• jadero@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Consider just the labour market. You imply that taking people out of the labour market is a bad thing, but how?

    If a person can further their education as a result, that sounds positive.

    If a student is better able to focus on their studies, that sounds positive.

    If a parent is able to stay home with young children or work only part time with older children, that sounds positive.

    If an adult is able to care for elderly or infirm relatives instead of putting them into a long term care facility, that sounds positive.

    If a worker is able to retire a bit earlier, opening up opportunities for those struggling to enter the workforce, that sounds positive.

    Your “labour market impact” makes it sound like you think businesses are entitled to the labour of others.

    As for the rest, much can be avoided by appropriately funding universal services, thus limiting the role of ready cash.

    • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      You imply that taking people out of the labour market is a bad thing, but how?

      First, it decreases the production of goods and services, which leads to price increases.

      Second, it decreases the tax base from which the UBI is funded in the first place. In other words, a UBI undermines itself.

      • jadero@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which goods and services? Cars and doctors? Or Big Macs and pizza delivery?

        There is no shortage of legitimate experts who say a proper progressive tax regime will handle UBI just fine. And if it doesn’t, then at least we failed honestly instead of sitting on our hands.