4 ms·
No matter how much currency you give the poor in society, there won't be an incentive to reward people which provide zero value. Prices will just go up. How m
by jokethrowaway 4y ago
No matter how much currency you give the poor in society, there won't be an incentive to reward people which provide zero value.
Prices will just go up.
How much free time you have could very well be a function of how valuable / hard to automate your work is.
- mrpotato 4y ago> there won't be an incentive to reward people which provide zero value. I am assuming you mean "who don't work" when you say provide zero value. The poor encompass more than just people living in a cardboard box in some alley. There are poor people living paycheck to paycheck who are barely able to afford food AND a roof over their head. A poor person can be a single parent with two kids who works two minimum wage jobs just to be able to provide for their family.
- joomooru 4y agoReally telling when a person equates low wage with providing no value in society. So much for "essential workers" being forced to work in-person during the pandemic
- ErrantX 4y agoIndeed. I have a top 1% salary but my pleasant life is provided largely by those earning under 30K GBP. This is probably true of the majority here... It wears heavily on me daily.
- ErrantX 4y agoI fundamentally disagree; the smartest and wealthiest of our society should also be working hard to make the lives of the poorest better. You are sort of making my point; proposals like this assume that those who contribute "less" are less valuable - but of course that is only true on one scale. As a though exercise; if someone is physically disabled to the extent they cannot work and need regular care should they a) live hand to mouth and unable to afford non-essentials? Or b) should they be comfortable and capable of indulging in luxuries. Currently our society says they have zero value so (a). I argue that it should be (b)