4 ms·

>and it allows for a recognition of the value of certain types of non-market labour, like caring or raising children. How? It looks like a full-time carer and

• Dewie 13y ago
  > How? It looks like a full-time carer and a full-time layabout would be equally rewarded. I don't think any basic-income scheme has anything to do with paying the people that work and the people that don't work the same. It's just about giving the unemployed a basic income, while those who actually work can have any income that people are willing to pay them (like now).
  • frobozz 13y ago
    I'm not talking about paying everyone the same, I'm talking about the difference between non-market-work and non-work. The article states that Basic Income allows for the recognition of the value of non-market-work. I can't see how. In order to "recognize the value" of non-market-work, such workers must be treated differently to non-workers (unless the value is recognized to be zero). Any difference in the treatment of non-market-workers and non-workers is equally possible without a Basic Income system. If those who do non-market work (e.g caring for their disabled partner) get paid the same as people who do no work at all, then it is valued identically to non-work. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it can hardly be said to be "recognition of the value" of non-market-work. This means that a parent who takes time away from market-work to raise children; a person who provides full-time care for their disabled spouse; and a person who divides their time between playing CoD and watching Jersey Shore; are all paid the same.