Poverty isn't a lack of character; it's a lack of cash | Rutger Bregman

Translator: Anne Wedege Reviewer: Lars Hansen

I'd like to start with a simple question:

Jeg vil gerne starte med et simpelt spørgsmål:

Why do the poor make so many poor decisions?

Hvorfor tager de fattige så mange dårlige valg?

I know it's a harsh question,

Jeg ved, at det er et svært spørgsmål,

but take a look at the data.

men kig på dataen.

The poor borrow more, save less,

De fattige låner mere, sparer mindre,

smoke more, exercise less, drink more

ryger mere, træner mindre, drikker mere

and eat less healthfully.

og spiser mindre sundt.

Why?

Hvorfor?

Well, the standard explanation

Tja, standardforklaringen

was once summed up by the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

blev opsummeret af den britiske premierminister, Margaret Thatcher.

And she called poverty "a personality defect."

Hun kaldte fattigdom "en personlighedsbrist".

(Laughter)

(Latter)

A lack of character, basically.

Dybest set mangel på karakter.

Now, I'm sure not many of you would be so blunt.

De færreste ville være så direkte.

But the idea that there's something wrong with the poor themselves

Men idéen om, at der er noget i vejen med de fattige selv

is not restricted to Mrs. Thatcher.

er fru Thatcher ikke ene om.

Some of you may believe that the poor should be held responsible

I mener måske, at fattige er ansvarlige

for their own mistakes.

for deres egne fejl.

And others may argue that we should help them to make better decisions.

Andre vil måske hævde, at vi burde hjælpe dem med at træffe bedre valg.

But the underlying assumption is the same:

Men den underliggende antagelse er den samme:

there's something wrong with them.

der er noget galt med dem.

If we could just change them,

Hvis vi kunne ændre dem,

if we could just teach them how to live their lives,

hvis vi kunne lære dem, hvordan de skulle leve,

if they would only listen.

hvis bare de lyttede.

And to be honest,

Ærligt talt,

this was what I thought for a long time.

var det også min holdning længe.

It was only a few years ago that I discovered

For få år siden opdagede jeg,

that everything I thought I knew about poverty was wrong.

at al min viden om fattigdom var forkert.

It all started when I accidentally stumbled upon a paper

Det hele startede, da jeg læste en afhandling

by a few American psychologists.

af nogle amerikanske psykologer.

They had traveled 8,000 miles, all the way to India,

De var rejst 13.000 km. til Indien for at foretage

for a fascinating study.

en fascinerende undersøgelse.

And it was an experiment with sugarcane farmers.

Det var et eksperiment med bønder, der dyrkede sukkerrør.

You should know that these farmers collect about 60 percent

Disse bønder får 60%

of their annual income all at once,

af deres årlige indkomst på en gang,

right after the harvest.

lige efter høsten.

This means that they're relatively poor one part of the year

De er altså relativt fattige den ene del af året

and rich the other.

og rige den anden del.

The researchers asked them to do an IQ test before and after the harvest.

Forskerne testede bøndernes intelligens før og efter høsten.

What they subsequently discovered completely blew my mind.

Deres opdagelse overraskede mig fuldstændigt.

The farmers scored much worse on the test before the harvest.

Bønderne scorede meget lavere i testen før høsten.

The effects of living in poverty, it turns out,

Det viser sig at leve i fattigdom

correspond to losing 14 points of IQ.

svarer til at miste 14 point i en IK-test.

Now, to give you an idea,

Det svarer til at mangle

that's comparable to losing a night's sleep

en nats søvn

or the effects of alcoholism.

eller være alkoholiker.

A few months later, I heard that Eldar Shafir,

Få måneder senere hørte jeg, at Eldar Shafir,

a professor at Princeton University and one of the authors of this study,

professor ved Princeton Universitet og medforfatter af denne afhandling,

was coming over to Holland, where I live.

kom til Holland, hvor jeg bor.

So we met up in Amsterdam

Vi mødtes i Amsterdam

to talk about his revolutionary new theory of poverty.

for at tale om hans banebrydende nye teori om fattigdom.

And I can sum it up in just two words:

Jeg kan sammenfatte den i et ord:

scarcity mentality.

Knaphedsmentalitet.

It turns out that people behave differently

Det viser sig, at mennesker opfører sig anderledes,

when they perceive a thing to be scarce.

når en ting er en mangelvare.

And what that thing is doesn't much matter --

Det er ligegyldigt, hvad den ting er,

whether it's not enough time, money or food.

om det er mangel på tid, penge eller mad.

You all know this feeling,

Vi kender alle følelsen af

when you've got too much to do,

at have for meget at lave,

or when you've put off breaking for lunch

eller hvis vi har sprunget frokosten over,

and your blood sugar takes a dive.

og vores blodsukker dykker.

This narrows your focus to your immediate lack --

Det indsnævrer dit fokus

to the sandwich you've got to have now,

til den sandwich du SKAL have nu,

the meeting that's starting in five minutes

det møde, der starter om fem minutter,

or the bills that have to be paid tomorrow.

eller de regninger, der SKAL betales i morgen.

So the long-term perspective goes out the window.

Langtidsperspektivet forsvinder.

You could compare it to a new computer

Det kan sammenlignes med en ny computer,

that's running 10 heavy programs at once.

der kører ti tunge programmer på en gang.

It gets slower and slower, making errors.

Den bliver langsommere og laver fejl.

Eventually, it freezes --

Til sidst går den i stå -

not because it's a bad computer,

ikke fordi det er en dårlig computer,

but because it has too much to do at once.

men fordi den skal lave for meget på en gang.

The poor have the same problem.

Fattige har det samme problem.

They're not making dumb decisions because they are dumb,

De træffer ikke dårlige beslutninger, fordi de er dumme,

but because they're living in a context

men fordi de lever i en sammenhæng,

in which anyone would make dumb decisions.

hvor alle træffer dårlige beslutninger.

So suddenly I understood

Pludselig forstod jeg,

why so many of our anti-poverty programs don't work.

hvorfor så mange af vore anti-fattigdoms- projekter ikke virker.

Investments in education, for example, are often completely ineffective.

Hvorfor investering i uddannelse ofte er ineffektivt.

Poverty is not a lack of knowledge.

Fattigdom er ikke mangel på viden.

A recent analysis of 201 studies

En nylig analyse af 201 undersøgelser

on the effectiveness of money-management training

af effekten af kurser i finanshåndtering,

came to the conclusion that it has almost no effect at all.

viste at de nærmest ingen effekt havde.

Now, don't get me wrong --

Misforstå mig ikke -

this is not to say the poor don't learn anything --

det betyder ikke, at de fattige ikke lærer noget ...

they can come out wiser for sure.

de bliver ofte klogere.

But it's not enough.

Men det er ikke nok.

Or as Professor Shafir told me,

Eller - som professor Shafir fortalte mig -

"It's like teaching someone to swim

"Det er ligesom at lære nogen at svømme

and then throwing them in a stormy sea."

og så smide dem ud i et stormfyldt hav."

I still remember sitting there,

Jeg husker, at jeg sad der,

perplexed.

forvirret.

And it struck me

Og det slog mig,

that we could have figured this all out decades ago.

at vi kunne have opdaget det for årtier siden.

I mean, these psychologists didn't need any complicated brain scans;

Disse psykologer behøvede ingen komplicerede hjernescanninger.

they only had to measure the farmer's IQ,

At måle bøndernes IK var nok,

and IQ tests were invented more than 100 years ago.

og IK-test blev opfundet for over 100 år siden

Actually, I realized I had read about the psychology of poverty before.

Jeg har tidligere læst om fattigdommens psykologi.

George Orwell, one of the greatest writers who ever lived,

George Orwell, en af verdens største forfattere,

experienced poverty firsthand in the 1920s.

oplevede fattigdom på egen krop i 1920'erne.

"The essence of poverty," he wrote back then,

"Kernen i fattigdom," skrev han dengang,

is that it "annihilates the future."

er, at den "udsletter fremtiden."

And he marveled at, quote,

Han undrede sig:

"How people take it for granted they have the right to preach at you

"Hvordan folk tager det for givet, at de har ret til at prædike

and pray over you

og bestemme over dig,

as soon as your income falls below a certain level."

så snart din indtægt kommer under et vist niveau."

Now, those words are every bit as resonant today.

Disse ord gælder stadig.

The big question is, of course:

Det store spørgsmål er:

What can be done?

Hvad kan vi gøre?

Modern economists have a few solutions up their sleeves.

Moderne økonomer ryster løsninger ud af ærmet.

We could help the poor with their paperwork

Vi kunne hjælpe de fattige med deres regnskaber

or send them a text message to remind them to pay their bills.

eller minde dem om at betale deres regninger.

This type of solution is hugely popular with modern politicians,

Den slags løsninger er enormt populære blandt moderne politikere,

mostly because,

især fordi ...

well, they cost next to nothing.

de koster så lidt.

These solutions are, I think, a symbol of this era

Sådanne løsninger er typiske for vor tid.

in which we so often treat the symptoms,

Vi behandler symptomerne,

but ignore the underlying cause.

men ignorerer årsagen.

So I wonder:

Så jeg spørger:

Why don't we just change the context in which the poor live?

Hvorfor ændrer vi ikke de fattiges levevilkår?

Or, going back to our computer analogy:

Som i eksemplet med computeren:

Why keep tinkering around with the software

Hvorfor lappe softwaren,

when we can easily solve the problem by installing some extra memory instead?

hvis vi nemt løser problemet ved at installere mere hukommelse?

At that point, Professor Shafir responded with a blank look.

Professor Shafir fik et tomt blik i øjnene

And after a few seconds, he said,

og svarede efter nogle sekunder:

"Oh, I get it.

"Åh, jeg forstår.

You mean you want to just hand out more money to the poor

Giver vi flere penge til de fattige,

to eradicate poverty.

så udrydder vi fattigdom.

Uh, sure, that'd be great.

Det ville være godt.

But I'm afraid that brand of left-wing politics

Men den venstreorienterede politik,

you've got in Amsterdam --

I har i Amsterdam...

it doesn't exist in the States."

findes ikke i Amerika."

But is this really an old-fashioned, leftist idea?

Men er det virkelig en gammeldags, venstreorienteret ide?

I remembered reading about an old plan --

Jeg husker, jeg læste om en gammel plan ...

something that has been proposed by some of history's leading thinkers.

Den blev foreslået af historiens førende tænkere.

The philosopher Thomas More first hinted at it in his book, "Utopia,"

Filosoffen Thomas More var den første til at skrive om det i sin bog "Utopia"

more than 500 years ago.

for mere end 500 år siden.

And its proponents have spanned the spectrum from the left to the right,

Fortalerne er kommet fra hele spektret fra venstre til højre,

from the civil rights campaigner, Martin Luther King,

fra borgerrettighedsfortaleren Martin Luther KIng,

to the economist Milton Friedman.

til økonomen Milton Friedman.

And it's an incredibly simple idea:

Det er en utrolig enkel ide:

basic income guarantee.

Borgerløn, garanteret basisindtægt.

What it is?

Hvad er det?

Well, that's easy.

Det er nemt.

It's a monthly grant, enough to pay for your basic needs:

En månedlig udbetaling, der dækker dine basale behov:

food, shelter, education.

Mad, husleje, uddannelse.

It's completely unconditional,

Uden betingelser,

so no one's going to tell you what you have to do for it,

ingen fortæller dig, hvad du skal yde for den,

and no one's going to tell you what you have to do with it.

og ingen fortæller dig, hvad du skal bruge den til.

The basic income is not a favor, but a right.

Borgerløn er ikke en gave, men en rettighed.

There's absolutely no stigma attached.

Det er ingen skam at modtage den.

So as I learned about the true nature of poverty,

Så mens jeg lærte om fattigdommens sande natur,

I couldn't stop wondering:

tænkte jeg hele tiden:

Is this the idea we've all been waiting for?

Er det den ide, vi alle har ventet på?

Could it really be that simple?

Kan det virkelig være så enkelt?

And in the three years that followed,

De næste tre år

I read everything I could find about basic income.

læste jeg alt om borgerløn.

I researched the dozens of experiments

Jeg undersøgte dusinvis

that have been conducted all over the globe,

af eksperimenter fra hele verden.

and it didn't take long before I stumbled upon a story of a town

Hurtigt faldt jeg over en fortælling om en by,

that had done it -- had actually eradicated poverty.

der havde indført det ... og udryddet fattigdom.

But then ...

Men så ...

nearly everyone forgot about it.

glemte næsten alle det.

This story starts in Dauphin, Canada.

Byen var Dauphin i Canada.

In 1974, everybody in this small town was guaranteed a basic income,

I 1974 fik alle indbyggere udbetalt en basal indtægt,

ensuring that no one fell below the poverty line.

så ingen kom under fattigdomsgrænsen.

At the start of the experiment,

I begyndelsen af eksperimentet

an army of researchers descended on the town.

ankom en hær af forskere til byen.

For four years, all went well.

I fire år gik alt godt.

But then a new government was voted into power,

Men så blev der valgt en ny regering,

and the new Canadian cabinet saw little point to the expensive experiment.

og den nye canadiske regering så ingen mening i det dyre eksperiment.

So when it became clear there was no money left to analyze the results,

Der var ingen penge til at analysere resultaterne,

the researchers decided to pack their files away in some 2,000 boxes.

så forskerne pakkede deres papirer ned i 2.000 kasser.

Twenty-five years went by,

Der gik 25 år

and then Evelyn Forget, a Canadian professor,

før Evelyn Forget, en canadisk professor,

found the records.

fandt optegnelserne.

For three years, she subjected the data to all manner of statistical analysis,

I tre år analyserede hun data

and no matter what she tried,

og ligegyldigt hvad hun prøvede

the results were the same every time:

blev resultatet det samme.

the experiment had been a resounding success.

Eksperimentet var en stor succes.

Evelyn Forget discovered

Evelyn Forget opdagede,

that the people in Dauphin had not only become richer

at indbyggerne i Dauphin ikke bare var blevet rigere,

but also smarter and healthier.

men også klogere og sundere.

The school performance of kids improved substantially.

Børnenes evner i skolen var klart bedre.

The hospitalization rate decreased by as much as 8.5 percent.

Antal indlagte på hospitalet var op til 8,5% lavere

Domestic violence incidents were down,

Vold i hjemmet var faldende

as were mental health complaints.

ligesom psykisk sygdom.

And people didn't quit their jobs.

Og folk sagde ikke deres job op.

The only ones who worked a little less were new mothers and students --

De eneste, der arbejdede lidt mindre, var nybagte mødre og studerende,

who stayed in school longer.

som gik længere tid i skole.

Similar results have since been found

Lignende resultater er opnået

in countless other experiments around the globe,

i utallige andre eksperimenter globalt

from the US to India.

fra USA til Indien.

So ...

Så ...

here's what I've learned.

hvad har jeg lært.

When it comes to poverty,

Når det drejer sig om fattigdom,

we, the rich, should stop pretending we know best.

skal vi rige holde op med at være bedrevidende,

holde op med at sende sko og bamser til fattige,

We should stop sending shoes and teddy bears to the poor,

to people we have never met.

vi aldrig har mødt.

And we should get rid of the vast industry of paternalistic bureaucrats

Vi bør afskaffe alle bureaukraterne,

when we could simply hand over their salaries

og give deres lønninger

to the poor they're supposed to help.

til de fattige, som de skulle hjælpe.

(Applause)

(Bifald)

Because, I mean, the great thing about money

Det gode ved penge er,

is that people can use it to buy things they need

at folk kan bruge dem til at købe ting, de behøver

instead of things that self-appointed experts think they need.

i stedet for ting, som eksperterne tror, de behøver.

Just imagine how many brilliant scientists and entrepreneurs and writers,

Tænk hvor mange dygtige forskere, entreprenører og forfattere

like George Orwell,

som George Orwell,

are now withering away in scarcity.

der sygner hen i fattigdom.

Tænk hvor meget energi og talent vi kunne frigøre,

Imagine how much energy and talent we would unleash

if we got rid of poverty once and for all.

hvis vi udryddede fattigdom for altid.

I believe that a basic income would work like venture capital for the people.

Jeg tror, at borgerløn vil få folk til at investere mere i dem selv.

And we can't afford not to do it,

Vi har ikke råd til at lade værd

because poverty is hugely expensive.

for fattigdom er utrolig dyrt.

Just look at the cost of child poverty in the US, for example.

Se bare på omkostningerne ved børnefattigdom i USA.

It's estimated at 500 billion dollars each year,

Den beregnes til 500 milliarder dollars om året,

in terms of higher health care spending, higher dropout rates,

på grund af højere omkostninger til sundhedspleje,

and more crime.

flere der dropper ud og mere kriminalitet.

Now, this is an incredible waste of human potential.

Det er et utroligt spild af menneskeligt potentiale.

But let's talk about the elephant in the room.

Men lad os tale om "elefanten i rummet".

How could we ever afford a basic income guarantee?

Hvordan får vi råd til garanteret borgerløn?

Well, it's actually a lot cheaper than you may think.

Det er faktisk billigere, end man skulle tro.

What they did in Dauphin is finance it with a negative income tax.

I Dauphin indførte de negativ indkomstskat.

This means that your income is topped up

Dvs. at indtægten stiger,

as soon as you fall below the poverty line.

i det øjeblik du kommer under fattigdomsgrænsen.

And in that scenario,

Det scenarie -

according to our economists' best estimates,

ifølge økonomernes bedste skøn -

for a net cost of 175 billion --

vil det koste 175 milliarder,

a quarter of US military spending, one percent of GDP --

en fjerdedel af USA's millitærbudget, én procent af BNP,

you could lift all impoverished Americans above the poverty line.

at løfte alle fattige amerikanere op over fattigdomsgrænsen.

You could actually eradicate poverty.

Man kan faktisk udrydde fattigdom.

Now, that should be our goal.

Det burde være vores mål.

(Applause)

(Bifald)

The time for small thoughts and little nudges is past.

Tiden for små tanker og almisser er forbi

I really believe that the time has come for radical new ideas,

Tiden er inde til radikalt nye ideer,

and basic income is so much more than just another policy.

og borgerløn er mere end blot ny politik.

It is also a complete rethink of what work actually is.

Den påvirker også hvad arbejde er.

And in that sense,

Og på den måde

it will not only free the poor,

vil den ikke kun gavne de fattige

but also the rest of us.

men også alle os andre.

I vore dage føler mange

Nowadays, millions of people feel

that their jobs have little meaning or significance.

at deres job ikke giver mening eller ingen betydning har.

A recent poll among 230,000 employees

Fornylig viste en afstemning blandt 230.000 lønarbejdere

in 142 countries

i 142 lande,

found that only 13 percent of workers actually like their job.

at kun 13 % af de ansatte holdt af deres job.

And another poll found that as much as 37 percent of British workers

En anden afstemning viste, at 37 % af britiske arbejdere

have a job that they think doesn't even need to exist.

har et job, som de ikke mener behøver at findes.

It's like Brad Pitt says in "Fight Club,"

For at citere Brad Pitt i "Fight Club":

"Too often we're working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need."

"Alt for ofte har vi et arbejde, som vi hader, for at købe møg, vi ikke behøver."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Now, don't get me wrong --

Misforstå mig ikke...

I'm not talking about the teachers and the garbagemen

Jeg taler ikke om lærere, skraldemænd

and the care workers here.

eller plejepersonale.

If they stopped working,

Hvis de holdt op med at arbejde,

we'd be in trouble.

ville vi have et problem.

I'm talking about all those well-paid professionals with excellent résumés

Jeg taler om de højtlønnede professionelle med strålende CV'er,

who earn their money doing ...

som tjener deres løn ved at afholde

strategic transactor peer-to-peer meetings

strategiske peer-to-peer-møder,

while brainstorming the value add-on of disruptive co-creation

mens de udregner værdiforøgelsen af disruptivt samarbejde

in the network society.

i deres netværk.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

(Applause)

(Bifald)

Or something like that.

Eller noget i den retning.

Just imagine again how much talent we're wasting,

Tænk hvor meget talent vi mister,

simply because we tell our kids they'll have to "earn a living."

når vi fortæller vore børn, at de skal "tjene til livets opretholdelse".

Or think of what a math whiz working at Facebook lamented a few years ago:

En nørd, der arbejdede på Facebook, beklagede sig for få år siden:

"The best minds of my generation

"De bedste hjerner i min generation

are thinking about how to make people click ads."

udtænker metoder til at få folk til at klikke på annoncer."

I'm a historian.

Jeg er historiker.

And if history teaches us anything,

Og hvis historien lærer os nogen,

it is that things could be different.

er det, at ting kan være anderledes.

There is nothing inevitable

Vi kan sagtens ændre

about the way we structured our society and economy right now.

strukturerne i samfundet og økonomien.

Ideas can and do change the world.

Ideer kan ændre verden - og gør det.

And I think that especially in the past few years,

Især i de seneste par år

it has become abundantly clear

er det blevet indlysende,

that we cannot stick to the status quo --

at vi ikke kan fastholde status quo ...

that we need new ideas.

Vi har brug for nye ideer.

I know that many of you may feel pessimistic

Jeg ved, at mange af jer ikke ser lyst på

about a future of rising inequality,

den voksende ulighed,

xenophobia

fremmedhadet

and climate change.

og klimaforandringerne.

But it's not enough to know what we're against.

Men det er ikke nok at vide hvad man er imod.

We also need to be for something.

Vi må også gå ind for noget.

Martin Luther King didn't say, "I have a nightmare."

Martin Luther King sagde ikke: "Jeg har et mareridt."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

He had a dream.

Han havde en drøm.

(Applause)

(Bifald)

So ...

Så ...

here's my dream:

her er min drøm:

I believe in a future

Jeg tror på en fremtid,

where the value of your work is not determined

hvor værdien af dit arbejde ikke afhænger

by the size of your paycheck,

af beløbet på din lønseddel,

but by the amount of happiness you spread

men af den glæde du spreder,

and the amount of meaning you give.

og de meningsfulde ting du gør.

I believe in a future

Jeg tror på en fremtid,

where the point of education is not to prepare you for another useless job

hvor formålet med uddannelse ikke er at gøre dig klar til et unyttigt job,

but for a life well-lived.

men et godt liv.

I believe in a future

Jeg tror på en fremtid,

where an existence without poverty is not a privilege

hvor et liv uden fattigdom ikke er et privilegium,

but a right we all deserve.

men en ret alle har.

So here we are.

Så langt,

Here we are.

så godt ...

We've got the research, we've got the evidence

Vi har forskningen, vi har beviserne,

and we've got the means.

og vi har midlerne.

Now, more than 500 years after Thomas More first wrote about a basic income,

Mere end 500 år efter Thomas More skrev om borgerløn,

and 100 years after George Orwell discovered the true nature of poverty,

og 100 år efter George Orwell opdagede sandheden om fattigdom,

we all need to change our worldview,

har vi brug for at ændre vort verdenssyn,

because poverty is not a lack of character.

for fattigdom er ikke mangel på karakter.

Poverty is a lack of cash.

Fattigdom er mangel på penge.

Thank you.

Tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)