What's to stop people from exploiting the mentally ill/disabled and, in effect, stealing their check?

I would be very surprised if people weren't very pleased with the dough, that they'd feel happier and be better off financially--I mean, this is obvious. It's like a retirement pension, in effect, without having to put in the career to qualify for it.

the wealth workers have generated for large corporations that was shared mostly with a small portion of the investor class.

you are not advocating clubbing those trust fund babies like young seals, and taking their lucre?


It's one thing to change tax law, and inheritance law, and things of that nature, but you're not going to easily give everyone a "living income" without doing it on the backs of someone.

And it's not going to happen this week, either. Or likely, in my lifetime.

The problem with guaranteed basic income is human nature. Able bodied people need an incentive not to play Pokemon go all day.

And legal weed is incompatible with guaranteed basic income if you know what I'm saying. We will be a nation of stoned couch potatoes.

Surely there are people who would still want a job to have more than whatever that basic income would be.

I think the assumption that no one would work with a guaranteed basic income is extremely flawed.

I can tell you unequivocally that you are wrong in that assumption. Consistent research and observation has proven that a vast majority of people get great satisfaction and fulfillment from work well-done. (Gallup Q-12 is just one large and on-going example.) The number one satisfier on the job is the ability to learn and grow, the second is the feeling of making a contribution to the organization's success. Compensation comes in at number 6 on a list of 10 factors.

In my current company, we recently did an extensive survey process with all of our employees. The single factor that they cited as most important to them was their commitment to their jobs and the company, not just in themselves, but as evidenced by their colleagues. We do pay well because our work is highly-specialized, but the rewards come with the commitment, too. Just last week, I issued a $5000 salary increase to a young woman who had exhibited exceptional performance, over and above the $3200 annual raise that she had been issued in February during her annual review. All because of the commitment she showed to her work and the results that achieved. As of the end of last year, her base was $56,400. Nice little bump for her clear contribution to the business.

New FLSA rules going into effect at the end of the year will also improve that basic wage, as anyone earning under $45,470 will now be eligible for overtime pay, regardless of their classification as salaried or hourly. We only have one person in the company who earns less than that ($39,700) and that's the lady who cleans the two kitchens. If she works overtime (exceedingly rare - it's only happened once in the three years I've worked with the company), she will get time and a half. I'm thinking about bumping her to that $45K anyway, which would be a huge win for her as she'd almost never see any positive impact from overtime pay.

Based on 30+ years of direct experience in this discipline, I think that the number/percentage of able-bodied people who reject the idea of work is very, very small. I'd bet on less than 1% of the target population.

I was joking, and you're taking me far too seriously. I love my work. But I'm fairly sure I wouldn't do as MUCH of it if I didn't need to eat and send three kids to college.

Also, there are careers that offer fulfillment and there are jobs that are nothing but abusive drudgery. The differences matter here.

But I think both of us are aware of the differences between fulfilling and merely sustaining work.

Mea culpa! I do get rather serious about this topic because I hear so many who spout the critique of the "lazy" person with impunity. And there's no doubt that there are many types of jobs that are the drudgery you note. Having been an HR exec in a wholesale-to-retail company for a number of years, I have certainly seen a taste of that, especially in behind-the-scenes work in production, distribution, etc. I'm lucky to work with a company that treats its staff very well. If that were always the case, even those "drudgery" jobs might allow people to find some kind of satisfaction. Contrast BJ's Wholesale with Costco, for one quick example!

Your definition is not the only one. It may not even be the correct one.


-- Mal

This would be a good idea and great for society, if the details could be ironed out.
When I see the violence, the shootings, I see an economy that isn't working for us.
It(economy) seems to work great for a few, but jobs are still scarce and most pay very little.
Job security is non-existent and when you reach your late 50s, well, be careful.

"Military" spending needs to be sliced. We're getting screwed by the MIC and our owners.
The CIA needs to be gone, and society can recoup that wasted $$$ for decent social programs.
There are many ways to fund such things, if our owners(and congress) would stop taking bribes.

All these pilot programs -- Canada is not the only one, it's being tried elsewhere -- are confined to small populations so far. They've all been resoundingly successful, but the question is whether or not they can be scaled up.

Interestingly, they've also been terminated after a few years and the results buried.

-- Mal

No one feels the need to earn what they receive. Earning things is an outdated philosophy for primitive cultures. Our modern culture says we should receive everything for free.