This is a very interesting concept. The more I think about it, the more I realize how useful this could be. I can honestly see myself supporting this idea. Time to go watch more Guy Standing videos, I guess.
I remember reading a piece of nonfiction by Agatha Christie--probably in her biography--in which she mentioned that under the British tax system of the time, each new work that she wrote pretty much just caused trouble for her accountants, and brought her no money to speak of. She kept writing anyway. She gave the copyrights to people in her life whose income wasn't at maximum taxation level, to reduce the waste, but kept on creating for no personal financial reward.
@ChickenFreak: I agree. Having been brought up in a country where basics were guaranteed (a flat, all public services free, and then welfare, food provisions etc for the poor) I know for a fact that when allowed to do what they love, because money isn't a priority at all, people actually excel at their jobs. Because work and pride in one's accomplishment is only made vulgar by money. Money is necessary, which is why everyone should have some so they don't risk dying from poverty, but it shouldn't be the main motivator. We see now in the capitalist societies how money as the main motivator became the only motivator, and greed took over in a spectacular way, and ruined world economy. @We Are Cartographers : Ignore button is bliss. @thirdwind : I'm so glad
I agree. I've came so close, time and again, to posting this image. Now I'm afraid I just can't stop myself: (Just watch, it'll turn into another boring debate over religion again) Anyway, the 'Precariat' is certainly something I can see myself possibly being labeled as. I'm sorry, I don't buy into the Class Struggle theory in a big way, I tend to think society is more fluid and complicated in these times, the days of the internet. I tend to think conflict among human beings is inevitable. But I can certainly see the disenfranchisement of all kinds of people thanks to neo-Libertarianism, and this clap-trap that big government is bad, and big business is good - guess what? They both don't work for your best interests! Who would have thought?
Who needs an ignore button? I have an ignore function built into my neuralware. Doesn't everyone? Maybe you need a firmware upgrade.
@We Are Cartographers : If you click on any avatar, you'll see various info in a small window including Ignore. If you click on it, you'll no longer see any of that person's posts @Cogito : I'd love to get that upgrade too
I came across something on Wikipedia yesterday that might be tenuously linked to this (at least in terms of why people of such diverse backgrounds might be disenfranchised) It mentions: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_crisis) I thought that, with the age of the internet, the idea of the "fragmented subject" is really interesting. I don't profess to know much about it other than my own subjective experience, which I think is essentially a disorganized mix of ideas and frustrations. I do get frustrated at the chronic individualism you see in much of today, which is a by-product of the neo-liberalism and globalisation you allude to in your OP I think.
I have yet to see any social site that doesn't have an ignore feature of some sort. Hell, I think it's been a staple of social sites since the 80s.
The basic income is an amazing idea. I didn't realise Brazil had actually implemented it; I'm going to have to look that up. It's not even just a matter of ensuring a safety net - the economic benefits could be huge. Imagine all the new small businesses that could be founded if people know they'll still be able to pay the rent while working on them. I've not encountered Guy Standing before, though. @jazzabel, any recommendations for further viewing?
Brazil has implemented numerous "radical" economic strategies that have panned out. They've implemented alternate fuel sources in a real world way that makes them nearly independent of the need of oil importation (they still import some light oil, not much). And though perhaps not a "huge move" in an economic sense, Brazil has shown itself willing to break overseas drug patents in the interests of its citizens.
Funny thing about Brazil is they consume more crack cocaine than the rest of the world. Do you think that might be related? (My source? Ross Kemp's Extreme World)
I don't think the large favelas surrounding Rio are exactly a shining symbol of success either. But they are indicative of the problem, success only for some.
@NigeTheHat : I'm waiting for the book to come out in April, but also anything by Noam Chomsky is worth a read/watch @Mackers : Thanks for the interesting reference. I heard that about Brazil, they had loads of poverty for ages and it's that area where cocaine is produced so I'm not surprised.
I agree. As I see it, we (the United States) have, for a long time, had economy where taking a risk can end your life. I say that mostly because of health insurance--losing your health insurance can end with you consuming every one of your assets, then being deprived of decent medical care, and then you die. Yes, an emergency room still has to take you if you're broke, but there are a lot of medical conditions that cannot be managed through a penniless person repeatedly walking into an emergency room. And I see this as, in a way, new--new, that is, in the last half-century to century. Now, it's new partly because the medical care that can save your life is also new. In the past, you wouldn't die for lack of health insurance or the millions of dollars that your care would require without the insurance, you'd die because no one could save you for any price. But now you can be saved. And before health care reform, if you took even small risks, like starting your own business while still having lots of money in savings, that risk could deprive you of the opportunity to be saved. The existence of a capricious blackmailing safety net ties you to that blackmail, ties you to doing everything you can to keep a good job with a corporation big enough to provide you with health insurance. Spending your own money and talent and ingenuity and hard, hard work to produce a great product or service for a grateful public.... that could end your life. The system motivated against that sort of productivity. I suspect that if the risks of that sort of productivity are even smaller, then we'll see even more of it.
I'm a little confused here. Are you speaking of health insurers denying coverage, or some other risk?
Sorry, I was re-reading my own post and realizing that there were elements of non-clarity. I'm saying that in the relatively recent past, and before health care reform really kicks in, taking a risk of the kind that the United Stats is supposed to love--starting a business, working hard, creating jobs, producing something great--is a huge risk because it can eat not only your assets and your home, but your life if you get sick. If health care reform really happens, then people will probably be much more likely to take those risks, and that will likely improve our economy and make us a more successful country. If the risks of taking that risk were even smaller--if you knew that even if the business crashed and you lost your house and your car and all your expensive toys, you'd still have a tiny heated safe room and something to eat--then I think that people would be even more likely to take those risks and the improvement would be even greater.
Social spending in Brazil - The end of poverty? It's quite an eye opener when the rescue program meant: The article from last year's Economist does reveal a number of things. One, being poor in Brazil means being poor on the world scale. Bill Gates and Bono report that "extreme poverty" has declined considerably. "Extreme poverty is defined as average daily consumption of $1.25 or less and means living on the edge of subsistence." I see that same number applies to Brazil. So one has to wonder for a country with such a rising economy, why are there so many millions living in extreme poverty as defined by the World Bank? One expects that kind of poverty in Sudan or the DRC. 18 of the 20 poorest countries are in Africa. The other 2 are Haiti and Afghanistan. Bono I think has his heart in the right place. Gates, OTOH, lives in a bubble and also claimed that the rich are getting richer but the poor are no worse off. In his view the increasing gap in the wealth between rich and poor is only because the rich are creating wealth, not because they are getting a larger proportion of it. http://data.worldbank.org/news/extreme-poverty-rates-continue-to-fall While there is an inevitable pending adjustment as individual economies head toward global merging, there is also serious danger that the small proportion of people with the ability to manipulate the situation are not going to do the right thing. And I think we are already seeing: http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/The-Precariat/book-ba-9781849664554.xml When I hear Gates claim the rich are richer but they aren't taking from the poor to become that way, I shake my head. Instability is not going to change any time soon
Offering an individual income will cost money. Directly (tax) or indirectly, this money will have to come from the working people, which, in turn, causes a transition in money circulation. That from middle class to low - middle class. It may be an incentive, but so is a subsidy. The fear for an income that is higher than a subsidy is that it will become a free pass for sloths. Aside from that, not everyone wants to share their hard-earned merit with people who can try again, and again, and again. If the risk is exorbitantly minimalised, efficient productivity will make way for potential quantity. Inequality is inherent in our society and stimulated by cultural-capitalism. That does not mean that capitalism is a horrendous monstrosity. It must be, like everything else, regulated. Regulated, much like the equal opportunities throughout or social-economical ladder. This is not a step towards equality, it is the direct opposite. Offering more opportunity to the lower class will be at the expense of the middle class. The wealthy will become more isolated, because the middle class has a harder time going 'up'. Opportunity cost. And if you were to say, ''the money will come from the wealthy,'' then I have an argument for that as well. I shall abstain it for now. Perhaps this sounds attractive for Americans, seeing as they are behind on, e.g. health insurance and higher education (loans), but I cannot see the alleged prosperity in this. If you want to level the accumulation of collective wealth in a responsible and long-term manner there are other means, often accomplished by indirect, social structural laws. What are ''basic needs''? In The Netherlands, people get a subsidy sufficient enough, or so it is deemed, to appease their basic needs. Why must that sum be altered, if the prerogative remains the same? And I would like a link that proves your statement.
@Tharian : Link to 'prove' which statement? I speak from experience and common sense, and generally do not post any links to 'prove' my statements, I only post links when I think their content might be interesting. One can 'prove' anything with a Google reference, it's no substitute for real knowledge or understanding. Also, what's with a 'straw man' argument? Neither Guy Standing (whom this post is about) nor I advocated for any 'levelling' of wealth, or expressed any fears regarding people having incomes higher than the basic provision. That basic provision would be enough to enable a person to live, eat, pay bills, educate themselves or their children and afford best medical care. Those are the core values any civilised society should have - an understanding that historically all of our ancestors contributed to the advancements we now enjoy as a society therefore, we all should have access to those basics that allow us to live our lives with dignity. All of us who are lucky enough to have our health, would be earning extra from our jobs, but there would be some mechanism to prevent toxic greed, such as one person accumulating ten billion, whilst over a billion people are trying to,survive on less than a dollar a week. What I base my opinion on is simple. Look at any socialist or communist country (choose between more hardcore ones such as Russia, China, Cuba or more moderate ones such as former Yugoslavia, some South American countries or even Scandinavian countries who moved as close to socialism as capitalism would allow). Consider what they invented, patented, discovered, produced, both scientifically, technologically or artistically. You'll note that there is no difference in level of achievement, in fact, they were able to compete on the same level with a lot less money. And they loved their jobs even though they wouldn't have starved if they couldn't work. I saw all this first hand since I grew up in Yugoslavia. You can choose to dismiss everything I'm saying, even though you have no first hand experience of this. That's not something I can or care to influence.
I'd like to hear it. The people who have wealth in this country provide X in taxes, and they "require" Y in luxuries like mansions, jets, yachts... The people who work in this country provide A in taxes and labors, and they require B in necessities like food, shelter, medicine, gasoline… Society receives X and A, and it returns Y and B. We spent over a decade watching the government reduce the amount of money spent on B so that they wouldn't "need" to take as much money in the form of X. Allegedly, those who had wealth needed the extra money so that they could make the economy better for those who worked, but we've already seen what a decade of that (2001-2009). Did it work? In 2008, America had a chance to say that the previous system had been working, and America said that it wasn't. America had a chance again in 2012 to say that they were wrong, that the 2001-2009 system would work better than the 2009-2013 system, but America said that the previous system wouldn't work as well as the current. The billionaires had their chance in 2001-2009 to make America better, and they declined to do so. ** The less money people have to spend on debt owed to corporations, the more money they will have to feed their families, and the better chance that they have of living long enough to contribute. It's easy to say "Give a man a fish…" as an excuse for taking his fish away ("I'm encouraging him to work harder so that he can pay me for the next one"), but if your life is not in danger and another man's is, who gives you the right to make it harder for him to survive? Call me crazy, but I would rather invest in people than in corporations. "Give a man a fish, and he lives long enough to learn how to fish." We do not need government to take care of luxuries for the wealthy. Capitalism does that well enough, because the wealthy can afford it. If somebody has to go without medicine so that they can afford food, shelter, and gasoline, then Capitalism is not going to help them because they - by definition - cannot afford the "privilege." Capitalism can handle luxuries well enough, but we need government to take care of necessities when people cannot take care of themselves. Regardless of what the Just World "Hypothesis" says, those people exist in the real world.
