3 ms·
>This could mean a substantial number of people are neither creating wealth through work or taxable business. How is this any different than what we have curre
by rorykoehler 11y ago
>This could mean a substantial number of people are neither creating wealth through work or taxable business.
How is this any different than what we have currently? It could be argued that many employed persons are currently destroying wealth through unethical practices encouraged by profit/rent seeking that is prevalent in contemporary economy.
A basic income as you have noted will also allow for people to open 'good businesses' without as much of a pressure to turn a profit. Ideally society would start to look down upon the "I work for <expletive>'s people/companies because I need to pay the bills" attitude that is pervasive today and people would start taking their responsibilities to themselves, their community and our greater environment more seriously.
- lackingcaffeine 11y agoI don't agree that anything close to a majority a people are working unethically or for unethical ends. Most people are doing jobs that have some economic and societal function. This system works so well because if the product you are offering isn't needed by society then it can't exist. I'm just wondering what the consequences of this subversion will be. If everybody opens a "good business" that doesn't make a profit or is needed, the services we do need will be compromised and the money we take to build schools and hospitals will be reduced. The ethical net gain might be good, and society's impression of jobs may be altered but that doesn't answer the economic problem of how to encourage people to work in fields that are fiscally meaningful
- rorykoehler 11y agoThere are currently plenty of things that are needed but are not profitable so they are not delivered and also plenty of things that are wanted and delivered by the market but not needed. Unfortunately the market is not a fix all for humanity.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]