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?
Želeo bih da počnem jednostavnim pitanjem: zašto siromašni donose toliko loših odluka? Znam da je pitanje neprijatno, ali pogledajte podatke. Siromašni više pozajmljuju, manje štede, više puše, manje vežbaju, 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, standardno objašnjenje je jednom sumirala britanska premijerka, Margaret Tačer. Nazvala je siromaštvo "manom ličnosti".
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
A lack of character, basically.
U suštini, 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.
Sad, siguran sam da je malo vas koji biste bili toliko bezobzirni. Međutim, zamisao da nešto nije u redu sa siromašnima nije svojstvena jedino gđi Tačer. Neki od vas možda veruju da bi siromašni trebalo da odgovaraju za lične greške. A drugi tvrde da bi trebalo da im pomognemo da donose bolje odluke. Ali u srži je ista pretpostavka: nešto nije u redu s njima. Kad bismo samo mogli da ih promenimo, kad bismo mogli da ih naučimo kako da žive svoje živote, kad bi samo slušali. I, da budem iskren, ovako sam i ja dugo vremena razmišljao. Pre tek 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. Putovali su oko 13000 kilometara, sve do Indije, zbog fascinantnog istraživanja. A radilo se o eksperimentu sa uzgajivačima šećerne trske. Trebalo bi da znate da ovi zemljoradnici prikupe oko 60 procenata svog godišnjeg prihoda odjednom, odmah nakon žetve. Ovo znači da su jedan deo godine relativno siromašni, a drugi deo godine su bogati. Istraživači su tražili od njih da urade test inteligencije pre i posle žetve. Ono što su kasnije otkrili, potpuno me je raspametilo. Zemljoradnici su pre žetve imali značajno gore rezultate na testu. Efekti života u siromaštvu, ispostavilo se, odgovaraju gubitku 14 poena količnika inteligencije. Sad, da vam to slikovito objasnim, to je uporedivo s gubitkom noćnog sna ili s efektima 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 meseci kasnije, čuo sam da Eldar Šafir, profesor na Univerzitetu Prinston i jedan od autora ovog istraživanja, dolazi u Holandiju, gde ja živim. Pa smo se sreli u Amsterdamu kako bismo razgovarali o ovoj novoj, revolucionarnoj teoriji siromaštva. I mogu da je sumiram u dve reči: mentalitet oskudnosti. Ispostavlja se da se ljudi različito ponašaju kada smatraju za nešto da je oskudno. A o čemu se radi, nije naročito bitno - 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 onaj osećaj, kad imate previše obaveza ili kada odlažete pauzu za ručak i šećer u krvi vam padne. Ovo vam sužava usredsređenost na trenutni nedostatak - na sendvič koji morate odmah da dobijete, na sastanak koji počinje za pet minuta ili račune koje morate da platite sutra. Te, dugoročna perspektiva nestaje s vidika. Možete to uporediti s novim kompjuterom na kom odjednom radi 10 zahtevnih programa. Postaje sve sporiji i sporiji, pravi greške. Vremenom se zamrzne - ne zato što se radi o lošem kompjuteru, već zato što ima previše toga da obavi odjednom. Siromašni imaju isti problem. Ne donose glupe odluke zato što su glupi, već zato što žive u kontekstu u kom bi bilo ko 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."
Te sam iznenada shvatio zašto mnogi od naših programa protiv siromaštva ne funkcionišu. Ulaganja u obrazovanje, na primer, često su potpuno nedelotvorna. Siromaštvo nije nedostatak znanja. Skorašnja analiza 201 istraživanja o efikasnosti obuke raspolaganja novcem je došla do zaključka da obuka nije imala nikakav efekat. Nemojte me pogrešno razumeti - ovo ne znači da siromašni ne nauče ništa - mogu da budu mudriji, zasigurno. Međutim, to nije dovoljno. Ili, kako mi je profesor Šafir rekao: "To je kao da učite nekoga da pliva, 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."
I dalje pamtim kako sam sedeo tu, zbunjen. A onda mi je sinulo da smo ovo mogli da shvatimo decenijama ranije. Mislim, ovim psiholozima nisu trebali nekakvi komplikovani skeneri za mozak; dovoljno je bilo da izmere IQ zemljoradnika, a testovi inteligencije su izumljeni pre više od 100 godina. Zapravo sam se setio da sam već čitao o psihologiji siromaštva. Džordž Orvel, jedan od najvećih pisaca koji je ikad postojao, iz prve ruke je iskusio siromaštvo 1920-ih. "Suština siromaštva", pisao je, "je u tome što ono poništava budućnost." I čudio se, citiram: "Kako ljudi uzimaju zdravo za gotovo da imaju pravo da vam popuju i da se mole za vas, čim vam prihodi padnu ispod određenog nivoa."
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.
Sad, svaka ova reč i danas ima odjek. Naravno, veliko pitanje glasi: šta može da se uradi? Savremeni ekonomisti imaju nekoliko rešenja na raspolaganju. Možemo pomoći siromašnima s njihovom papirologijom ili im poslati tekstualnu poruku da ih podsetimo da plate račune. Ovaj tip rešenja je uveliko popularan kod savremenih političara, uglavnom jer, pa, gotovo da ništa ne košta. Mislim da su ova rešenja simbol našeg doba u kojem se suviše često bavimo simptomima, ali ignorišemo 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."
Pa se pitam: zašto prosto ne izmenimo kontekst u kom siromašni žive? Ili, vraćajući se na kompjutersku analogiju: zašto da nastavimo da popravljamo softver kad lako možemo da rešimo problem instaliranjem dodatne memorije? U tom momentu, profesor Šafir je odgovorio praznim pogledom. I nakon nekoliko sekundi je rekao: "Ah, shvatam. Misliš, želiš prosto da daš više novca siromašnima kako bi iskorenio siromaštvo. Ah, naravno, to bi bilo sjajno. Ali plašim se da ta vrsta levičarske politike, koju imate u Amsterdamu - ne postoji u Americi."
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, da li je ovo zaista staromodna, levičarska ideja? Sećam se da sam čitao o starom planu - nečemu što su predložili neki vodeći istorijski mislioci. Filozof Tomas Mor je to prvi put nagovestio u knjizi "Utopija", pre više od 500 godina. A zastupnici ovoga se protežu čitavim spektrom od levo do desno, od učesnika kampanje za građanska prava, Martina Lutera Kinga, do ekonomiste Miltona Fridmana. A radi se o neverovatno prostoj ideji: zagarantovanosti osnovnog prihoda.
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.
Šta je to? Pa, to je lako, to je mesečni dohodak, dovoljan da vam plati osnovne potrebe: hranu, smeštaj, obrazovanje. Krajnje je bezuslovno, pa vam niko neće govoriti šta morate da radite za to i niko vam neće govoriti šta da radite s tim. Osnovini prihod nije usluga, već pravo. Uz njega ne ide ljaga. Pa, kako sam saznao za pravu prirodu siromaštva, nisam mogao da prestanem da se pitam: da li je ovo zamisao na koju smo svi čekali? Da li zaista može da bude tako prosto? A u tri godine koje su usledile, pročitao sam sve što sam mogao da nađem o osnovnom prihodu. Istražio sam desetine eksperimenata koji su izvedeni širom sveta i nije mi trebalo dugo da nabasam na priču o gradiću koji je uspeo - koji je zapravo iskorenio 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.
Priča počinje u Dofinu, u Kanadi. Svi u ovom gradiću su 1974. imali zagarantovan osnovni prihod, time je obezbeđeno da niko ne padne ispod crte siromaštva. Na početku eksperimenta, armija istraživača je stigla u grad. Četiri godine je sve išlo kako treba. Ali onda je na vlast izglasana nova vlada, a novi kanadski kabinet nije video mnogo koristi od skupog eksperimenta. Pa, kad je postalo jasno da nije preostalo novca da se analiziraju rezultati, istraživači su odlučili da spakuju dokumenta u nekih 2000 kutija. Prošlo je 25 godina, a onda je Evelin Fordžet, kanadska profesorka, našla zabeleške. Tokom tri godine je podvrgavala podatke svim tipovima statističke analize, i šta god da isprobala, rezultati su svaki put bili isti: eksperiment je bio veoma uspešan.
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.
Evelin Fordžet je otkrila da ljudi u Dofinu, ne samo da su bili bogatiji, već i pametniji i zdraviji. Uspeh dece u školama se značajno popravio. Stopa hospitalizacije je umanjena za skoro 8,5 procenata. Incidenti kućnog nasilja su bili u padu, kao i žalbe na mentalno zdravlje. A ljudi nisu davali otkaz na poslu. Jedini koju su malo manje radili su bili nove majke i đaci - koji su duže išli u školu. Slični rezultati su kasnije otkriveni u bezbroj drugih eksperimenata širom planete, 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, bi trebalo da prestanemo da se pravimo da najbolje znamo. Trebalo bi da prestanemo da šaljemo cipele i igračke siromašnima, ljudima koje nikad nismo upoznali. I trebalo bi da se otarasimo ogromne industrije pokroviteljskih birokrata kad jednostavno možemo da njihove plate damo siromašnima, kojima oni tobož pomažu.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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 mogu njime da kupe stvari koje su im potrebne, a ne stvari koje samoproklamovani stručnjaci misle da su im potrebne. Samo zamislite koliko briljantnih naučnika i preduzetnika i pisaca, poput Džordža Orvela, trenutno vene u oskudici. Zamislite koliko energije i talenta bismo oslobodili, kad bismo se otarasili siromaštva jednom za svagda. Verujem da će osnovni prihod ljudima delovati poput rizičnog kapitala. Ali ne možemo priuštiti da ga ne usvojimo jer je siromaštvo veoma skupo. Samo pogledajte troškove dečjeg siromaštva u SAD-u, na primer. Procenjuje se na 500 milijardi dolara godišnje, u vidu većih troškova zdravstvene nege, većih stopa ispisivanja iz škole i više kriminala. Sad, ovo je neverovatno 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 bode oči. Kako uopšte možemo da priuštimo zagarantovan osnovni prihod? Pa, zapravo je mnogo jeftinije nego što biste pomislili. U Dofinu su ga finansirali putem negativnog poreza na prihod. Ovo znači da vam se prihod dopunjava čim padnete ispod granice siromaštva. A u ovom scenariju, prema procenama naših najboljih ekonomista, za neto trošak od 175 milijardi - to je četvrtina ulaganja u vojsku SAD-a, jedan procenat BDP-a - mogli biste da izdignete sve osiromašene Amerikance iznad granice siromaštva. Mogli biste zapravo da iskorenite siromaštvo. E, to bi trebalo da nam bude cilj.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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.
Prošlo je vreme za koještarije i sitne pomake. Zaista verujem da je došlo vreme za radikalno nove ideje, a osnovni prihod je mnogo više od tek još jednog zakonskog akta. Takođe se radi o potpuno novoj zamisli toga šta je posao. A u tom smislu, 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."
Trenutno, milioni ljudi osećaju da njihovi poslovi nemaju mnogo smisla, niti značaja. Nedavna anketa među 230.000 zaposlenih u 142 države je otkrila da svega 13 procenata radnika zapravo voli svoj posao. A druga anketa je otkrila da gotovo 37 procenata britanskih radnika ima posao za koji smatraju da je bespotreban. Kao što Bred Pit kaže u "Borilačkom klubu": "Prečesto radimo poslove koje mrzimo
(Laughter)
da bismo mogli da kupimo gluposti koje nam ne trebaju."
(Smeh)
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.
Sad, da se razumemo - ne govorim ovde o nastavnicima i đubretarima i negovateljima. Kad bi oni prestali da rade, bili bismo u nevolji. Govorim o svim tim dobro plaćenim profesionalcima sa odličnim biografijama koji zarađuju baveći se... P2P sastancima strateških transaktora dok mozgaju o vrednosti dodataka neorganizovanog koautorstva u mrežnom društvu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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 slično. Samo zamislite još jednom koliko talenata traćimo, samo zato što govorimo deci da će morati da "zarađuju za život". Ili se setite jadikovke matematičkog genija koji radi u Fejsubuku: "Najbolji umovi moje generacije razmišljaju kako da navedu ljude da klikću na reklame."
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 istoričar. A ako nas istorija ičemu uči, to je da stvari mogu da budu drugačije. Ništa nije neizbežno kod toga kako smo trenutno osmislili društvo i ekonomiju. Ideje mogu da promene, i menjaju svet. I mislim da je naročito u proteklih nekoliko godina postalo i više nego jasno da se ne možemo držati statusa kvo - 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 osećaju pesimistično zbog budućnosti rastuće nejednakosti, ksenofobije i klimatskih promena. Ali nije dovoljno znati protiv čega smo. Takođe moramo da budemo za nešto. Martin Luter King nije rekao: "Imam noćnu moru."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
He had a dream.
Imao je san.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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... evo mog sna: verujem u budućnost u kojoj vrednost vašeg rada neće određivati veličina vaše plate, već količina sreće koju širite i količina smisla kojeg pružate. Verujem u budućnost u kojoj svrha obrazovanja nije u tome da vas pripremi za novi beskoristan posao, već za svrsishodan život. Verujem 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.
Sad, više od 500 godina nakon što je Tomas Mor pisao o osnovnom prihodu i 100 godina nakon što je Džordž Orvel otkrio pravu prirodu siromaštva, svi moramo da promenimo pogled na svet jer siromaštvo nije karakterni nedostatak. Siromaštvo je nedostatak novca.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)