I'd like to start with a simple question: Why do the poor make so many poor decisions? I know it's a harsh question, but take a look at the data. The poor borrow more, save less, smoke more, exercise less, drink more and eat less healthfully. Why?
Želio bih započeti jednostavnim pitanjem: Zašto siromašni donose toliko loših odluka? Znam da je pitanje malo grubo, ali pogledajte podatke. Siromašni više posuđuju, manje štede, više puše, manje vježbaju, više piju i manje zdravo se hrane. Zašto?
Well, the standard explanation was once summed up by the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. And she called poverty "a personality defect."
Pa, uobičajeno objašnjenje jednom je sažela bivša britanska premijerka, Margaret Thatcher. Nazvala je siromaštvo "manom ličnosti."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
A lack of character, basically.
U osnovi, nedostatkom karaktera.
Now, I'm sure not many of you would be so blunt. But the idea that there's something wrong with the poor themselves is not restricted to Mrs. Thatcher. Some of you may believe that the poor should be held responsible for their own mistakes. And others may argue that we should help them to make better decisions. But the underlying assumption is the same: there's something wrong with them. If we could just change them, if we could just teach them how to live their lives, if they would only listen. And to be honest, this was what I thought for a long time. It was only a few years ago that I discovered that everything I thought I knew about poverty was wrong.
Siguran sam da je malo vas koji biste bili toliko izravni. No, zamisao da nešto nije u redu sa siromašnima nije svojstvena samo gđi. Thatcher. Neki od vas možda vjeruju da bi siromašni trebali biti odgovorni za vlastite greške. A drugi tvrde da bismo im trebali pomoći da donose bolje odluke. No, u biti je pretpostavka ista: nešto s njima nije u redu. Kad bismo ih samo mogli promijeniti, kad bismo ih samo mogli naučiti kako da žive svoje živote, kada bi samo slušali. I da budem iskren, ovako sam i ja razmišljao vrlo dugo. Prije samo nekoliko godina sam otkrio da je sve što sam mislio da znam o siromaštvu -- pogrešno.
It all started when I accidentally stumbled upon a paper by a few American psychologists. They had traveled 8,000 miles, all the way to India, for a fascinating study. And it was an experiment with sugarcane farmers. You should know that these farmers collect about 60 percent of their annual income all at once, right after the harvest. This means that they're relatively poor one part of the year and rich the other. The researchers asked them to do an IQ test before and after the harvest. What they subsequently discovered completely blew my mind. The farmers scored much worse on the test before the harvest. The effects of living in poverty, it turns out, correspond to losing 14 points of IQ. Now, to give you an idea, that's comparable to losing a night's sleep or the effects of alcoholism.
Sve je počelo kad sam slučajno nabasao na stručni rad nekoliko američkih psihologa. Proputovali su čak 13.000 kilometara, sve do Indije, zbog fascinantnog istraživanja. A radilo se o eksperimentu s uzgajivačima šećerne trske. Trebali biste znati da ovi zemljoradnici prikupe oko 60% svog ukupnog godišnjeg prihoda odjednom, odmah nakon žetve. Ovo znači da su jedan dio godine relativno siromašni, a drugi dio godine bogati. Istraživači su tražili od njih da ispune test inteligencije prije i poslije žetve. Ono što su zatim otkrili, potpuno me raspametilo. Zemljoradnici su prije žetve imali mnogo slabije rezultate na testu. Učinci života u siromaštvu, ispostavilo se, odgovaraju gubitku 14 bodova kvocijenta inteligencije. Da budem slikovit, to je usporedivo s gubitkom noćnog sna, ili s učincima alkoholizma.
A few months later, I heard that Eldar Shafir, a professor at Princeton University and one of the authors of this study, was coming over to Holland, where I live. So we met up in Amsterdam to talk about his revolutionary new theory of poverty. And I can sum it up in just two words: scarcity mentality. It turns out that people behave differently when they perceive a thing to be scarce. And what that thing is doesn't much matter -- whether it's not enough time, money or food.
Nekoliko mjeseci kasnije, čuo sam da Eldar Shafir, profesor na Sveučilištu Princeton, jedan od autora ovog istraživanja, dolazi u Nizozemsku, gdje ja živim. Sreli smo se u Amsterdamu kako bismo razgovarali o njegovoj novoj, revolucionarnoj teoriji siromaštva. I mogu je sažeti u dvije riječi: mentalitet oskudice. Ispada da se ljudi različito ponašaju kada smatraju za nešto da je oskudno. A o čemu se radi, nije naročito važno, bilo da nemaju dovoljno vremena, novca ili hrane.
You all know this feeling, when you've got too much to do, or when you've put off breaking for lunch and your blood sugar takes a dive. This narrows your focus to your immediate lack -- to the sandwich you've got to have now, the meeting that's starting in five minutes or the bills that have to be paid tomorrow. So the long-term perspective goes out the window. You could compare it to a new computer that's running 10 heavy programs at once. It gets slower and slower, making errors. Eventually, it freezes -- not because it's a bad computer, but because it has too much to do at once. The poor have the same problem. They're not making dumb decisions because they are dumb, but because they're living in a context in which anyone would make dumb decisions.
Svima vam je poznat taj osjećaj, kada imate previše obaveza, ili kada odlažete pauzu za ručak i šećer u krvi vam padne. Ovo vam sužava fokus na trenutni nedostatak, na sendvič koji morate dobiti odmah, na sastanak koji počinje za pet minuta, ili račune koje morate sutra platiti. I tako dugoročna perspektiva nestaje s vidika. Možete to usporediti s novim računalom, na kojem odjednom radi deset zahtjevnih programa. Postaje sve sporiji, čineći greške. Naposlijetku se zamrzne, ne zato što je računalo loše, već zato što ima previše toga za obaviti odjednom. Siromašni imaju isti problem. Ne donose oni glupe odluke zato što su glupi, već zato što žive u kontekstu, u kojem bi bilo tko donosio glupe odluke.
So suddenly I understood why so many of our anti-poverty programs don't work. Investments in education, for example, are often completely ineffective. Poverty is not a lack of knowledge. A recent analysis of 201 studies on the effectiveness of money-management training came to the conclusion that it has almost no effect at all. Now, don't get me wrong -- this is not to say the poor don't learn anything -- they can come out wiser for sure. But it's not enough. Or as Professor Shafir told me, "It's like teaching someone to swim and then throwing them in a stormy sea."
I iznenada sam shvatio zašto toliko mnogo naših programa protiv siromaštva ne funkcionira. Ulaganja u obrazovanje, na primjer, često su potpuno nedjelotvorna. Siromaštvo nije nedostatak znanja. Nedavna analiza 201 istraživanja o učincima obuke upravljanja novcem, došla je do zaključka, da obuka nije imala skoro nikakav učinak. Nemojte me pogrešno shvatiti, to ne znači da siromašni ništa ne nauče, oni zasigurno mogu biti mudriji. Ali to nije dovoljno. Ili, kako mi je rekao profesor Shafir, "To je kao da nekoga učite plivati, a onda ga bacite u olujno more."
I still remember sitting there, perplexed. And it struck me that we could have figured this all out decades ago. I mean, these psychologists didn't need any complicated brain scans; they only had to measure the farmer's IQ, and IQ tests were invented more than 100 years ago. Actually, I realized I had read about the psychology of poverty before. George Orwell, one of the greatest writers who ever lived, experienced poverty firsthand in the 1920s. "The essence of poverty," he wrote back then, is that it "annihilates the future." And he marveled at, quote, "How people take it for granted they have the right to preach at you and pray over you as soon as your income falls below a certain level."
Još se sjećam kako sam sjedio tamo, zbunjen. A onda mi je sinulo da smo ovo mogli shvatiti desetljećima ranije. Ovi psiholozi nisu trebali nikakva složena skeniranja mozga; samo su morali izmjeriti IQ zemljoradnika, a testovi inteligencije su izumljeni prije više od 100 godina. Zapravo, shvatio sam da sam već čitao o psihologiji siromaštva. George Orwell, jedan od najvećih pisaca koji je ikada postojao, iz prve ruke je iskusio siromaštvo 1920-ih. "Bit siromaštva", pisao je tada, "je u tome što ono poništava budućnost." I čudio se, citiram: "Kako ljudi uzimaju zdravo za gotovo, da vam mogu držati prodike i moliti se za vas, čim vam prihodi padnu ispod određene razine."
Now, those words are every bit as resonant today. The big question is, of course: What can be done? Modern economists have a few solutions up their sleeves. We could help the poor with their paperwork or send them a text message to remind them to pay their bills. This type of solution is hugely popular with modern politicians, mostly because, well, they cost next to nothing. These solutions are, I think, a symbol of this era in which we so often treat the symptoms, but ignore the underlying cause.
Svaka ova riječ i danas ima odjeka. Naravno, veliko pitanje glasi: Što se može učiniti? Suvremeni ekonomisti imaju nekoliko rješenja na raspolaganju. Možemo pomoći siromašnima s papirologijom, ili im poslati tekstualnu poruku kao podsjetnik da plate račune. Ovaj tip rješenja je uveliko popularan kod suvremenih političara, uglavnom stoga što ne koštaju gotovo ništa. Mislim da su ova rješenja simbol našeg doba, u kojem se toliko često bavimo simptomima, a ignoriramo osnovni uzrok.
So I wonder: Why don't we just change the context in which the poor live? Or, going back to our computer analogy: Why keep tinkering around with the software when we can easily solve the problem by installing some extra memory instead? At that point, Professor Shafir responded with a blank look. And after a few seconds, he said, "Oh, I get it. You mean you want to just hand out more money to the poor to eradicate poverty. Uh, sure, that'd be great. But I'm afraid that brand of left-wing politics you've got in Amsterdam -- it doesn't exist in the States."
Stoga se pitam: Zašto samo ne izmjenimo kontekst u kojem siromašni žive? Ili, vraćajući se na računalnu analogiju: Zašto nastojimo popraviti softver, kada problem možemo lako riješiti instaliranjem dodatne memorije? U tom momentu, profesor Shafir je odgovorio praznim pogledom. I nakon nekoliko sekundi je rekao: "A, razumijem. Misliš, želiš jednostavno dati više novca siromašnima kako bi iskorijenio siromaštvo. Ah, naravno, to bi bilo sjajno. Ali, bojim se da ta vrsta ljevičarske politike koju imate u Amsterdamu, ne postoji u SAD-u."
But is this really an old-fashioned, leftist idea? I remembered reading about an old plan -- something that has been proposed by some of history's leading thinkers. The philosopher Thomas More first hinted at it in his book, "Utopia," more than 500 years ago. And its proponents have spanned the spectrum from the left to the right, from the civil rights campaigner, Martin Luther King, to the economist Milton Friedman. And it's an incredibly simple idea: basic income guarantee.
Međutim, je li to zaista staromodna, ljevičarska ideja? Sjetio sam se čitanja o nekom starom planu, nešto što su predložili neki od vodećih povijesnih mislioca. Filozof Thomas More to je prvi puta nagovjestio u svojoj knjizi "Utopija", prije više od 500 godina. A zagovornici toga protežu se čitavim spektrom, od lijevog do desnog, od borca za građanska prava, Martina Luthera Kinga, do ekonomista Miltona Friedmana. A radi se o nevjerojatno jednostavnoj ideji: zajamčeni osnovni prihod.
What it is? Well, that's easy. It's a monthly grant, enough to pay for your basic needs: food, shelter, education. It's completely unconditional, so no one's going to tell you what you have to do for it, and no one's going to tell you what you have to do with it. The basic income is not a favor, but a right. There's absolutely no stigma attached. So as I learned about the true nature of poverty, I couldn't stop wondering: Is this the idea we've all been waiting for? Could it really be that simple? And in the three years that followed, I read everything I could find about basic income. I researched the dozens of experiments that have been conducted all over the globe, and it didn't take long before I stumbled upon a story of a town that had done it -- had actually eradicated poverty. But then ... nearly everyone forgot about it.
Što je to? Pa, to je lako. To je mjesečni iznos, dovoljan da platite osnovno: hranu, smještaj, obrazovanje. Posve je bezuvjetan pa vam nitko neće govoriti što morate učiniti za to, i nitko vam neće govoriti što da radite s tim. Osnovni prihod nije usluga, već pravo. Uz njega ne ide nikakva stigma. I tako saznavši za pravu prirodu siromaštva, nisam mogao prestati pitati se: Je li to zamisao na koju smo svi čekali? Može li zaista biti tako jednostavno? I u tri godine koje su uslijedile, pročitao sam sve što sam mogao naći o osnovnom prihodu. Istražio sam na desetke eksperimenata, koji su izvedeni diljem svijeta i nije mi trebalo dugo da nabasam na priču o gradiću koji je uspio, koji je zaista iskorijenio siromaštvo. Ali onda ... skoro svi su zaboravili na to.
This story starts in Dauphin, Canada. In 1974, everybody in this small town was guaranteed a basic income, ensuring that no one fell below the poverty line. At the start of the experiment, an army of researchers descended on the town. For four years, all went well. But then a new government was voted into power, and the new Canadian cabinet saw little point to the expensive experiment. So when it became clear there was no money left to analyze the results, the researchers decided to pack their files away in some 2,000 boxes. Twenty-five years went by, and then Evelyn Forget, a Canadian professor, found the records. For three years, she subjected the data to all manner of statistical analysis, and no matter what she tried, the results were the same every time: the experiment had been a resounding success.
Ova priča počinje u Dauphinu, u Kanadi. 1974. godine, svima u ovom gradiću bio je zajamčen osnovni prihod, osiguravši da nitko ne padne ispod granice siromaštva. Na početku eksperimenta, vojska istraživača je stigla u grad. Četiri godine je sve išlo kako treba. Ali onda je na vlast došla nova vlada i novi kanadski kabinet nije vidio mnogo smisla u skupom eksperimentu. I kada je postalo jasno da nije preostalo novca za analizu rezultata, istraživači su odlučili zapakirati svoje dokumente u nekih 2.000 kutija. Prošlo je 25 godina, a onda je Evelyn Forget, kanadska profesorica, našla zapise. Tijekom tri godine, podvrgavala je podatke svim tipovima statističke analize i bez obzira što je isprobala, rezultati su svaki puta bili isti: eksperiment je bio nevjerojatno uspješan.
Evelyn Forget discovered that the people in Dauphin had not only become richer but also smarter and healthier. The school performance of kids improved substantially. The hospitalization rate decreased by as much as 8.5 percent. Domestic violence incidents were down, as were mental health complaints. And people didn't quit their jobs. The only ones who worked a little less were new mothers and students -- who stayed in school longer. Similar results have since been found in countless other experiments around the globe, from the US to India.
Evelyn Forget je otkrila da su stanovnici Dauphina, ne samo postali bogatiji, već i pametniji te zdraviji. Uspjeh djece u školama se značajno popravio. Stopa hospitalizacije smanjila se za skoro 8,5%. Obiteljsko nasilje bilo je u padu, kao i pritužbe na mentalno zdravlje. A ljudi nisu davali otkaz na poslu. Jedini koji su malo manje radili bili su novopečene majke i učenici, koji su ostajali duže u školi. Slični rezultati su kasnije otkriveni u bezbroj drugih eksperimenata diljem svijeta, od SAD-a do Indije.
So ... here's what I've learned. When it comes to poverty, we, the rich, should stop pretending we know best. We should stop sending shoes and teddy bears to the poor, to people we have never met. And we should get rid of the vast industry of paternalistic bureaucrats when we could simply hand over their salaries to the poor they're supposed to help.
Dakle, evo šta sam naučio. Kada se radi o siromaštvu, mi, bogati, trebali bismo prestati praviti se da najbolje znamo. Trebali bismo prestati slati cipele i igračke siromašnima, ljudima koje nikada nismo upoznali. I trebali bismo se otarasiti ogromne količine pokroviteljskih birokrata, kada jednostavno možemo njihove plaće dati siromašnima, kojima trebaju pomagati.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Because, I mean, the great thing about money is that people can use it to buy things they need instead of things that self-appointed experts think they need. Just imagine how many brilliant scientists and entrepreneurs and writers, like George Orwell, are now withering away in scarcity. Imagine how much energy and talent we would unleash if we got rid of poverty once and for all. I believe that a basic income would work like venture capital for the people. And we can't afford not to do it, because poverty is hugely expensive. Just look at the cost of child poverty in the US, for example. It's estimated at 500 billion dollars each year, in terms of higher health care spending, higher dropout rates, and more crime. Now, this is an incredible waste of human potential.
Jer, mislim, sjajna stvar kod novca je što ljudi njime mogu kupiti ono što im stvarno treba, umjesto onoga što samoprozvani "stručnjaci" misle da im treba. Zamislite samo koliko briljantnih znanstvenika, poduzetnika i pisaca, poput Georgea Orwella, trenutno vene u oskudici. Zamislite koliko energije i talenta bismo oslobodili, kada bismo se riješili siromaštva jednom i zauvijek. Vjerujem da bi osnovni prihod bio poput rizičnog kapitala za ljude. Ali ne možemo si dozvoliti da ga ne usvojimo, jer je siromaštvo užasno skupo. Samo pogledajte, na primjer, troškove dječjeg siromaštva u SAD-u. Procjenjuje se na 500 milijardi dolara godišnje, u vidu viših troškova zdravstva, većih stopa ispisivanja iz škole i više kriminala. To je nevjerojatno traćenje ljudskog potencijala.
But let's talk about the elephant in the room. How could we ever afford a basic income guarantee? Well, it's actually a lot cheaper than you may think. What they did in Dauphin is finance it with a negative income tax. This means that your income is topped up as soon as you fall below the poverty line. And in that scenario, according to our economists' best estimates, for a net cost of 175 billion -- a quarter of US military spending, one percent of GDP -- you could lift all impoverished Americans above the poverty line. You could actually eradicate poverty. Now, that should be our goal.
Ali razgovarajmo o onome što je ovdje očito. Kako bismo si uopće mogli priuštiti zajamčen osnovni prihod? Pa, zapravo je mnogo jeftinije nego što biste pomislili. U Dauphinu su ga financirali putem negativnog poreza na prihod. To znači da vam se prihod nadoplaćuje čim padnete ispod granice siromaštva. A u takvom scenariju, prema najboljim procjenama naših ekonomista, za neto trošak od 175 milijardi, što je četvrtina troškova vojske SAD-a, ili 1% BDP-a, mogli biste uzdignuti sve osiromašene Amerikance iznad granice siromaštva. Zapravo biste mogli iskorijeniti siromaštvo. To bi trebalo biti naš cilj.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
The time for small thoughts and little nudges is past. I really believe that the time has come for radical new ideas, and basic income is so much more than just another policy. It is also a complete rethink of what work actually is. And in that sense, it will not only free the poor, but also the rest of us.
Vrijeme za ograničene misli i male pomake je prošlo. Zaista vjerujem da je došlo vrijeme za radikalno nove ideje, a osnovni prihod je mnogo više od samo još jedne uredbe zakona. Radi se i o potpuno novoj zamisli toga šta je zaista posao. I u tom smislu, to neće samo osloboditi siromašne, već i nas ostale.
Nowadays, millions of people feel that their jobs have little meaning or significance. A recent poll among 230,000 employees in 142 countries found that only 13 percent of workers actually like their job. And another poll found that as much as 37 percent of British workers have a job that they think doesn't even need to exist. It's like Brad Pitt says in "Fight Club," "Too often we're working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need."
Danas, milijuni ljudi osjećaju, da njihovi poslovi nisu od nekakvog smisla ili značaja. Nedavna anketa među 230.000 zaposlenih u 142 zemlje, otkrila je da svega 13% radnika zapravo voli svoj posao. A druga anketa je otkrila da gotovo 37% britanskih radnika ima posao za koji smatraju da ne treba ni postojati. Kao što je Brad Pitt rekao u "Klubu boraca", "Prečesto radimo poslove koje mrzimo, radi kupovanja gluposti koje ne trebamo."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not talking about the teachers and the garbagemen and the care workers here. If they stopped working, we'd be in trouble. I'm talking about all those well-paid professionals with excellent résumés who earn their money doing ... strategic transactor peer-to-peer meetings while brainstorming the value add-on of disruptive co-creation in the network society.
No, nemojte me krivo shvatiti, ovdje ne govorim o nastavnicima, čistačima i njegovateljima. Kada bi oni prestali raditi, bili bismo u nevolji. Govorim o svim tim dobro plaćenim profesionalcima s odličnim životopisima, koji zarađuju baveći se ... P2P sastancima strateških transaktora, dok mozgaju o vrijednosti dodatka prekinute kokreacije u umreženom društvu.
(Smijeh)
(Laughter)
(Pljesak)
(Applause)
Or something like that. Just imagine again how much talent we're wasting, simply because we tell our kids they'll have to "earn a living." Or think of what a math whiz working at Facebook lamented a few years ago: "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads."
Ili nešto poput toga. Samo zamislite još jednom koliko talenta bacamo u vjetar, samo zato što govorimo djeci da će morati "zarađivati za život." Ili razmislite o izjavi matematičkog genija iz Facebook-a prije par godina: "Najbolji umovi moje generacije razmišljaju kako navesti ljude da klikaju na oglase."
I'm a historian. And if history teaches us anything, it is that things could be different. There is nothing inevitable about the way we structured our society and economy right now. Ideas can and do change the world. And I think that especially in the past few years, it has become abundantly clear that we cannot stick to the status quo -- that we need new ideas.
Ja sam povjesničar. A ako nas povijest ičemu uči, to je da stvari mogu biti drugačije. Ništa nije neizbježno oko toga kako smo trenutno postavili društvo i ekonomiju. Ideje mogu promijeniti, i mijenjaju svijet. I mislim da je naročito u proteklih nekoliko godina postalo i više nego jasno da se ne možemo držati statusa quo, da su nam potrebne nove ideje.
I know that many of you may feel pessimistic about a future of rising inequality, xenophobia and climate change. But it's not enough to know what we're against. We also need to be for something. Martin Luther King didn't say, "I have a nightmare."
Znam da se mnogi od vas možda osjećaju pesimistično zbog budućnosti rastuće nejednakosti, ksenofobije i klimatskih promjena. Ali nije dovoljno samo znati protiv čega smo. Trebamo biti i za nešto. Martin Luther King nije rekao, "Imam noćnu moru."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
He had a dream.
Imao je san.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
So ... here's my dream: I believe in a future where the value of your work is not determined by the size of your paycheck, but by the amount of happiness you spread and the amount of meaning you give. I believe in a future where the point of education is not to prepare you for another useless job but for a life well-lived. I believe in a future where an existence without poverty is not a privilege but a right we all deserve. So here we are. Here we are. We've got the research, we've got the evidence and we've got the means.
Dakle ... ovo je moj san: vjerujem u budućnost, u kojoj vrijednost vašeg rada nije određena visinom vaše plaće, već količinom sreće koju širite i količinom smisla kojeg pružate. Vjerujem u budućnost, u kojoj svrha obrazovanja nije u tome da vas pripremi za novi beskoristan posao, već za život vrijedan življenja. Vjerujem u budućnost, u kojoj život bez siromaštva nije privilegija, već pravo koje svi zaslužujemo. Dakle, tu smo. Tu smo. Imamo istraživanja, imamo dokaze i imamo sredstva.
Now, more than 500 years after Thomas More first wrote about a basic income, and 100 years after George Orwell discovered the true nature of poverty, we all need to change our worldview, because poverty is not a lack of character. Poverty is a lack of cash.
Dakle, više od 500 godina nakon što je Thomas More prvi pisao o osnovnom prihodu i 100 godina nakon što je George Orwell otkrio istinsku prirodu siromaštva, svi trebamo promijeniti svoj pogled na svijet, jer siromaštvo nije nedostatak karaktera. Siromaštvo je nedostatak novca.
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)