3 ms·
You can't put a dollar value on a lot of contributions towards society. For instance artists, for now, need to try and sell their work but a lot of cultural wor
by kasbah 10y ago
You can't put a dollar value on a lot of contributions towards society. For instance artists, for now, need to try and sell their work but a lot of cultural works are not necessarily sell-able.
It also seems to me that, due to our racist and sexist history, there is a massive wage inequality geared towards industries that are dominated by white males. Who is paying for whom here?
- icebraining 10y agoPlaying Devil's advocate, > You can't put a dollar value on a lot of contributions towards society You could still measure whether any contribution is being made at all and only give BI to those who are contributing. Which is essentially what existing subsidies for art & etc are for. > It also seems to me that, due to our racist and sexist history, there is a massive wage inequality geared towards industries that are dominated by white males. Who is paying for whom here? Under BI, members of minorities who overcame those handicaps will be paying more in taxes to support a whole bunch of white males, though.
- kasbah 10y agoVery good points, I think my comments weren't very focused on the argument at hand but more some thoughts that had been kicking around in my brain that go against the general sentiment of the parent comment. I do think the poor and those with skills in areas that are beneficial to society but not necessarily commercial suffer under our current systems but maybe BI isn't the solution either. I think the appeal of BI is more one for simplifying the bureaucracies around benefits but we would still need some bureaucracy for those that need additional income to support themselves (say people with severe disabilites that can not work). Thanks for the thought out response, the downvotes were getting me down.