3 ms·
I would argue in some cases they don't. Take for example the artist who works for years, decades even, on their art without expectation of large monetary gain.
by brooklyndavs 11y ago
I would argue in some cases they don't. Take for example the artist who works for years, decades even, on their art without expectation of large monetary gain.
In a broad sense some people don't respond at all to incentives (assuming monetary) and others do respond but its not a recipe for personal happiness.
Personally, that's why I'm such a fan of some sort of basic income. While it reduces inequality it keeps the monetary incentive response as a choice, which ultimately equals more personal freedom.
- Kalium 11y agoLet me rephrase, then. People, as a population, respond to financial incentives. People respond to incentives around things they value - your artist is absolutely an example of this. Financial markets respond to financial incentives. No basic income is going to make people feel useful and productive. Personal freedom isn't the same as personal fulfillment, after all. Basic income also isn't going to change the kind of inequality you see in the Bay area - where highly skilled professionals make multiple times the basic wage. I assume you mean some kind of basic income indexed to the local cost of living. Without that people would need to do what people will raise nine kinds of Hell to avoid even thinking about - moving to an area they can afford.