4 ms·
This assumes people on basic income without jobs are idle. What about stay-at-home spouses and parents? What about community volunteers? What about people who
by rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
This assumes people on basic income without jobs are idle. What about stay-at-home spouses and parents? What about community volunteers? What about people who take care of sick friends and relatives?
Furthermore, what is the economic benefit of the activities listed above? What would be lost if those activities were either abandoned or required to be paid at a fair market price? I know, charging grandma by the hour is a silly idea, but I say so to illustrate the benefits to society by activities not reflected in GDP, and to invite discussion about whether society would be better served by individuals living on basic income alone who spend their time helping others, without having to worry about making next month's rent.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoAaand, it is not currently the imperative of gov't to provide people with a sense of self-worth. That may be a worthy thing to shoot for, but it isn't currently a purpose of government. Even if one accepts uncritically the self-worth imbue-ing power of labor it's not necessarily the only way to impart a sense of self-worth to the individual.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoWell, that's exactly my point. A lot of people do things that satisfy themselves and can often help others, but when you need to work to live you get greedy with your time and money. A state that provides basic income frees people to find their sense of self-worth, not assign it to them.