4 ms·

Unemployment isn't good. I get your point, and agree. But basic income is not about unemployment = good but more about giving you the time to transform to do wh

Unemployment isn't good. I get your point, and agree. But basic income is not about unemployment = good but more about giving you the time to transform to do what you really want to do in life. Doing nothing in your life sucks hard. Everyone gets depressed and suicidal in the long term.

Turing_Machine 11y ago
There are lots of things you could do that aren't menial jobs. Arts, crafts, travel...heck, fishing or bowling -- the list of things that are more rewarding than flipping burgers could go on for quite a long time.
intopieces 11y ago
Interesting that you automatically equate "unemployment" with "doing nothing in your life." It is possible for people to find meaning outside of labor.
- madspindel 11y ago
  I think we are playing with words here. I read your other comment about sports team, charity etc. Of course that is "doing something". And one could argue that _working_ for the Red Cross is some sort of labor?
  - intopieces 11y ago
    The discussion, so far as I can tell, has rested on the notion that people "need something to do" and that -- I guess? -- the government should be responsible for making sure that Basic Income money isn't going to "waste" on people who are just "unemployed." I'm arguing that no such discussion is necessary. People are perfectly able to entertain themselves, work or no, and find meaning in their lives. Those that aren't won't be helped by the government, that bluntest of tools used for the most delicate of incisions. My point is: Basic Income should be free from stipulation. Play video games, care for a sick mother in law, grow plants on your balcony and sing to them in Hindi -- none of the government's concern. While we're at it, eliminate the minimum wage and let the small businesses hire workers at whatever they can afford to pay. Let someone work at the local bakery if that makes them happy. Let's see what the people come up with when they don't have to worry about how they're going to eat.
  - imtringued 11y ago
    Yes, the problem is that without basic income you have to work to earn your right to live but to do volunteer work which may be much more meaningful to you than your day job.
- lotyrin 11y ago
  > equate "unemployment" with "doing nothing in your life." These can be seen as synonymous for certain definitions of "unemployed". You are not "employed", unused, not applying yourself to anything. In that definition, if you are able to provide for yourself and have found meaning in allocating yout time, that is a form of employment -- even if it's not a job. That said, my preferred definition of unemployment is "without job, seeking job". Likely, basic income would reduce the statistic by that definition.
  - intopieces 11y ago
    >These can be seen as synonymous for certain definitions of "unemployed" Semantic discussions are interesting among us mere mortals, but if you're proposing that the government start making judgements about who is "employed" in the abstract sense or merely "doing nothing with their life," especially when it comes to allowing or disallowing that person to receive the Basic Income, I'll leave my BI check uncashed. BI should be a way to increase liberty, not create a way for the government to tell people how to live their lives.
    - thwarted 11y ago
      Semantic discussions are interesting among us mere mortals, but if you're proposing that the government start making judgements about who is "employed" in the abstract sense or merely "doing nothing with their life," As far as semantic discussions go, US government unemployment statistics make a distinction between people who are not working and who are looking for work vs those who are not working and not looking for work. The later are not "unemployed" for the purposes of unemployment statistics. I agree that the goal should be provide a meaningful safety net while increasing (or maintaining liberty), and thus it should be Universal Basic Income: all citizens get it unconditionally.

Turing_Machine 11y ago

There are lots of things you could do that aren't menial jobs. Arts, crafts, travel...heck, fishing or bowling -- the list of things that are more rewarding than flipping burgers could go on for quite a long time.

intopieces 11y ago

Interesting that you automatically equate "unemployment" with "doing nothing in your life." It is possible for people to find meaning outside of labor.

madspindel 11y ago
I think we are playing with words here. I read your other comment about sports team, charity etc. Of course that is "doing something". And one could argue that _working_ for the Red Cross is some sort of labor?
- intopieces 11y ago
  The discussion, so far as I can tell, has rested on the notion that people "need something to do" and that -- I guess? -- the government should be responsible for making sure that Basic Income money isn't going to "waste" on people who are just "unemployed." I'm arguing that no such discussion is necessary. People are perfectly able to entertain themselves, work or no, and find meaning in their lives. Those that aren't won't be helped by the government, that bluntest of tools used for the most delicate of incisions. My point is: Basic Income should be free from stipulation. Play video games, care for a sick mother in law, grow plants on your balcony and sing to them in Hindi -- none of the government's concern. While we're at it, eliminate the minimum wage and let the small businesses hire workers at whatever they can afford to pay. Let someone work at the local bakery if that makes them happy. Let's see what the people come up with when they don't have to worry about how they're going to eat.
- imtringued 11y ago
  Yes, the problem is that without basic income you have to work to earn your right to live but to do volunteer work which may be much more meaningful to you than your day job.
lotyrin 11y ago
> equate "unemployment" with "doing nothing in your life." These can be seen as synonymous for certain definitions of "unemployed". You are not "employed", unused, not applying yourself to anything. In that definition, if you are able to provide for yourself and have found meaning in allocating yout time, that is a form of employment -- even if it's not a job. That said, my preferred definition of unemployment is "without job, seeking job". Likely, basic income would reduce the statistic by that definition.
- intopieces 11y ago
  >These can be seen as synonymous for certain definitions of "unemployed" Semantic discussions are interesting among us mere mortals, but if you're proposing that the government start making judgements about who is "employed" in the abstract sense or merely "doing nothing with their life," especially when it comes to allowing or disallowing that person to receive the Basic Income, I'll leave my BI check uncashed. BI should be a way to increase liberty, not create a way for the government to tell people how to live their lives.
  - thwarted 11y ago
    Semantic discussions are interesting among us mere mortals, but if you're proposing that the government start making judgements about who is "employed" in the abstract sense or merely "doing nothing with their life," As far as semantic discussions go, US government unemployment statistics make a distinction between people who are not working and who are looking for work vs those who are not working and not looking for work. The later are not "unemployed" for the purposes of unemployment statistics. I agree that the goal should be provide a meaningful safety net while increasing (or maintaining liberty), and thus it should be Universal Basic Income: all citizens get it unconditionally.