Surely not.Originally Posted by Wheeze
There are only two possibilities, either the universal wage is high enough to live, in which case very few people would then choose to work. The system would collapse under the weight of paid idleness. We have a productivity problem as it is, and a deficit showing we spend more than we make.
Or if the wage was not be enough to live and the clamour of idle people “forced into food banks” by insufficient universal wage would dominate media instead. It is predicated on the falsehood the economy generates wealth without labour.
It is a dreadful idea.
The time it becomes practical is if cheap nuclear fusion provides sufficient energy and food to live.
Ie it is all about creating more wealth, not moving deckchairs round the titanic.
As for invective, I just tell it how it is wheeze.
If that is uncomfortable , so be it.
Eg Teachers unions behaviour is scandalous.
The idea they don’t have to mark homework because of COVID?
Do you not share my Opinion of that?
I certainly despair of the pretence in public sector that they are the only “ key workers” all morally upstanding, when the truth is far from it.
When you speak of universal wage there are many of societies ills, that needs addressing.
Look at any poverty report eg “ feeding Britain “ and you see children if single parent families high in the stats. But who ever said it should be financially possible to support a family of one wage?
In almost all cases - Kids have two surviving parents not one. It should not be acceptable for the easy break ups that force the taxpayer as a surrogate parent.
It was labour in Wilson’s time decided to open the flood gates of easy divorce, and the destruction of marriage. With it labour created endless misery, the single parent tax credits are not an answer. Parental responsibilities only stop when the child becomes self supporting.
Society has become too much about rights not responsibilities.
It cannot end well.
