COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.

Voices
in
Japan

poll

Since the outbreak of the coronavirus, there has been talk of a basic universal income. Do you support the concept?

79 Comments
© Japan Today

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

79 Comments
Login to comment

YES. Having a job does not necessarily mean you have the means to support your lifestyle. Most of the time, the salary people have is only enough to cover your basic needs and nothing else, no matter how much you tighten your belt.

0 ( +21 / -21 )

Yes time to move in that direction. Universal income plus salary/wages. Universal income plus pensions.

0 ( +22 / -22 )

What? People getting money whether they put themselves into their work or not? That would only encourage indigence!

I'd go the other direction and drastically reduce taxes such as income tax, so that people can keep the money they earn. This would involve cutting down on the bloated civil service and other government expenses that are never used.

How would we pay for a universal income anyway? Where would the money come from?

Through increased taxation?

Forcing the super rich to pay massive taxes?

Can you see that happening?

4 ( +27 / -23 )

I am a capitalist in general with socialist leanings for health care, but no way on guaranteed incomes.

Businesses here like to play games with hours and benefits. Prevent that and then everyone and every business pays into health care and the basic pension. The 29 hour rule needs to be eliminated.

The basic pension is nothing spectacular either. 25 years at ¥10,000,000 a year will get you ¥66,000 every two months for the first year, and starting the second year you will have Kaigo the nursing costs automatically removed so you will lose ¥30,000 after that. (Typical salary men will of course get more as they put in 40 plus years, but their salary is no where near ten million. The wife also does get her basic pension paid for also, so technically you can double up on the pension, but that is only covered until the main bread winner hits 65, and then the wife will start having to pay the basic pension herself which comes out to about ¥14,000 a month)

So, I would like to see a government run Kyosai Pension especially for lower waged people.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

YES

Without the wherewithal to buy food, stuff and pay bills millions of unemployed and "working poor" cannot make ends meet.

With this failing socio-economic model modern capitalism is digging its own grave. To carry on like before the pandemic will be unsustainable without some form of universal basic income to put more money into the pockets of consumers. The elephants in the room, however, still remain to stymie the future of our species: climate change, pollution and the degradation of the natural environment and the destruction of bio-diversity. Something has gotta give.

1 ( +16 / -15 )

If I were to answer this question when I was very young, I'd vote yes. But that was when I was young and naive. Any form of "guaranteed income" will result in those who work, and those who don't because they can live off the others. Which will invariably result in a social breakdown.

4 ( +19 / -15 )

those who don't because they can live off the others. Which will invariably result in a social breakdown.

People say this as if it's a given truth, even though there is literally nothing out there to be able to logically come to this conclusion.

It's reductionist simplistic logic. "You are wrong because I've concluded so".

-3 ( +17 / -20 )

Living benefits will just cover basic needs, house, food, health.

Finland experimented with this for two years.

It also frees up people to pursuit other more creative roles. Artists or cannabis growers.

When we reach the point where there are more workers than jobs because of automation, AI or robots, it will become a necessity.

7 ( +22 / -15 )

Work may be "the curse of Adam" for millions, but it is indispensable for human existence enabling us to get through the daylight hours without losing our minds. As Zichi knows, artists and cannabis growers also "work" hard. There is absolutely no cause to worry that UBI can ever destroy the hard-wired human needs of "Homo Faber".

2 ( +7 / -5 )

@reamer: Those daylight hours are messed up in Japan. Within 5 weeks the sun will be up at 3:30 in the morning.

Zichi has a good point with IA.

But still so many slugs will play the system. Should just make special district so for those that work, and those that don’t, those that don’t can have free food stores, shops etc., and those that work can go to places by choice and buy a wide variety of products that they choose and are not just given.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Having a job does not necessarily mean you have the means to support your lifestyle. Most of the time, the salary people have is only enough to cover your basic needs and nothing else, no matter how much you tighten your belt.

This post explains exactly why a universal basic income is a terrible idea. If people's salaries are not enough to pay for their lifestyles, the solution is to change one's lifestyle. If your job is paying for your basic needs, you are O.K. and not in need of public benefits. There is a desire among most people to have a lifestyle beyond one's current salary, but that doesn't translate into a right to live at that desired lifestyle. The only way to pay for this is to keep creating money (i.e., debt), which steadily erodes existing wealth. As a long-term economic strategy, it's a disaster that will impoverish a nation.

Finland experimented with a basic income for two years, but, as widely reported last year, the experiment was a failure. For jobless people who went on basic income, most of them never ended up finding jobs because the basic income left them with little desire to work.

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Since the outbreak?

Anyway, one story out of Oregon or Washington St. was that she could get hair dressers back to work because they were making more from unemployment. So there you go.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

@mikeylikesit the New Scientist reported that people on UBI in Finland worked more, not less, than people on unemployment benefit.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242937-universal-basic-income-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Tom, you say you have a problem with a guaranteed basic income. Tell me do you have a problem with Jeff Bezos making $215,000,000 a day? He makes in 10 seconds what his average employees make in a year! Personally I would rather have more people with a decent amount of money in their hands than just one guy.

10 ( +19 / -9 )

I have no idea why other people want to give me money so that I can sit on my butt all day doing nothing, but if that's what you want to do, SHOW ME THE MONEY! But don't expect me to do anything for it. I work, therefore I earn. But if I don't have to work for UBI, don't expect me to.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

I am assuming that those who do work will have to pay more taxes to pay for the UBI.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

The taxes will eventually be paid by the companies who have no or few workers because of AI, robots, automation. Those companies will have greatly reduced employee costs plus office costs.

The experiment in Finland wasn’t a failure. It had a two year limit.

Finland solved its homeless problem by putting them into homes.

By 2050 work for many will be unnecessary as we know it now. Money will also end.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

What? People getting money whether they put themselves into their work or not? That would only encourage indigence!

I'd go the other direction and drastically reduce taxes such as income tax, so that people can keep the money they earn. This would involve cutting down on the bloated civil service and other government expenses that are never used. 

How would we pay for a universal income anyway? Where would the money come from?

Through increased taxation?

Forcing the super rich to pay massive taxes? 

Can you see that happening?

No, and it would never work.

-14 ( +5 / -19 )

Finland solved its homeless problem by putting them into homes.

By 2050 work for many will be unnecessary as we know it now. Money will also end.

I doubt that, but Finland is small country, they can do that, but countries like the US or Germany, France, it would never work.

-18 ( +5 / -23 )

bass4funk

but Finland is small country, they can do that, but countries like the US or Germany, France, it would never work.

So what would your suggestions be for society when 90% of the workforce are no longer needed?

10 ( +13 / -3 )

So what would your suggestions be for society when 90% of the workforce are no longer needed?

It will take a long time before we get to that, when I was a kid we were told that the year 2000 we would all be flying around in cars like the Jetsons and that never happened and why I think that the labor workforce is in many sector sections shrinking, in some areas you will always have people working especially teleworking is expanding, so with proper training you will see a boom as well as blue-collar workers will always be around, you will always need people to fix your pipes into turn on your electricity in the stock your stores with produce in to fix your car, so those days will never be gone.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

Only if it replaces all of the existing welfare system, and not because I think it would be a good idea, but because at least it would be better than the current welfare system, since people directly would get the money instead of filtering with politicians stealing as much as they can.

But in principle I'm 100% against it. The idea that automation will replace all jobs is ridiculous. The work landscape is always changing, and new types of jobs appear every day. Also, it would mean that the super rich support the rest of society, which will make them even more influential and powerful in society, since everyone depends on them.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

StrangerlandToday  09:33 am JST

those who don't because they can live off the others. Which will invariably result in a social breakdown.

People say this as if it's a given truth, even though there is literally nothing out there to be able to logically come to this conclusion.

That's cause it is the truth. If you don't believe it you just haven't been around the block much. It doesn't take much logic as it does common sense to understand that humans are self centered creatures.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

bass4funk

It will take a long time before we get to that,

The technology is moving very fast, 100 times more quicker than in the previous century. We don't live to see it, probably unless I live longer than 100 years.

in some areas you will always have people working especially teleworking is expanding,

What will teleworkers be needed for? Office workers will hit zero.

You will always need people to fix your pipes into turn on your electricity in the stock your stores with produce in to fix your car, so those days will never be gone.

I think you are somewhat locked into the past. Do you know on Japanese construction sites they are already using robot welders. One robot welder working 24/7 takes the place of more than 10 human welders who can't work 24/7.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

I voted no, but maybe I changed my mind. Maybe that would promote a higher birth rate of couples thought they could afford to have babies.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The idea that automation will replace all jobs is ridiculous. 

That isn’t the argument as far as I know regarding automation and UBI. The argument is primarily about a change which will leave millions out of work without new sectors creating enough openings for these people. It doesn’t follow that as one sector no longer requires manpower, a new sector will appear to balance it out.

Andrew Yang is far better than I’ll ever be explaining this. As he pointed out, this isn’t necessarily a position which sits on the left. Milton Friedman was talking about this.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

I remain undecided as I find the new policy debatable and plausible. The BUI is an automatic scheme without any application processing, thus it should be coupled with massive job cuts and streamlining on the side of state/ministerial offices.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

life isn,t always fair and the future is coming whether you like it or not. the correct answer is yes.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

YES - When Andrew Yang ran for president I learned a lot about it and by making it universal without means testing gets the little fingers of social control out of the way so that people can grow without being burdened. I plan on reading The War on Normal People soon. His standpoint was about automation but the pandemic embrace of it for immediate solution to help people all around the world shows that if you want an economy at all, then #UBI isn't just a good idea, it'll be required.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Its hard to tell at this point if it is a good idea or not.

If AI ends up making most people’s labor redundant, and no new jobs are created to replace them, we might need it. But we aren’t at that stage yet and its not clear that it will play out that way anyway.

I also worry that even if this job destroying AI revolution does come to pass, UBI is going to be a horrible way to organize society. Its not that it disincentivises work, which would be irrelevant if there is no work. Its that it will disempower everyone who ends up depending on it. Your labor gives you some value to society so long as it is valued. If nobody needs your labor, the level of basic income will never be set above poverty level andeveryone will get trapped there while the wealthy make off like bandits.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

In France dream is real.

One gets at least 564€ as minimal income (RSA). Guess why unemployement will never drop below the 5% rate even if economy was super super high.

You just need to be a legal resident and be over 25 and supposedly look for a job.

But hundreds of thousand just keep it and do undeclared work and what they want for additional income if ever...

https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F19778

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Of course this is totally unfair.

Wealth comes for any effort. No effort no gain.

It is called parasitism otherwise.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

By the time the virus returns in the fall second wave this will be common among advanced nations

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The technology is moving very fast, 100 times more quicker than in the previous century. We don't live to see it, probably unless I live longer than 100 years.

Either way, we will still need people for many jobs, we just have to adapt, re-train and re-educate, just shouldn’t be a problem at all unless you have people that are resistant to change whatsoever.

What will teleworkers be needed for? Office workers will hit zero.

I doubt it.

I think you are somewhat locked into the past.

Not at all, especially in my line of work, all the more reason why I disagree with your hypothesis.

Do you know on Japanese construction sites they are already using robot welders. One robot welder working 24/7 takes the place of more than 10 human welders who can't work 24/7.

but that’s on every worksite and that’s everywhere you always going to have man to override machine when it comes to detailed work and inspection, so again what you’re saying will be unlimited scale, not to mention the costs would be astronomical, gradual and slow change, it depends, but just flat out replacement, don’t think so.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

By 2050 the world population will be 10 billion people.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

In the past 1000 years, we've figured out how to live much more efficiently than we used to. For example, we wouldn't have had the time to be arguing on the internet (if it had existed) even 100 years ago - we'd be too busy working to ensure we had food and shelter for a full year, no time for frivolous extras.

As we've built more machinery, created farming methods that can feed the masses, and automated so many processes, there just isn't as much work that needs to be done. But some people can't handle the idea that some people may get money without working for it (ignoring that this is exactly what the elite do), so now we have to make work for people - find work for them to do.

The reality is that as we advance even further, there will be less work to do. This means less jobs, yet we'll still have enough resources to be able to feed and shelter everyone. At this point, a universal basic income makes sense it gives enough to live on for those who are satisfied to do the minimum, and those with the drive to work for more, can and will do so. And we don't need to watch the rest starve or suffer in poverty just because of old school outdated thinking that someone better not dare get something for nothing.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Finland experimented with a basic income for two years, but, as widely reported last year, the experiment was a failure.

It made people happier. Sounds like a success to me. I'm not sure how you were qualifying a failure, but it was clearly successful.

I mean, maybe it's just me, but if I had to choose between being rich or being happy, I'd choose being happy. Money is just a tool that I use to help make it easier to be happy. It's not the end goal in and of itself.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Yes of course. Money is a man made concept and it can therefor be altered and improved to ensure all people can have a roof over their head a good education and healthcare as a basic right.

Automation takes jobs and the wealth gap keeps growing so the rich become richer then at least give those who cant get work the basics to live, or face chaos and lawlessness where keeping someone behind bars cost three time more than just giving them the basics. Its not rocket science.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Andrew Yang lays out the rationale in his book and the coronavirus and its economic effects have accelerated the timeline.

It is enlightening how the opponents of UBi do not protest when megacorps practice massive tax evasion and receive vastly greater sums in corporate welfare. True leeeches and gamers of the system.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Great...More money for playing slots on the corner

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Most studies show people carry on working anyway but it completely eradicates poverty. People spend on things which get taxed and that's how the money's earnt back so it's quite possible.

Nobody would be talking about this if wages actually covered living expenses. The alternative would be to raise wages. Also governments have reduced provisions such as public housing over time but end up paying landlords at higher rates. Whether you think ubi is the answer or not you have to acknowledge there are many other points within the economic that need to be fixed

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Nobody would be talking about this if wages actually covered living expenses. The alternative would be to raise wages.

One problem with setting minimum wages is that they become the standard - more and more people are on minimum wages. Having a UBI would allow people to expect more pay for terrible jobs.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Have to laugh (miserably) at the rich sneering at the less well off, those of us who don't have stocks and piles to fall back on.

History records this attitude doesn't tend to work out well for the elite.

I have no idea why other people want to give me money so that I can sit on my butt all day doing nothing,

Clearly, some people have never experienced what it's like to be unemployed.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Yes. Tax the rich to do it.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Wealth comes for any effort. No effort no gain.

It is called parasitism otherwise.

Wealth often comes to people through no effort. Because capitalists are parasites.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Having a job does not necessarily mean you have the means to support your lifestyle.

Change your lifestyle.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Most studies show people carry on working anyway but it completely eradicates poverty. 

... until inflation comes in.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

... until inflation comes in.

It's an interesting point. I can refuse to work until the employer raises my wages. If the employer gives in, costs go up and so do prices. However, there is the possibility that if prices rise, people will buy less useless tat, resulting in fewer people working in essentially useless jobs. It might change our thinking so we focus on what is important.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If the employer gives in, costs go up and so do prices.

Not necessarily. Costs go up. Whether the employer decides to make up those costs through price increases is not a given, and there are other options, such as:

1) Cutting other worker's salaries

2) Cutting other workers

3) Cutting other discretionary budgets

4) Absorbing the hit out of company profits

5) ...use imagination

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Since the outbreak of the coronavirus, there has been talk of a basic universal income.

Actually there has been talk of it for a lot longer than that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

For all of you who said "Yes", do you really think this is meant to help the little guy?

What they are actually asking is, do you mind if we allow big companies to cut your wages?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Basic universal income universal income is a great idea.

One important thing is that it takes away the terrible tensions of being unemployed. You'd be surprised how much that helps in finding a job. Nervous wrecks go south on job interviews. Would you hire a person who has become chronically depressed?

Another thing: You need money and time to look for work. Finding a job is a full time job.

There is a universal basic income that conservatives like: for-profit prisons: great wasters of public money and human lives.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I said yes. I mean yes, With some rules in place. Everyone would get the same amount of basic income, but how much you would receive and actually be able to use would be determined by your economic and employment status. What is not accessed is put into a savings account that accrues interest pegged to the previous year's domestic GDP with no penalties for negative GDP and the max interest set at 2 percent. For the actual money everyone gets 100,000 yen a month. If you are employed and making more than 1.5 times that amount you are only give access to 25% of your UBI a month. If you are unemployed and are actively seeking a job you get access to 80%. If you are retired you get access to 100%. People can also opt out of recieving a UBI, in which case it will go into savings. They can also deposit extra income into the account. For specific purposes, like paying for college or a house, can a person withdraw from a UBI savings account. In the case of death, only 40%of the deceased UBI can be transferred to a beneficiary's active bank account. The rest would be put into the beneficiary's UBI savings account. Now to fund this, you would need a government to actively participate in money markets and other industries.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@mikeylikesit

Finland experimented with a basic income for two years, but, as widely reported last year, the experiment was a failure. For jobless people who went on basic income, most of them never ended up finding jobs because the basic income left them with little desire to work.

It wasn't a failure. It was also reported, that it greatly improved the quality of life for those, who could participate in the experiment. This is good news for the government as well. Better quality of life = better mental health = better physical health = less expenditure for the government to health care costs & social service costs.

An example:

If you're living of income support in Finland (the old and current model, not this experimented basic universal income), it's an extremely strenuous and humiliating process to apply for the support on a monthly basis. You need to fill in endless forms and write letters, meet with people who scrutinize, doubt and judge you, and check every detail on your bank account(s). People essentially use their time and energy for these processes, and every month you need to worry of the results of the applications. If these people had the basic universal income, they could use their time&energy into developing their skills or their health (both physical&mental) instead, as an example, even if they weren't able to/didn't work or couldn't find work.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

we just have to adapt, re-train and re-educate, just shouldn’t be a problem at all unless you have people that are resistant to change whatsoever.

Interesting how the wealthy are happy to adopt the language and measures used by countries like China and the DPRK.

I'd rather see the means of production in the hands of the workers, rather than the vampires at the top of the ladder.

And that can refer to the corporations or false leaders in Beijing, Pyongyang, Moscow and Washington.

They cannot keep the people down and divided anymore.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Maybe our true resource is Our Health, Our Minds and Relationships.

Cultivating these is more important than capital wealth.

Ture happiness is better than capitalist promise of security., security that is a false promise. Money is a poor substitute for trust, faithfulness, relational security.

Happiness comes from being part of a collective that keeps its promise, the promise 'that your needs will be meet. Ture Happiness comes from sympathetic joy and Equanimity. realizing this is freedom from suffering and its root.

Many pecarate jobs are meaningless and the byproduct is wasted lives, energy and natural resources.

A move away from fossil fuels toward AI systems makes sense. These systems replaces virtual slaves (oil) and releaves literal slaves and could create an economy that supports everyone. BUI it on!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

bass4funk: If you are an American you received at least $1200.00. If you received the money did you return it?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

bass4funk: Of course, I am talking about the same type of financial support that is being discussed here by the Japanese government.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Arguements against a universal basic income need to be discussed in the context of quantitative easing, which is UBI for bankers, and the massive offshoring and tax sheltering of multinational profits, which use a great deal of tax payer funded infrastructure like the roads, internet and delivery services. It is called "the plunder of the commons". Denmark has taken great steps, like barring companies placing their "headquarters" in tax shelters from recieving any bailout money. Why other countries do not follow this practice is a mystery to me...Follow the money

3 ( +4 / -1 )

One of the most meaningless polls I have seen on Japan Today - Sorry. Voting is simply (and reading the above) based on very simple left/right demographics.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Amazing debate throughout the comments.

First few comments with YES getting minus, then Great twist in the middle made the latter comments with YES getting Plus points.

To me, it all comes down to whether this makes Fair or Unfair to all.

Everyone including all poor people getting paid, Good but will they rely on just like that for long good run? Still, Fair for poverty. And lazybones getting paid without work, Unfair. Hardworking people with no fair pay, Unfair.

With anything in this world, Money comes and go. There will be High Rich, Lowest Poor. Good and Bad People, Life goes on.....Until the whole world boomed and doomed.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Wait so if we have universal income then why should I go to work?? Why anyone should go to work??

Who will do the cashier job??

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Universal means everyone gets it without means testing. Otherwise it's just a guaranteed basic income with social engineering rules and bureaucracy to follow because you don't trust people.

Universal means not worrying about that because it stays within the economy. People under the boot of the economy can leave it to pursue their own abilities. Addiction, abuse, mental reasons to abandon the economy because you don't feel like you have a future go way down.

Every experiment and study shows this time and time again. Addition abuse goes down, mental health goes up, education goes up. Will there be those that stay down, sure but it's about 10%. Those addicts would have needed help anyway. It will then be easier to help them rather than huge swaths of the population that just needed an opportunity.

Jobs people don't want to do go down. If 10% want to check out that's still better than a 30-40%+ churn rate in a job. Companies that promote and continue inhuman activities go under. The real market is then revealed and that defines the value not a company. Market forces take off from a new ceiling based on value.

It heals people and helps the economy work for people. We pursue or make the jobs we want, not have to take. Else the wages for those go up. That's fair.

Higher taxes in a VAT plus income taxes means rich pay for it, but they also don't have to walk over homeless or worry about people trying to kill them. Win win

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Who will do the cashier job??

who is doing it now? Robots.

self checkout is common place. One cashier per 9 self checkout. They're not going 100% away but pretty close.

Also think banks. In the 90's there were still human tellers, about 15 of them and a long lineup. Today there are maybe 3 tellers and a bank of ATMs.

Automation runs rampant and undermines people's ability to work. Tax the corporations, add a VAT, add a UBI, and then automation pays for you. You are then no longer in competition with change but can pursue other goals because you can.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Why anyone should go to work??

If you have a terrible job then you can quit. If you have a great job then you'll go to work. People can even avoid jobs all together and even (say the word with me now) volunteer. True story

It won't stop all jobs it will stop terrible jobs

market forces then manage the rest. If you want your garbage taken you better pay your workers. If you want someone to take care of little Damien then you better pay your teachers.

I'd go back to school, become and engineer, and make buildings self powered. You'd be free to have goals and make new jobs.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

wow I think I would fix autocorrect. Clearly not enough people on that one. Who's with me?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@runner3,

That's his net worth not income. Don't use Amazon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NO

We have enough lazy people. Get off your a$$ and be productive!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

small businesses are the epitome of productive. They fill a void left by large corporations. Then they get larger if successful or the aim of the company. Then new competitions emerge and the cycle repeats. It's called the market.

UBI would be a complete boom to the world with new business creation and jobs from that

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This section shows how many are hopeless in the field of economics.

Move your a.rsse, and be happy.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Imagine. Everyone having enough to live on.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

zichi;

Yes time to move in that direction. Universal income plus salary/wages. Universal income plus pensions.

Does that mean you support closing borders and strictly controlling immigration? Or do you want those services for everybody in the country plus open borders? In case of the latter, pls explain how is that supposed to work.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

WilliB

What is your answer when 75% of the workforce are no longer needed?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Not only NO, but hell no! BERTIEWOOSTER has it right.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Not only NO, but hell no! BERTIEWOOSTER has it right.

Where is the incentive to work?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Where is the incentive to work?

I don’t know about you, but UBI wouldn’t be enough to make me not want to work.

As I think would most.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Many who disagree with the concept of UBI follow two fallacies in my mind (well, there are more, but lets looks at two for now).

The first is that somehow people will just be lazy duffers if there is a UBI. But as has been shown many times, people are genetically not inclined to laziness. Now, are they going to do 'jobs?' Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they'll become writers. Or sculptors. Maybe they'll start poking around and learning how to do stuff just because it's cool to them. While the number of 'workers' may decrease, the overall output of Humanity would certainly increase, and probably be richer, more nuanced, and overall better.

Two, that jobs are not only necessary, but required for a company. The funny thing is, when you look at most companies, especially larger ones, what you find is a giant, bloated mass of make-work jobs that are put in place. Nobody acknowledges these jobs inherently, but they're there.

Why? Because if the company operated at true maximum efficiency, the unemployment rate would go up. The unemployed would be unable to purchase items from the company, hence the company loses money, the company goes out of business.

So what does the company (and I speak in general of the company to address the entire business world)? They hire an assistant HR compliance manager. A public affairs outreach coordinator. An executive assistant's assistant. That way there's enough people employed to keep the consumer base sustainable, and keep the politicians off the company's back. Then, when the company gets too bloated, they hire a slash and burn manager who'll cut people out to send them to another company for a few years, and then the whole process repeats itself.

But it's unsustainable. The simple truth is that the hyper-consumerist, buy buy buy more stuff, work work work for more money system that most 'First World' economies are built on are, by their very nature, not perpetual motion machines but guaranteed dysfunction machines.

Where will the money come from, some ask. Simple. The same place it does today... by the stroke of a keyboard. When banks loan out money using fractional reserves, they're fishing money out of the aether just as surely as if they'd pulled it out of thin air. After all, they don't hand you the money to buy your house, or car, or whatever. They just hit some keys, and suddenly you have 'money' that you 'pay' to the owner, and then you pay in over the terms of the loan. But the truth is, that money's never existed. It's never existed, and never will. It just hovers in cyberspace as bits of data.

National central banks or national treasuries could do the exact same thing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The implementation of a UBI would likely lead to a consolidation of welfare programs and fewer administrators and staff. One would think that conservatives would support UBI and smaller government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's return to being cavemen. Because at that time, you did what you wanted outside looking for food and shelter.

Funny to watch dreamers think that some if not forced will take care of your garbage, your illnesses, your special needs, etc.

Read Darwin's stuff before replying please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites