While trying to take care of some online housekeeping over the weekend, I stumbled upon one of my old Amazon wishlists – one that stretched back a decade or more. The titles listed were definitely “on brand” for what I like to read. I’m nothing if not consistent.
For someone with a full time job and a household to run, I like to think I consume written material at a respectable rate (especially given I have no claim on speed reading). There’s not much down time here that doesn’t find me with a book in my hand. There’s nothing to make my efforts feel inadequate quite like seeing page after page of titles I still want to read, but haven’t gotten around to yet. Worse yet, they’re the ones I haven’t even gotten around to grabbing up a copy of yet. That puts them deeply in the “who the hell knows when or if I’ll get to them” category.
Maybe I should reconsider my whole position on the universal basic income. Not needing to do annoying things like earn a living would really free up the kind of time I need to work through the backlog here. Sure, it creates a whole host of secondary problems and unintended consequences, but it seems that’s what it’s going to take to find time enough at last.
A UBI Doesn’t replace a full time wage. It just covers your basics and stop homelessness and starvation from happening. Books, cars, holidays, pubs, TVs, phones – you need a job to pay for them, but a UBI will allow you a better choice of what job you want to do.
True it is mean to act as a subsidy. However, shouldn’t it be limited to those in need vs. everyone.
It probably *should* be, but I’m always nervous when government steps in to decide who deserves a benefit and who doesn’t. Purely at face value it seems to defy the basic premise of “equal treatment” for all citizens.
I certainly agree with your apprehensions about state intervention. Suppose I am working with the frame work of the current system in place. Anything state run is less efficient than privately allocated resources (private charity).