6 ms·
How does that work across the EU though? Eastern Europe has minimum wages of just a few EUR/hr.
by u678u 5y ago
How does that work across the EU though? Eastern Europe has minimum wages of just a few EUR/hr.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- axiosgunnar 5y agoThe answer is it doesn't :-)
- toomuchtodo 5y agoA lazy answer if so, and a disappointing take on organizing society if that’s considered acceptable.
- wyager 5y agoMaybe because "organizing society" according to some grand central plan isn't actually a very effective strategy.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoLabor laws, entitlements, taxes, and other public policy are “organizing society”, and based on quality of life metrics most of Europe is crushing it. Sounds effective to me. I am an American living in a third world country in a first world suit, so I am admittedly biased.
- wyager 5y agoTaxes are less destructive than radically restructuring the entire economy, which most UBI advocates seem to want to do. Median household income in the US is significantly higher than any EU country except Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark. I think most Americans who complain incessantly about how "third world" America is view Europe through rose-colored glasses. Any third-world aspects of the US (which do exist) are not caused by our economic policies.
- zozbot234 5y agoThe real idea behind the UBI is to "radically restructure" the economy in a freedom-promoting direction, closer to something like the US today than current policy in the EU.
- hef19898 5y agoHow much economic and employment freedom does one have when health care is tied to the current employer?
- zozbot234 5y agoThe EU doesn't have that particular dysfunction.
- hef19898 5y agoMy point entirely. The EU already has more freedom than the US, in sense. UBI would only increase that difference, and would by no means make the EU more like the US. And again, the EU is made up of independent nations, so these EU/US comparisons are already wrong.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoFine, but what's the argument that this proposal will restructure the economy in a freedom-promoting direction? What's the argument that this is a move in the US direction, instead of away?
- wyager 5y agoAdding the state as a middleman for a huge fraction of all production does not promote freedom, unless your definition of “freedom” is “the unfettered ability to smoke weed and watch cartoons all day”. In reality, if UBI passes, it will be used as an excuse to un-person political undesirables while keeping people with no intrinsic ambition satiated.
- anoncake 5y agoOk, let's not use waterfall then.
- the-dude 5y agoIf you really want to rebut his comment, tell us how it would work ( including where the money would come from ). Your comment is as lazy.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoThe money comes from taxing citizens, assets, and corporations, colloquially known as “productivity and wealth”. I’m not European, so it would be rude of me to speak authoritatively on the quality of life Europeans want for each other, but I’ll take a crack at it. A UBI should be an inflation indexed amount that allows for enough food, clothing, and shelter for a dignified life. Not extravagant, but not USSR communist quality. Americans might think of it as a “LeanFIRE” quality of life, or how the elderly live on Social Security. If we encounter any entitlements susceptible to inflation or supply constraints, we use automation and technology to solve for that (medicine, energy come to mind). Sam Altman proposed something similar to a UBI with American Equity [1], so I don’t think it’s too crazy of an idea to move towards implementation and experimentation. If you’re a central bank, buying up securities and distribute the dividends into citizen deposit accounts also held at the central bank is another path. [1] https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity
- nradov 5y agoAnd how much would that cost? Be sure to include inflationary effects in your calculation.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoIt would cost whatever citizens collectively are willing to shave off of wealth and productivity with taxes. You wouldn’t set a monthly amount and then throw your hands up and say it’s unaffordable. You’d start with the max amount you could reasonably convince a majority of citizens (who vote) to support and work backwards. I’m not an expert, by any means, but to say it’s impossible seems flippant and intellectually dishonest. A better way to approach it would be with caution and the understanding that a lot of research and effort is going to be required if it’s to be implemented soundly (or determined to be untenable).
- mypastself 5y agoThe initiative is apparently to introduce “basic incomes”, plural, which is presumably determined based on local economic circumstances. Not sure how that reduces “regional disparities” and achieves “territorial cohesion”, though.
- rorykoehler 5y agoAll that will happen is people will pretend to live in rich expensive countries and actually live in cheaper countries. I already see this all the time with benefits.
- anoncake 5y agoSource, please?
- rorykoehler 5y agoIn my peer group. Incentives drive behaviour
- anoncake 5y agoSo, none. Obviously there will always be some assholes, that should not determine policy unless it gets out of hand.
- rorykoehler 5y agoThe whole point of UBI is to remove means testing. I think we can set a number that works on average and let people move to suit their needs. We definitely should avoid all incentives to game the system as it will only distract and get the initiative bogged down in paper pushing bs.
- anoncake 5y agoUnfortunately, living standards differ too much within the EU for that.
- slg 5y agoNo reason why the UBI needs to be a flat universal rate rather than adjusted based off local economic factors.
- ericmay 5y agoHow would that work in practice? Wouldn't people just move to the higher UBI areas?
- slg 5y agoThe higher UBI areas would also be higher cost of living areas so in the right setup there would be little incentive to move just for UBI benefits.
- Beaver117 5y agoBut you would get to live in a higher cost area, at no cost to you.
- slg 5y agoWhat is the motive to live in a high cost of living area? Usually the two biggest reasons are economic and social opportunity. Economic opportunity is irrelevant in this instance if UBI cancels out in the two locations. Will there be enough social opportunities for people to leave their friends, family, and home country to move to a higher cost of living area?
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y agoFreedom of movement in the EU is conditional on you contributing to the economy; if you move just for the benefits, you will be kicked out (in theory)
- axiosgunnar 5y agoWhat about asylum seekers and war refugees?
- zozbot234 5y agoUBI is supposed to be a baseline guarantee, so it would be quite OK to size it for the cheapest, least developed areas in the EU free-movement area. This should be coupled with very low or non-existent taxation of entry-level wages, so this "low" UBI would still be a meaningful subsidy even in the wealthiest areas of the EU.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y agoHow would it be meaningful when the rent you need to pay in Munich is several times what you need to live in eastern Poland?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> How would it be meaningful when the rent you need to pay in Munich is several times what you need to live in eastern Poland? Not advocating for this. But the assumption would be if you can’t afford Munich, move.
- zozbot234 5y agoThere is no inherent right to live in Munich, whilst there is a natural right to life and a decent subsistence even for those who cannot immediately secure gainful employment. UBI is about securing the latter, not the former - and doing it at the lowest possible cost.
- wyager 5y ago> There is no inherent right to live in Munich, while there is a natural right to life and a decent subsistence even for those who cannot immediately secure gainful employment. Why do you believe in one and not the other? I don't see any compelling categorical difference between either of these. The latter just "feels better" because "life and decency" are positively connoted. In both cases, the "right" is that person A has to pay the cost for person B to live a certain way. If you restricted your argument, to, say, a "right" to the bare minimum nutritional supply to survive, that would be categorically different. However, that's not an issue in the EU anyway.
- winterismute 5y agoI did not read this proposal, but if it is meant to pass as an EU directive, it will then require the member states to ratify it as an actual law, following the general principles contained in the directive. So for example, if the EU directive that passes says "The amount of the UBI has to be between 50% and 80% the average salary", the countries can set a number that way, which can be revised or not in the future, etc. That's how it usually works, for example PSD2, about payment services, had general ideas that obviously member states implemented differently in the details. In theory, if a member state implements a directive in a way that is not faithful, it might risk a fine from the EU, but member states generally do not care much about it, I am not even sure if all of the fines that have been issued in the past have been paid...
- lu4p 5y agoThis would probably be implement as a Directive (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)), meaning individual EU countries need to devise their own laws on how to reach the goal of an UBI. The amount of UBI will most likely depend on how much money an individual needs to buy food, pay rent and pay basic utilities, in a given country.
- hef19898 5y agoMy guess? By adapting the UBI to local salaries and living costs. Kind of like Amazon is obviously paying more Luxembourg or Munich than Poland.