5 ms·

As a swiss citizen, I'm really happy we'll have to vote on this. I'm not sure yet what I'm going to vote (I'm slightly bending towards a yes), but I think this

by jre 13y ago

As a swiss citizen, I'm really happy we'll have to vote on this. I'm not sure yet what I'm going to vote (I'm slightly bending towards a yes), but I think this is a very interesting debate to have. Especially because this is not a traditional left-right fight. On the left, you have some unions saying this is going to be counter-productive and that it will reduce the leverage of employees in negotiation ("You've already got 2500, stop complaining"). Some other unions say it's going to give employee more leverage ("If you don't pay me more, I leave"). There are some people (including right-wing "economy-friendly" politician) who think this is a boost for innovation. By letting people work on what they want, without the risk of becoming homeless if it fails, you'll have more people trying to become independent / create companies. And finally, you have what is still the majority reaction when told about this idea, which is that this is encouraging laziness.

omegant 13y ago
Being from Spain and having seen the reaction to high quantities of money available. A system like this will need to be very well monitored, it can help immensely to those in need, but if done unconditionally it will certainly encourage laziness in a sector of the society. My wife is a doctor and before the crisis she used to have patients DEMAND the permanent disability, because they wanted to stop working. They were always saying "It´s my right, give MY disability!". They were regular people with no or little physical problems. Of course the people that really really needed the disability (very ill and in pain) didn´t want it. They just wanted to keep working and bringing money home. Now as there is no money, the former has almost disappeared from the hospital.
- Radim 13y ago
  Upvoted you back. Discussing such things on HN must feel surreal if you're not the median HN reader (educated, white, entitled westerner with 1st world problems). Talking about what the "poor" would do if this and that, based on your own "hunches", worldview and ambitions. Mass social experiments designed by intellectuals from an ivory tower... uhh. Good luck to Switzerland though, they may be able to afford providing one much needed data point!
  - omegant 13y ago
    I think that it is a Necessary idea, but the implementarion has to be dreaven by results or lack of them. It can not be a static system or it will certainly degrade and be abused, it has to be refocused on a regular basis to help the people that is in need in that moment, and not the ones that are are merely taking profit of it. A high educated and civic society like the Swiss, is more likely to make the best of it.
- summerdown2 13y ago
  > A system like this will need to be very well monitored, it can help immensely to those in need, but if done unconditionally it will certainly encourage laziness in a sector of the society. Thought experiment: If the overall effect of basic income is to make things better overall(1), does it really matter if some people become lazy? (1) Through whatever metric you want to measure. ... To give some background, my question is whether the existence of laziness is a sufficient critique in itself. If things get better on average, but some people are enabled to sit around all day, is that really a problem? I'm asking this because the UK government at the moment is constantly railing against lazy people taking benefits, as if it's self-evident that should be stopped. To me, this just sounds like the politics of envy and hate (though I admit I could be wrong). Put another way: if a utopia involves some people getting benefits they don't deserve, would that be a bad thing? Obviously, I'm not saying basic income will produce a better society. I think it might, but needs empirical testing. My question is more whether the existence of undeserving beneficiaries is sufficient to rule it out.
  - danbmil99 13y ago
    This assumes a static proportion of "lazy" or unethical people. I think the counterargument is one of moral hazard: if you reward laziness, more and more people will decide to be lazy. There is also a motivational issue -- many people (I suspect) will find it harder to work for a living if they sense that their hard-earned money is taxed and given away to freeloaders.
    - urish 13y ago
      But why would you equate "lazy" with unethical? That's already an assumption that could be challenged. We now don't deem someone who's unwilling to work from sun up to sun down in the rice fields as lazy or unethical, but 300 years ago that might have been the case. Why? Because now a few people grow our food so efficiently that most people can afford to be "lazy" and work 40 hours a week in an office job, or at least an air-conditioned job.
      - tnorthcutt 13y ago
waterlesscloud 13y ago
Is this for everyone? In other words, if you're working, is this on top of your income?
- jre 13y ago
  Yes, this is unconditional and on top of any other income you get.
  - ilikehummus 13y ago
    I did not see this anywhere in the article and most models of basic income i know do not do this. They instead only fill you up until you got amount X of money.
    - jre 13y ago
      It doesn't seem to be available in English, but the organisation that wrote the initiative say so on their website[1]. They say "It is added to other revenues". So yeah, the intention is really to have an unconditional basic income for everybody and not some sort of negative income tax scheme as has been proposed elsewhere. [1] http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase
      - waterlesscloud 13y ago
        It makes sense to me to do that way, if you're going to do it at all. Then there's no disincentive to work.
        backprojection 13y ago
        There's still an incentive to work with a negative income tax. This is an interesting discussion about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
    - Dewie 13y ago
netcan 13y ago
I know no more than I read in the last 10 minutes, so I have a question for you: How serious is a referendum like this? When a government pushes a major change. They need to back it up with a lot of analysis. Where does the money come from? What the major economic impacts. What do the big businesses/industries/unions/Chambers of Commerce/ etc think of it. The referendum system sounds like a good idea for issues that are mostly moral like abortion or gay marriage. They're all about what we think is right. This one is economic, its about feasibility and tricky second order effects. So basically what I'm saying is.. has anyone really checked that this actually possible?
- jre 13y ago
  This is one of the question that will be central to the upcoming debate. Usually, when we vote on economic issues (like we voted on raise in VAT, more holidays, etc...), we usually have all kind of organisation explaining what their position is and why. So you obviously get the political parties opinions, but also the economic associations (the Swiss Business Federation for big companies, the Union of small-medium business), the employee unions and so on. On this topic, we'll most likely get a lot of opinion from the economics academic world as well. Also, when you get your voting material, there is a leaflet that explains the position of the government and the parliament (in this case, they will most likely recommend a "no"). Now, the comittee that supports the basic income says that the real cost is 30 billions CHF. The rest of the 200 billions CHF comes from the part that is deduced from the salaries by the companies and from the suppression of a bunch of social programs (we already have a system where the state pays the basic necessities to the people without any other revenue, with some conditions). [1] They also admit that the "dynamic effect" of the basic income are hard to estimate. This is likely to be the controversial part of the debate. It is such a big shift in paradigm that I think nobody, even the most brilliant economists, can predict what will happen. And it is most likely the reason why it will be refused. It's a big jump in the unknown. Last but not least, the actual text of the initiative (translated in this comment [2]) doesn't fix the level of the basic income. 2500 CHF is just a proposition and if it is accepted, it's up to the parliament to come up with a law that regulates how this all works. So maybe it could be introduced incrementally. [1] http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499949
rwallace 13y ago
The big problem I see with it is the age discrimination, of which modern society already has far too much. Strike that clause (and in the case of children too young to understand money, give it to their parents to spend on their behalf), and I would see a good case for it being a net positive, but not the proposal as it currently stands.
- thedufer 13y ago
  The problem is that this creates an _enormous_ incentive to have kids. Is that something you really want to incentive? Pushing it back until they're legal adults removes this. That said, if this wouldn't be enough for someone with kids to live on, that could be a problem. Its a tough problem to solve.
  - rwallace 13y ago
    Given that the birth rate has dropped below replacement level and our society is headed for Darwin's bit bucket unless we make some drastic change, the answer to your question is very much yes.
alternize 13y ago
i haven't yet made up my mind either. personally, i find the upcoming "1:12" vote [highest salary in a company may at most be 12x the lowest salary] much more dangerous to the swiss economy. the discussions on both votes are very interesting and healthy tho.

by jre 13y ago

omegant 13y ago

Being from Spain and having seen the reaction to high quantities of money available. A system like this will need to be very well monitored, it can help immensely to those in need, but if done unconditionally it will certainly encourage laziness in a sector of the society. My wife is a doctor and before the crisis she used to have patients DEMAND the permanent disability, because they wanted to stop working. They were always saying "It´s my right, give MY disability!". They were regular people with no or little physical problems. Of course the people that really really needed the disability (very ill and in pain) didn´t want it. They just wanted to keep working and bringing money home. Now as there is no money, the former has almost disappeared from the hospital.

Radim 13y ago
Upvoted you back. Discussing such things on HN must feel surreal if you're not the median HN reader (educated, white, entitled westerner with 1st world problems). Talking about what the "poor" would do if this and that, based on your own "hunches", worldview and ambitions. Mass social experiments designed by intellectuals from an ivory tower... uhh. Good luck to Switzerland though, they may be able to afford providing one much needed data point!
- omegant 13y ago
  I think that it is a Necessary idea, but the implementarion has to be dreaven by results or lack of them. It can not be a static system or it will certainly degrade and be abused, it has to be refocused on a regular basis to help the people that is in need in that moment, and not the ones that are are merely taking profit of it. A high educated and civic society like the Swiss, is more likely to make the best of it.
summerdown2 13y ago
> A system like this will need to be very well monitored, it can help immensely to those in need, but if done unconditionally it will certainly encourage laziness in a sector of the society. Thought experiment: If the overall effect of basic income is to make things better overall(1), does it really matter if some people become lazy? (1) Through whatever metric you want to measure. ... To give some background, my question is whether the existence of laziness is a sufficient critique in itself. If things get better on average, but some people are enabled to sit around all day, is that really a problem? I'm asking this because the UK government at the moment is constantly railing against lazy people taking benefits, as if it's self-evident that should be stopped. To me, this just sounds like the politics of envy and hate (though I admit I could be wrong). Put another way: if a utopia involves some people getting benefits they don't deserve, would that be a bad thing? Obviously, I'm not saying basic income will produce a better society. I think it might, but needs empirical testing. My question is more whether the existence of undeserving beneficiaries is sufficient to rule it out.
- danbmil99 13y ago
  This assumes a static proportion of "lazy" or unethical people. I think the counterargument is one of moral hazard: if you reward laziness, more and more people will decide to be lazy. There is also a motivational issue -- many people (I suspect) will find it harder to work for a living if they sense that their hard-earned money is taxed and given away to freeloaders.
  - urish 13y ago
    But why would you equate "lazy" with unethical? That's already an assumption that could be challenged. We now don't deem someone who's unwilling to work from sun up to sun down in the rice fields as lazy or unethical, but 300 years ago that might have been the case. Why? Because now a few people grow our food so efficiently that most people can afford to be "lazy" and work 40 hours a week in an office job, or at least an air-conditioned job.
    - tnorthcutt 13y ago

waterlesscloud 13y ago

Is this for everyone? In other words, if you're working, is this on top of your income?

jre 13y ago
Yes, this is unconditional and on top of any other income you get.
- ilikehummus 13y ago
  I did not see this anywhere in the article and most models of basic income i know do not do this. They instead only fill you up until you got amount X of money.
  - jre 13y ago
    It doesn't seem to be available in English, but the organisation that wrote the initiative say so on their website[1]. They say "It is added to other revenues". So yeah, the intention is really to have an unconditional basic income for everybody and not some sort of negative income tax scheme as has been proposed elsewhere. [1] http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase
    - waterlesscloud 13y ago
      It makes sense to me to do that way, if you're going to do it at all. Then there's no disincentive to work.
      - backprojection 13y ago
        There's still an incentive to work with a negative income tax. This is an interesting discussion about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
  - Dewie 13y ago

netcan 13y ago

I know no more than I read in the last 10 minutes, so I have a question for you: How serious is a referendum like this? When a government pushes a major change. They need to back it up with a lot of analysis. Where does the money come from? What the major economic impacts. What do the big businesses/industries/unions/Chambers of Commerce/ etc think of it. The referendum system sounds like a good idea for issues that are mostly moral like abortion or gay marriage. They're all about what we think is right. This one is economic, its about feasibility and tricky second order effects. So basically what I'm saying is.. has anyone really checked that this actually possible?

jre 13y ago
This is one of the question that will be central to the upcoming debate. Usually, when we vote on economic issues (like we voted on raise in VAT, more holidays, etc...), we usually have all kind of organisation explaining what their position is and why. So you obviously get the political parties opinions, but also the economic associations (the Swiss Business Federation for big companies, the Union of small-medium business), the employee unions and so on. On this topic, we'll most likely get a lot of opinion from the economics academic world as well. Also, when you get your voting material, there is a leaflet that explains the position of the government and the parliament (in this case, they will most likely recommend a "no"). Now, the comittee that supports the basic income says that the real cost is 30 billions CHF. The rest of the 200 billions CHF comes from the part that is deduced from the salaries by the companies and from the suppression of a bunch of social programs (we already have a system where the state pays the basic necessities to the people without any other revenue, with some conditions). [1] They also admit that the "dynamic effect" of the basic income are hard to estimate. This is likely to be the controversial part of the debate. It is such a big shift in paradigm that I think nobody, even the most brilliant economists, can predict what will happen. And it is most likely the reason why it will be refused. It's a big jump in the unknown. Last but not least, the actual text of the initiative (translated in this comment [2]) doesn't fix the level of the basic income. 2500 CHF is just a proposition and if it is accepted, it's up to the parliament to come up with a law that regulates how this all works. So maybe it could be introduced incrementally. [1] http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase http://bien.ch/fr/page/initiative-federale#revenudebase [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6499949

rwallace 13y ago

The big problem I see with it is the age discrimination, of which modern society already has far too much. Strike that clause (and in the case of children too young to understand money, give it to their parents to spend on their behalf), and I would see a good case for it being a net positive, but not the proposal as it currently stands.

thedufer 13y ago
The problem is that this creates an _enormous_ incentive to have kids. Is that something you really want to incentive? Pushing it back until they're legal adults removes this. That said, if this wouldn't be enough for someone with kids to live on, that could be a problem. Its a tough problem to solve.
- rwallace 13y ago
  Given that the birth rate has dropped below replacement level and our society is headed for Darwin's bit bucket unless we make some drastic change, the answer to your question is very much yes.

alternize 13y ago

i haven't yet made up my mind either. personally, i find the upcoming "1:12" vote [highest salary in a company may at most be 12x the lowest salary] much more dangerous to the swiss economy. the discussions on both votes are very interesting and healthy tho.