When will basic income become a human right? Even Thomas Paine advocated for it
>>78746583
>appeal to authority as argument
You already lost. Go away newfag.
>>78746583
When we start advocating, seriously, who deserves *our* way of life.
*cultural age of the early 1900s
>>78746583
But I am hoping it comes soon, before it's *too late*
*authoritarian bour·geoi·sie
>>78747646
>>78747108
>>78746923
>the i have never read an economics book before clan
No.
>>78746583
>basic income
>human right
You're right! Pay me while I do no more work, thanks.
>>78748103
>the I don't study economics so I have to read shitty books about it and pretend to understand it
There's got to be jobs that only humans can do which robots will not be able to do for in the next 30 years.
Artists of all kinds, human resources, public relations, really anything that relies heavily on social skills and emotional thought. Architects, animal handlers certainly.
Also hookers.
>>78748750
You better start brushing up on economics soon, you might be running the EU soon
>>78749375
Well, tell me your arguments in favor of basic income. I have many against, let's discuss like civilized people.
>>78749572
Haha hey fuck you faggot DUDE BOOOOM LMAO
>>78749572
If basic income is slavery then so is regular employment, yes? I mean, you are dependent on your employer for your lively hood, are you not? Even if you quit your job you will need to find someone else who will hire you eventually just so you can continue to purchase your basic necessities.
I guess if you want to throw terms like 'slavery' around, then one must recognize that even in our current society we are and have always been slaves of some kind. I guess if you like to go out and 'hunt' for your income, does that give you the illusion that you are free and provide some level of comfort?
>>78750066
On a moral/ethical perspective:
I believe Marx got the meaning of 'job' right.
Marx said that a man is defined by the product of his very hands. Therefore I believe that work is mandatory because it makes Man who he really is.
On a microecon perspective, I believe the time-money relation holds on pretty good. One is paid because he gives up his product and his time in order to acquire currency and purchase goods. It's completely legit to me.
Summarizing, work is necessary because it makes Man a Man and can be exchanged for currency, along with time.
If basic income is introduced, these relations completely fck up because work loses all its value since you acquire currency without the need to realize yourself as a human.
>>78750066
On a macroecon perspective, I think very few Countries can provide basic income without contracting enormous amounts of public debt.
Also, salaries go to hell completely. Let's say one is paid like 1500 dollars a month just because he exists.
Would he accept a 1600 salary for a job? 1700? 1800? 1900? 2000?
Would he accept to work 10 hours a day to get 2000 or would he lay around getting free 1500?
When does this end?
A lot of blue collar jobs and menial jobs would go all out completely and salaries may rise because the basic income of 1500 is quickly accepted as the new base like 0 was before.
One who got 3000 a month may ask to get 4500 because 1500 of his salary are not 'earned' since the State could provide them.
There are just too many issued with a basic income.
>>78749572
I think basic income can only be implemented with strong societal constraints and legislated subjectivity, such as controlling who can and cannot become reproduce, and demanding some sort of production in return. I like the idea as a way to expand the culture of a nation, on the principle that culture is a product of leisure, or as a way to allow further education.
If a person on basic income is to produce art, the art should be judged to meet the standards of consumption for the community. No "artist" should receive income for producing an album of various white noise, or a canvas entirely painted red, unless it should prove to be incredibly popular, even in a subversive way.
Should a person prove unable to produce usable art within a certain period, or should their education prove unable to produce an invention, business, or job within a certain period, that person shall be moved from the leisure basic income to a working basic income.
Concerning economic effects, a nation is not a business, and the goal of a nation and government is not to increase the GDP and employment of it's citizens, but rather to provide them with the means to reproduce, and to ensure that the nation (the genetic entity of the citizens) is forever capable of reproduction. However, economics should not be considered to be any small part of that.
>>78746583
People who don't earn their way in the world actually deserve to starve.
Basic income would rapidly lead a country straight to destitution
>>78751672
>a nation is not a business
This is completely wrong. Everyone is seeing right now how countries which are run not on an 'economic, efficient and effectiveness/efficacy' perspective contract debt which exceeds the value of all yearly income of the country. 'Social welfare' states go all in trying to provide everything to everyone and ultimately fail because needs grow exponentially every time some are provided by the state, and costs and debt rise with them. This is why the welfare state died a long time ago and people still cling on it like small snails on a rotting tree trunk.
A country has to be run like a business in many ways, debt savvy and cost savvy.
>>78746583
sometime around 2070
don't hold your breath
>>78752341
You already posted this one.
