• bort
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    yes.

    also employees don’t need to have a shitty job to survive.

    Now people have to decide between “doing a shitty job” and “starving”. With UBI people can choose between “doing a shitty job” and “chilling at home”. So if employers want their shitty job to be done, they will actually have to make it worth it (either by increasinge wages, or by making the job less shitty).

    in other words: good jobs will get subsidized by UBI. Shitty jobs will compete with UBI

    • Rusty Shackleford@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      There may be some holes I’m not seeing in your logic, but at face value, there’s no fat in that argument and I would vote for that policy, or something close to it.

    • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It’s also important to note that there are plenty of valuable jobs that simply aren’t getting done because there’s no economic incentive for it. I could definitely see someone on UBI making it their “job” to generally help out poor pensioners in their neighbourhood, just as one example.

      Basically, everything falling under the banner of volunteer work could be done full time, if people are passionate enough about it.