Disincenting everyone is a poor policy idea
I stumbled across this book by Daniel Raventos distributed by the University of Michigan Press. In it Mr. Raventos suggests that everyone should have, freely available, a subsistence income with no strings attached. He supports this idea with these perceived benefits:
Anyone could opt out of employment at any time. Those with few skills would no longer be forced to take up jobs with poor prospects, and employers offering McJobs would be compelled to offer better terms.
So, what Mr. Raventos is suggesting is that removing the incentive to work for low skilled individuals is a good thing. This in turn would remove the need for post and, probably, mere secondary education as those with poor prospects can be helped to their subsistence lifestyle early on in life. McJobs would disappear for lack of want, and those tasks would likely be taken up by the hordes of human-serving robots that will miraculously appear after public-policy implementation. And since those McJobs are mostly done by teenagers and those looking for part-time work, they’ll have more time to play their XBoxes and text their friends.
Sounds like utopia.
I’m not sure if Mr. Raventos has compared his “revolutionary” idea to a similar idea that was experimentally implemented in Sweden in the 70s and 80s. It collapsed after a generation of Swedes decided they didn’t want to foster laziness and entitlement.
It’s truly poor economics, since it disregards understanding of basic human behaviour.
NOTE: The sub-title to the book is “The Material Conditions of Freedom.”
Anything here rankle you? Feeling overly perturbed or elated? Leave a comment below. or subscribe to the Sauce Captain feed.
Comments
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.