3 ms·

I don't understand why people wouldn't be willing to make windows—to take your example—in exchange for pay, just as they do now. I might expect the prices of th

by ashark 11y ago

I don't understand why people wouldn't be willing to make windows—to take your example—in exchange for pay, just as they do now. I might expect the prices of things to go up a little because the typical laborer's bargaining position would be closer (but still inferior) to that of the typical employer[1], but why would people stop wanting more money than they have/are getting? [1] Specifically, their worst-case outcome in negotiating employment terms (i.e. failing to agree on terms and not getting the job, then not managing to get another offer fast enough) might improve from catastrophic to merely quite bad.

Natsu 11y ago
> I don't understand why people wouldn't be willing to make windows—to take your example—in exchange for pay, just as they do now. Two reasons: [1] There might not be much to buy with that money due to effects like this / inflation now that everyone has more money but there's only the same amount (or less) of stuff to buy with that money. [2] The actual job is horrible. Some of the aspects of the job can be mitigated. Others, not so much. There's a big tempering furnace that's really hot. There's really no way to avoid being uncomfortably hot around the quench, even with the nearby air conditioned room. It's running at almost 800F all day. Glass is inherently dangerous. I know of people who have been killed on the job, in spite of lots of safety gear, etc. I personally treated some very serious injuries (e.g. cuts to the wrist causing permanent damage and massive blood loss). There's a lot of grunt work that can't be very easily automated. It's boring as hell. It's very tiring work. I have lots of other complaints, but in theory, a different employer could at least fix some of those and they would presumably have to.
- ashark 11y ago
  > [1] There might not be much to buy with that money due to effects like this / inflation now that everyone has more money but there's only the same amount (or less) of stuff to buy with that money. If an employer raises wages, is that (in a small way) inflationary? Does average wage have a causal relationship with inflation (I wouldn't think so, but perhaps it does, serious question)? If not, why would basic income be inflationary per se ? > [2] The actual job is horrible. Jobs that are horrible might have to pay more, but probably not much more. I'd hope "do it or join the homeless" isn't a necessary stick for our economic system to function, but "do it or barely have enough money to survive" would suffice. If so, it's more awful than I'd already estimated. Hell, complete destitution isn't even really the stick now, since welfare is a thing, especially in OECD states that aren't the U.S. I guess I don't find it clear how "only have basic income to live on" is a less effective motivator than "be on welfare" (in the broad sense of "welfare"). And since we already know modern economies function OK with the latter—some of which can include cash assistance—what substantial difference does the former represent?
  - Natsu 11y ago
    [1] Because there's more money and the same amount (or less) of things to buy. Think of it a bit like someone issuing stock: yes, that dilutes your shares. [2] It's not just pay. You CANNOT pay me to do that job again. I'm sick of being cut by glass. I don't like dealing with horrific bloody injuries, though I'm incredibly conflicted there--I mean, I did volunteer for it and I don't regret doing it and helping people. And I'm glad to be able to do it and that I was able to help people and I'd even volunteer again... but it's a horrible thing to have to do and I don't wand more of it. Basic income is just welfare on steroids. The effect should be something that depends on the scale of how much money and how many people have their 'stake' diluted by how much. The scale of this is bigger than before (everyone gets money) according to what's planned--I don't seriously think anyone will implement it as $5 for everybody and if they did, it shouldn't have any meaningful effect. Due to more money being issued, there should be more inflation caused by it, as we can't all suddenly start producing more windows and whatnot just because we're paid more. People are also likely to start charging more because everything costs them more and people have more money to spend now. Now, all that said, maybe it could work as a replacement for welfare. I'm not sure about that, but it doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. Maybe everyone has an ID card and they can charge $X a month for food/rent/clothing, especially with the theory that people who don't actually need it might not use it. As I said, the main issue is the scale. If you get to the "work is optional" state that everyone seems to want, that's where I worry about the effects. But, there's obviously a long continuum between it being 0% optional and 100% optional and I honestly don't know what things happen where.
    - ashark 11y ago
      > [1] Because there's more money and the same amount (or less) of things to buy. Think of it a bit like someone issuing stock: yes, that dilutes your shares. Why would there (necessarily) be more money? > People are also likely to start charging more because everything costs them more and people have more money to spend now It seems like all of this would work equally well as an argument for a policy of depressing wages as a way to makes everyone better off. If you wouldn't support that, why the concern about guaranteed income? Or, what is the difference, in terms of effect on the money and labor supplies? How would lowering wages not be the inverse of this, and (under this line of reasoning) be good for us? Unless you believe we're at some sort of maxima for the ideal share of money flowing to the bottom of the economic pyramid, and that sending more that way will make collectively less well-off. It's also possible I'm just not following what you mean.

by ashark 11y ago

Natsu 11y ago

> I don't understand why people wouldn't be willing to make windows—to take your example—in exchange for pay, just as they do now. Two reasons: [1] There might not be much to buy with that money due to effects like this / inflation now that everyone has more money but there's only the same amount (or less) of stuff to buy with that money. [2] The actual job is horrible. Some of the aspects of the job can be mitigated. Others, not so much. There's a big tempering furnace that's really hot. There's really no way to avoid being uncomfortably hot around the quench, even with the nearby air conditioned room. It's running at almost 800F all day. Glass is inherently dangerous. I know of people who have been killed on the job, in spite of lots of safety gear, etc. I personally treated some very serious injuries (e.g. cuts to the wrist causing permanent damage and massive blood loss). There's a lot of grunt work that can't be very easily automated. It's boring as hell. It's very tiring work. I have lots of other complaints, but in theory, a different employer could at least fix some of those and they would presumably have to.

ashark 11y ago
> [1] There might not be much to buy with that money due to effects like this / inflation now that everyone has more money but there's only the same amount (or less) of stuff to buy with that money. If an employer raises wages, is that (in a small way) inflationary? Does average wage have a causal relationship with inflation (I wouldn't think so, but perhaps it does, serious question)? If not, why would basic income be inflationary per se ? > [2] The actual job is horrible. Jobs that are horrible might have to pay more, but probably not much more. I'd hope "do it or join the homeless" isn't a necessary stick for our economic system to function, but "do it or barely have enough money to survive" would suffice. If so, it's more awful than I'd already estimated. Hell, complete destitution isn't even really the stick now, since welfare is a thing, especially in OECD states that aren't the U.S. I guess I don't find it clear how "only have basic income to live on" is a less effective motivator than "be on welfare" (in the broad sense of "welfare"). And since we already know modern economies function OK with the latter—some of which can include cash assistance—what substantial difference does the former represent?
- Natsu 11y ago
  [1] Because there's more money and the same amount (or less) of things to buy. Think of it a bit like someone issuing stock: yes, that dilutes your shares. [2] It's not just pay. You CANNOT pay me to do that job again. I'm sick of being cut by glass. I don't like dealing with horrific bloody injuries, though I'm incredibly conflicted there--I mean, I did volunteer for it and I don't regret doing it and helping people. And I'm glad to be able to do it and that I was able to help people and I'd even volunteer again... but it's a horrible thing to have to do and I don't wand more of it. Basic income is just welfare on steroids. The effect should be something that depends on the scale of how much money and how many people have their 'stake' diluted by how much. The scale of this is bigger than before (everyone gets money) according to what's planned--I don't seriously think anyone will implement it as $5 for everybody and if they did, it shouldn't have any meaningful effect. Due to more money being issued, there should be more inflation caused by it, as we can't all suddenly start producing more windows and whatnot just because we're paid more. People are also likely to start charging more because everything costs them more and people have more money to spend now. Now, all that said, maybe it could work as a replacement for welfare. I'm not sure about that, but it doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. Maybe everyone has an ID card and they can charge $X a month for food/rent/clothing, especially with the theory that people who don't actually need it might not use it. As I said, the main issue is the scale. If you get to the "work is optional" state that everyone seems to want, that's where I worry about the effects. But, there's obviously a long continuum between it being 0% optional and 100% optional and I honestly don't know what things happen where.
  - ashark 11y ago
    > [1] Because there's more money and the same amount (or less) of things to buy. Think of it a bit like someone issuing stock: yes, that dilutes your shares. Why would there (necessarily) be more money? > People are also likely to start charging more because everything costs them more and people have more money to spend now It seems like all of this would work equally well as an argument for a policy of depressing wages as a way to makes everyone better off. If you wouldn't support that, why the concern about guaranteed income? Or, what is the difference, in terms of effect on the money and labor supplies? How would lowering wages not be the inverse of this, and (under this line of reasoning) be good for us? Unless you believe we're at some sort of maxima for the ideal share of money flowing to the bottom of the economic pyramid, and that sending more that way will make collectively less well-off. It's also possible I'm just not following what you mean.