Switzerland may pay basic monthly income to all its citizens

[alanjjohnstone]

I couldn't get to the New Yorker link. I'll try later.I'm sure you have read this critique mentioned earlier but just in case you missed it https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/en/what-wrong-free-money/What i think is utopian is that our ruling class will offer us free money without strings and without conditions and that they haven't anticipated your positive spin of the empowerment it could possibly offer workers (it reminds me of Lenin saying we support the Labour Party like a rope supports a hanging man and expect the Labour Party not to have read it and let the CP affiliate). I have rarely believed our masters are so stupid and dumb.It is like shorter working hours…no matter how convincing the case is made for it in increased productivity, worker morale etc and no matter how often it is endorsed by employers as a good thing, it never gets further than a few pilot projects…the Swedish 6 hour a day is far from being the norm and the French who do possess a shorter week than most, are having it clawed back.But tell me, is the ruling class united behind UBI …Whats the stats pro- and anti- on the issue, where are the division lines between them on UBI? 

[stuartw2112]

No Alan, there is no elite consensus in favour of UBI – more like the opposite. It remains a fringe idea, but one that is edging closer to the mainstream, at least in terms of the mainstream commentariat yacking about it. I would say that the consensus elite view is something like your own – it's a nice idea but it'll never work (at least not until we really can get the robots to do everything). As I said before, the strongest argument against it from a left point of view is that it would make the poorest worse off, unless the sum were either ruinously high or unless aspects of the welfare state were kept (nullifying one of the points of the exercise).

[moderator1]

More conversation on this subject here:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/TZMUnkitedKingdom/permalink/1208721039160768/

[alanjjohnstone]

Wasn't one of the Swiss concerns was that UBI would attract more migrants, Stuart?Would the implementation in the UK also attract this nationalist resistance to "foreigners" being eligible and claiming the UBI. Surely, just like the existing benefits system, one of the limitations would be the government imposing time-periods for newcomers to be eligible to claim a UBI.Would this then encourage a two-tier workforce…those who are forced to toil because they are excluded from the UBI and those who receive "free money".Can you envisage a work-place where migrant workers want to strike for decent wages and the indigenous workers oppose industrial action because they have the cushion of the UBI?Is the UBI the seed of dissension between newcomers and native workers? Just a thought that occurred to me for you allay my fears that perhaps we would truly have the emergence of Engels aristocracy of labour. 

[stuartw2112]

That is often cited as a big concern over UBI yes, though it assumes people leave home and trot around the globe looking for generous benefit systems, which I don't think is true. Not sure I've heard before your original objection about it sowing dissension between "foreigners" and natives though. I don't know why BI would make things any worse than they are now. You would either be a legal citizen and entitled to BI, or not and have to struggle to make your way as best you can against hostile (or indifferent) natives and an uncaring legal and state bureaucracy, much as today. No? Not sure, not looked into it. Cheers

[Dave B]

There was an intriguing case in China until very recently where there were restrictions placed on workers coming in from the rest of China into the industrial areas. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-02/15/content_19597767.htm Although not particularly discussed in that article; the concern of the industrial capitalists in the cities was ‘overburdening’ the social welfare, education and superior healthcare systems etc in place there that were important for the maintenance of a ‘superior’ workforce. And even housing. These are similar kind of issues that can be raised by certain sections of various  national capitalist classes, as well as workers. But I suppose it is interesting as in China it was looked at from intra rather than inter ‘state’ perspective. I don’t think it is always the simplistic case that the capitalist class just want to pay their workers as little as possible. I think forward thinking capitalist can realise that a straightforward race to the bottom on wages. Driven by a lowering of the market price for wage labour by an influx of migrant labour is not in the long term always profitable idea or in the interests of a national capitalist class. I suppose the seminal example being the poor state of English military recruits for the Boer War? Robert Owen was considered a genius by the capitalist class, as for them, he had discovered the economic phenomena of the cost-benefit of raising the productivity of workers by paying them more than you had to. The ‘philanthropic’ Quaker capitalists were equally ‘accidentally’ successful. Although you could argue that by offering higher wages one could easily recruit the cream of the working class avoiding the ones that  “…. waste his wages on spirits, etc……….” Perhaps the way you can look at a basic income depends on which end of the spectrum of wage labour one is looking at? At the lower end it might look like the state topping up the wages of unskilled labour. And in that sense it is not much different to the Speenhamland system.    ………The system allowed employers, including farmers and the nascent industrialists of the town, to pay below subsistence wages, because the parish would make up the difference and keep their workers alive. So the workers' low income was unchanged and the poor rate contributors subsidised the farmers…….. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speenhamland_system  I suppose if that kind of system was introduced in Switzerland the Swiss capitalist class who employed mostly unskilled workers would get a state subsidy to the wages bill. That might not be such a massive problem for the majority advanced capitalist section in Switzerland as long as the unskilled labour there was providing products, services and commodities to the more general advanced section and its workers as it would presumably lower those internal national costs. Thus if the Swiss state was, say for example, subsidising the wages of refuse workers or cleaners etc then the advanced capitalist class could claw it back in the lower costs of those industries. If there were lots of sweat shop workers in Switzerland producing products for the international market it might be somewhat different. Providing you could keep a lid on the bottom end of the wage labour market and stop a ‘streets made of gold’ economic migration it doesn’t seem to be a problem. Potentially there could be a cascade type of affect pushing up wages at the middle to top end.  Using the UK as an example that is something that can be easily kept in control by having a total open door policy to economic migrants who are snapped up by employers offering over 30K; as it stands at the moment I think.    As far as the capitalist class in the UK is concerned we have plenty of unskilled labour at the moment and they are all on the legal minimum wage (however you might want to interpret that). Allowing ‘more’ to come in isn’t going to lower the wage bill. They are just going to slip in and back out of the expensive ‘welfare’ safety net and clog up the healthcare, education and housing system as in China. That is not to say it has no advantages at all as it can raise the standard of intensity and quality of labour that can be obtained for the minimum wage and lowers taxi bills, and stuff that falls out of wage labour and is provided by the so called self employed. On the Aristocracy of labour I thought there was a really interesting theoretical and almost modern prescient piece by Karl.. I think the capitalist class in an ever technologically developing and dynamic labour market needs it to; …provides a spur to the development of the individual’s own labour capacity… Letting their beloved market do the work to motivate the workers to re-skill themselves, driven by differential levels of remuneration. ….Hence in so far as the division of labour has not made his labour capacity entirely one-sided, the free worker is in principle receptive to, and ready for, any variation in his labour capacity and his working activity which promises better wages……….  And; ……….If the developed worker is more or less incapable of this variation, he still regards it as always open to the next generation, and the emerging generation of workers can always be distributed among, and is constantly at the disposal of, new branches of labour or particularly prosperous branches of labour….  Or factory workers send your kids to university to do chemistry or whatever. And! …….it remains possible for isolated individuals to make their way upwards into higher spheres of labour by particular energy, talent, etc., just as there remains the abstract possibility that this or that worker could himself become a capitalist and an exploiter of alien labour…….. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02a.htm

[alanjjohnstone]

Something to read on the UBI from: MIT Technology Review magazinehttps://www.technologyreview.com/s/601499/basic-income-a-sellout-of-the-american-dream/The topic is certainly a very popular one these days and establishing our own analysis seems a worthy venture.

[stuartw2112]

That is a very good one Alan thanks. As you say, a socialist response to all the arguments, pro and con, could be good and find an audience.

[ALB]

Reading through that MIT article reminded me that this came up over 50 years in the US. Here's the start of an article in the Western Socialist (No 3, 1964), the then journal of our campanion parties in the US and Canada:

Quote:

"GUARANTEED INCOME FOR ALL, EMPLOYED OR NOT"(Summary of a talk to Boston University Students, April 16,  1964)Under the above heading, the New York Times oi March 22, 1964 reported a message from the Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution to President Johnson outlining its views on Cybernation, Weaponry and Human Rights. Accompanying these views was a program for a transitional period "on the way to a new society." The committee consisted of prominent corporation officials, journalists, professors, labor leaders, spokesmen for churches and civil rights and intellectuals. Of special interest one notes among the signers: James Boggs, Michael Harrington, Irving Howe, Dr. Gunnar Myrdal, Gerald Piel, and Robert Theobald, who have made astute comments on the world in which we live and have furnished interesting documentary evidence of the limitation of our times.THE COMMITTEE'S VIEWSCybernation makes possible an unlimited output by systems of machines which require little cooperation from man, thus making available more funds for the elimination of poverty both at home and abroad. The general mechanism so far employed in the United States is unable to "undergird" peoples' rights as consumers. The main brake on the unlimited capacity of a cybernated productive system, the committee contends, is the fact that distribution is determined on the basis of income-through-jobs. This link between jobs and income must be broken through appropriate governmental action stemming from a recognition of the right of every individual and family to have an adequate income regardless of job or lack of job, so that a new economic, social, and political order can emerge in this country.

It never happened of course. Nor was it likely to.

[ALB]

Here is Comrade Rab's criticism of the 1964 Triple Revolution proposal, still relevant today regarding similar schemes:

Quote:

Let us examine the views of the Committee in closer detail. They propose to "break the link" between jobs and income. Excellent as far as it goes because it recognizes that the workers, in order to live, depend on wages, their only source of income. But it doesn't go far enough because it does not propose to do away with jobs and wages. Capitalism divides mankind into two basic groups: 1. Those whose income is derived from wages in any of its various forms (hourly rates, piece work, salaries, bonuses, commissions, etc.) These are the vast majority who work but do not own. And 2. The small minority whose income is derived from ownership in any of its forms (profits, dividends, stocks, bonds, titles of deed, etc.) These are the ones who own but do not work. (Of course, there are overlappings, but here we are dealing with the general nature of capitalism.) Wages have been well described as the badge of slavery. The very dependence on wages alienates workers from the products of their labor.To propose breaking the link between jobs and income while retaining the market economy is to misunderstand the objective of capitalist production — production for sale on the market. It is fantastic to imagine that capitalist enterprise can compete in the domestic and world markets without reducing labor costs. This is a prime essential. And it is this very drive for profits and reduction of labor costs which speeds the introduction of cybernation. The use of cybernation for the benefit of society is incompatible with the market economy.Further, the aim of redistributing income — the retaining of money — indicates the retention of a commodity society. The need for money arises from a scarcity relationship because of the need to facilitate the circulation of commodities. But money can play no role in obtaining the needs of life when they have become — through cybernation — as abundant as water and sunshine. In an economy of abundance, only the right of access by everybody to what is produced makes sense. The suggestion, then, for reorganizing society by "distributing effective demand" is merely another continuation of the status quo, a proposal — in effect — to distribute poverty among the workers through legislative measures revising the tax structure.

[alanjjohnstone]

Support for the UBI from an American Friedmanite in the Wall St Journal that is also worth a read for another sort of vision. http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586

Quote:

A UBI would present the most disadvantaged among us with an open road to the middle class if they put their minds to it. It would say to people who have never had reason to believe it before: “Your future is in your hands.” And that would be the truth.

Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His book advocating a universal basic income, “In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State,” was first published by AEI in 2006. A revised edition will be out later this month.

[stuartw2112]

There's been loads about this in the media recently (due to the Switzerland vote). To switch hats, here's a strong case against. I think she's right that when people advocate it they talk in vague terms about how wonderful everything will be and tend to ignore some hard realities (the worst from a socialist point of view being that a basic income introduced as promised will make the poorest worse off not better):http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-06/universal-basic-income-is-ahead-of-its-time-to-say-the-least

[stuartw2112]

One more from the authoritative and always sensible John Kayhttp://www.johnkay.com/2016/06/01/simple-arithmetic-shows-why-basic-income-schemes-cannot-work

[alanjjohnstone]

Now that that the distraction of the EU referendum is now nearly over we can return our attention to our more important and interesting topics.Read this in the Guardian today:

Quote:

UBI becomes a consolation prize for those whose lives are disrupted. Benefits still accrue to the designers and owners of the technologies, but now with less guilt and pushback about the collateral damage. Rather than steer technology towards social progress by promoting projects that contribute to public benefit and human flourishing – not just reflect the desires of privileged groups – Silicon Valley elites can shake off critics by pointing to UBI as the solution, and one that does not restrict their profit motive. UBI can, in some ways, be seen as welfare for capitalists. Now, more people can drive for Uber and work for TaskRabbit – at even lower wages! – because UBI subsidizes the meager paychecks earned by hustling for the sharing economy. The tech companies take home the profit and face even less pressure to pay a living wage to their non-employee employees.Second, support for UBI is framed in terms of human capital. Steve Waldman, a well-known programmer and economics writer, praisesUBI by referring to it as “VC for the people”. VC, venture capital, invites people to embrace their inner entrepreneurs, he believes. Thus, UBI is not (only) a moral response to economic harms or a political response to social injustice, but a sound financial investment in the startup-of-you. A way of producing more makers, risk-takers, and move-fast-breakers – the type of people that tech culture values above all others. Thinking of UBI as a financial innovation represents the “businessification” of government; now we talk about the “return on investment” of social policy, rather than outcomes in terms of public good. When social policy is evaluated using economic standards you get starkly different policies, different expectations, and different beneficiaries. Third, the version of UBI backed by Silicon Valley – and others who lean libertarian and conservative – is a regressive redistribution. With UBI gaining popularity it is not hard to find people making “the case for free money”, as the New Yorker recently put it. Of course, the money is not free. It has to come from somewhere, but where? For many supporters it only makes sense that the budget for UBI would come from cannibalizing existing welfare. UBI would not exist as an add-on benefit. The logic is to shut down “public housing, food assistance, Medicaid, and the rest, and replace them with a single check”, writes Nathan Schneider in Vice. The welfare system can finally be eliminated and the state bureaucracy consolidated into an efficient, simple solution for poverty. No wonder that technocrats and Tea Partiers can come together in support of UBI.

It concludes with the rhetorical questions

Quote:

But the trouble comes when UBI is used as a way of merely making techno-capitalism more tolerable for people, when it is administered like a painkiller that numbs the pain and masks the symptoms of economic injustice without addressing the root causes of exploitation and inequality. We cannot treat UBI like an endpoint; it should be a stepping stone to fixing core issues.Why do the wealthy and elite support seemingly radical social programs? Have they grown enlightened and concerned with the plight of everyone else? Is this a mea culpa designed to make exploitation more bearable, a bit of comfort to soften the crushing pressure of life? Or is it a stealthy way for them to backdoor their own politics and values, while also protecting their positions in society?

The way i see it, UBI is a two-edged sword. Yes it can have the potential to be progressive and innovative  as Stuart argues. But it can also be used by the ruling class to  slice into the gains the working class have made over the decades. It depends on i guess on the political consciousness of the working class but if they are able to determine that only the positive points are implemented and that the welfare state is not only left intact but even strengthened, it pre-supposes a very strong class consciousness so why should it constrain itself into the narrow parameter of the UBI inside capitalism.Will there be a concomitant rise in the demand for the end of wage-slavery that socialists can tap into? Or will the working class be effectively bought off by the capitalist UBI? Will the class struggle be emasculated or intensified?These are the questions i seek answers to? I'm sure others have many other different questions of how an UBI will effect and impact upon the working class and socialists.Do we drop our present case for socialism, all that Marxian economic  baggage of surplus value and tendency declining rate of profit and much more, or do we re-emphasise those since the UBI cannot exist without the wealth created by the working class…but can we maintain that claim when wealth will be created by robots that build robots on behalf of investors. I think a few of our more insightful members should Vulcan mind-meld (Spock-style) and produce a clear analysis that we can link to and promote on the net.

[alanjjohnstone]

Automation and the UBI – another article proclaiming its virtueshttp://www.alternet.org/economy/universal-basic-income-solves-robots-taking-jobs

[Author]

Posts