4 ms·

>I believe this "job creation as priority" approach is inferior to both the "laissez-faire" capitalist alternative and the "basic income" social democratic one.

by tmptmp 11y ago

>I believe this "job creation as priority" approach is inferior to both the "laissez-faire" capitalist alternative and the "basic income" social democratic one. How exactly is "basic income" superior to "hole" digging/filling type of jobs? I believe they are one and the same as far as their fundamentals are concerned, i.e. both do not create/add any value on their own to the society/economy. Actually, I think "hole" digging/filling is superior to "basic income" as it, at least, keeps the person occupied and thus takes care of problems due to "empty mind is devil's workshop". Please correct me if I am wrong.

newjersey 11y ago
Basic income is not a complete solution. It is a start. We'd still need ways to motivate people. I think basic income would be great. We could have smaller class sizes in our elementary schools. I'd like to imagine some people volunteering to take care of kids for a few hours after school because they don't have to worry about starving for not making any money. In short, I think people will do useful work if we just give them the ability to do so. We'd still need schools and such (preferably at no cost to the students) but I think not having to worry about starving would be great for humanity as a whole.
- tmptmp 11y ago
  I am still confused. You said, >We'd still need ways to motivate people. I think basic income would be great. ... >I think not having to worry about starving would be great for humanity as a whole. Motivating a person who is not starving and has no worry about starving in future is a damn difficult job. But maybe I will grant this thing for the sake of argument, because, there may be other things that may still motivate people. e.g. yearning for better lifestyle. So, I guess, the basic income should be very minimum, in fact, should be minimum possible to keep the person barely alive. Anything more will potentially have "spoiling" effect (failed communism and the British welfare system comes to mind here). No more than minimum required shelter (without any kind of "luxury", including TV, more rooms etc as are given in UK), minimum required raw food with minimum required equipment for preparing the food (no pre cooked fancier food of any kind) and minimum clothes to sustain life (no fancier clothes). Of course, I am aware that terms like "luxury", "minimum" need more precise definitions. I will make a try - Minimum required shelter/food/clothes for survival - to find the minimum amount of shelter/food/clothes required for survival one must look at the quantities the people/peasants in African/Asian/European poor countries (e.g. Liberia, India, or Russia) survive. In fact, the basic income should be just sufficient to survive, if required err on the side of less but not an iota more; if we can guarantee this, then I guess the basic income scheme will not corrupt the people, else it will be a recipe for economic/societal disaster and ruin. Luxury - anything beyond/more the minimum is luxury as far as basic income is concerned. Edit - added definition of luxury.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    My premise for a basic I come is that most of the work we do is simply more than necessary. My thought is that a lot of people will be shut out because many entry level jobs and jobs that require minimal training will continue to get automated and disappear as we move towards the future. We need to make sure those who won't be able to find a job don't starve. Maybe we ought to bring in wealthy people in for experiment. What makes them get up in the morning and work when they could just sleep all day? Why does Bill Gates still care about Microsoft even though it represents an ever decreasing portion of his wealth? Of course, we will have tons of free riders but that's the price we pay. Also we don't care because any welfare system will have free riders.
    - tmptmp 11y ago
      >>Of course, we will have tons of free riders but that's the price we pay. Also we don't care because any welfare system will have free riders. The price of what? What positive do we get in return? And how much price? The UK seems to be paying exorbitant price for whatever benefit they claim/perceive to be getting from their flawed welfare programme.
YokoZar 11y ago
Hole digging is a waste of labor. Basic income allows the person to do other valuable things, such as work a job part time and care for children or go to school. Or they work a non-hole-digging job full time.

by tmptmp 11y ago

newjersey 11y ago

Basic income is not a complete solution. It is a start. We'd still need ways to motivate people. I think basic income would be great. We could have smaller class sizes in our elementary schools. I'd like to imagine some people volunteering to take care of kids for a few hours after school because they don't have to worry about starving for not making any money. In short, I think people will do useful work if we just give them the ability to do so. We'd still need schools and such (preferably at no cost to the students) but I think not having to worry about starving would be great for humanity as a whole.

tmptmp 11y ago
I am still confused. You said, >We'd still need ways to motivate people. I think basic income would be great. ... >I think not having to worry about starving would be great for humanity as a whole. Motivating a person who is not starving and has no worry about starving in future is a damn difficult job. But maybe I will grant this thing for the sake of argument, because, there may be other things that may still motivate people. e.g. yearning for better lifestyle. So, I guess, the basic income should be very minimum, in fact, should be minimum possible to keep the person barely alive. Anything more will potentially have "spoiling" effect (failed communism and the British welfare system comes to mind here). No more than minimum required shelter (without any kind of "luxury", including TV, more rooms etc as are given in UK), minimum required raw food with minimum required equipment for preparing the food (no pre cooked fancier food of any kind) and minimum clothes to sustain life (no fancier clothes). Of course, I am aware that terms like "luxury", "minimum" need more precise definitions. I will make a try - Minimum required shelter/food/clothes for survival - to find the minimum amount of shelter/food/clothes required for survival one must look at the quantities the people/peasants in African/Asian/European poor countries (e.g. Liberia, India, or Russia) survive. In fact, the basic income should be just sufficient to survive, if required err on the side of less but not an iota more; if we can guarantee this, then I guess the basic income scheme will not corrupt the people, else it will be a recipe for economic/societal disaster and ruin. Luxury - anything beyond/more the minimum is luxury as far as basic income is concerned. Edit - added definition of luxury.
- newjersey 11y ago
  My premise for a basic I come is that most of the work we do is simply more than necessary. My thought is that a lot of people will be shut out because many entry level jobs and jobs that require minimal training will continue to get automated and disappear as we move towards the future. We need to make sure those who won't be able to find a job don't starve. Maybe we ought to bring in wealthy people in for experiment. What makes them get up in the morning and work when they could just sleep all day? Why does Bill Gates still care about Microsoft even though it represents an ever decreasing portion of his wealth? Of course, we will have tons of free riders but that's the price we pay. Also we don't care because any welfare system will have free riders.
  - tmptmp 11y ago
    >>Of course, we will have tons of free riders but that's the price we pay. Also we don't care because any welfare system will have free riders. The price of what? What positive do we get in return? And how much price? The UK seems to be paying exorbitant price for whatever benefit they claim/perceive to be getting from their flawed welfare programme.

YokoZar 11y ago

Hole digging is a waste of labor. Basic income allows the person to do other valuable things, such as work a job part time and care for children or go to school. Or they work a non-hole-digging job full time.