- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Incorrect. As soon as you add any income from work that is reported to the government, the premise of the OP (as I understand it) is not met. We have a large cash economy of part time low-skill work that is not reported, and participating is literally easy enough that children do it regularly. The premise of the OP is that you quit your job and remain in an unemployed status - which does not mean performing no labor for remuneration, but rather that you continue to remain officially unemployed.
Nope. Employed is employed. You make money from a job and the goalposts are changed.
On the contrary:
1. My post points out how this change could either not alter or even improve people's lifestyles.
Actually it doesn't since it changes the goalposts.
2. Here is the OP: If you were guaranteed a $25,000/year income by the government would you quit your job and stay unemployed? I know I wouldn't, how about you? You will note there is nothing about relative lifestyle in it.
So, how would someone make that decision? Not in a vacuum. They would assess pluses and minuses for both options. For most, and the poll demonstrates this, a major factor in the decision would be whether or not one's lifestyle would be significantly altered. This is a reasonable variable in making this decision and one that most see could not be attained, hence the "no" vote.