"Customs grow wild, justice is homeless."

[Skybird]

Nice philosophical essay for an Easter Sunday. :) Really. Some witty things being said in there. First published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, I give the link for the German original, and then a link to Google'S Bot Translation. Its a bit rough around some edges, but you should get the arguments and points.

German: https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/wir-erleben-ein-grosses-gleiten-ld.1370201

English: https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Ffeuilleton%2Fwir-erleben-ein-grosses-gleiten-ld.1370201&edit-text=


On the one hand, we have in fact a basic security in West European welfare states, in Germany with Hartz IV or in Switzerland with much more generous social assistance. This does not make life good, but a decline in misery is excluded within certain limits - those who say otherwise have no idea of ​​the mute poverty that affects one billion people worldwide. Only real reassurance would not occur in countries with such a social regime.

I think it was Francis Fukuyama first, who in "The End of History" pointed out that in a materially halfway saturated society, dissatisfactions do not decrease, but increase exponentially. The struggle for recognition only enters the hot phase when it is formally won and all adult non-incapacitated individuals are confirmed as citizens. Here we meet again the law of increasing irritability. After the end of history, if there are any, a dialectic comes to fruition that previously remained hidden: the greater the relative wealth of all, the worse the individual feels, as long as he is not at the top. In a seemingly pacified society, everyone compares to everyone unprotected without being aware of the self-injurious consequences of comparison. In other words, more free-floating dissatisfaction continues to be put into the world than can be tied up with existing means of gratification.Happy Easter! ;)

[Eichhörnchen]

I wonder whether the greatest manifestation of the idea of 'Society' lies in this new National Wage being trialled in Finland. I seem to recall hearing that it's also going to be tested in Ireland at some level. I like the idea very much as it does not prevent those who wish to earn more from doing so, gives a base from which the enterprising might begin to explore new (and before now risky) business ideas, but also protects those unwilling or unable to climb higher.

It has been pointed out that among other glitches yet to be addressed, it takes no account of the much higher benefits required to support some disabled folks

[August]

the greater the relative wealth of all, the worse the individual feels, as long as he is not at the top.

I don't buy it.

After all a group of multi-millionaires, whose high degree of relative wealth should make them feel the absolute worst under this theory, certainly aren't going to cut their own throats just because they aren't the top dog earner.

[Skybird]

I fail to see why somebody who deliberately rejects to contribute to society through his labour nevertheless must be, in your words, "protected", which means, I assume, he must be carried. He is not disabled, he rejects to give bacvk by his labour, but he should have claim for as much as somebody who is willing to much more? Sorry, no.

Somebody has to do the dirty, the unwanted, the stressful work. As long as this work needs to be done by humans, I oppose this financial model. It betrays those who do much more and rewards those who do not deserve it.

I also have a deep trust in human laziness and desire to pick the easy way. I also think it will destroy sense of realism even more and shredder market understanding.

And no, I do not expect that robots will take over all the unwanted jobs in the next decades. Robots will take over where their use is financially efficient. Which will cost more low-ranking employments and jobs, most likely. Theoretically, in a widely "robotized" job environment a society model where you need to work for a wage to make your living is no longer sustainable, since the vital precondition for individual survival - jobs bein available - is no more fulfilled. Taxation model will probably be needed to massively chnaged here, too. Robot jobs need to pay taxes, of you want to stick to the current model of states and societies and political party oligarchies. There is plenty of potential for conflict, but I have not read anyone so far who has a realistic solution that goes beyond socialist proclamation of paradise of Earth, all for free, no costs involved. As it is now, it always resaults in just making more debts, let the state pay for it (whioch means in the end we all pay for it), and those who are artificially labelled as being "rich" get plundered even more intensively. Germany already now is a high-taxation country.

So far utopic escapism and ideologically ambitioned plundering involved in all this talking about national wages.

But also this: in many places where such models are beign tested, they are meant to simplify the overly complex bureaucracy in the social systems and their administrations, which may mean in the end the benefitting citizens have no net gains, only are given back the responsibility to care for their future and health insurrance and social isnurrance all themselves, by their own choices and decisions. In this regard, I accept to talk about this model: to get the state out and to battle the mentality of so many people that the state shall nanny them, shall pay for them, shall nurse them. As long this chnage of paradigm does not mean the whole system costs even more and plunders employees and workers even more than it already is the case.

The many simplifications in the discussions about these new general income models, is breathtaking. The shamelessness as well.

There aint no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody gotta pay the bill. Allways. Personally, I think products and service mist cost, and better products and better services must cost more. This simple truth is elemental. People have no claim to be rewarded the same like somebody who deserves more due to his better or more work, success, cleverness. I do not like socialist equalization of all. I want justice, but for that ther eust be causal link between cause and effect, ammount or quzlaity of work, and reward. Kill this elemental mechanism, and you take the major incentive for people to work and especially do unattractive work out of the forumla. I do not believe that if all people have all freedom and choice, it magically turns out their best and most noble qualities and altruism trumps egoism of of a sudden. The only main effect that all this will trigger, is this: that demands skyrocket high into the air, and many start to claim even more, perversely calling that"justice" and "solidarity".

Why should I do my best if it does not reward me much more than him who lives a lazy life and refuses to do like I do? Am I his servant? Am I his?

Not just rights. Also duties. Who makes no contributions in taxes, has no claim for sharing decision making. Who does not donate to society, has no claim for society providing him a life, even less alife as comfortable as that of others who finances their lives by their own means, may it be savings, job wages, or wealth. Give and take, dude.

(Disabled and old people excluded from this debate until here. But even there I do not accept to hand out a card blanche).

Nobody shall have the right to demand others to live for his sake and to afford him a living. Thats just another form of slavery.

[Eichhörnchen]

It's for the reasons given in your 6th para that I think it needs to be considered... our benefits system has turned into a top-heavy beaurocratic nightmare in the UK. But of course there's plenty wrong with such an idea, for example the interesting question you pose in your 9th about individuals' relative status in Society following on, also what happens if no-one wants to do the dirty jobs. But the idea is that massive simplification in the beaurocracy of the welfare system would yield all the money needed to implement this and far more besides in cost-savings that might also solve our huge shortfalls in NHS funding.

But I don't know about questions of equity... this is fundamental social engineering after all

[Catfish]

One should also consider that more jobs are being removed, because machines, PCs and robots can do that.

But instead of implementing those systems labour is still a little bit cheaper, so capitalism being what it is, workers are being forced to work for less and less money. In Germany you often need two jobs just to pay your bills and stay 'alive' if you want to call it that.
In England during the Thatcher 'era' it seems they decided to stop producing anything and instead cut each others' hair (sorry, but this is not even from me but from an english friend). And while a partially service-based society is not a bad idea, it is too little to get an economy going.

If basic 'existence' is being guaranteed with a certain (very low) amount of money for all, it takes a lot less bureaucracy to organize and manage this system.
And i guarantee to you, with humankind, envy and looking at the neighbour all will try to be better, and lift themselves above others -> get a job, work, whatever. The rest will not work ever anyway, and forcing them will not lead to a productive workforce.

It is high time to rethink the whole system, without bias and prejudice.

[Eichhörnchen]

The more you think about it, the more you realise that the whole infrastructure would have to be revised: ubiquitous and reliable public transport for a start, for those who can't afford to expend a substantial part of their National Wage on a car. There will surely still always be people who want that car, but wish to earn the extra money doing not a 'career' job but something simple, with little responsibility... human nature will see to this as you suggest, Catfish

[Skybird]

I don't buy it.

After all a group of multi-millionaires, whose high degree of relative wealth should make them feel the absolute worst under this theory, certainly aren't going to cut their own throats just because they aren't the top dog earner.
Dont refer to the extremes, look at the ordinary social level of society, ordinary people. There you cna see the truth in the description everywhere, all the time. And the higher the avwerage income for all is, and th ehigher pensions have risen - the more poverty there is, they tell us - a statistical artifcat, I know, but the wilingness to abuse it shows the motivation behind it.

Greed is real, its the major drive behind the social industry today. And if differences get evend out, the only way to separate yourself from the crowd is - to demand even more. More material quantity, or more exccentricity. In both cases, things turn ever more crazy.

[Skybird]

It's for the reasons given in your 6th para that I think it needs to be considered... our benefits system has turned into a top-heavy beaurocratic nightmare in the UK. But of course there's plenty wrong with such an idea, for example the interesting question you pose in your 9th about individuals' relative status in Society following on, also what happens if no-one wants to do the dirty jobs. But the idea is that massive simplification in the beaurocracy of the welfare system would yield all the money needed to implement this and far more besides in cost-savings that might also solve our huge shortfalls in NHS funding.

But I don't know about questions of equity... this is fundamental social engineering after all
In my reply to August I mentioned what I called the "social industry". It is an industry for sure, a major business employing hundrrds of thosuands whose job only exist becasue they adminster those who have no job, small wages, raise kids without a rtner, and the overaging society problem amkes itself felt ever more now.

What if all thes ehundreds of thousands of jobs and the enormous monetarian interests and the fat cats of unions and associations are left unemployed by the brave new world...? :03: :D

People must be made to beleive there is social injustice or dysbalance ven if there is much kless of it or even none, else the whole system of the social industry has nothing it can manage anymore.

And it is like this with many other issues of contemporary public interest as well. The media live by it and fuelling public outcry or even hysteria over non-issues, and then keeping the fires burnign for as long as they can. all for some writers' careers, some moderators' self-descritpion, some broadcaster's reputation.

[Skybird]

In general I think it is no healthy thing to maintain what is unproductive, and that is true for people as well. As I think Roosevelt the first said, the great potential of America is that every man going there is willing and capable to pull his own weight, in these or quite similar words he put it. And I think there is some principle truth in it, a truth that was not new when he said it, but can be seen in millenia of human cultural development.

It just irks me that I should contribute to the payment of somebody who makes it his living model to abuse the others. This alreaedy is the case today, but still many people shy away from openly celebrating it. With this new general national income, it becomes state doctrine, however. And that is quite a raise in reputation and prestige.

For as long as it lasts.

There aint no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody gotta pay the bill. I may be willing to help out on those who are disabled or too old, but I refuse to pay for anybody who makes it his living model to parasitically abuse me and suck my blood. If somebody can afford to not work and live by his own means, okay. But if somebdy does not work in order to live at the costs of others, I flatten my ears and raise my flews.

And I wonder about what this new mentality will mean for economical competitveness. The European enthusiasm for weakening oneself is not shared in other parts fo the world, in China, Japan, Korea and the likes. When the European economy is no more capable to maintain all these highflying social plans - then what...? Currently, it is right this captialism that Catfish dispises so much that keeps it all financed, although 75% and ore of the free market already gets gagged and reglated and drwoned in bureaucracy. This shows how vital capitalism nevertheless is.

But even capitalism is not unbreakable.

[Onkel Neal]

I fail to see why somebody who deliberately rejects to contribute to society through his labour nevertheless must be, in your words, "protected", which means, I assume, he must be carried. He is not disabled, he rejects to give bacvk by his labour, but he should have claim for as much as somebody who is willing to much more? Sorry, no.

Somebody has to do the dirty, the unwanted, the stressful work. As long as this work needs to be done by humans, I oppose this financial model. It betrays those who do much more and rewards those who do not deserve it.

I also have a deep trust in human laziness and desire to pick the easy way. I also think it will destroy sense of realism even more and shredder market understanding.

And no, I do not expect that robots will take over all the unwanted jobs in the next decades. Robots will take over where their use is financially efficient. Which will cost more low-ranking employments and jobs, most likely. Theoretically, in a widely "robotized" job environment a society model where you need to work for a wage to make your living is no longer sustainable, since the vital precondition for individual survival - jobs bein available - is no more fulfilled. Taxation model will probably be needed to massively chnaged here, too. Robot jobs need to pay taxes, of you want to stick to the current model of states and societies and political party oligarchies. There is plenty of potential for conflict, but I have not read anyone so far who has a realistic solution that goes beyond socialist proclamation of paradise of Earth, all for free, no costs involved. As it is now, it always resaults in just making more debts, let the state pay for it (whioch means in the end we all pay for it), and those who are artificially labelled as being "rich" get plundered even more intensively. Germany already now is a high-taxation country.

So far utopic escapism and ideologically ambitioned plundering involved in all this talking about national wages.

But also this: in many places where such models are beign tested, they are meant to simplify the overly complex bureaucracy in the social systems and their administrations, which may mean in the end the benefitting citizens have no net gains, only are given back the responsibility to care for their future and health insurrance and social isnurrance all themselves, by their own choices and decisions. In this regard, I accept to talk about this model: to get the state out and to battle the mentality of so many people that the state shall nanny them, shall pay for them, shall nurse them. As long this chnage of paradigm does not mean the whole system costs even more and plunders employees and workers even more than it already is the case.

The many simplifications in the discussions about these new general income models, is breathtaking. The shamelessness as well.

There aint no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody gotta pay the bill. Allways. Personally, I think products and service mist cost, and better products and better services must cost more. This simple truth is elemental. People have no claim to be rewarded the same like somebody who deserves more due to his better or more work, success, cleverness. I do not like socialist equalization of all. I want justice, but for that ther eust be causal link between cause and effect, ammount or quzlaity of work, and reward. Kill this elemental mechanism, and you take the major incentive for people to work and especially do unattractive work out of the forumla. I do not believe that if all people have all freedom and choice, it magically turns out their best and most noble qualities and altruism trumps egoism of of a sudden. The only main effect that all this will trigger, is this: that demands skyrocket high into the air, and many start to claim even more, perversely calling that"justice" and "solidarity".

Why should I do my best if it does not reward me much more than him who lives a lazy life and refuses to do like I do? Am I his servant? Am I his?

Not just rights. Also duties. Who makes no contributions in taxes, has no claim for sharing decision making. Who does not donate to society, has no claim for society providing him a life, even less alife as comfortable as that of others who finances their lives by their own means, may it be savings, job wages, or wealth. Give and take, dude.

(Disabled and old people excluded from this debate until here. But even there I do not accept to hand out a card blanche).

Nobody shall have the right to demand others to live for his sake and to afford him a living. Thats just another form of slavery.

Well put, Skybird. I read it twice and your statement is full of truths. :up: Charity is fine for those who truly require it but conscripted welfare undermines the collective will of the people to strive, contribute and sacrifice.

[Skybird]

Thank you, but I think nothing of what I said is new for you, Neal. :salute:

In American cultural heritage, there is this "pursuit of happiness". Everybody is or at least should be free and unhindered to try his ways to become happy as long as he does not harm others. Its just that this does not mean he has claim for the state or other people needing to provide him with "happiness". It only means everybody is free trying to find happiness, and doing as he sees fit to pursue and find happiness. Which pragmatically means everybody needs to find a way to afford what makes him happy. But the work this involves, he has to do himself. Nobody else must do it for him.

[Eichhörnchen]

And who would disagree with that last sentiment? But this is mooted as a way for the State to prosper because of the lifting of the crippling welfare burden and replacing it with something that might lead people who before simply claimed benefits (because work didn't pay so well) being empowered to find new outlets and opportunities for enterprise that they wouldn't have otherwise been able to develop.

Because of the withdrawal of the State from their lives, would they not face even more responsibility?

[Skybird]

As I said before, as long as the new way does not cost netto more than the system now, I could imagine circumstances under which I am willin to try it out. But there need to be a minium cost effectiveness like this ^, and it must indeed be hanbding responsibility away from the bstate and back towards the individual.

The main obstacle I see, is this: if somebody like me dares ot say that "freedom" implies not only freedom to succeed, but also freedom to mess personal endavours up and to fail, this somebody daring to say this usually would cause the whole wolf pack howling out loud immediately, and that social justice means that nobody needs to fail anymore. Uh! Go figure. Only winners, no loosers? Dream on, but without me, please. Its here where they will argue that additional money needs to be pumped into the new system. And the redistribution carrousel starts turning again - and the social industry lobby starts campaigning again.

And another one. Caring for your own financial respionsibilities, is tricky. Insurrances are nit the most trustworthy of businesses, nor are banks, managed investments fonds and so forth. I know that years ago, before I have had read severla books aboiut money, economy, investing and such things, I would have depended heavily on salesmen and their candy-sweet promises, which always came across queer for me since I have a strong mistrust there since my birth. In Germany, we have experiences with partial giving back of such responsibility to the citizen, the system is called "Riester-Rente". And it is a costly nightmare for the private investors, the abuse by banks and institutions is immense. - There is no way around it, but if you want to give back self-responsibility to the ordinary Peter and Paul, then you need to provide Peter ands Paul with the needed basic fundament in knowledge and education about business and economy, money and investing - and that is heretic teaching that banks as well as political party want to prevent you from learning since it threatens their power monopoles and their profit interests. Not oikely to happen. So, to send Peter and Paul down the street of self-responsaibility in the business and money environment as it is today, means to saend cattle down the road to the slaughteirng house.

The abuse by banks and insurrance companies will be immense. Lessons learned form German Riester-Rente system.

I'm sorry, but there are no easy, simple ways out of the mess we are in. I am quite ocnvinced by now that the indispensable ingredient for changing the world for the better, is immense, collective civil disobedience and civil hostility towards the cartels of business lobbies and political parties. But if you consider that plltics today turn a vast part of the population, the majority, into net receivers of the social redistribution - how likely then is it that the majority will show such collective civil disobedience? Its as big as the chance that in the ECB board of directors the net payers will ever gain a voting majority again: fact is the majority of votes in this gremium is formed by the netto-receiving EU states, no matter what constellation there is due to constant rotation of seats. Which therefore have the power to order the netto paying countries to pay for them. Draghi's disguised financing of state debts - formally forbidden by fiscal laws and EU treaties - is the result.

All these high flying plans made of dreams and ideology and philantropy, are dysfunctional because of one simple truth: they ignore, they intentionally leave out recognition of the real truth about human nature and the psychology of the masses. And thats why they never worked in history as the initiators of revolutions hoped they would. Because when it is not in line with human nature, then it is against human nature.

[Dowly]

The universal basic income system (in Finland) does have its benefits. For one, the amount you get (560€ IIRC) is not much, so living with it is pretty much the same as with unemployment benefits or social welfare (i.e. it's "living"). What's good about it is that it removes the fear of doing short-term work or trying a start-up or freelance work since you don't have to worry about the bureaucracy of keeping track of your income and reporting that to the relevant authorities to get your unemployment benefits or social welfare once your short-term job ends/your start-up is not doing well.

[Eichhörnchen]

People making unwise financial decisions (such as giving their money to dodgy insurance or investment schemes) is always going to be a problem, but that's never going to change is it?

And extra subsidy for people in situations which fall outside the regular scope of the system (such as the disabled) will naturally be required and there will always be and should always be a lobby concerned for their interests.

I'm not recommending this without reservation you understand... just saying that it needs to be seriously considered as an option, but I am also well aware of how most great schemes do not survive the first contact with human nature