Switzerland will hold a vote on whether to introduce a basic income for all adults, in a further sign of growing public activism over pay inequality since the financial crisis.
A grassroots committee is calling for all adults in Switzerland to receive an unconditional income of 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,800) per month from the state, with the aim of providing a financial safety net for the population.
Organizers submitted more than the 100,000 signatures needed to call a referendum on Friday and tipped a truckload of 8 million five-rappen coins outside the parliament building in Berne, one for each person living in Switzerland.Reuters
Swiss to vote on 2,500 franc basic income for every adult
(h/t JK via email)
7 comments:
If I understand the Swiss plan correctly, it's a "universal" BIG where everyone gets a BIG check regardless of income.
To avoid inflation, they'll have to raise taxes (progressively, we hope). It can be made to work, but it would make more sense to me to have a means-tested BIG.
Also, the Swiss BIG will likely end up creating a caste system where only foreigners will be willing to do low paying grunt jobs.
But it's an interesting experiment and I hope it passes just so we can observe how it works out.
I understand why people would vote for it. Who wouldn't vote themselves a windfall gain if they had to option to do so? However, I thought the Swiss were pretty prosperous. Why should everyone get a 2,500 franc gift if they haven't worked for it? Is it like receiving a dividend just for being a Swiss citizen?
Dan,
I guess no supply side effects of giving everyone 2500/mo?
Providing these balances will only effect demand side?
If people save it and they increase taxes it would be a net step backwards for the economy and UE/output would probably be negatively effected...
rsp,
One of the interesting corollaries to the BIG like the Swiss are proposing, is that you can do away with minimum wage laws, as long as the BIG meets all the needs of basic sustenance.
The advantages are
1) It levels the playing field.
2) It would lead to economically "efficient" labor markets - unhindered by minimum wage.
Another advantage would be that it would revitalize the not for profit sector. People are more willing to volunteer their time when they are not trying to survive "hand to mouth."
Right. MMT economist are down on a BIg as inflationary, assuming that there is no increase in productivity. That's a huge assumption, basically that those on a BIG will use their increased leisure opportunity to go shopping while those on a JB will be producing. My assumption is that productivity would rise more with a BIG than with a JG, because, as Bucky Fuller pointed out, people are naturally creative and creativity is contributive. Society has it backwards in thinking that the causality runs from work to contribution to compensation. It actually runs from compensation providing leisure to creativity to contribution. The latter was only available historically to rentiers, and heretofore they were the creative class. But adopting the same attitude toward non-rentiers making them so now that more distributed leisure is possible through technological innovation would great increase creativity, innovation, productivity and distributed prosperity.
BTW, Western civilization, including democracy, was born in ancient Greece. This was made possible because the work was done not by machines but by slaves, leaving the citizens "free men" at leisure with time to devote to self-governance through debate in the forum and for speculative activity that led to many great discoveries and artistic contributions.
It also allowed for a civilian military, and Switzerland still has a civilian defense force.
Virtually all the great discoveries and artistic endeavors in the West since were either by members of the elite, that enjoyed education and leisure, and those they patronized, or clergy and monks who did not have to work.
Post a Comment