| Message 03206 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thread: oxenT02752 Message: 23/123 L16 | [In index] | ||
| [First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
| [Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
Hi Michel! 4 months (129 days) ago Michael Bouwens wrote:
Sorry but this sounds really ridiculous to me. If I get money because I'm in a bad social situation and I have to prove this then you say this kills incentive to work. If I get money even without needing to prove the necessity the incentive to work is higher. What???YES, THAT'S IT. Empirically today, if you get conditional social support, you have to prove that you deserve it. If you make a little more, you loose it. Thus, it makes sense not to want to work, in order not to loose the support. If you get a basic income that unconditional, that you don't loose if you start working, the disincentive falls away. Why is that so difficult to understand. With a basic income, you can "do nothing", but you'll have relatively little money to come buy; you can periodically devote yourself full time to productive endeavours that only generate use value, i.e. the full activity paradigm; or you can work, to find additional income.
Ah, I think I understand what you mean. You loose conditionalized basic income if you work and you don't loose unconditionalized basic income if you work. And the motivation to work differs exactly because - as you say - "if you make a little more, you loose" the conditionalized basic income. This makes only sense if you imply that if you work and get an unconditionalized basic income in addition you have a much higher gain. In other words you add a normal wage of today to your unconditionalized basic income. On the other hand: If, however, the wage under unconditionalized basic income conditions is exactly as high as the difference between a wage and the conditionalized basic income then the gain is as low as before and people have once again no incentive to work. Is this correct? If so then you need to say something about the minimum wages when you promote for unconditionalized basic income. I mean a wage of 20EUR/month doesn't really improve your living conditions if you already get 1000EUR/month from an unconditionalized basic income. Well, there are some contradictions to value theory. The value of the work / anything relates to the costs to produce the workforce / thing. If basic income is already enough to produce the workforce then the add-on by a normal wage actually *can* be minimal - which is different if the buyer of the workforce needs to produce the workforce by the money paid for wages. In capitalism this means sooner or later it *will* be minimal. Otherwise you'll need heavy state regulations and I can already hear the outcries then... Mit Freien Grüßen Stefan -- Please note this message is written on an offline laptop and send out in the evening of the day it is written. It does not take any information into account which may have reached my mailbox since yesterday evening. _________________________________ Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/ Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/ Contact: projekt oekonux.de
| Thread: oxenT02752 Message: 23/123 L16 | [In index] | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Message 03206 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |