Jump to content

Univerzalni osnovni prihod


bigvlada

Recommended Posts

 

 

Za ovo ostalo sto navodis - u prakticno svim eksperimentima sa UBI, od Kanade do Bocvane, nije se javljao taj efekat masovnog dzabalebarenja koji svi odmah pretpostavljaju kao neminovan. Jedna od stvari koje UBI radi je da skida drustvenu stigmu sa primaoca socijalne pomoci koja ih cesto ostavlja zarobljenim u tom ciklusu vecite socijale.

 

Ne samo to, nego se oslobadjaju nesluceni kreativni potencijali. Ja uopste ne vidim UBI, niti mislim da je, poziv na "džabalebarenje". Za čoveka (veliku većinu) je neminovno da nešto pokušava da napravi. U tim uslovima će biti mnogo spremniji da ulazi u neke nove poduhvate koji ne zahtevaju neki veliki početni kapital, a za koji neki pojedinac misli da je talentovan. Znam da zvuči kao utopija, ali se recimo značajno razlikuje od komunističkih ideja jer to nije uravnilovka, razlike ostaju, čak i velike i onaj ko je uspešniji na, well, tržištu, imaće znatno više. Mislim, glavni problem kapitalizma je kako nastaviti rast. Ovo mi se dugoročno čini (mada, ok, laički) kao jedno od retkih, ako i ne jedino rečenje.

 

Zapravo, treba ogledati šta je dugoročna allternativa i to mi uopšte ne izgleda dobro. 

 

Edit: demografiju, recimo istočnoevropsku, da ne pominjem.

Edited by MancMellow
Link to comment

http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income

An experiment in paying villagers in one of India’s poorest states an unconditional basic income has been successful enough to change the government’s thinking.

 

How a Basic Income Program Saved a Namibian Village

 

Ne može biti neminovnost, to se jednostavno ne može platiti, čak ni u bogatim evropskim društvima (koja su, btw, sve siromašnija). Raspravljati o tome da li bi se to moglo platiti ako bi se sav porez naplatio 100% i ako bi se zavrnuli poreski rajevi je kao i rasprava o tome da li je moguća žetva u kojoj tica ne pokljuva nijedno zrno pšenice. Takođe, to bi označilo konačan krah zapadnog (hell, ne samo zapadnog već vaseljenskog) ethosa - kada konačno bude money for nothing and chicks for free, civilizacija u kojoj živimo ode u kurac. Zamislite recimo Evropu sa 20-30% mladog stanovništva koje je mindseta prosečnog stanovnika prosečnog francuskog banlieue-a?

Ne može se platiti UBI u bogatim zemljama ali zato njihovi finansijski vampiri mogu da isisavaju krv svuda po svetu? Deluje do jaja dil lol

Edited by miki.bg
Link to comment

 

 

UTOPIJA ILI PROMAŠAJ Finska će svojim stanovnicima deliti 560 evra mesečno!
Tanjug , Poslovni.hr , | 20. 09. 2016 - 10:59h cat_icn_more.png 14:07h
 

Za dve hiljade Finaca država iduće godine sprema "ostvarenje utopije": dobijaće novac svakog meseca bez ikakvih obveza, pa čak neće morati ni da traže posao. Reč je o eksperimentalnom uvođenju tzv. osnovnog univerzalnog dohotka, već poznatog pod engleskom skraćenicom UBI (universal basic income), piše zagrebački "Večernji list".

 
 
 

Za neke je osnovni dohodak zamka koja će poslodavcima omogućiti da otpuštaju zaposlene mirne savesti, a za druge zamajac koji će povećati potrošnju i iskoreniti siromaštvo.

 

U svakom slučaju, utopijski san u kom niko nije na ulici, nije gladan, ne nosi krpe i ima siguran prihod svaki mesec za koji ne mora ispuniti nikakve uslove širi se i u drugim zemljama i eksperimentalno isprobava u nekim mestima u Holandiji i Kanadi, a tome se raspravlja i na Novom Zelandu.

Helsinki
 

Finci su o tome diskutovali do 9. septembra, a sad, i bez analiziranih rezultata rasprave, idu u primenu od 1. januara 2017.

Tako će slučajnim izborom između nezaposlenih koji primaju novčanu naknadu biti izabrano njih 2000 i svaki će dobiti 560 evra mesečno.

Nakon dve godine biće upoređeno ponašanje te grupe nezaposlenih s jednakom grupom koja će i dalje primati redovnu novčanu naknadu s biroa, koja takođe iznosi 560 evra.

Razlika je u tome što će se testirani moći zaposliti, a da im prihod od 560 evra i dalje ostane, dok ostali nezaposleni gube pomoć ako nađu posao.

U Švajcarskoj predloženo čak 2.500 franaka

U Švajcarskoj je narod na referendumu u junu većinom od 77 posto odbio uvođenje osnovnog dohotka, ali inicijatori su zadovoljni što se o tom pitanju u konzervativnoj Švajcarskoj uopšte ozbiljno razgovaralo.

Tamo su ambicije bile previsoke, predlagali su čak 2.500 švajcarskih franaka mesečno a deca 625 franaka.

 
 

I to je još jedna verzija modifikovanog osnovnog dohotka koji se ne bi isplaćivao svima, nego samo građanima Švajcarske s najmanje tri godine boravka u zemlji (kako bi se sprečila navala imigranata), i onima koji ne rade ili zarađuju mesečno manje od 2500 švajcarskih franaka.

Onima koji zarađuju više od tog iznosa, uvođenjem osnovnog dohotka samo bi se reklasifikovala postojeća primanja: prvih 2500 franaka smatralo bi se podmirenim osnovnim dohotkom, koji bi osoba nastavila da prima i ako ostane bez posla. Onima koji zarađuju manje od osnovnog dohotka, država bi doplaćivala razliku.

Ali, taj predlog nije prošao na referendumu, između ostalog i zbog toga jer je švajcarska vlada objavila preporuku - što je uobičajeni postupak vlade kod svakog referenduma - kojom je građanima savetovala da odbiju takvu ideju na referendumu jer bi mogla imati “značajne negativne posledice na švajcarsku ekonomiju i socijalni sistem”.

Kako je eksperiment zamišljen u gradovima u Holandiji

Na sličan eksperiment se odlučila i Holandija, odnosno grad Ujtreht i još nekoliko drugih, koji će ga takođe početi sprovoditi od 1. januara 2017, a to je model koji je na pola puta između finskog i švajcarskog.

Prema rečima, Rutgera Bergmana, autora knjige "Utopija za realiste - univerzalni osnovni dohodak", razlog zbog kojih su se Ujtreht i drugi gradovi odlučili za ovaj eksperiment jeste frustracija nastala iz radnih programa korisnika socijalne pomoći koji su se ispostavili "kao veoma skupi, a ponižavajući za korisnike“.

U okviru tog eksperimenta jedna će grupa korisnika osnovnog dohotka primati 972,7 evra (samac) i 1.389,57 evra (par), ali će ostati u sistemu starog socijalno-radnog programa, sa svim dužnostima i "penalima“, a druga grupa će izaći iz tog programa i primati isti novac, ali bezuslovno.

Treća grupa će takođe primati taj novac bezuslovno, ali uz podsticaj od 125 evra ako budu dobrovoljno radili na nekim programima, dok će četvrta grupa primati isti novac i biti obavezna na dodatan dobrovoljni rad (što je protivrečno, ali takav je program) uz podsticaj od 125 evra, ali će tih 125 evra izgubiti ako prestane da radi dobrovoljno.

Konačno, peta grupa će da prima dohodak bez podsticaja od 125 evra, ali će moći da zarađuje dodatno od drugih poslova, ako budu hteli. Slični eksperimenti će se provoditi i u Vageningenu, Tilburgu, Groningenu i Nijmegenu, a većini njih je zajednički cilj odgovor na pitanje kako pronaći model koji će korisnicima pomoći da ne strahuju od gubitka socijalnih povlastica čim pronađu neki posao.

Dobre i loše strane osnovnog dohotka

O ideji uvođenja osnovnog dohotka za svakoga već se decenijama raspravlja i ističe kako bi se time iskorenilo siromaštvo u zemljama u kojima hrane i odeće pa i stanova zapravo ima i previše pa se čini perverznim što mnogi trpe tešku oskudicu.

Zanimljivo je da se za osnovni dohodak zalažu i neki neoliberalni ekonomisti, još od Miltona Fridmana. Ideja je da temeljni dohodak dobije svako ko ne zaradi dovoljno za život, a bila bi određena i granica prihoda nakon koje bi se temeljni dohodak vraćao državi.

Postoje i drugi razlozi zašto je osnovni dohodak dobra ideja. Kao prvo, to bi mogao da bude način kako pojednostaviti sistem socijalne pomoći jer vlada više ne bi morala konstantno da proverava nečiji status pre nego što mu se isplati novac.

U teoriji to znači plaćanje samo onima kojima treba, ali u praksi to često dovodi do birokratskih zavrzlama i pokušaja izigravanja sistema od primalaca pomoći.

Međutim, ima i onih koji tvrde da je osnovni dohodak za svakoga neoliberalna zamka, kojom bi se postiglo da poslodavci mogu otpuštati mirne savesti i bez društvenog pritiska. Tako bi mogli zadržati samo najmanji broj zaposlenih koji bi onda i sami radili pod teretom pretnje da će završiti na osnovnom dohotku koji verovatno neće biti dovoljan za život srednje klase, koji bi uključivao automobil, godišnje odmore, školovanje dece.

Stručnjaci kažu da je malo verovatno da će ovakve sisteme uvoditi male i siromašne države, zbog toga što će u tom slučaju vlada imati veće troškove.

Još jedna manja sistema je i ta što će ljudi, koji nemaju neke ambicije, biti manje motivisani da zarađuju novac.

Za Protiv Smanjenje siromaštva Veći troškovi koje će snositi vlada Smanjenje birokratskih troškova Veća nezaposlenost Rast ekonomije Ne rešava se problem sa ličnim dugovanjima Automatizacija nekih poslova koje su ranije radili ljudi Veća mogućnost otpuštanja radnika Ljudi će raditi poslove koje zapravo žele Sistem nije odgovarajuć za siromašne zemlje
Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
How Not to Argue for Basic Income

 

 

 

 

These are not minor concerns. They get at deeper problems with our faith in markets: social organization always involves politics, and what looks like spontaneous ordering is always enabled and constrained by institutions. As Karl Polanyi showed, the most acute moments of conflict over technological progress occur when it enables economic practices to outrun social practices. But the solution is not to buy off a hoard of displaced workers armed with pitchforks. Rather, it is to fight for a UBI while rebuilding a robustly democratic state that can enact broader progressive reforms to tax and welfare policies, subject large firms to far greater oversight, and protect workers and the unemployed in the here and now. Such reforms aren’t just good policy but also good politics, since they can help rebuild faith in the state. A standalone UBI simply cannot.

 

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

Piketi na temu.

The celebrated economist says a progressive property and income tax, greater say for workers in companies and an education system that is less biased against the poor will do more to reduce inequality than the fashionable proposal of a ‘basic income’ for all.

 


The problem with the discussion about basic income is that in most instances it leaves the real issues unexplored and in reality expresses a concept of social justice on the cheap. The question of justice is not simply a matter of 530 Euros or 800 Euros a month. If we wish to live in a fair and just society, we have to formulate more ambitious objectives which cover the distribution of income and wealth in its entirety and, consequently, the distribution of access to power and opportunities. Our ambition must be that of a society based on a fair return to labour, in other words, a fair wage and not simply a basic income.

 

 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
Is Finland’s basic universal income a solution to automation, fewer jobs and lower wages?

Both left and right are promoting the idea of a basic wage for everyone, currently on trial, as a solution to the new world of work

 

Sunday 19 February 2017 07.00 GMT Last modified on Sunday 19 February 2017 10.14 GMT

 

When he got the letter after Christmas saying he was entitled to an unconditional income of €560 (£478) a month, Mika Ruusunen couldn’t believe his luck. “At first I thought it was a joke. I had to read it many times. I looked for any evidence it might be false.”

 

But the father of two was not the victim of a scam. He has been selected to take part in an experiment being run by the Finnish government, in which 2,000 unemployed people between the ages of 25 and 58 will receive a guaranteed sum – a “basic income” – of €560 a month for two years. It replaces their unemployment benefit, but they will continue to receive it whether or not they find work. The government hopes it will encourage the unemployed to take on part-time work without worrying about losing their benefits.

 

 

Ruusunen lives in Kangasala, a half-hour bus ride from where we meet in Tampere, the country’s second city, known as the “Manchester of Finland”. Like its namesake, the signs of the 19th-century wealth generated by the industrial revolution are strikingly visible.

 

Today, the Finnish economy continues to struggle in the wake of the financial crisis, which hit just as communications giant Nokia’s star was starting to wane. This left Ruusunen, who lost his job as a baker two years ago, struggling to find work. He was unemployed when participants for the basic income pilot were randomly selected, but had started a paid IT apprenticeship by the time he got the letter.

 

“For me, it’s like free money on top of my earnings – it’s a bonus,” he tells me. But he thinks the basic income will make a big difference to others who are unemployed, especially those who are entrepreneurially minded. “If someone wants to start their own business, you don’t get unemployment benefits even if you don’t have any income for six months. You have to have savings, otherwise it’s not possible.”

 

Juha Järvinen, another participant in the pilot scheme who lives in western Finland, agrees the benefits system holds the unemployed back. He has been unemployed for five years since his business collapsed. “I have done a lot for free – wedding videos, making web pages – because I’ve liked it. But before a basic income I would get into trouble if I got any money for that work.”

 

Finland’s experiment is a variation on the idea of a universal basic income: an unconditional income paid by the government to all citizens, whether or not they’re in work. The Finns have long been perceived to be at the cutting edge of social innovation, so this is a fitting setting for the first national experiment of its kind.

 

But the idea of the basic income has captured a zeitgeist extending far beyond the borders of Scandinavia. Enthusiasts include Silicon Valley’s Elon Musk, former Clinton labour secretary Robert Reich, Benoît Hamon, the French socialist presidential candidate, and South Korean presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung. On Friday, Glasgow city council commissioned a feasibility study for its own basic income pilot.

 

The basic income is a big idea with a pedigree. It owes its roots to Thomas Paine, the 18th-century radical, who in 1797 proposed paying all 21-year-olds a £15 grant funded through a tax on landowners. Since then it has captured the imagination of many a philosopher, but until the past couple of years never gained much political traction beyond the fringes.

 

So what explains the sudden jump this centuries-old idea has made from political fringes to the mainstream?

 

An idea whose time has come?

There is now a growing band of politicians, entrepreneurs and policy strategists who argue that a basic income could potentially hold the solution to some of the big problems of our time. Some of these new converts have alighted upon the basic income as an answer to our fragmenting welfare state. They point to the increasingly precarious nature of today’s labour market for those in low-paid, low-skilled work: growing wage inequality, an increasing number of part-time and temporary jobs, and rogue employers routinely getting away with exploitative practices.

 

This grim reality collides with an increasingly punitive welfare state. Our welfare system was originally designed as a contributory system of unemployment insurance, in which workers put in during the good times, and took out during temporary periods of unemployment. But a big chunk of welfare spending now goes on permanently supporting people in jobs that don’t pay enough to support their families. As the contributory principle has been eroded, politicians have sought to create a new sense of legitimacy by loading the system with sanctions that dock jobseeker benefits for minor transgressions.

 

Anthony Painter, a director at the RSA thinktank, paints a picture that will be familiar to viewers of Ken Loach’s film, I, Daniel Blake. “You are late for a jobcentre appointment – so you get a sanction. You’re on a college course the jobcentre doesn’t think appropriate, so you get a sanction. Your benefits are paid late, so you face debt, rent arrears and the food bank. That’s the reality for millions on low or no pay – they are surrounded by tripwires with little chance of escape.”

 

Painter thinks a universal basic income of just under £4,000 a year could change all that. By itself, it wouldn’t be enough to take someone out of poverty, but it could give them the flexibility to retrain or the breathing room to wait to take a job that has prospects rather than being forced into taking the first vacancy that comes along.

 

The Finnish government shares Painter’s thinking. “The social security system has become complex over time, and needs simplification,” Pirkko Mattila, the minister for social affairs and health, tells me. She hopes participants in the Finnish pilot will find it easier to take short-term jobs and start their own businesses.

 

Marjukka Turunen, the civil servant implementing the pilot, points to the bureaucracy and uncertainty involved in declaring temporary income. “If you have a part-time job you have to apply for your benefit every four weeks,” she says. “You might have lots of different employers, and you’ll need to wait to get payslips from all of them. Then it takes another one or two weeks to process your payment. You don’t know how much you’ll get and when, which means you can’t plan ahead.”

 

A second set of basic income converts articulate a grander case, grounded not so much in the breakdown of the current welfare state, but in a world where the rise of robots means many of us will no longer have to work. We will be free to enjoy lives of leisure – but without work, we will all need a source of income.

 

This view has become fashionable in the wake of a series of headline-grabbing estimates about the proportion of jobs susceptible to automation. In 2013 Carl Frey and Michael Osborne at the Oxford Martin School predicted that 47% of jobs in the US were at risk of being automated “relatively soon, perhaps the next decade or two”. They foresaw innovations such as driverless technology replacing jobs such as driving a taxi, road haulage and dispatch driving.

 

These predictions have led some mainstream thinkers, such as Robert Reich, to warn that a future bereft of jobs may be looming. “Imagine a little gadget called an i-Everything,” Reich wrote last September. “This little machine will be able to do everything you want and give you everything you need.” He argued that, with fewer jobs, resources will need to be redistributed from those who own the technology of the future to the rest of us who want to buy it. According to Reich, a universal basic income “will almost certainly be part of the answer”.

 

In some quarters, then, a basic income is developing a reputation as the aspirin of the public policy world: a wonder drug that fixes multiple problems, from issues with the benefits system to replacing the jobs some argue will disappear from our lives. What’s the catch?

 

Who will pay for a universal basic income?

The most obvious one is expense: it’s not cheap to pay every citizen an unconditional income. Even incremental proposals cost sums that would raise eyebrows in Whitehall. Painter estimates his proposal for a basic annual income of just under £4,000 would cost around £18bn a year, and that’s after scrapping the personal tax allowance to help pay for it. That’s the equivalent of a 3p rise in the basic rate of income tax. The state would still need to keep paying housing and disability benefits on top of that. Make it more generous, and the costs escalate rapidly.

 

The expense is only a problem as long as the public are reluctant to pay for it. Polling that shows support for the idea of a basic income – one poll in Europe suggested 64% of adults back the idea – invariably fails to ask voters whether they would be prepared to countenance the sort of tax levels needed to fund it. A basic income would therefore require a fundamental shift in our politics: leaders who are comfortable advocating unpopular tax rises. A proposal for an undetermined level of basic income was rejected by 78% of Swiss voters in a referendum last year, although that may partly be explained by the fact that campaigners were calling for a very generous income level of £1,765 a month.

 

It’s not just the expense: critics warn that a universal basic income is unlikely to deliver the benefits its advocates claim. “The current [benefits] system is draconian, but it doesn’t need to be,” points out Declan Gaffney, an expert on social security who recently gave evidence to the Commons work and pensions select committee on basic income. “It would be disingenuous to use its problems as a bully pulpit for basic income.” He has also highlighted the risk that removing the obligation for those on benefits to look for work might encourage some people to drift into long-term worklessness.

 

More fundamentally, many labour market economists have challenged the notion that robots will steal our jobs. Jobs have disappeared throughout history as a result of technological advance: you would be hard-pressed to find many washerwomen since washing machines became ubiquitous. But the economy has always created new jobs to replace the ones that disappear.

 

Predictions about the end of work are hardly new. In 1891, Oscar Wilde wrote about a world where machines did all the work in his essay The Soul of Man Under Socialism. John Maynard Keynes predicted back in the 1930s that technology would allow us all to cut down to a 15-hour working week.

 

“I’m old enough to remember exactly the same arguments about the end of work being made 30 years ago – then it was about de-industrialisation, now it is about automation,” says Gaffney. “The lesson from that period is not that we should pay people to stay out of the labour market. It is don’t park people when they lose their jobs. If you expect large-scale job destruction, you need to put policies in place to support people into new jobs. That didn’t happen in the 1980s to the extent it should. As a result, a lot of people who lost jobs never worked again.”

 

Peter Nolan, professor of work at Leicester University and director of the Centre for Sustainable Work and Employment Futures, says the end-of-work thesis is based on unrealistic assumptions about the private sector. “Many predictions about the number of jobs that will be automated in coming years are based on what’s technologically possible, not evidence about the extent to which and how companies will choose to deploy technology,” he says.

 

“It’s wrong to move straight from talking about automation to the need for a basic income, without talking about what is happening in the workplace and how we address that. Our work has produced quite a significant body of evidence that some industries are combining advances in technology with degraded work and conditions.”

 

He points to several examples of sectors where the end-of-work thesis simply isn’t playing out. In the logistics sector, companies are using technology not to replace warehouse staff and couriers, but to put them under increasing surveillance to control their working patterns, reducing employee autonomy, skill and dignity. Wrist-based technology allows bosses to monitor activity minute-by-minute, including bathroom breaks.

 

In the East Midlands, garment manufacturing has, after a long period of decline and moving production abroad, started to grow again. But Nolan’s centre found that three-quarters of these jobs pay around £3 an hour, less than half the minimum wage. As a result of a lack of minimum wage enforcement, companies in the UK are, under the radar, returning to the sweatshop-style labour of the past. Nolan argues that we should be focusing on properly enforcing minimum wage legislation and improving employment conditions through regulation.

 

Some argue there is even a risk a basic income could facilitate this sort of exploitation. Unscrupulous employers might further embrace precarious employment models, in the knowledge that everyone is getting a basic income to tide them over. This is what worries Antti Jauhiainen, the founder of Parecon Finland, a radical economic thinktank in Helsinki. “I think CEOs in the Silicon Valley tech industry recognise a basic income could be good for them because it would allow a platform like Uber to keep payments to drivers low,” he says.

 

 

And why is Silicon Valley fronting up the case for a basic income while some of its biggest success stories – Apple and Facebook – go to all lengths necessary to massively reduce their tax bills? It’s hard not to feel that in doing so the tech sector is passing the buck on to the state while ignoring its own responsibilities to the societies from which it profits.

 

Jauhiainen is a supporter of basic income in principle. But he thinks it is significant the Finnish pilot has been introduced by a centre-right government that has embraced austerity. “In the current political climate, it could turn bad,” he says.

 

The Finnish left are divided on the pilot: some see it as a step in the right direction towards a universal basic income. But Finnish unions have historically opposed it, fearing it will eat into their collective bargaining power, and that it may be a way for the right to scrap minimum-wage requirements.

 

These fears that the basic income could be used as a tool for the right’s own ends are far from baseless. American libertarians such as Charles Murray have long argued that a basic income could be used to do away with the welfare state altogether. In Britain, the way in which Conservative chancellors have steadily delivered tax cuts that disproportionately help more affluent families, while cutting the means-tested benefits relied on by those in the greatest financial need, should sound a note of caution.

 

Is basic income an idea that can save the left?

Unions in the UK are much more enthusiastic, perhaps because they have less to lose than their Finnish counterparts which have retained greater collective bargaining power. Becca Kirkpatrick is a community organiser and chairs Unison’s West Midlands community branch. One reason she is attracted to a basic income is because of her own experience as a part-time carer. “If I had a basic income, I could invest a lot more into supporting my younger sister, who is disabled,” she says.

 

Kirkpatrick won her branch’s backing for the idea, and Unison West Midlands is asking candidates for West Midlands mayor to commit to piloting a basic income.

 

Nikki Dancey, branch secretary for the GMB in Berkshire and North Hampshire, is another grassroots union member involved in the campaign. “A basic income could offer enough financial security to encourage workers to stand up for themselves at work, strengthening the union movement,” she says.

 

The basic income has now been endorsed by the TUC, the GMB and Unite. “The left and the unions have taken a hammering in recent years, and what we need now is a big win. Universal basic income has the potential to be that win,” says Dancey.

 

Others on the left agree. John McDonnell, Labour’s shadow chancellor, has previously made welcoming noises about a basic income. Earlier this month he announced he was setting up a working group to look at the idea. Since it lost power in 2010, the Labour party has been in search of an answer to the de-industrialisation, growing wage inequality and economic insecurity that proved fertile territory for the Brexit campaign. Ed Miliband’s responsible capitalism was roundly rejected by voters at the ballot box in 2015. Perhaps, then, it is worth trying something new.

 

Jon Cruddas, the MP for Dagenham and Rainham, is a passionate dissenter. I spoke to him last year for a Radio 4 programme on the basic income. “I don’t see [sports Direct owner] Mike Ashley moving into a post-work world or automating his mass factories in the West and East Midlands,” he said. “Where is the evidence of this? We’re seeing more and more degraded work.”

 

Cruddas worries that basic income risks distracting the left from its age-old mission to improve the quality of work. “The left has not resolved the question of giving people a genuine voice at work so as to enact a more dignified workplace.

 

“But that does not mean you absolve yourself for trying to find the answers to this by embracing a form of futurology that owes more to Arthur C Clarke than Karl Marx. I see this as an abdication of the political struggle across the left. I find that tragic.”

 

Cruddas is surely right that any account of the intertwined struggle for economic and political power seems missing from these new left accounts that advocate for a basic income on the basis of the end of work. It’s hard to envisage the robot owners of the future paying the rest of us a basic income when today’s tech giants do everything in their power to avoid paying tax. Ditch the idea that work should pay decently, and what remains for the left? There’s no contest between the science fiction of Arthur C Clarke and the class struggle of Karl Marx: the left abandons Marx at its peril.

 

For Mika Ruusunen in Tampere, though, a basic income helps him make sense of our changing world. “We now have more freelancing, part-time jobs and people with multiple jobs than ever before,” he says. “I see a basic income as a natural reaction to our changing economic culture.”

 

But, given divisions on the left in the UK, and a lack of interest from politicians of the right, basic income-supporting trade unionists such as Becca Kirkpatrick could face a long fight ahead.

 

NO-STRINGS CASH – FROM PRINCIPLE TO PRACTICE

 

The idea of the universal basic income is that the government pays every adult citizen the basic cost of living. It doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, in work or unemployed – everyone gets the same amount. There are no strings attached.

 

Trials of UBI are taking place around the world, including in the Netherlands, Italy and Finland. In the UK, the Scottish government is considering pilot schemes in Glasgow and Fife.

 

Supporters of UBI say that as technology changes the world of work, the current benefits system is becoming irrelevant. A universal basic income could, they argue, protect the increasing numbers working in an insecure labour market and moving between zero-hours contracts and part-time jobs.

 


Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

Protiv univerzalnog prihoda
 

 

Ipak, univerzalni osnovni dohodak je ćorsokak. Najčešće korišćeni protivargument je, naravno, problem finansiranja. Troškovi nisu kvantifikovani, ali nema sumnje da će biti visoki. Još nije izvesno kako bi trebalo oporezovati ukupne dohotke i bogatstva da bi se obezbedila potrebna sredstva. Radikalna transformacija sistema socijalne zaštite uvođenjem univerzalnog osnovnog dohotka bila bi finansijski rizik bez presedana.

 

Ali finansijski aspekt tog pitanja čak i nije najvažaniji argument protiv osnovnog dohotka. To je zavodljiv i sladak otrov koji ljudima na marginama društva donosi korist na račun srednje klase. Osnovni dohodak ukida pritisak i smanjuje motivaciju za aktivno traženje posla među siromašnima i dugotrajno nezaposlenima. Bogate to verovatno neće koštati više nego stari sistem, a sigurno će im pomoći da umire socijalnu savest. U tom slučaju, dalji rast socijalne nejednakosti više ne bi bio skandalozan, jer bi svako imao osnovni prihod, makar i na granici siromaštva. Upravo tu se kristalizuju tri ključna argumenta protiv bezuslovnog osnovnog dohotka.

 

Link to comment
  • 3 years later...
Quote

Španija bi mogla da postane prva evropska država koja će trajno uvesti univerzalni osnovni dohodak. Vlada je najavila uvođenje ove mere kako bi se pomoglo stanovništvu tokom pandemije koronavirusa, ali ideja je da se nastavi sa primenom politke i nakon završetka krize.

Iako nije precizno definisano kada će se početi s isplatama, ministarka ekonomije Nađa Kalvino rekla je da će ova politika biti implementirana „što pre“. Osim toga, istakla je da plan Vlade nije samo privremena pomoć stanovništvu, već da univerzalni osnovni dohodak (UBI) vide kao „strukturalni i stalni instrument koji bi trebalo da ostane zauvek“.

Ovakav dohodak bi podrazumevao mesečnu isplatu novca svakom stanovniku Španije, dovoljnu za pokrivanje osnovnih životnih potreba. On je bezuslovan, tako da bi svako pojedinačno primao novac, bez obzira na radni status i mogućnost ili želju da se zaposli. Osim toga, isplata dohotka ne bi zavisila ni od bračnog statusa, seksualnog opredeljenja ili želje da se planira porodica, već je garantovan svima kao individualno pravo.

Španska Vlada je već preduzela niz mera kako bi zaštitila stanovništvo od posledica krize. Radnici koji su ostali bez posla tokom epidemije primaju naknade za nezaposlene, bez obzira da li su uplaćivali socijalno osiguranje, dok su kompanije oslobođene plaćanja poreza za zaposlene koji su privremeni višak.

Svi koji su ostali bez posla ili redovnih primanja imaju pravo na odloženo plaćanje hipoteka i računa za komunalne usluge, dok kompanije ne smeju da primenjuju bilo kakve disciplinske mere prema zaposlenima koji odsustvuju sa posla jer moraju da čuvaju decu ili starije.

Mašina

 

 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...