|
|
|
|
|
by mytailorisrich
2001 days ago
|
|
It illustrates, if needed be, that handing meaningful amounts of money to all or most of the population in a recurring way is not sustainable. The responses to the covid lockdowns, which are incredibly expensive, were only considered because they were one-offs and time-limited. If payments are restricted to a minority, the poorest, then it boils down to what already exists in most European countries and the question is then "what's new?" In general UBI proposals are ideological solutions to ideologically-constructed problems. They are not realistic nor practical and thus thin on practical considerations and hard numbers. |
|
That's not an ideologically-constructed problem.
It's pure logic. What is ideologically-driven, in my opinion, is claiming that "other jobs will be created, so no need to worry". Which implies, on the other hand, that the poor deserve being poor, due to their own negligence, lack of education, or laziness. We don't need to care about them. We provide a capitalist system which rewards the brave and the competent, and it's meritocratic. That is pure ideology, not based on reality.