I agree.. And perhaps David Graeber’s well known “bullshit jobs” essay which also looked at the energies that might be released when people were given the economic possibilities to shape their own time and labour.
Along with the fear that this possibiliy engenders as “the devil makes work fo idle hands”. This might provide one of many starting points for the kind of discussion proposed by Eduard. In Britain before there used to be 
the “jobseeker’s allowance” the name says it all. There used to be the “dole”. It wasn’t much but there was just about enough to create the space that generated a host of initiatives  (“punk” is just one example) that are 
still a source of subversive energy and not so subversive marketing and tourism.

----------------------------------------------
d a v i d  g a r c i a    


One of the interesting aspects of the Basic income discussion is how this topic that originates from morality and social justice has been hijacked by the libertarians, subverting its purpose into yet another way for the haves to exploit the have-nots and at the same time painting neoliberalism with a social-responsible and caring gloss. To me this seems like a prototype of the way neoliberal thought have poisoned society, like the "efficient government" meme as a nice flag (who doesn't want government to be fficient?) to cover for a program to  eradicate government spending that is aimed at thos most in need, except, of course, on subsidies for corporate entities. For libertarians efficiency seems one of the arguments in support of a basic income.

Being so politicised, it may be hard to talk about the substance of Basic Income and its various ways it could be designed. We need to talk about how to change the narrative here. Another aspect might be to look at ways of wedging this concept in that would sidestep the big debate on full scale introcduction with its polarised objectives with Basic Income.

--
Eduard de Jong


David Garcia wrote:
Is it time for Money/Lab to have a candid discussion about the "Basic Income” model.
This was put to the vote and defeated in Switzerland but as automation grows and is now
touching previously "white collar" middle class jobs the impetus accross the political spectrumThat sounds like
is to take this seriously. 

It could be that the economic impediments to implementing this might be substantive as 
well as ideological. Would Money/Lab be a place for a candid examination of the different models being
proposed and what the practical challenges that would be in introducing it.

  
-----------------------------------------------

d a v i d  g a r c i a





On 8 Sep 2016, at 15:09, Ueberschlag Leila <leila.ueberschlag@gmail.com> wrote:

MoneyLab was present at the PeerValue Conference last week in Amsterdam and wrote an article about it called On-Demand Economy: More Regulations and Non-Profits Apps Needed to Build a Fairer Future. 

"Airbnb and Uber have recently been standing center stage in the international media theater. These dominant network platforms linking sellers and buyers bring new challenges to the field of the so-called collaborative economy and raise serious concern in terms of taxation, job security, healthcare insurance or work compensation. “When you get rid of governments but not of corporations, they grow out of control”, said media theorist and best-selling author Douglas Rushkoff."

Read the full article here.

Best regards, 

--
Leila Ueberschlag Intern MoneyLab#3
Institute of Network Cultures
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences | HvA
MoneyLab | 1&2 Dec 2016 | Pakhuis de Zwijger, Amsterdam

_______________________________________________
Moneylab mailing list
Moneylab@listcultures.org
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/moneylab_listcultures.org

_______________________________________________
Moneylab mailing list
Moneylab@listcultures.org
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/moneylab_listcultures.org