614 stories
·
34 followers

Livable vs Non-Livable Basic Income

1 Share

A low basic income that destroys welfare-based solidarity mechanisms, could have very negative consequences.

An important warning from Shannon Ikebe:

“Considering the fundamentally different political implications, a basic income above and below the level of a livable income should be treated as different proposals. We could call them a livable basic income (LBI) and a non-livable basic income (NLBI).

Could an NLBI still be a significant improvement over the status quo, even if it is not as transformative as an LBI? It entirely depends on the source of its funding and other associated measures.

If the money for an NLBI comes from taxing the 1 percent or cutting prison or military expenditures, it is clearly positive. For example, Matt Bruenig and Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig call for a $3,000-a-year basic income that would be financed by raising taxes on the rich and reducing the “submerged welfare state for the affluent” — a robust redistributive measure even if it doesn’t lead to a radical post-work transformation of society.

But it should not escape our attention that an NLBI is very similar to the negative income tax (NIT) favored by libertarian economists, including Milton Friedman. An NIT simply means that those who make less than a certain income threshold receive money back from the government instead of paying any income taxes. Friedman argued that after instating an NIT, you could eliminate all other existing welfare programs, reducing bureaucracy and market interference.

More recently, the libertarian political scientist Charles Murray has proposed an annual unconditional grant of $10,000 for every adult and scrapping the rest of the welfare state, including Social Security and Medicare.

Even if a basic income is not introduced as a libertarian scheme, financing it by eviscerating other social policy or public investment programs (or through non-progressive taxes) would likely have a negative redistributive effect, without increasing the scope of freedom.

In a political context in which the Left is on the defensive, such an outcome is not unlikely. The Swiss proposal advocates for a considerably higher and livable 2,500 francs per month — and its proposed text for the constitutional amendment states a basic income should “enable a dignified existence” for the entire population — but the vast majority of parliamentary members bitterly oppose the social movement–led plan. In Finland, it’s a center-right government that’s proposing the multiple options up for consideration, with different levels of income and funding sources, containing both progressive and reactionary possibilities.

Even if the Left had sufficient political power to win a progressive NLBI, it is far from clear it should be our primary demand. We still need better-funded and free higher education, massive investment in green infrastructures and energy sources, and the restoration and expansion of decimated social policy programs, just to name a few priorities.

A basic income’s universalism and lack of means testing is certainly significant, as van Parijs emphasizes. He argues we should aim for a “basic income at the highest level that is economically and ecologically sustainable,” whether it’s a livable amount or not. On the other hand, a basic income may not be fiscally compatible with an expansive welfare state under the conditions of capitalism.

For feminist economist Barbara Bergmann, even a below-livable basic income would undermine a Swedish-style welfare state — the kind of welfare state that may contribute more to social and gender justice because of its targeted focus on socializing social reproduction. While a basic income would compensate those who spend countless hours doing unpaid reproductive labor, men who don’t engage in reproductive labor would receive the same amount.

The fundamental dilemma of a basic income is that the more achievable version — in which basic needs go unmet without supplementary paid employment — leaves out what makes it potentially emancipatory in the first place. Indeed, many commentaries cite basic income experiments to argue it does not significantly reduce work incentives.

This contradiction is directly tied to the fact that a basic income only addresses the question of distribution, while ignoring that of production. The kind of freedom from work — or freedom through work, which becomes “life’s prime want” — that an LBI envisions is, in all likelihood, not compatible with capitalism’s requirements of profitability.

The dramatic strengthening of working-class power under a robust LBI would sooner or later lead to capital disinvestment and flight, since capital can only make profits through exploitation and won’t invest unless it can make a profit. But slowing production would undermine the material basis of an LBI.

The only way out is to continue producing even if one can’t make a profit. Thus, an LBI would sooner or later force onto the stage the age-old question of the ownership of means of production.

Despite all these shortcomings, a basic income remains one of the few concrete proposals with emancipatory potential that is gaining mainstream attention and support. Especially in a period of left weakness, we should not dismiss it or disengage from discussions about it simply because a UBI throws up numerous challenges.

It is most politically powerful as a demand — a demand that exposes the irrationality of an economic system in which productivity increases seem to bring more unemployment and misery instead of the expansion of freedom they make possible.

In addition, it is not inconceivable that even an NLBI could constitute a first step in a longer-term strategy toward an LBI, forming an institutional infrastructure that could be expanded when the balance of class forces is more favorable. And the very presence of a basic income could help highlight the arbitrary link between “work” and income.

But when it comes to basic income proposals, the details matter. Supporting any plan that seems politically attainable and bears the name “basic income” isn’t a strategy for winning radical change. In the end, there is no feasible way to achieve a free society, or even one close to it, without challenging the power of private capital.”

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditShare

The post Livable vs Non-Livable Basic Income appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Read the whole story
afita
10 days ago
reply
Cluj-Napoca, România
Share this story
Delete

How to rollback an apt-get upgrade if something goes wrong on a Debian or Ubuntu Linux

1 Share

 Nixcraft: Rolling back to the previous version may solve the problem or free the disk space.

Read the whole story
afita
18 days ago
reply
Cluj-Napoca, România
Share this story
Delete

What are good web server benchmarking tools for Linux

1 Share

As far as web server performance is concerned, there are many different factors at play, e.g., front-end application design, network latency/bandwidth, web server configuration, backend caching, raw hardware capability, server load of shared hosting, etc. To compare and optimize web server performance under such a wide array of factors, we often perform load test (or […]
Continue reading...

The post What are good web server benchmarking tools for Linux appeared first on Xmodulo.

Read the whole story
afita
45 days ago
reply
Cluj-Napoca, România
Share this story
Delete

What is RDMA, and why should we care?

1 Share

DRBD9 has a new transport abstraction layer and it is designed for speed; apart from SSOCKS and TCP the next generation link will be RDMA.

So, what is RDMA, and how is it different from TCP?


The TCP transport is a streaming protocol, which for nearly all Linux set ups means that the Linux Kernel takes care to deliver the messages in order and without losing any data. 1  To send these messages, the TCP transport has to copy the supplied data into some buffers, which takes a bit of time. Yes, zerocopy-send solutions exist, but on the receiving side the fragments have to be accumulated, sorted, and merged into buffers so that the storage (harddisks or SSD) can do its DMA from continuous 4KiB pages.
These internal copy functions moving into and out of buffers cause one of the major bottlenecks for network IO, and you can start to see the performance degradation in the 10GBit/sec performance range, it continues to severely limit performance from there on up.  All these copy functions create and cause higher latency, effecting that all important IOPS number.  We talk about this in our user guide: Latency vs. IOPs.


In contrast to that, RDMA gives network hardware the ability to directly move data from RAM in one machine to RAM in another, without involving the CPU (apart from specifying what should be transferred). It comes in various forms and implementations ­(Infiniband, iWarp, RoCE) and with different on-wire protocols (some use IP, can therefore be routed, and so could be seen as “just” an advanced offload engine).

The common and important point is that the sender and receiver do not have to bother with splitting the data up (into MTU-sized chunks) or joining it back together (to get a single, aligned, 4KiB page that can be transmitted to storage, for example) – they just specify “here are 16 pages of 4kiB, please store data coming from this channel into these next time” and “please push those 32KiB across this channel“. This means real zero-copy send and receive, and much lower latency.

Another interesting fact is that some hardware allows splitting the physical device into multiple virtual ones; this feature is called SR-IOV, and it means that a VM can push memory pages directly to another machine, without involving the hypervisor OS or copying data around. Needless to say that this should improve performance quite a bit, as compared to cutting data into pieces and moving them through the hypervisor… ;)


Since we started on the transport layer abstraction in 7d7a29ae8 quite some effort was spent in that area; currently we’re doing a few benchmarks, and we’re about to publish performance results in the upcoming weeks – so stay tuned!

Spoiler alert: we’re going to use RAM-disks as “storage”, because we don’t have any fast-enough storage media available…


Read the whole story
afita
51 days ago
reply
Cluj-Napoca, România
Share this story
Delete

How to properly background a process in Linux

1 Share

If you’re like me, you find yourself running processes every now and then that don’t have init scripts and simply remain active in your session. One common example of that would be a Minecraft server manually launched via SSH/console. Something you’ve probably run into is that the process is killed once your shell session ends. A common answer to this is to use “screen” but that isn’t really the standard “Linux Admin” way to do it.

So for this short tutorial, I would like to show you how to background and disown a process so that it continues to run even when you log out.

In my example, I’m using the Caddy web server which doesn’t include it’s own init script. I’m executing it as root like a bad admin, I trust you to make good decisions :)

First, start your process with the & symbol after it to start a job like this:

root@gw:/home/jarland/bin# ./caddy –conf=”/home/jarland/conf/jarlandme” &

Next, if you press Enter you will see that you are back at your regular prompt and that the process is still running. Take a look at the jobs running in the foreground with this command:

jobs -l

It should look something like this:

root@gw:/home/jarland/bin# jobs -l
[1]+ 9983 Running ./caddy –conf=”/home/jarland/conf/jarlandme” &

Now let’s disown the job with this command:

disown

If you were to run “jobs -l” again you would see none. The process has been kicked to the background and disowned. You can log out, it will remain running. Easy, right?

There are of course many more details to this and variations on ways that you can use it, but this is the shortest path to accomplish the goal using the proper tools.

Read the whole story
afita
52 days ago
reply
Cluj-Napoca, România
Share this story
Delete

tar xf

1 Share
Read the whole story
afita
53 days ago
reply
Cluj-Napoca, România
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories