7 ms·
The pope just proposed a universal basic income
- sdegutis 7y agoThe article talks about UBI meaning getting money "just for being alive". But in the actual source[1], Pope Francis says: > This may be the time to consider a universal basic wage which would acknowledge and dignify the noble, essential tasks you carry out. It would ensure and concretely achieve the ideal, at once so human and so Christian, of no worker without rights. This is talking about a dignified, minimum living wage for doing the essential jobs humanity needs. [1] https://movimientospopulares.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.06-Social-Mov.-Easter-ENG.pdf https://movimientospopulares.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/...
- clarkevans 7y agoThanks for the link. It's an impressive sermon. Pope Francis says that "technocratic paradigms (whether state-centred or market-driven) are not enough to address this crisis or the other great problems affecting humankind." He's expressly talking to "you who are informal, working on your own or in the grassroots economy." I think Nathan's interpretation is correct, Pope Francis is not talking about raising the minimum wage, he's talking about a fundamental restructuring of our society.
- ntnsndr 7y agoArticle author here. I don't get the sense that he's just talking about a living wage for marginal workers. That is a longstanding demand from the church, but the language here is different. To speak of "universal" and "basic" here is a clear nod to UBI of some sort, as are the references throughout to care work and activist work, which are never going to earn a wage in the labor market. +1 on the point about hedging against technocratic solutions, however. He expands on that language a lot in Laudato Si. I should have highlighted that in the article. Unlike many Silicon Valley UBI advocates, he does not see this as a simple, algorithmic fix, but his emphasis is on the way it could help bring about cultural change, transforming what kind of work we value and orienting the economy toward a recognition of universal human dignity. Will check back to chat more. Fun to see this show up in my HN feed!
- dredmorbius 7y agoNB: I'm getting intermittent cerst error on the domain. Working now, failed ~15 minutes ago.
- sdegutis 7y agoOh I didn’t realize this is the same America Magazine which Fr. James Martin is “editor at large” of. I’ve been wanting to ask him about the many points at https://www.churchmilitant.com/main/generic/fr.-james-martin-sj https://www.churchmilitant.com/main/generic/fr.-james-martin... but haven’t found a way to contact him. They all seem valid and thus the magazine’s doctrinal position seems compromised, if it is in fact edited at the highest level by someone who dissents from immutable Catholic teachings. But I am a big fan of giving people a chance to explain or defend themselves, having many times been on the other side of misunderstandings myself.
- droithomme 7y agoHis link to the actual letter of the Pope is very clear that he refers to laborers and wages and a Universal Basic Wage, not a Universal Basic Income given to all, including the idle. His criticism of your article is on point and warranted. Your response is not adequate, you merely restate your case that he has disproven using original documents. It's possible that the Pope also supports UBI for the idle. His letter here does not support that claim though.
- sdegutis 7y ago> It's possible that the Pope also supports UBI for the idle. For the sick or those who otherwise can't work despite being willing to, sure. For those who willingly don't work, no. The Bible is super clear about this: "if a man does not work, let him not eat."
- soperj 7y agoMan, there will be some weird pro-life stances on people should start getting paid...
- sv9 7y agoWhen will Papa be redistributing the Catholic church's vast wealth then?
- RayMan1 7y agoHe tried, but they killed him. Didnt you watch The New Pope on HBO?
- zeckalpha 7y agoAhem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum > The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government. This isn’t new!
- gottebp 7y agoA beautiful document. Fans of G.K. Chesterton (Chesterton's Fence, etc.) might be interested to know that Rerum novarum profoundly affected the man's life, and there is a fascinating outworking from it, misleadingly named "Distributism" that would see a society with the maximal number of small businesses in the hands of as many friends and families as possible, along with a return to the guild system and 'localism' in as many places as possible (not just food) [1]. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
- jawns 7y agoI agree, it's a lousy name. Unfortunately, many people, upon hearing of it for the first time, assume that it entails forced redistribution of wealth -- take from the rich to give to the poor. But that's not what distributism is about. It's a "third way" economic system that advocates for widespread ownership of productive property. Whereas in laissez-faire capitalism, the ownership of such property becomes concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of wealthy business people, and in socialism the ownership falls into the hands of the state, controlled by a relatively small number of politicians and bureaucrats, distributists argue that society works best when ownership of productive property is not concentrated, but diffuse. But to achieve that end by seizing and redistributing property would go against the point of distributism, which is not socialism under another name. At most, distributists argue for a climate in which such a system can flourish. Cooperative business structures are a great example of what distributism advocates for. And we know that co-ops can be really beneficial, as long as they're not disadvantaged under the law.
- travisgriggs 7y agoVery naive question here. I am not an economist. I'm all for normalizing distances between haves and have nots. But why is this solution to give money? Why not universal basic housing, universal basic food, universal basic internet, etc? It seems odd to propose equalization of needs with something that is so ethereal and arbitrary and easily games as money. If the goal is normalization, why not just wage caps instead of minimum wages?
- papermachete 7y agoWell said, you can't buy smartphones and videogames with food coupons.
- jedberg 7y agoTo many poor people a smartphone is a necessity. It is their only computer and their only connection to jobs and job boards and communication with potential employers. Who are you to say a smartphone isn't the best thing a needy person can buy?
- qqqwerty 7y agoThe money spent on smartphones and videogames results in revenue for companies and paychecks for employees. So yeah, some people are going to spend their UBI irresponsibly. But that spending directly and immediately stimulates the economy. In contrast, we currently are dumping vast amounts of money onto corporations, banks, and investors to try prop up the economy. That money just ends up bidding up stocks, bonds, and real estate prices. The stimulative impact is minimal, and mostly results in inflating asset prices.
- papermachete 7y agoBroken window fallacy. If one has money for vieogames, one has money for basic needs and needs no UBI.
- clarkevans 7y agoQualified and means-tested solutions impose what we feel others need upon them. Yet, if you just provided money, they could fill the gaps they know they need and markets would emerge to satisfy those needs. For example, one may see a "smart phone" as not a necessity, but, for many it's the only computer they have and the connection to their economic world. Who are we to say that a smart phone isn't a necessity? To a worker who is on their feet all day, a very expensive pair of boots that will last years may also be a necessity. Who are we to know people's needs?
- Avshalom 7y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology#Towards_reconciliation_under_Pope_Francis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology#Towards_...
- mjfl 7y agoWould those in the USA accept a tax where all income above $10,000 / year (around the global mean) was taken to enable global redistribution?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mrfusion 7y agoI don’t think anyone is suggesting that. It would probably just be another tax for high earners?
- mjfl 7y agomy point is that all citizens of US are high earners from a global perspective. Taxing USA-standard "high earners" wouldn't generate nearly enough funds for a global UBI (it probably wouldn't for a USA UBI either).
- reedwolf 7y agoWouldn't market prices reflect that everyone is now starting off on n amount of money? Also, you're going quickly run into many of the problems current redistribution programs face. One of the big ones is how to deal with people that spend money irresponsibly.
- londons_explore 7y agoEasier access to bankruptcy. The main 'irresponsible spending' is interest and fees on loans, fines, 24 month contracts for unneeded stuff, etc. Make the bankruptcy system far easier to use and take away the downsides, and then anyone with money trouble can go to a court, and walk out a free person, keeping their job and basic income, which should be sufficient to pay rental on a basic house and car.
- karatestomp 7y agoNot much except for certain things (notably, land & housing among them) unless markets don’t actually work to increase supply in the presence of higher demand like they’re supposed to. Probably we’d need Georgist policies or similar to keep all the money from just going to landlords, yes.
- jon889 7y agoI they spend it irresponsibly then that's up to them. The aim should be that no-one has to live without food or shelter,etc from something other than their own choice. If everyone is getting the same money then there's less need to police people on spending it irresponsibly, because it's not taking money from tax payers and giving it to non tax payers to waste. The tax payers are also getting it.
- hprotagonist 7y agoLaborem Execrens (1981) is another descendant encyclical of Rerum Novarum. It’s excellent reading. John Paul II knew a lot about the failings of socialism and capitalism both, and oh boy was he interested in a yet more excellent way. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/do...
- amelius 7y agoPerhaps if companies actually paid taxes we could afford something like UBI ...
- jerkstate 7y agoAnd churches!
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gerdesj 7y agoMy little company pays Corporation tax at 19% and obviously we hand on VAT at the relevant rate. We also do PAYE as needed etc. What's your problem and how may I assist your UBI dream?
- tialaramex 7y agoWe have good news for you. You know that bigger rival company, who somehow make a similar product, and charge more for it, yet somehow don't pay any Corporation tax? Maybe they're paying interest on a "debt" to a company with a suspiciously similar name located somewhere sunny that seems to arbitrarily set the interest on the debt to exactly what might otherwise be their annual profit, resulting in zero tax... or they have to "license" their brand name from a company that somehow only owns that brand name, and only employs one accountant and a secretary in a tiny principality in Europe? We'd like them to be on a level playing field with you. We can't guarantee this'll mean you win, but maybe them paying the same taxes you do (which will make a huge difference to the affordability of projects like UBI) would help you.
- jfnixon 7y agoYou are going against the entire human history of governments and taxation. Governments use tax incentives to (charitably) encourage desired behavior and (pragmatically) reward supporters. A clean tax code without these deductions takes significant power away from the government. It is extremely unlikely to every happen.
- hotz 7y agoI value my freedom above any form of UBI. It just smells too much of 1984 to me.
- mcphage 7y agoI’d love to hear you detail what you see the connection between these two things is.
- tehfink 7y agoThere's some recent SF touching on the subject; e.g.: "Proposition 23" by Efe Tobunko. Basically, the populace becomes dependent on such governmental support, and the threat of its withdrawal is used to stifle dissent and ensure conformity.
- dredmorbius 7y agoSome years back, after hearing from often unlikely sources "I like this pope", I did some ... very nonscientific ... research into the papacy and references to the poor or poverty, based on Wikipedia entries, going back about 200 years. Even heavily discounting Wikipedia's extreme recency bias, Pope Francis's focus on the poor and on economic injustice seems utterly remarkable. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/258gq1/francis_the_papacy_the_poor_and_social_justice/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/258gq1/francis...
- ARandomerDude 7y ago"Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?" - Martin Luther
- eucryphia 7y agoIncentives matter, abolish minimum wages, pay it as negative income tax to an employer, you still have to work for it. Wealthy kids a smart enough to look after themselves.
- philbarr 7y agoFine, I'll employ myself.
- w3mmpp 7y agoAt the point they are, the catholic church would propose anything to stay relevant. Sad.
- e2le 7y agoWhat's the difference between UBI and a dividend?
- jfnixon 7y agoA dividend isn't guaranteed. A dividend depends on the success of the underlying company. A dividend isn't a right. Just off the top of my head.