What if the basic necessities of life were free?

[Trez-Nem]

If the basic necessities of life were free, quality of life around the world would improve substantially.

And I seriously doubt it would hinder the spirit of hard work of most people. In my experience, most people seldom choose to remain in economic mediocrity just 'cause it's all free.

But the working poor would have no reason to keep their jobs if they can get the same exact thing for free from the government.

The whole idea of this all is to reduce the number of working poor. Make them richer.

[Zaras]

But the working poor would have no reason to keep their jobs if they can get the same exact thing for free from the government.

The whole idea of this all is to reduce the number of working poor. Make them richer.

Or starve them off, whichever comes first.

[Augarundus]

Very few things could ever be "free" - the basic necessities of life exist in scarcity, for one thing. For another, they requires labor to gain. Rivalry over scarce resources and the cost inherent to resource extraction means that there is always a cost.

[Raeyh]

But the working poor would have no reason to keep their jobs if they can get the same exact thing for free from the government.

Wrong. Because, with the basic covered, the working poor could afford non-basics that still improve quality of life.

We live in a consumerist society that makes people regard things like TVs, computers, cell phones and other commodities as fundamental. Even with their basic needs provided for, the poor would still have a reason to work hard for an income to supply for the new needs that arise.

That's Economy 101: There's always another need that has to be provided for. Humans are inherently insatiable.

Most of the things you buy, cars, phones, computers, etc, are so you can function at your job. You need a phone so your boss can call you at home, you need a computer and Internet so that your boss can email you at home or so you can use access your company's network at home. If you don't need to have a job, suddenly you no longer need a cellphone or Internet. You have all the time in the world now, so you can just walk to get your food instead of drive and you don't need a car.

[Trez-Nem]

The whole idea of this all is to reduce the number of working poor. Make them richer.

Or starve them off, whichever comes first.

Yes, lets starve the poor by giving them free food, that's a great idea.

[Trez-Nem]

Wrong. Because, with the basic covered, the working poor could afford non-basics that still improve quality of life.

We live in a consumerist society that makes people regard things like TVs, computers, cell phones and other commodities as fundamental. Even with their basic needs provided for, the poor would still have a reason to work hard for an income to supply for the new needs that arise.

That's Economy 101: There's always another need that has to be provided for. Humans are inherently insatiable.

Most of the things you buy, cars, phones, computers, etc, are so you can function at your job. You need a phone so your boss can call you at home, you need a computer and Internet so that your boss can email you at home or so you can use access your company's network at home. If you don't need to have a job, suddenly you no longer need a cellphone or Internet. You have all the time in the world now, so you can just walk to get your food instead of drive and you don't need a car.

That's a very good point, but I don't think many would want to get back to the stone age.

[Zaras]

Or starve them off, whichever comes first.

Yes, lets starve the poor by giving them free food, that's a great idea.

It's almost like the " " is sarcasm meant to mock the right-wing capitalism-worshipping silliness that I've seen in this thread so far.

[Great Nepal]

Middle east is oil rich, a unique position where they have practical monopoly on vital part of modern life. That is an exception.

That is an exception, yes, I just didn't like you being so absolute with you saying "only taxes". As I said it's not the main point here. Or there.

No, but that is crux of the problem. To make this sustainable (unless you have monopoly over expensive and vital mineral): you need taxes so high that you may as well just sit around.

[Great Nepal]

Wrong. Because, with the basic covered, the working poor could afford non-basics that still improve quality of life.

We live in a consumerist society that makes people regard things like TVs, computers, cell phones and other commodities as fundamental. Even with their basic needs provided for, the poor would still have a reason to work hard for an income to supply for the new needs that arise.

That's Economy 101: There's always another need that has to be provided for. Humans are inherently insatiable.

Except problem of funding for those basics for everyone.
I get $5000 per month without working.
I go to work and earn $100 per month after taxes.
I wont bother to go to work because my end income isn't high enough: because state takes most of that.

[Trez-Nem]

Yes, lets starve the poor by giving them free food, that's a great idea.

It's almost like the " " is sarcasm meant to mock the right-wing capitalism-worshipping silliness that I've seen in this thread so far.

Could it be?

[Zaras]

It's almost like the " " is sarcasm meant to mock the right-wing capitalism-worshipping silliness that I've seen in this thread so far.

Could it be?

Yes.

Yes it could.

Surprisingly enough.

[Trez-Nem]

Wrong. Because, with the basic covered, the working poor could afford non-basics that still improve quality of life.

We live in a consumerist society that makes people regard things like TVs, computers, cell phones and other commodities as fundamental. Even with their basic needs provided for, the poor would still have a reason to work hard for an income to supply for the new needs that arise.

That's Economy 101: There's always another need that has to be provided for. Humans are inherently insatiable.

Except problem of funding for those basics for everyone.
I get $5000 per month without working.
I go to work and earn $100 per month after taxes.
I wont bother to go to work because my end income isn't high enough: because state takes most of that.

How about $200 without working and $2000 by working?

[Anollasia]

There is an incentive to work: money.

Not all the time. Some people just like their job.

It would be nice, but it would make the economy worse, and makes people lazier.

[Great Nepal]

Except problem of funding for those basics for everyone.
I get $5000 per month without working.
I go to work and earn $100 per month after taxes.
I wont bother to go to work because my end income isn't high enough: because state takes most of that.

How about $200 without working and $2000 by working?

Except that wont happen because as I said: government's need to have revenue to give everyone $200 (which BTW, wont cover basic needs)

[Trez-Nem]

Could it be?

Yes.

Yes it could.

Surprisingly enough.

Now I must fly to the magical Bonoboland an warn the High King of All Things Pink of this dangerous danger that it is!

[Zaras]

makes people lazier.

Can you maybe prove that with a source?

[Anollasia]

makes people lazier.

Can you maybe prove that with a source?

It's just my opinion.

[Trez-Nem]

How about $200 without working and $2000 by working?

Except that wont happen because as I said: government's need to have revenue to give everyone $200 (which BTW, wont cover basic needs)

You don't need $5000 a month to cover them either. $1000 a month by working?

[Zaras]

Can you maybe prove that with a source?

It's just my opinion.

So you have nothing to back that up, like, at all. Nothing that led you to form that opinion.

[Anollasia]

It's just my opinion.

So you have nothing to back that up, like, at all. Nothing that led you to form that opinion.

Well, that means they wouldn't have to work to gain those things, so I think they could become lazier.

[Zaras]

So you have nothing to back that up, like, at all. Nothing that led you to form that opinion.

Well, that means they wouldn't have to work to gain those things, so I think they could become lazier.

And you only think that, providing absolutely nothing in the way of a source to back up your argument.

[Trez-Nem]

So you have nothing to back that up, like, at all. Nothing that led you to form that opinion.

Well, that means they wouldn't have to work to gain those things, so I think they could become lazier.

As long as there is unemployment, it doesn't matter if someone does a little less work. If people don't get too lazy...

[Anollasia]

Well, that means they wouldn't have to work to gain those things, so I think they could become lazier.

And you only think that, providing absolutely nothing in the way of a source to back up your argument.

I'm not saying it will happen. I'm just thinking that. End of conversation.

[Zaras]

And you only think that, providing absolutely nothing in the way of a source to back up your argument.

I'm not saying it will happen. I'm just thinking that. End of conversation.

You said that it makes people lazier the first time as if you knew it to be a fact...

[Anollasia]

I'm not saying it will happen. I'm just thinking that. End of conversation.

You said that it makes people lazier the first time as if you knew it to be a fact...

Sometimes I'm not specific, okay? I'll leave now.