ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Da se ne bi priča o ovom zanimljivom konceptu izgubila u masi drugih priča na World Today, evo topika za univerzalni osnovni prihod. Mnogi se protive ovoj ideji (da država svakom građaninu daje određenu sumu novca dovoljnu za osnovne egzistencijalne potrebe) jer vele da će ljude učiniti lenjim, dok mnogi - u poslednje vreme i direktori velikih tehnoloških firmi koji bi po pravilu trebalo da su libertarijanci - vele da je ovo jedini način da se obezbedi koliko-toliko pravična raspodela dobara u bliskoj budućnosti kada će još veći deo poslova koje ljudi danas obavljaju biti automatizovan.

O testiranju ideje na živim ljudima smo već pisali ovde:


http://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/index.php?topic=9198.msg664550#msg664550

Pa onda ovde:

http://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/index.php?topic=9198.msg664671#msg664671

I verovatno na još nekim mestima koja me sada mrzi da tražim. Ne zaboravimo da je ne identičnu ali u osnovi sličnu ideju imao i Saša Radulović sa autorskim tekstom u politici 26. Septembra 2013. godine gde je objašnjavao koncept davanja svima osnovne starosne penzije bez obzira na njihovu istoriju uplaćivanja u fond...

Elem, novi tekst na ovu temu, Kanada:

How we implement basic income will define our future: Olive

Quote
"The State owes all its citizens a secure subsistence, food, suitable clothes and a way of life that does not damage their health." —Montesquieu, Enlightenment philosopher whose theory on separation of powers underpins the constitutions of many countries, including the U.S., in a 1748 essay.
The proposition that no one should be deprived of the basics of life for simple lack of money is about to be made real this year in Ontario, with pilot projects that make cash payments to Canadians in economic distress.
The Canadian projects join a record number of experiments with universal basic income (UBI) worldwide. These initiatives are not radical. The principles of UBI date from Thomas More's Utopia (1516), if not earlier. Today, some 83 per cent of developing economies use unconditional cash transfer programs, according to the World Bank, though the small payouts are inadequate.
In Western economies, unconditional payout schemes include Canada's Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), and the U.S.'s Social Security.

But pre-retirement assistance is an increasingly dysfunctional patchwork of schemes. Some are directed at certain groups while ignoring others. Many are tied to employment. And many others provide relief through tax credits. Tax credits are useless to those not earning a taxable income — adults who've returned to college, for instance, or people caring for elderly parents. And tax credits don't help the estimated 70 per cent of people below the poverty line who work — often at more than one job — but whose meagre earnings fall short of the lowest tax bracket.
The current UBI impetus is a reaction to shortcomings in traditional social supports; to mounting job loss due to factory and office automation; and to the social ills — poor health, substandard education, crime — that are abetted by the widening gap between rich and poor.
UBI experiments are taking place, or planned, in advanced economies such as Canada, the U.S. Scotland, the Netherlands and Finland; and in developing-world jurisdictions including India, Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda. There are now clearing houses for updates on UBI developments, including the Basic Income Canada Network and the Belgium-based Basic Income Earth Network.
Public support in Ontario for the province's three-year UBI project to be launched this spring in three Ontario communities is remarkably strong. The 35,000 Ontarians canvassed by Queen's Park for their input were near-unanimous in supporting the UBI projects. And they insisted that a UBI augment, rather than replace, existing welfare, medical and other social supports.
UBI experiments in Ontario and elsewhere are the most forceful attack yet on income inequality, whose end point, if it is not addressed, is potentially violent social unrest. By contrast, if UBI works, it "could be the beginning of a seminal change in how modern societies inclusively and economically reduce the negative and broad impact of poverty," former senator Hugh Segal, charged by Queen's Park with devising a UBI scheme, told the Star last week.
A UBI would be pointless in the absence of existing supports. In the Ontario pilot projects, the payout for a single person will be $1,689 per month. That's still short of living costs. Average Toronto rent for a two-bedroom apartment ($1,450 per month) and a Metropass ($134 per month) leaves just $116 per month for food, clothing, prescriptions and other costs.
The model devised by Segal, a longtime advocate of UBI, is a sound and cautious one. Its payout is not that much higher than current welfare support under Ontario Works, whose payouts equal about 45 per cent of the Low Income Measure.
But the Segal payout, combined with existing welfare, is enough to lift recipients above the poverty line, ensuring substantial income for workers in precarious jobs and for those in the unpaid workforce. The latter includes tens of thousands of volunteers, whose social contribution is of immense value but doesn't show up in GDP stats.
A well-designed UBI equates to freedom. Freedom from exploitative employers. Freedom to launch a small business or develop an invention despite a lack of employment income. Liberation from the "poverty trap," where taking a paying job means surrendering welfare and other benefits. And freedom to escape an abusive partner relied upon for room and board.
There are several UBI models. Some have disappointed, notably in offering no evidence that improved living conditions during the experiment are sustainable. And Scotland's proposed UBI is an anti-poverty advocate's nightmare, as it unwisely scraps existing welfare benefits, replacing them with a single UBI payment for all citizens.
But one of the consistencies among UBI projects is that they have encouraged both work and high-risk entrepreneurialism. An example is the ambitious UNICEF-funded UBI initiative in Madhya Pradesh, India.
Skeptics have said a UBI amounts to paying people not to work. Actually, UBI schemes function to make work more attractive, by raising incomes and removing stress induced by job insecurity.
But what of paying people who don't work?
Fact is, job scarcity in traditional vocations is acute, worsening and permanent. In 2013, two Oxford professors forecast that about 45 per cent of U.S. jobs could be eliminated by automation within the next 20 years.
And a more recent report by researchers at Indiana's Ball State University found that 88 per cent of U.S. job loss has been caused by automation, not globalization.
Bill Gates has called for a tax on every robot that steals jobs, with proceeds going to job retraining. And Tesla founder Elon Musk, convinced that eventually most jobs will be automated, has called UBI inevitable and imperative.
If conventional paid work is disappearing, how are we to prevent the global economy from grinding to a halt as scores of millions of workers lose their income? Effective alternatives to UBI schemes are welcome, but so far none are forthcoming.
Getting UBI right may be our best hope of eradicating poverty. Only 2 per cent of traditional foreign aid goes directly to poor people; the balance is spent on infrastructure. And the World Bank reports that "skills training and microfinance have shown little impact on poverty or stability" in developing economies.
Cash is king for most UBI advocates. Ban Ki-moon, the former UN secretary general, has argued that "cash-based programming should be the preferred and default method of support." And the European Commission (EC) has suggested that designers of anti-poverty programs should "always ask the question, 'Why not cash?' "
Current developing-world relief efforts consist largely of state-subsidized food, fuel and other staples. Cash, rather than the vouchers now in use, enables people to spend as they choose. They can, for instance, turn away from the limited goods available at often corrupt government dispensaries.
We're coming back to UBI now because the "social contract" between employers and workers lies in ruins. The decline of unions has consigned powerless workers to exploitative workplaces. And the tax system has been perverted to liberate the wealthiest 1 per cent from paying their fair share.
Income inequality is a widespread crisis. How we handle it will be a defining factor in shaping the 21st century.

Da se ne zaboravi, Ramsfeld i Čejni su svojevremeno radili sličan eksperiment:


That time when Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld ran a universal basic income experiment for Nixon

Quote
In recent years, as the possibility that intelligent machines might one day replace virtually all of our jobs has sunk in, the promise of universal basic income (UBI) has gained more mainstream attention, especially in progressive circles. Advocates say that governments should offer universal minimum payments to protect displaced workers from destabilization, poverty, and poor health.
The idea has its detractors, however. Some believe UBI would make otherwise employable people lazy. The concept raises debates about whether handing out cash reduces inequality or encourages dependence—the same debates that have surrounded programs that provide assistance for the poor that former US president Barack Obama expanded and Donald Trump is likely to claw back.
Pilot programs testing the effects and feasibility of the concept are now underway in places more friendly to the idea: California, Finland, and Canada, for example. But these are not UBI's first field experiments. The US government tested similar income plans five times, beginning in the late 1960s—and the administrator that oversaw the first of these experiments was none other than the Republican veteran Donald Rumsfeld, as director of the Office of Economic Opportunity under US president Richard Nixon.
That year, Rumsfeld, who later would be best known as the controversial Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush, hired a special assistant, Dick Cheney, the man who would go to become Bush's (loathed by the left) vice president for two terms. Together they supervised the New Jersey Graduated Income Work Experiment, which ran from 1968 to 1971, at the tail end of the "war on poverty" introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson. (Rumsfeld and Cheney's offices have not responded to Quartz's requests for comments.)
James Livingston, a history professor at Rutgers University and author of No More Work: Why Full Employment Is A Bad Idea, shared this little-known detail in the history of basic income in a recent interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
"What in the world was going on here?" he said. "It does tell us that there was no left-right distinction for thinking about universal income."
The much-cited New Jersey project involved more than 1,300 families, some of them living in rural Pennsylvania. The control group was made up of people living below the poverty line who were not offered any subsidies. Families in the experimental group were given federally funded supplements so that their income was at or just above the poverty line.
Among their goals, the researchers were curious about what basic income would do to recipients' productivity and work ethic. They found that federal payments did little to discourage breadwinners in the families from working: The men who were given a basic income worked one hour less per week, while women reduced their work week by five hours. Mothers in the program spent more time with their children, whose performance at school improved.
The same study was replicated in Gary, Indiana, as well as Seattle and Denver, and all offered evidence that a guaranteed income's effect on work ethic was "nil," says Livingston. As the New York Times reported in 1970, Congress was convinced by Rumsfeld's experiment and approved his proposed measure to replace welfare with this more streamlined system. The Senate didn't approve the plan, however, and the issue faded. Nixon, too, turned against the idea.
Not everyone would agree with Livingston's conclusion that the experiments prove UBI is our best hope for a future of more equal economic opportunity. And ultimately, it's hard to know who's right: Whether you're for or against UBI, the data from past basic income trials, including Rumfeld's and Cheney's, is shaky at best.

Nekako shvatih da se ovaj univerzalni dohodak smatra ljevičarskom idejom, a u stvari to nije. Nije uopšte čudno da libertarijanci to podržavaju kad ideja i potiče od neoliberala. Milton Fridman i negative income tax je početak toga, odatle i ti eksperimenti sedamdesetih.

Naravno da nije levičarska ideja. Cilj je bio destimulacija potrebe samosvojnosti. Daš im mrvu da ne bi tražili krišku.

Da, to ima logike.

Opet, interesantno je čitati ove eksperimente koji čini se ukazuju da UBI zapravo ne destimuliše "vrednoću" odnosno radnu etiku, pa će biti zanimljivo pratiti kako se sve ovo razvija tokom narednih par decenija.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 03-04-2017, 12:09:15
Da, to ima logike.

Opet, interesantno je čitati ove eksperimente koji čini se ukazuju da UBI zapravo ne destimuliše "vrednoću" odnosno radnu etiku, pa će biti zanimljivo pratiti kako se sve ovo razvija tokom narednih par decenija.

Da te čiča nauči. Boldovano je floskula.
Imali Šveđani baš tu socijalnu stavku za svakog. Onda se dogodilo da je jedna ciganska porodica od tridesetak komada pelješila jednu opštinu tamo, dok im nisu izeli sav budžet. Onda opština uzme kredit i potkupi ih da odu u susednu opštinu. Baš tih ranih sedamdesetih godina prošlog veka.

Naravno, poenta je da imaš nepravedni ekonomski sistem, ali da socijalnim davanjima spriječiš nastanak proletarijata.

To klasični liberali nisu kontali, dok je neoliberalima to ključno za mir u društvu.

No, to je stav vidi koje sranje od ekonomije imamo, hajde to da zabašurimo da ne bi neki socijalizam uletio.

Al izbor u budućnosti, ako je vjerovati nekim svjetskim sociolozima, ili novi feudalizam ili više od kozmetičke popravke kapitalizma, a možda i njegovo prevazilaženje.

Tako da je možda ovaj topik bespredmetan haha Mada sve zavisi šta će stvarno univerzalni dohodak da bude, od toga ne može da se živi i bukvalno tjera osobu da radi do smrti.

Nemoguće da bi to bile pristojne isplate, a takođe je pitanje da li time ukidaju socijalno i zdravstveno i ostale ljevičarske elemente, pa da sam uplaćuješ od dohotka koji dobijaš.

 Ontario basic income pilot project to launch in Hamilton, Lindsay and Thunder Bay

Quote
Premier Kathleen Wynne announced Monday a plan to study basic income in Ontario, in a three-year pilot project based in Hamilton, Lindsay and Thunder Bay.
The province will explore the effectiveness of providing a basic income — no matter what — to people who are currently living on low incomes, "whether they are working or not," Wynne said.
Wynne said the pilot will provide the basic income to 4,000 households chosen from applicants invited "randomly" by the province in the coming weeks.
A single person could receive up to about $17,000 a year, minus half of any income he or she earns. A couple could receive up to $24,000 per year. People with disabilities could receive up to $6,000 more per year.
"People are anxious about their jobs; they're anxious about their futures," she said. "They're worried about the soaring costs of renting or buying a place to live."
People are especially concerned for those who don't start out wealthy, she said. 
"Many people are concerned about what the world is promising for their kids," she said. "It's a world of global competition, reduced benefits, more and more part-time employment."


The premier said the three-year project will start with people making "just under $17,000 a year, but even that amount may make a real difference to someone who is striving to reach for a better life.
"We have chosen these communities intentionally because they are the right size and they have the right mix of population," Wynne said.
"We need to address the concerns of those who worry about falling behind, even as they work so hard to get ahead."
The amount is not "extravagant," she said, but it sends a message:
"It says to them, 'Government is with you; the people of Ontario are with you,'" she said.
4,000 households to be studied Joining Wynne were Minister of Community and Social Services Helena Jaczek and Chris Ballard, the minister responsible for the province's poverty reduction strategy.
Jaczek said that people in the program will be randomly contacted from each region's low-income population and invited to apply.
The program will cost $50 million a year for each of the three years and 4,000 households will participate. That will include 1,000 people from the Hamilton, Brantford and Brant regions.


People who receive medical and dental benefits from the province under other welfare programs would not have to give those up.
The ministers have been spearheading the province's effort to experiment with basic income. The strategy for reducing poverty involves "a system of automatic transfers for those beneath an income threshold," according to a discussion paper on the topic commissioned by Wynne and the ministers last summer.
The province has said it will launch the pilot project providing money to low-income households with no strings attached.
'There's so much poverty' Elizabeth McGuire, who chairs the Campaign for Adequate Welfare and Disability in Hamilton, said after the speech she was "blown away" and pleased the program would launch in Hamilton.
"Because there's so much poverty here in the city. And we have so many neighbourhoods which are so clearly defined but are yet so economically depressed because of the loss of manufacturing," she said. "There's no solution other than basic income, but I didn't believe the government was hearing us."
She said Wynne's announcement was the government doing "the right thing."
Deirdre Pike, who works as a senior social planner at the Social Planning and Research Council, echoed that.
"We have people in Hamilton, 7,000 of them, waking up today, they earn about $7,000 a year — I bet a lot of them will be applying to get $17,000 a year and see how that will change their lives," she said.
'Working poor ... stand to benefit the most' Academics who study basic income said the pilot gives a chance to see how the idea plays in a changed economy.
"I think really it's the working poor who stand to benefit the most from this kind of a program, the people who are out there trying to get a job, trying and possibly working part time, working a series of part-time jobs, who can use this program to gain the kind of stability that might be able to let them move ahead a little bit and develop a career," said Evelyn Forget at the University of Manitoba.
Money with no strings attached removes barriers for someone who receives disability assistance but also wants to work, said Michael Veall, an economics professor at McMaster University.
Filling out all of the paperwork to get a job while collecting disability, and then worrying about whether the government will think you really have a disability, can be draining, he said.
"All these things are really difficult, and they sap people's energy, and they cause lots of economic stress in the household," Veall said.
Wynne said the government will be closely monitoring the pilot, but didn't commit today to extending the program once the three years are up, even if the program is a success.

https://youtu.be/fPx6ePRRWcs

prosle godine svicarci su odbacili ideju na referendumu i to ogromnom vecinom kontra.
ludilo mozga, sta cini zavist i zelja da bliznjem bude dobro...
radilo se mjesecnom osnovnom prihodu od 2500 svicarskih franaka za svaku punoljetnu osobu.

Schweizer lehnen Grundeinkommen ab

produktivnost je tolika da je basic income nuzan, ali eto.

Support for a universal basic income is inching up in Europe

kad bih ja dobijao taj neki minimum... mislim da bi se posvetio samo onome što volim

ležanjem i uživanjem
te radu na vikendici

eee, da, ja bih zasadio vrt i ne bi me više videli... Zato verovatno stvar neće zaživeti na Balkanu, sve bi stalo 

http://www.furtherfield.org/features/articles/universal-basic-income-neoliberal-plot-make-you-poorer

Deo ove argumentacije deluje sasvim razumno. Ako garantovana minimalna nadnica za radnika istorijski generiše inflaciju onda garantovan minimalni prihod za svakog građanina takođe verovatno mora da dovede do porasta cene osnovnih životnih troškova. Dosadašnji eksperimenti su, verovatno, ipak suviše malih razmera da bi se ovaj efekat primetio.

da
i ja sam mislio na inflaciju

   Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Universal Basic Income in His Harvard Commencement Speech

Ih bin komunist!
Konacno isplivase marksisti!
Amerika i Engleska, bice zemlja proleterska!

Do nothing, get cash? Maybe, when robots take your job       

Da me ne mrzi pokušao bih da nađem zamerke koje je izneo Jaron Lanier u svojoj knjizi Who Owns the Future, odnosno razloge koje je naveo zašto misli da treba da idemo ka nečemu što više liči na njegovo rešenje (micropayments za *sve*, u oba smera), nego ka UBI.

Here's what happened when Iran introduced a basic income 

Quote
In recent years, spurred by advances in workplace automation, researchers and industry titans like Elon Musk have espoused the necessity of a universal basic income, payments made by the government to all citizens regardless of their employment. The general idea started picking up steam from a policy perspective in the 60s, when Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax which would guarantee all Americans a minimum income. Proposals for a basic income generally receive familiar pushback from opponents, who say giving people free money will disincentivize them from working.
In 2011, in response to heavy cuts to oil and gas subsidies, Iran implemented a program that guaranteed citizens cash payments of 29 percent of the nation's median income, which amounts to about $1.50 every day. (In the U.S. such a measure would translate to about $16,000 per year.) Now, six years later, the results of that measure were released in a report by economists Djavad Salehi-Isfahani and Mohammad H. Mostafavi-Dehzooeifrom for the Economic Research Forum.
The report found no evidence for the idea that people will work less under a universal income, and found that in some cases, like in the service industry, people worked more, expanding their businesses or pursuing more satisfying lines of work.
The researchers did find that young people — specifically people in their twenties — worked less, but noted that Iran never had a high level of employment among young people, and that they were likely enrolling in school with the added income.
The evidence presented in the paper is compelling, but the anecdotal belief that handing people money will make them lazy is hard to shake. "The findings in this paper do not settle this question," the report's authors point out. "What we have accomplished is at the very least to shift the burden of proof on this issue to those who claim cash transfer [sic] make poor people lazy, and to show the need for better data and more research."

Hawaii just became the first US state to pass a bill supporting basic income — here's the man behind it

Richard Branson o UBI:

https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/experimenting-universal-basic-income

We could fund a universal basic income with the data we give away to Facebook and Google

  Money for nothing: is Finland's universal basic income trial too good to be true?  

Zamka poklonjenih dohodaka - Milutin Mitrović

E to ti je Pareto!

 Finland is killing its experiment with basic income

Basic income could work—if you do it Canada-style

slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-jobs-against-hijacking-utopia/

kozmetičke neolib promjene!

jobs income, tuc muc, Radul se ne oglašava oće li njegov zakon o porijeklu imovine da pogodi nekog milijardera u Srbiji

Analize 35 programa univerzalnog prihoda i transfera sredstava:

https://www.yang2020.com/35-ubi-programs-cash-transfer-experiments/

https://www.blic.rs/vesti/svet/secate-li-se-finskog-eksperimenta-da-svaki-stanovnik-dobija-560-evra-mesecno-doziveo/549lezr

Evo šta je tu malo konfuzno:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/finland-universal-basic-income-results-trial-cancelled

Quote"It seems that there is some misinformation spreading in international media about the Finnish basic income experiment," says Miska Simanainen, a researcher at Kela, the Finnish government agency behind the trial. "There are currently no plans to continue or expand the experiment after 2018, but this is not new information," he adds.
Instead, the Finnish government will wait for the results from this initial trial before making any decisions about a wider roll-out of the initiative. The results from the trial will be available by the end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020, Simanainen explains.

jel program prekinut, ili je planirano da stane u 2018?

Pa, po ovome što kažu istraživači koji su ga dizajnirali, ovo je faza koja je planirana za 2018. pa će se posle obrade rezultata donositi odluka da li da se produžuje.

Nažalost, ne može da se vidi cela studija bez plaćanja, ali evo apstrakt:

Cash transfers and labor supply: Evidence from a large-scale program in Iran

QuoteHighlights
•In 2010 Iran replaced its sizeable and regressive energy subsidies with uniform cash transfers.•We use panel data to estimate the casual impact of cash transfers on labor supply.
•We use diff-in-diff and fixed effects methods to estimate the effect on all and the bottom 40%.
•No support found for a negative effect on hours worked or labor force participation.•Evidence of positive effect for women (hours worked and participation) and self-employed men (hours worked).

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of a national cash transfer program on labor supply in Iran. In 2011, Iran started monthly deposits of cash into individual accounts covering more than 70 million people and amounting to 28% of the median per capita household income. The payments were compensation for the sudden removal of hefty energy subsidies. The program has been heavily criticized for its disincentive for work, especially for the poor. We use panel data to study the causal effect of the transfers on labor supply using exogenous variation in the time households first started receiving transfers and in the intensity of treatment, which we define as the share of net transfers from the program in total per capita household expenditures. We find no evidence that cash transfers reduced labor supply, in terms of hours worked or labor force participation. To the contrary, we find positive effects on the labor supply of women and self-employed men.

ma neoliberalizam, na šta se srozala socijalna politika, na tamo nekog Radula

čemu za neoliberale služi socijalna politika, pa eto tog apstrakta, piše da služi da objezbjedi pozitivan uticaj na ponudu radne snage

nači, socijalna politika ne služi jednakosti ljudi, preraspodjeli bogatstva, smanjenju siromaštva, nego da proletarijat dobije neki životni minimum kako bi kapitalizam nastavio da funkcioniše

radule radule dadule!

Foucault on UBI (Birth of biopolitics)


Negative tax [UBI] is a way of absolutely avoiding social policy having any kind effect in the form of a general redistribution of income... anything that could be described as a socialist policy. If we call socialist policy... a policy which tends to alter the gaps between different incomes... then it is absolutely clear that the policy entailed by negative tax is the exact opposite of socialist policy. Relative poverty does not figure in any way in the objectives of such a social policy. The only problem is "absolute" poverty, that is to say the threshold below which people are deemed not to have an adequate income for ensuring that they have a sufficient consumption... it ensures... the mechanisms of competition and enterprise, will be allowed to function in the rest of society. Above the threshold everyone will have to be an enterprise for himself or for his family... It will therefore be a kind of infra-and supra-liminal floating population... which, for an economy that has abandoned the objective of full employment, will be a constant reserve of manpower which can be drawn on if need be, but which can also be returned to its assisted status if necessary. So with this system... you have the formation of an economic policy which is no longer focused on full employment, and which can only be integrated in the general market economy by abandoning the objective... of centrally planned growth... Ultimately, it is up to people to work if they want or not work if they don't. Above all there is the possibility of not forcing them to work if there is no interest in doing so... and in this way the neo-liberal policy can be got to work. Now this kind of project is nothing other than the radicalization of those general themes I talked about with regard to ordoliberalism. The German ordoliberals explained that... a true social policy must be such that, without affecting the economic game, and consequently letting society develop as an enterprise society, mechanisms of intervention are deployed to assist those when, and only when, they need it.

Fukoove mudre reči treba pamtiti.   


A u međuvremenu:


The first major basic income trial in the US just announced how it plans to give away free money

Fuko? Derida? Pogrešan topik... ajd zdravo...

Universal basic income doesn't work. Let's boost the public realm instead

Istraživanje veli da je u svakom modelu koji je testiran finalni ishod da bi zaista univerzalna šema bila preskupa za bilo koju državu. Evo i same studije: http://www.world-psi.org/sites/default/files/documents/research/en_ubi_full_report_2019.pdf

Stockton Residents Who Received $500 a Month in Basic Income Experiment Spent Money on Food, Clothing and Bills

The "Freedom Dividend": Inside Andrew Yang's plan to give every American $1,000

Yang je ispao iz precedničke trke, ali njegov UBI san i dalje živi:



New Bill Would Give Nearly Every Californian $1,000 a Month, Similar to Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend Plan

People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report

Germany just got a universal basic income, and nobody noticed.

Da, mada je to umotano u nekoliko pravnih preokreta pa ćemo prave efekte te odluke videti verovatno tek u nešto daljoj budućnosti.

universal basic income i u usa

Coronavirus stimulus relief bill: Lawmakers, White House reach deal on $2 trillion economic-relief package

https://abc7.com/politics/lawmakers-white-house-reach-deal-on-$2-trillion-relief-package/6048123/


a bogami i nemci ne zaostaju


Coronavirus: German Parliament set to pass historic aid package
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-german-parliament-set-to-pass-historic-aid-package/a-52908339

Čekamo da vidimo da li će i Austrijanci pa da razmatramo to i mi 

Slušam različite teorije kako su sve ovo izazvali bankari-vladari sveta iz senke, kojima odgovara da nagomilani kapital investiraju u devastirane ekonomije, ali sve što ja vidim svojim očima je pomeranje sveta ka socijalizmu i solidarnosti.

Quote from: Ksenija Atanasijević on 25-03-2020, 14:42:22
Slušam različite teorije kako su sve ovo izazvali bankari-vladari sveta iz senke, kojima odgovara da nagomilani kapital investiraju u devastirane ekonomije, ali sve što ja vidim svojim očima je pomeranje sveta ka socijalizmu i solidarnosti.

like, like.