Universal/Basic Income: What do you think?

[Oswy]

I've encountered a few references to the idea of a basic universal income as a useful starting point on the way to a socialist society. At the same time I've read somewhere that this idea isn't always offered up by those on the left and that there are right-wing pro-capitalist versions too. Anyway, below are introductory comments made by scholars with a Marxist perspective. What do you think?


In my view, the best way to do this would be to introduce universal direct income. In other words, every resident of the country would receive, as of right, an income that met their basic needs at a relatively low but nevertheless decent level. This would serve two goals. First, it would ensure a basic level of welfare for everyone much more efficiently than existing systems of social provision. (People with greater needs because they had children or were disabled or whatever would receive a higher basic income.) Secondly, having a guaranteed basic income would greatly reduce the pressure on individuals to accept whatever job was on offer on the labour market. One of the main presuppositions of capitalism - that workers have no acceptable alternative to wage labour - would be removed. The balance of power between labour and capital would shift towards the worker, irrespective of the nature of their employer.

Alex Callinicos, Bonfire of Illusions, (Polity, 2010), p. 141.


Under a Basic Income scheme each person would receive a regular and unconditional cash grant from the state. It would be unconditional in the sense of being received by everyone irrespective of other income or whether they were in work or not, and it could be spent on whatever the recipient wished. At one level it would replace many means-tested benefits which are becoming an increasingly important feature of some welfare states as governments strive to both reduce poverty and restrain social security budgets. Means-tested benefits have very well-known problems. First, take-up amongst those in need and eligible is often low as a result of the stigma attached to claiming and the complexity of so doing. Secondly, means-tested benefits impose very high effective rates of taxation as a claimant has a proportion of these benefits withdrawn as her/his income rises, as well as paying income tax and social security contributions. So Basic Income would involve a big saving in costs of administering social security and would tend to increase the incentive for those on existing benefits to take paid work, especially part-time work, which would at present leave them stuck in the 'unemployment trap' of benefit withdrawal. Certainly marginal tax rates across the board would have to increase to pay for Basic Income, but for the low-paid the fact that they were no longer losing benefits would more than compensate...

Andrew Glyn, Capitalism Unleashed (Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 180-1.

[Crusade]

That would kind of suck I think. Well, not necessarily. The premise makes complete economic sense, but you have to consider the human factor. And I don't mean the typical "buh buh human nature" argument. But if you're respecting a human's right to choose, then accommodations have to be made to provide incentive for jobs that aren't being chosen or are highly in demand. The military has the perfect model for a socialist society. Every job pays the same. Higher rank= higher pay. Officers get paid more than enlisted members. Enlistment bonuses are given to needed/in demand jobs and free housing, food, and health care are provided to all. Also, services like the army and navy could damn near function as their own nation if they wanted to.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Universal basic income fails to address:

1) Structural and cyclical unemployment
2) Desire to work and avoid the stigma of not doing something
3) Inevitable downward pressure on wages as a result of implementation
4) Privatization of the social wage (welfare being substituted)
5) Class origins of political advocacy and beneficiaries (working-class vs. lumpen)

[Property Is Robbery]

I think no money is best but if anything, a higher minimum wage and a maximum wage.

[WeAreReborn]

I think no money is best but if anything, a higher minimum wage and a maximum wage.
Especially if they are the same. :)

[Victus Mortuum]

Universal basic income fails to address:

1) Structural and cyclical unemployment
2) Desire to work and avoid the stigma of not doing something
3) Inevitable downward pressure on wages as a result of implementation
4) Privatization of the social wage (welfare being substituted)
5) Class origins of political advocacy and beneficiaries (working-class vs. lumpen)

This is what I was gonna say.

Universal income would drive wages down, not up, and it would benefit the lumpen-proper, not the worker-class. This policy would make things very grim for workers. I am wholly opposed.

[William Howe]

Everyone gets the same basic universal wage, but those who may have lower circumstances, like the crippled or sick, should get extra to suffice.

[livingandlearning]

I am confused about that.Thanks.

[ckaihatsu]

The military has the perfect model for a socialist society. Every job pays the same. Higher rank= higher pay. Officers get paid more than enlisted members. Enlistment bonuses are given to needed/in demand jobs and free housing, food, and health care are provided to all. Also, services like the army and navy could damn near function as their own nation if they wanted to.




The military has the perfect model for a socialist society.


This is always a tempting, attractive argument to make -- same with corporations -- but the first counter-argument comes from you, actually:





But if you're respecting a human's right to choose, then accommodations have to be made to provide incentive for jobs that aren't being chosen or are highly in demand.


The conventional increasing-tiers model of compensation runs into a couple of snags right away: That the more-desirable, higher-level positions are *also* better-compensated. Extended upward, it leads to a condition of *exponentially* increasing returns, to absurdity, as we saw in 2008 when the public treasury was used to *further* compensate the most *reckless* of financial speculators, giving them massive underwriting for free as a reward for taking the most *irrational* of risks.

What you're recommending is the *opposite* -- that a socially *rational* system should be in place that rewards the *less* desirable roles, so as to balance out the supply and demand of available labor to outstanding requests for labor, respectively.

A second argument against the corporatist / militarist model of what is essentially large-scale syndicalism is that, contrary to your portrayal, this model could *not* function as its own nation-state -- the reason being that there is practically zero *political* democracy involved. Each is the epitome of a political *machine*, with an organizational discipline that makes politicians drool, but because of that structure it *cannot* provide overall societal reasoning ability the way conventional bourgeois political democracy can.

Currently we're seeing a severe slumping of that Enlightenment-type of bourgeois democracy due to economic factors, and so the military has been growing in stature, filling in the political vacuum and even threatening a condition of Bonapartism to some degree. The quickening crisis of our current post-2008 period is quickly coming to a head, though, with the exploding currency exchange problem, and we'll probably see a reprise of World War II fairly soon, sparked off in rising tensions between China and Japan. As usual the U.S. enjoys a certain geopolitical distance from it all, but will eventually get drawn in. [reveal a more visible involvement.]

[Demogorgon]

Universal basic income fails to address:

1) Structural and cyclical unemployment
2) Desire to work and avoid the stigma of not doing something
3) Inevitable downward pressure on wages as a result of implementation
4) Privatization of the social wage (welfare being substituted)
5) Class origins of political advocacy and beneficiaries (working-class vs. lumpen)
That is true to an extent I think, but it can be adapted to avoid them. I think a good starting point would be everyone being entitled to a certain amount plus additions based on need (number of dependents and disability being big ones) that would be be integrated into the tax system which would be a highly progressive income tax with no offsets at all. Your allowance would be a discount to the amount of tax paid and if it exceeded your tax obligation you would get the difference as a payment to you. It would act as a highly efficient form of wealth redistribution and also make social welfare easier to administer (it being merged into this system).

As for your objections, some of them of course stand, but I think this would have to be part of a wider movement in a progressive direction. A single reform could have unintended consequences if it was simply mixed in with the current system. For instance it would require increased economic democracy, that is to say greater worker power in order to avoid wages being forced down, though it should be said that even if they were a bit, it might not cause as much harm as you'd think, because the reduction would not be as much as the new income received and implemented properly that new income would be funded by taxing the self same people that are benefitting from wages being lowered. I'm not saying for a minute that that is the outcome we should be looking for, but let's not forget potential positive effects.

[ckaihatsu]

Universal basic income fails to address:

1) Structural and cyclical unemployment
2) Desire to work and avoid the stigma of not doing something
3) Inevitable downward pressure on wages as a result of implementation
4) Privatization of the social wage (welfare being substituted)
5) Class origins of political advocacy and beneficiaries (working-class vs. lumpen)


These are all excellent points, though my fave -- and my "vote" -- goes to #1, since it indicates that the dreaded "business cycle", including more-serious recessions and depressions, will still be in effect thanks to capitalism.

Liquidity, as to benefits recipients, does *not* guarantee a functioning economy, as we've clearly seen from the ongoing solvency crisis -- of major corporations, central banking, and now sovereign nation-states.








I think no money is best but if anything, a higher minimum wage and a maximum wage.





Especially if they are the same. :)





But if you're respecting a human's right to choose, then accommodations have to be made to provide incentive for jobs that aren't being chosen or are highly in demand.


This last point is an excellent one, too, and I've decided to make a political "career" for myself around revolutionary circles just by balancing between the pro-flatness and pro-liberated-development factions within. Sadly this is an unresolved issue, so RevLeft should continue to cash in on ad revenue for a *long* time....








I think no money is best but if anything, a higher minimum wage and a maximum wage.





Especially if they are the same. :)


Rotation system of work roles

A universal template for covering all work roles through time, going forward, for a post-capitalism, moneyless, collectivized political economy

by Chris Kaihatsu, [email protected], 10-10, for 'Allocating jobs' thread at RevLeft.com, tinyurl.com/24tohdc


- Everyone will assist everyone else in the local area with properly fulfilling the duties of any given work role.

- Unit of time per role must remain consistent.

- People in an area of work roles cannot switch their placement in line in the circle.

- Any roles at larger scales are either in addition to local work roles or else are entirely in replacement of smaller-scale work roles.

- New additions to an area of work roles enter the line in the circle at the bottom, beginning their rotation with a half-cycle of less-popular work roles.

- New collectively agreed-upon work roles will be placed in the existing sequence according to their ranking of a scale of 1 to 10, as averaged from the rankings submitted by those in the local area of work roles.


Rotation system of work roles

http://i51.tinypic.com/104qeqt.jpg

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea as a reform to break the reliance of working people on capital for their subsistence. Ideally this break would come from solidarity within our class and be a very localized, decentralized effort taylored to the needs of different communities, but even a discussion of a universal income could motivate movements in this direction to fill the gap until changes can happen at a broader scale. Demogorgon is right though, there are a lot of unintended consequences waiting in the wings for something like this.


Universal basic income fails to address:

1) Structural and cyclical unemployment
2) Desire to work and avoid the stigma of not doing something
3) Inevitable downward pressure on wages as a result of implementation
4) Privatization of the social wage (welfare being substituted)
5) Class origins of political advocacy and beneficiaries (working-class vs. lumpen)

It does. As such it has to be viewed as a reform, rather than as an integral component of a socialist society. Politically, however, I don't see it happening at least coming from the mainstream capitalist parties. The freeloader problem which you hint at is deeply ingrained that I don't see any ability for universal income to be a viable electoral strategy for a capitalist politician.



A second argument against the corporatist / militarist model of what is essentially large-scale syndicalism is that, contrary to your portrayal, this model could *not* function as its own nation-state -- the reason being that there is practically zero *political* democracy involved. Each is the epitome of a political *machine*, with an organizational discipline that makes politicians drool, but because of that structure it *cannot* provide overall societal reasoning ability the way conventional bourgeois political democracy can.


In fairness, even the military/corporatist state does have the ability to reflect changing societal concerns. The only difference is that decisions are hierarchical - the person at the top, presumably a benevolent dictator of sorts, directs the system to change in response to changing external circumstances. If there are no repercussions for reporting concerns and the like, it shouldn't, in principle, function less effectively as a nimble system than bourgeois democracy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrades, let's cue in the debate on universal basic/guaranteed income vs. Hyman Minsky's public employer of last resort program (since most participants so far in this thread are already aware of the latter):

http://www.usbig.net/papers/110-Howard-BIG-ELR.doc
http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp/wp42.html


That is true to an extent I think, but it can be adapted to avoid them. I think a good starting point would be everyone being entitled to a certain amount plus additions based on need (number of dependents and disability being big ones) that would be be integrated into the tax system which would be a highly progressive income tax with no offsets at all. Your allowance would be a discount to the amount of tax paid and if it exceeded your tax obligation you would get the difference as a payment to you. It would act as a highly efficient form of wealth redistribution and also make social welfare easier to administer (it being merged into this system).

Negative income tax was a scheme concocted by Milton Friedman for Reason #4. Now, unless you're suggesting that broken clocks work once every now and then...

Cockshott's critique was Reason #3, and was much more specific than that. He went so far as to invoke Lassalle's Iron Law of Wages re. bare subsistence levels, minus the Malthusian shit (recall my quote of him in my work):

At present in most capitalist countries unemployed workers get social security payments which are set at around the bare subsistence minimum. This sets a floor below which wages can not fall, since unemployed people are not going to be willing to give up a subsistence dole for a less than subsistence wage.

If a basic income scheme were introduced in a capitalist economy the basic income provided would again be a bare subsistence minimum. Then, however, it would be worthwhile for a worker to take on a job that paid half the subsistence wage since she would still be getting her basic income and would end up with somewhere between 1 and 1 and a half times the subsistence minimum after tax. But if the employers could hire labour at a net cost to themselves of half subsistence, this would be used to drive down the wages of those already in work.

[Demogorgon]

I'm not suggesting a negative income tax though. I am suggesting adding a universal allowance to social welfare and having all social welfare added to a single sum and set against tax obligations based primarily on a highly progressive income tax. There are some mechanical similarities to Friedman's proposals of course, both would be administered in a similar way, but their content and purpose are at polar opposites.

EDIT: I also said something about the other criticism you mentioned, though I must be clear here that I agree that it could sink this proposal, I am working on the principal we can avoid it. I pointed out that even if it did drive wages down a bit, it would not drive them down as much as the new universal income was adding meaning there is still a net increase in income plus we can tax back whatever extra employers are pocketing and redistribute it downwards anyway.

I cannot emphasise enough though that my proposal must be considered as a companion to increased worker power. I totally agree that there could be problems if it were just thrown in to the current system without other changes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I would think that any basic income proposal could, at best, be advanced only when you've got a social-democratic condition combining Scandinavia on welfare, Germany on co-determination (this shows the limitations of the slogan "workers control" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-controli-t144527/index.html)), France on labour laws, and Minsky's program.

[ckaihatsu]

In fairness, even the military/corporatist state does have the ability to reflect changing societal concerns. The only difference is that decisions are hierarchical - the person at the top, presumably a benevolent dictator of sorts, directs the system to change in response to changing external circumstances. If there are no repercussions for reporting concerns and the like, it shouldn't, in principle, function less effectively as a nimble system than bourgeois democracy.


Bullshit. Any "benevolent dictator" method is going to run up against the same material / civilizational issues regarding societal forward progress that *any* set of politics has to deal with. A rigid system -- not unlike feudalism -- will immediately fall flat on its face due to differing opinions on that very issue, particularly during a growth / expansion period (especially since adventurism / imperialism would not be permitted, by definition). (I'm thinking the pressures faced by Julius Caesar, as from the Roman Senate, *without* even the release valve of military conquest.) A bourgeois democracy would be far more stable, credible, and responsive to a broader base of concerns.





[I've] decided to make a political "career" for myself around revolutionary circles just by balancing between the pro-flatness and pro-liberated-development factions within. Sadly this is an unresolved issue,


Oh, that's right -- it *isn't* an unresolved issue! *I* resolved it, and the solution can be found at my blog entry!

[Dimentio]

Universal basic income would work if the income isn't tied to profession and if the credits are impossible to save, invest or circulate within the system. In short, you have to make it an energy accounting system.

[ckaihatsu]

I know the topic of this thread is a reformist issue, but the amount of capitulation to reformism going on is making me nauseous...!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Among the post-Keynesians, I think the rising star Ryan Dodd is my favourite, L. Randall Wray behind him, and Steve Keen way behind those two (for his lack of pro-labour policy):

Financial Stability, Social Justice, and Public Employment in the Work of Hyman P. Minsky (http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp-pdf/WP54-Dodd.pdf)


The theoretical work of the late economist Hyman P. Minsky is associated in the minds of many with the latter’s “financial instability hypothesis”. What is less well known is Minsky’s consistent advocacy throughout his life of what has come to be called, by many of its current proponents, the “employer of last resort” (ELR) proposal—as is his underlying social philosophy. While the lack of recognition of the former has been somewhat rectified in the recent literature on ELR, in this paper I attempt to draw out the links between Minsky’s view of the normal functioning of an advanced capitalist economy, the social philosophy or “vision” underlying his theoretical project and his advocacy of an ELR-type program. It is further argued that such a proposal represents the kind of “radical reforms” required in order to make the transition to a more equitable and democratic form of economic and social organization.

[...]

However, the ELR proposal can also be viewed as a “radical reform” in the sense of a reform that points beyond the system being reformed. By making a job a democratic right as well as providing work experience not directly tied to the need to maximize profits, such a program defies much of the driving logic of the capitalist system, while meeting one of the most pressing needs of the unemployed. It therefore should be given significantly more attention and consideration than it currently has been by progressive economists, activists, and public policymakers striving to create a more equitable and democratic form of economic and social organization.

[MarxSchmarx]

In fairness, even the military/corporatist state does have the ability to reflect changing societal concerns. The only difference is that decisions are hierarchical - the person at the top, presumably a benevolent dictator of sorts, directs the system to change in response to changing external circumstances. If there are no repercussions for reporting concerns and the like, it shouldn't, in principle, function less effectively as a nimble system than bourgeois democracy. Bullshit. Any "benevolent dictator" method is going to run up against the same material / civilizational issues regarding societal forward progress that *any* set of politics has to deal with. A rigid system -- not unlike feudalism -- will immediately fall flat on its face due to differing opinions on that very issue, particularly during a growth / expansion period (especially since adventurism / imperialism would not be permitted, by definition). (I'm thinking the pressures faced by Julius Caesar, as from the Roman Senate, *without* even the release valve of military conquest.) A bourgeois democracy would be far more stable, credible, and responsive to a broader base of concerns.


I think in order to critique the hypothesis I mentioned, you'd have to invoke some variant of the transformation problem - i.e, how can an all-knowing planner possibly address all concerns? I think that to the extent that the transformation problem can be solved, this issue too has a resolution.

Further, I guess I'm not even sure that bourgeois democracy handles an expanding economy better. If you look at for instance China (basically a benevolent dictatorship) today or France (a bourgeois democracy) during the 1960s, it's not obvious that one system is more responsive and more stable than the other during times of expansion. The cultural revolution arguably had more staying power than may 1968.
During times of crisis, bourgeois democracy may have more stability in one sense (e.g., USSR in 1980s than America in 1930s) but again, the stability is not due to the hierarchical nature, but rather to the unresponsive bureaucracy. Even feudalism for all its faults lasted over 500 years - and even more so in places like Korea. Bourgeois democracy has had a good run, to be sure, but it is yet to outlive something as supposedly ephemeral as, e.g., the Spanish Empire.

It's somewhat idle if we disagree with both bourgeois democracy and hierarchical corporatism as modes of social organization. Still, I think that the delegation of authority via elections, and the cultivation of a technocratic, all-knowing elite, both have the potential to provide a governing structure that is responsive to mass discontent on some level.

[ckaihatsu]

A rigid system -- not unlike feudalism -- will immediately fall flat on its face due to differing opinions on that very issue, particularly during a growth / expansion period (especially since adventurism / imperialism would not be permitted, by definition). [...] A bourgeois democracy would be far more stable, credible, and responsive to a broader base of concerns.





During times of crisis, bourgeois democracy may have more stability in one sense (e.g., USSR in 1980s than America in 1930s) but again, the stability is not due to the hierarchical nature, but rather to the unresponsive bureaucracy.


I *swear* I don't mean to defend bourgeois democracy in any way here -- the modes of production and forms of control we're discussing are entirely *relative* to each other, so comparisons *can* be made, but ultimately the world is overripe for a worldwide workers' revolution to cooperatively administrate the means of industrial mass production.

(And, I don't think that the grand showdown of the two superpowers during the Cold War is a good example to use in comparing political / economic systems -- the environment at the time was more about finalizing the paradigm of world hegemony that was left unresolved after the victory of the Allies in WWII. *Stability* wasn't at stake at the time -- it was a period of intense conformity for both mainstream populations. Rather, the watchword for that time would have to be 'superpower competitiveness'.)





It's somewhat idle if we disagree with both bourgeois democracy and hierarchical corporatism as modes of social organization. Still, I think that the delegation of authority via elections, and the cultivation of a technocratic, all-knowing elite, both have the potential to provide a governing structure that is responsive to mass discontent on some level.


Well, obviously we both know that the objective implication of *any* class division is class *struggle* -- it'll exist no matter the specifics of the organization of ruling class power.

I agree there's no need to get *academic* here -- I'll also note that it's difficult to even *find* a historical window of relatively "pure" bourgeois democracy considering the pernicious role of capital within -- certainly by the time industrialism is firmly entrenched we can plainly see the overshadowing of any political democracy by the towering plutocracy....

[Summerspeaker]

Universal income ain't the revolution by any means, but I would enthusiastically vote for it if I could. I might even campaign for candidates who supported the program. Consistent with the anarchist tradition, my sympathies lie as much as with the lumpen as with the workers. Particularly considering that, as a déclassé intellectual, I'm somewhat lumpen myself and a guaranteed check each month would make life easier.

[ckaihatsu]

Hey, I have *no* problem with anyone who wants a roof and a bite and will find a way to get them.

But -- that said, I also have to point out that in terms of *involvement*, the reformist path, as with a universal / basic income, is a *non-starter* in the context of our common interests as the exploited and oppressed.

While individuals' political actions beyond the universal / basic income will vary, the receipt of the reform measure -- at face value -- only leads to political abstentionism and economic clientelism. One might readily come to a *reformist* conclusion from the act of participation, saying that since no one is *starving* there's not much of a problem anymore. Such a person would then be abandoning a class analysis of power and abstaining from their own potential involvement in class struggle.

And, the universal / basic income's *economic* component encourages an economic condition of dependence, termed 'clientelism', in which one's ongoing material interest becomes oriented towards the provider, again hollowing out one's own self-activity towards self-determination.

Of course I can't tell *you* (or anyone) what positive political possibilities might be *enabled* by a certain amount of no-strings-attached material support -- as you note it would make life easier, which is certainly better than trying to be political within a more *difficult* life. As usual these radical-reformist things exist on a hinge that can swing *forward* (progressively) as well as *backward* (conservatively), especially at the individual level...!

[Summerspeaker]

I'm not sure that less material want necessarily reduces interest in social struggle. If that were I true I should stop giving out food to folks on the street and tell them to organize instead. The advent of a basic income program would be an exciting opportunity for radical propaganda as well as a potential promoter of passivity. I don't know how it would turn out, but I'd rather see people getting what they need than otherwise.

[Oswy]

Universal income ain't the revolution by any means, but I would enthusiastically vote for it if I could. I might even campaign for candidates who supported the program. Consistent with the anarchist tradition, my sympathies lie as much as with the lumpen as with the workers. Particularly considering that, as a déclassé intellectual, I'm somewhat lumpen myself and a guaranteed check each month would make life easier.

This is how I've been approaching the universal income idea. I'm sure Marxists like Callinicos and Glyn know that the idea doesn't represent a socialist revolution of itself but it would at least make a basic break between human needs being satisfied and having to be exploited by (and thus supporting) capitalism directly. Provided the level of income genuinely did permit an individual to feed, clothe and shelter themselves with dignity they could spend their time indifferent to capitalism's 'demands' or (ideally) by pursuing further reform in the direction of socialism. Callinicos in particular notes the extent to which the central coercive force in capitalism, our dependency on exploitation to survive, is broken, or at least seriously compromised. The problem is in setting the level of income to a satisfactory level and not having that comrpomised by a parallel withering of state provision so that capitalists simply extortionately recapture that putative economic freedom.

[Oswy]

This is what I was gonna say.

Universal income would drive wages down, not up, and it would benefit the lumpen-proper, not the worker-class. This policy would make things very grim for workers. I am wholly opposed.

But the idea of the universal income is that it is received by everyone, working or not, high-earning or not. So, in principle, everyone is still economically differentiated as they are now, only the poorest no longer have to be exploited or starve, at least that's the idea. If a significant portion of the population can turn their faces away from the exploitation of capitalism without starving then the capitalist becomes a weaker party in the wider conflict between capital and labour. Wages could go up as capitalists realise their ability to make profit can no longer be relied upon by the existence of a surpus labour force which otherwise 'needed' to be exploited.

[Die Neue Zeit]

While individuals' political actions beyond the universal / basic income will vary, the receipt of the reform measure -- at face value -- only leads to political abstentionism and economic clientelism. One might readily come to a *reformist* conclusion from the act of participation, saying that since no one is *starving* there's not much of a problem anymore. Such a person would then be abandoning a class analysis of power and abstaining from their own potential involvement in class struggle.

And, the universal / basic income's *economic* component encourages an economic condition of dependence, termed 'clientelism', in which one's ongoing material interest becomes oriented towards the provider, again hollowing out one's own self-activity towards self-determination.

Reason #6 to add to my list, or is that embedded in one of my reasons? Part of it is embedded with my lumpen remark, but I don't know about the first part.


But the idea of the universal income is that it is received by everyone, working or not, high-earning or not. So, in principle, everyone is still economically differentiated as they are now, only the poorest no longer have to be exploited or starve, at least that's the idea. If a significant portion of the population can turn their faces away from the exploitation of capitalism without starving then the capitalist becomes a weaker party in the wider conflict between capital and labour. Wages could go up as capitalists realise their ability to make profit can no longer be relied upon by the existence of a surpus labour force which otherwise 'needed' to be exploited.

Wages would go up under an ELR scenario. I already demonstrated how a downward pressure on wages resulting from basic income could arise.

[ckaihatsu]

Reason #6 to add to my list, or is that embedded in one of my reasons? Part of it is embedded with my lumpen remark, but I don't know about the first part.


Uhhhhhh, knock yourself out...(!)

= )





If a significant portion of the population can turn their faces away from the exploitation of capitalism without starving then the capitalist becomes a weaker party in the wider conflict between capital and labour. Wages could go up as capitalists realise their ability to make profit can no longer be relied upon by the existence of a surpus labour force which otherwise 'needed' to be exploited.





Wages would go up under an ELR scenario. I already demonstrated how a downward pressure on wages resulting from basic income could arise.


The reason why being in politics on a reformist / liberal basis causes such chaos and brain burnout is because of the inherent exposure to the chaos and insanities of the *market* dynamic.

In this case in front of us we have our revolutionary platform starting to get waterlogged on its right edge just by *discussing* this shit at all....

- Oswy is going by the premise that workers receiving sufficient social benefits would decide to *withhold* their labor from the market thereby shrinking the pool of labor supply and driving up wages.

- DNZ is going by the premise that the overall economy would automatically adjust to the inflationary economic environment caused by the monetary influx of the basic income. (To break it down, merchants would know that they could charge more because workers would have a larger pool of funds at their disposal with which to participate in the economy. Prices would go up artificially, creating a demand-based bubble for consumer goods. As a result workers' purchasing power would take a hit, effectively lowering their real wages.) A corollary is that the basic income would create a "magnetic" bottom threshold (my wording) that would pull down wages since a largish pool of reserve labor would exist in an unemployed basis and employers could get away with only *gradually* "ramping up" entry wages from that existing baseline of unemployment benefits, or 'basic income'.

So we can continue to pick at this carcass or we can decide to decisively step away from the unnecessary complexities and chaos of reformism / capitalism, and simply note that there is one key variable *missing* from these calculations so far:


--> What would *labor* decide to do?


This is the missing *political* component, namely that from a politically class conscious, self-organizing working class. Without knowing *this* variable we'll easily get caught up in a whirlpool of abstract and incomplete economism-type reasoning, never again to have our feet on the firm ground of a *class* basis for struggle and collective direction for *determining* the economic balance of power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As you already know, comrade, I emphasize the political component more than many posters on this board. Debates and mass political action are needed for ELR to become a reality.


DNZ is going by the premise that the overall economy would automatically adjust to the inflationary economic environment caused by the monetary influx of the basic income. (To break it down, merchants would know that they could charge more because workers would have a larger pool of funds at their disposal with which to participate in the economy. Prices would go up artificially, creating a demand-based bubble for consumer goods. As a result workers' purchasing power would take a hit, effectively lowering their real wages.) A corollary is that the basic income would create a "magnetic" bottom threshold (my wording) that would pull down wages since a largish pool of reserve labor would exist in an unemployed basis and employers could get away with only *gradually* "ramping up" entry wages from that existing baseline of unemployment benefits, or 'basic income'.

I'm going with the latter "corollary," not with the premise in your first sentence, though I think the scenario in that Post-Keynesian criticism is possible.

[ckaihatsu]

As you already know, comrade, I emphasize the political component more than many posters on this board. Debates and mass political action are needed for ELR to become a reality.


Yes.

At the same time, I'm wondering how you might respond to Oswy here:





If a significant portion of the population can turn their faces away from the exploitation of capitalism without starving then the capitalist becomes a weaker party in the wider conflict between capital and labour. Wages could go up as capitalists realise their ability to make profit can no longer be relied upon by the existence of a surpus labour force which otherwise 'needed' to be exploited.


I'm still seeing a divergence between your stance -- that regards labor's de facto role in the markets as being one of fundamentally *participatory* -- versus Oswy's stance for the same being that of *abstentionist*.

*My* argument stands that, as long as labor is subservient to the market dynamic its self-conscious, self-organized actions are doomed to be *short-lived* and *reformist-oriented* -- hence *both* your positions in relation to the market as either participatory or abstentionist.

To round out this point I'll note that reformist organizing actions -- the debates and mass political action for ELR, or mass labor abstentionism from the jobs market -- will be subject to the vagaries of the market and so such labor organizing will effectively be on an *economistic* basis, and *not* for a mass revolutionary consciousness and best-interests fighting for control over industrial and social *policy*.





I'm going with the latter "corollary," not with the premise in your first sentence, though I think the scenario in that Post-Keynesian criticism is possible.


Yeah, no prob -- I know the "government-subsidized-demand-based-consumer-bubble-causing-inflation" argument is one right from the right-wing playbook, so I'm a little embarrassed to have to mention it, even if just as a hypothetical scenario for the sake of argument. Theoretically, though, I think it would be realistic, empirically, though we know that the everyday reality is the *converse* -- *capital*-based, *supply-side*, *speculative* bubbles of artificial *inflation* (there it is), due to over-investment -- the overproduction of capital goods -- in certain economic sectors under "attack", like basic commodities or the national currencies for emerging markets.

[ckaihatsu]

Also, this was passed along to me -- (thanks, you know who you are) -- good arguments....


http://www.basic-income.net/





Saturday, April 10, 2010
Basic Income Interview With Götz Werner

The is an interview with German millionaire Götz Werner on a universal basic income. It was published by 'Die Tageszeitung' or 'Taz' in 2006. I've only just seen the English translation (which is much more recent). It is well worth reading.

Introduction

"Götz Werner is the founder of major drugstore chain (1700 stores) and one of the most influential advocates of basic income in Germany. Here he is interviewed by Jens König and Hannes Koch in Die Tageszeitung ('Taz') in November 2006. This has been translated into English by Florian Piesche and posted to 21st Century Digital Boy blog in 2009, reposted to Living Income For Everyone (LIFE) website [and reposted again, here on OUR SYSTEM].

http://www.oursystem.info/2010/04/basic-income-interview-with-gotz-werner.html

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm still seeing a divergence between your stance -- that regards labor's de facto role in the markets as being one of fundamentally *participatory* -- versus Oswy's stance for the same being that of *abstentionist*.

*My* argument stands that, as long as labor is subservient to the market dynamic its self-conscious, self-organized actions are doomed to be *short-lived* and *reformist-oriented* -- hence *both* your positions in relation to the market as either participatory or abstentionist.

How is my position on labour markets "participatory"? :confused:


To round out this point I'll note that reformist organizing actions -- the debates and mass political action for ELR, or mass labor abstentionism from the jobs market -- will be subject to the vagaries of the market and so such labor organizing will effectively be on an *economistic* basis, and *not* for a mass revolutionary consciousness and best-interests fighting for control over industrial and social *policy*.

Debates and mass political action for ELR aren't as broad-economistic as deliberate mass labour abstentionism (but it would be if it were a single-issue campaign or part of a campaign focusing only on "labour issues"). It's like comparing eight-hour day struggles on a plant basis with equivalents for putting it into law. :confused:

OTOH, I didn't include ELR as one of the pre-orthodox minimum demands for the DOTP. Those demands are purely political, and in fact little is mentioned about control over "industrial policy" (normalized workweek). A little more emphasis is placed on "social policy."


Yeah, no prob -- I know the "government-subsidized-demand-based-consumer-bubble-causing-inflation" argument is one right from the right-wing playbook, so I'm a little embarrassed to have to mention it, even if just as a hypothetical scenario for the sake of argument. Theoretically, though, I think it would be realistic, empirically, though we know that the everyday reality is the *converse* -- *capital*-based, *supply-side*, *speculative* bubbles of artificial *inflation* (there it is), due to over-investment -- the overproduction of capital goods -- in certain economic sectors under "attack", like basic commodities or the national currencies for emerging markets.

"Supply side" isn't one-dimensional. Consumption is demand-based, and capital is supply-based, but labour is supply-based as well. I could spark a debate on whether ELR is still demand-side economics or (labour) supply-side economics.

[ckaihatsu]

How is my position on labour markets "participatory"? :confused:


Instituting an employer of last resort (ELR) implies that employment is taking place, instead of defaulting to unemployment, or intentional mass abstentionism from the labor market as a strategy.





Debates and mass political action for ELR aren't as broad-economistic as deliberate mass labour abstentionism. It's like comparing eight-hour day struggles on a plant basis with equivalents for putting it into law. :confused:


Wouldn't this simply just depend on the chosen *scope* for either -- meaning how *widespread* the labor strategy is -- ? (Maybe you could point me to some description of what ELR is.)





OTOH, I didn't include ELR as one of the pre-orthodox minimum demands for the DOTP. Those demands are purely political, and in fact little is mentioned about control over "industrial policy" (normalized workweek). A little more emphasis is placed on "social policy."


Yeah, well that's because it's inherently reformist -- you're simply describing the *limitations* of ELR.





"Supply side" isn't one-dimensional.


C'mon -- yes it *is*, conventionally.





Consumption is demand-based, and capital is supply-based, but labour is supply-based as well.


Yes, I agree that, *technically*, labor is a material *supply*, but it's just not conventionally referred to as such. Outside of a strict economic context it would be most appropriate to conceptualize labor as a potentially militant, collectively directed force politically expressing its own best interests (for control over the means of mass production, etc.).





I could spark a debate on whether ELR is still demand-side economics or (labour) supply-side economics.


Only on your worst enemy, I hope....


= )

[Die Neue Zeit]

Instituting an employer of last resort (ELR) implies that employment is taking place, instead of defaulting to unemployment, or intentional mass abstentionism from the labor market as a strategy.

Thanks for clarifying.


Wouldn't this simply just depend on the chosen *scope* for either -- meaning how *widespread* the labor strategy is -- ? (Maybe you could point me to some description of what ELR is.)

1) I edited my post above.
2) I described it somewhat in my programmatic WIP. There are also reference links to L. Randall Wray's paper there. There's also Ryan Dodd's paper to which I linked earlier in this very thread.

Basically, instead of "working for your dole," compulsory "workfare," and means-testing, there's a huge voluntary ELR program on the order of $500-800 billion (based on the US economy here) where in anybody can go in and do childcare, clean streets, etc. plus the usual stunts for public works for a living wage. This goes beyond slogans for "public works" because of the service job component.

There is debate right now as to whether the living wage would be universal or whether there would be different levels above (i.e., riskier jobs in ELR would get paid more).

As well as setting an effective minimum wage, ELR can also set an effective maximum workweek.


Yeah, well that's because it's inherently reformist -- you're simply describing the *limitations* of ELR.

Perhaps.


C'mon -- yes it *is*, conventionally.

Yes, I agree that, *technically*, labor is a material *supply*, but it's just not conventionally referred to as such. Outside of a strict economic context it would be most appropriate to conceptualize labor as a potentially militant, collectively directed force politically expressing its own best interests (for control over the means of mass production, etc.).

Only on your worst enemy, I hope....

True, but popularizing this (labour) supply-side economics would need to be reconciled with Marx's critique of Say's Law (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/03/karl-marx-on-says-law-theories-of-surplus-value-chapter-17.html) (Keynes said of Say, "supply creates its own demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_creates_its_own_demand)").

[ckaihatsu]

True, but popularizing this (labour) supply-side economics would need to be reconciled with Marx's critique of Say's Law (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/03/karl-marx-on-says-law-theories-of-surplus-value-chapter-17.html) (Keynes said of Say, "supply creates its own demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_creates_its_own_demand)").


Okay, thanks back at ya -- yeah, the ELR sounds fine.... On this other stuff I'll let you enjoy hacking your way through the dense foliage -- make sure to send us back a postcard or something from wherever you end up...(!)

(There's always my own model, at my blog entry, waiting for you when it all gets too tough...!)