3 ms·
I was shocked by the "magic of markets" analysis. When there's no more bread, people make more bread ? Nope, bread becomes more expensive. Especially with autom
by wiz21 11y ago
I was shocked by the "magic of markets" analysis. When there's no more bread, people make more bread ? Nope, bread becomes more expensive. Especially with automation : it's harder for new baker to start in the market, so those in the market get more powerful. That's concentration.
Basic income will make less poor but more slaves. Slaves that will be dependent on those (I assume it's the state) who define the exact amount of that uncondional income. Since a huge part of the population will be out of the "producer", thus the producer will have more power.
What must be done instead is to make sure power doesn't get concentrated. But this means less efficiency : one big optimised company is surely more efficient that ten smaller ones. With less power, the workforce can still negociate, the workforce can still share the remaining work, those who have no job still have a chance to get one if they want/need to. With basic income, there's no need to do that anymore...
So I don't like that basic income.
For example, there's a lot of unemployment in my country. People gets some allowance to live. The problem is that the lack of work is not acknowledged => those people are stigmatized. Anyway, they do get an allowance, kind of your basic income. The problem is that because of the unemployment, the employer are in a very strong position to pay people less (since many do want/need a job). So work valuation diminishes...
Competition is the problem, if companies would compete less, then basic income could work. There would be more space for choice : do I work or not ? can I share my work ?
Basic income means : let's detach ourselves from the consequences of competition.
- pvaldes 11y agoBasic income can also mean other things. Some people just are so unique that don't need to compete. Some examples of unemployed people that did not have an income other that the support of his family, friends or government in a part of (or all) his life: Vincent Van Gogh, too clumsy to farm John Steinbeck, housed by his father that provides also paper and material Harper Lee, sabbatical payed by friends J.K. Rowling, writing whereas on welfare. ... and many others Take in mind that you don't have just competition, there is also collaboration, and teaming, and life-changers. Some people just born in poverty. This would not be his choice if they could. Some born in a poor rural environment somewhere in Misissipi, other in a manger in the middle of nowhere. Some of those people are between the most influent people in the history of the humanity. People seem to worry about that basic income could lead to a lot of people scratching his bellies all day (and this is true) but don't always notice that this will also reveal a hidden minory of fine gem crafters in art, music, literature or poetry that are just roting now and could be free to create huge economic values instead.