Basic Income Guarantee

[SCope13]

#YayCapitalism

[alphacat]

Looks like this (the Basic Income Guarantee) might happen in Switzerland...

Rather than savage cuts, Switzerland considers “Star Trek” economics
Switzerland will vote on giving every adult in the country a $2,800 check every month. How would that work?


A truck dumps coins in Federal Square during a an event organized by the Committee for the initiative "CHF 2,500 monthly for everyone" in Bern, October 4, 2013.

By gathering over 100,000 signatures – which they delivered last Friday along with 8 million 5-cent coins representing the country’s population – activists have secured a vote in Switzerland on an audacious proposal: providing a basic monthly income of about $2,800 U.S. dollars to each adult in the country. (A date for the vote hasn’t yet been set.) Such basic income proposals, which have drawn increased attention since the 2008 financial crash, offer a night-and-day contrast to the current U.S. debate over what to cut and by how much.

Salon called up John Schmitt, a senior economist at the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research, to discuss the economics and politics of having the government send everyone in the country a monthly check.

What is a universal basic income, and why are we hearing more about it now?

The proposals that are floating around the world vary a lot. But the basic idea is, no matter what you do, if you’re a resident — or in some cases, a citizen — you get a certain amount of money each month. And it’s completely unconditional: If you’re rich you get it, if you’re poor you get. If you’re a good person you get it, if you’re a bad person you get it. And it does not depend on you doing anything other than making whatever effort is involved to collect the money. It’s been a topic of discussion for several decades. Why is it happening right now? I think it’s obvious that it’s a reaction to the high level of economic inequality that we’ve seen. Most European countries haven’t had big increases in inequality at the same scale that we [in the U.S.] have, [but] some of them have had much more than they’re used to.

Some have argued that the mass anti-austerity protests and strikes in Europe have been relatively unsuccessful at changing policy. Do you think that’s so? Is that related to this movement?

I think it’s very clearly the case that the political action that’s been taken so far has not been able to end austerity. I would say, certainly in the case of Greece, the political activism strengthened the hand of the government negotiators with respect to what the final agreement between various authorities and the Greeks would be, because the Greek government could point out the window and say, “You know, if we don’t get a better deal, there’s going to be more of what we’ve seen in the streets.”

What strikes you about the contrast between the current U.S. budget shutdown and the conflicts over austerity in Europe since the crash?

The debate is so different in the United States. We are basically in the midst of a government shutdown because one party wants to give people insurance, and change for the better the terms people have in negotiating with their insurance companies. We’ve shut down the government for something that is taken for granted [elsewhere]. There’s almost no political parties in Europe that would argue actively for dismantling their healthcare system. In fact one of the reasons why the far right has grown in many countries in Europe is precisely because social democrats have participated in cutbacks to the social welfare system, and the nationalist right has said things like, “The reason why the government is cutting back is the rise in immigrants, who are making it impossible to afford our social welfare system.”

Here [in the U.S.], we have much higher levels of inequality, we have much less by the way of political leadership from the unions, because the unions are a lot smaller and less powerful, and we don’t have a strong social democratic tradition.

The European debate on guaranteed income has been somewhat divisive on the left. Because on the one hand, it’s a very generous way to provide support for people who desperately need it. On the other hand, it threatens the existence of the existing social welfare systems there, because it’s very hard to finance both the full set and full range of social welfare institutions that exist already, and side by side to give people $2,800 a month, or even substantially less than that.

You’ve written about left critique of basic income before. How concerned are you? How do you think that potential tension will play out?

My fear is that it’s possible for a coalition of completely well-intentioned and idealistic — with no negative connotation to that — people on the left to support what would be a very generous basic guaranteed income, in a coalition with significant elements on the right, including the libertarian right, that has basically the motivation that this will undermine existing social welfare institutions, potentially undermine public-sector unions. Because a lot of the services — health, education, housing — might become much more marketized and privatized.

You can imagine that if this proposal in Switzerland passes and everyone gets $2,800, that the right can say, “Well, why should we provide healthcare — why don’t we let people use the money that we’re giving them? Why should we provide public schools — we should let people use the money that we’re giving them to buy education for their kids in the marketplace.”

I mean, it would in principle be possible to provide both a guaranteed basic income and maintain the level of the social welfare system that exists in this country. But politically, that’s an extremely heavy lift. Protecting an existing welfare system which is under attack, while implementing an astonishingly new comprehensive, generous addition to that, without any negative effects on the existing system – I just find that very hard.

So what are the merits of universal basic income?

We have a system that has high unemployment, high underemployment. This would allow people to survive and to live, with dignity, assuming that other systems stay in place. It puts a floor under wages — people could say, “I don’t have to do that job if you’re not going to pay well.” People could pursue a lot of activities that are not particularly well paid but that have a lot of social use or personal satisfaction: art, creative work, volunteer work, working with people who have disabilities.

So if we were a very rich world, which I think we are to a certain degree, it would be a remarkable way to make sure that people could maximize their ability to express themselves but also maximize their ability to participate in the communities that they live in in a full way. Stay home and take care of kids if that’s what you want to do. Take care of your parents when they’re old and sick.

People sometimes refer to this as a kind of “Star Trek” economy — you just said, “Replicator, make me a ham sandwich.” There wasn’t any social conflict around production and consumption. And that, I think, is that kind of ideal in which this kind of a thing could play out. We are probably there in terms of the economics. We are very, very wealthy — we could afford to do this. But we are not there in terms of the politics.

How directly do you think this kind of policy challenges the politics we see here in the U.S. around the work ethic — this focus on designing policies, or opposing them, for the sake of making sure everybody seeks out a job, even if it’s a low-paying one?

I don’t think that the politics in the United States are remotely open to this. You can make a sophisticated argument that it actually takes away the tax that often falls on people when they have conditional benefits [in that such benefits are taken away when you cross an income threshold] — there is a possibility that the incentives could work in a positive way toward people working more.

But just think for a minute: I mean, what are the politics in the United States on the right that would allow somebody to vote for a program that literally pays people if they do nothing? And that would very quickly become “it pays people to do nothing.” And similarly, I think it’s hard to imagine centrist Democrats or center-left Democrats supporting something like that, because they would be called out. Especially in a context where race is going to play for sure.

Social scientists have argued that American hatred for “welfare” is racially coded, and that historic support for stronger social programs in Europe has been tied in part to ethnic homogeneity and lower immigration.

I think that’s an important part of the dynamic.

At the end of World War II, many European countries had strong social democratic traditions and strong unions, and they shaped welfare systems that had their problems — they were very oriented toward a male breadwinner — but their initial tendencies were toward universal programs that covered a lot of aspects of people’s lives. In the U.S., we built a kind of social welfare system that had a built-in sunset: the GI Bill. So we provided education and housing to GIs, and as those men who had fought got older, the system kind of faded out.

You have to add on top of that [that] at that time most European countries were fairly homogenous. They had much less by way of immigration. They did not have a civil war based around slavery.

A guaranteed basic income would be something that would be, in the current [U.S.] context, immediately politicized and seen through a lens of race. It’s not a reason not to do it, but it’s hard to imagine that it could not be front and center in the discussion.

[nowaysj]

Just reading the headline, have decided to move there. Oh wait. I can't get a passport because my government is not working...

[bigfootspartan]

What's needed is a mandate saying employers can only pay themselves at a certain ratio to their lowest-paid employees. ie: If there was a 2:1 ratio, (a bit of a compromise, but w/e) and a business's lowest paid employee is making $10/hour, the most anyone else in the company could make would be $20/hour

I think this represents a pretty limited view of the problem. Wealth is not a finite resource it is created through innovation and development. Let me give you a personal example.

I'm about 1.5 years out from finishing residency, so I have been working on a business plan based around starting up a clinic when I finish. The cost to start up the clinic will be at least $80-100k which is all coming out of my pocket initially, which therefore makes me the business owner. Now my staff (receptionist and either a PA or nurse) will be the largest part of my overhead after the initial investment is payed off, but there's still other overhead such as

In the example above, how would my salary be calculated. Could I only earn 2x the salary of the receptionist? If so, it would take me several years to pay off the initial investment and would therefore not be an investment worth making. In that case my $100k + of student debt and 8+ years of post secondary would essentially be worthless.

Or would the net income (after paying salaries and overhead) simply stay in the corporate account to pay off the debt? In that case my take home would be abysmal based on my education, but the corporation itself would be growing in value significantly. In that case, what would make me want to expand my business if there is no financial incentive? I would be better off to work for 3-4 years and then simply "retire," fire all my staff and withdraw whatever salary the government allowed.

Even a 1:12 ratio is way too stiff. Off the bat I'll be close to a 1:10 ratio when I start up my clinic (give or take). If that is the ceiling, what would be the point of expanding my business or reinvesting to create a higher intrinsic wealth in my company?

Work is not equal and I don't know why so many people argue that it is. Maybe CEOs don't deserve the several million dollar bonuses they get, but I'd argue that several companies are much better off with well compensated, competent management than with some dolt who is doing the job for a fraction of the cost. A CEO/manager/VP is not equal in value to a first tier worker. The financial crisis demonstrated what happens when there isn't enough regulation in risky investments, but I don't think it is an excuse to start creating overly oppressive regulations on the rich.

I know this will probably come off as a bit snarky, and I apologize in advance. We do need change, I'm in full agreement. The gap between rich and poor is growing at an alarming rate. But I don't think the answer will come from attacking the rich, instead I think we need to be focusing on how to help the poor. A basic living allowance would be a much better alternative, although I think the implementation would be near impossible in any large scale economy. The taxation structure that would be required would be pretty stifling and I imagine most large businesses would likely move elsewhere.

[Pedro Sánchez]

Let me give you a personal example.

I'm about 1.5 years out from finishing residency, so I have been working on a business plan based around starting up a clinic when I finish. The cost to start up the clinic will be at least $80-100k which is all coming out of my pocket initially, which therefore makes me the business owner. Now my staff (receptionist and either a PA or nurse) will be the largest part of my overhead after the initial investment is payed off, but there's still other overhead such as

In the example above, how would my salary be calculated. Could I only earn 2x the salary of the receptionist? If so, it would take me several years to pay off the initial investment and would therefore not be an investment worth making. In that case my $100k + of student debt and 8+ years of post secondary would essentially be worthless.

Straw man mate, that's like arguing over your lottery winnings because you payed for x amount of tickets. The fact your education cost so much and so much investment is needed to start businesses, is part of the same economical problem. If you want to earn so much it should not be at the expense of someone else's labour or work, if your profits increase, then your staff should get a fare share first, so what if you can't expand your business with money lost from giving someone a payrise, guess what? someone will fill that gap where you don't.
Why do you personally need more than double what your staff get? Is it resentment for having to invest in your own plans?
Everybody has to have a decent standard of living but no one has to be rich, there is no way to justify greed. This notion that the rich need to exist to 'create wealth' is a fucking fallacy created by themselves to justify their means.

[nowaysj]

Bfs speaking about reality, with real terms? Fuck u m8y.

The problem is not the top 1%, it is the top .1%, have all the wealth control the system, contribute nothing to wealth creation.

----

But Pedro, I'm with you, if I could drink beers, smoke weed, play xbox, shred on my bike, travel a bit, record some dope beats, put in some time at bfs's clinic, AND I get paid just about what he gets, after his couple hundred k$'s invested, and over a decade of HARD study, it would be so much fairer. Like really really fairer.

Down with BFS for taking all my money!

Burn his clinic!

[SCope13]

Pedro responded in pretty much the same way I would have so I'll just take the last half (inb4 LACE tries to rip my dick off for "piggybacking")

What's needed is a mandate saying employers can only pay themselves at a certain ratio to their lowest-paid employees. ie: If there was a 2:1 ratio, (a bit of a compromise, but w/e) and a business's lowest paid employee is making $10/hour, the most anyone else in the company could make would be $20/hour

Work is not equal and I don't know why so many people argue that it is. Maybe CEOs don't deserve the several million dollar bonuses they get, but I'd argue that several companies are much better off with well compensated, competent management than with some dolt who is doing the job for a fraction of the cost. A CEO/manager/VP is not equal in value to a first tier worker. The financial crisis demonstrated what happens when there isn't enough regulation in risky investments, but I don't think it is an excuse to start creating overly oppressive regulations on the rich.

"Work" may not be equal, but each job in a give corporation is equally necessary. Sure, you may be able to replace a janitor more easily than you can the CEO, but the fact of the matter is if you didnt have any janitors to clean and maintain things, the CEO's job becomes pretty much worthless as he'll be presiding over a rotting and collapsing building. And anyways, who's really more valuabe to society: some rich fuck that sits around playing with numbers and gambling with people's well beings for a living, or someone that's ensuring we live in sanitary and positive conditions? Sure, it may not have required as much initial investment or training on his part, but that doesn't make his job any less valuable.

And you're right, the financial crisis isnt an excuse to start creating oppressive regulations on the rich, the last several centuries are all the excuse we need. The elite and ultra-wealth have been getting rich of the backs of the masses, and therefore OPPRESSING the vast majority of people in society. It's high time we oppress the oppressors.

I know this will probably come off as a bit snarky, and I apologize in advance. We do need change, I'm in full agreement. The gap between rich and poor is growing at an alarming rate. But I don't think the answer will come from attacking the rich, instead I think we need to be focusing on how to help the poor. A basic living allowance would be a much better alternative, although I think the implementation would be near impossible in any large scale economy. The taxation structure that would be required would be pretty stifling and I imagine most large businesses would likely move elsewhere.

Yes, the ultra-rich need to be attacked. To reiterate what I said in the previous paragraph, they are responsible not only for ruining people's lives and keeping the masses under their heels domestically, but for also funding and supporting the exploitation and destruction of peoples on an international scale. Something needs to be done, and something radical. Don't kid yourself, there is class war going on right now. It's just the elite are the only ones doing the fighting.

[nousd]

infinite wealth
available to those of us
with education and drive

unlimited growth
through the development
of limited resources

professionals earning large incomes
while our menials
deserve their subsistence

curing and healing,
an unfulfilling means
to the business of wealth-acquistion

because jobs are not equal
and monotonous slog
rightly pays a pittance

I'd rather be an incompetent director,
on tax-minimized millions,
than subjected to my incompetence

we,The Rich, to avoid being attacked,
should focus on helping the poor
stay poor.

[nousd]

I dunno, have I got a disfunctional mindblock on this or what?

If everybody that has more than enough, wants a bit less
then there's a bit more for the people that don't have enough.
Why is that wrong?

[nowaysj]

Because that's not really the problem.

In of itself, there is nothing wrong with that, so long as it is voluntary and every one remains free.

[test_recordings]

Besides how much corporations should pay etc why not just re-think economics to reward work that benefits people? I've read economic research on 'social value' that highlights how the LESS beneficial work is for society, the more the performer gets paid. Hospital cleaners generate about $10 social value an hour (+$10/h) while advertisers destroy about $30 (-$30/h) and corporate lawyers do something ridiculous like destroy $50 (-$50/h).

The New Economics Foundation does some respectable research on providing workable alternatives to the bullshit spouted by governments http://www.neweconomics.org/

[bigfootspartan]

Straw man mate, that's like arguing over your lottery winnings because you payed for x amount of tickets. The fact your education cost so much and so much investment is needed to start businesses, is part of the same economical problem. If you want to earn so much it should not be at the expense of someone else's labour or work, if your profits increase, then your staff should get a fare share first, so what if you can't expand your business with money lost from giving someone a payrise, guess what? someone will fill that gap where you don't.
Why do you personally need more than double what your staff get? Is it resentment for having to invest in your own plans?
Everybody has to have a decent standard of living but no one has to be rich, there is no way to justify greed. This notion that the rich need to exist to 'create wealth' is a fucking fallacy created by themselves to justify their means.

I see your point, but I would respectfully disagree. First off, I would argue that if you don't take into account the startup costs and the cost of education, very few people would willingly start a business or pursue advanced education. I can guarantee you that I would not have spent the last 7 years of my life paying exuberant amounts for an education if I was going to make similar to what I'd make straight out of secondary school. I would not have put in 60+ hours of work per week for the last 3 years (and study on top of that when I get home) so I could make $30 an hour while my assistant with no education makes $15 an hour. Why put in the risk and resources of starting a business if the upside is so limited? Why not simply work a basic job for some other chump who is on the hook if the business fails?

Secondly (and this relates a bit to what Scope mentioned), if I was forced by law to pay my employees a certain amount based off my income I would simply not hire any employees. For example, in talks with other new grads who are in the process of starting up a clinic, they figure a receptionist will increase their productivity by approximately 20% (with electronic records, online booking, etc. you can replace most of what a receptionist does for a nominal fee). If I pay my receptionist 50% of what I make, I might as well just not have one and do their job myself. My take home would be higher, Currently the idea is "if you can pay someone else to do it for you and it makes financial sense, you should do that."

I don't need a transcriptionist since I will be in primary care, but the specialists I have trained under showed me their numbers. If they save 5 minutes per dictation for 3 dictations an hour it is more advantageous to pay a transcriptionist for 2 hours of work to do them themselves. If all of a sudden they are required to pay the transcriptionist 50% of their own pay they might as well just do the transcriptions themselves. Even though you would be trying to create more equality you'd essentially be destroying the incentive to create work for more people.

We haven't even talked about the risk of litigation when I make a mistake (and mistakes do happen more often than you'd think). Even though it probably shouldn't, the stress of "missing something" that in the end will cause someones suffering and/or your own financial ruin is something I'd rather not deal with. I'd much rather be the one without the risk or stress cleaning the floors or answering the telephones.

As far as greed goes, I think it's a matter of your definition of greed. If by greed you mean "trying to increase your profits without any consideration towards others" then I fully agree, theres no reason to intentionally cause the suffering of others so you can get ahead. But if you have the definition as being "wanting to increase personal net worth" or "the desire to accumulate possessions" or something similar then I think there is really nothing wrong with that. You can call me an entitled twat all you want but in the end if I actively look for investment opportunity and take financial risk because I want to grow my estate I'm going to feel justified in my decisions.

Maybe my point of view comes from my background. I came from a lower middle class background (father was a farmer, mother was a homemaker) and was taught to respect money (to this day the newest vehicle my parents ever bought was a 9 year old sedan) and to work hard and be proud of your work. I have worked those entry level jobs (shovelled gravel through a strainer for several years, worked retail at Sears during high school and college to pay for tuition) so I know how much they suck. But in the end, if I'm not going to be able to gain something from what I'm doing (either personal or financial) then I'm not going to do it. Take away the incentive to financially risk money or spend your time studying "for free (or a net negative" and I'm not going to do them. I'd argue the majority of people I've met in professional programs are the same way.

With that said, I'm not going to be a jerk boss who puts profits before everything else. My plan is to offer a receptionist salary for slightly above the going wage in Calgary when I'm done. If the receptionist turns out to be a good person who works hard and is respectful and professional towards my patients I will definitely increase their salary to above the standard range in order to provide incentive to stay at my clinic. I won't get bled out by overhead costs but I will most definitely pay top dollar for the top talent.

[bigfootspartan]

Oops forgot to mention one thing. My point of view is more from a small business point of view than a giant multinational corporation point of view, so take it with a grain of salt. No matter how big I expand in the future I'll probably be limiting myself to the Alberta area, given that's what I understand. So I won't be dealing with a giant market cap of several million or a whole host of several thousand employees. But then again, from what I've read small business is what tends to make the biggest change in communities, employment wise, so I think it's critical that any regulation focuses on helping small business as opposed to blanket regulations that attack all businesses as being "greedy capitalists."

[Genevieve]

A corporate lawyer makes more money because of a supply/demand dynamic and the subjective value of their work. They have a rare skillset that requires a large investment in time and energy.

If a healthcare corporation runs a hospital and fired its cleaners, those corporate lawyers could step in and do that work, as well as the corporate lawyer stuff they do. If all those corporate lawyers were fired, though, those cleaners wouldn't know where to begin.

The reason a corporate lawyer makes more money than someone cleaning anything is similar to why gold or diamonds are expensive and wood is cheap, even if wood has far more useful applications than gold has. I don't think society as we know it could exist without wood, but it's so abundant that we place fairly little value on it. Gold is a rarity and has some uses, but its main appeal came from its relative rarity combined with aesthetic appeal. Its historical place in society has cemented it as something people place value on. Some people would naively have you think that labor determines value. But it doesn't matter if you went looking for that one piece of gold for years brushing dirt away with a toothbrush, or if you accidentally syumbled on that one piece of gold when you were hiking. People's interest in your gold hasn't increased because it took a lot of effort for you to find it.

Another thing that some of you don't understand is that entepeneurs invest in future profits. If someone builds a skyscraper and wants to sell it, they would first have to buy the land, hire the architect and laborers and all the materials needed to get the job done. For those 2 years that they're building, the entrepeneur is only investing without seeing any dime at all. In the mean time, the architect and laborers are all getting paid. The eventual profits the entrepeneur makes are the prize for the innitial investment + all the time they needed to wait to get anything in return. If that prize didn't exist, there would be no incentive to invest money. Without the investment there would've been no need for laborers either which means an overal poorer populace with less opportunity to work and less places to live..

If you want the working class to have a better income, get rid of government regulation. It distorts the market and only aims to profit the people in charge. Government's inflationary banking system, that is controlled through legal tender and monopoly laws has made people's wealth decrease. What their money can buy is now much less than what it could 50 years ago. In contrast, the market has increased working class people's realistic wealth more than that of wealither people; where 100 years ago only the wealthiest people could afford cars and the working class were still stuck with horses. Now, the market has upgraded people's wealth so much, that even poor people can afford cars. Which is a tremendous increase considering now the wealthier segment of society can only get a fancier car. They didn't even make nearly the same jump in overal wealth as the working class has.

Your personal view on what constitutes 'valuable' doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It's the culmination of what all of society as a whole deems valuable that ends up determining how much someone gets paid. What some of you are saying is that your own, personal, subjective view, takes precedent over everybody else's and we need to model society after your views.

I dunno, have I got a disfunctional mindblock on this or what?

If everybody that has more than enough, wants a bit less
then there's a bit more for the people that don't have enough.
Why is that wrong?

Because you want a system that has made poor people poorer, and rich people richer (government) to reign in and control a system that has made all of society richer, especially the poor (the market), through means that require coercion and that distort important mechanisms, such as pricing and interest rates, that people in a market require to make rational decisions. Distorting said pricing mechanisms results in economic collapse through mal-investment.

[bigfootspartan]

+1. Thanks Genevieve, you've basically said what I wanted to say way better than I could have. Especially the bit about building a skyscraper, that's what I was trying to get at but I don't think it was coming across.

[test_recordings]

It's a pity you have to think about how to turn a profit from such a fundamental need such as healthcare. You should come to the UK, no risks and decent pay. Socialised medicine is definitely not a bad thing in comparison to what the USA has...

[Genevieve]

Bigfootspartan isn't allowed to pay his bills, have a roof over his head or feed himself because he provides healthcare.

[m8son666]

big up genevieve

[bigfootspartan]

It's all socialized here (Canada) as well. We have public funding and private delivery. In my opinion the private delivery is a good thing, it encourages a leaner system (although that doesn't always happen) so that the public ends up with a cheaper delivery. Furthermore it gives us way more control over the teams we work with. I would much prefer getting to choose my employees than being forced to work with whomever the government decides. The risk is that some people might try to cut corners to increase their profits, but I haven't seen that yet. No one would really take the risk of cutting corners in areas that matter as the college would come down and suspend you pretty hard.

I definitely prefer the public funding model though. I can't imagine having to practice and order tests based on what an insurance company thinks is best.

[test_recordings]

Bigfootspartan isn't allowed to pay his bills, have a roof over his head or feed himself because he provides healthcare.

That isn't what I meant and you know it

I meant it's a pity we have to set-up things so people have to unnecessarily take risks for things like healthcare when there are proven systems like the NHS that work very well.

It's all socialized here (Canada) as well. We have public funding and private delivery. In my opinion the private delivery is a good thing, it encourages a leaner system (although that doesn't always happen) so that the public ends up with a cheaper delivery. Furthermore it gives us way more control over the teams we work with. I would much prefer getting to choose my employees than being forced to work with whomever the government decides. The risk is that some people might try to cut corners to increase their profits, but I haven't seen that yet. No one would really take the risk of cutting corners in areas that matter as the college would come down and suspend you pretty hard.

I definitely prefer the public funding model though. I can't imagine having to practice and order tests based on what an insurance company thinks is best.

To be honest mate the NHS still gets voted as the best healthcare system in the world based on what goes in and what the results are. I'd rather have the NHS over Canada's system and the UK population is fighting tooth and nail to preserve what we've got. It needs improving but that could be done by just removing the layer of management that appeared when Tony Blair decided to throw money at it and put the efficiency savings in to care. Your opinion is it makes it leaner, but the facts suggest that that's not for the best results.

I hope you do well with what you want anyway, the macroeconomic situation is a different matter.