What if he had a "R.E.V.E." (Dream)? | Jean-François ROCHAS-PARROT | TEDxAnnecy

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format,
but independently organized by a local community.

Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx

Jean François Rochas Parrot speak us about his R.E.V.E. (Dream). It's not yet another daydream but a sensible economic proposal, and he also shares with us his preferred version.

Under my presidency,
unemployment will go away.

Under my presidency,
there will be 10% growth per year.

Under my presidency, France
will lead the world's economy again.

That's the kind of promises

made by all those men and women

who run for presidency.

President!

That's the dream job

for all politicians, both men and women,

in our country.

But did they just look at the first word?

When you look closely,

the full title is "President
of the Republic".

People typically focus on "President"
and neglect the "Republic" side.

So what is a republic?

A republic is a flag,
and a national anthem,

but rest assured,

we're not here today
to learn "La Marseillaise".

What I'd like to talk about today

is the republican motto:
Freedom, equality, brotherhood.

It's a fascinating motto
that comes to us from the Enlightenment.

and today we'll try to assess
how well we implement it

after 200 years.

Brotherhood, equality, freedom.

Let's start with brotherhood.

What brotherhood are we talking about,

when in our country

more than nine million people
live under the poverty line,

in a country like ours,
which is the world's fifth economy?

Equality, then.

Where is the equality,

when the richest 10% makes
just as much as the remaining 90%?

Compared to this room,

and assuming there is
more or less 100 people,

and the only asset
in the room is the chairs?

It's like I said to the 10 people
in the first row:

"You are entitled to own 50 chairs",

and to the other 90,

"Get by with the remaining ones"

Nonsense.

Freedom, then.

What freedom is that,

when addressing our fundamental needs

takes forcing someone into find a job

in a market with more
than 9% of unemployment?

Brotherhood, equality, freedom.

You can sense the health status
of the republican motto

with a number: nine.

Nine like nine million people
under the poverty line.

Nine like the nine tenths of people

making as much as the richest tenth.

And nine, like 9%
of unemployment in our country.

The purpose of my talk, anyway,
is not putting you down.

Somehow, we will have to try
and find a solution.

What I'd like to talk to you about today
is the universal income.

So what is universal income?

Just to start, is a definition
with three criteria to match

so it can be properly defined:
"universal income".

A universal income is a sum of money

that's granted to everyone
on a monthly basis,

with no strings attached,
to each individual.

If this sum of money
is only granted to young people

or only to those who make
less than 2,000 euro per month,

that's not a universal income.

If we talk about a sum of money

that comes with the condition

of finding some kind of job,

that's not a universal income.

If that sum of money

is only granted
to a household, or a couple,

that's not a universal income.

These are the three needed criteria

in order to properly talk
about universal income.

With this definition in mind,
many questions may arise.

First question: why?

Why in the world one might want
to implement a universal income?

Essentially for two reasons.

One more "historical",
the other more contemporary.

The historical reason is,

because, truth be told,
even if current debates

present universal income
as a new idea,

it's actually been discussed
for many centuries now.

In history,

one of the first thinkers
to propose universal income

was Thomas Paine, in 18th century.

The idea was to fight poverty

and redistribute wealth
with a very simple idea:

the property of land, that we all share,

and belongs to everyone,

has been collected by the few.

Therefore, not everyone
has a piece of land

to address their basic needs.

Therefore, as a compensation,

he longed for the implementation
of a universal grant.

The most contemporary reason,

which is why the debate
is having a comeback now,

is that the universal income

could be a viable answer
to an ever changing job market.

We must be aware that
with automation and digitalization

a lot of jobs will disappear,

and others will be
created to replace them.

What no one is sure about today is,

will new jobs

outgrow the destroyed ones?

I'll go straight to the answer:

we do not know.

The only thing we know

is that today's new jobs

will be much less stable
than yesterday's ones.

In the past, an employee could remain
40 years in the same company;

today, not only you won't stay
in the same company for 40 years,

but over a single workday
several activities could be done.

Therefore, a universal income
would in a sense act

like a safety line

for a less linear job market.

First question: why?

And the second is: how much?

How high should this universal income be?

A lot of propositions
have been formulated.

But generally speaking,

the range goes from RSA,
a little more than 500 euro per month,

to SMIC, a little less
than 1,200 euro per month,

with the poverty line in-between.

The poverty line, in France,

it's 1,000 euro per month,
for a single person.

How do you measure that?

It's an international definition.

It's 60% of median income.

So what's the median income?

It's the income level
that splits people in two:

50% of people make more
than that, 50% less.

In France, median income is 1,666 euro.

And 60% of 1,666 euro, it's 1,000 euro.

Why is poverty calculated that way?

Because one is always poor
compared to where she lives.

It's easy to get
that 1,000 euros in France.

It can help you get by,
but its hardly a liveable income;

In a developing country, they'd make
a much bigger positive difference.

You could even be labeled as rich.

Why, then, and how much.

The third question you might ask is: how?

How to implement it? How to finance it?

There are three great funding families.

The first is self funding.

The idea is:

with a universal income
at the level of poverty line,

RSA has no reason to be.

So the amount currently allocated to RSA

could be diverted to universal income.

The second funding family
of universal income are taxes.

And taxes are often related

to the philosophical reason

why someone should implement
universal income.

If the policy goals

are fighting against povery
and sharing wealth,

we'd rather tax incomes or assets.

If instead the real goal

is coping with the shifts
in the labor market,

we'll probably end up taxing

companies and robots.

And the last source of funding
of universal income,

an almost neglected ones,
in public debates,

is monetary creation.

You must know that currently,
to boost the economy,

central banks create money out of thin air

and inject it into the system.

And we might well ask ourselves,

why give this money to private banks

instead of giving it directly to citizens?

The bottom line, with universal income,

is that's a broad concept
with different implementations.

My closest connections
call me "Mr Universal Income"

but actually, I don't appreciate
every possible flavour of it.

Universal income
is a concept I understand.

I agree with some of its implementations

and disagree with some other ones.

So we have a failing republican motto

and a broad, multifaceted concept.

What if we combined the two?

That would give us a R.E.V.E.
(dream), our dream.

A dream we made with Romain,

with whom I founded the Ecolo-Humanists.

R.E.V.E [Dream]

stands for Emancipatory Income
to Express Ourselves in Life.

Let's reconsider the Republican Motto

so we can better defines

what our universal income
would ideally look like.

Brotherhood.

For us, an ideal universal income

would be set at the level
of the poverty line.

That would allow us, by the way,
to respect Article 25

of the Universal Declaration
of the Human Right.

This Article 25

of the Universal Declaration
of the Human Right

mandates that everyone
has a right to a standard of living

high enough to address
our fundamental needs:

food, shelter, and a roof over our head.

Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, Article 25.

We signed it long ago,
but we still fail to respect it

Equality.

For us, universal income
should be a redistribution tool

tied to a progressive taxation

in order to finance it.

We didn't say there will be
no simplification.

Some aids will forcibly disappear.

But often, in today's conversation,

universal income is only seen
as a simplification tool.

For us, it should also be
a redistribution tool.

And finally, freedom.

What freedom would give
this freedom, this universal income?

It would allow us to say no.

The ability to say no.

Which is fundamental,
in order to be masters of our own life.

Saying no could allow employees
to negotiate better working conditions,

and thus work better.

Likewise,

some may choose to work less

in moments of life when they'd rather

raise a baby, start a company.

Working less? Working better?

We could even start asking ourselves,
what can be called work?

That's why we've chosen
to illustrate freedom with bees.

Currently, if you consider a bee's worth,

and GDP as our single indicator
to meter the economy,

GDP gives bees no value

but the honey they make and we sell.

Whereas the true added value of bees

is their pollination,

that allows fruits and flowers to develop.

Likewise, speaking of human beings,

we could ask ourselves:

are we worthless

except for the monetary value
we create in a company?

Or perhaps, the added value that's created

isn't, just like for pollination,

all those social relationships of ours

that allow us to realise our potential,
and knit the fabric of society?

Our R.E.V.E. [dream], Emancipatory
Income to Express Ourselves in Life.

If there's a word
to remember, in this definition,

is the emancipatory side.

For us, the implementation
of this ideal universal income

would be a true paradigm shift.

We live in a society today
where we "make ends meet"

and those who are left behind are helped,

despite the a cost for them
of social stigma,

treated as they might be
like aided people.

With the introduction
of a universal income,

the game changes completely.

We could finally trust anyone,

and those who are better off

will fund their universal income,
or other peoples'/

You've got it now;

our dream, and hopefully
someday your dream also,

is give some reality
to the republican motto.

Freedom, equality, brotherhood.

And in that moment, only in that moment,

we can wrap up the speech by saying:

Long live the Republic,
and long live France!

(Applause)