|
Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 38,323
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
This is wrong. This is rewarding people for having zero motivation. Or doing nothing at all.
Why should I bother doing a good job when I am guaranteed a basic income?
|
That is an understandable first reaction to the concept of Basic Income.
I suggest you read more about Basic Income to understand what it is before you reject it out-of-hand based upon how the current system operates (unless you are content with the status quo):
http://www.globalincome.org/English/Global-Basic-Income.html
Quote:
A Global Basic Income (GBI) is undeniably a high ideal.
From the perspective of the world as it is today most people will probably think it is unrealistic. However, we believe that it can become a reality.
This belief is based first and foremost on our belief in people. People are egoistic; they want what is good for themselves. We don't want to deny that, but we believe that people also want what is good for others. We don't want other people to suffer; we all would prefer to live in a world where everybody can lead a worthy, fulfilling, happy life.
That is the basic conviction that underlies our goals.
The challenge, therefore, is to organise our societies and the world community in such ways, that the fulfilment of our own personal needs does not harm others. A basic income that guarantees every man, woman and child freedom from starvation and degrading poverty would be an important step to achieve this goal.
A few centuries ago almost no one would have believed that universal suffrage or social security systems like the ones we have today would be possible. Yet, here we are. There are no insurmountable obstacles to the introduction of a GBI. All depends on our ideas, will and the choices we as individuals and nations make.
|
From the FAQ page:
http://www.globalincome.org/English/FAQ.html
Quote:
1. Why is a GBI given without an obligation to work?
The idea that you have to work to earn, to deserve, an income is rooted deep in our moral feelings and ethical beliefs.
Of course, in countries with developed social security systems there are many people who receive an income without working - elderly people, unemployed people, students - but these allowances depend on work done in the past or on the willingness to do work, now or in the future. Allowances without an obligation to work are only given to people who are not able to do (paid) work. A person, who is able to work but doesn't want to accept a job that is available, lives off of, profits, parasites on the efforts of others. This is the general feeling.
We don't want to argue against the moral intuition that people should work to earn an income. At the same time we advocate a basic income without an obligation to work.
This sounds contradictory, but it isn't. There is a difference between a moral obligation and a formal obligation, installed by law and enforced through sanctions. A formal obligation is often not the best way to make people act in accordance with a moral obligation. This is also true in this case: the moral obligation to work doesn't have to be enforced through law and sanctions. Moreover, it is harmful to the people involved as well as to society. Why?
First of all, no formal obligation and sanctions are needed because people are motivated to work by themselves. We believe that all people have a desire to do something productive.
Doing nothing or only having fun is not satisfactory to any person for a long period of time. People want to make a difference, want to achieve something in life or want to contribute to the community they live in. Therefore, a work motivation doesn't have to be enforced. Such enforcement is a denial of the genuine motivation of people and will only diminish the desire of people to work.
Secondly, a basic income is only for basic needs. It doesn't include money to buy a television, or a car, to pay the membership fees of a club, to buy sports shoes, to take dance courses or to go on holiday.
To buy anything more than what is needed for basic needs, people would still have to work and earn an (extra) income. Few if any people at all will be satisfied with just a GBI. This is the second reason why people will be motivated to work, without a formal obligation.
Despite these strong work motivations, it would probably be difficult to find enough workers for a lot of hard, low-paid work that needs to be done, when people don't depend anymore on work for survival. However, this shouldn't be seen as a problem.
The free market will solve this problem automatically when it is left to do its work. If not enough workers can be found for certain jobs, the working conditions of these jobs have to be improved or the salaries raised until the demand of labour and the supply of labour are in balance again. That is how a free market works. An unconditional basic income will make the labour market freer than it is now.
Forcing people to do hard, underpaid work by threatening them with poverty or even starvation in case of non-compliance, is a practice that has no place in a democratic, free society.
Many people nowadays are unhappy with their work and lives, because of this practice. It constitutes a constant incursion on the democratic values of our societies and on human dignity.
The dependence on work for survival gives richer people and companies too much power over people with little money. A basic income would reduce this imbalance in power. It would end at least extreme forms of exploitation. It would give everybody the freedom to decide according to their own beliefs and wishes about the work they want to do and the contribution they want to make to society.
Apart from the fact that the conditions and quality of paid work would change through the introduction of a basic income, it would also lead to a revaluation of unpaid work. So much unpaid work is done in our societies which is as important or even more important than paid work: raising children, household work, volunteers work for social organisations or people in need, and so on.
A basic income can be seen as recognition of all this important work. It would also constitute a defence line for voluntary work against the pressures of the market.
A formal obligation to work is also harmful to society. First of all because society is a community of people. Therefore, what isn't good for people also isn't good for society. Secondly because society as a whole, its structure, the general living conditions and quality of life, is negatively affected by a formal work obligation.
This negative affect can perhaps best made clear by indicating what would happen if a basic income, without work obligation, is introduced: working conditions will improve, income distribution will become more fair, people would be happier with the work they are doing, voluntary work would flourish, production that is harmful to people and nature would decrease and the overall quality of production would increase.
To recapitulate: the moral obligation to work doesn't have to be enforced through law and sanctions, because people have a will of their own to be productive and, secondly, because people have many desires other than basic needs, for which they need an extra income. Moreover, a formal work obligation negatively affects the lives of many people individually and of society as a whole.
There is an additional, fundamental argument for an unconditional basic income, namely the right of every human being to life.
This right is more fundamental than work ethics. If a person doesn't want to accept a job that is available, this fact doesn't constitute enough reason to deprive this person of the means to live.
Of course, if a formal obligation to work would be necessary to produce enough goods and services so that everybody can live, then such a work obligation would be justified. This brings us back to the previous arguments, which showed that such a necessity doesn't exist.
A last argument supporting the plea for an unconditional basic income is the fact that mechanisation and automation have raised productivity to such levels that only a part of the total labour potential available is needed to produce the goods and services we need. As long as there are more than enough people who like to work and earn money, we don't have to force everybody.
|
ADG |