4 ms·

The problem with your thinking is that it ignores that it takes "work" to get people those basic necessities you refer to. So there absolutely is a danger in di

The problem with your thinking is that it ignores that it takes "work" to get people those basic necessities you refer to. So there absolutely is a danger in disincentivizing people to work, if people contribute nothing, but consume even these basic needs. I'm not against basic income, but there absolutely is risk to society.

saycheese 10y ago
Worth noting that less than 100 people on Earth have the net worth of half of Earth's population; half of the world's population is 3.5 billion people. Notable source: https://theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined https://theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-bill...
- tgfgvc 10y ago
  Do less than 100 people on Earth have taxable monthly income (which can be used for UBI) same as half of world's population? Or same income as UBI for half of world's population? Net worth is irrelevant.
  - mrleinad 10y ago
    It's far from irrelevant. It's the core of the problem. I don't give a cp about taxable income. They should not have that much power. Period. Take it away from them and put it to good use.
caseyohara 10y ago
The incentive system you mention only exists under the assumption that everyone needs to work. My understanding is that with the productivity gains of the digital age, those that are working are able to produce enough to cover those that are not working. We have an abundance of wealth, more than enough to ensure everyone's most basic needs are taken care of. It's just at odds with a capitalist economy.
danharaj 10y ago
The amount of work to produce our basic necessities has fallen decade after decade for over a century. We are wringing our hands over the perceived threat of "lazy" people when the cure for this alleged disease causes so much misery for so many people already. It's not a fear founded on empirical evidence.
- pgwhalen 10y ago
  The fear of lazy people is not founded on empirical evidence just as much as the idea that people can be encouraged to contribute nothing without detriment is founded on empirical evidence. Once again, I'm not sure about how the reality would play out on a large scale, but obviously there is risk.
mrleinad 10y ago
So, you're saying that giving people the basic needs for living creates more jobs? There, you just solved the problem. Put money into creating this structure and it'll sustain itself.

saycheese 10y ago

Worth noting that less than 100 people on Earth have the net worth of half of Earth's population; half of the world's population is 3.5 billion people. Notable source: https://theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined https://theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-bill...

tgfgvc 10y ago
Do less than 100 people on Earth have taxable monthly income (which can be used for UBI) same as half of world's population? Or same income as UBI for half of world's population? Net worth is irrelevant.
- mrleinad 10y ago
  It's far from irrelevant. It's the core of the problem. I don't give a cp about taxable income. They should not have that much power. Period. Take it away from them and put it to good use.

caseyohara 10y ago

The incentive system you mention only exists under the assumption that everyone needs to work. My understanding is that with the productivity gains of the digital age, those that are working are able to produce enough to cover those that are not working. We have an abundance of wealth, more than enough to ensure everyone's most basic needs are taken care of. It's just at odds with a capitalist economy.

danharaj 10y ago

The amount of work to produce our basic necessities has fallen decade after decade for over a century. We are wringing our hands over the perceived threat of "lazy" people when the cure for this alleged disease causes so much misery for so many people already. It's not a fear founded on empirical evidence.

pgwhalen 10y ago
The fear of lazy people is not founded on empirical evidence just as much as the idea that people can be encouraged to contribute nothing without detriment is founded on empirical evidence. Once again, I'm not sure about how the reality would play out on a large scale, but obviously there is risk.

mrleinad 10y ago

So, you're saying that giving people the basic needs for living creates more jobs? There, you just solved the problem. Put money into creating this structure and it'll sustain itself.