Dr. Wolff! I was a freshman political science student when I came across your videos for the first time. Now, four years later, I'm about to graduate with a minor in economics, and I have only you to thank for helping me make that decision! Keep doing what you do.
No doubt, he has helped a lot of people make sense of the system. My BA is in History, but I would love to go back and complete a graduate degree in Economics, or even a doctorate … if it weren't so damned expensive and counterproductive to do so, in America. =/
@@itzenormous I'm so very sorry it's like that! Makes me cry. I finished my university stuff within a split second of all of this blowing up. UGH!! Now I'm an activist fighting for justice for others who're not being given the opportunities I've had. This system is F'd up nine ways to Sunday! Keep fighting and learning my Friend❤
Modern real economics must realize this system does not work, as for market based forces. The question you really gotta think about is how to fix it. Ya cant really do it democratically.
I majored in philosophy and anthropology, but if I could, I would get a third degree in economics. To be honest, I would love to get several degrees, which is why I was a double major to begin with. If only I had enough income, and college was reasonably priced, with less time at work like Professor Wolff talked about here, then education would definitely be a personal hobby of mine. That, collecting books in my personal library (already large as it is), and writing. Unfortunately, I was born to a poor family. Not that it's their fault, of course.
For conservative republican state Alaska ,free money to its citizens is a good thing. It's not a problem. But give money to the poor is bad. I don't see the difference.
Sarah Palin was a socialist[1] from the socialist state of Alaska. [1] "socialist" in the sense in which right-wingers use the term, to refer to anyone who is in favor of modestly progressive policies like basic income.
Professor Wolfe, you are a good person. I see less and less of genuinely good people as time passes. When someone wants to give back to others without getting a material benefit in return, that is what I mean. Good on you sir.
I mean maybe April Fool's but it's not like it costs anything to tell him happy birthday. HAPPY BIRTHDAY PROFESSOR RD WOLFF update: dear god why did I think his name was Michael
I'm reading this on April 2. So, despite the date of publication, My Sincere Wishes for a Happy Birthday and may you count many, many more. And in Good Health.
UBI discussions need more disabled participants. NOT everybody works. And to any abled people out there, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of what disability is to say that across the board people with disabilities should or should be expected to work. The effects of disability can be unpredictable which makes even very part time work unmanageable for some. The body can have its own schedule. It should not be necessary to work. And why are we trying to figure out ways to prop up the productivity of a consumerist society rather than working against consumerism. So much waste is created for no reason except to keep the engines of capitalism running. I think there's still more work to do on this subject
This is why I think any discussion about UBI should also include a discussion about improving benefits for the disabled. Andrew Yang said he has plans to improve benefits for disabled people along with his UBI, though he hasn't detailed them yet.
@@corywashburn That's why Yang says, certain conditional programs need to be in place to account for partial or complete inability to work. Be it physical or psychological. It would be utterly unfair to force these people to settle for UBI level when other people are able to up their standard of living above it. But that's the problem with some lazy lefties. They just scream and parrot talking points that they project onto Yang, more than 95% free of substance. That diverts attention away from actually improving his platform towards refuting all the lies and misrepresentations. This intellectually lazy but vigorous push back against Yang is probably originating from brainwashing that wired them into hatred of business people (in combination with having already picked another guy that they feel in need of defending, when in fact Bernie and Yang should join forces rather than be dragged into mindless destructive wars). I dont like some of the business mentality either, especially corporate speak, I am more of a science guy. But I also dont demonize them. They are people too and they have kids too that they dont want to see growing up in an unequal, polarized society where people are at each other's throat.
It’s crazy how ppl think this $1k will abolish homelessness and poverty. If you live on social security disability, or rely on food stamps and Medicare, this proposal might not change your life at all. And remember Yang really isn’t looking to change the corporate tax code, the minimum wage, college expenses or healthcare coast. So I think there will be a section of ppl it will help but with all these expenses still on the table, you UBI will go towards them. I’d like Yang to talk more in-depth b/c I don’t get it.
Especially with unprofitable work that is still definitely work. Being pregnant, childcare (for your own children), and helping your friends in need doesn't pay but is essential for society.
Eh. This dude is a hack. The machinery does not just "appear", it is a major capital investment. Once it is paid for, the costs can be recovered by reducing the work force to make up the labor costs. But if not for the minimum wage, the investment to obtain the automation would not be worth the risk, the payment floor wouldn't be artificially raised, and the machinery would not be cost competitive with the risk in replacement of the workforce. This guy knows the automation machinery isn't free. He's just pushing his agenda without examining the reality of the situation.
@@eusebiusthunked5259 The new machinery is usually a one off payment, and it's often more energy efficient saving the company money that way. I'm sure that the workers working less hours would actually make them slightly more productive through being less tired, especially by the end of the day. So that would also help to pay for the extra one off cost.
@@JC-ce1ks I'm not suggesting that mechanization is not generally good investment for a business. I'm saying that it's usually expensive enough that most businesses will avoid that purchase, unless they are forced to make that purchase by the minimum wage laws squeezing their business. It's not a trivial decision, and he is clearly glossing over the event to mislead viewers, to advance his class war agenda. Marxist doctrine strikes again! He pretends it's win/win, when his proposal is win/lose. Simply make a major capital investment, don't recoup the expense, but carry the workers on your back.... It's not like it will change the wage slave narrative, so what's the rationale? If a worker supports the business morally that's a different story, but this is not the case if the worker has a Marxists Class War Narrative.
@Corpsefoot Gaming A child's mindset? Is this supposed to refute anything, or hurt my feelings? Yes, economy of scale improves, and automation becomes cheaper. This is why the problems created by Minimum Wage cannot be fixed, the genie can't be put back in the bottle. So how about we stop trying so hard to let it out? The point at made was never about profit margins, but about what this genie will do to the welfare of the citizens in my nation.
@@eusebiusthunked5259 Heck companies moving to automation would save on paying for employee insurance , and workers comp, ... that alone would be incentive to start the process...
But we already have people receiving money - the lion's share of it, in fact - for doing no work at all: the rich (or those rich people who choose not to work, since working, for the rich, is optional, whereas for the poor it's mandatory). Why isn't hatred and envy directed at them? Why is it that things are bad only when the poor do it?
There is something wrong with people using money to make more money, and that benefit increasing with the amount of money involved. You can easily see this if you look at a graph of the percentage of GDP that is represented by the financial sector. It has grown significantly in the past 30-40 years. (Not to mention that what the financial sector does these days is hardly productive and so should not be counted as part of GDP.) Investing in stocks is not what it used to be. It has become just a gambling casino for the rich.
@Frederic Bastiat It's similar to the hours worked by peasants of pre 18 hundreds of most of the world as technology advanced: feudalism gave way to mercantilism as technology advanced, in nations where feudalism peasant serfdom overhang it violently ended toward a mercantile system as productivity gains went to the feudal lordship, and especially early industrial era through the 1800's and early 1900's. Coal wars existing from 1870's to 1935. When nations experience great civil unrest as productivity literally went to about 6% of the population and the rest was poor. Wasn't until social programs such as prohibition on owning slaves and child labor, compulsory education, social security, right to collectively bargain, later medicare/medicaid, public roads and utilities that were often granted monopoly power which is not a capitalistic concept at all whether private or public as its naturally not competitive. Essentially, its obvious that a system that denies productivity gains from technology to workers which constitutes at least 60% of the population and 95% of all people require some type of employment in order to get by in their life. Early and pre industrial era people were working 6 days to 7 days a week, 12 hours or more a day. Now its closer to 40 hours 5 days a week at standard. Yet pay is more substantial because productivity gains had gone toward workers by voted law. Because it wasn't without voted law. New technology is making it where even 40 hours isn't necessary. So you could see cutting working to 20 hours with even higher wages. If the operation needs more time to cover they would higher more people to cover that time, as they had to when 12 and 14 hour shifts were pushed toward 8 hour shifts, they hired another shift. And paid all shifts more. See... this means productivity, at least a portion, went toward labor, not to just do nothing owners. And those precious owners who don't do anything, the loafers in society, often those who inherited their fortunes, still got monster gobs of profits. Particularly because an actual middle class in that most of its people were able to buy the very stuff they were making.
@Frederic Bastiat Compare that to the increases in productivity and you'll see that isn't very impressive. The working class culture was very different back then too; "wage labor was widely condemned as 'wage slavery' in the working class press" and there was a rise in labor unions, which probably had more to do with wage increases than capitalism. In more recent history productivity has skyrocketed while the average wage has been stagnant for decades. Without some social or political impetus, capitalism doesn't provide wage increases.
Listening to this program while working 12-14 hour overnight shifts, 4-6 days a week, while I set up 3 CNC lathes to run while I manually operate 1-2 other machines at a time, for $12+benefits, which is less than my mom made in the 70s at a department store. At my age, my dad built a house, in 1980.
With a Ubi you would have the time to think up a business plan... Buy a cheap c and c machine and start selling your works on Etsy, eBay or at local farmers markets. Not saying this is something that YOU would want to do bit is a quick illustration of how a universal basic income could change a life for the better. Vote Andrew Yang 2020 he will institute a $1,000 a month universal basic income for every adult in the country.
And that's AFTER socialists fought for overtime pay, benefits, etc. Imagine how worse it would be without those "scary evil socialists" kicking back at the system and strong arming change. Keep your head up though bro. It'll collapse eventually. Probably sooner than later at this point.
i'made more as a busboy ,around 1982 (tourist area ) then many 4 yr. college Masters Degree Grads now~ all competing for work ~ and so many Computer Savy HS Grads. , Asian will work for , 60% less then going rate, a College Degree can be done on internet, ~ a Certified Degree~ Bingo~ Robots evoltolution ~ now has TELEPATHIC PRE CRIME KNOWLEDGE~ in next 15 yrs~ robots will claim 80% entry level Jobs~
Great. I'm glad I found your channel. Free time makes possible art, invention, community service, new business creation, family time and on and on. The benefits are many. UBI would grow our economy faster then anything else. UBI really would be the crown jewel of capitalism.
What I don't understand is where one prevents the other: IMO, UBI and reducing work hours address overlapping, but not equivalent problem spaces. TL;DR: UBI should be a stable foundation to build a system upon, not the end-all-be-all solution to all problems. Such a system should indeed include a better organization of the means of production and by extension distribution of profits. Reducing work time will only work so long as a particular process actually requires human workforce. It's not unfathomable that some company could exist in the future that only had humans in management and maybe sales, with all production being performed in automated fashion. This would, even if that company didn't fire a single worker when it attained that structure and instead continued paying them wages just for being part of the company and/or moved them to management or sales, lead to any competition with less automation failing to stay competitive and their workers being let go. The imagined company would have no reason whatsoever to employ new staff it didn't need. The staff would further condense as people retired and wouldn't be replaced for lack of need, leaving the following generation with a greater lack of job opportunities in the first place. The Co-Op prospective is certainly a great one for workers and is a vast improvement over current corporations, but it still only solves problems for people that have work in the first place. There are too many reasons one might cite to not have a job, and expecting to ever hit 100% employment is a fantasy IMHO. And is that even such a bad thing? There are a lot of things one might do to improve the lives of not only oneself but also one's family, friends, colleagues, neighbors, town, city, community, etc that have nothing to do with what we call 'work', in the 'day job' sense of the word, and aren't necessarily something one could live off of. Having a stable base income could also enable all-around better education, make it easier to change jobs into a different industry or allow people without the personal capital to start a new business, quite possibly in the form of a Co-Op, without relying on external investors. It could allow for more art or personal research into topics that may not be of interest to any sponsors. I don't think a system could be fair, with democratic workplaces or otherwise, without some kind of safety net. I believe that UBI could be an important component in a system that wants to take care of it's people. Note that that is not to say it should be the only welfare system, though it could probably replace at least some of the programs that are currently employed to combat poverty (it does nothing for more specific issues e.g. health concerns). Well, it's a complex topic and I don't claim to be an expert, but these are my thoughts. Thanks to anyone that actually made it through the wall of text.
The problem for Marxists is that they hate people that don't work. Its really a worker's movement exclusively, and the one's that don't work are either forced to work, or are simply eliminated in some other ways. They just never say it, but it is the reason they are against UBI or social programs. There is no logical reason for it, it is simply their value. They also want a planned economy and a totalitarian state usually, which is necessary to make people work by force. More on a cynical note though, they all are paid and funded by unions, and without workers, there can be no union, or if there is less workers, they are less strong. They don't like equality either, so if you are a worker in an industry that makes a lot of profits, you benefit a lot as compared to others that just get by, so it can never stop working poors to exist, and in fact, it makes it a necessity, which is why force is necessary to force some people to work in those places. But you are right in your criticism, all of it. A safety net is what people need, the rest is simply a problem of distribution, if it is a problem. But his solution does not address that problem either, so it is moot to think about. UBI would solve that, and especially if it taxes capital at the source, then it is more Marxist than the Communists are, and you keep your freedom to boot, as well as the type of democracy only a free market can give. You also keep capitalism if people want it, so it is win-win. There is no other "option" for a fair and free society, or at least fairer.
@Taeyeon Mori TL;DR i agree that UBI wouldn't be enough on its own but it does have knock on benefits to health that would be great. and having a blend of UBI, M4A and democratizing compatible workplaces would go a long way to mitigating the down-sides of technological advancements, especially during transition phases. having a properly funded UBI actually has lots of knock on effects for the health of the populace. being poor is stressful and its fairly clear knowledge that stress has direct connections to bodily illness (cushion's syndrome for instance is a disease caused by having high cortisol levels--aka the stress hormone--for prolonged periods of time. it completely wrecks the body and directly leads to diabetes, depression, insomnia and COPD) and effects the daily mental capabilities of the individual, literally making a person less able to make evidence based decisions. some of these knock-on effects to health were studied from a UBI trail in Canada back in the 70's in Minecome, Manitoba; the Dauphin residents in particular. Dr. Danielle Martin talks about it in her book "Better Now: Six big ideas to improve health care for all Canadians." though the trail was shuttered prematurely when a new government came to power, looking back on the data new research showed that there was a marked decrease in ER visits, hospital admittance, workplace accidents, as well as a reduced use of the mental health facilities. of course that is Canada which already has some aspects of a social safety net that is different than the US. which fills some gaps that UBI might not be able to address and lowers the amount that would be needed to actually cover the basics as canadians don't pay premiums or co-pays for health care. but the effect on a human's physical and mental wellbeing is still present. IF properly funded and IF the US can get M4A similar to canada's single payer system or even better, like the one bernie proposes, then these knock on effects could be even more profound. and though it would not eliminate illness or cure the disabled, not being stressed over if you have enough to just get to the next day is certainly going to reduce exacerbation of the conditions and help lower burnout for the caregivers. so yes, i agree, UBI alone is not the solution to all the world's issues with poverty or automation, but that in conjunction with other important safety nets and regulations such as M4A and democratizing the workforce of compatible businesses, i think will go a long way to keeping people from falling through the cracks and coping with the current global market changes in transition phases. UBI is a piece of the solution but life is too complicated to only have one piece.
The Profit is King ! The market is a battlefield! The worker that works less will loose to the worker that works more. Eventually, we will end up in the same situation. Wolff got this one wrong.
Richard Wolff, a point not made that should be stressed: Owners rarely if ever make the technological advances they profit from. It is the workers who have the technical knowledge to improve machinery, production systems, etc., and it is they, the workers who should logically and ethically benefit from their creativity. Capitalists, at this historic juncture, are not just useless to society they are a drain on it.
Awesome take on this subject Prof Wolff. Your idea on how better to spread the benefits of productivity to everyone instead of the few without it being so divisive was spot on!
I have been trying to tell everyone since the talk of UBI started that it is an attempt to preserve capitalism (1) and an effective subsidy to business since they are not paying a living wage. You may notice big proponents of UBI are rich capitalists, and I suspect they are trying to preserve their way of life, since the current unrest is obvious [they hear all this talk about socialism], and they REALLY don't want to give up their position. I wish Wolff would have touched on how it is an effective subsidy in lieu of a living wage. (1) to placate the masses, so they do not rise up against capitalism while keeping their maximum profits.
good points made here. I think min wage at $22.00, rent caps, M4A would balance this problem. if you're a shit employer you wont find workers if we all make 2,000 a month insurance.
Exactly! As once Vinod Khosla, a billionaire said when considering UBI: “To put it crudely, it’s bribing the population to be well-enough-off,” Mr. Khosla said. “Otherwise, they’ll work for changing the system.” It's like openly admitting that just a band-aid, a short-term relief for the masses and the guarantee that they'll remain passive and they won't rebel. I don't see how people never mention this part. I'm skeptical of UBI for the same reasons as you are comrade. For the life of me, I cannot understand how many people on the Left, especially US Left never mention these complaints and worries. It's like they bought into this idea. That's also not the only problematic thing about UBI, there are many, but this seems to me like a real conspiracy before our very eyes. "Placate the masses" - exactly. If people are placated with little crumbs here and there, they will be sold the idea that reformism is the way to go. I know many democratic socialists, especially in US are reformists in some way, I'm not though. I think the sooner the shit hits the fan, the better. People need to stand above this and demand more. That's what the owner class fears the most so they invent ways to make capitalism seem more green, more ethics and social-justice friendly, but I think that's a ploy. Even FDR introduced heavy socialistic policies during his time in office, but not for the noble reason which he admits: he wanted to fend off another October Revolution and real transition to socialism.
What stands out to me the most is that we claim to have a democratic system we live under. However work is excluded from this because the private sector has the rights that supersede those of the employees! So why not make the work place democratic as well??
Because we don't have Democracy, and we haven't understood Democracy for over 1000 years. Majority Rule is Populism, not Democracy, and it directly supports Oligarchy because of Divide and Conquer. This is long known and well studied, but for some reason we have all been brainwashed by a false Democracy. Arrows Impossibility Theorem proves that voting is fundamentally broken. The Iron Law of Oligarchy explains why there can be no Political Solution to the problem of Majority Vote Populism. Actual Democracy as the Greeks practiced is now called Demarchy since the word Democracy is beyond rescue. And when you find out how it works, you'll think it's stupid, because ... You're brainwashed to think that people are stupid, that voting is better... People aren't stupid. People in large groups make stupid decisions because of voting and various biases and other phenomenon called Groupthink. The ancient Greeks who invented the foundation of science itself actually solved our Political Problem 2500 years ago. Our founders did a great job with Federalist decentralization, but they overlooked States Democracy.
@@eusebiusthunked5259 There are a few caveats for ancient democracy. Even though the Greeks laid down the foundations of the scientific method, they couldn't finish the project, because they made the mistake of naturalizing their own way of life (just like the bourgeoisie does). Socrates offered the way out of that error with his subversive method of "infinite questioning", but in order to save their power, people of influence chose to snuff him instead. Diogenes at least reached the point where he was able to detach himself from the illusion of "human nature" and instead turned his attention to non-human nature (like our primitive bodily needs and dogs and the like). And it is easy to show that Groupthink was actually an important part of Athenian democracy (and also of the creation of the USA). After all, what you call "decentralization" was already part of a larger centralization of a colonial world order. By killing tyrants, the Greeks simply created a new center based on slavery, so by definition it was not a decentralization, just a restructuring of the center itself. So they solved the political question only for a minority (the Greek pederast warriors and wealthy Englishmen) while at the same time giving rise to a multitude of dialectical oppositions with the true external (slaves, women, transatlantic proles, savages etc). So if you think you fall into the category of that bourgeois/pederast center, feel free to promote "Demarchy", just don't be too surprised if some undesirable tries to stab you in the butt. And brutal retaliation against that is very welcome, because it helps to sharpen the dialectical opposition to the point of revolutionary rupture.
@@billyoldman9209 you are misrepresenting the nature of patriarchy, based on modern concepts of "one man one vote" being an ideal, which is uncharitable to say the least, and based of of the dynamics of modern voting systems which encourage antisocial "strategic" voting patterns. The influence of anonymous one vote per person Populism is to encourage extremist voting, not to vote your conscience or even your personal favorite preference, but to vote against the most likely winner that you dislike. This does not foster unity, but actually builds partisan coalitions which sets the stage for Oligarchy. Older systems of voting were more serious and considerate. Instead of the populist rabble, each participants was the respected elder of a tribe, clear about the common principles of the Greek Republic, and casting the decision which best represents their duty, not their personal whims. See it wasn't like there were thousands of voters, and it wasn't anonymous, rather each patriarch was a spokesperson for their tribe. Yes, being that Greek society was a patriarchy, each tribe was headed by a native Greeks Male property owner with slaves, military service, and a family... but they were hardly a family dictatorship, unless you are prepared to assert that African Tribes, Native American Tribes, and most traditional tribal structures are dictatorial. If the family split because the patriarch wasn't representing their well being in the public votes, then that would not be a good outcome. as for the pederasty charge, exactly who are you comparing them to? Jews, Egyptians, Babylonians? The age of adulthood for most ancient civilizations are 12 or 13, and even if the Jewish God frowned on a "son knowing his father" who drank too much, it was not unknown. Slavery was also common until the industral age. Your use of language with radicalized definition of decentralization seems purposefully obtuse, it means that power is not held by one interest or concentrated by one special interest, rather it was distributed among citizens. Slaves and immigrants weren't citizens not we're they expected to serve in the military. Should the Greeks have also had a say in the Egyptian government? Is America racist for not inviting foreign nations to name our legislation? It seems you did not understand my primary point. Modern anonymous voting is mere Ochlocracy, populism by formal ballot. The outcome is inevitable as described by The Iron Law of Oligarchy, and it embodies the flaws of Groupthink. The solution was called Democracy, and it did not assign government positions to popular Politicians as an Oligarchy, but to citizens appointed through Sortition. This was the solution to the political problems we face today, and it grew the ancient Greek cities into States. Which formed into a Federation, but this Federation was poorly structured and became dominated by Athens which led to it's corruption and defeat. Over the next 2000 years the word Democracy which was the solution immune to partisan Political corruption, got used to describe Voting systems, which are mathematically impossible to conduct without corruption! Fast forward to America, the Founding Fathers focused on the Federation problem, and solved it admirably with a decentralized Federal system which divides power akin to how a Democratic State like Athens would have it's power divided, but no single state could come to dominate the others like Athens did with the Delian League. Unfortunately, the individual American States never implemented stable, decentralized, Populist and Oligarchy interrupting powersharing Democracy, so they cut corners and implemented majority vote elections instead, mostly not even understanding that this was antiDemocratic and an invitation to Oligarchy, which we know well as our Politicians who are above the law and unbound by the Constitution because they have the "mandate" of the will of the people like any good tyrant does. This is why I say we don't have Democracy. The problem is not with property necessarily, but with voting for Politicians. But we do have financial problems dating back at least this far, Plato recognized it, the Jews watched it destroy the other ancient empires and got blamed for it by the newer empires. The problem is isn't with property but with Riba.
@@eusebiusthunked5259 The one-man-one-vote system is just a meaningless ruse because the choices and the political problems presented to us are all pre-manufactured by those in power, so by definition those are fake choices and fake problems. And the Athenian citizens were not represented by tribal elders in the Ecclesia but appeared and voted personally whenever they felt like doing so, and contemporaries like Aiskhylos made fun of their very "populism" that you mention. People of noble birth were often accused of being swayed by homosexual favors and magistrates for having gained status by providing such favors (not all magistrates were elected or drawn and paid rhetoricians could always bamboozle the voters). And I don't know which tribal elders you are talking about. The only example I can think of for tribal representation is the Iroquois League, but those bodies of delegated elders could not meddle in the lives of individual tribes and matriarchal lineages. There was no law enforcement. Not to mention that women had independent councils of their own. The only thing they could decide on was matters of war and at time of peace they had little to no power. And hell yeah the Greek father was a dictator. Just read Xenophon's Economy. Most of them only fucked their wives to beget children and then they went on to lurk around the boys' gymnasium. The wife was simply a sex deprived head slave who was locked up in the house to assure the fatherhood of the children and whose job was to keep the house in order. The education of children took place outside the family. Greeks didn't care about the family, they had access to all the slaves and prostitues, and those who did care were the exception. On the other hand, one cannot make any generalizations whatsoever about "savage" societies because family structures and other differences are all over the place. In Australia the old men pretty much monoplized all the females, but some Amazonian tribes didn't even have a chief! And the Greeks did go around the mediterranian founding their colonies and meddling in other people's affairs. And nobody is talking about inviting "foreign nations" into American legislation. America is racist because it was born in Indian blood and made rich by black blood (and lets not forget the Irish slave and the English poor who were shipped to the plantations by the thousands to die). And even today, the western bourgeois world relies on neocolonial exploitation more than ever. You can only not see it if you don't want to see it. And you ask me that who am I conplaining to about pederasty. Then I ask you that to whom are you trying to apologize for slavery? And on what do you base the right to colonize and enslave others? If you say the right of brute force, then I agree. But then its no longer a question of reasonable politics but a matter of war. And my notion of center and exterior is very simple. Center is everyone who is considered a human being and thus participates in decision making and the distribution of the spoils. The exterior is everyone who is not considered a human being and who is the one who provides the spoils. And of course there are many layers and nuances of this opposition. Whenever you talk about unity, you make this exterior invisible (third world neocolonialism, current genocides in the Middle-East etc) and pretend that all the internal oppositions don't exist either (like the wealth gap between citizens, or oppression based on religion, sex, age etc). None of that ever disappears, simply lies dormant and suppressed. And don't give me that property has nothing to do with politics. Suffrage was based on property and participation in politics is still defined by it. Good luck running for president without rich "donors". Or imagine a cop's behavior when he is dispatched to a luxury condo and then to a black slum. Do you really think he'll behave the same way? And finally, I don't know what oligarchy you are afraid of. The Founding Fathers were the oligarchy. After they declared independence, they made sure that none of the debts owed to their rich buddies were forgiven. Republican legislation by definition is done by the rich for the rich. It doesn't matter if the vote is open or anonymous, the ballot will be filled with rich guys either way. Less than 10% of the population was eligible for vote at the beginning. You think those would care about the rest? That they would make decisions that would benefit the "whole", the big federal "unity"? That sounds like an oligarchy to me. And the poor don't benefit from laws defending private property anyway, only those who actually own anything of value. This was so in ancient Athens, in medieval Italian cities (mafia) and in any modern republic.
This discussion is overlooking that the main reason tech can cause such a massive unemployment disruption/crisis is that these advances are above and beyond in efficiency, costs, productivity, liability... BEYOND HUMAN. The tech advancements (automation take over that is coming) requires a complete rearrangement of the labor (the factory layout, etc) that REQUIRES the absence of human presence to do their tasks. Just YT autonomous factory robots being piloted TODAY... they are IMPRESSIVE. The driving force of tech innovation is to break free from our human limitations and flaws... the ppl who are at the forefront of these innovations don’t mean to wipe humans out of the labor force, they’re imaginative and creative minds solving existing problems, exploring the boundlessness of their human minds, materializing impossibilities. I don’t think we can ‘control’ tech advancement in the way being discussed here. Even slowing it down will be a huge regulation endeavor. Nevertheless, these are important discussions to have. We need to figure out a way to cope w/these changes. Also, we need to plan ahead n look at reimagining our currency and economy... Look at Sci-Fi shows, books, etc. The only world where tech n humans coexist is where humans don’t need to compete w/tech to have value in society.
Yes and under Socialism that is a good thing. Those jobs that have been completely automated away can now be moved to somewhere that they are needed without having to worry about losing their income, housing, healthcare etc. More people divided into a smaller number of jobs means we can reduce working hours even more.
@Richard Wolff , if our response to increasing productivity is "Let's all work fewer hours"- as at 27:00, then we lose the chance to build a brighter future with the extra GDP we could produce by having full employment at higher productivity. There is no shortage of work to be done if we are willing to raise taxes and fund it: schools that need to be built (to replace decaying school facilities inner cities still rely on), hospitals that need to be expanded, homes that need to be constructed (which Universal Basic Income would help fund- by allowing those at the bottom of the housing market to get off the streets if they are homeless, or demand more snd better housing if they are already housed). Scientific Research that needs to be funded- and this is a BIG one, because it has essentially no limit to how many people it can employ (both as scientists, and science support staff- including manufacturing highly-specializrd laboratory equipment) and there is no limit for thousands of years to the discoveries we have yet to make- in Physics, Science, Engineering, the Social Sciences, and Medicine. Right now, high productivity generates leisure for the Upper Class (early retirement, frequent vacations, stsy-home trophy wives/husbands, etc.) You want it to generate leisure for the working class. But it COULD be used to increase education (occupies labor, while students are at school instead of working), improve healthcare, reduce homelessness (there may be more homes than people- but the homes aren't always where the jobs are: many bustling cities with high employment, such as San Francisco and Boston, face MAJOR housing shortages. An empty house in the Midwest does no good for the homeless family in Boston or San Francisco...) and increase our wealth of knowledge. We can develop cures for diseases we have no cures for yet (and improve existing treatments through research), realize breakthroughs like Nuclear Fusion power production on a large scale (probably 100 years away right now- but with adequate funding we could make that just 50-60 years...), and fight Global Warming. But all of these initiatives require MONEY- and that money ultimately represents the labor we free up by NOT giving that surplus workforce more leisure, and instead having them provide the labor and produce the resources for other initiatives we don't yet fund...
Ubi is simply going to happen. The question is how long will we put it off? I am voting for Andrew Yang 2020 for president. His policies are spot on and he will institute a Ubi of $1,000 per month for all adults.
Yup. As well as more time to participate in politics if they so choose. People have time to think. Most ordinary people, I'm guessing, would find something productive to do that is meaningful to them.
Agree I believe that people would be able to do work they really want instead of working at a job that pays slave wages!!! Feeling stuck and trapped with low wages. They would be able to be more productive in community as well.
Zack Andrews UBI is just a patch fix for a larger problem. It doesn’t fix the root problem of automation replacing jobs which is why you want UBI in the first place. It covers up the actual problem and allows it to continue and get worse. The second half of the video here is more important than the first.
Although I am a great fan of UBI this time I do not agree with Prof Wolff about job splitting / leasure creating. It may work for some jobs only, and it does not account for HRM and management costs for the employer, traveltime and costs for the workers, required skills of the workers, and more. To my opinion the most important advantage of UBI is that it allows people to care more for eachother and their environment, and ultimately to make our society much more pleasant to live in.
I was already on board with worker-owned businesses as a way forward, but I had never thought of the argument put forth here. Excellent video, thanks Mr. Wolff
UBI is definitely a good idea to push for. The political reality is it probably won't happen, what that struggle does provide is a growing number of people that find outlets like this. Where they can find the real answer, and one day we will have the numbers to implement it as the system continues to deteriorate.
As for introducing UBI, a billionaire capitalist Vinod Khosla once said: “To put it crudely, it’s bribing the population to be well-enough-off,” Mr. Khosla said. “Otherwise, they’ll work for changing the system.” And that's what I'm afraid of - people think UBI is some sort of savior policy but it's capitalism's band-aid a "give them the crumbs, they won't revolt" compromise-like solution. FDR reformed capitalism during depression so much that it resembled Soviet social democratic or even socialist policies but not for some noble, humanist reasons - it was to fend off a similar another October Revolution in US and to block the actual transition to socialism. This is why I'm skeptical about UBI. Who determines the amount of money? What about changing prices? Who controls the process? In what way will lives of people improve? That all seems to me as a friendly capitalism with human face to softy make people forget that the structural change is needed and to give them a comfort food. Many capitalists even some of neoliberal type agree that some sort of UBI would be a good thing. Gee, I wonder why.
UBI and worker coops do not have to be in the same discussion and entangled--creating a false choice. They are both good concepts that should be implemented. Use UBI to secure a society. Use worker coops as an incentive to progress and produce.
Michael Poynter a coops as an incentive to progress? Ahaha. Lol why would a excellent business manager or strategist work their ass off if all the other employees are like “nah man you are only getting this much money”.
@@cheese-je9xs The employees all become stakeholders. So, that gives them an incentive to promote the business and offer their ideas to increase it's profitability.
Michael Poynter but their ideas benefits doesn’t disproportionately go to them because it will have to be “fair” and be distributed among all the other workers. The stakes will be so small compared to a salary increase it will keep very little of the incentive as your rewards will be divided among your coworkers and not go to you.
@@cheese-je9xs If we have UBI, then salaries would become irrelevant--and, their work would become an investment in hopes for greater returns. And, if all the other employees are helping the business build a strategy, then they should reap the rewards when that strategy proves to be successful. And, the probability of success will go up when you have more people investing in it's future. Choosing good employee/stake holders would increase the fairness when payments are distributed--because, they were decided to be worth it. Otherwise, you shouldn't hire them.
Which happens to be one of the best descriptions of Socialism. The workers own the means of production. Not the Government, the workers. Is it that scary? Or is it worse to think that the means of production and what's to be done with them is the Boss? Which do you prefer?
Joao Faria Go ahead. There’s literally NOTHING stopping you. Pool your resources. Show us evil capitalists how it’s done. If it’s such the superior system, it will happen organically. No need for any “seizure.” Consumers will willingly give the economy to you. We’ll wait....
wouldbegood Wrong. All that’s needed is for the workers to outperform their evil capitalist employers without exploiting their employers’ preinstalled capital.
Dear professor, I have some sincere criticisms of your analysis and hope you can provide some additional answers. 1. How do you get to the conclusion that the factory owner can keep half the labor cost for himself? Instead of paying for labor, he has to pay off the machine he bought plus maintenance. After a couple of years he has to buy a completely new one. In any case, the cost of the productivity growth is not zero! Therefore you cannot keep paying every worker the same wage for half the time because the factory owner would then be paying effectively more. Plus, even if that wouldn't be the case, what motivation would the factory owner have to make the investment in automation in the first place, if he would be off the same as before anyway? 2. Is this supposed to be implemented on a company Level? If so, how would this in the real world work out? Let's assume Autonomous Driving is invented tomorrow and I own Uber. Now I implement the Software in all my cars. What should I do with all my drivers? Should they be working half time in the IT-department? And how long are they being paid? If they quit and start at another company, they would again have to work full time because maybe that industry hasn't automated. Can I still hire new people full time if they want to? I find this topic highly interesting and I haven't found many people who offered an alternative to MBI or UBI. I hope you can do another economic update on your concept and how specifically it could be implemented! Thank you for your work! Best regards
Happy Birthday Dr. Wolff! I just bought the latest book, Understanding Marxism, which is on SALE at lulu.com today! Thanks for providing your thoughts on UBI.
That last bit about workers not losing anything if they simply allowed the workers they exploit to enjoy their newly afforded leisure time is only true in theory. Unfortunately there is the added pressure of their surrounding colleagues. Whoever takes the more ruthless approach could easily edge them out. The contradictions of capital make it self-destructive, but also self-accelerating.
@@diamantbelallari669 Well not to mention Andrew definitely considers himself a Capitalist but I would still love to see a discussion between these two.
@@diamantbelallari669 That seems silly to me because I am far from convinced Bernie can win given the state of things at the moment. IMHO Yang is going to have much broader appeal among independents and even former Trump supporters. Guess we will have to wait and see how the debates go and whether or not the DNC is going to shoot the country in the foot again.
Genuinely asking a big question here and hoping to get a response... Your idea at the end was interesting. If production doubles, work half while keeping same profits. My question is how do you compete against others who dont do that? Especially against people making the same product in another company using the same technogy. For instance, 10 people work 4 hours, are paid for 8 hours, and produce 80 phones in America. Meanwhile, in China 10 people work 8 hours, are paid for 8 hours, and produce 160 phones. In each scenario the workers are paid for 8 hours, but in the American scenario they produce half as much product. This means that the Chinese factory could sell their phones for cheaper. The leisure time is a great idea, but it would come at a great cost when competing with people outside our culture and legislation. Great video, btw, first one I've seen and I plan to watch many more. Definitely subscribing.
In the next country over the productivity is used to produce double the amount at the same cost. The sale price is cut almost in half undercutting your example factory. Without sales your example factory will go bankrupt.
This is effectively the case with the state-owned companies of the past, which almost never fire employees. This works well only in stable and monopolistic industries where competition is either nonexistent or irrelevant.
The problem I see with UBI is anyone proposing it is adding it to existing income for the "haves" but eliminate the existing social safety net for the "have nots" including social security which is our money to begin with, not a government subsidy. It would make it too easy to eliminate UBI leaving people who had a small amount with nothing. It should be added to the existing income for the poor and social security recipients lifting them slightly out of deep poverty.
UBI doesn't really aid the poor it bails our their employers once again, doesn't it? Why not make the employers pay a living wage in exchange for labor? Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work? Or is UBI designed to up the GDP so the 01% can exploit even those that don't work? They can up their prices on rent and commodities without paying anyone. And still they pay no taxes, overhead or wages? What happens in Alaska when that oil is no longer worth anything?
We're not really talking about employers paying a living wage when talking about UBI. We're talking about millions of people being displaced from jobs completely due to continued automation. and, the maturity of AI will replace call center people, doctors, attorneys, long haul truck drivers, etc. this is a much different discussion than just paying a living wage. UBI is about seeing what's coming and hedging the system before it gets here. Allowing people some extra $$$ to figure out a change in their career BEFORE they are displaced. Maybe they go to school, with the extra money, to learn how to be a massage therapist, or a horticulturist. Something that they can do that cannot be, in the short term, replaced by a machine.
Hopefully the pressure of printing more money will inflate away the wealth and create competiton for a generation that built it up through creating 'efficiencies' to the point that the middle class is now a 1/3 the size it once was.
To be fair even if they pay living wages it doesn't address growing unemployment and automation replacement. There simply still wouldn't be enough jobs for everyone to earn a wage. And that was the case BEFORE automation.
@@pathacker4963 all of it plays its parts in rising unemployment and poverty. To say automation doesn't play a part at all though is a bit misinformed. And considering the projected technological leaps were are supposedly about to embark on it'll definitely become more of a problem as technology and automation progresses.
24:35 But if it is a democratically owned business still work within capitalism, won't the free market favour the coops that fire more of their workers? I know it's the democratic decision, but if 60% of the workers agree to fire everyone else, wouldn't they now be incredibly more efficient than their competitors? They would dominate everyone else. I know it sounds too greedy to be realistic, but it is entirely possible. I think coops can still be corrupted by a profit motive. As long as there is still market capitalism, there is immorality.
Wow.... this leisure time would revitalize the travel, hospitality and restaurant industries that are now suffering from the closures due to the corona virus. Great repercussions for children and the family as well. So grateful for your lectures that I just joined Democracy at Work as a supporter !!
The Venezuelans taxed their oil the same percentage that Alaska does for their basic income (17% i believe). This is considered socialism although Alaska is a republican us state 🤔
@@Robofloyo capitalism isnt defined as " a system where you can make as much as you want". Even Austrian economists would laugh at such a dumb definition. Capitalism is defined by privatization of the means of production for personal profit. And if you don't think automation poses the risk of mass unemployment due to replacement then I think you might have hit a nail on the head with the self depricating "dum dum" remark.
Dear Dr. Wolff, I have discovered your videos and lectures about a year ago and I've found them to be very informative and educational. Having watched this video, I have a few questions concerning this topic: 1. Is there anything inherently wrong or bad with the idea of UBI? Why can't it be implemented in addition to other solutions? 2. A machine that increases productivity bears a cost. The employer/capitalist would have to invest capital to purchase such a machine. Naturally, his incentive for purchasing such a machine is the potential for the profits he'll make by reducing the labor pool. If there is no potential for profit making and he is forced to distribute the benefits of increased productivity, I don't see the reason why he would invest in a productivity enhancing machine, so the end result will be the status quo - the workers will not acquire leisure time or any of the other benefits of enhanced because the capitalist won't invest in the machine. How would you address these aspects? Thank you.
"It's not fair! That poor person now feels rich with his latest UBI check! While I, with millions feel no richer at all with MY check! I should get more...LOTS MORE!"
But under UBI, workers could still choose to work half time if they want to. In fact, they could choose not to work at all and still meet their basic needs. That is why it is called a basic income.
I somewhat agree, but there is also good reason they dont want to do it. If we were paid a UBI would we work all week? Some would sure, but the rest of us, particularly those critical of the system now have the time and the funds to protest 24/7. Consider the french, would they have stopped protesting all week if they didnt need to buy food to eat? I doubt it.
@@CG0077 wait... Are you saying make people work so they can't argue for a better system? How about we create a better system so people are happy and don't see a need to complain? I think we should start there
Two things I want to say about what Professor Wolff has mentioned in this video. First, I think that the reduction in the workforce is much more than the 50% Professor Wolff estimates because I used to work for a company almost 2 decades ago where I saw significant changes in technology that happened over the course of just 4 years. Here is an example: At one time there was a part of this company I worked for that had two separate departments, but ended up becoming one department. The other department consisted of about 6 employees, but was reduced to just one employee, who was then reassigned to the first department. Computer technology had advanced to the point where just one employee could now do the job of an entire department. Second, it’s not only employees who will suffer due to the lack of job availability due to inevitable technological advances, but also it will eventually have a very negative impact on even the wealthiest of corporations. When people are laid off from jobs they used to work at but aren’t needed anymore, and either end up working at jobs with much lower pay and no benefits, or end up with no job or benefits, this means they can no longer afford the goods and services companies and industries produce. This has happened to some degree as many people live paycheck to paycheck, but so far it hasn’t been a big enough problem to hurt corporations because over the past fifty years, adults have been given greater and greater limits in their credit cards for expenses. But inevitability, this house of cards will fall and companies everywhere will suffer along with the people. The only way to avert disaster is by allowing companies to make a profit, but it can no longer be limitless increases in profits as it will always take all wealth away from those who buy their goods and services. There needs to be a balance that is set that will give companies what they need, which is profit, and it will give employees what they need, which is a sense of purpose in life by having a job, being able to do well in society and have more leisure time. Universal basic income will do just what I’ve described here.
True. One way is that the banks print fiat money for themselves. And then due to the Cantillon effect get benefit from that. You could think of that as a UBI for them.
I love it when two of my favorite public thinkers align on an issue. Douglas Rushkoff also cautions against UBI although he supported it in the past. He says it is simply a “bandaid on extractive corporate capitalism” and a way of “perpetuating our role as consumers at the bottom of the pyramid.” His change of heart came when giving a talk at Uber. When the problem of self-driving cars came up, the executives voiced support for UBI as an excuse to throw thousands of drivers off their payrolls🤔 Check it out in his own words at the BigThink channel here on UA-cam👀
When I hear politicians speaking about jobs, I go numb. Ever worked over-time and not get paid the over-time pay rate? Employers rip off their workers at every level. Today, I just heard another person confess they're working a 14hr shift with no over-time pay. "The owner doesn't believe in paying overtime." Keep on Dr. Wolff - we need a voice out here!
Great episode. Very eye opening. This is something that is overlooked and yet has a huge impact on economic systems...the "psychological" impacts on society.
Dr. Wolff please talk about "attrition" in the 70's and the "Paradigm of downsizing: doing more for less" in the late 80's or early 90's. Workers have been forced to do the work of 2 or 3 workers for less than the salary of 1. This practice has caused many health issues due to stress on the "working poor", "service workers". Also important to show how in our society the salaries of workers in the field of human services is so much lower than the salaries of workers in the field of marketing. Show how profits before people is demonstrated here. Thank you so much for all your educational messages. I am sharing with my family and friends. I live by this: informed mind makes wise decisions!!!
The problem with the proposed solution is that the capitalist has no incentive to invest in the labor saving innovation if they can't reduce their payroll. So they simply won't buy the new technology.
Another issue with that last example of cutting work days in half: why would the capitalist manager go through the trouble of buying and maintaining the new technology if the profits are going to stay the same? Wouldn't they just keep everyone working the same amount of hours and save themselves the trouble? And again, if this process continues, then people will only have to work 1 hour for the same productivity of 8 hours. So 1 wage hour and then 7 hours of leisure? Seems like UBI will be needed eventually. Yang2020.
Agreed on the closing line. To expand on the progressive approach to UBI: Consider the example at 20 minutes. There's traditionally female work of reproducing community, there's knowledge and artistic work. These are done in a complex, decentralized manner also based on desire for reciprocity, improving one's and each other's conditions. Plus, there's 'positive returns to scale' (see 'Erik S. Reinert - Resurrecting the economic ideas that produced the welfare state' on here). Meaning if you produce more of one thing, it becomes cheaper (time/effort/resources) to produce per item. We reap these gains as a society that manages to coordinate better. Productivity gains that are not any single worker's output but the output of 'land' we made more usable, of the collective infrastructure, of our hopes, our heartfelt efforts and our senses of duty/reciprocity. A purely reactive UBI (reactive to 'less jobs') ignores that. Meaningful work does not go away today. The above perspective plus an analysis of credit/banks (Steve Keen, Mary Mellor, MMT, etc.), shows us what makes no sense: A 40 hour work week (and up), often for producing trinkets and luxuries for not particularly great people. The more people can see that the more democratic change becomes a possibility. UBI to me then seems like a needed piece of a foundation for sharing work more fairly. There is no perfect plan of everything, just some things can and should be planned (more). We also need the individual in their social interactions. There's a duty to inform your surroundings of what you think of other people's workings, and there's a duty to carefully consider social input for your own workings. At the end of the day it's also on us individually to decide what to do, where, how, for who and with who (but not removed from our social experiences). Plus, there's insights and perspectives there that matter. 'Can I satisfy my desire for reciprocity doing what I do? Does this make sense and for who? Does this function? What could be improved to make it function?' De-emphasize the easy excuses (money, external authority) and we can discover anew community from the ground up and from inside of ourselves. This is about positive freedom ('freedom to') that a UBI could enable (given sufficient size and accompanying change). With responsibility arising from sound reflection on one's own position and surroundings. Good thing the progressive left in Europe with Varoufakis already has a universal dividend in their platform (european green new deal). Does make one hopeful!
@@wouldbegood Yes, I like the concept but I think Land is an extremely broad thing that includes ideas and the social agreement we call money itself, or at the very least that is super important to consider here. As well as generally unpaid work (that will continue to be unpaid; in fact a lot of community, scientific work might be more fruitful if it were unpaid. Think big pharma developing means to keep people alive but not cured today.). I didn't read much by him yet but I like the direction Silvio Gesell moved the conversation towards, also in reference to George. I'm all for a land value tax (and doing something about idea rights; probably massive reduction) to anchor the value of something like a demurrage currency.
If employers cut everyone’s hours from say 40 hours to 20-25 then yes everyone would have more leisure time but would also make less money. Now if we’re discussing this ALONG w UBI then it would be preferable and more beneficial but do we honestly think most employers would go along w that? Of course not Another issue is healthcare. We need to do away w private healthcare and relying on jobs for healthcare so that companies don’t have to use it as another reason to ‘cut employees’
You misunderstood him he said cut hours in half but pay them the same. So if you were working 40 hours a week at $15/hour, with more productivity you would work 20 hours at $30/hour
While I admire Prof. Wolff, he doesn't seem to get it. Perhaps because he is biased toward the monetary system. He's always trying to find a way to make it work. He really likes the idea that everyone should work, maybe less hours, but none the less. The fact is, a small percentage of people really need to be working today to maintain a society thanks to technology and scientific knowledge. What we need to do is elevate our culture and infrastructure to the level of said technology and knowledge. No money at all would be needed. We could pack that game up and put it in the closet. No more economists, no more politicians, massively reduced crime, no poverty, no wars, and so on. All we have to do is allow technology to create abundance without notions of debt and servitude.
Agree. Democracy in the workplace is a good first step, but it's not the endgame. I look towards something like a resource-based economy. And more openness with total information sharing and less competition. Competition just produces useless jobs for the sake of survival. In a capitalist system people just need to make money any way they can, even if what they do is not truly productive or efficient. Not a good incentive.
A production system that rewards productivity improvements at all levels, individual and corporate based, that provides incentives for all types of rewards, time off, profit, job enhancements, etc. motivate more areas of improvement since all the parties have different desires for what rewards motivate them. Identifying who is providing the productivity improvements and accurately measuring its impact on the bottom line in a trustworthy way is key to making this approach work. It has a balance of competition and cooperation of resources that would allow the best ideas to rise from all levels to produce the maximum benefit to all who contribute.
Thank you Prof. Wolff. These are very good points - and a good solution. However, this solution does not address the real point of UBI: Up to half of all work done to keep a "nation" going is not paid for. It is not paid for because it is undertaken outside of the employer/employee false dichotomy. UBI addresses that imbalance. It also allows people to choose NOT to enter the false dichotomy. The employer/employee arrangement is specifically designed to enrich some at the loss of others. It also relies on a market system that enriches the richest and denies those less rich. This will operate in the same unjust way whether the enterprise is private, government or worker owned. Always to the exclusion of that half of essential work which is ignored by this system. To take a wider view of our so-called "progress": Where do you think these technology-driven productivity gains come from? They come from the non-human world in the form of increasing throughput of energy and resources. These are finite. In other words - this Earth is paying for our so-called productivity, and that particular bank is about to go bust. The other large Elephant that very few seem to have noticed in this room called Earth, is money. Money us used exclusively by humans as if humans are the only thing on Earth. This is clearly and tragically wrong. Money operates to subtract humanity from the world. It is a death-wish. All proposed solutions that do not take these larger facts into account are a kind of intellectual masturbation. I do not find it entertaining - you have nothing to give.
It's so abundantly obvious that innovations which create increases in efficiency and productivity ought to be welcomed with open arms but instead most of us fear them because we are clutching our employment like an emergency flotation devise.
How about just cancel money ? what we do need that for? Or just get self governing ideas in our heads and decide together with consideration about everyone's needs . To serve life is a very technical practical challenge it has noting to do with money , politics, governments . I understand that we all are entangled with that imaginary social game confirmed on papers
@@evandrolima1724 Any kind of based economy project from people who gather together in a circle as equals. To get own plan of action, means to have own future.
Money (fiat currency) helps to facilitate commerce. We need money to help establish a standard value for financial transactions and trade Bankers are smart, or at least smarter and more knowledgable than the average person in matters of finance, and they have manipulated the system. The bankers have systematically changes what money is and how it is used. Technically, US Currency is printed by private banks, almost at will, and is not fully backed by anything (Gold). The dollar is loosely backed by the influence of the US Military machine and the fact that OPEC requires all purchases of oil to be in USD. You are correct that the moentary system as well as our entire system of government seems illusory and trivial in nature. Ultimately... it is all about control. I'm not going to get into the specifics but money is actually a means to control/oppress people.
@@greensquare6235 No, Possessions are imaginary concept in ones head. Illusion that you can own something creates illusion that you can loose, there from comes fear and greed. I would agree that we need means of measurement of value in terms how much people and time did it took to create something. Money value are decided by board of directors . Slave owners decide fluctuating price. Money is enslavement tool . If I have money and you don't, then you will do as I will tell you , right? To measure value of things we count consumed resources and invested human attention by time. That way we make things that could last at least life long. All those ancient big stone buildings with free energy heating systems hundreds of years old and still working today. was possible build, because was no money. Money is a value de terminated by big owners and we make things, that designed to brake on time in order to force consumers to buy more. What you possibly could build if I would change value of 1 meter? sometimes it is 85 cm some times 120 cm. When money value change, some one some where loose his property to the bank and that is the whole point. If I lend to the different people $100 000 at the interest lets say 5% I just created $5000 guaranty that some one some where will loose its property to the bank. So people believe that it is fair game, some one win and some one loose everyone compete against each other ,... except bank which has $5000 from the losers possession. Game is rigged.
Professor Wolff: This was an excellent presentaoution on alternatives to the UBI for handling productivity gains due to technological improvements. However, there are other reasons for implementing a UBI: 1) Wage rates in other countries are lower and the capitalists move the production facility overseas to take advantage of the lower wage rate there. All employees in the U.S. are dumped. 2) Currently the capitalists pay the minimum wage and not one dollar more. An employee starts working at the minimum wage, increases his skills and knowledge generally and specific to that business. The employee is MUCH more productive, but is still paid only the minimum wage: take it or leave it. Sometimes the employer will offer pittance 1% or 2% wage increases for being a faithful employee for more than a year or two. This is not a living wage for a family. 3) I see the UBI as a way to begin taking back from the wealthy capitalists, and to fund it by means of a Wealth Tax on Intangible Assets, closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, and identifying and taxing wealth held overseas in tax havens. 4) In the US, government could function to eliminate imperfections in the system by somehow ensuring a progressive increase in wages above the minimum as the employee became more productive. However, the government has been purchased by the wealthy and only the desires of the wealthy are considered and acted on. I am becoming pessimistic about whether the US can ever be fixed to reduce the magnitude of the difference between the wealthy and the rest of us. It would require a change of heart in the wealthy. Not sure that will ever happen. Do you have any other ideas?
Universal Basic income is needed and will help those in need. However, UBI is a patch and doesnt address the problems of Capitalism. I don't think its a good ideas to give those that don't need UBI a check. It should be limited to those who need it especially since they will use the check to spend back into the system and keep the current imbalanced system going. Its time to change
I agree UBI is needed and it's only a patch, but to be UBI it must be given to everyone. It can't be something that needs a costly administration to determine who is in need of it or not, we already have that in France for example, unemployment benefit, which discourages people to work since they only receive it if they are unemployed.
@@StevieeePeee personally i disagree everyone should get it. I think giving it to a millionaire just for fairness sakes is a ridiculous notion. Its a program thats supposedly to help the poor, not stuff the pockets of the rich even more. The rich already benefit off of ubi because it means more money for consumers to potentially buy their products and largely solidifies many of their monopolies. Thats just my personal opinion.
E G Butler the problem of not enough work for the amount of people is far from exclusive to capitalism. Even if the workplace becomes 100% a democracy like this guy says, that does nothing to the lack of work for the people to do unless unless you just give each person like 30min worth of work and they just sit there the rest of the time which will make the “my job feels pointless” issue 10x worse that it already is. But at the same time you can’t just produce in abundance of everything and give it away for free like full on socialism is because there are some thing that will always be scarce and you can’t just give it away and the things that are not currently scarce will quickly become scarce due to people getting as much as they want. UBI fixes all of this as it allows people that want to continue to work if they want more that the UBI gives them or if they are just simply passionate and keeps people from getting unlimited stuff unless they work for it.
Having 4 free extra hours per day does you no good if you are still underpaid, that is not leisure, that just gives you more time to get another low paid job!
So grateful for and appreciative of Prof. Wolff who allows all his viewers to take free Econ. classes -- how many of us would be able to afford paying for such courses at a college with the cost of education in the US today I wonder!
Explain government infrastructure jobs program to me. Does government just hire private contractors to do infrastructure? If so, then they are just getting private companies to hire workers that those companies would not have otherwise hired on their own. I assume the government is incentivizing the contractors to do this by paying them more than it would otherwise cost to do the job. That is, if the contractors were not making a profit on top, then there's no reason for them to do it. So this is an example of money flowing from public sector to private capitalists. The only way I could see it being good is if the government manages it completely so a profit is not made but it just breaks even. True?
Professor I do have a question about this excellent alternative that you proposed. While we are trying to have a more equal economy: wouldn't it be unfair if the owner of the new device that allows the workers to produce twice as much be entitled to some of the rewards? Giving those rewards 100% to the workers doesn't seem as egalitarian as possible. Besides, wouldn't the machine or device have a cost of both purchase and maintenance? And what if because of the increased productivity capacities, in time, the employer manages to increase the demand for his product and now needs the workers to again work 5, 6 ,7 or even full day at 8 hours? How would he deal with the resistance of the workers to move from 4 hour days back to 8 hour days? Even with a pay increase some workers would surely protest and hiring more workers would require new benefits packages plus perhaps new HR resources that would more maybe more than double the cost of the doubled labor force? I am becoming increasingly obsessed with this show. It is brilliant. Please keep it up Professor.
Not sure whether or not you live in the USA, but if you don't, then you need to understand how indoctrinated and propagandized the people are. When they're 5-years old, they're told to stand up, cross their hearts, and 'pledge allegiance' to the flag and the country; "one nation, under God" all that nonsense. Hitler Youth never came up with such a great indoctrination tool, and it sinks into people's psyche across their lifetimes. So, they believe that America is God's favorite country, and that America is on a mission from God, and has always been on the proverbial "right side of History." And most of them never question this, nor will they tolerate anyone who does. It's like the worst cult in the world. Only the cynical escape such dogma. =/
Since the US has recently been a frontier country as little as 170 years ago or so, it has the notion of rugged individualism. Everyone looks out for themselves. The US is a country of winners and losers. Legally, anyone can be a winner and that's what attracts people to immigrate to the US. There is less of a class structure in that sense. But unfortunately in order for there to be winners there have to be losers. (Otherwise what does it mean to be a winner?) And that creates an economic class structure.
@@wouldbegood - What does that mean? I understand the vocabulary, but but your use is unclear to me. The Alaskan payments have nothing to do that I can see with land, land value, land value tax, or reparation. So could you please clarify your idea? Thanks To me it's just a state business profits tax, distributed to individuals rather than spent by the state on programs. Alaska doesn't have a lot of infrastructure, few roads etc. so it makes sense that the state just send out checks.
Hi, as far as I'm aware the state would have agreed to a fee or a cut of profits from the extracting companies for the privilege of extraction rights. The voters and government agreed for it to be paid out as a dividend of sorts (I probably shouldn't have used the word reparation). But a Land Value Tax is basically a tax on all land based on its Land Value with the same possibility of paying out a dividend (UBI) or subsidising government investment and/or other tax cuts. For more information check out Henry George (Georgism). I feel it is a happy medium between Capitalism/Libertarianism/Communism. The effects could be quite drastic but it could be implemented slowly replacing other taxes and scaled to what ever extent deemed neccessary.
@@wouldbegood - Your language makes zero sense, can't tell if you have no understanding of the issue, or just can't write, or both. Good luck with that. I wonder if you know that the oil companies don't own the land. And please don't reply, I'm muting you so you can go play vid games.
Guys check out Andrew Yang. He was on Rogan's podcast and Breakfast club and elsewhere. He's running for president and the flagship issue he's running on is UBI.
Dr. Richard Wolff is a genius period, we need these kind of people running our government, instead of our crooks and criminals politicain we currently,e have, wake up people do not be stupid. Thank you Dr. Wolff for the excellent presentation.
I just don’t see a company switching to half a work day for employees they feel they don’t need. It sounds nice but I just don’t think businesses will care.
Thank you for covering this topical topic. I would add that the progress towards a shorter work week through the early 20th century stopped during World War II, a few decades before the purchasing power of wages stopped rising too. Those changes occurred for the same reason. Making the dollar the reserve currency in 1944 benefited consumers by reducing the price of imported goods, but the dollar reserve status has also caused us to lose productive capital along with most manufacturing and those jobs. The words "free trade" invoke a concept of freedom beloved by Americans, but in that our attention is drawn away from the reality that consumers in countries with high wages would not willingly pay higher prices to support labor in their own countries (or any country with higher wages), so free trade weakens the labor market in countries with higher wages. As globalization began to undermine labor more in the US, industrial innovation slowed down dramatically too with the bankruptcy and consolidation of most middle market manufacturers by the 1950s like for example all the smaller American car makers outside Detroit. Inflation presents itself as a way to have free trade in name only. It is a form of protectionism. While Wall St. remains as profitable as ever through access to low interest rate borrowing, it seems like all the other large economies have been using inflation as protectionism more successfully than the US. Maybe we could use inflation more productively. Banks only use credit to absorb the rest of the profits from the economy. Public banks might be used to fund more regional innovation centers or give more collectivist business structures like co-ops a chance to determine how to democratize profits to employees most effectively for different types of business.
This presentation is far too simplistic to the point that it is almost meaningless. Democracy at work is a great idea but there are many obvious situations that this presentation doesn't address. What if the firm next door you're competing with doesn't have democracy? Even if you have two firms that are both 'democratic' they will be forced by the market to compete to subsistence levels. What about competing with foreign firms where democracy is not guaranteed. Let's say you stop that with tariffs. There will then be a natural coalescing of worker coops within an industry until there is a monopoly. Will the workers in the monopoly coop extract rents? They will almost certainly not extract the same rents as if they were a single rich owner because they are connected to the working population but they will certainly extract some rent. Who can say what it will be? Imagine a worker coop tech company that discovered a way to make a magic machine that could make product/commodity from water for zero cost. They would be able to put every other worker-coop out of business. How is democracy at work going to fix this? While I agree that mandatory democracy at work (and maximum salary multiplier between lowest/highest paid) would improve the situation eventually the means of production must be publicly owned. It's that simple.
Ben Kavanagh the cooperative economic model should only be meant to exist until we can abolish wage labor, which I think will only happen through mass automation. I think the point introducing this system is to help ease people into socialism and create the necessary infrastructure for full public planned economy to even be possible. How would cooperatives deal with undemocratic competition? Exactly how they do now, cooperatives already exist, a lot of your questions about democracy at work can be learned by examining how existing worker coops handle those issues.
“The workers gain 4 free hours a day.” But their pay is cut in half so now that family now cant pay their mortgage or put food on the table. This is not leisure time this is second or third job time.
But using Yang's main example of truck drivers being g replaced by self driving g vehicles, this solution doesn't work. It would work if the trucks were allowed to travel twice as fast or could carry twice the load. I suppose drivers could still occupy the trucks and be trained to maintain them though?
I love how you explained automation solution at 24:00 i would add that if someone dont want to come to work just for 4 hours he/she could work every other day for 8 hours, thats still 4 hpurs approximatly per working day. And maybe automation gets even more effective so the average working time per day could be less than 4 hours, which is a good thing, people would still get same paychecks just like when they worked 8hours because machines are doing much work and they dont need paychecks, maybe repairs occasionally.
I'm all for reducing work hours, but we need a UBI as well. The UBI would provide a safety net for people who lose their jobs, get sick or injured and can't work, for people who have difficulty holding down a job due to developmental disabilities or mental illness, etc. It would give everyone a cushion to fall back on and the peace of mind that goes with it. It would also be good for the economy because everyone with money in their pockets is going to spend it back into the system, enriching everyone whose hands that money passes through.
Good guide to historical background is "Regulating the poor, a history of social welfare'. Fransis Fox Piven and Richard A Cloward. Guy Standing (SOAS) also does work on this.
Dr. Wolff! I was a freshman political science student when I came across your videos for the first time. Now, four years later, I'm about to graduate with a minor in economics, and I have only you to thank for helping me make that decision! Keep doing what you do.
No doubt, he has helped a lot of people make sense of the system. My BA is in History, but I would love to go back and complete a graduate degree in Economics, or even a doctorate … if it weren't so damned expensive and counterproductive to do so, in America. =/
@Michael Harris Congratulations! I have an AbD in psychology and I adore Prof Wolff! So incredibly helpful in every realm of our lives.
@@itzenormous I'm so very sorry it's like that! Makes me cry. I finished my university stuff within a split second of all of this blowing up. UGH!! Now I'm an activist fighting for justice for others who're not being given the opportunities I've had. This system is F'd up nine ways to Sunday! Keep fighting and learning my Friend❤
Modern real economics must realize this system does not work, as for market based forces. The question you really gotta think about is how to fix it. Ya cant really do it democratically.
I majored in philosophy and anthropology, but if I could, I would get a third degree in economics. To be honest, I would love to get several degrees, which is why I was a double major to begin with. If only I had enough income, and college was reasonably priced, with less time at work like Professor Wolff talked about here, then education would definitely be a personal hobby of mine. That, collecting books in my personal library (already large as it is), and writing. Unfortunately, I was born to a poor family. Not that it's their fault, of course.
And in conservative Alaska! Conservatives benefit from ideologies they claim to hate.
@Frederic Bastiat agreed, a mob of plutocrats plundering and exploiting our population and national wealth
@Frederic Bastiat poverty rates in decline? WRONG.
For conservative republican state Alaska ,free money to its citizens is a good thing. It's not a problem. But give money to the poor is bad. I don't see the difference.
@Frederic Bastiat The standard for what rich people statistically consider poverty in HEAVY decline.
Sarah Palin was a socialist[1] from the socialist state of Alaska.
[1] "socialist" in the sense in which right-wingers use the term, to refer to anyone who is in favor of modestly progressive policies like basic income.
Professor Wolfe, you are a good person. I see less and less of genuinely good people as time passes. When someone wants to give back to others without getting a material benefit in return, that is what I mean. Good on you sir.
Is today professor Wolff’s birthday if so happy birthday!
Wikipedia said so
I mean maybe April Fool's but it's not like it costs anything to tell him happy birthday. HAPPY BIRTHDAY PROFESSOR RD WOLFF
update: dear god why did I think his name was Michael
Jimmy D - did you take a wrong turn?
I'm reading this on April 2.
So, despite the date of publication, My Sincere Wishes for a Happy Birthday and may you count many, many more. And in Good Health.
Happy belated 🎂
UBI discussions need more disabled participants. NOT everybody works. And to any abled people out there, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of what disability is to say that across the board people with disabilities should or should be expected to work. The effects of disability can be unpredictable which makes even very part time work unmanageable for some. The body can have its own schedule.
It should not be necessary to work. And why are we trying to figure out ways to prop up the productivity of a consumerist society rather than working against consumerism. So much waste is created for no reason except to keep the engines of capitalism running. I think there's still more work to do on this subject
As someone with not so visible disabilities kudos for knowing the nuances and trying to educate people about it.
This is why I think any discussion about UBI should also include a discussion about improving benefits for the disabled. Andrew Yang said he has plans to improve benefits for disabled people along with his UBI, though he hasn't detailed them yet.
@@corywashburn That's why Yang says, certain conditional programs need to be in place to account for partial or complete inability to work. Be it physical or psychological. It would be utterly unfair to force these people to settle for UBI level when other people are able to up their standard of living above it. But that's the problem with some lazy lefties. They just scream and parrot talking points that they project onto Yang, more than 95% free of substance. That diverts attention away from actually improving his platform towards refuting all the lies and misrepresentations. This intellectually lazy but vigorous push back against Yang is probably originating from brainwashing that wired them into hatred of business people (in combination with having already picked another guy that they feel in need of defending, when in fact Bernie and Yang should join forces rather than be dragged into mindless destructive wars). I dont like some of the business mentality either, especially corporate speak, I am more of a science guy. But I also dont demonize them. They are people too and they have kids too that they dont want to see growing up in an unequal, polarized society where people are at each other's throat.
It’s crazy how ppl think this $1k will abolish homelessness and poverty. If you live on social security disability, or rely on food stamps and Medicare, this proposal might not change your life at all.
And remember Yang really isn’t looking to change the corporate tax code, the minimum wage, college expenses or healthcare coast.
So I think there will be a section of ppl it will help but with all these expenses still on the table, you UBI will go towards them.
I’d like Yang to talk more in-depth b/c I don’t get it.
Especially with unprofitable work that is still definitely work. Being pregnant, childcare (for your own children), and helping your friends in need doesn't pay but is essential for society.
I would love for him to interview Andrew Yang on his guaranteed basic income
Eh. This dude is a hack. The machinery does not just "appear", it is a major capital investment. Once it is paid for, the costs can be recovered by reducing the work force to make up the labor costs. But if not for the minimum wage, the investment to obtain the automation would not be worth the risk, the payment floor wouldn't be artificially raised, and the machinery would not be cost competitive with the risk in replacement of the workforce. This guy knows the automation machinery isn't free. He's just pushing his agenda without examining the reality of the situation.
@@eusebiusthunked5259 The new machinery is usually a one off payment, and it's often more energy efficient saving the company money that way. I'm sure that the workers working less hours would actually make them slightly more productive through being less tired, especially by the end of the day. So that would also help to pay for the extra one off cost.
@@JC-ce1ks I'm not suggesting that mechanization is not generally good investment for a business. I'm saying that it's usually expensive enough that most businesses will avoid that purchase, unless they are forced to make that purchase by the minimum wage laws squeezing their business. It's not a trivial decision, and he is clearly glossing over the event to mislead viewers, to advance his class war agenda. Marxist doctrine strikes again! He pretends it's win/win, when his proposal is win/lose. Simply make a major capital investment, don't recoup the expense, but carry the workers on your back.... It's not like it will change the wage slave narrative, so what's the rationale? If a worker supports the business morally that's a different story, but this is not the case if the worker has a Marxists Class War Narrative.
@Corpsefoot Gaming A child's mindset? Is this supposed to refute anything, or hurt my feelings?
Yes, economy of scale improves, and automation becomes cheaper. This is why the problems created by Minimum Wage cannot be fixed, the genie can't be put back in the bottle. So how about we stop trying so hard to let it out?
The point at made was never about profit margins, but about what this genie will do to the welfare of the citizens in my nation.
@@eusebiusthunked5259 Heck companies moving to automation would save on paying for employee insurance , and workers comp, ... that alone would be incentive to start the process...
But we already have people receiving money - the lion's share of it, in fact - for doing no work at all: the rich (or those rich people who choose not to work, since working, for the rich, is optional, whereas for the poor it's mandatory). Why isn't hatred and envy directed at them? Why is it that things are bad only when the poor do it?
Because people's minds are manipulated to believe that the rich are somehow special and are to be revered because they are so wealthy.
Propaganda. American Propaganda. That's why.
Have you ever worked in your life?
There is something wrong with people using money to make more money, and that benefit increasing with the amount of money involved. You can easily see this if you look at a graph of the percentage of GDP that is represented by the financial sector. It has grown significantly in the past 30-40 years. (Not to mention that what the financial sector does these days is hardly productive and so should not be counted as part of GDP.)
Investing in stocks is not what it used to be. It has become just a gambling casino for the rich.
propaganda networks, of which the left has none.
And having machines and technology and working 45 to 50 week ours is proof system is balls.
yeah it kills me to try to explain the to friends....
Can you explain what you mean by "ours is proof system in ? balls ?
Imagine working 0 hours a week due to machines and technology. ; )
@Frederic Bastiat It's similar to the hours worked by peasants of pre 18 hundreds of most of the world as technology advanced: feudalism gave way to mercantilism as technology advanced, in nations where feudalism peasant serfdom overhang it violently ended toward a mercantile system as productivity gains went to the feudal lordship, and especially early industrial era through the 1800's and early 1900's. Coal wars existing from 1870's to 1935. When nations experience great civil unrest as productivity literally went to about 6% of the population and the rest was poor. Wasn't until social programs such as prohibition on owning slaves and child labor, compulsory education, social security, right to collectively bargain, later medicare/medicaid, public roads and utilities that were often granted monopoly power which is not a capitalistic concept at all whether private or public as its naturally not competitive.
Essentially, its obvious that a system that denies productivity gains from technology to workers which constitutes at least 60% of the population and 95% of all people require some type of employment in order to get by in their life.
Early and pre industrial era people were working 6 days to 7 days a week, 12 hours or more a day.
Now its closer to 40 hours 5 days a week at standard.
Yet pay is more substantial because productivity gains had gone toward workers by voted law. Because it wasn't without voted law.
New technology is making it where even 40 hours isn't necessary. So you could see cutting working to 20 hours with even higher wages. If the operation needs more time to cover they would higher more people to cover that time, as they had to when 12 and 14 hour shifts were pushed toward 8 hour shifts, they hired another shift. And paid all shifts more.
See... this means productivity, at least a portion, went toward labor, not to just do nothing owners. And those precious owners who don't do anything, the loafers in society, often those who inherited their fortunes, still got monster gobs of profits. Particularly because an actual middle class in that most of its people were able to buy the very stuff they were making.
@Frederic Bastiat Compare that to the increases in productivity and you'll see that isn't very impressive. The working class culture was very different back then too; "wage labor was widely condemned as 'wage slavery' in the working class press" and there was a rise in labor unions, which probably had more to do with wage increases than capitalism. In more recent history productivity has skyrocketed while the average wage has been stagnant for decades. Without some social or political impetus, capitalism doesn't provide wage increases.
Listening to this program while working 12-14 hour overnight shifts, 4-6 days a week, while I set up 3 CNC lathes to run while I manually operate 1-2 other machines at a time, for $12+benefits, which is less than my mom made in the 70s at a department store. At my age, my dad built a house, in 1980.
With a Ubi you would have the time to think up a business plan... Buy a cheap c and c machine and start selling your works on Etsy, eBay or at local farmers markets. Not saying this is something that YOU would want to do bit is a quick illustration of how a universal basic income could change a life for the better. Vote Andrew Yang 2020 he will institute a $1,000 a month universal basic income for every adult in the country.
And that's AFTER socialists fought for overtime pay, benefits, etc. Imagine how worse it would be without those "scary evil socialists" kicking back at the system and strong arming change.
Keep your head up though bro. It'll collapse eventually. Probably sooner than later at this point.
@@dkrahn26 Andrew yang will accomplish no such thing if the people who really run things don't want it to happen.
i'made more as a busboy ,around 1982 (tourist area ) then many 4 yr. college Masters Degree Grads now~ all competing for work ~ and so many Computer Savy HS Grads. , Asian will work for , 60% less then going rate, a College Degree can be done on internet, ~ a Certified Degree~ Bingo~ Robots evoltolution ~ now has TELEPATHIC PRE CRIME KNOWLEDGE~ in next 15 yrs~ robots will claim 80% entry level Jobs~
Demiurge Shadow the people that accomplished that we’re not socialist
Great. I'm glad I found your channel. Free time makes possible art, invention, community service, new business creation, family time and on and on. The benefits are many. UBI would grow our economy faster then anything else. UBI really would be the crown jewel of capitalism.
What I don't understand is where one prevents the other: IMO, UBI and reducing work hours address overlapping, but not equivalent problem spaces.
TL;DR: UBI should be a stable foundation to build a system upon, not the end-all-be-all solution to all problems. Such a system should indeed include a better organization of the means of production and by extension distribution of profits.
Reducing work time will only work so long as a particular process actually requires human workforce. It's not unfathomable that some company could exist in the future that only had humans in management and maybe sales, with all production being performed in automated fashion. This would, even if that company didn't fire a single worker when it attained that structure and instead continued paying them wages just for being part of the company and/or moved them to management or sales, lead to any competition with less automation failing to stay competitive and their workers being let go. The imagined company would have no reason whatsoever to employ new staff it didn't need. The staff would further condense as people retired and wouldn't be replaced for lack of need, leaving the following generation with a greater lack of job opportunities in the first place.
The Co-Op prospective is certainly a great one for workers and is a vast improvement over current corporations, but it still only solves problems for people that have work in the first place. There are too many reasons one might cite to not have a job, and expecting to ever hit 100% employment is a fantasy IMHO. And is that even such a bad thing? There are a lot of things one might do to improve the lives of not only oneself but also one's family, friends, colleagues, neighbors, town, city, community, etc that have nothing to do with what we call 'work', in the 'day job' sense of the word, and aren't necessarily something one could live off of.
Having a stable base income could also enable all-around better education, make it easier to change jobs into a different industry or allow people without the personal capital to start a new business, quite possibly in the form of a Co-Op, without relying on external investors. It could allow for more art or personal research into topics that may not be of interest to any sponsors.
I don't think a system could be fair, with democratic workplaces or otherwise, without some kind of safety net. I believe that UBI could be an important component in a system that wants to take care of it's people. Note that that is not to say it should be the only welfare system, though it could probably replace at least some of the programs that are currently employed to combat poverty (it does nothing for more specific issues e.g. health concerns).
Well, it's a complex topic and I don't claim to be an expert, but these are my thoughts. Thanks to anyone that actually made it through the wall of text.
The problem for Marxists is that they hate people that don't work. Its really a worker's movement exclusively, and the one's that don't work are either forced to work, or are simply eliminated in some other ways. They just never say it, but it is the reason they are against UBI or social programs. There is no logical reason for it, it is simply their value. They also want a planned economy and a totalitarian state usually, which is necessary to make people work by force.
More on a cynical note though, they all are paid and funded by unions, and without workers, there can be no union, or if there is less workers, they are less strong. They don't like equality either, so if you are a worker in an industry that makes a lot of profits, you benefit a lot as compared to others that just get by, so it can never stop working poors to exist, and in fact, it makes it a necessity, which is why force is necessary to force some people to work in those places.
But you are right in your criticism, all of it. A safety net is what people need, the rest is simply a problem of distribution, if it is a problem. But his solution does not address that problem either, so it is moot to think about. UBI would solve that, and especially if it taxes capital at the source, then it is more Marxist than the Communists are, and you keep your freedom to boot, as well as the type of democracy only a free market can give. You also keep capitalism if people want it, so it is win-win. There is no other "option" for a fair and free society, or at least fairer.
Thank you well said
Wow, you people give me hope for humanity. Very well said both of you.
@Taeyeon Mori
TL;DR i agree that UBI wouldn't be enough on its own but it does have knock on benefits to health that would be great. and having a blend of UBI, M4A and democratizing compatible workplaces would go a long way to mitigating the down-sides of technological advancements, especially during transition phases.
having a properly funded UBI actually has lots of knock on effects for the health of the populace. being poor is stressful and its fairly clear knowledge that stress has direct connections to bodily illness (cushion's syndrome for instance is a disease caused by having high cortisol levels--aka the stress hormone--for prolonged periods of time. it completely wrecks the body and directly leads to diabetes, depression, insomnia and COPD) and effects the daily mental capabilities of the individual, literally making a person less able to make evidence based decisions.
some of these knock-on effects to health were studied from a UBI trail in Canada back in the 70's in Minecome, Manitoba; the Dauphin residents in particular. Dr. Danielle Martin talks about it in her book "Better Now: Six big ideas to improve health care for all Canadians." though the trail was shuttered prematurely when a new government came to power, looking back on the data new research showed that there was a marked decrease in ER visits, hospital admittance, workplace accidents, as well as a reduced use of the mental health facilities.
of course that is Canada which already has some aspects of a social safety net that is different than the US. which fills some gaps that UBI might not be able to address and lowers the amount that would be needed to actually cover the basics as canadians don't pay premiums or co-pays for health care. but the effect on a human's physical and mental wellbeing is still present. IF properly funded and IF the US can get M4A similar to canada's single payer system or even better, like the one bernie proposes, then these knock on effects could be even more profound. and though it would not eliminate illness or cure the disabled, not being stressed over if you have enough to just get to the next day is certainly going to reduce exacerbation of the conditions and help lower burnout for the caregivers.
so yes, i agree, UBI alone is not the solution to all the world's issues with poverty or automation, but that in conjunction with other important safety nets and regulations such as M4A and democratizing the workforce of compatible businesses, i think will go a long way to keeping people from falling through the cracks and coping with the current global market changes in transition phases. UBI is a piece of the solution but life is too complicated to only have one piece.
The Profit is King !
The market is a battlefield!
The worker that works less will loose to the worker that works more. Eventually, we will end up in the same situation. Wolff got this one wrong.
Richard Wolff, a point not made that should be stressed: Owners rarely if ever make the technological advances they profit from. It is the workers who have the technical knowledge to improve machinery, production systems, etc., and it is they, the workers who should logically and ethically benefit from their creativity.
Capitalists, at this historic juncture, are not just useless to society they are a drain on it.
Awesome take on this subject Prof Wolff. Your idea on how better to spread the benefits of productivity to everyone instead of the few without it being so divisive was spot on!
Disagree with you and for the first time I see a lack of logic in the Professor's theory.
@@abemartin6297 I saw the fallacy too, quite easily. First time here, and not the biggest fan of this guy tbh
@@abemartin6297 could you elaborate?
I have been trying to tell everyone since the talk of UBI started that it is an attempt to preserve capitalism (1) and an effective subsidy to business since they are not paying a living wage. You may notice big proponents of UBI are rich capitalists, and I suspect they are trying to preserve their way of life, since the current unrest is obvious [they hear all this talk about socialism], and they REALLY don't want to give up their position. I wish Wolff would have touched on how it is an effective subsidy in lieu of a living wage.
(1) to placate the masses, so they do not rise up against capitalism while keeping their maximum profits.
good points made here. I think min wage at $22.00, rent caps, M4A would balance this problem. if you're a shit employer you wont find workers if we all make 2,000 a month insurance.
Exactly! As once Vinod Khosla, a billionaire said when considering UBI: “To put it crudely, it’s bribing the population to be well-enough-off,” Mr. Khosla said. “Otherwise, they’ll work for changing the system.” It's like openly admitting that just a band-aid, a short-term relief for the masses and the guarantee that they'll remain passive and they won't rebel. I don't see how people never mention this part. I'm skeptical of UBI for the same reasons as you are comrade. For the life of me, I cannot understand how many people on the Left, especially US Left never mention these complaints and worries. It's like they bought into this idea. That's also not the only problematic thing about UBI, there are many, but this seems to me like a real conspiracy before our very eyes. "Placate the masses" - exactly. If people are placated with little crumbs here and there, they will be sold the idea that reformism is the way to go. I know many democratic socialists, especially in US are reformists in some way, I'm not though. I think the sooner the shit hits the fan, the better. People need to stand above this and demand more. That's what the owner class fears the most so they invent ways to make capitalism seem more green, more ethics and social-justice friendly, but I think that's a ploy. Even FDR introduced heavy socialistic policies during his time in office, but not for the noble reason which he admits: he wanted to fend off another October Revolution and real transition to socialism.
What stands out to me the most is that we claim to have a democratic system we live under. However work is excluded from this because the private sector has the rights that supersede those of the employees! So why not make the work place democratic as well??
Because where private property starts, democracy ends. And the work place is considered private property in our society.
Because we don't have Democracy, and we haven't understood Democracy for over 1000 years. Majority Rule is Populism, not Democracy, and it directly supports Oligarchy because of Divide and Conquer. This is long known and well studied, but for some reason we have all been brainwashed by a false Democracy. Arrows Impossibility Theorem proves that voting is fundamentally broken. The Iron Law of Oligarchy explains why there can be no Political Solution to the problem of Majority Vote Populism. Actual Democracy as the Greeks practiced is now called Demarchy since the word Democracy is beyond rescue. And when you find out how it works, you'll think it's stupid, because ... You're brainwashed to think that people are stupid, that voting is better... People aren't stupid. People in large groups make stupid decisions because of voting and various biases and other phenomenon called Groupthink. The ancient Greeks who invented the foundation of science itself actually solved our Political Problem 2500 years ago. Our founders did a great job with Federalist decentralization, but they overlooked States Democracy.
@@eusebiusthunked5259 There are a few caveats for ancient democracy. Even though the Greeks laid down the foundations of the scientific method, they couldn't finish the project, because they made the mistake of naturalizing their own way of life (just like the bourgeoisie does). Socrates offered the way out of that error with his subversive method of "infinite questioning", but in order to save their power, people of influence chose to snuff him instead. Diogenes at least reached the point where he was able to detach himself from the illusion of "human nature" and instead turned his attention to non-human nature (like our primitive bodily needs and dogs and the like).
And it is easy to show that Groupthink was actually an important part of Athenian democracy (and also of the creation of the USA). After all, what you call "decentralization" was already part of a larger centralization of a colonial world order. By killing tyrants, the Greeks simply created a new center based on slavery, so by definition it was not a decentralization, just a restructuring of the center itself. So they solved the political question only for a minority (the Greek pederast warriors and wealthy Englishmen) while at the same time giving rise to a multitude of dialectical oppositions with the true external (slaves, women, transatlantic proles, savages etc). So if you think you fall into the category of that bourgeois/pederast center, feel free to promote "Demarchy", just don't be too surprised if some undesirable tries to stab you in the butt. And brutal retaliation against that is very welcome, because it helps to sharpen the dialectical opposition to the point of revolutionary rupture.
@@billyoldman9209 you are misrepresenting the nature of patriarchy, based on modern concepts of "one man one vote" being an ideal, which is uncharitable to say the least, and based of of the dynamics of modern voting systems which encourage antisocial "strategic" voting patterns. The influence of anonymous one vote per person Populism is to encourage extremist voting, not to vote your conscience or even your personal favorite preference, but to vote against the most likely winner that you dislike. This does not foster unity, but actually builds partisan coalitions which sets the stage for Oligarchy. Older systems of voting were more serious and considerate. Instead of the populist rabble, each participants was the respected elder of a tribe, clear about the common principles of the Greek Republic, and casting the decision which best represents their duty, not their personal whims. See it wasn't like there were thousands of voters, and it wasn't anonymous, rather each patriarch was a spokesperson for their tribe. Yes, being that Greek society was a patriarchy, each tribe was headed by a native Greeks Male property owner with slaves, military service, and a family... but they were hardly a family dictatorship, unless you are prepared to assert that African Tribes, Native American Tribes, and most traditional tribal structures are dictatorial. If the family split because the patriarch wasn't representing their well being in the public votes, then that would not be a good outcome. as for the pederasty charge, exactly who are you comparing them to? Jews, Egyptians, Babylonians? The age of adulthood for most ancient civilizations are 12 or 13, and even if the Jewish God frowned on a "son knowing his father" who drank too much, it was not unknown. Slavery was also common until the industral age. Your use of language with radicalized definition of decentralization seems purposefully obtuse, it means that power is not held by one interest or concentrated by one special interest, rather it was distributed among citizens. Slaves and immigrants weren't citizens not we're they expected to serve in the military. Should the Greeks have also had a say in the Egyptian government? Is America racist for not inviting foreign nations to name our legislation?
It seems you did not understand my primary point. Modern anonymous voting is mere Ochlocracy, populism by formal ballot. The outcome is inevitable as described by The Iron Law of Oligarchy, and it embodies the flaws of Groupthink. The solution was called Democracy, and it did not assign government positions to popular Politicians as an Oligarchy, but to citizens appointed through Sortition. This was the solution to the political problems we face today, and it grew the ancient Greek cities into States. Which formed into a Federation, but this Federation was poorly structured and became dominated by Athens which led to it's corruption and defeat. Over the next 2000 years the word Democracy which was the solution immune to partisan Political corruption, got used to describe Voting systems, which are mathematically impossible to conduct without corruption! Fast forward to America, the Founding Fathers focused on the Federation problem, and solved it admirably with a decentralized Federal system which divides power akin to how a Democratic State like Athens would have it's power divided, but no single state could come to dominate the others like Athens did with the Delian League. Unfortunately, the individual American States never implemented stable, decentralized, Populist and Oligarchy interrupting powersharing Democracy, so they cut corners and implemented majority vote elections instead, mostly not even understanding that this was antiDemocratic and an invitation to Oligarchy, which we know well as our Politicians who are above the law and unbound by the Constitution because they have the "mandate" of the will of the people like any good tyrant does. This is why I say we don't have Democracy. The problem is not with property necessarily, but with voting for Politicians.
But we do have financial problems dating back at least this far, Plato recognized it, the Jews watched it destroy the other ancient empires and got blamed for it by the newer empires. The problem is isn't with property but with Riba.
@@eusebiusthunked5259 The one-man-one-vote system is just a meaningless ruse because the choices and the political problems presented to us are all pre-manufactured by those in power, so by definition those are fake choices and fake problems.
And the Athenian citizens were not represented by tribal elders in the Ecclesia but appeared and voted personally whenever they felt like doing so, and contemporaries like Aiskhylos made fun of their very "populism" that you mention. People of noble birth were often accused of being swayed by homosexual favors and magistrates for having gained status by providing such favors (not all magistrates were elected or drawn and paid rhetoricians could always bamboozle the voters).
And I don't know which tribal elders you are talking about. The only example I can think of for tribal representation is the Iroquois League, but those bodies of delegated elders could not meddle in the lives of individual tribes and matriarchal lineages. There was no law enforcement. Not to mention that women had independent councils of their own. The only thing they could decide on was matters of war and at time of peace they had little to no power.
And hell yeah the Greek father was a dictator. Just read Xenophon's Economy. Most of them only fucked their wives to beget children and then they went on to lurk around the boys' gymnasium. The wife was simply a sex deprived head slave who was locked up in the house to assure the fatherhood of the children and whose job was to keep the house in order. The education of children took place outside the family. Greeks didn't care about the family, they had access to all the slaves and prostitues, and those who did care were the exception.
On the other hand, one cannot make any generalizations whatsoever about "savage" societies because family structures and other differences are all over the place. In Australia the old men pretty much monoplized all the females, but some Amazonian tribes didn't even have a chief!
And the Greeks did go around the mediterranian founding their colonies and meddling in other people's affairs. And nobody is talking about inviting "foreign nations" into American legislation. America is racist because it was born in Indian blood and made rich by black blood (and lets not forget the Irish slave and the English poor who were shipped to the plantations by the thousands to die). And even today, the western bourgeois world relies on neocolonial exploitation more than ever. You can only not see it if you don't want to see it.
And you ask me that who am I conplaining to about pederasty. Then I ask you that to whom are you trying to apologize for slavery? And on what do you base the right to colonize and enslave others? If you say the right of brute force, then I agree. But then its no longer a question of reasonable politics but a matter of war.
And my notion of center and exterior is very simple. Center is everyone who is considered a human being and thus participates in decision making and the distribution of the spoils. The exterior is everyone who is not considered a human being and who is the one who provides the spoils. And of course there are many layers and nuances of this opposition. Whenever you talk about unity, you make this exterior invisible (third world neocolonialism, current genocides in the Middle-East etc) and pretend that all the internal oppositions don't exist either (like the wealth gap between citizens, or oppression based on religion, sex, age etc). None of that ever disappears, simply lies dormant and suppressed. And don't give me that property has nothing to do with politics. Suffrage was based on property and participation in politics is still defined by it. Good luck running for president without rich "donors". Or imagine a cop's behavior when he is dispatched to a luxury condo and then to a black slum. Do you really think he'll behave the same way?
And finally, I don't know what oligarchy you are afraid of. The Founding Fathers were the oligarchy. After they declared independence, they made sure that none of the debts owed to their rich buddies were forgiven. Republican legislation by definition is done by the rich for the rich. It doesn't matter if the vote is open or anonymous, the ballot will be filled with rich guys either way. Less than 10% of the population was eligible for vote at the beginning. You think those would care about the rest? That they would make decisions that would benefit the "whole", the big federal "unity"? That sounds like an oligarchy to me. And the poor don't benefit from laws defending private property anyway, only those who actually own anything of value. This was so in ancient Athens, in medieval Italian cities (mafia) and in any modern republic.
This discussion is overlooking that the main reason tech can cause such a massive unemployment disruption/crisis is that these advances are above and beyond in efficiency, costs, productivity, liability... BEYOND HUMAN. The tech advancements (automation take over that is coming) requires a complete rearrangement of the labor (the factory layout, etc) that REQUIRES the absence of human presence to do their tasks. Just YT autonomous factory robots being piloted TODAY... they are IMPRESSIVE.
The driving force of tech innovation is to break free from our human limitations and flaws... the ppl who are at the forefront of these innovations don’t mean to wipe humans out of the labor force, they’re imaginative and creative minds solving existing problems, exploring the boundlessness of their human minds, materializing impossibilities.
I don’t think we can ‘control’ tech advancement in the way being discussed here. Even slowing it down will be a huge regulation endeavor.
Nevertheless, these are important discussions to have. We need to figure out a way to cope w/these changes. Also, we need to plan ahead n look at reimagining our currency and economy...
Look at Sci-Fi shows, books, etc. The only world where tech n humans coexist is where humans don’t need to compete w/tech to have value in society.
@@jean-michellongval6710 Spot on.
Yes and under Socialism that is a good thing. Those jobs that have been completely automated away can now be moved to somewhere that they are needed without having to worry about losing their income, housing, healthcare etc.
More people divided into a smaller number of jobs means we can reduce working hours even more.
@Richard Wolff , if our response to increasing productivity is "Let's all work fewer hours"- as at 27:00, then we lose the chance to build a brighter future with the extra GDP we could produce by having full employment at higher productivity.
There is no shortage of work to be done if we are willing to raise taxes and fund it: schools that need to be built (to replace decaying school facilities inner cities still rely on), hospitals that need to be expanded, homes that need to be constructed (which Universal Basic Income would help fund- by allowing those at the bottom of the housing market to get off the streets if they are homeless, or demand more snd better housing if they are already housed). Scientific Research that needs to be funded- and this is a BIG one, because it has essentially no limit to how many people it can employ (both as scientists, and science support staff- including manufacturing highly-specializrd laboratory equipment) and there is no limit for thousands of years to the discoveries we have yet to make- in Physics, Science, Engineering, the Social Sciences, and Medicine.
Right now, high productivity generates leisure for the Upper Class (early retirement, frequent vacations, stsy-home trophy wives/husbands, etc.) You want it to generate leisure for the working class. But it COULD be used to increase education (occupies labor, while students are at school instead of working), improve healthcare, reduce homelessness (there may be more homes than people- but the homes aren't always where the jobs are: many bustling cities with high employment, such as San Francisco and Boston, face MAJOR housing shortages. An empty house in the Midwest does no good for the homeless family in Boston or San Francisco...) and increase our wealth of knowledge. We can develop cures for diseases we have no cures for yet (and improve existing treatments through research), realize breakthroughs like Nuclear Fusion power production on a large scale (probably 100 years away right now- but with adequate funding we could make that just 50-60 years...), and fight Global Warming.
But all of these initiatives require MONEY- and that money ultimately represents the labor we free up by NOT giving that surplus workforce more leisure, and instead having them provide the labor and produce the resources for other initiatives we don't yet fund...
Ubi is simply going to happen. The question is how long will we put it off? I am voting for Andrew Yang 2020 for president. His policies are spot on and he will institute a Ubi of $1,000 per month for all adults.
UBI will give people more time to rebuild their communities and social lives.
Unless they set some minor conditions like voluntary sterilization or increasing your social credit by spying on your community etc...
Yup. As well as more time to participate in politics if they so choose. People have time to think. Most ordinary people, I'm guessing, would find something productive to do that is meaningful to them.
Agree I believe that people would be able to do work they really want instead of working at a job that pays slave wages!!! Feeling stuck and trapped with low wages. They would be able to be more productive in community as well.
it will give you more time to lay on the couch and consume more capitalist goods.
Zack Andrews UBI is just a patch fix for a larger problem. It doesn’t fix the root problem of automation replacing jobs which is why you want UBI in the first place. It covers up the actual problem and allows it to continue and get worse.
The second half of the video here is more important than the first.
Although I am a great fan of UBI this time I do not agree with Prof Wolff about job splitting / leasure creating. It may work for some jobs only, and it does not account for HRM and management costs for the employer, traveltime and costs for the workers, required skills of the workers, and more. To my opinion the most important advantage of UBI is that it allows people to care more for eachother and their environment, and ultimately to make our society much more pleasant to live in.
Thank you, Richard Wolff. I am understanding more about how the system works--and does not--each time I listen to you.
I was already on board with worker-owned businesses as a way forward, but I had never thought of the argument put forth here. Excellent video, thanks Mr. Wolff
UBI is definitely a good idea to push for. The political reality is it probably won't happen, what that struggle does provide is a growing number of people that find outlets like this. Where they can find the real answer, and one day we will have the numbers to implement it as the system continues to deteriorate.
I agree with you
People can’t change anything, 6000 years history has proven that.
As for introducing UBI, a billionaire capitalist Vinod Khosla once said: “To put it crudely, it’s bribing the population to be well-enough-off,” Mr. Khosla said. “Otherwise, they’ll work for changing the system.” And that's what I'm afraid of - people think UBI is some sort of savior policy but it's capitalism's band-aid a "give them the crumbs, they won't revolt" compromise-like solution. FDR reformed capitalism during depression so much that it resembled Soviet social democratic or even socialist policies but not for some noble, humanist reasons - it was to fend off a similar another October Revolution in US and to block the actual transition to socialism. This is why I'm skeptical about UBI. Who determines the amount of money? What about changing prices? Who controls the process? In what way will lives of people improve? That all seems to me as a friendly capitalism with human face to softy make people forget that the structural change is needed and to give them a comfort food. Many capitalists even some of neoliberal type agree that some sort of UBI would be a good thing. Gee, I wonder why.
After looking for Andrew Yang, I now have feeds about UBI, and videos starting to talk about UBI. Let's do this. Andrew Yang for president. Yang2020.
UBI and worker coops do not have to be in the same discussion and entangled--creating a false choice. They are both good concepts that should be implemented. Use UBI to secure a society. Use worker coops as an incentive to progress and produce.
This!
Michael Poynter a coops as an incentive to progress? Ahaha. Lol why would a excellent business manager or strategist work their ass off if all the other employees are like “nah man you are only getting this much money”.
@@cheese-je9xs The employees all become stakeholders. So, that gives them an incentive to promote the business and offer their ideas to increase it's profitability.
Michael Poynter but their ideas benefits doesn’t disproportionately go to them because it will have to be “fair” and be distributed among all the other workers. The stakes will be so small compared to a salary increase it will keep very little of the incentive as your rewards will be divided among your coworkers and not go to you.
@@cheese-je9xs If we have UBI, then salaries would become irrelevant--and, their work would become an investment in hopes for greater returns. And, if all the other employees are helping the business build a strategy, then they should reap the rewards when that strategy proves to be successful. And, the probability of success will go up when you have more people investing in it's future. Choosing good employee/stake holders would increase the fairness when payments are distributed--because, they were decided to be worth it. Otherwise, you shouldn't hire them.
Karl Marx understood that within a Capitalist system, the only way to have economic justice is to seize the means of production.
Which happens to be one of the best descriptions of Socialism. The workers own the means of production. Not the Government, the workers.
Is it that scary? Or is it worse to think that the means of production and what's to be done with them is the Boss?
Which do you prefer?
Amateur, all that is needed is a subtle progressive tax system (land value tax), subsidised energy with limited patent and copyright rights.
Agreed; however, I believe this to be a good first step.
Joao Faria Go ahead. There’s literally NOTHING stopping you. Pool your resources. Show us evil capitalists how it’s done. If it’s such the superior system, it will happen organically. No need for any “seizure.” Consumers will willingly give the economy to you. We’ll wait....
wouldbegood Wrong. All that’s needed is for the workers to outperform their evil capitalist employers without exploiting their employers’ preinstalled capital.
Everyone is born unemployed. You have to learn a skill before you are employable. Choose that skill wisely if you want to earn a high wage.
My faith has been renewed in this content. He's back on message.
YANG GANG RISE UP SECURE THE BAG
Dear professor, I have some sincere criticisms of your analysis and hope you can provide some additional answers.
1. How do you get to the conclusion that the factory owner can keep half the labor cost for himself? Instead of paying for labor, he has to pay off the machine he bought plus maintenance. After a couple of years he has to buy a completely new one. In any case, the cost of the productivity growth is not zero! Therefore you cannot keep paying every worker the same wage for half the time because the factory owner would then be paying effectively more.
Plus, even if that wouldn't be the case, what motivation would the factory owner have to make the investment in automation in the first place, if he would be off the same as before anyway?
2. Is this supposed to be implemented on a company Level? If so, how would this in the real world work out? Let's assume Autonomous Driving is invented tomorrow and I own Uber. Now I implement the Software in all my cars. What should I do with all my drivers? Should they be working half time in the IT-department? And how long are they being paid? If they quit and start at another company, they would again have to work full time because maybe that industry hasn't automated. Can I still hire new people full time if they want to?
I find this topic highly interesting and I haven't found many people who offered an alternative to MBI or UBI.
I hope you can do another economic update on your concept and how specifically it could be implemented!
Thank you for your work!
Best regards
Another MASTERPIECE speech by Dr. Richard Wolff. Keep up the amazing work DR. WOLFF. PEACE
Happy Birthday Dr. Wolff! I just bought the latest book, Understanding Marxism, which is on SALE at lulu.com today! Thanks for providing your thoughts on UBI.
That last bit about workers not losing anything if they simply allowed the workers they exploit to enjoy their newly afforded leisure time is only true in theory. Unfortunately there is the added pressure of their surrounding colleagues. Whoever takes the more ruthless approach could easily edge them out. The contradictions of capital make it self-destructive, but also self-accelerating.
Professor Wolf, I would love to see you get Andrew Yang on the show!
He looks like a good guy, but doesn't really grasp capitalism and socialism. Professor Wolff supports Bernie.
@@diamantbelallari669 Well not to mention Andrew definitely considers himself a Capitalist but I would still love to see a discussion between these two.
@@cameronbarge3337 I believe that Bernie should get elected and that no such ambiguous candidates should interfere by getting extra attention.
@@diamantbelallari669 That seems silly to me because I am far from convinced Bernie can win given the state of things at the moment. IMHO Yang is going to have much broader appeal among independents and even former Trump supporters. Guess we will have to wait and see how the debates go and whether or not the DNC is going to shoot the country in the foot again.
@@cameronbarge3337 Yeah just like he won in 2016... Being convinced about anything nowadays at times like this is nothing but utter stupidity.
Genuinely asking a big question here and hoping to get a response... Your idea at the end was interesting. If production doubles, work half while keeping same profits. My question is how do you compete against others who dont do that? Especially against people making the same product in another company using the same technogy. For instance, 10 people work 4 hours, are paid for 8 hours, and produce 80 phones in America. Meanwhile, in China 10 people work 8 hours, are paid for 8 hours, and produce 160 phones. In each scenario the workers are paid for 8 hours, but in the American scenario they produce half as much product. This means that the Chinese factory could sell their phones for cheaper. The leisure time is a great idea, but it would come at a great cost when competing with people outside our culture and legislation. Great video, btw, first one I've seen and I plan to watch many more. Definitely subscribing.
WOW!! Professor Wolff, MY teacher! I am lucky❤
Thank you!
Zanga Zeit1776 If Wolff is your teacher, you are lost and will be as useless to society as Marx and uncle Sanders.
Brad Christy good meme
I'm so moved in reflecting how different life could be if progress was benefitting workers rather than leading to layoffs and displacement.
In the next country over the productivity is used to produce double the amount at the same cost. The sale price is cut almost in half undercutting your example factory. Without sales your example factory will go bankrupt.
This is effectively the case with the state-owned companies of the past, which almost never fire employees. This works well only in stable and monopolistic industries where competition is either nonexistent or irrelevant.
"Profit to employer: same as before." Won't fly because quarterly-report greed is so intimately woven into this economic system.
For real just look at Activision being disappointed in the multibillion dollar release of the new COD game. Its never enough for them.
The problem I see with UBI is anyone proposing it is adding it to existing income for the "haves" but eliminate the existing social safety net for the "have nots" including social security which is our money to begin with, not a government subsidy. It would make it too easy to eliminate UBI leaving people who had a small amount with nothing. It should be added to the existing income for the poor and social security recipients lifting them slightly out of deep poverty.
UBI doesn't really aid the poor it bails our their employers once again, doesn't it? Why not make the employers pay a living wage in exchange for labor? Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work? Or is UBI designed to up the GDP so the 01% can exploit even those that don't work? They can up their prices on rent and commodities without paying anyone. And still they pay no taxes, overhead or wages?
What happens in Alaska when that oil is no longer worth anything?
We're not really talking about employers paying a living wage when talking about UBI. We're talking about millions of people being displaced from jobs completely due to continued automation. and, the maturity of AI will replace call center people, doctors, attorneys, long haul truck drivers, etc. this is a much different discussion than just paying a living wage. UBI is about seeing what's coming and hedging the system before it gets here. Allowing people some extra $$$ to figure out a change in their career BEFORE they are displaced. Maybe they go to school, with the extra money, to learn how to be a massage therapist, or a horticulturist. Something that they can do that cannot be, in the short term, replaced by a machine.
Hopefully the pressure of printing more money will inflate away the wealth and create competiton for a generation that built it up through creating 'efficiencies' to the point that the middle class is now a 1/3 the size it once was.
To be fair even if they pay living wages it doesn't address growing unemployment and automation replacement. There simply still wouldn't be enough jobs for everyone to earn a wage. And that was the case BEFORE automation.
@@nolives automation really didn't take our jobs in the US. It was downsizing and offshoring. They found people who would work for less.
@@pathacker4963 all of it plays its parts in rising unemployment and poverty. To say automation doesn't play a part at all though is a bit misinformed.
And considering the projected technological leaps were are supposedly about to embark on it'll definitely become more of a problem as technology and automation progresses.
24:35 But if it is a democratically owned business still work within capitalism, won't the free market favour the coops that fire more of their workers? I know it's the democratic decision, but if 60% of the workers agree to fire everyone else, wouldn't they now be incredibly more efficient than their competitors? They would dominate everyone else. I know it sounds too greedy to be realistic, but it is entirely possible. I think coops can still be corrupted by a profit motive. As long as there is still market capitalism, there is immorality.
Hobby in such “leisure time” could be considered as no risk Entrepreneur development, is a plus to the society.
Wow.... this leisure time would revitalize the travel, hospitality and restaurant industries that are now suffering from the closures due to the corona virus. Great repercussions for children and the family as well. So grateful for your lectures that I just joined Democracy at Work as a supporter !!
The Venezuelans taxed their oil the same percentage that Alaska does for their basic income (17% i believe). This is considered socialism although Alaska is a republican us state 🤔
@@Robofloyo capitalism isnt defined as " a system where you can make as much as you want". Even Austrian economists would laugh at such a dumb definition. Capitalism is defined by privatization of the means of production for personal profit.
And if you don't think automation poses the risk of mass unemployment due to replacement then I think you might have hit a nail on the head with the self depricating "dum dum" remark.
Dear Dr. Wolff,
I have discovered your videos and lectures about a year ago and I've found them to be very informative and educational. Having watched this video, I have a few questions concerning this topic:
1. Is there anything inherently wrong or bad with the idea of UBI? Why can't it be implemented in addition to other solutions?
2. A machine that increases productivity bears a cost. The employer/capitalist would have to invest capital to purchase such a machine. Naturally, his incentive for purchasing such a machine is the potential for the profits he'll make by reducing the labor pool. If there is no potential for profit making and he is forced to distribute the benefits of increased productivity, I don't see the reason why he would invest in a productivity enhancing machine, so the end result will be the status quo - the workers will not acquire leisure time or any of the other benefits of enhanced because the capitalist won't invest in the machine.
How would you address these aspects? Thank you.
"It's not fair! That poor person now feels rich with his latest UBI check! While I, with millions feel no richer at all with MY check! I should get more...LOTS MORE!"
BRAVO another Masterpiece speech by Dr. Richard Wolff. Keep up the amazing work DR. WOLFF.
I so look forward to these episodes, thank you for your important work Proff Wolff!
But under UBI, workers could still choose to work half time if they want to. In fact, they could choose not to work at all and still meet their basic needs. That is why it is called a basic income.
What the world needs is universal basic production, then we'd automatically have UBI!
I somewhat agree, but there is also good reason they dont want to do it. If we were paid a UBI would we work all week? Some would sure, but the rest of us, particularly those critical of the system now have the time and the funds to protest 24/7. Consider the french, would they have stopped protesting all week if they didnt need to buy food to eat? I doubt it.
@@CG0077 wait... Are you saying make people work so they can't argue for a better system? How about we create a better system so people are happy and don't see a need to complain? I think we should start there
@@oneman5753 No, I'm saying that able-bodied people who don't like to work shouldn't expect to eat the fruits of other folk's labors.
what we need is universal self sufficiency. If u cat produce something, u cant survive.
@@MrHigherplane ew. Glad you don't rule anyone but your own house (I guess). Honestly life isn't that cut and dry on anything.
Two things I want to say about what Professor Wolff has mentioned in this video.
First, I think that the reduction in the workforce is much more than the 50% Professor Wolff estimates because I used to work for a company almost 2 decades ago where I saw significant changes in technology that happened over the course of just 4 years. Here is an example: At one time there was a part of this company I worked for that had two separate departments, but ended up becoming one department. The other department consisted of about 6 employees, but was reduced to just one employee, who was then reassigned to the first department. Computer technology had advanced to the point where just one employee could now do the job of an entire department.
Second, it’s not only employees who will suffer due to the lack of job availability due to inevitable technological advances, but also it will eventually have a very negative impact on even the wealthiest of corporations. When people are laid off from jobs they used to work at but aren’t needed anymore, and either end up working at jobs with much lower pay and no benefits, or end up with no job or benefits, this means they can no longer afford the goods and services companies and industries produce. This has happened to some degree as many people live paycheck to paycheck, but so far it hasn’t been a big enough problem to hurt corporations because over the past fifty years, adults have been given greater and greater limits in their credit cards for expenses. But inevitability, this house of cards will fall and companies everywhere will suffer along with the people. The only way to avert disaster is by allowing companies to make a profit, but it can no longer be limitless increases in profits as it will always take all wealth away from those who buy their goods and services. There needs to be a balance that is set that will give companies what they need, which is profit, and it will give employees what they need, which is a sense of purpose in life by having a job, being able to do well in society and have more leisure time. Universal basic income will do just what I’ve described here.
The wealthy het Universal Basic Income from us.
True. One way is that the banks print fiat money for themselves. And then due to the Cantillon effect get benefit from that. You could think of that as a UBI for them.
I love it when two of my favorite public thinkers align on an issue. Douglas Rushkoff also cautions against UBI although he supported it in the past. He says it is simply a “bandaid on extractive corporate capitalism” and a way of “perpetuating our role as consumers at the bottom of the pyramid.”
His change of heart came when giving a talk at Uber. When the problem of self-driving cars came up, the executives voiced support for UBI as an excuse to throw thousands of drivers off their payrolls🤔
Check it out in his own words at the BigThink channel here on UA-cam👀
Happy Birthday Professor!
When I hear politicians speaking about jobs, I go numb. Ever worked over-time and not get paid the over-time pay rate? Employers rip off their workers at every level. Today, I just heard another person confess they're working a 14hr shift with no over-time pay. "The owner doesn't believe in paying overtime." Keep on Dr. Wolff - we need a voice out here!
UBI is marco-intensive, easy to implement and hard to take away.
Collectivization is micro-intensive, hard to implement and easy to take away...
And this means?
KanyeEqualsGreatestOfAllTime stating facts without judgement or interpretation. You get to interpret what that means for you.
@@elsagrace3893 IDK what to make of this
Great episode. Very eye opening. This is something that is overlooked and yet has a huge impact on economic systems...the "psychological" impacts on society.
Very timely and smart
Dr. Wolff please talk about "attrition" in the 70's and the "Paradigm of downsizing: doing more for less" in the late 80's or early 90's. Workers have been forced to do the work of 2 or 3 workers for less than the salary of 1. This practice has caused many health issues due to stress on the "working poor", "service workers". Also important to show how in our society the salaries of workers in the field of human services is so much lower than the salaries of workers in the field of marketing. Show how profits before people is demonstrated here.
Thank you so much for all your educational messages. I am sharing with my family and friends. I live by this: informed mind makes wise decisions!!!
Andrew Yang 2020
THANK YOU for YOUR EDUCATION, PROFESSIONAL, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT INFORMATION!!
IT IS WHAT THE WORLD MUST HAVE!
The problem with the proposed solution is that the capitalist has no incentive to invest in the labor saving innovation if they can't reduce their payroll. So they simply won't buy the new technology.
Alejandro Betancourt the solution to that is public ownership
Roy Roy public ownership will not change that
Another issue with that last example of cutting work days in half: why would the capitalist manager go through the trouble of buying and maintaining the new technology if the profits are going to stay the same? Wouldn't they just keep everyone working the same amount of hours and save themselves the trouble? And again, if this process continues, then people will only have to work 1 hour for the same productivity of 8 hours. So 1 wage hour and then 7 hours of leisure? Seems like UBI will be needed eventually. Yang2020.
He was suggesting a situation where profit isn't the priority as it is all the time and has caused pain.
Agreed on the closing line. To expand on the progressive approach to UBI:
Consider the example at 20 minutes. There's traditionally female work of reproducing community, there's knowledge and artistic work. These are done in a complex, decentralized manner also based on desire for reciprocity, improving one's and each other's conditions. Plus, there's 'positive returns to scale' (see 'Erik S. Reinert - Resurrecting the economic ideas that produced the welfare state' on here). Meaning if you produce more of one thing, it becomes cheaper (time/effort/resources) to produce per item. We reap these gains as a society that manages to coordinate better. Productivity gains that are not any single worker's output but the output of 'land' we made more usable, of the collective infrastructure, of our hopes, our heartfelt efforts and our senses of duty/reciprocity.
A purely reactive UBI (reactive to 'less jobs') ignores that. Meaningful work does not go away today. The above perspective plus an analysis of credit/banks (Steve Keen, Mary Mellor, MMT, etc.), shows us what makes no sense: A 40 hour work week (and up), often for producing trinkets and luxuries for not particularly great people. The more people can see that the more democratic change becomes a possibility.
UBI to me then seems like a needed piece of a foundation for sharing work more fairly. There is no perfect plan of everything, just some things can and should be planned (more). We also need the individual in their social interactions. There's a duty to inform your surroundings of what you think of other people's workings, and there's a duty to carefully consider social input for your own workings.
At the end of the day it's also on us individually to decide what to do, where, how, for who and with who (but not removed from our social experiences). Plus, there's insights and perspectives there that matter. 'Can I satisfy my desire for reciprocity doing what I do? Does this make sense and for who? Does this function? What could be improved to make it function?'
De-emphasize the easy excuses (money, external authority) and we can discover anew community from the ground up and from inside of ourselves. This is about positive freedom ('freedom to') that a UBI could enable (given sufficient size and accompanying change). With responsibility arising from sound reflection on one's own position and surroundings. Good thing the progressive left in Europe with Varoufakis already has a universal dividend in their platform (european green new deal). Does make one hopeful!
Are you familiar with Henry George and a Land Value Tax?
@@wouldbegood Yes, I like the concept but I think Land is an extremely broad thing that includes ideas and the social agreement we call money itself, or at the very least that is super important to consider here. As well as generally unpaid work (that will continue to be unpaid; in fact a lot of community, scientific work might be more fruitful if it were unpaid. Think big pharma developing means to keep people alive but not cured today.).
I didn't read much by him yet but I like the direction Silvio Gesell moved the conversation towards, also in reference to George. I'm all for a land value tax (and doing something about idea rights; probably massive reduction) to anchor the value of something like a demurrage currency.
Thanks Richard, so elegantly explained that anyone can understand it. I wish your insights would become mainstream!
If employers cut everyone’s hours from say 40 hours to 20-25 then yes everyone would have more leisure time but would also make less money. Now if we’re discussing this ALONG w UBI then it would be preferable and more beneficial but do we honestly think most employers would go along w that? Of course not
Another issue is healthcare. We need to do away w private healthcare and relying on jobs for healthcare so that companies don’t have to use it as another reason to ‘cut employees’
You misunderstood him he said cut hours in half but pay them the same. So if you were working 40 hours a week at $15/hour, with more productivity you would work 20 hours at $30/hour
While I admire Prof. Wolff, he doesn't seem to get it. Perhaps because he is biased toward the monetary system. He's always trying to find a way to make it work. He really likes the idea that everyone should work, maybe less hours, but none the less. The fact is, a small percentage of people really need to be working today to maintain a society thanks to technology and scientific knowledge. What we need to do is elevate our culture and infrastructure to the level of said technology and knowledge. No money at all would be needed. We could pack that game up and put it in the closet. No more economists, no more politicians, massively reduced crime, no poverty, no wars, and so on. All we have to do is allow technology to create abundance without notions of debt and servitude.
Agree. Democracy in the workplace is a good first step, but it's not the endgame. I look towards something like a resource-based economy. And more openness with total information sharing and less competition. Competition just produces useless jobs for the sake of survival. In a capitalist system people just need to make money any way they can, even if what they do is not truly productive or efficient. Not a good incentive.
Ayn Rand just rolled over in her grave Dr. Wolff! Excellent lecture, thank you!
A production system that rewards productivity improvements at all levels, individual and corporate based, that provides incentives for all types of rewards, time off, profit, job enhancements, etc. motivate more areas of improvement since all the parties have different desires for what rewards motivate them. Identifying who is providing the productivity improvements and accurately measuring its impact on the bottom line in a trustworthy way is key to making this approach work. It has a balance of competition and cooperation of resources that would allow the best ideas to rise from all levels to produce the maximum benefit to all who contribute.
Thank you Prof. Wolff. These are very good points - and a good solution.
However, this solution does not address the real point of UBI:
Up to half of all work done to keep a "nation" going is not paid for.
It is not paid for because it is undertaken outside of the employer/employee false dichotomy.
UBI addresses that imbalance. It also allows people to choose NOT to enter the false dichotomy.
The employer/employee arrangement is specifically designed to enrich some at the loss of others. It also relies on a market system that enriches the richest and denies those less rich.
This will operate in the same unjust way whether the enterprise is private, government or worker owned. Always to the exclusion of that half of essential work which is ignored by this system.
To take a wider view of our so-called "progress":
Where do you think these technology-driven productivity gains come from?
They come from the non-human world in the form of increasing throughput of energy and resources. These are finite.
In other words - this Earth is paying for our so-called productivity, and that particular bank is about to go bust.
The other large Elephant that very few seem to have noticed in this room called Earth, is money.
Money us used exclusively by humans as if humans are the only thing on Earth.
This is clearly and tragically wrong.
Money operates to subtract humanity from the world.
It is a death-wish.
All proposed solutions that do not take these larger facts into account are a kind of intellectual masturbation.
I do not find it entertaining - you have nothing to give.
It's so abundantly obvious that innovations which create increases in efficiency and productivity ought to be welcomed with open arms but instead most of us fear them because we are clutching our employment like an emergency flotation devise.
How about just cancel money ? what we do need that for? Or just get self governing ideas in our heads and decide together with consideration about everyone's needs .
To serve life is a very technical practical challenge it has noting to do with money , politics, governments . I understand that we all are entangled with that imaginary social game confirmed on papers
Resource Based Economy from The Venus Project. ;)
@@evandrolima1724 Any kind of based economy project from people who gather together in a circle as equals. To get own plan of action, means to have own future.
Anabel Camacho Money is necessary because liquidity is easier to carry than possessions.
Money (fiat currency) helps to facilitate commerce.
We need money to help establish a standard value for financial transactions and trade
Bankers are smart, or at least smarter and more knowledgable than the average person in matters of finance, and they have manipulated the system.
The bankers have systematically changes what money is and how it is used. Technically, US Currency is printed by private banks, almost at will, and is not fully backed by anything (Gold). The dollar is loosely backed by the influence of the US Military machine and the fact that OPEC requires all purchases of oil to be in USD.
You are correct that the moentary system as well as our entire system of government seems illusory and trivial in nature.
Ultimately... it is all about control. I'm not going to get into the specifics but money is actually a means to control/oppress people.
@@greensquare6235 No, Possessions are imaginary concept in ones head.
Illusion that you can own something creates illusion that you can loose, there from comes fear and greed.
I would agree that we need means of measurement of value in terms how much people and time did it took to create something.
Money value are decided by board of directors . Slave owners decide fluctuating price. Money is enslavement tool . If I have money and you don't, then you will do as I will tell you , right?
To measure value of things we count consumed resources and invested human attention by time. That way we make things that could last at least life long.
All those ancient big stone buildings with free energy heating systems hundreds of years old and still working today. was possible build, because was no money.
Money is a value de terminated by big owners and we make things, that designed to brake on time in order to force consumers to buy more.
What you possibly could build if I would change value of 1 meter? sometimes it is 85 cm some times 120 cm.
When money value change, some one some where loose his property to the bank and that is the whole point.
If I lend to the different people $100 000 at the interest lets say 5% I just created $5000 guaranty that some one some where will loose its property to the bank.
So people believe that it is fair game, some one win and some one loose everyone compete against each other ,... except bank which has $5000 from the losers possession. Game is rigged.
Professor Wolff: This was an excellent presentaoution on alternatives to the UBI for handling productivity gains due to technological improvements. However, there are other reasons for implementing a UBI: 1) Wage rates in other countries are lower and the capitalists move the production facility overseas to take advantage of the lower wage rate there. All employees in the U.S. are dumped. 2) Currently the capitalists pay the minimum wage and not one dollar more. An employee starts working at the minimum wage, increases his skills and knowledge generally and specific to that business. The employee is MUCH more productive, but is still paid only the minimum wage: take it or leave it. Sometimes the employer will offer pittance 1% or 2% wage increases for being a faithful employee for more than a year or two. This is not a living wage for a family.
3) I see the UBI as a way to begin taking back from the wealthy capitalists, and to fund it by means of a Wealth Tax on Intangible Assets, closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, and identifying and taxing wealth held overseas in tax havens.
4) In the US, government could function to eliminate imperfections in the system by somehow ensuring a progressive increase in wages above the minimum as the employee became more productive. However, the government has been purchased by the wealthy and only the desires of the wealthy are considered and acted on. I am becoming pessimistic about whether the US can ever be fixed to reduce the magnitude of the difference between the wealthy and the rest of us. It would require a change of heart in the wealthy. Not sure that will ever happen. Do you have any other ideas?
Universal Basic income is needed and will help those in need. However, UBI is a patch and doesnt address the problems of Capitalism. I don't think its a good ideas to give those that don't need UBI a check. It should be limited to those who need it especially since they will use the check to spend back into the system and keep the current imbalanced system going. Its time to change
I agree UBI is needed and it's only a patch, but to be UBI it must be given to everyone. It can't be something that needs a costly administration to determine who is in need of it or not, we already have that in France for example, unemployment benefit, which discourages people to work since they only receive it if they are unemployed.
@@StevieeePeee personally i disagree everyone should get it. I think giving it to a millionaire just for fairness sakes is a ridiculous notion. Its a program thats supposedly to help the poor, not stuff the pockets of the rich even more. The rich already benefit off of ubi because it means more money for consumers to potentially buy their products and largely solidifies many of their monopolies. Thats just my personal opinion.
E G Butler the problem of not enough work for the amount of people is far from exclusive to capitalism. Even if the workplace becomes 100% a democracy like this guy says, that does nothing to the lack of work for the people to do unless unless you just give each person like 30min worth of work and they just sit there the rest of the time which will make the “my job feels pointless” issue 10x worse that it already is. But at the same time you can’t just produce in abundance of everything and give it away for free like full on socialism is because there are some thing that will always be scarce and you can’t just give it away and the things that are not currently scarce will quickly become scarce due to people getting as much as they want. UBI fixes all of this as it allows people that want to continue to work if they want more that the UBI gives them or if they are just simply passionate and keeps people from getting unlimited stuff unless they work for it.
Nothing like an economic update with my coffee in the morning. Cheers.
Having 4 free extra hours per day does you no good if you are still underpaid, that is not leisure, that just gives you more time to get another low paid job!
So grateful for and appreciative of Prof. Wolff who allows all his viewers to take free Econ. classes -- how many of us would be able to afford paying for such courses at a college with the cost of education in the US today I wonder!
UBI + MMT + Infrastructure jobs program, then we can fix the environment quickly.
What does MMT stand for? I've heard a few people reference that but not what it stand for
Guaranteed government jobs with livable wages in America? Good luck with that
Explain government infrastructure jobs program to me. Does government just hire private contractors to do infrastructure? If so, then they are just getting private companies to hire workers that those companies would not have otherwise hired on their own. I assume the government is incentivizing the contractors to do this by paying them more than it would otherwise cost to do the job. That is, if the contractors were not making a profit on top, then there's no reason for them to do it. So this is an example of money flowing from public sector to private capitalists. The only way I could see it being good is if the government manages it completely so a profit is not made but it just breaks even. True?
Shalyn Powell modern monetary theory
@@shalynpowell8603 - Modern Monetary Theory
Professor I do have a question about this excellent alternative that you proposed. While we are trying to have a more equal economy: wouldn't it be unfair if the owner of the new device that allows the workers to produce twice as much be entitled to some of the rewards? Giving those rewards 100% to the workers doesn't seem as egalitarian as possible. Besides, wouldn't the machine or device have a cost of both purchase and maintenance? And what if because of the increased productivity capacities, in time, the employer manages to increase the demand for his product and now needs the workers to again work 5, 6 ,7 or even full day at 8 hours? How would he deal with the resistance of the workers to move from 4 hour days back to 8 hour days? Even with a pay increase some workers would surely protest and hiring more workers would require new benefits packages plus perhaps new HR resources that would more maybe more than double the cost of the doubled labor force?
I am becoming increasingly obsessed with this show. It is brilliant. Please keep it up Professor.
i dont get it. you speak the truth, but people dont care why whyyyy
Why? Because some people want to feel superior, don't have empathy and fear being poor.
Not sure whether or not you live in the USA, but if you don't, then you need to understand how indoctrinated and propagandized the people are. When they're 5-years old, they're told to stand up, cross their hearts, and 'pledge allegiance' to the flag and the country; "one nation, under God" all that nonsense. Hitler Youth never came up with such a great indoctrination tool, and it sinks into people's psyche across their lifetimes. So, they believe that America is God's favorite country, and that America is on a mission from God, and has always been on the proverbial "right side of History." And most of them never question this, nor will they tolerate anyone who does. It's like the worst cult in the world. Only the cynical escape such dogma. =/
They fear change. This type of change in their mind is very radical.
Because we live in a cult of capitalism where we have been so brainwashed....ehh you get the idea
Since the US has recently been a frontier country as little as 170 years ago or so, it has the notion of rugged individualism. Everyone looks out for themselves. The US is a country of winners and losers. Legally, anyone can be a winner and that's what attracts people to immigrate to the US. There is less of a class structure in that sense. But unfortunately in order for there to be winners there have to be losers. (Otherwise what does it mean to be a winner?) And that creates an economic class structure.
Alaska gives everyone a piece of a communally owned resource, the oil taken from public lands. When that runs out, the benefit runs out too.
That's why it should be a Land Value Tax reparation and not just a finite resource reparation.
@@wouldbegood - What does that mean? I understand the vocabulary, but but your use is unclear to me. The Alaskan payments have nothing to do that I can see with land, land value, land value tax, or reparation. So could you please clarify your idea? Thanks To me it's just a state business profits tax, distributed to individuals rather than spent by the state on programs. Alaska doesn't have a lot of infrastructure, few roads etc. so it makes sense that the state just send out checks.
Hi, as far as I'm aware the state would have agreed to a fee or a cut of profits from the extracting companies for the privilege of extraction rights. The voters and government agreed for it to be paid out as a dividend of sorts (I probably shouldn't have used the word reparation).
But a Land Value Tax is basically a tax on all land based on its Land Value with the same possibility of paying out a dividend (UBI) or subsidising government investment and/or other tax cuts. For more information check out Henry George (Georgism).
I feel it is a happy medium between Capitalism/Libertarianism/Communism. The effects could be quite drastic but it could be implemented slowly replacing other taxes and scaled to what ever extent deemed neccessary.
@@wouldbegood - Your language makes zero sense, can't tell if you have no understanding of the issue, or just can't write, or both. Good luck with that. I wonder if you know that the oil companies don't own the land. And please don't reply, I'm muting you so you can go play vid games.
It is quite bizarre the lack of reading comprehension abilities displayed by the commenters of this video. You are not alone so don't feel afraid.
Guys check out Andrew Yang. He was on Rogan's podcast and Breakfast club and elsewhere. He's running for president and the flagship issue he's running on is UBI.
Dr. Richard Wolff is a genius period, we need these kind of people running our government, instead of our crooks and criminals politicain we currently,e have, wake up people do not be stupid. Thank you Dr. Wolff for the excellent presentation.
I just don’t see a company switching to half a work day for employees they feel they don’t need. It sounds nice but I just don’t think businesses will care.
Thank you for covering this topical topic. I would add that the progress towards a shorter work week through the early 20th century stopped during World War II, a few decades before the purchasing power of wages stopped rising too. Those changes occurred for the same reason. Making the dollar the reserve currency in 1944 benefited consumers by reducing the price of imported goods, but the dollar reserve status has also caused us to lose productive capital along with most manufacturing and those jobs.
The words "free trade" invoke a concept of freedom beloved by Americans, but in that our attention is drawn away from the reality that consumers in countries with high wages would not willingly pay higher prices to support labor in their own countries (or any country with higher wages), so free trade weakens the labor market in countries with higher wages. As globalization began to undermine labor more in the US, industrial innovation slowed down dramatically too with the bankruptcy and consolidation of most middle market manufacturers by the 1950s like for example all the smaller American car makers outside Detroit.
Inflation presents itself as a way to have free trade in name only. It is a form of protectionism. While Wall St. remains as profitable as ever through access to low interest rate borrowing, it seems like all the other large economies have been using inflation as protectionism more successfully than the US.
Maybe we could use inflation more productively. Banks only use credit to absorb the rest of the profits from the economy. Public banks might be used to fund more regional innovation centers or give more collectivist business structures like co-ops a chance to determine how to democratize profits to employees most effectively for different types of business.
Look up videos by Guy Standing, Rutger Bergman, and David Graeber for more balanced, less simplistic takes on UBI.
more balanced: see: totally biased in favor of, without presenting any of the critical aspects or alternatives.
Love you Professor Wolff and the DOW team for sharing the knowledge that CAN make the world a better place!
get your eye on the prize. yang 2020!
Thank you so much for your work, Dr. Wolff! And happy belated birthday 🎁
Yang 2020!!
Professor Wolff, as always thanks for taking the time to make these videos and sharing them with us.
This presentation is far too simplistic to the point that it is almost meaningless. Democracy at work is a great idea but there are many obvious situations that this presentation doesn't address. What if the firm next door you're competing with doesn't have democracy? Even if you have two firms that are both 'democratic' they will be forced by the market to compete to subsistence levels. What about competing with foreign firms where democracy is not guaranteed. Let's say you stop that with tariffs. There will then be a natural coalescing of worker coops within an industry until there is a monopoly. Will the workers in the monopoly coop extract rents? They will almost certainly not extract the same rents as if they were a single rich owner because they are connected to the working population but they will certainly extract some rent. Who can say what it will be?
Imagine a worker coop tech company that discovered a way to make a magic machine that could make product/commodity from water for zero cost. They would be able to put every other worker-coop out of business. How is democracy at work going to fix this?
While I agree that mandatory democracy at work (and maximum salary multiplier between lowest/highest paid) would improve the situation eventually the means of production must be publicly owned. It's that simple.
Ben Kavanagh the cooperative economic model should only be meant to exist until we can abolish wage labor, which I think will only happen through mass automation. I think the point introducing this system is to help ease people into socialism and create the necessary infrastructure for full public planned economy to even be possible. How would cooperatives deal with undemocratic competition? Exactly how they do now, cooperatives already exist, a lot of your questions about democracy at work can be learned by examining how existing worker coops handle those issues.
“The workers gain 4 free hours a day.” But their pay is cut in half so now that family now cant pay their mortgage or put food on the table. This is not leisure time this is second or third job time.
But using Yang's main example of truck drivers being g replaced by self driving g vehicles, this solution doesn't work. It would work if the trucks were allowed to travel twice as fast or could carry twice the load. I suppose drivers could still occupy the trucks and be trained to maintain them though?
Yang2020.com
I love how you explained automation solution at 24:00 i would add that if someone dont want to come to work just for 4 hours he/she could work every other day for 8 hours, thats still 4 hpurs approximatly per working day. And maybe automation gets even more effective so the average working time per day could be less than 4 hours, which is a good thing, people would still get same paychecks just like when they worked 8hours because machines are doing much work and they dont need paychecks, maybe repairs occasionally.
I'm all for reducing work hours, but we need a UBI as well. The UBI would provide a safety net for people who lose their jobs, get sick or injured and can't work, for people who have difficulty holding down a job due to developmental disabilities or mental illness, etc. It would give everyone a cushion to fall back on and the peace of mind that goes with it. It would also be good for the economy because everyone with money in their pockets is going to spend it back into the system, enriching everyone whose hands that money passes through.
Good guide to historical background is "Regulating the poor, a history of social welfare'. Fransis Fox Piven and Richard A Cloward. Guy Standing (SOAS) also does work on this.