<story><title>Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult</title><url>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/04/us-swiss-pay-idUSBRE9930O620131004</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>marknutter</author><text>I see it differently. If people are receiving a basic income their performance at a job becomes much less important. Why care if you do a good job if losing it doesn&amp;#x27;t really impact you that negatively?</text></item><item><author>TelmoMenezes</author><text>&amp;gt; One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income.&lt;p&gt;I believe this would not be a problem in the long run for the following reasons:&lt;p&gt;- A lot of boring low-pay work is unnecessary (dealing with the endless paper trail of over-complicated bureaucracies, lots of things that companies do, like telemarketing, just because it&amp;#x27;s so cheap, etc. etc.);&lt;p&gt;- A lot of it is necessary, so it would just become more expensive. At some price, people will be willing to do this work despite the basic income. Many people actually enjoy doing meaningful work, be it plumbing or being a doctor. It&amp;#x27;s the soul-crushing pointless work that is so depressing;&lt;p&gt;- This would then create strong economic pressure to finally use technology for what it&amp;#x27;s good: automatize labor. No longer would there be the job loss dilemma;&lt;p&gt;- Likewise, this would create strong economic pressure to simplify everything: no more pointless bureaucracy, no more over-complicated taxation schemes that require an army of accountants, much less pointless meetings and other corporate fat, and so on.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m filled with hope by this idea and honestly believe that it has a chance of working. It&amp;#x27;s time to step into the next era.</text></item><item><author>tikhonj</author><text>A Swiss franc is currently worth a little bit more than a dollar, so this works out to $2800&amp;#x2F;month or $33600&amp;#x2F;year. By US standards, this actually seems to be a good salary: significantly better than working full time at minimum wage.&lt;p&gt;It would cover all my current expenses handily. Of course, I&amp;#x27;m young and single but by no means frugal. (I find that the little costs involved in worrying about my expenses easily outweigh the money saved.) So this is quite an income.&lt;p&gt;One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income. What I would really hope is that people would still do many of those jobs, but for far fewer hours--largely as a way to get money for incidental expenses and luxuries beyond the basic income. One problem I find with most jobs is that it&amp;#x27;s much easier to get more pay than less hours, even if I really want the latter. There is a large drop-off between full-time and part-time work.[1]&lt;p&gt;Beyond a certain level, I would value having more free time far more than making more money. Unfortunately, mostly for social reasons, it&amp;#x27;s hard to express this preference. A basic income could make this much easier to do.&lt;p&gt;While I suspect this might not pass, I think it would be very valuable for the entire world. One of the unfortunate realities in politics is that it is really hard to run experiments; small countries like Switzerland can act as a test subject for the entire world. Or perhaps like a tech early adopter for modern policies.&lt;p&gt;Either way, this passing would be very interesting.&lt;p&gt;[1]: For me, this is not quite as simple. In reality, there are plenty of jobs where I would be &lt;i&gt;happy&lt;/i&gt; to work relatively long hours. But this stops being a question of pay, or even &amp;quot;work&amp;quot;: after all, I&amp;#x27;m happy to spend hours and hours programming &lt;i&gt;for free&lt;/i&gt;. Being paid to do something I really like is wonderful, but it really changes the dynamics in ways that probably do not apply to most people.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>wpietri</author><text>In two words: Maslow&amp;#x27;s hierarchy. [1]&lt;p&gt;The best places I know have people who are working from higher-layer motivations, and corporate cultures that encourage that by treating people as adults, supporting them, giving them wide latitude to get things done, et cetera.&lt;p&gt;The worse are the opposite. The people there are desperate for money to survive. The corporate cultures are disempowering, controlling, contemptuous.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s commonly thought in the US that these are just two different sorts of people, the high-class creatives who should be given latitude, and the low-class proles who must be controlled like surly teens if they are to get anything done.&lt;p&gt;But that&amp;#x27;s not true. For example, Toyota&amp;#x27;s great success comes mainly from treating factory workers with deep respect. [2] And it works here, too. &lt;i&gt;This American Life&lt;/i&gt; tells the story [3] of Toyota turning GM&amp;#x27;s worst plant into one of the best. Same people, just a different culture.&lt;p&gt;So if people are receiving a basic income, jobs will have to shift toward the model that motivates people through the higher end of Maslow&amp;#x27;s hierarchy. Money will be part of why people show up, but it would not longer be the only reason.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs&lt;/a&gt;
[2] Liker&amp;#x27;s &lt;i&gt;Toyota Kata&lt;/i&gt; is a great book on this.
[3] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thisamericanlife.org&amp;#x2F;radio-archives&amp;#x2F;episode&amp;#x2F;403&amp;#x2F;n...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult</title><url>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/04/us-swiss-pay-idUSBRE9930O620131004</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>marknutter</author><text>I see it differently. If people are receiving a basic income their performance at a job becomes much less important. Why care if you do a good job if losing it doesn&amp;#x27;t really impact you that negatively?</text></item><item><author>TelmoMenezes</author><text>&amp;gt; One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income.&lt;p&gt;I believe this would not be a problem in the long run for the following reasons:&lt;p&gt;- A lot of boring low-pay work is unnecessary (dealing with the endless paper trail of over-complicated bureaucracies, lots of things that companies do, like telemarketing, just because it&amp;#x27;s so cheap, etc. etc.);&lt;p&gt;- A lot of it is necessary, so it would just become more expensive. At some price, people will be willing to do this work despite the basic income. Many people actually enjoy doing meaningful work, be it plumbing or being a doctor. It&amp;#x27;s the soul-crushing pointless work that is so depressing;&lt;p&gt;- This would then create strong economic pressure to finally use technology for what it&amp;#x27;s good: automatize labor. No longer would there be the job loss dilemma;&lt;p&gt;- Likewise, this would create strong economic pressure to simplify everything: no more pointless bureaucracy, no more over-complicated taxation schemes that require an army of accountants, much less pointless meetings and other corporate fat, and so on.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m filled with hope by this idea and honestly believe that it has a chance of working. It&amp;#x27;s time to step into the next era.</text></item><item><author>tikhonj</author><text>A Swiss franc is currently worth a little bit more than a dollar, so this works out to $2800&amp;#x2F;month or $33600&amp;#x2F;year. By US standards, this actually seems to be a good salary: significantly better than working full time at minimum wage.&lt;p&gt;It would cover all my current expenses handily. Of course, I&amp;#x27;m young and single but by no means frugal. (I find that the little costs involved in worrying about my expenses easily outweigh the money saved.) So this is quite an income.&lt;p&gt;One of the main questions about something like this is about who would do boring, low-paid work with this sort of basic income. What I would really hope is that people would still do many of those jobs, but for far fewer hours--largely as a way to get money for incidental expenses and luxuries beyond the basic income. One problem I find with most jobs is that it&amp;#x27;s much easier to get more pay than less hours, even if I really want the latter. There is a large drop-off between full-time and part-time work.[1]&lt;p&gt;Beyond a certain level, I would value having more free time far more than making more money. Unfortunately, mostly for social reasons, it&amp;#x27;s hard to express this preference. A basic income could make this much easier to do.&lt;p&gt;While I suspect this might not pass, I think it would be very valuable for the entire world. One of the unfortunate realities in politics is that it is really hard to run experiments; small countries like Switzerland can act as a test subject for the entire world. Or perhaps like a tech early adopter for modern policies.&lt;p&gt;Either way, this passing would be very interesting.&lt;p&gt;[1]: For me, this is not quite as simple. In reality, there are plenty of jobs where I would be &lt;i&gt;happy&lt;/i&gt; to work relatively long hours. But this stops being a question of pay, or even &amp;quot;work&amp;quot;: after all, I&amp;#x27;m happy to spend hours and hours programming &lt;i&gt;for free&lt;/i&gt;. Being paid to do something I really like is wonderful, but it really changes the dynamics in ways that probably do not apply to most people.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>fnordfnordfnord</author><text>Because you will still have to compete for desirable jobs.&lt;p&gt;For menial labor, most of it can&amp;#x2F;will be automated.&lt;p&gt;For undesirable jobs that can&amp;#x27;t be automated away, employers will have to make the jobs desirable. One way to do that will be to increase the pay, but, that is not the only means for doing so. There are many things employers can do to make employment more desirable that have a low or zero net cost. I&amp;#x27;d even argue that some of those things would save money&amp;#x2F;resources in varying amounts even absent the pressure to do so.&lt;p&gt;One very good and interesting effect that I predict is that individuals whose employment places them in ethical dilemmas will no longer have as much pressure for compliance with potentially unethical demands, since the entirety of their livelihood no longer depends upon compliance.</text></comment>