3 ms·
Indeed. I think this is a strong argument in favor of basic income. If the risk of an enterprise failing were separated from the risk of not being able to eat n
by smaddox 11y ago
Indeed. I think this is a strong argument in favor of basic income. If the risk of an enterprise failing were separated from the risk of not being able to eat next week, then we would have far more entrepreneurs.
- zmmmmm 11y agoThe paradox is that in many societies where something approximating basic income does exist, there is not a particularly great wealth of entrepreneurship. If anything I think there's a negative correlation.
- zanny 11y agoThe central consideration needs to be approximation. People like to compare US unemployment and welfare to UBI, or other social safety net programs, but in almost all these cases maintaining the income requires diligent screenings from state officials combined with proving a lack of income on your part. The temporary nature of all of them, and the cultural stigma of using them, also causes people to withdraw rather than participate in society. To be on welfare is to be wrong, and it is hard to operate from that mindset and be productive in your thoughts and endeavors. We need to see if these Canadian or Finnish proposals show fruit. Because one of the fundamental tenants of basic income - unconditionality, perpetuity - is the keystone of seeing economic growth through its deployment. It is also the halmark of decrying existent forms of welfare in how they incentivize docility and non-participation.