4 ms·
I think the packaging is incredibly important - negative income / social welfare are packaged in a way that telegraphs dependency and low self-worth. [ I woul
by jgord 11y ago
I think the packaging is incredibly important -
negative income / social welfare are packaged in a way that telegraphs dependency and low self-worth.
[ I would also be really interested in seeing an economic analysis of how much money and time is spent on administering social welfare ]
Basic income needs to be marketed as a positive way : here's some money - it is your share of the basic wealth from the land/resources and the benefits of our technology to the country - do something useful with it.
[ I also wonder how many of those 'lazy-dole-bludgers' now on social welfare would have a better sense of self-worth, and actually get off their arse and do something useful if we didn't make it so clear to them they were total failures from school age ]
- danieltillett 11y agoThis is a huge problem with no simple solution. The problem in the Australian remote communities is there is an entrenched culture that is not conducive to any productive activity. Changing this sort of culture once it has formed is really, really hard. People much more dedicated than me have poured in enormous resources without make a dent in the problem.
- soared 11y agoI think this is a really good point I haven't heard in the discussion before. I would imagine that simply changing the name from "welfare" to something that implies motivation would make a difference. Imagine: You're 18 years old and your Dad gives you $500. He says, "You don't make any money and have to rely on me. Here is your spending money" or "You'll be making a lot of money (value) later on in life, this will help you kickstart it."