43 ms·

We have direct democracy here in Switzerland. Anybody can propose a federal law: just collect 20,000 signatures for it (100,000 for some radical changes). Iron

We have direct democracy here in Switzerland. Anybody can propose a federal law: just collect 20,000 signatures for it (100,000 for some radical changes). Iron a few wrinkles, and it can be put to vote in one of the next federal referendums (we have one about every two months). So far, there were about 2 or 3 unconditional income law proposals in the last 10 years, and they were all voted "no". Thankfully. Because "unconditional income" will not magically appear from nowhere, it will be provided from my salary. And my company's income (at this point, I have to pay around 18,000 francs per year even if my company doesn't do anything to finance all social programs already there — so much for "unconditional income"). And I have to pay another 6,000 francs per year for obligatory medical insurance in Switzerland. And I won't be able to receive this "income" anyway, as I am not a Swiss citizen — I just live here and have a company here, and I have to pay _a lot_ for this. Money don't grow on trees. It always have to be sourced from somewhere. And not from some nameless "rich corporation" — it will be sourced from my already struggling business. And from yours. And from your salary.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> Money don't grow on trees. It always have to be sourced from somewhere. And not from some nameless "rich corporation" — it will be sourced from my already struggling business. And from yours. And from your salary. Productivity, gained through software and automation, can be used to deliver quality of life improving services at zero marginal cost. I'm not going to spend this entire comment rehashing the ongoing debate over how much of the world's economy is going to get eaten by this, but suffice it to say I roll my eyes _hard_ now when someone says money doesn't grow on trees. With enough effort, you can automate every job out of existence. Its just a) how much effort you choose to exert and b) the order in which you do so. Can't these productivity benefits be distributed through consumer excess, and in a roundabout way, be used to deliver a basic income? And if someone complains about their hard earned $fiats, what's to say their job isn't next to be obsoleted?
- atemerev 11y ago
  You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and circuses" to the rest of the world, who can't produce because their "jobs" are worthless. Incidentally, this was exactly the reason of demise of the Roman Empire. Instead of robots, there were slaves captured in military conquests (slavery is morally wrong, of course, but it was "sustainable" and there were no significant slave uprisings). But it didn't end well.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and circuses" to the rest of the world, who can't produce because their "jobs" are worthless. I am envisioning a world where ultra-generous industrialists give away their wealth to help the world. You cannot say it cannot happen; it has/already is happening. Indulge me for a moment, but isn't Bill Gates (along with Warren Buffet) giving away almost all their entire net worth in a very results-driven way to help raise the quality of life for the very worse off? And did Elon Musk (no fan boy comment here, just truth) not give away (really, offer to license at a very small cost) the patents necessary for existing vehicle manufacturers to make better electric cars? Not everyone is greedy. Not everyone is an ultra-rich capitalist.
    - atemerev 11y ago
      Bill Gates' fortune (that he hasn't gave off yet, BTW) is around $80 billion. OK, imagine that he actually put all of it to charity, all 80 billion. Say, to finance the basic income in the US. Let's assume $1000 per month will be enough for the US (the Swiss are rich poor bastards). So, for how long it will last? The answer is ONE WEEK. Throwing Buffet, Musk, Zuckerberg and all other rich ultra-generous industrialists in the equation will probably extend the runway to several months, perhaps a year. But that would be it. The bulk of purchasing power in capitalist countries is still produced by working middle class.
      - 11y ago
- asuffield 11y ago
  My job is, in a very real sense, to automate jobs out of existence. How much $fiats were you proposing to pay me, again?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- IsaacL 11y ago
  I think automotion is the crux of the basic income argument. If mass automation was going to happen the way many people predict, basic income would make more sense. I don't think it will, and I think most jobs will be difficult to automate than people think. (Most factories are still manned by humans; manual jobs require interacting with the physical world, which machines can't do well at all; most professional jobs have significant non-routine components).
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Foxconn is replacing as many workers as possible with robotics. As robotics get better, the tipping point for each job (where the economics make sense to automate) comes closer to the present.
    - rhino369 11y ago
      So did Ford in the world 1920's. Or Microsoft word and IBM did replaced most secretaries. Or the tractor etc. Automation isn't necessarily the end of all jobs.
      - XorNot 11y ago
        It was in Detroit.
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        If you assume that automation begets more automation exponentially, then the end game of automation is the elimination of all jobs. Assuming this, the question is when, not if. So either we keep inventing fake work faster than we invent automation, or we decouple the idea of work from the idea of being human and let people do what they truly want to do.
  - tluyben2 11y ago
    The electronics factories we work with are empty: large buildings filled with (Japanese and German) machines and a handful of people 'operating' them. A few years ago there were many people doing that same work. So sure there are some people manning them but a lot of jobs gone. Automation does not have to replace all jobs but it will and does replace most repetiti ve ones. So sure professional jobs stay for a while yet but what % is that? That is really not what most people do or are able to do. Like the biggest employ in the US is truckdriving: you really think that exists in 50 years? And what can a truckdriver do instead generally?
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  I don't think this particular comment gets enough coverage "With enough effort, you can automate every job out of existence." The example I've used has been self scanning checkout lines at grocery stores. They replace 16 cashiers at $10/hr with one "supervisor" at $16/hr. The additional margin goes to the grocer. If instead the productivity went to a basic income program then, the price of groceries would be the same, the grocer's income would be the same, but now there would be money "appearing out of thin air" for a basic income program. But what is really happening is that you've automated a human job, captured all that GDP in the process. If you think about it that way, it changes how you see automation, and productivity gains.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
    In Australia we have a supermarket chain called Coles. After they brought in self checkouts, they started bringing in new bakeries, cafes, etc _into_ the stores. I am not sure the number of staff went down by all that much.
    - firethief 11y ago
      That's a red herring. It's not the absolute number of staff in a particular supermarket that we're talking about, but the ratio of people employed to work done. Using their lowered operating costs to expand their business doesn't negate the fact that their checkouts are operating with less human labor.
  - lxmorj 11y ago
    Productivity gains mainly happen when there is a profit motive to create them. What incentive is there to create self scanning machines if you can't sell them for a profit? Why would a grocery store buy them if they don't gain from the purchase. It's all the same to the store: employ 10 people or use robots and pay more in taxes so those 10 people get basic income and don't work.
- hobs 11y ago
  > With enough effort... The effort often is significantly outweighed by the cost and benefits realized. The difficulty of fully automating anyone who services your home for instance. Plumbers, electrician, firemen, inspectors, hvac, carpenters, window replacers, roofers, etc etc etc. Right now we are automating things which are overhead and easily repeatable, not things which require creative solutions and unique problem solving within a specific domain (eg A pipe broke and water is pouring into my basement, how do I fix this as fast as possible with the least property damage, and then ensure cleanup is done properly so dangerous molds dont arise?)
- nickik 11y ago
  I belive you to be wrong. Nothing you say is anything new. For 200 years people have been repeating 'all the jobs will go away' because of automation. It has never actually happened. People always find new ways to employ their skills and we are richer because of it. Im not against basic imcome proposles but you argumnet is still a terrible one. I think basic income would be a easy way to help those who for whatever reason can not provide for themself. Basic income is a new way of organising the social safty net, and does not alter the fundamentals of the capitlaist society.
  - afc 11y ago
    > For 200 years people have been repeating 'all the jobs will go away' because of automation. It has never actually happened. This looks like a good example of the Normalcy bias logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias That it hasn't happened in 200 years doesn't mean it won't happen now.
- rebootthesystem 11y ago
  It is obvious you have never started and run a non-trivial business or you would know what you are saying is utterly ridiculous.
tw04 11y ago
Unless Switzerland has no form of welfare already - then you're already paying for it, just through a far less efficient means. This may cost more, definitely - or it may cost less when you're no longer making people jump through the welfare hoops to get what they need (food/shelter/whatever). In the US, the amount of paperwork overhead for things like section 8 housing, food stamps, etc, would probably cover soemthing like this. Or at least start to.
- atemerev 11y ago
  Yes, I am already paying _a lot_, and I don't want to pay more.
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    I haven't looked into the details of this referendum but the way it's normally pitched is that this will replace all the other welfare.. in that those old systems will go away. Does the current proposal add without removing?
    - mac01021 11y ago
      Even if it doesn't, it must add much more than it removes.
    - andreasklinger 11y ago
      depends how costly the (currently) needed bureaucracy around it is
    - caseysoftware 11y ago
      Re: bureaucracy If it was truly universal - no exceptions, no means-testing, etc - then the "bureaucracy" around this one is negligible. While I'm intrigued by a Basic Income approach, I don't think the bureaucracies would be willing to give up the power that they have to shape and influence people and society as a whole. It is exceptionally rare in human history that a government has given up power. I think that is what will kill most of these Basic Income proposals, not even considering the math of taxes.
skybrian 11y ago
It does seem unfair if non-citizens have to pay for this. Done properly, the average person should break even. Of course, few people are average.
specialist 11y ago
"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Why are you in Switzerland? If the taxes are too high, you should migrate to somewhere more "business friendly." Why not Somalia, for instance?
- IsaacL 11y ago
  The price is far higher than it needs to be, though. Historically normal tax rates were around 10%, not the ~40% typical for most industrialised nations today. From around 1910 to 1950, there was a massive push to centralise control of economies, move nations off the gold standard and onto fiat currencies, expand credit as a means to reduce poverty, and massively increase state spending. The "normal" state of affairs now is largely a creation of specific government policies at that time. Somalia's a crime-ridden hellhole - I'm not an anarcho-capitalist and I believe that freedom requires the rule of law. Hong Kong and Singapore are two places which remain close to the pre-WWI classical liberal ideal of genuinely free economies with the rule of law, and both have income tax rates of around %10 IIRC. I'm strongly considering relocating to the latter if the UK continues on its current trajectory.
  - specialist 11y ago
    You lost me at "gold standard".
  - 2a0c40 11y ago
    Here, read a little bit more about your paradise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Singapore
    - IsaacL 11y ago
      Of course I've already read up on Singapore. It's a paternalistic, de-facto one party state, on a model common in East Asia. They make a different set of tradeoffs to Western nations - harsh law enforcement to achieve low crime rates, etc. I've lived in China, which does have a shitty government, but even China's problems are exaggerated in Western media. The only things on that list I have a real problem with are freedom of speech and LGBT rights. Capital punishment and caning shock Westerners, but Singapore's legal system is actually fair and efficient; it's not like the procedural trainwreck which is the US justice system where countless criminals walk free and countless law-abiding citizens are rotting in jail. Conscription is pretty much necessary for a micro-state sandwiched between two nations which historically hated their guts. Migrant workers aren't forced to be there (and unlike Qatar or Dubai, they're not generally lured in under false pretences). Even the freedom of expression rules are very similar to the de-facto/de-jure hate speech rules which exist in the West, and they exist for a similar reason - Singapore wants to minimise Chinese/Malay tensions. EDIT: I just remembered that this HN user - https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=frenchieinsg https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=frenchieinsg - initially piqued my interest in Singapore. Might be of interest to others of similar mind.
didibus 11y ago
As a non Citizen, can you propose a law or vote on them? Cause as much as I value your opinion, you don't speak for Swiss if you're not a Citizen. Most form of socialism is generally problematic for external capital, which seems to be the business you're in, having a company in another country. So it's really unsurprising to me to hear you critique this. Though, external capital is actually a good point to consider. Whatever social program I think a country decides to adopt, it need to consider a structure where it will remain attractive for capital investment. So as long as there is still a win/win situation between investor and the country's Citizens, I think it's fine, but if that's broken, like in full communism, it's generally a bad outcome for the long term prospect of a country.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> Money don't grow on trees. It always have to be sourced from somewhere. And not from some nameless "rich corporation" — it will be sourced from my already struggling business. And from yours. And from your salary. Productivity, gained through software and automation, can be used to deliver quality of life improving services at zero marginal cost. I'm not going to spend this entire comment rehashing the ongoing debate over how much of the world's economy is going to get eaten by this, but suffice it to say I roll my eyes _hard_ now when someone says money doesn't grow on trees. With enough effort, you can automate every job out of existence. Its just a) how much effort you choose to exert and b) the order in which you do so. Can't these productivity benefits be distributed through consumer excess, and in a roundabout way, be used to deliver a basic income? And if someone complains about their hard earned $fiats, what's to say their job isn't next to be obsoleted?

atemerev 11y ago
You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and circuses" to the rest of the world, who can't produce because their "jobs" are worthless. Incidentally, this was exactly the reason of demise of the Roman Empire. Instead of robots, there were slaves captured in military conquests (slavery is morally wrong, of course, but it was "sustainable" and there were no significant slave uprisings). But it didn't end well.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and circuses" to the rest of the world, who can't produce because their "jobs" are worthless. I am envisioning a world where ultra-generous industrialists give away their wealth to help the world. You cannot say it cannot happen; it has/already is happening. Indulge me for a moment, but isn't Bill Gates (along with Warren Buffet) giving away almost all their entire net worth in a very results-driven way to help raise the quality of life for the very worse off? And did Elon Musk (no fan boy comment here, just truth) not give away (really, offer to license at a very small cost) the patents necessary for existing vehicle manufacturers to make better electric cars? Not everyone is greedy. Not everyone is an ultra-rich capitalist.
  - atemerev 11y ago
    Bill Gates' fortune (that he hasn't gave off yet, BTW) is around $80 billion. OK, imagine that he actually put all of it to charity, all 80 billion. Say, to finance the basic income in the US. Let's assume $1000 per month will be enough for the US (the Swiss are rich poor bastards). So, for how long it will last? The answer is ONE WEEK. Throwing Buffet, Musk, Zuckerberg and all other rich ultra-generous industrialists in the equation will probably extend the runway to several months, perhaps a year. But that would be it. The bulk of purchasing power in capitalist countries is still produced by working middle class.
    - 11y ago
asuffield 11y ago
My job is, in a very real sense, to automate jobs out of existence. How much $fiats were you proposing to pay me, again?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
IsaacL 11y ago
I think automotion is the crux of the basic income argument. If mass automation was going to happen the way many people predict, basic income would make more sense. I don't think it will, and I think most jobs will be difficult to automate than people think. (Most factories are still manned by humans; manual jobs require interacting with the physical world, which machines can't do well at all; most professional jobs have significant non-routine components).
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Foxconn is replacing as many workers as possible with robotics. As robotics get better, the tipping point for each job (where the economics make sense to automate) comes closer to the present.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    So did Ford in the world 1920's. Or Microsoft word and IBM did replaced most secretaries. Or the tractor etc. Automation isn't necessarily the end of all jobs.
    - XorNot 11y ago
      It was in Detroit.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      If you assume that automation begets more automation exponentially, then the end game of automation is the elimination of all jobs. Assuming this, the question is when, not if. So either we keep inventing fake work faster than we invent automation, or we decouple the idea of work from the idea of being human and let people do what they truly want to do.
- tluyben2 11y ago
  The electronics factories we work with are empty: large buildings filled with (Japanese and German) machines and a handful of people 'operating' them. A few years ago there were many people doing that same work. So sure there are some people manning them but a lot of jobs gone. Automation does not have to replace all jobs but it will and does replace most repetiti ve ones. So sure professional jobs stay for a while yet but what % is that? That is really not what most people do or are able to do. Like the biggest employ in the US is truckdriving: you really think that exists in 50 years? And what can a truckdriver do instead generally?
ChuckMcM 11y ago
I don't think this particular comment gets enough coverage "With enough effort, you can automate every job out of existence." The example I've used has been self scanning checkout lines at grocery stores. They replace 16 cashiers at $10/hr with one "supervisor" at $16/hr. The additional margin goes to the grocer. If instead the productivity went to a basic income program then, the price of groceries would be the same, the grocer's income would be the same, but now there would be money "appearing out of thin air" for a basic income program. But what is really happening is that you've automated a human job, captured all that GDP in the process. If you think about it that way, it changes how you see automation, and productivity gains.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
  In Australia we have a supermarket chain called Coles. After they brought in self checkouts, they started bringing in new bakeries, cafes, etc _into_ the stores. I am not sure the number of staff went down by all that much.
  - firethief 11y ago
    That's a red herring. It's not the absolute number of staff in a particular supermarket that we're talking about, but the ratio of people employed to work done. Using their lowered operating costs to expand their business doesn't negate the fact that their checkouts are operating with less human labor.
- lxmorj 11y ago
  Productivity gains mainly happen when there is a profit motive to create them. What incentive is there to create self scanning machines if you can't sell them for a profit? Why would a grocery store buy them if they don't gain from the purchase. It's all the same to the store: employ 10 people or use robots and pay more in taxes so those 10 people get basic income and don't work.
hobs 11y ago
> With enough effort... The effort often is significantly outweighed by the cost and benefits realized. The difficulty of fully automating anyone who services your home for instance. Plumbers, electrician, firemen, inspectors, hvac, carpenters, window replacers, roofers, etc etc etc. Right now we are automating things which are overhead and easily repeatable, not things which require creative solutions and unique problem solving within a specific domain (eg A pipe broke and water is pouring into my basement, how do I fix this as fast as possible with the least property damage, and then ensure cleanup is done properly so dangerous molds dont arise?)
nickik 11y ago
I belive you to be wrong. Nothing you say is anything new. For 200 years people have been repeating 'all the jobs will go away' because of automation. It has never actually happened. People always find new ways to employ their skills and we are richer because of it. Im not against basic imcome proposles but you argumnet is still a terrible one. I think basic income would be a easy way to help those who for whatever reason can not provide for themself. Basic income is a new way of organising the social safty net, and does not alter the fundamentals of the capitlaist society.
- afc 11y ago
  > For 200 years people have been repeating 'all the jobs will go away' because of automation. It has never actually happened. This looks like a good example of the Normalcy bias logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias That it hasn't happened in 200 years doesn't mean it won't happen now.
rebootthesystem 11y ago
It is obvious you have never started and run a non-trivial business or you would know what you are saying is utterly ridiculous.

tw04 11y ago

Unless Switzerland has no form of welfare already - then you're already paying for it, just through a far less efficient means. This may cost more, definitely - or it may cost less when you're no longer making people jump through the welfare hoops to get what they need (food/shelter/whatever). In the US, the amount of paperwork overhead for things like section 8 housing, food stamps, etc, would probably cover soemthing like this. Or at least start to.

atemerev 11y ago
Yes, I am already paying _a lot_, and I don't want to pay more.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  I haven't looked into the details of this referendum but the way it's normally pitched is that this will replace all the other welfare.. in that those old systems will go away. Does the current proposal add without removing?
  - mac01021 11y ago
    Even if it doesn't, it must add much more than it removes.
  - andreasklinger 11y ago
    depends how costly the (currently) needed bureaucracy around it is
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    Re: bureaucracy If it was truly universal - no exceptions, no means-testing, etc - then the "bureaucracy" around this one is negligible. While I'm intrigued by a Basic Income approach, I don't think the bureaucracies would be willing to give up the power that they have to shape and influence people and society as a whole. It is exceptionally rare in human history that a government has given up power. I think that is what will kill most of these Basic Income proposals, not even considering the math of taxes.

skybrian 11y ago

It does seem unfair if non-citizens have to pay for this. Done properly, the average person should break even. Of course, few people are average.

specialist 11y ago

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Why are you in Switzerland? If the taxes are too high, you should migrate to somewhere more "business friendly." Why not Somalia, for instance?

IsaacL 11y ago
The price is far higher than it needs to be, though. Historically normal tax rates were around 10%, not the ~40% typical for most industrialised nations today. From around 1910 to 1950, there was a massive push to centralise control of economies, move nations off the gold standard and onto fiat currencies, expand credit as a means to reduce poverty, and massively increase state spending. The "normal" state of affairs now is largely a creation of specific government policies at that time. Somalia's a crime-ridden hellhole - I'm not an anarcho-capitalist and I believe that freedom requires the rule of law. Hong Kong and Singapore are two places which remain close to the pre-WWI classical liberal ideal of genuinely free economies with the rule of law, and both have income tax rates of around %10 IIRC. I'm strongly considering relocating to the latter if the UK continues on its current trajectory.
- specialist 11y ago
  You lost me at "gold standard".
- 2a0c40 11y ago
  Here, read a little bit more about your paradise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Singapore
  - IsaacL 11y ago
    Of course I've already read up on Singapore. It's a paternalistic, de-facto one party state, on a model common in East Asia. They make a different set of tradeoffs to Western nations - harsh law enforcement to achieve low crime rates, etc. I've lived in China, which does have a shitty government, but even China's problems are exaggerated in Western media. The only things on that list I have a real problem with are freedom of speech and LGBT rights. Capital punishment and caning shock Westerners, but Singapore's legal system is actually fair and efficient; it's not like the procedural trainwreck which is the US justice system where countless criminals walk free and countless law-abiding citizens are rotting in jail. Conscription is pretty much necessary for a micro-state sandwiched between two nations which historically hated their guts. Migrant workers aren't forced to be there (and unlike Qatar or Dubai, they're not generally lured in under false pretences). Even the freedom of expression rules are very similar to the de-facto/de-jure hate speech rules which exist in the West, and they exist for a similar reason - Singapore wants to minimise Chinese/Malay tensions. EDIT: I just remembered that this HN user - https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=frenchieinsg https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=frenchieinsg - initially piqued my interest in Singapore. Might be of interest to others of similar mind.

didibus 11y ago

As a non Citizen, can you propose a law or vote on them? Cause as much as I value your opinion, you don't speak for Swiss if you're not a Citizen. Most form of socialism is generally problematic for external capital, which seems to be the business you're in, having a company in another country. So it's really unsurprising to me to hear you critique this. Though, external capital is actually a good point to consider. Whatever social program I think a country decides to adopt, it need to consider a structure where it will remain attractive for capital investment. So as long as there is still a win/win situation between investor and the country's Citizens, I think it's fine, but if that's broken, like in full communism, it's generally a bad outcome for the long term prospect of a country.