3 ms·

I am living in France and here are the arguments I heard against the Universal income so far that has nothing to do with cost or impossibility to set up. Some

I am living in France and here are the arguments I heard against the Universal income so far that has nothing to do with cost or impossibility to set up. Some say this is a patch to hide misery. The idea is that they think we should not give people charity, keeping them alive but still poor, and instead focus on the real problem: the lack of jobs and the disparity of incomes. I even heard from some that the Universal Income is a Silicon Valley idea to keep getting richer while giving the poor just enough to keep consuming, thus maintaining the capitalistic economy alive. An other argument I have heard beside cost is that it encourages/rewards laziness and inactivity.

coldtea 10y ago
>Some say this is a patch to hide misery. The idea is that they think we should not give people charity, keeping them alive in misery, but instead focus on the real problem: the lack of jobs and the disparity of incomes. The "lack of jobs" would be the real problem is jobs were premised to be available. But jobs are there to accomplish things (and a number of them could be enough for doing those things) not to give people a paycheck.
- rubber_duck 10y ago
  >But jobs are there to accomplish things (and a number of them could be enough for doing those things) not to give people a paycheck. I agree with this view but you also need to realize that if you follow that logic the only reason society exists is because cooperation worked better than alternatives, specialization and jobs came out of that. Now if that's no longer true the core premise of the society disappears, and all the arguments against that is essentially people feeling uncomfortable with this outcome - that a huge part of people will have no role in society and will be dead weight at the mercy of those in power - it's not hard to see why this view makes them uncomfortable.
galfarragem 10y ago
> An other argument I have heard beside cost is that it encourages/rewards laziness and inactivity. If you filter some people and reward others, you encourage laziness and inactivity on people near the threshold but if you don't filter anybody the problem disappears. Humans are naturally active.

coldtea 10y ago

>Some say this is a patch to hide misery. The idea is that they think we should not give people charity, keeping them alive in misery, but instead focus on the real problem: the lack of jobs and the disparity of incomes. The "lack of jobs" would be the real problem is jobs were premised to be available. But jobs are there to accomplish things (and a number of them could be enough for doing those things) not to give people a paycheck.

rubber_duck 10y ago
>But jobs are there to accomplish things (and a number of them could be enough for doing those things) not to give people a paycheck. I agree with this view but you also need to realize that if you follow that logic the only reason society exists is because cooperation worked better than alternatives, specialization and jobs came out of that. Now if that's no longer true the core premise of the society disappears, and all the arguments against that is essentially people feeling uncomfortable with this outcome - that a huge part of people will have no role in society and will be dead weight at the mercy of those in power - it's not hard to see why this view makes them uncomfortable.

galfarragem 10y ago

> An other argument I have heard beside cost is that it encourages/rewards laziness and inactivity. If you filter some people and reward others, you encourage laziness and inactivity on people near the threshold but if you don't filter anybody the problem disappears. Humans are naturally active.