Hi Simon,

I do not think this is a good idea. I saw many people living off benefits in England and bringing nothing to society. One girl I knew never saw her parents work and she herself did not fancy working either.  I was working everyday and could only afford living in a bedroom and she was living in a flat provided by the State. I knew several people like this.

I do not think giving a basic salary to everyone is good, first it would cost a lot from people who work. Not everone enjoys working but many just do because they have to and/or enjoy the freedom money gives them.  These people would then probably end up not working anymore in particular if they see that they would not be so worse off if they were not working. Consequently this would mean that the ones who would work would have to pay even more money for those who don't work and they would most probably get all pissed off about it, I would be one of those people 

Sarah, your narration shows that people who do not want to work already find ways to live from benefits today. Otherwise they work very unmotivated, which often harms the society more than it profits. Can you really force somebody to be motivated for his job? Maybe this was necessary in the industrial society. But nowadays we are living in the information society, where jobs are getting more and more complex and the difference between gainful and voluntary work becomes blurred. Today you have to be motivated to be productive. In my opinion you can only generate motivation with incentives and not with pressure! And with a basic income these incentives would be even higher than today (especially for low qualified jobs).

Are you really sure everybody would stop working when he gets a little basic income?  I'm not sure at all! One day even lying on the beach and eating coconuts becomes boring. Moreover it is known that the aspiration for status is one of the key drivers of mankind and this human attribute will also remain when people get a basic income. People would still want to improve and to show their skills. But people would be much more independent from their employers than today. In my opinion there would be much more freedom and honesty in the society!

HI Simon,

My narration showed that countries making it easy for people not to work have plenty of those, many of whom being very complacent with their situations and not needing to go further in life. I did not say I am sure everybody would stop working but for sure many more would.

But fine, then please count me in the community that would use the basic salary as sole source of revenue.  My main motivation to work right is money and this does not mean I am not productive. Under your basic salary instution I would earn much less, so for sure I would not longer be motivated enough to work.... Status I do not care about and I would not get bored under the coconut tree or in the uni.

So anybody out there ready to pay for my basic salary please go ahead, please send me a private mail and I will reply with bank details so you can make the transfer. Thanks a lot.

This is a joke but basically this would really represent the way I see the situation, productive people paying for many non productive people, do you think I will receive many mails from people wanting to send me money?

Sorry Simon, can't be for even if it sounds really nice.

Some examples I found on the net:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-541598/Meet-families-ones-worked-THREE-generations--dont-care.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7585500/Family-on-42000-a-year-benefits-because-they-are-better-off-unemployed.html

I also see that recently England has reformed its welfare system so as to motivate people to go to work since they had so many abuse of their generous system:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357792/Britain-welfare-reform-end-rewards-workshy.html

On the other hand, some psychologists bring elements that could support basic salary viability, in that they argue salary as you said is not the main motivator for people to work, examples are given of people winning the lottery and still carrying on working or opening their business, more on the theories :

http://www.businessballs.com/herzberg.htm

http://tutor2u.net/business/gcse/people_motivation_theories.htm

but I still think that the feeling of unfairness between those who work and those who don't would make it not viable. Additionally there might be menial jobs for which not many or not enough people would be found, unless very high prices would be paid, for example cleaning toilets. A whole lot of new economical balances would have to be found and people's mentality would probably need change. I still see financial self-interest as the major economical driving factor. A very interesting book I read is called 'The Undercover Economist', the author argues, amongst others, that if you want to change people's beahviour, you have to use financial reward/penalty.

Sarah, I would say it is just fair when the toilet cleaners get more money, because nobody wants to do their job. These low-qualified people are really in bad situation today. They only get very low salaries and not much respect from the society. These people would profit the most from a basic salary!  

Ok, I also see the problem you mentioned with people who totally retire from the society. Maybe it could be a possibility to require some social work for the community to get the basic salary.

Yes, economists often say there has to be some sort of financial reward/penalty.  But rarely can they explain how modern economies actually work.

Why, given the evidence of repeated and numerous financial disasters that stem from policies these economists espouse should we continue to listen to them?  Excellent teachers should certainly get paid more than excellent athletes given that the former assist in creating human capital.

One idea might be guaranteed income in the form of food, health care, education and child care.  

In fact, Switzerland has a huge social welfare system. And of course, this social welfare system is subsidized by Switzerland's banking practices.

"According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Switzerland is subsidising more than 70% of its agriculture compared to 35% in the EU. The 2007 Agricultural Program, recently adopted by the Swiss Federal Assembly, will increase subsidies by CHF 63 million to CHF 14.092 billion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Switzerland

Is it really economists that are wrong or humans that are too greedy? Will we ever have a system that works completely for the good of everyone?

I would also tend to think that basic salary in terms of what you state Translator would be good and the minimum everyone should have.

With regards to what you stated about Switzerland and if this was to compare with what I mentioned for the UK, I would say that Switzerland try to limit as much as possible financing people who simply do not feel like working. In England, at least when I was there, you could receive unemployment benefits for life, have your mortgage interests paid by the state and get money for all your kids. Here on the other hand, you may get more monthly money if you are unemployed but it is limited in time. If you end up on the social services, you are monitored and if one day you happen to come out of it, you have to refund the money they lent you during that time. Additionally, no agency would rent a flat to someone who has accummulated debts. Of course it has its advantages in that the system get less abused, but it also has many disadvantages.

With regards to paying more for good teachers and cleaning ladies, I am all for it and would be happy if we took some of the money from the footballers to do that ;-)

There would be good things and bad things to such a system, but overall: I think it's a bad idea.

Human nature is to want more money / power, and we now get it via hard work. Take away the direct incentive for hard work and personal gain, and the system becomes twisted.

Nir Ofek, there would still be a direct incentive for hard work. For some jobs even more than today. If you look at the low-paid jobs: Today sometimes the unemployment benefits are higher than low-paid jobs, so people decide not to take the jobs and stay unemployed. With a basic income you would get the money for your job on top. This is a much better incentive! And to go in holiday, drive a car, buy a house, etc you still have to work hard. The basic income should just be enough to survive.

There is still a market economy and this system has nothing to do with communism (which did not work because there were no incentives to work hard). But the markets mechanics would maybe work a bit different!   

Let me get this straight - a 31 year old is asking the question why everyone, no matter what they do, can’t have an unconditional basic wage? Really?

Sorry, I guess I should answer the original question...

What do you think about an Uncoditional Basic Income for everybody? Unworkable.

Is it a realistic idea? No.

Do you think it would work? No.

Which would be the effects in the society? 'Dole culture' like we have in the UK.

Show me an idealistic, socialist proposal such as this one and I'll show you an aimless twenty-something who is long overdue for moving out of their parents' basement, getting a job, and paying some taxes.

Well, I am happy Simon brought this topic. Although I have my very strong opinions and ideas about some topics, it is always good to be challenged and to have to think about their validity and limitations again.

So thanks Simon for bringing this topic here.

So this is a guaranteed subsitence amount right? For example an unemployment benefit if you're unemployed, or your salary (perhaps a minimum wage) if you're employed? Isn't that, erm, quite common...?

Hi Richard,

indeed already today around half of the population (kids, students, unemployed, pensioners, etc) get benefits from the state. The difference with a basic income would be that everybody would get the basic salary from the state (even if he works). I think it's an interesting idea, because it would cause much less bureaucracy and there are other (dis)advantages (see discussion). But I am not sure if it could be easily financed either! I just wanted to know what others think about it. But I see that I probably would not get a majority for this idea in the glocals community!

Simon, who would pay for this "basic income" scheme?

Companies and corporations would have to pay higher wages or to give better working conditions to their employees instead of paying out high dividends to their shareholders. Taxes for rich people and top earners would have to be higher. Maybe the economies would not grow as fast any more. In the last decades our economies have always become richer, but have the people become happier because of that?

Here are some more links about Basic Income:

http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html

http://www.basicincomeinitiative.eu/

http://www.globalincome.org/

http://bostonreview.net/BR25.5/vanparijs.html

Hmm... It is an interesting idea since I've never heard of this concept before. However it sounds like more bureaucracy to me. I mean a lot of people would be paying taxes only to get them back in this basic income - giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

It seems a minimum wage to be paid entirely by the employer is a shortcut to the same effective result. If taxes on the wealthy and companies are to be increased I reckon I'd rather they were invested in a different way that this.