4 ms·
ofc it would have economic impacts. but do we as a society really want to take advantage of our most vulnerable as is happening now? its the same with the basic
by globalnode 2y ago
ofc it would have economic impacts. but do we as a society really want to take advantage of our most vulnerable as is happening now? its the same with the basic income debate. healthy people most likely wouldnt just take it and do nothing but live off handouts, theyd be bored and start thinking up ways to fill their time -- potentially creating more economic benefits or some may voluntarily choose to do shitty jobs for extra income. if a product is of vital human importance and business cant get it done then govt can ensure its production. it wouldnt be an end to capitalism it would just be a more sustainable approach.
- chatmasta 2y ago> advantage of our most vulnerable as is happening now? its the same with the basic income debate I’m pretty sure it’s the same debate. If you distinguish between the two then it becomes a different debate. But the whole point of basic income is that everyone gets a baseline check every month, regardless of whether or how they spend it. Even with basic income you’d still have homeless people who spent the money on things other than homes.
- ksynwa 2y ago"We as a society" don't really decide on anything. The power to make laws and the power required to enforce them rest in the hands of a select few wealthy people who stand to lose money from the dissolution of manufactured scarcity and precarity. Policies like universal healthcare are viewed favourably by the American public especially when presented without the dressing of red scare but something like that (which many developed countries have to varying extent) does not even come close to being considered in the House and Senate because it would make Wall Street very uncomfortable.