We worry about providing Universal Basic Income because people might stop working, but here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, with a little financial security, people might actually pursue work they truly choose rather than work to just not die. Imagine that world for a moment.
🇳🇱
As someone who is strongly against UBI, and strongly supportive of welfare I can earnestly say people simply not working is not at all the reason I (or most people against UBI in my opinion) are against it.
The reason i am against it is because it causes people more harm than good. People who are in a position where they need assistance need to be given the tools to get out of their situation, and the help to get there needs to be conditional on this (and we should be spending the money that goes with that). Financial assistance should be conditional with mandatory job training or mental health therapy needed to help someone succeed, not just money.
In fact when there are underlying bad habits, as can often be the case, it is possible money can even make a persons condition worse and cause them to sleep farther into poverty.
Bruh. Let's maybe go total anarcho-capitalism with no welfare? Honestly, it will be more efficient and friendly to poor people.
> it causes people more harm than good.
The shitty conditional welfare just lock poor uneducated people out of jobs. For example, someone have no job and therefore receives unemployment benefits. If this person finds a job, they will no longer receive unemployment benefits. But they only have an option to apply for a shitty job with salary lower than their unemployment benefit, therefore, it is not profitable for them to look for a job at all. This (and high minimum wages) is the exact mechanics that cause ghettos in france.
I am not suggesting welfare in its current form be used. I am suggest it be conditional on one getting the training to no longer need welfare, in which case welfare will get you through that time,
And how it should work 🤔
The concept of ubi didn't pop up into existence because economists were bored, it was created to address the issues with the current version of welfare and its conditioning.
Yea that was the attempt and it fails miserably at achieving it. IT proposes a state that doesnt fix the underlying problem, just dumps an infinite firehose of cash at it hoping to alleviate the symptoms. Which is hugely problematic in so many ways.
I am a strong believer in addressing root problems,and not wasting those same resources fighting a raging fire with a squirt gun.
Nothing except an ever increasing GDP can ever even hope to thwart reality and it's obviously unsustainable to do that.
So either we give up capitalism or we accept this reality. If you give up capitalism, what do you replace it with? This argument has been had ad infinitum and the ultimate result is capitalism sucks but it's better than every other economy that's been tried. And no amount of "not real communism bro" can make the fact capitalism is the best we have right now any less of a true statement.
> The problem with your thinking is that in capitalism there are winners and losers, period. In nature it is the same. No amount of money will ever solve it because it is not a problem, it is simply reality.
Yea thats not true. In a properly function government which adopts a reasonable component of capitalism (no such thing as a pure capitalism), then everyone wins. Some win more than others, no doubt, but everyone wins. That isnt to say we currently have a good well rounded government, we dont, but if we did there would be nothing to fix.
Your incorrect premise relies on the zero-sum game fallacy of money, it is not a 0 sum game and it is trivial to demonstrate that (if it were we would all still be living in caves).
> Nothing except an ever increasing GDP can ever even hope to thwart reality and it's obviously unsustainable to do that.
Based on what? While a growing GDP is generally a good thing, the idea that it must occur to offset capitalism somehow is not something I can see any logic in. Quite the opposite, a growing GNP is an indication of wealth generation and overall a good indicator.
> So either we give up capitalism or we accept this reality. If you give up capitalism, what do you replace it with? This argument has been had ad infinitum and the ultimate result is capitalism sucks but it's better than every other economy that's been tried. And no amount of "not real communism bro" can make the fact capitalism is the best we have right now any less of a true statement.
Since your premise doesnt seem to line up with the facts, obviously your conclusions based on the axioms are similarly invalid unless we can resolve the axioms.
> It is 100% true. I will not argue it with you, because it would be retarded to do so. People far smarter than me have proven it over and over and over again.
Thats fine, then dont waste my time making stupid arguments you have no desire to discuss. My posts are not your soap box, they are for conversations not you to lecture people and then be too lazy to even discuss your wildlly fringe stance.
> Read an economics textbook and apply some basic reasoning skills to reality.
Saying "read a text book" rather than actually being able to explain your own ideas is lazy, and quite frankly makes you look like a troll who adds no value to the conversation.Act like a mature adult or you can GTFO, we dont need your toxic shit here.
> There is no such thing as "capitalism with caveats". There is no such thing as "a government with social spending that never collapses". History proves me right too, by the way.
Saying more dumbass shit that isnt true isnt getting you anywhere.
> Also Laissez-faire capitalism. Might as well look that up too since you don't even seem to know that much.
I already have posts in my feed about this very topic and where I fall on the issue. Nice try with doubling down ont he toddler-level insults though, you can GTFO of here with that shit, the adults are talking.
It is 100% true. I will not argue it with you, because it would be retarded to do so. People far smarter than me have proven it over and over and over again.
Read an economics textbook and apply some basic reasoning skills to reality.
There is no such thing as "capitalism with caveats". There is no such thing as "a government with social spending that never collapses". History proves me right too, by the way.
Also Laissez-faire capitalism. Might as well look that up too since you don't even seem to know that much.