About a year ago Scott Santens – self-declared writer and advocate of basic income for all – wrote a highly recommendable piece on why should support the idea of an unconditional basic income.
In this article he debunks common myths about less desirable repercussions a basic income might have (such as suddenly nobody wanting to do any work anymore …). He makes a few salient points as to why a basic income is the right thing to implement both from a capitalist’s point of view and a socialist’s perspective:
A basic income would not only provide everyone with a basic way of subsistence and an equal footing, from which to live up to one’s potential but it would also eliminate the inefficient, inflated and largely self-serving welfare state we have in many countries today.
Another compelling argument for a basic income probably is that due to technological progress there simply won’t be enough useful work anymore for everyone. Even many white-collar jobs today essentially are bullshit jobs.
This particular topic is discussed by Gerald Huff in a recent rebuttal of a supposed future of technological unemployment. His conclusion is this: “With machines doing most of the work we will need a new social contract, new mechanisms like a basic income guarantee, and new conceptions of a meaningful life.”
I’m myself an avid supporter of a basic income and fixing work in the process.
Why should we abandon the status quo and try to implement unconditional basic income? As Scott has so well put it: “Because you want to make our world a better place. That’s why.“