Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
There is a political party in my country that want`s to start with something they call "citizen pay". This means that every citizen would get a sum per month regardless of financial situation. The sum that is proposed is roughly enough to rent an apartment and eat. So the meaning of this is to ensure that everyone has something to live of.
obviously many are afraid that many would just take these money and stop working. So i wanted to know what you would have done if you were given enough money to live and eat without having to work or applying for welfare.
and if anyone can explain if this would inflate the economy. If people had more money i`m sure prices would rise.
There would be no incentive to do menial tedious jobs just as there is none right now, unless
the pay is fair. I wouldn't mind cleaning your toilet everyday if you paid me enough. Perhaps the supply and demand of jobs and wages will find a fairer balance with citizen pay.
the citizen pay would just be added to your normal pay.
so if i paid you to clean my toilet you would get paid for cleaning my toilet and citizen pay.
the incentive for money is still there, you just don`t have to wash my toilet too have roof and food. you would already have enough money for basic necessities. the money you would get for work can be used for heroin, hookers and everything else that`s fun.
Since I get paid already, I wouldn't want to clean your toilet now. You'd have to pay More than you previously had in order to make me want to do it. Thus, you'll offer more money. But maybe i'll stop cleaning half-way and think nevermind, I don't need to do this anyways.
then you would have to live with only the base-necessities again. The citizen pay is just to make sure everyone has the means to stay alive. if that is fine with you then you can. but i won`t pay you for just cleanin my toilet half-way
We had a scheme here called "work for the dole" - the dole being slang for unemployment benefits (government funded money for living expenses for the unemployed) which I thought had merit.
Whenever people get money for free without having to make any effort - there will be complacency and rorting of the system. I like the idea of at least having to do some sort of community service (or whatever) type work in order to get any such benefits.
working also gives much more than money, like satisfaction for completing a task, social network, stability (a place to return to), challenges (feel free to add positive/negative sides of working).
so i guess there could still be people left wanting to work.
The thing i`m most concerned about this idea is that people that want a particular kind of work would not work unless they got that job they wanted.
Yes I agree. Reward for effort so to speak. The trouble with handouts is that people quickly come to believe that it is their right to get stuff for free without having to lift a finger. Complacency can then quickly ensue.
Social tendencies would also help to keep people working. since it is frowned upon to not contribute to society.
This is probably true however those people who tend to take advantage of the "system" are I would imagine probably not the types of people to be concerned with such moralistic issues.
there will always be people who will take advantage of welfare ordnances. i think it would be best to just accept the fact that some people will not work, and you would just waste a lot of effort trying to force them to work by starving them.
If someone gets hungry enough then I am sure they will eventually work it out.
if someone is incapable of work that is one thing.
But if someone is able bodied and capable of working then personally I am not interested in living in a society which condones them living off the contributions of others for zero effort.
i already do that and it`s quite nice. i`ve never been robbed by some poor guy just because he needed to eat:)