4 ms·

I'd like to discuss whose responsibility it should be to ensure citizens have access to basic income (to purchase food and shelter) and healthcare. Is it: 1) t

I'd like to discuss whose responsibility it should be to ensure citizens have access to basic income (to purchase food and shelter) and healthcare. Is it: 1) the government 2) corporations or 3) nobody? Currently, it's the government's responsibility if you're unemployed. And, it's the corporations' responsibility if you're employed. As a result, you have corporations that are trying to skirt the responsibility by claiming that their workers are not actually employees. But, why do we rely on corporations to provide basic income and healthcare to BEGIN with? Isn't it better if the government provides a social safety net to ANYONE (employed or unemployed)?

d23 4y ago
> But, why do we rely on corporations to provide basic income and healthcare to BEGIN with? Isn't it better if the government provides a social safety net to ANYONE (employed or unemployed)? Healthcare maybe. But the income argument taken to the extreme: if no one works, society will cease to function. When you work for a corporation you are trading your effort for wages. It seems reasonable to pay a living wage to someone working 40 hours a week. They are contributing to society and shouldn't have to struggle.
- fairity 4y ago
  > If no one works, society will cease to function. I assume you don't actually mean to suggest EVERYONE would stop working. Rather, I assume you're suggesting that UBI, at a level of ~$1500 per month, would result in anyone making minimum wage to quit. Is there data that supports this? I would think that ~$1500 per month provides such a sub-standard quality of life that most of these people would continue working to supplement their income OR invest in learning to further their career. And, corporations, would be forced to increase pay, which would take some readjustment, but wouldn't be the end of the world. > It seems reasonable to pay a living wage to someone working 40 hours a week. I'm saying that, if you remove the need for a social safety net, this statement doesn't ring true. That is, if you're not providing value to an employer, it's not reasonable for them to pay you ANYTHING.

d23 4y ago

> But, why do we rely on corporations to provide basic income and healthcare to BEGIN with? Isn't it better if the government provides a social safety net to ANYONE (employed or unemployed)? Healthcare maybe. But the income argument taken to the extreme: if no one works, society will cease to function. When you work for a corporation you are trading your effort for wages. It seems reasonable to pay a living wage to someone working 40 hours a week. They are contributing to society and shouldn't have to struggle.

fairity 4y ago
> If no one works, society will cease to function. I assume you don't actually mean to suggest EVERYONE would stop working. Rather, I assume you're suggesting that UBI, at a level of ~$1500 per month, would result in anyone making minimum wage to quit. Is there data that supports this? I would think that ~$1500 per month provides such a sub-standard quality of life that most of these people would continue working to supplement their income OR invest in learning to further their career. And, corporations, would be forced to increase pay, which would take some readjustment, but wouldn't be the end of the world. > It seems reasonable to pay a living wage to someone working 40 hours a week. I'm saying that, if you remove the need for a social safety net, this statement doesn't ring true. That is, if you're not providing value to an employer, it's not reasonable for them to pay you ANYTHING.