stuartw2112
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
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).
I could not try to convince you of "no unintended consequences" Alan unless I were a complete charlatan. (As I said, I would probably have voted against the UBI in Swtizerland, precisely because I would be fearful of unintended consequences.) Surely socialists can promise no such thing either? Otherwise, I take your and Adam's points. I think in your rhetoric though you should work harder to explain why "free money for everyone" is a ludicrous utopian dream yet "free stuff for everyone" is a practical workable alternative. Good article on the UBI here:http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/20/why-dont-we-have-universal-basic-income?mbid=rss
Imagine your a worker who has just been told that your wages have been cut by the amount they had just risen due to the introduction of a basic income. Would you care? I'd cheer. It means that a certain proportion of my wages are now guaranteed by the state without condition. That would embolden me and my fellow workers when pushing for better pay and conditions or for more interesting and varied work, or more of a say in the running of the business, or in when I turn up, etc, etc. So as I said, a feature not a bug.
I don't see why you think that's such a killer argument Adam. The proponents of basic income have never said that it's all about giving a pay rise to those already comfortably off. I would imagine that most proponents would argue that the downward pressure on wages is a feature not a bug – it would reduce the cost of employing workers, spreading the burden of that around a bit through the tax and benefit system. Basic income is seen by some as an answer to many ills – the complex and costly welfare state, wages for the low paid, persistent un- or underemployment, the freeing of labour markets, subsidising cultural production and underpaid care work, etc. Giving a boost to the already rich is not seen as one of them.Even if you could point out 20 other flaws in the system this would still not be an argument against since no one is arguing for the replacement of an imperfect system with a perfect one, merely a better one. An analogy would be with tax credits. Everyone knows the flaws in the system – that doesn't mean that it's not a least-bad solution to an intractable problem (how to boost the pay of the low paid without removing work incentives or placing an intolerable burden on employers). To laugh them out of court you'd have to not just show the flaws in their system but propose instead a practicable and workable alternative. I know you believe you have that, but I'm afraid that it has already been laughed out of the court of public opinion. I'm not saying that was a correct move on the part of the mockers. But I am saying that a mocking attitude is precisely the wrong one if you would be heard. People in glass houses and all that.Cheers
I agree Adam and I too think Remain will win (though I'm not as confident about that as I was when the campaign began). The other side of sensible caution is the rage of those left behind and who have (or think they have) nothing to lose from a leap in the dark. The only hope for socialism, or for other radical ideas such as basic income (to return to the arguments of a former life!), is not that someone can get the idea on a ballot paper, but of collective deliberation, organisation and solidarity (which is what you've always argued of course).
Hi AdamI started to write a strong disagreement, but I stopped and asked myself whether I would have voted for the proposal. The answer is no. The key point is not that the scheme definitely wouldn't work – no one knows – but that the effects on the economy would be "unpredictable". People vote small c conservative in referendums for good reason and these days I tend to join them. (Vote Remain.) That too has implications for the socialist project! Cheers
Actually, Alan, I think one of the (other) interesting things about it is that no one (as far as I know) is predicting that the UBI will be forced on the state and employers by rising class conflict. It's proposed more to deal with intractable problems in the modern economy, including the fact that (most) workers aren't organised to bargain their wages up and that this is due not (solely) to unwillingness or defeat on their part but due to technological changes imposing different work patterns.The strongest argument against UBI for me is that it would have either to be so high as to be unaffordable, or would have to exist alongside other benefits and aspects of the welfare state – in other words, it couldn't work as advertised. The strongest argument for would be to end the stigma of being on benefits (we all would be) and to increase bargaining power for workers (if high enough, workers could just walk away from the most unpleasant work). I like Ken's idea!
Hi Robin,Good points all. I said that the basic income is "basically a socialist idea" because it assumes that everyone is entitled to a basic standard of living as a right. The history of the idea is socialist – Thomas Paine suggested it as a compensation for the fact that capitalism had deprived us of our birthright. But you're right, libertarians from the right have also embraced the idea, for somewhat different reasons. The Adam Smith Institute advocates a "negative income tax", rather than a straight basic income, to try to get round some of the arguments around incentives.And thanks Alan, it's nice to be back. As you say, the SPGB is something like Royston Vasey – "you'll never leave!"Cheers
PS Would be interesting to think too about why the proposal suffered such a crushing defeat. As the SPGB has long maintained, the workers won't even vote for socialism – how can they be expected to fight for it?!
It's interesting what the consensus elite view seems to be about the unworkability of the idea. Most do not object to it per se – indeed, how could they, since basic income would merely be a different way of organising what actually happens now, more or less. Rich countries with welfare states already have pretty generous (by world standards) minimum basic incomes, just not entirely in monetary form. What they object to and worry about is that the basic income severs the connection between work and income. For them, this is dangerous – economically and morally. But even here they concede that something like this might be necessary in the future if technological change really does, as some think, put everyone out of work. In other words, socialists should celebrate the fact that basic income is on the fringes of the mainstream as an idea because 1) it is essentially a socialist idea and 2) even critics accept that the modern world might be moving in a direction where such socialism will be necessary whether they like it or not ("socialism is inevitable"?!). The challenge remains, for socialists and proponents of basic income alike, to convince people that a world where income is not connected in any way to monetary incentives could really work.
"Sagan points out an amusing fact: that, like chimps, the Romans and the Hebrews cemented political alliances by holding one another`s testicles."It's how arguments in the Socialist Standard Editorial Committee are settled too. Fact.
Not actually read it, but I got the reference and am aware of the gist. Orwell's finest moment, I believe, is when he savages that notorious sandal-wearer and carrot juice drinker Gandhi and yet is open-minded and generous enough to imply in his conclusion that maybe Gandhi is right after all. It's not like anything else has worked.
