3 ms·
I agree that a basic income may be the best solution to the decline in demand for labor. And I consider myself economically conservative. There is still much t
by aneth4 13y ago
I agree that a basic income may be the best solution to the decline in demand for labor. And I consider myself economically conservative. There is still much to be learned about the societal effect. Its something we need to consider as an alternative to social upheaval.
However other parts of this article concern me, in particular:
"Employment law is liberalised, as workers no longer need to fear dismissal."
Employment laws should be entirely at will in such a system. Workers should fear dismissal. And after all, they have a basic income to fall back on.
Combining basic income with "liberal" employment law would be a disaster.
- dragonwriter 13y agoI don't think you understand what "liberalised" employment law means, since it means movement in the direction (if not necessarily to the exact point) you are arguing for in arguing against it.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- aneth4 13y agoWell, "liberalised" as a general term doesn't mean anything, so I wouldn't say I "don't understand" it. The language is ambiguous, but you may be correct on second thought.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Well, "liberalised" as a general term doesn't mean anything With economic policy, it always means reduced regulation in favor of increased reliance on mutual consent of the parties.
- aneth4 13y agoWell I'm all for that outside of safety, transparency, and abuse regulations.
- thedufer 13y ago> Employment law is liberalised, as workers no longer need to fear dismissal. I read that as "workers no longer need to fear dismissal because they can fall back on their basic income", and assumed that "liberalised" meant "doesn't protect workers from being fired". But you read that completely differently. Which does he mean? I agree with it as I read it, which is the same as what you're saying.