Does Unconditional Basic Income Create A More Productive Society? Some Dutch Cities Are About To Find Out!
언어
읽기 수준
기사 듣기
In June, the City Council of Utrecht in The Netherlands announced that starting January 2016, a few lucky residents will receive a monthly stipend to cover their basic needs with no strings attached. That means that the recipients will have to do nothing in return and can spend the rest of their days lounging by a pool if they so wish.
이 기사의 나머지 부분을 읽고 학습 도구에 액세스하려면 등록해야합니다.
지금 학습 시작하기댓글 51개
genius132610년 이하Also, it is a human instinct to survive, like animals. Hunt, or be hunted, so really, it won't work that well, because the human brain/instinct is too strong. Like how people would be able to relax, but what if groceries closed and supermarkets close? What if the army gets closed? It seems as if only people with small jobs get a break, which is not cool. Unfair, really.- stacey10년 이하love it
sushi32110년 이하uh......... not cool- srong10년 이하amazing
- srong10년 이하cool
- srong10년 이하awesome
- HOTDOGS10년 이하I am completely against this. The USA is a socialist country (light communism) and people are starting to become extremely lazy. People who work lots of hours get paid less, so the lazy people are benefiting.
- Markahn7710년 이하I totally disagree, even though there small, minute fights and wars, I had never thought Basic Income will succeed. For example, a country had used Basic Income, and the title of "poorness". First, this country was excessing, but people who live in the country did not think about working hard and just got poorer and poorer, and finally: 1$ in USD is 0.00783$ in this country. Do you really want to live in a poor country like that? everyone wants to live better, and rich. Plus, theres more reasons Basic Income is bad. As said in the video, money comes only comes from people working hard. What if the company does not have enough money to pay for workers? They will close the company. There is way way way more, but il stop here.
- JACOLINEO10년 이하I dont think that it is good
bigmelo10년 이하This is rather interesting - there are pros & cons to the idea of an unconditional based income. As for the pros, I believe that having a system of fixed incomes will make people in the middle-class & lower feel more secure with themselves; knowing that you're supported can give you peace of mind. As well, people are likely to be under a substantially smaller amount of stress due to less hours of work. I'd also like to point out that the second picture of the article portrays that if money is no longer required, people can focus more on making themselves better & helping others. This would lead to serenity & harmony across the world. All of this sounds pretty sweet, but you could look at this situation in an entirely different perspective. It's time to look at some of the cons. According to the fourth picture in the article, the number of hours people worked in Mincome, Canada dropped a decent amount. Sure, peace of mind is good to have, but not all the time. I concur with the comments posted by a user named dogbearmoo a short while ago. One comment states, "if there is permenant unconditional income, students a round the world will feel like the no longer have to learn in school because there lives are paid for. That would not be good for our world." This basically means that students, likewise to everyone that has a permanent income, would not truly experience everything that there is to learning because they feel as if their lives are being handed to them. Going into theory, our future generations would accustom themselves to having their lives being paid for. Growing up, all of them would remain calm. However, this wouldn't be good if any of them ended up dealing with frustration or chaos. Anyways, let's read the other comment: "interesting idea but I don't think governments can pay everyone." I think you're onto something, dogbearmoo. There is a certain limit to the amount of money in total that a country may have. This may affect a country's wealth in the long run. It might not be a problem, though, considering that the government may or may not earn more money per unit (household {taxes; bills; checks}) than they are giving out the fixed income. Well, that's really all I have to say, but I'm willing to bet that there's a lot more to the idea of unconditional basic incomes than I think there are. I saw the comment entered by smartpanda, which says, "i dont understand :P". In reply to that, I hope my comment helped you comprehend the article more efficiently, smartpanda! In my opinion, I obviously had a lot to say on this particular article, seeing as it is one of the longest comments I've ever made. Notwithstanding, I'd like to hear your perspective of this article, & this comment! Please, it'd mean a lot to me if you'd let me know! :D - BigMelo
crystalmori10년 이하I really like that you considered both sides of the argument instead of just pushing one way and trying to counteract the opposition without considering what they have to say. That is a really valuable quality in a human being, I think. (I hope it won't become harder for me now that I have speech and debate class.) Though I guess in saying that, I'm pushing the way of considering all ways without really considering the way of considering the one way.- bigmelo10년 이하Thanks, crystalmori! Greatly appreciated that you took the time to reply to this comment. Also, I'm kind of in the same situation as you are. You see, I've got Public Speaking as a class this year. I may be a mediocre rhetorician when it comes to writing on the computer, but I don't quite know if I've got the guts to pull it off in real life. :P