I agree, everyone should be able to live. But currently most people work and those provide the means to support the people that don't work (which can be for a good reason).
No. Most people work, and only some of them provide the means to support the other people who work and the people who don't work.
Many people who work try to obtain the riches of others (working or not) giving them nothing useful in exchange.
Because we have abandoned values and decided that the only common success measure is money, so any way to make money is good. Some are illegal, but then you don't always get caught...
Some are illegal in some jurisdiction but not others. Some are legal, but still dishonest... Some are honestly well meant but still useless.
Some would give someone bad reputation, but then you can start over elsewhere, because the world is globalized, businesses are anything but local, etc.
Maybe you could have some sort of basic income and then some compulsory social service doing part of those useful jobs for some hours a week or more full-time but only some years of your life.
And the rest of your life you could work or not. But then we should agree on what are the bare minimums we need to provide everyone, and therefore force everyone to help provide, and what is useless
and might be allowed to pursue if you don't waste many resources in it beyond your own free time or those of your willing colleagues.
This group of non-working people will grow over time placing a larger burden on the working group. Automation can reduce that burden or completely remove it, so everyone is free to do what they want. Some will live an artisan live-style maybe even without any automation in their own lives, most might not: why work if you don't have to.
You're right. But also there are part of the working group who is putting a burden in the working group. And there are profiteers who don't really work, just invest.
Some work doesn't help, some work just creates noise, waste and poverty.
If all those workers stop working and become a burden, they'll be less of a burden than they are now when working. That's only a part of workers, but not a small part.
Take for example the army. Most countries require (although tested in different ways) an minimum IQ of 85. This means that the army thinks with an IQ under 85 you probably couldn't contribute much. This means that from all eligible people on the planet (about 2.6 billion 18-40 years old) to join an army roughly 428 million couldn't join. Do we have 428 million jobs for people that are lower skilled compared to the lowest skill job you could do in an army, like carrying crates? Do you think with basic income we'll have 428 million potential artisans?
I didn't know the army effectively requires some IQ.
I once overhead a conversation in a train. It wasn't a soldier, but it was a policeman from one of those militarised police units, that once lived in quarters and worked quite like the army (think of carrabiniere, guardia civil, gendarmerie...).
One veteran (maybe already retired) was telling other passengers he got that job because he wasn't bright enough for other jobs, and there they took everyone, so there he went.
I think that has changed now.
But i think the reason they can enlisten people with low IQ is they're afraid they aren't clever enough to understand they shouldn't discuss orders even if their official is a
fool.
The hardest part in the army isn't carrying crates, is making believe you adhere to discipline.
So yes, we have jobs for those 428 million people, but I can't argue that better than
@Null. Hat off.
I think with or without basic income we should have everyone being an artist. I don't understand why art should be something for a few specialists. I prefer the kind of art that the community creates and shares like folklore.
The highest artists nowadays are basically con artists. And the artists managers are a darker hue of con artists.
Art, like sport should be a daily activity for everyone, not a business. We should sing together and write / improvise our own songs, not turn on spotify and listen. It would sound much worse (not always!) but we'd have more fun.
Oops. I misread you. You wrote 428 million artisans not 428E6 artists. You meant handicraft. Does that really has to do with lower IQs ?
The challenge for artists for example is the value of art has decreased a lot, so only exceptionally high quality or famous art(ist) get paid a lot. Just like there are many football players, but only a few are really good and some of those get paid a lot.
Yes. Exactly. Because instead of fostering the sport or artistic skills in everyone we have settled for looking for the best 6 doing it and then 6 billion people watching them from their armchairs.
That's an absurd waste of human potential.
Why should I care who is the best artist or the best football player ? If you set some criteria to judge that, then, yes, someone will be the best, and many others won't, that's just chance, what's the point ?
The point is how do you make it easier for everyone to become a better artist or play better (or healthier or funnier) football.
Sports or arts don't need to be an income source. Sure, when it is it may lead to some exceptional quality cases, but those are going to be so rare exceptions that they are just statistics outliers, noise.
They aren't even good examples for others to follow, because for any sane person that has other preferences in life, they just ruined their life to get vain fame. They have a right to do it, because their life is theirs, but thanks, but no, thanks.
It's not because sport or art is any bad, it's because competition is bad.
With basic income these kind of professions get a more stable income, so you also would get more (high quality, and low quality) art.
Yes, I think so too.
With the current monetary incentive mostly talented people are more eligible to continue their work.
No. Basically there's an art industry, with managers, and marketers, and publishers, (and investors like
@netcat said) and those who play closer along with the system get promoted.
And many best sellers are fabricated by hollywood or bolywood or Sony or talent shows or auctions or whatever.
Talent and revenue are different things, and with the current system, artists are promoted according to revenue.
I guess the problem with money is that someone could use money to disincentives people to do their job properly, with basic income this risk would get lower so people might keep doing a good job under pressure.
Yes. I think you're right. But maybe people would find ways to exert pressure still.
So probably a mix of guarantees and incentives to do more of the same talented thing would work. And I feel we have somewhat like this in place in western countries, without the good and well balanced counter measures for perverse incentives.
I think we kind of had it while there was a dialectic between communism and capitalism, but that's long gone and we just have some remmants.