The pub I drink in is 7.50CHF for a pint of Eichhof which is one of the cheapest places. Try not to get a taxi though unless I miss the last tram back which with the Eichhof is the norm the cabs in Zürich make black cabs look cheap! About 14CHF to get less than 2 miles. I walked it once.....
The FIFA Museum at Enge is actually pretty good. Been a couple of times now, good fun
At the risk of ridicule, I think it makes more sense than most ideas that come from the left. Why should a carer at home get less support than a low earner with 12 kids.
Is a means tested and rules based eligibility system better than a non-discriminatory system if your basic principle is that everyone deserves a basic standard of living?
Probably makes little difference to those who lack any motivation to get a job if they don't have to, but a proportion who use all their energy and resources on just surviving might use the saved energy to make the next step.
In practice can't see how you would make it work without a huge increase in the welfare budget so that it wasn't redistribution of the wealth of the poor. It would mean people paying taxes and getting generous state pensions being funding it out of their own pocket.
So yes it's a stupid idea thinking that many would vote for it.
I think the point of the idea is to save capitalism from itself. Give it thirty years and there will be hardly any jobs that haven't been automated away or replaced by technology. Those still in work will be working stupid hours and will be desperate to stay in a job, no matter what (and we can see elements of this now - most people in white collar jobs do unpaid overtime). So either all the wealth created in an economy goes to the owners of the machines and their security guards, or it is spread about somehow so that the vast majority of people have a stake in society. Just because Roly came up with it doesn't mean that it won't work, though on recent experience his version certainly won't as he's an arrogant fool.
The coming technological revolution will be responsible for more carnage than any world conflict, famine or environmental disaster that has gone before it. That isn't hyperbole - it's a fact. The 'basic income' argument is actually a reasonably sensible anticipatory response to it, but has many, many flaws. The simple fact is that income disparity between the top 1% (even taking the US out of the equation as their economy is more horribly broken than the rest of the world) is getting wider and wider. Those with the means to control things like automation of technology will see to it that the status quo isn't just maintained, but tipped even further in their favour.
At some point, probably when mass unemployment really starts to bite (think 20-30% to begin with) there will be some sort of conflict between 'normal' people and corporations/the elite and governments that do their bidding. It'll be this conflict that either wipes us out as a species, or results in some 'better' form of society where people are more equitable with one another. Quite when that will be is anyone's guess - but it'll probably be within my lifetime
The coming technological revolution will be responsible for more carnage than any world conflict, famine or environmental disaster that has gone before it. That isn't hyperbole - it's a fact. The 'basic income' argument is actually a reasonably sensible anticipatory response to it, but has many, many flaws. The simple fact is that income disparity between the top 1% (even taking the US out of the equation as their economy is more horribly broken than the rest of the world) is getting wider and wider. Those with the means to control things like automation of technology will see to it that the status quo isn't just maintained, but tipped even further in their favour.
At some point, probably when mass unemployment really starts to bite (think 20-30% to begin with) there will be some sort of conflict between 'normal' people and corporations/the elite and governments that do their bidding. It'll be this conflict that either wipes us out as a species, or results in some 'better' form of society where people are more equitable with one another. Quite when that will be is anyone's guess - but it'll probably be within my lifetime
Within twenty years there will be no requirement for professional drivers. Shopping will be predominantly online (or whatever replaces it).
Taking just these two areas of employment into consideration will mean a huge number of people being out of work.
universal basic income is the future, it's just a matter of how and when to implement it. There's a great article in the economist this month about it which seems to say it's a great idea, but it's an expensive one. Essentially it's going to take the same kind of change of thinking about the state we took in 1929 and in 1945 as that was the last two big jumps in government spending to GDP.
But yes, for the first time in human history technology will not create more jobs, but rather make less and less.
An interesting and thought provoking speech from a bit of an oddball.
Comments
Working for a Swiss based firm I have to go to Zurich pretty often.
It's the only country in the world where I will never take a taxi...a 40 minute journey is well over £100.
It is the most elite country in the world.
The FIFA Museum at Enge is actually pretty good. Been a couple of times now, good fun
Is a means tested and rules based eligibility system better than a non-discriminatory system if your basic principle is that everyone deserves a basic standard of living?
Probably makes little difference to those who lack any motivation to get a job if they don't have to, but a proportion who use all their energy and resources on just surviving might use the saved energy to make the next step.
In practice can't see how you would make it work without a huge increase in the welfare budget so that it wasn't redistribution of the wealth of the poor. It would mean people paying taxes and getting generous state pensions being funding it out of their own pocket.
So yes it's a stupid idea thinking that many would vote for it.
At some point, probably when mass unemployment really starts to bite (think 20-30% to begin with) there will be some sort of conflict between 'normal' people and corporations/the elite and governments that do their bidding. It'll be this conflict that either wipes us out as a species, or results in some 'better' form of society where people are more equitable with one another. Quite when that will be is anyone's guess - but it'll probably be within my lifetime
Taking just these two areas of employment into consideration will mean a huge number of people being out of work.
But yes, for the first time in human history technology will not create more jobs, but rather make less and less.
An interesting and thought provoking speech from a bit of an oddball.
It is, like universal healthcare after the war, which is an idea that crosses the political divide.