that’s low key why universal basic income would be good. it’s somewhat important to have people like that who just want to preserve and teach history and they shouldn’t necessarily be forced to find an industrialized application for that in order to have a decent life.
I don’t think UBI helps with this much. This might be controversial to hear, but UBI solves different problems related to fulfilling needs and doesn’t solve problems with incentives inherently. So if studying history is on par with doing no work at all, then a history major will only be able to afford the new ground floor of our society.
What would probably be better is to fix our grant systems and provide destinations for studying history. So UBI allows anyone to study it but grants still encourage people to do so and gives them a destination to work towards.
2000 year from now, they’ll still be studying empty tombs in Egypt. except the “grave robbers” that took everything were the archeologists of today, instead of the archaeologists of the 7th century.
Depends how you think of it. What UBI is saying is that no one can make less than X money per year. The concepts differ on implementation though. For instance, the UBI could be paid out through reverse tax brackets where how much income you’re paid is diminished as you go up in income.
A different concept is that the UBI is slowly increased for everyone every year. Then a tax is levied on companies to pay into this system and they would (probably) lower primary salaries in accordance as the UBI increased to cover it.
The UBI would need other measures though. For instance if you’re thinking “isn’t this just welfare with extra steps?” It would be unless we seek to balance wealth inequality with the UBI. Raising the UBI too far would mean that incentives to seek specialized labor would be too low and those jobs stop being filled.
UBI does however simplify a lot. We wouldn’t need to assess homeless or low income people for welfare really. Same with unemployment. The messy paperwork goes away once you know that you have guaranteed income.
If you’re teaching history, that’s already provided for cuz you can paid for teaching. UBI would just enable the case of a person learning things without then teaching those things to others or doing anything of value with the knowledge.
that’s low key why universal basic income would be good. it’s somewhat important to have people like that who just want to preserve and teach history and they shouldn’t necessarily be forced to find an industrialized application for that in order to have a decent life.
But my bootstraps!
I don’t think UBI helps with this much. This might be controversial to hear, but UBI solves different problems related to fulfilling needs and doesn’t solve problems with incentives inherently. So if studying history is on par with doing no work at all, then a history major will only be able to afford the new ground floor of our society.
What would probably be better is to fix our grant systems and provide destinations for studying history. So UBI allows anyone to study it but grants still encourage people to do so and gives them a destination to work towards.
2000 year from now, they’ll still be studying empty tombs in Egypt. except the “grave robbers” that took everything were the archeologists of today, instead of the archaeologists of the 7th century.
Explain to me like im not a communist:
How does ubi work? Do you get it in addition to your normal income?
Depends how you think of it. What UBI is saying is that no one can make less than X money per year. The concepts differ on implementation though. For instance, the UBI could be paid out through reverse tax brackets where how much income you’re paid is diminished as you go up in income.
A different concept is that the UBI is slowly increased for everyone every year. Then a tax is levied on companies to pay into this system and they would (probably) lower primary salaries in accordance as the UBI increased to cover it.
The UBI would need other measures though. For instance if you’re thinking “isn’t this just welfare with extra steps?” It would be unless we seek to balance wealth inequality with the UBI. Raising the UBI too far would mean that incentives to seek specialized labor would be too low and those jobs stop being filled.
UBI does however simplify a lot. We wouldn’t need to assess homeless or low income people for welfare really. Same with unemployment. The messy paperwork goes away once you know that you have guaranteed income.
If you’re teaching history, that’s already provided for cuz you can paid for teaching. UBI would just enable the case of a person learning things without then teaching those things to others or doing anything of value with the knowledge.
It’s called Universal Basic Income not Universal Luxury Income.
Yes, teachers are well known for being paid well