I vote for testing this out in Canada or Mexico first (let them have first dibs on these fantastic ideas.) Have them open their borders give everyone local and newcomer a basic income a fifteen hour workweek and if it all works out after a trial period, we can join their enviable party --they'll let us in, right?<p>Addendum. There seems to be a contradiction in the message, on the one hand people in developed economies make too much money (traded in time for more money to buy things they don't need nor actually want -they claim) but at the same time it's "unfair" they make 3-times what a comparable Bolivian makes (but cut our hours by two thirds) So it kind of reads as if they'd like to turn Bolivians into a consumerist society too, but they kind of trash consumerism ("neither need nor want").
It's encouraging that people are thinking about this. We have way too much zero-sum economic effort going on. Most of Wall Street trading and most of advertising are zero-sum.<p>In the near term, there are some obvious moves. The $15 minimum wage. The 8 hour day and 40 hour week. (That means everybody below the 1% gets paid time and a half for overtime, and wage theft is a crime.)
"if we’re going to organise for a better world, we need to know who we’re organising against"<p>Most vehemently against UBI are the trade unions. Their existence depends on unemployment being nasty ordeal. If unemployment was OKish, employees would vote with their feet. No unions needed. Next worst is McJobs companies.<p>Minimum wage making unemployment more prevalent and the employed more comfortable is furthering trade union goals like nothing else. These ideas may look the same, but they are completely opposed.<p>"how, for example, can we can open all the borders without eventually replacing countries with a global government?"<p>Nobody can, nor should. Currently somewhat open borders and somewhat good social security is already causing big problems in my country. The easy solution would be UBI for citizens, easy visas for everybody else. Everybody would be better off, except for the people who migrate only to get government benefits. Companies could hire foreign workforce easy, total incoming numbers would stay relatively low, people actually coming from war zones and escaping bullets would find safety.<p>The immigration fear mongers are against this, because solving this problem would end the justification for their existence. Also the left are against this, because they could not run around calling people "fascist" anymore. And the do-gooders would implode, as small numbers of poor third world citizens would keep on being poor, but now they would do it here! It's so nice to have them out of sight.
Open borders is interesting because I suspect the vast majority of people do not wish to leave their current vicinity. They only do so to masively improve their lives, but if they could improve their current location that would usually be far preferable. Is there a short catchphrase like "open borders" for "making more places on the globe better places to live”? I feel we spend more time and effort making them worse (fighting wars in them, propping up dictators, bribing local official for access to resources, selling them guns, web filters and other tools of oppression etc
What a hodgepodge of ideas. This is a perfect example of Douglas Hofstadter's chocolate/excrement milkshake.<p>The idea behind Basic Income is to remove government intervention in the economy. Coupled with a flat tax, it massively reduces government overhead and bureaucracy, and leaves government to it's main role as the arbiter of society.<p>Governments' main role is to enforce the rules a society is based upon via the social contract. Collect taxes, enforce laws, and invest in the unprofitable but necessary foundations of civilization (infrastructure, healthcare, research, conservation, etc.)<p>In societies, as in design, less is often more. The more lifelong government bureaucrats we create, the more perverse incentives exist for them to parasitize the government for their own gains.<p>So why do we need to legislate for minimum work hours if we have a sufficient BI? And in what fictional universe does open borders make sense?<p>Human beings are competitive, and we form tribes to compete against one another. This is healthy, and leads to great achievements when properly channeled. The Cold War, for example, caused an era of unprecedented technological innovation. As we enter the post-war era, we already see the downfalls of globalization. When there is no need to compete, decadence sets in. The rich hoard money, and governments refuse to invest in their people's future in the form of infrastructure, research, etc.<p>We need borders, and we need a competitive immigration system that behaves like a sports team manager who is constantly on the lookout to poach talented individuals from competitors.<p>Competition is the quintessential human trait which has brought us to where we are today. Setting it aside has always lead to decadence and downfall.
How do supporters of the UBI deal with the real estate valuation problem? It seems that assets that are highly immobile and have elasticity that is directly proportional to income would eat up all or almost all of the transfer.<p>It is possible that there is a counterbalancing effect of people being able to live outside of the big city, but I still suspect a form of "minimum rent" would arise in the case there was a UBI and the whole transfer would end up consolidating with a few landlords.
That might work but only after curing another evil of our time: the concept of sovereign nation. There must be effective (i.e. not nukes) policing force which may regulate things all around the world. Also, elites must become truly international, not bearing the mentality of any nation.