You're viewing a single thread.
I'm going to get even more radical. Give everyone lunch. Economies of scale make it even cheaper per person and the health benefits lead to the oh-so-coveted increased productivity.
Just think of all the damage it could cause if someone was given a life necessity without
having been born into a non-poor familyearning it though!I can't come up with any ways it would be bad either but maybe we can all work together and figure some out.
"That billionaire worked hard to be the only person able to afford the best nutrition, education, healthcare and network. How dare you trivialise their efforts by just handing out rewards to everyone! The deservedly poor are just going to get all uppity!"
I think this has generally been the criticism. They feel it is a devaluation of their work to provide resources for or share them with others. The damage to them is from the increased competition for their tenuous social/financial status when they have a fairer fight.
You can see it even in the social media posts about "why do people flipping burgers deserve a slightly more liveable minimum wage when I had to sell my left kidney to buy my MBA!".
I appreciate the question was rhetorical, I just thought it was a good moment to discuss prosocial and antisocial motivations and how they manifest.
I appreciate you letting in some light on a common counterargument. The whole "devil's advocate" thing doesn't always go over well (can be used as a cover for contrarian JAQassery) but it's useful when done right.