Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

[Ed Weick]

I think, Chris, where we differ on BI is that you see it as "getting something for nothing" and I see it as a way of ensuring that people can make choices about their lives and the lives of their children.  I've known low income people who sincerely wanted to better themselves and the lives of their children, but did not have the means to do so.  They were literally in a "low income trap".  They saw education as a way out, but could not access it.  Their kids could not go on school trips or do many of the other things that higher income kids could do, so the kids missed out and grew up feeling that they could not do what other people could.  What I think I'm advocating, though I have to think it through a little more, is a program that does not make people feel trapped, that permits those who think they can get out of the trap by getting educated to get educated, and that permits all children to go on school trips so that they don't permanently feel they've missed out.  Then they can make choices about whether they want to do "jobs that are not "profitable" by neoclassical economic criteria but are necessary/desirable for social and environmental improvements" or jobs that are profitable by neoclassical criteria, or whatever they feel they have to do.   Ed     ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites > Sally Lerner wrote: > > Bravo Ed and Thomas, for your explanations of how a Basic Income > > might function. > > ...which both deviated fundamentally from your website's version... > > > While I support a version that would be universal and > > unconditional (get rid of stigma and address increasingly insecure > > nature of many jobs), it is just possible that we in Canada will move > > toward a BI in stages, group by group: "relentless incrementalism" as > > Ken Battle (Caledon Institute) calls it.  And he is a Friend of Paul > > (Martin), our new Prime Minister. > > It rather seems to me that Paul Martin (and provincial counterparts like > Gordon Campbell) is an adherent of "relentless DEcrementalism", as far as > social welfare is concerned...  But then, if "relentless INcrementalism" > refers to the number of foodbanks, Friend Paul can easily adopt it. > > At any rate, my point remains that tax money would be better spent on > * minimizing (at the root causes, i.e. education etc.) instead of >   maximizing (as with BI) the number of people who depend on welfare money, > and on > * creating jobs that are not "profitable" by neoclassical economic criteria >   but are necessary/desirable for social and environmental improvements. > > You can't say "do both this and BI", because the money spent on a general BI > will lack for these things, no matter how you slice it, and you can't count > on individual BI recipients to voluntarily do these jobs (see the railways > example in my posting of 13-Dec).  The result is that BI is detrimental to > a sustainable (societal & environmental) solution, and highly compatible > to a sell-out of Canada.  Might explain why Ken is a Friend of Paul. > > Chris > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword > "igve". > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework