrel.

[Simon_R]

I used to live in Zurich, get up and go for a Croissant for breakfast.

Who would be serving me after this came in ?

[SeaGypsy]

Someone who loves croissants and wants or needs more than $2800 a month, or a foreigner.

[Simon_R]

I now live in france, and even here I cant think of anyone who would get up early in the morning to bake croissants, just for the love of it
And if the minimum income guaranteed a moderate living, the addition of a waiters salary would not add noticably.
So... we are down to the swiss having to fill their country with foreigners to do all the low paid jobs.

Hmmmmm Sounds like a recipe for disaster

[SeaGypsy]

How are you enjoying the EU experiment in France? Lots of cheap labor around from what I'm seeing.

[Simon_R]

Hi

Yep, I am not one to talk, I live in one country and work in another.

There is a lot of hysteria, but I have no problem competing with EU nationals, its the BRIC's that are killing me.

Essentially the Eastern Europeans turn up work harder and faster than our native (British) workers and eventually move home. Sadly the English now see the EU as a silver bullet, pulling out will solve all things, from Green Policies, Energy Problems to Domestic Trains (I kid you not).

The basic problem, for the brits, is their health system is unique in that no contributions are necessary, so its a bit of a free for all but they are unwilling/unsure how to change it.

For us french, our president is not so hot on mathematics, thats our main problem

Simon

[Shaved Monkey]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shaved Monkey', '
')Just saw the add for the next Foreign Correspondent serious political/doco show on government owned station in Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/forei ... espondent/

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')SA - Down In Jungleland
Series 22 | Episode 25

Would you work for $2.13 an hour? That's the tough new reality for two former professionals you'll meet in this disturbing assessment of America's economic reality.

[SeaGypsy]

From experience overseas Shaved, I think most folks here will hit a content export wall with ABC I-view links.

[Shaved Monkey]

I use a VPN service when I want to see US or UK stuff some are free.

heres a youtube of the add
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj_3Czuee9I
they might put the program up later on youtube.

[drgoodword]

As others have mentioned in this thread, the idea of a guaranteed minimum income has been around for a long time. I personally like the Swiss plan and the idea of a guaranteed minimum income, and think it would go a very long way towards eliminating poverty. However, there are, imo, two big problems with it: people who work for a living are, in significant number, unwilling to approve of their hard-earned tax dollars simply being "given" to others as an income, no matter how minimal that income or how needy the recipients or how beneficial it would ultimately be to the economy and society. Furthermore, simply giving someone a living without requiring some kind of work in return isn't, in many ways, the best thing for that person.

To overcome these two problems, I would prefer to see a guaranteed minimum income be implemented by creating a "Work Force Reserve" through a "National Training Program". Government and the business community could work together to identify job skills most needed now and in the near future, and training programs could then be established to train unemployed people with these skills. Instead of simply giving unemployed people a guaranteed minimum income, people would "earn" this guaranteed minimum income by getting paid a (minimal living wage) salary for enrolling and completing these training programs as a form of work. Attendance and professionalism would be mandatory for participants in these training programs, and their "pay" would be affected by unjustifiable failures in attendance and professionalism, just like in a "regular" job. Further, if fundamental job skills like literacy and basic numeracy are missing, training programs could be set up for that as a part of this program (assuming, on an individual basis, there is no insurmountable disability preventing basic training).

Significant funding for this system could be found by shortening unemployment insurance (if you can't find a job in, say, two months, then you're automatically enrolled in the National Training Program) and by having this system supplant most welfare programs. This kind of guaranteed income system would be, I think, more politically palatable to the general tax-paying public because its participants would actually have to earn their income. The business community and the economy would also benefit because this Work Force Reserve would be strategically training for future business needs instead of just sitting idly at home. Furthermore, this system would be better for its participants because they would rightfully consider themselves working for a living and contributing to society by updating their work skills in a way that best serves the future needs of their country. Of course, not all those who graduate from these training programs would be able to find jobs, but those who can't would be enrolled in another training program, still "working" for their pay, still contributing to society, still having something to get up for in the morning, and still keeping fundamental work skills in good shape simply through the work of their training programs.

Note to Loki:

My apologies in advance if I'm mistaken, but your math seems to assume that everyone is given a set income amount per month. My understanding regarding this Swiss plan is that everyone is assured a minimum set income, but if regular income exceeds the minimum set income for a given individual, then that given individual would not receive any additional income from the government. Thus, only those people earning less than the set minimum income would receive additional income from the government.

For the sake of argument, let's say that a minimum income in the U.S. for such a plan would be set at the so-called "poverty line." According to the U.S. census bureau, "in 2012, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.5 million people in poverty." Therefore, only 46 million (still a big number!) would need income assistance from this kind of guaranteed minimum income plan, and even then, the additional government-supplied income wouldn't be the full minimum income in every case. A certain number of those living below the poverty line still make some kind of income, so they wouldn't need the whole minimum income to be supplied to them by the government.

[vision-master]

CCC camps come to mind?

[SeaGypsy]

In Australia we effectively have this- if not qualified for any other benefit, no substantial assets, very little cash- special benefit is about $1200 a month with rent assistance single.