back to article Universal basic income is a great idea, which is also why it won't happen

The idea of a universal basic income (UBI) unites a strange mix of people. “We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things,” Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg said in a speech at Harvard University in May. “And yes, giving everyone the freedom to pursue purpose isn’t free. People …

Page:

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: Inflation

      if everyone gets X amount, it'll cause costs of stuff (food, fuel, gas, electric, telecoms, transport, loans, mortgages etc) to increase as people will have more money to pay.

      That belies a basic misunderstanding of economics. In short, you have assumed monopolies (or price-fixing cartels) on all those things, and no competition. Unless, for instance, all food producers decide to increase their prices in unison, the producer that puts their prices up by 10% loses business to all those who do not.

      1. DainB Bronze badge

        Re: Inflation

        Yes, it does, but from your side.

        If you introduce more money into the system they will be absorbed to the point of between income and spending. A very simple example is why homes in areas with high income cost more ? Not because they're better or bigger homes, often it's quite opposite, but because there are money to pay for them.

        Remove money - prices will go down, add more money prices will go up, what remains constant is price to earning ratio in the region.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: Inflation

          What also remains constant is the cost to build, especially the bill of materials. That puts a floor on the price of a house like there's a zero line on the supply curve.

  1. peterm3
    FAIL

    This idea is banded about from different ends of the political spectrum. It could never work as those economically weaker, and with weaker skills who are currently excluded or exploited in the labour market, would similarly be exploited with the cash hand out system. The state would still need to provide social services to these groups who are unable to manage their money to buy the essentials.

    So the poor person gets their handout, an unscrupulous landlord takes half of it, and the reast goes on products from the shopping channel. Food will then still be needed from food banks.

    Much better to have the existing system, but start building council housing again. Get big companies to start paying tax again to pay for it. Simples.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      "Much better to have the existing system, but start building council housing again. Get big companies to start paying tax again to pay for it. Simples."

      But good luck with that. It's MUCH cheaper for them to perform financial shell games to hide or write off their earnings and then ship them off to tax havens. Plus, if they sense loopholes are being closed, they'll take the extreme measure of bribing the government to open them up again. NO tax code on earth TTBOMK has been proof against getting loopholes put in them, even after they get taken out. Even governments can be bullied.

  2. FelixReg

    The world owes me a living ... wage.

    You get what you pay for. Paying people not to work seems an odd thing to do.

    A UBI may be a more honest and transparent alternative to current welfare systems. But it does make governments and taxpayers appear to be bad parents. Hey, kid, "The world does own you a living. Money does grow on trees. There is a free lunch."

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: The world owes me a living ... wage.

      You get what you pay for. Paying people not to work seems an odd thing to do.

      Looking at this form the other angle, is the fact that a rich economy like ours can easily afford to make sure that nobody is without a roof over their head and a meal in their stomach; even the most feckless in society shouldn't be left to starve or freeze to death. At the moment, these safeguards are being provided by charities that struggle to achieve this, which is why we have seen a massive increase in rough sleepers and food bank usage over the last few years. Where I live, there is barely a doorway that doesn't have cardboard and a sleeping bag in it.

      Anything above and beyond supplying those basic needs, sure; work for it. Nobody is advocating a situation where work doesn't pay. Not even Karl Marx.

    2. strum Silver badge

      Re: The world owes me a living ... wage.

      >Paying people not to work seems an odd thing to do.

      <sigh> After umpteen pages of comments, you still haven't understood what we're talking about.

      UBI is not "paying people not to work". It's paying people - leaving them free to work for more (or not, if that's enough for them).

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Unfortunately a 'mad max' economy is preferred by the very same people who would have benefited from UI. Probably due to press brainwashing. Welcome to the new world order- an elite with the money and the rest turned into debt slaves for life.

  4. Christian Berger Silver badge

    The fascinating thing is that we are already there

    Starting in the 1960s, productivity has been high enough so people could work less for the same comfort. That's why German unions have been able to lower the work time per week to 38 or even 35 hours in union shops. (=Mostly car industry)

    We are already seeing more and more "bullshit jobs" which consist of fullfilling artificial buerocracy. We are seing more and more calls from the economy to lower education standards to lower productivity. The best known one is the Bologna-Process.

    The only reason we don't have universal basic income probably are neoconservative think-tanks like the Mont Perelin Society.

  5. Packet

    UBI to me begs the questions: "where does this money come from? Who dispenses it?"

    Answer: the government from tax revenues / nationalized industry the products of which it sells (mostly outside its border to a non UBI state or perhaps locally if it's just more than break-even.

    Basically, comes down to a government / state controlling everything you do - and the gradual erosion of personal choices and liberties as they're seen to be at a higher cost, etc.

    No, thank you - I refuse to live in such a dystopian world.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Well, you eventually either get governments controlling your lives (a la what you describe) or you get businesses controlling your lives (a la the Sprawl, Shadowrun, etc.). Pick your poison.

    2. Christian Berger Silver badge

      "Basically, comes down to a government / state controlling everything you do - and the gradual erosion of personal choices and liberties as they're seen to be at a higher cost, etc."

      Which is exactly what's happening in countries with a "free market". A "free market" usually leads to less competition as competitors will simply cooperate or merge to get around competition.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        IOW, the problem with capitalism is that it naturally tends toward a winner, much like at a poker tournament.

  6. Bob Dole (tm)
    FAIL

    UBI == death of all capitalism

    The cost of most goods and services in western countries is based on the desire of the goods and the ability of the people to pay for it.

    For example, when minimum wage increases, there are nearly immediate raises in the cost of housing. Every single time the minimum wage goes up parity is reset and the outcome is that things become more expensive and literally no one moves forward.

    UBI is the same thing. Sure, it sounds nice to just give everyone an extra $50 or $500 a month. Certainly the work landscape is changing - just like it has always changed as humanity finds new ways of doing things. However, the net result is that the price of things will rise to meet the new availability of cash.

    The only way to make this work is if the national government institutes price controls on pretty much everything at the same time. However once that happens you basically lock in everyone at their current wage tier.

    Essentially - instituting UBI is a way for the takeover of the modern western world. If I were rich I'd absolutely want to see it happen. If I were poor I'd likely be too dumb to realize the chains it would place on me.

    1. foo_bar_baz

      Re: UBI == death of all capitalism

      Not sure which part of the world you’re from, but UBI is not extra income. It just replaces the complex benefit structures in place already. In fact in places where it’s being trialled it’s actually less than job seekers’ allowance, with the absence of disincentives to work.

      Forumites == ignorant arm chair philosophers.

      1. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

        Re: UBI == death of all capitalism

        @foo_bar_baz

        Where is UBI being trialled? Which Govt gives all it's citizens, (now, that's _all_ it's citizens, to comply with the U part of UBI), UBI? (I'm excluding the Oil rich state of Qatar from the list of possible candidates, for obvious reasons)

    2. strum Silver badge

      Re: UBI == death of all capitalism

      >For example, when minimum wage increases, there are nearly immediate raises in the cost of housing.

      You have evidence for this assertion, I suppose? Oh. Thought not.

  7. Drew Scriver
    Meh

    To try new things...

    One of the keys to understanding the fallacy of UBI is Zuckerberg's statement that "“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things."

    How many people would actually "try new things"? Sure - I few would. But most people in the western world already have the opportunity to do this. Libraries offer free books to read, countless organizations offer free volunteer opportunities, and there are virtually unlimited free courses (even at a college level) available to anyone with an internet connection.

    The vast majority of people have the time and opportunity to pursue these options but chose not to engage.

    In reality, UBI will enable even more people to simply spend their time to watch commercials (occasionally interrupted by TV programs) and, of course, spend more time in the echo chamber of Facebook. Also,

    UBI might work if society were stripped of non-essentials and everyone pulled together to provide the essentials. That's been tried before and while it seems to work on a small scale (e.g. communes, kibbutzes, Amish communities) it doesn't scale up well.

    Human nature just doesn't seem to be compatible.

  8. Steven Guenther

    UBI and Open Border are both bad ideas

    UBI and Open Border are both bad ideas but they work REALLY BAD TOGETHER.

    IF you have a small, well educated, homogeneous society, (like Silicon Valley) you might get away with it. But when you try to do it in south Texas or someplace with loads of border crossers that have no education and no stake in the society. It will quickly become untenable.

    How long does a person have to be in the country to get the UBI? Do they have to stay in the country to continue getting it (can retirees spend some time in Mexico?) ?

    Get a constant flow from South America, signing up for the benefits and heading home.

    Maybe we could add all of China and India to the benefits list if Mexico is not crippling enough.

  9. Ellis Birt 1

    UBI is great for the "third sector"

    The so-called third sector would be the big winners.

    Currently, doing charity work can lose you your JSL.

    With UBI, you could afford to choose to do voluntary work, much of which would be supporting our over-stretched public services.

    Society as a whole could be much better off under UBI.

    Even being a representative for your neighbours in your local council or the House of Commons could be a voluntary role without lack of wealth being a bar to entry.

    1. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

      Re: UBI is great for the "third sector"

      @Ellis Birt 1

      "Currently, doing charity work can lose you your JSL."

      You simply have to be available for a job interview at 48 hours notice, and to be able to take a job at two weeks notice, and you can claim Job Seekers Allowance and do charity work. It's just that you cannot turn down jobs using the excuse that it will affect your charity work. How you get treated at the job centre really centres around how they perceive your genuine intent to find work. When I signed on after VR, they were really accommodating, offering me training and advice on starting my own business, signing on fortnightly. Some people there were reporting in daily.

  10. G Mac

    I see no mention of Speenhamland, a form UBI

    It was tried a couple of hundred years ago in the UK. It was a form of rural poverty relief, but in the end caused employers to use the payment as a subsidy, which I suspect would happen with a UBI.

    A better solution in my view is a Job Guarantee is a better. It puts a floor under wages, gives people a chance to have meaningful employment (whatever that may be), and alleviates the problem of employers not wanting to employ the short/long term unemployed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee

    1. Cynic_999 Silver badge

      Re: I see no mention of Speenhamland, a form UBI

      "

      A better solution in my view is a Job Guarantee is a better. It puts a floor under wages, gives people a chance to have meaningful employment (whatever that may be), and alleviates the problem of employers not wanting to employ the short/long term unemployed.

      "

      And exactly where do all these "meaningful jobs" come from?

  11. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

    Next step for welfare

    The push for UBI as an 'income' appears to be coming from people currently living under the restrictions of welfare systems. We have programs to supplement or replace poor or no income. But these benefits are provided with conditions. EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer, a kind of debit card loaded by the state) comes with restrictions on what sorts of goods can be purchased with them. No booze. And in Washington State, no pot. And these rules are frequently being gamed by beneficiaries. For example: Buy large quantities of permitted commodity goods that can be traded around the corner for whatever.

    Housing assistance often comes with rules. Shelter provided outright is often conditional upon restrictions against drugs, alcohol and disruptive behavior. Which is one reason many of these people just move back to tents under the freeway off-ramps.

    Handing money to people as an 'income' removes these behavioral restrictions. And gives the recipients cash to use in the black markets (unlike EBT). If you really need to feed your kids, we have a system set up for that. If it's 'income', it may very well be spent on heroin and people will still end up sleeping in doorways if it doesn't make it t the end of the month.

  12. Cynic_999 Silver badge

    Feeling useless:

    From the article:

    "

    “A lot of people derive their meaning from their employment. So if there’s no need for your labour, what’s your meaning? Do you feel useless? That’s a much harder problem to deal with.”

    "

    This supposes that the only way a person can feel useful is if they are working for someone else in return for money. I can assure you that it is perfectly possible to feel extremely useful by doing work that benefits yourself, your family and your friends. Try it, and you'll find that watching the kids playing on the swings etc. that you spent 10 hours making on your own is far more satisfying than watching a box of widgets that you helped 20 other people make for your employer getting loaded onto the delivery lorry. The happy smiles that the kids reward you with are worth far more than the £15 an hour your employer rewards you with.

  13. Dr. Ellen
    FAIL

    UBI is not a good idea.

    There is an old saying: "Idle hands are the devil's workshop." I don't know if that's one of the official Gods of the Copybook Headings, but it should be. Busy people, people with a job, don't have time to cause trouble. (Politicians and bureaucrats don't count there.) People who have nothing useful to do, will do SOMETHING. Some on the UBI will sit there watching TV. Some will be busily making more people to go on UBI. Some will discover an interest in painting and literature, or perhaps invention. And a lot of the rest will make trouble. Multi-generational welfare is not a pretty sight, and that is, at heart, what UBI would be.

    1. foo_bar_baz

      Re: UBI is not a good idea.

      And this is different from people on the dole, how?

  14. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    IT Angle

    UBI is the future

    So long as we can prise those offshore millions into the tax system.

    Putting it simply in my case, a UBI would allow me to quit my unloved job and sign on with the local university and finally finish my degree, and then I can go on and try things I might to try my hand at before Mr Grimm turns up to see me about some reaping.

    With UBI , you'd see the end of crummy employers treating their min wage workers as disposable scum, why, because they'd be able to go and find other low skilled work where the employers treat them as human beings.

    As for most people, we all want a better tv/car/holiday/house so we'd carry on working regardless, however with UBI , employers would only have to pay people like me £10k a yr instead of £25k

    But as with all wonderful ideas to make the people happy, it falls over for exactly the same reason as pure capitalism or communism falls over... human nature and its desire to grab more resources for the individual regardless of other people

    1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: UBI is the future

      "Haman nature" is a very malleable thing, it's not frozen forever:

      "To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough."

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: UBI is the future

      "With UBI , you'd see the end of crummy employers treating their min wage workers as disposable scum, why, because they'd be able to go and find other low skilled work where the employers treat them as human beings."

      There's nothing stopping those workers doing that now except the lack of sufficient better employers. I can't see why UBI should improve that situation.

    3. Jaybus

      Re: UBI is the future

      "As for most people, we all want a better tv/car/holiday/house so we'd carry on working regardless, however with UBI , employers would only have to pay people like me £10k a yr instead of £25k"

      Perhaps, but I can see another possibility. Many will take their UBI and be done with it, preferring to spend their time loitering about. Demand for jobs should not likely decrease, at least not due to UBI, but supply of willing and halfway reliable workers will certainly decrease. The result is an increase in pay for those actually willing to work. That is to say, those who are willing to work for large companies. The cost is highly increased taxes, which further increases the number of people willing to take the UBI and simply quit trying. The end result is a greatly increased income disparity, both for individuals and businesses, with small business eventually becoming infeasible.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why do all the right wing loonies have those odd looking gold indicators?

    Is it so we can easily skip their posts?

  16. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    FALC will win...

    Fully Automated Luxury Communism, that is:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/18/fully-automated-luxury-communism-robots-employment

    If anything, UBI is a just a new version of the sop to the working class that the welfare state is/was, and is likely to be introduced to stop any nascent popular uprising against the 0.001%.

  17. Charles 9 Silver badge

    The biggest flaw in any kind of UBI is the human condition, plain and simple.

    Just as communism was too utopian a vision, so too is this. It can't stand up to the simple truth that people WILL cheat, and when one cheats, so will more until it collapses under the weight. Plus there's no real way to stop the cheaters because any measure you take to stop cheating can itself be cheated (because in the end there WILL be a human element to it; even robots have a human behind it at some point).

    Sadly, the human condition means we blind ourselves to the reality we're entering Cold Equation territory: as in, barring a deus ex machina, there's no happy solution to the problem (for those who disagree, get twelve people to survive a week in the desert on just two liters of water). One way or the other, the likely outcome is some sort of population crash: be it by natural or manmade means. The blindness comes from the fear we'll be one of the casualties; it goes against our survival instinct.

  18. Seajay#

    Great idea but..

    That's usually people's response. I disagree. The only time it's a great idea is if your problem is "The world is way too rich. How can we possibly share out this bounty?" and that's not our problem. If all we had to do was feed ourselves we'd be in that position, producing as much food as anyone could want cheaply is pretty much solved. But we also have to provide healthcare. Trying to prevent mortals from dying can always absorb as much money as you can throw at it without ever being solved.

    If we're not too rich then the fundamental problem with UBI is that it spends a mindblowing amount of money while actually making the most needy worse off. If you try to solve the 'making the needy worse off' problem by running a parallel means-tested system then you still have most of the problems of UBI but now you get none of the simplification benefits.

    It's a very appealing idea, I get that. But it just doesn't work, even in theory and that's before you start to get in to fraud, etc.

  19. Zakhar

    Homo Sapiens is obsolete

    I'm startled nobody talked about that in the comments.

    That is the real issue behind this UBI idea.

    We have had revolutions: the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, but the next revolution ("digital") jeopardizes what makes the difference between homo sapiens and the other living creatures: intelligence.

    A.I. boffins speak of an inflexion point called "the singularity". It is the point where the machine will outsmart mankind. Knowing that IQ progresses very slowly (if any at all) and that machines still more or less follow Moore's law, this "singularity" is said to be between 25 to 50 years in the future.

    At this point, what will the society do with all those obsolete person?

    Of course there are other alternatives than UBI, but that scares me even more!

    For those who understand French, I can recommend the speech Laurent Alexandre gave at the 2017's USI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3WOPKNvbt8

    His alternative is transhumanism.

    Frankly, having a chip inside my brain is not what I would vote for when we discover everyday the dark actions happening all around, the last one being Intel stuffing a spyware in every CPU...

    So pick you choice, between having my brain "enhanced" by Intel/Google or UBI, I'll vote UBI.

    Welcome to the scary future!

    1. foo_bar_baz

      Re: Homo Sapiens is obsolete

      We are already augmented, without having our brains chipped. I’m communicating with a person I’ve never met, and can exchange ideas with the touch of a few buttons.

      Forget about imagining the future. Stop for a moment to look at right now.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Credit Agency Says No

    As far as people like Moody's are concerned: It's welfare... The UK would get "ZZZ" rating. Credit Agency ratings are based on flawed economic theory - their assesments drive globalisation and the inexorable flow of "Wealth" from the 99% to super rich corporations and individuals, to be hidden, tied up, the source and destinations obfuscated. The ludicrous thing is; since the loss of the gold standard, the value which money represents is even more imaginary. I favour UBI because printing money for bankers to "Trickle down" has been proven to not work - money ends up tied up in savings and investments globally to advantage the 1%. As a country wide method to stimulate activity, it's a much more potent tool.

  21. TheHangingJudge

    Make the unemployed useful

    Instead of UBI, why don't we immerse the unemployed in liquid-nutrient-filled capsules, link their brains up to Facebook to keep them occupied and harvest their electrical energy to run server farms?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Make the unemployed useful

      Ah, the ducet politics of engineered scarcity doing what it's meant to do... demonise the poor like they possess nothing of value to offer humanity but death, near enough. You are something because they are nothing, remember that.

  22. J J Carter Silver badge
    Boffin

    That woman!

    Take it from me, anything Scottish greens and the SNP support is guaranteed to be a load of shiite.

  23. John Robson Silver badge

    Tax increase?

    So the current Scottish welfare budget is £20b, and this would cost £28bn.

    Given a UBI, do we still need a 'tax free' earnings band? If you simply drop all the thresholds by £11.5k then....

    Quick browse suggests 2.5million people are employed in Scotland - let's assume they all earn £11.5k or more (the current tax free allowance)...

    That's 20% of that 11.5k that they'd pay in tax - a little under £6b of the deficit is instantly recovered.

    Of course there are a number of people on higher levels of tax - for whom the marginal tax rate would be higher - if 30% of the population earns over £33.5k then you already have the £8bn needed (and there will be a smaller proportion whose marginal tax rate is higher still).

    This assumes:

    - Sanity (with the UBI replacing tax free allowances).

    - No reduction in benefit fraud

    - No reduction in benefit administration costs

    It also ignores targeted benefits (e.g. disability living allowance etc)

    So yes, it would cost a little more, but I don't think this is as costly an option as people make out...

    1. CommanderGalaxian

      Re: Tax increase?

      "Given a UBI, do we still need a 'tax free' earnings band?"

      No you don't. The Personal Allowance goes. The author and his source seem to be ignorant of the mechanics of UBI.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-missing-half-of-the-equation/#more-98905

  24. Woeful

    UK UBI

    In the UK, if you are out of work, the government gives you cash, jobseekers allowance, about £3.8k a year.

    If you in work, you effectively get cash through your personal allowance, at your top tax rate, betweeon 20% and 45%. The jobseekers allowance amount of £3.8k is 33% of the standard personal allowance.

    So, rename the jobseekers allowance a UBI, give it to everyone and get rid of the personal alalowance.

    Gets a UBI in place, and has no great financial effect. It does, however, save some costs of administering the jobseekers allowance and personal allowances, benefits those in lowly paid employment at the expense of those paying higher tax rates.

    It also, if you are on the left, removes the stigma of those unfortunates stuck on benefits or, if you are on the right, means that lazy people sponging off the state have more incentive to go to work: their income is more likely to rise if they get a job.

    1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      Re: UK UBI

      "In the UK, if you are out of work, the government gives you cash, jobseekers allowance, about £3.8k a year."

      No they don't.

      If you are unemployed, and you sign on and agree to a job search agreement, where you agree to spend many hours a week searching for and applying for jobs, and confirm this with proof every two weeks, then you will get an electronic funds transfer to your bank account of about £3.8k a year.

    2. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

      Re: UK UBI

      @woeful

      "So, rename the jobseekers allowance a UBI, give it to everyone and get rid of the personal alalowance."

      Er,... so take money off earners via taxation, and give it back to them? What? This is preposterous. It's admin crazy. If you'd said 'adjust the personal allowance to match UBI payments' that would be less admin overhead, but what you've proposed in essence is simply taking more money off taxpayers to give to the unemployed. How does that solve anything, exactly?

      1. John Robson Silver badge

        Re: UK UBI

        "Er,... so take money off earners via taxation, and give it back to them? What? This is preposterous. It's admin crazy"

        It's really not.

        It means that everyone gets one payment (that is therefore utterly trivial to administer) and employers have a slightly simple bit of arithmetic to do when they do the PAYE calculations (because a significant number of employees will be on a single tax rate rather than two tax rates, one of which is zero).

        It also means that there is no question about whether employment will improve your financial situation - it clearly will, because you don't lose the UBI when employed.

  25. CommanderGalaxian
    Mushroom

    The author needs to do some decent fact checking of his sources.

    'Based on Scotland’s demographics, Young reckons that a £50/£100/£150 UBI would cost £28bn annually. “That’s almost the entire devolved budget..."

    Complete and utter bollocks. That sort of nonsense cost has already been well debunked. Once the savings of not having to pay benefits and increased tax take are netted off - the additional cost comes in at more like £3bn.

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-missing-half-of-the-equation/#more-98905

  26. VivM

    Incommensurable units

    On the point that UBI will mean 'no one will have the incentive to work hard to get ahead', I would suggest that you look at how pensioners live - that is a good demographic to provide a 'lab' to observe. There are some who get depressed and do nothing but watch daytime TV, but there are plenty of others who get involved in the community or in hobby clubs and feel they are doing more, and more good, than they ever did in their jobs.

    On the point that costs will rise to meet this new source of income from the taxpayer, yes that will negate the whole point of it.

    We have to take away the question: where is the money going to come from?

    It seems to me that the only way to do it, to eliminate homelessness and hunger in our country - and they are an obscenity if we are to consider ourselves at all civilised - is to separate the citizens' entitlement from the free market, and that means providing the UBI in units that are incommensurable with money. Units such as calories, kilowatt-hours and megabits per second - yes, the beancounters can do their sums as a hobby but leave them out of it. It would then become an extension of the voluntary sector, and people can choose to divide their time between the public (voluntary) sector and the private sector which can still be as rampantly capitalist as you like.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019