My tought is you'll create a lazy nation with way too much free time on its hands and no incentive to move forward.
Most people will not go to school anymore and the nation will split in a learned upper class doing all the work and an unlearned lower class that will play computer games all day long.
Most people will not go to school anymore and the nation will split in a learned upper class doing all the work and an unlearned lower class that will play computer games all day long.
Sounds a bit simplistic to me. You'll have people who want to earn for the sake of earning - the upper capitalist class, you'll have people who earn to get some luxury in their life, which is more or less the middle, and of course you'll have people slacking off. But at least they won't be selling drugs, prostituting themselves and stealing care stereos to get by, since they will have the survival basics covered. Of course, crime will still be an issue, just not out of need, but out of greed. That won't change, ever
What you describe is basically welfare. And it's a demonstrably horrible idea. No debate necessary.
If you hold a statement to be unarguable, then I won't argue with you. However, be careful - thinking in dogmatic terms and not questioning ideas leads down a very dark road.
There is only one basic income guarantee.... work.
Get off your ass and trade your time, blood, sweat, and tears for food, shelter, and clothing.
Otherwise you die, and rightfully so, unless you lived a life of charity and good will that allows you to be helped voluntarily by others of like minds.
No one has a right to life without doing whats necessary for survival.
Get off your ass and trade your time, blood, sweat, and tears for food, shelter, and clothing.
Otherwise you die, and rightfully so, unless you lived a life of charity and good will that allows you to be helped voluntarily by others of like minds.
No one has a right to life without doing whats necessary for survival.
What would happen if there is no work for you at the moment, and you get laid off because of market fluctuations closing down your place of work? Would you still think you deserve to starve? I can twist the argument in another way. Say that for some reason I can't get a job at the moment and my landlord is knocking on the door. If there is no social net to help me, I would break the law to make money. I would just be doing it to survive.
Doesn't make me a very productive member of society, does it? And anyway, we have to be pragmatic - many people, even in developed countries, are kept from realizing their potential because they have to stick to low-paying jobs to support their families. If they had the freedom to pursue higher education or their true interests, then we might end up with a valuable piece of art, or a new book, or the code for a great alternative online currency.
I personally think a basic income is the wrong way to go.
I see only 2 Ends to this:
1. Prices adapt to the higher income to a level where the basic income is just enough not to starve.
2. The lazy nation argument.
I see only 2 Ends to this:
1. Prices adapt to the higher income to a level where the basic income is just enough not to starve.
2. The lazy nation argument.
For the lazy nation argument, I'm not sure that that holds. People will still have the incentive to earn, since perceived value is not absolute, but relative. Low-income jobs will continue to decline in the future no matter what we do. And as for keeping companies here, with BIG you could actually afford to pay less, since people would have basics covered.
Your comment on the prices is regrettably true and the biggest problem I can see with BIG.