Money-for-nothing idea will survive Swiss rebuff

[Lodestar]

Swiss voters have rejected utopia in a referendum. Nearly four out of five voted on June 5 against the introduction of a guaranteed basic income for all unrelated to whether people work a bit, a lot, or not at all. It doesn’t mean the idea is dead.

Advocates cite a litany of potential benefits. The measure could eliminate the worst of poverty, offer some security in a world of growing automation, and ensure financial recognition of the work done by those who currently care for the young, the elderly or the ill without pay. It might also unleash creativity and risk-taking, they say, in an echo of British polymath Bertrand Russell’s suggestion that people work four hours a day, and then dedicate themselves to other interests.

This idyllic vision invites difficult questions. How much should be paid, and how many welfare benefits should the basic income replace? If it’s set too low and subsumes too many benefits, the measure will do nothing to eliminate abject poverty. Fixed too high, it becomes a burden on those who pay taxes, a potential disincentive to work, and a possible drag on economic activity.

Second, it’s unclear whether a basic guaranteed income would free people from the yoke of work. Some people earn many multiples of the median household income but don’t cut back their hours because they have a preferred lifestyle to fund. What Russell termed the “necessaries of life for everyone” differ over time, as well as between countries and social classes.

cont'd
http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2016/06/06/money-for-nothing-idea-will-survive-swiss-rebuff/

[Festivito]

1. A certain group does not want a workable system. So, they present only an unworkable idea.

It gets shot down and they throw up their hands saying: "See!"

We need a system of balancing need for workers and resources for paying workers. Our current system has us way out of balance.

[DetlefK]

2. It would be unworkable because the economic conditions don't exist yet.

The organizers said they wanted this base income because of robots taking jobs from humans.

But that's not the economic situation we have right now. So why should we make economic policies to undo a damage that hasn't even occured yet???

People losing jobs to robots isn't a noteworthy problem yet.
People being unemployable because of robots isn't a problem yet.
The economic imbalance that would occur from this doesn't exist yet.
Who has been damaged so far?

[zalinda]

3. Part of the problem for this

is that they are also offering a certain amount for kids. This puts it in the mind that people will have kids to get more money. The truth is that some people would start producing kids for the money, just like some people here take on foster kids for the money. Those that will do it for the money is probably a small percent, but that will be a problem.

Z