I work at value a prole value creation job.(I’m a college student) I don’t support a basic income because I think that most(maybe all) of the workers there(mostly proles with a few students) would quit working and just live off of the basic income if it were enough to live off of.
Liberal advocates of the basic income claim that people would have no disincentive to work under a basic income. I think these liberals are out of touch with the working class. They work “self-actualizating” careers. When they think of “work” they think of being a writer or a lawyer or a business owner. They don’t think of being a burger flipper or a waiter or a farm worker or a caregiver for old people. They also project their own cultural views about work onto the lower classes. In the SWPL world it is not socially acceptable to not work. But in the prole world it is, in the worst sectors of it(such as with inner the inner city poor Blacks) it is considered demeaning to work at McDonald’s.
Some advocates(such as Lion) realize that it could encourage people to stop working. Would this be a good thing? I think it would be a matter of degree. If 10% of the workers left the workforce, it might be a good thing, raising the incomes of the remaining workers. But if 50% did, and concentrated chiefly among prole workers, it would be a major problem. There really would be a “shortage” of workers and the Chamber of Commerce would recommend importing more Guatemalan “guest workers” who can’t get the basic income until they overstay their visas and are naturalized 10 years later.
Another problem is that if you allow the poor to not work they won’t do particularly good things with their spare time. Lion writes:
Regarding the self-actualization of the underclass, people with low IQ are interested in different things. They may self actualize by selling drugs, joining gangs, getting into fights, etc. (Of course I agree that this sort of behavior ruins society for everybody which is why we need a fascist police force to prevent that sort of self-actualization.)
On the other hand, a guaranteed basic income for people with higher IQs could be very liberating and allow for positive self-actualization that’s beneficial to both society and the individual. Who knows what great art or literature was not created because someone was forced to work in a boring job in a cubicle that produces no value?
But the lower classes would also do bad stuff that’s perfectly legal, like heavy alcohol consumption, sexual promiscuity, gambling, having more children(bad due to dysgenics) and joining religious cults. There’s another problem with a basic income, the poor would blow it on things like expensive clothes, lottery tickets and illegal drugs.
Perhaps a basic income would be a good idea in Sweden if it were 99% Swedish like it used to be, but it’s not a good idea in America, and not just because of the non-Whites.
A Better Alternative
A better alternative to a basic income is to have a partial basic income(not nearly enough to live on) combined with extending the eligibility of other government programs such as food stamps and medicaid. Some libertarians have endorsed a basic income as a better alternative to these programs because they think food stamps and medicaid cost a lot of money to administer. But if you ask them for evidence, they won’t provide any, since they don’t have any. Food stamps, medicaid and housing subsidies are better than giving them cash because it assures that the money is used to pay for food, medical care and housing. Child support should also be abolished.
I support a national healthcare system like they have in Europe. Europeans seem to like it, and old people seem to like their medicare. Food stamps should be expanded automatically to anyone who doesn’t pay more than that in taxes.
Housing subsidies are also a good idea. The government currently uses them to move undesired minorities into White neighborhoods, but this does not need to be.
The partial Basic Income will apply equally to everyone, even billionaires(who of course will pay far more in taxes than they receive in the form of the basic income). This will remove the stigma attached to collecting it(Just as there is no stigma to collecting social security).
Since everyone receives the partial basic income this will not encourage reproduction. Ideally there should be no subsidy from reproduction, or only a very small one. This will have a eugenic effect.