Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Luddites? (Score 1) 1052

You're not making it up -- you and the Swiss seem to just be getting it wrong. Of course, paying each person to have a heartbeat will increase the money supply and devalue a currency by increasing is quantity and velocity of movement, but a stipend, as free as possible from bureaucratic constraints, will not cause a society not to work. Welfare INSTEAD of work does.

Comment Re:Luddites? (Score 4, Interesting) 1052

No. To each of your points, quantitatively, no. Perhaps not yet, but at some point, a basic income is likely to become the norm. If you are worried about low wage earners quitting jobs you are just mistaken, a worker gets the free money IN ADDITION to his/her job. Having and working at a job just gets you more, simply and without bureaucracy, which is the point. Work still has its benefits pecuniary and otherwise, though there might no longer be a minimum wage for it. Incentivization does not go away. Economists as conservative as Hayek and Freidman espoused this idea (both of whom taught at Chicago, where I graduated in Economics.) This is an idea which may fail now, for many reasons. But it a concept that will eventually succeed. Or we won't

Comment Re:Kind of makes sense (Score 1) 83

Good point, and possibly a correct one (until I get my time machine's glitches fixed I can't offer a firm answer.) But the Earth (and by that I mean us) was a bit bit lucky. Too many collisions, life can't take hold. Too few, and likely the same result, but for different reasons, And we're "lucky" that one relatively recent collision did happen, perhaps some intelligent descendants of velociraptors might be having this discussion instead of us fragile mammals.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Oh what wouldn't I give to be spat at in the face..." -- a prisoner in "Life of Brian"