Having seen the real world consequence of this I disagree. I have some friends who were the typical starving artists. They had this ignominy of shitty job centre jobs forced upon them and suffered greatly. They opted to go the hard route and reject the job and lose their unemployment benefit. Now they have well enough paying careers in their area, are tax payers etc, as they dedicated their time to their craft rather than washing dishes or some such other pointless work. This brain dead approach of any job that pays is more valuable than one that doesn't sucks the life out of society and reduces innovation, artistic endeavour and creativity across the board. It's 2017, we have the world's library in our pockets, we can talk to friends on the other side of the globe instantaneously yet somehow we're stuck in the 1700's when it comes to jobs. We have so much over-productivity that we have to create fake jobs to keep people occupied [1] yet somehow we can't afford to allow poor people the option to follow the endeavour of their choice, invest in, and figure shit out for, themselves.
Are you going to fund my passion for building model tractors? I would much rather build model tractors all day and support myself by charging admission to my museum. The above business is just as valid as your "starving artists" who made it after hard work. My family cannot afford to let me follow my dreams though so I work a standard job.
Sure. As another proponent of a guaranteed minimum income, I would be delighted if you could build model tractors all day, and even start a museum dedicated to them.
Would I pay for that through taxes? You bet.
(I'm a proponent of guaranteed minimum income even for people who want to drink beer and watch tv all day. I really don't care what people do with their money.)
A guaranteed minimum income is only solution to this problem I've ever heard of that doesn't have many large flaws. I'm not entirely convinced minimum income is something I agree with (there are always hidden downsides - thus I'm reserving my judgement until after we know what they are)
However the topic is unemployment, which is designed for those are choose to make more than the minimum income to keep a good income (not as good as before, but perhaps better than minimum). This is a different discussion with different pros and cons.
> However the topic is unemployment, which is designed for those are choose to make more than the minimum income to keep a good income (not as good as before, but perhaps better than minimum).
In EU countries, unemployment is not necessarily linked to the size of the salary you were making before. And actually, unemployment can be very limiting in many countries and a basic income would be preferable. The reason for that is that with unemployment, you immediately lose your benefits if you pick up any work, even if the work is low-paying or it’s not certain you’ll be able to stay with it long. UBI, on the other hand, is intended to be something you always keep regardless of what else you try to do to make some money. When the UBI trial was launched in Finland, several of the people involved (longtime unemployment recipients) said they were keen to start their own business or take on unusual forms of employment because there was no longer a risk in doing so.
So...you're agreeing with the point you replied to? They went the hard route and became successful, that's great for them! Do you think it would be the case if they stayed on benefits that they would be where they are today?
It's hard to go back in time and do that experiment, but I'd say with certainty that some stress and pressure leads to a net gain in the long run. Clearly in the short run that's not the case.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fake-jobs-at-fake-compani...