Comment on How in the hell
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 year agoMost people do not have the luxury of turning down a job offer, as the alternative is hunger and homelessness, which the employer uses as leverage to underpay their employee.
If housing and basic food staples were a human right (free) only then would you see fair wages in the open market, as people would have the option to turn down unfair jobs, forcing the employer to make them fair or hire no one.
MxM111@kbin.social 1 year ago
Therefore, we come back to question: what is fair?
unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Based on you own thinking, what would you understand as the attributes of a relationship or agreement that may be considered fair?
MxM111@kbin.social 1 year ago
I think the standard way of salary negotiations (labour supply and demand) is the only way to define fair salary. If this salary is not sufficient to make decent living, and if we want to correct for that, then it should be corrected by other means, such as UBI, out of compassion or other reasons, but not for rareness reasons.
unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 year ago
How do you understand fairness, in the greatest generality, respecting agreements and relationships?
In other words, for agreements or relationships to be fair, in any context, what conditions must be met or features must it have?
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
Well, for one; Wages keeping up with inflation and productivity would go a long way to being more fair.
But I’m curious why you’re asking me what is fair, I already laid that out in my second paragraph in my previous comment. As I said, if the absolute basics to living were freely available, people would be free to reject unfair offers, and thus, in a theoretical ‘free market’ wages and benefits would increase to a truly fair and equal level.
MxM111@kbin.social 1 year ago
So, your statement is that it is fair to guarantee the basic of living regardless of the person works or not. How do you respond to criticism that it is not fair to forcefully take money via taxes and spend them setting up standard of living for someone else?
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
It wouldn’t be for someone else, it would be for everyone. Most people are okay with the idea of Universal Basic Income, because everyone gets it, even the rich, it’s fair.
Imagine applying that universal concept, but to food and shelter. It would not only help the most destitute, but also the innovators. Research has shown that people are more willing to risk becoming entrepreneurs in Canada due to healthcare not being tied to employment. Imagine if we took away the risk of homelessness and malnutrition from not working for someone else? Hundreds of thousands would now be in a beautiful position to start their own business with far less risk to their, or their families, well being.
I would also place emphasis on the Basic part of Basic Necessities. It would only be feasible to provide just the very economical basics, which would mean a small square footage (but efficiently designed to maximize utility) dwelling (think large apartment blocks, Soviet-style, cheap to build, but efficient to heat and maintain), running water, electricity, internet (it’s virtually a utility in the modern age), and core/cheap but nutritious staple foods. We’re not talking luxury apartments here.
(Personally, I would argue Universal Basic Income is not viable within our current system, as that extra money would be quickly siphoned out of everyone’s pocket by increased rent and artificial price increases all around to capture this extra capital that would be floating around. It could only work if there were limits on rent and other basic necessities).