When mentioning the idea of an unconditional basic income to others, the first reaction is usually that people assume everyone would stop to work, watch TV all day and drink beer.
If we look at education we see a clear example which shows that engagement, work and study commitment of people has a lot to do with the environment and the individual as such, but these factors are not driven by any income or remuneration.
Same applies to games and most sport’s activities.
Which will give better results:
– to work while seriously preoccupied about having enough to live
or
– to work while feeling secure about your basic needs?
Thinking about old people: “During Elizabethan and Victorian times, English poor laws represented a shift whereby the poor were seen merely as morally degenerate, and were expected to perform forced labour in workhouses.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension#History)
The concept and realization of retirement plans, worldwide, is not older than 120 years, yet it seems unthinkable to us to leave old people without income. Society and the economy have adopted very well to this system of providing an income to a large part of the population.
Even though retired people are given a mainly unconditional income they already contribute positively to the economy, raising the national net product. https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.royalvoluntaryservice.org.uk%2FUploads%2FDocuments%2Fgold_age_report_2011.pdf&ei=zw2eVayIF6eAzAOr0qXgCg&usg=AFQjCNG6_Hv9KLF_Dhe1WSrio2GsltK7xA&bvm=bv.96952980,d.bGQ
If tomorrow I were poorer than today, I’d probably feel sad.
So, how come I don’t feel sad today for not being richer than I am?
Leisure is a kind of freedom: freedom’s puberty.
In almost any constitution of almost all nations the people are awarded more and more far reaching rights. They are called RIGHTS!
But, in most cases, they are only on paper!
An Unconditional Basic Income would finally grant to the people, what is rightfully theirs!
We tend to value gainful employment above all else. He, who is not employed, has little value and without income from any other sources, will be considered a parasite to society.
As there is so much pressure (social and financial) to take up (any) gainful employment, more often than not, the employment we have is not what we appreciate to do.
This is where hobbies come in. Our hobby is the work that we like to do. It’s what should be our profession and would make us passionate about our employment.
When we see someone working very hard, say a lumberjack cutting down trees with a hand saw or an axe, we’d laugh and think that the man is just rather doing his body-building. Any chainsaw and esp. tree felling machines are so much more effective.
A 100 years ago this was still considered serious, important and definitely hard work.
When we see someone working out maths calculations in his head or on paper, we’ll laugh and think this must be for school. Any cheap calculator or even computer is so much faster and always accurate.
50 years ago there were no calculators or computers and this person was a valued, hard working expert.
At their times people were hard workers doing these things. Now all this work is still done, but there is no hard work involved any more.
It goes on like this… most things that meant “hard working” to us are done by machines and computers. Are we “lazy” because of this? Is being “lazy” bad or good from this perspective?
For sure, what is presently considered “hard work”, will become ridiculous tomorrow.
Look at any modern factory in a developed country and see the robots, supply systems and related sophisticated soft- and hardware. Compare this to any poor, developing state: Not in a 100 years will this change, the way things are.
So people without any perspective are risking their lives to come to Europe, coming through unbelievable hardship to a very insecure future.
The best solution to avoid this is to finance a global unconditional basic income.
Let me have a look at a French state employee, who like many state employees around the world is usually not very much thrilled by her work. France has got a very high number of people who work for the state and they also very often go on sick leave (about 12% of their workdays). I would therefore assume that many of them don’t have a very demanding job, perhaps not much to do or do rather senseless work. Why do people stick to their jobs in a situation like this? The answer is simple: It provides them a secure income. Why does the state employ so (too) many poorly motivated people? Because it needs to supply it’s people with an income.
In this situation an income is paid to a significant number of people, but the recipients are obviously not happy with the conditions that apply, hence the frequent sick leaves. On top of the income, the state even has to provide offices, materials, commuting infrastructure, etc. for its employees, adding to the costs. This is a perfect example of a conditional basic income gone wrong. We hang on to the believe that people need to have a regular employment as the only justification to an income. Let’s give it a try, let people have an UNCONDITIONAL INCOME and make them happy. Let people do what they really want to do and not force them to organize their lives around a frustrating job, commuting and polluting every day, and additionally producing unnecessary cost to our society.
This way state offices will be filled with people who choose to work there mainly because they find the work interesting, not because they only hang on to their monthly pay check.