Did you mean to reply to someone else? It doesn't sound like you disagree at all.
If there was a basic income, people who do things that currently aren't paid for, like what you mentioned, could be done and "paid for" by the basic income.
If you like the work, but just want to be paid, that should solve your problem.
If you don't like the work, don't do it. The basic income would mean that jobs that people don't like doing would have to increase what they pay until someone is willing to do it. Nobody would be forced to do work they don't like for a barely or non-livable wage.
I want to chime in that mz is making a great point which never would have occurred to me.
UBI could serve to further entrench an existing exploitative pattern, which currently exists because some things are "paid" work and other things are not.
I think it's also interesting to think about the exploitation of low paid workers. There are lots of jobs that very few people want to do that are low paying because anyone can do them. With basic income people will no longer be forced to work these low wage jobs just to get buy.
I could foresee lots of people quitting to learn skills for more rewarding jobs. You might see that jobs like a janitor, garbage man, and service reps at abusive companies start commanding higher wages since people don't want to do them.
Now workers have the leverage to decide not to work doing something they hate unless they are paid enough for it.
Creating free education programs for careers in demand would really strengthen this effect and I think would improve society as a whole. People will be rewarded for doing menial or dirty jobs rather than looked down on by society.
Precisely this. Basic income is a fantastic safety net and gives a lot of freedom to people. That's its whole point (that and it's a starting point to solve the problem of increasing automation eliminating jobs, but we don't know for certain if that will happen).
Jobs that are currently mostly done by people with no other choice, and hence can pay as little as they want, will have to pay better or be part time or some other benefit if they really need to get done.
And then, if a crappy or mindless job ends up paying $30/hour, people might do it because they want the extra money, not because they need it to survive.
Nope. To my mind, Basic Income = permanent slavery for women, with no hope of getting free as the expectation that we should "care" out of the goodness of our hearts will just become more entrenched and more doors will close to us.
If women want male privilege, they need to take the entire deal, including the risks of failure.
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” -- Benjamin Franklin
You were very vague about what this "care" work is. For child care, as in your own children, somebody has to do it. It shouldn't be assumed to be women but it makes no sense for this to be a paid thing.
If you mean something like elder care, for example, and you don't feel it's worth doing it for free, then just don't do it. I don't know why you feel (or you feel anyone else) would be expected to do this work
With a basic income, if you think elder care is important and/or something you want to do, you can afford to do it for free. Because you have a basic income. If you want more than a basic income you have to do something that people want to pay for. But you have the freedom to walk away from any job without fear of homelessness and poverty.
Your worries about permanent slavery seem to have very little to do with basic income. In fact, the main reason for basic income is to free people from the wage slavery we have now. People are stuck in barely livable wages because they don't have the time away from work to get into a better paying career.
Extremely long discussion here about how women get expected to do a great deal of "caring" labor for free, by all of society, in every imaginable situation (the discussion is so long it may have trouble loading):
http://www.metafilter.com/151267/Wheres-My-Cut-On-Unpaid-Emo...
I was one of the top three students of my graduating high school class. I am a woman and 50 years old. This is a problem space I have studied for decades because of my own personal frustrations with the fact that people expect a great many things from me, those things improve their lives, and I am not supposed to want compensation for them. I don't know how to make that any more clear to you. I think a Basic Income will make this a more entrenched problem. It will not alleviate it. Men already are nigh impossible to talk to about this, even with measurable negative impacts on women's lives that we can point to.
The fact that you can't see it just makes me feel all the more strongly that your idea that Basic Income "pays" women (for basically being society's slaves) is just going to make things worse.
Yeah, I'm more convinced this has nothing to do with basic income. You are just repeating over and over that basic income will make it worse but with zero proposed mechanism.
Unpaid house work isn't going to get worse if women get the (new) option of leaving situations they previously were stuck in.
The problem of unpaid "emotional work" is caused by a sexist society. More social safety net either does nothing to alleviate that problem, or it helps. It makes no sense to argue it makes things worse. Unless you provide even a shred of an argument for how it could make things worse, it sounds like you're just yelling into the void of the internet. Unless by "men are impossible to talk to about this" you really mean "men don't accept my assertions on faith".
Edit: Also, it sounds like possibly you don't know what basic income is. Or you mean something different by it. This[1] sums it up neatly in the first paragraph. I'm not trying to be insulting, it just sounds like you're talking about something different.
It makes it worse by making it less painful for the status quo to continue forward. Currently, women are making a great many hard choices in order to stop the pain of being poor because society does not want to hire them, promote them, etc for "men's work" while expecting us to continue to "care" without compensation. Give women what amounts to permanent welfare and a lot of them will not make the hard choices involved in questioning the status quo and trying to find another answer.
There are plenty of examples of populations given some kind of permanent welfare. They never result in some sort of golden era. They result in people who are overweight, out of shape, demoralized, with no goals or aspirations.
Hmm, I think there are actually zero or very few examples of populations given permanent welfare where something bad happened. In fact, the exact opposite. I really feel bad for the people in permanent welfare in Sweden where health care is free and standards of living are extremely high. Yeah, that's terrible.
I read a lot of that discussion on meta filter, and it was extremely unconvincing. I empathize with women who marry crappy people who expect them to stay at home and don't want to listen to their problems and want them to send birthday cards to their family. But the whole conversation was about a non issue. Basically like the argument any roommates would have about who has to do the dishes. Or who left the toilet seat up. It was complaining about personal things that they really just need to deal with themselves. And maybe they need help learning to do that, but "emotional work" isn't a thing. It isn't, it shouldn't be compensated, it doesn't exist. These aren't big societal dilemmas. Women aren't perfectly equal now but it is perfectly acceptable in most of the western world for women to get real jobs.
Or maybe it would help to hear an example (any example, you still haven't given one). What is one hard choice a woman might have to make to escape the pain of being poor? The hard choice not to have children? How is that a hard choice and how could it possibly go away in any imaginable future without the reality of biology being worked around with external wombs and robotic child care? And what, please tell me, could that have to do with a basic income?
If there was a basic income, people who do things that currently aren't paid for, like what you mentioned, could be done and "paid for" by the basic income.
If you like the work, but just want to be paid, that should solve your problem.
If you don't like the work, don't do it. The basic income would mean that jobs that people don't like doing would have to increase what they pay until someone is willing to do it. Nobody would be forced to do work they don't like for a barely or non-livable wage.