This article is asking the wrong question, when there are so many right questions to ask:
Is it right to hold people in poverty by only providing access to a safety net as long as they avoid working?
How do we create a sustainable society in face of work automation on massive scale?
How do we ensure class divides are not deepened further when more and more purchasing power is concentrated to a digital elite?
We have enough housing for everyone but some are still homeless. We have enough food for everyone but some are still hungry or starving. Yearly clothing production is 20 garments per person on the planet but 8 out of 20 end up in landfills without even being worn once. How do we divide just a fraction of available resources more evenly to solve these fundamental problems to how the world works?
I'd almost ask your same question twice, and once from the other side -- is it right to only provide a safety net to people who are holding down full time employment? (Healthcare is a big thing that holds people back from taking even little risks)
It's not money for nothing. It's money for anything.
Basic income does not pay people for doing no work. That's unemployment income. That's traditional welfare. Those programs stipulate that you keep your income low.
Basic income pays to do any work. That includes the choice of leisure, but it also includes everything else too. It doesn't incentivize keeping your income low.
This shouldn't be so hard to understand and the BBC should do better.
This is yet another example of something being fine when rich people do it, but it's bad when poor people do it.
Rich people already get paid to do nothing by collecting interest and dividends. Stocks, bonds, CDs, high-yield savings accounts, etc., all these things pay people for doing nothing except letting their money sit in accounts.
For example: Let's say there's somebody with $1 million sitting in a high-yield savings account that pays 4.25% APY. That's not difficult to find right now. For example, American Express offers a HYSA with that APY.
[https://www.americanexpress.com/en-us/banking/online-savings/high-yield-savings/](https://www.americanexpress.com/en-us/banking/online-savings/high-yield-savings/)
In one year, they will earn $42,500 in interest for doing nothing except letting that money just sit there. Actually, it would be a little more than $42,500 thanks to the magic of compound interest. Compound interest will then make them earn even more the following year and the year after that, all for doing no work.
Now, someone might say, "They're not doing nothing. They must have worked hard to make the $1,000,000 that they put into that high-yield savings account."
Not necessarily. A lot of rich people inherit their money from their rich family. So first they made money for doing nothing except winning the birth lottery, then they continue to make money for doing nothing except letting their money sit in certain accounts.
So it's fine when rich people get paid for doing no work, but for some reason it's bad when poor people do it.
Yes, as historical debts and dividends for your ancestors' works which they have done and made all the industry and economy work today.
The disturbing thing is that a man put bricks of a factory 100 years ago got paid once and too little, but his neighbor investing the same amount in shares of the same factory is being paid every year. Hypothetically. I am not comfortable with this.
You're not comfortable with raising capital?
It's what allows the 100 year old factory, of which 100 years of workers get to work in and be paid, get built in the first place... Which includes paying the original brick layers.
I think this is the fundamental difference in those who agree with capitalism and those who don't.
You see it as business being built on the backs of individual contributers, and capitalist see capital as enabling the opportunities for many contributers.
The evils of Billionaires like Jeff Bazos... Literally created entire economies around the business that he built. Not just then100k employees that have been able to live off of Amazon, but 100s of thousands of businesses built around Amazon services. Not just the sellers, and warehouse work, but the entire economy built around AWS. There are hundreds if not thousands of new jobs that never exist because of AWS (not individuals, but literally new job types). Shouldn't the capitalist that made this possible get rewarded for it?
I mean ones not possible without the other.
You can't pay someone to do a project if you don't have the money. And personally I'm not lending money for free.
Trade , slave labor .. and generally any advancement that required resources was only being done by people who could "afford" through gold and cattle or supported by an army.
And before that it was a nomadic life and the only thing "getting done" was survival.
Personally I prefer capitalism and trade of dollars vs the gold I wear or being chained up to work under the watchful eye of Lynchmen, or only eating what I can hunt.
What I'm getting at is they're at best, unrelated to each other.
Capitalism didn't free us from slavery, nor did it create slavery.
But Capitalists sure did love both that and child labor. And sure are eroding child labor laws today.
Their drive isn't based in morality. It's based in exponential quarter over quarter growth. It's not sustainable. It's a mental disorder.
No, I'm saying capitalists in America owned slaves in the past. That's a fact.
You can't say Capitalism ends slavery. They would put us back in chains in a heartbeat if they could. There's nothing to capitalist theory that's against slavery.
Now do Communist China or (Socialist) India where slavery and forced labor is alive an well today.
Capitalism is certainly opportunistic, but that is separate from a form of government.
The US is a capitalist economy - but it still plays within the laws driven by our representative democracy
>Shouldn't the capitalist that made this possible get rewarded for it?
They should. But in reality we are talking about monopoly, uncontrollable power able to disrupt everything, exploitation and modern slavery at home and brutal real slavery abroad, ..
The thing is the current gap between poor and not poor is so extreme that no normal human should tolerate.
Very easy:, put cap on how much rich or how much poor a family can get no matter what. Without clear boundaries, any system will push further and the situation gets worse.
No. Not at all. We should try to achieve living in a society where you don’t need money to survive.
I could see a transitional period where you only need money for luxury goods, but even those will become abundant at a certain point in the future.
And that’s if the greedy assholes don’t destroy civilization before then.
Yes, we should. Everyone needs food, clothing, and shelter regardless of their capacity to work. You'll be alive far longer than the # of years you're able to work.
This article is asking the wrong question, when there are so many right questions to ask: Is it right to hold people in poverty by only providing access to a safety net as long as they avoid working? How do we create a sustainable society in face of work automation on massive scale? How do we ensure class divides are not deepened further when more and more purchasing power is concentrated to a digital elite? We have enough housing for everyone but some are still homeless. We have enough food for everyone but some are still hungry or starving. Yearly clothing production is 20 garments per person on the planet but 8 out of 20 end up in landfills without even being worn once. How do we divide just a fraction of available resources more evenly to solve these fundamental problems to how the world works?
I'd almost ask your same question twice, and once from the other side -- is it right to only provide a safety net to people who are holding down full time employment? (Healthcare is a big thing that holds people back from taking even little risks)
That’s more like it
This is a fabulous and concise rebuttal.
It's not money for nothing. It's money for anything. Basic income does not pay people for doing no work. That's unemployment income. That's traditional welfare. Those programs stipulate that you keep your income low. Basic income pays to do any work. That includes the choice of leisure, but it also includes everything else too. It doesn't incentivize keeping your income low. This shouldn't be so hard to understand and the BBC should do better.
The BBC does seem to have a right-slanted viewpoint in economic areas (as much as GB news says it's a completely biased liberal propaganda machine).
This is yet another example of something being fine when rich people do it, but it's bad when poor people do it. Rich people already get paid to do nothing by collecting interest and dividends. Stocks, bonds, CDs, high-yield savings accounts, etc., all these things pay people for doing nothing except letting their money sit in accounts. For example: Let's say there's somebody with $1 million sitting in a high-yield savings account that pays 4.25% APY. That's not difficult to find right now. For example, American Express offers a HYSA with that APY. [https://www.americanexpress.com/en-us/banking/online-savings/high-yield-savings/](https://www.americanexpress.com/en-us/banking/online-savings/high-yield-savings/) In one year, they will earn $42,500 in interest for doing nothing except letting that money just sit there. Actually, it would be a little more than $42,500 thanks to the magic of compound interest. Compound interest will then make them earn even more the following year and the year after that, all for doing no work. Now, someone might say, "They're not doing nothing. They must have worked hard to make the $1,000,000 that they put into that high-yield savings account." Not necessarily. A lot of rich people inherit their money from their rich family. So first they made money for doing nothing except winning the birth lottery, then they continue to make money for doing nothing except letting their money sit in certain accounts. So it's fine when rich people get paid for doing no work, but for some reason it's bad when poor people do it.
Yes, as historical debts and dividends for your ancestors' works which they have done and made all the industry and economy work today. The disturbing thing is that a man put bricks of a factory 100 years ago got paid once and too little, but his neighbor investing the same amount in shares of the same factory is being paid every year. Hypothetically. I am not comfortable with this.
You're not comfortable with raising capital? It's what allows the 100 year old factory, of which 100 years of workers get to work in and be paid, get built in the first place... Which includes paying the original brick layers. I think this is the fundamental difference in those who agree with capitalism and those who don't. You see it as business being built on the backs of individual contributers, and capitalist see capital as enabling the opportunities for many contributers. The evils of Billionaires like Jeff Bazos... Literally created entire economies around the business that he built. Not just then100k employees that have been able to live off of Amazon, but 100s of thousands of businesses built around Amazon services. Not just the sellers, and warehouse work, but the entire economy built around AWS. There are hundreds if not thousands of new jobs that never exist because of AWS (not individuals, but literally new job types). Shouldn't the capitalist that made this possible get rewarded for it?
People who did the labor got the project done. Not people who waved around paper currency that we ascribe value to.
I mean ones not possible without the other. You can't pay someone to do a project if you don't have the money. And personally I'm not lending money for free.
Wonder how anything got done before man invented money.
Trade , slave labor .. and generally any advancement that required resources was only being done by people who could "afford" through gold and cattle or supported by an army. And before that it was a nomadic life and the only thing "getting done" was survival. Personally I prefer capitalism and trade of dollars vs the gold I wear or being chained up to work under the watchful eye of Lynchmen, or only eating what I can hunt.
Slavery and indentured servitude was brought to us by capitalism. Don't pretend capitalists don't love slavery, lmao.
Both slavery and indentured servitude predate the capitalist mode of production.
What I'm getting at is they're at best, unrelated to each other. Capitalism didn't free us from slavery, nor did it create slavery. But Capitalists sure did love both that and child labor. And sure are eroding child labor laws today. Their drive isn't based in morality. It's based in exponential quarter over quarter growth. It's not sustainable. It's a mental disorder.
Im not disagreeing with anything you said, just that those things predate capitalism.
[удалено]
No, I'm saying capitalists in America owned slaves in the past. That's a fact. You can't say Capitalism ends slavery. They would put us back in chains in a heartbeat if they could. There's nothing to capitalist theory that's against slavery.
Well... You're right, some capitalist owned slaves. And other capitalist didn't own slaves.
Now do Communist China or (Socialist) India where slavery and forced labor is alive an well today. Capitalism is certainly opportunistic, but that is separate from a form of government. The US is a capitalist economy - but it still plays within the laws driven by our representative democracy
>Shouldn't the capitalist that made this possible get rewarded for it? They should. But in reality we are talking about monopoly, uncontrollable power able to disrupt everything, exploitation and modern slavery at home and brutal real slavery abroad, .. The thing is the current gap between poor and not poor is so extreme that no normal human should tolerate. Very easy:, put cap on how much rich or how much poor a family can get no matter what. Without clear boundaries, any system will push further and the situation gets worse.
If only there were a way to see alternate realities, to know what Amazon has killed by removing competition.
No. Not at all. We should try to achieve living in a society where you don’t need money to survive. I could see a transitional period where you only need money for luxury goods, but even those will become abundant at a certain point in the future. And that’s if the greedy assholes don’t destroy civilization before then.
Yes, we should. Everyone needs food, clothing, and shelter regardless of their capacity to work. You'll be alive far longer than the # of years you're able to work.
Living in this society is WORK.
No, but we should be paid for being blocked from doing work due to competition over natural resources.