6 ms·

I don't know if that would actually be the case, but if it were, the question would be: is it actually a bad thing? I don't see any moral justification for a s

I don't know if that would actually be the case, but if it were, the question would be: is it actually a bad thing? I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste [1]. In fact, it is normal that as our society gets more educated and the supply of unskilled workers goes down, a lot of hard manual labor will become expensive. This is already the case with mining, for example. The fact that we software engineers do a job that we like and is well paid at the same time is a very lucky (for us) historical accident. On the other hand, I see in basic income an opportunity to also do unalienated work. For example, I'd very happily use BI to take buy some time off and to do a kinda "libre software retreat", hacking on free projects for a while without needing to bargain with an employer that owns everything that comes out of my head. [1] Excluding the cost of education, let's assume university is free as in a few places in Europe.

danieldk 10y ago
I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste [1]. In general I agree. However, besides education costs (I have quite many friends who have a sizeable loan), software engineers also enter the workforce quite a bit later. E.g., taking Netherlands as an example: - Waste collector: age 12-16 VMBO - Software engineer: age 12-18 VWO, age 18-23 BA+MA university Also, very few students actually finish university in time. So, they are usually 24 or 25 when they are on the market. So, there would be less opportunity to build up a pension at equal wages.
- toyg 10y ago
  In the brave new world of guaranteed income, why would you need a pension?
  - icen 10y ago
    The same reason you have pensions now, despite guaranteed state pensions. Whilst $10K is probably liveable, in some places, if you own a house, it's likely not going to be terribly comfortable.
  - LukeB_UK 10y ago
    Because while the basic income would suffice for the basics, the pension allows you to live your retirement in comfort.
- oselhn 10y ago
  I think that most of those students already work during their studies and income difference is so big that they will definitely earn more money in total before 30. I would be more worried about doctors which start to work independently a lot later and do not earn much in the beginning of their carrier (at least in my country).
weddpros 10y ago
"I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste" That's because moral justification isn't at the center of our society. The market is. Many attempts have been made to switch from the market to something else, not many were brilliant. The "lucky historical accident" you cite isn't one... It's just the way our society was built. Also you could argue on many different levels. To me, long studies meant delayed enjoyment of life, less freedom until 23, etc... You get less immediately, more later. In the end, the question is really: "Do we want to use social engineering (as it's called) and try to build a brand new society, when all other attempts lead to poverty and war?"
- mcv 10y ago
  The labour market is not going away with BI. It will just become more free. Currently, many workers are forced to accept crappy jobs for little pay because the alternative is starvation. With BI, they can afford to say no when they don't think the compensation is worth it. If those crappy jobs are necessary, they will have to improve, either by making the jobs more fun or interesting, or increasing the pay.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    If you subsidise people so they don't need to accept "crappy jobs" then it distorts the market instead of making it more "free" because now a potential worker with fewer skills valued by the market doesn't need to make his living by taking a job that is adequate for his level of education/skills. > If those crappy jobs are necessary, they will have to improve, either by making the jobs more fun or interesting, or increasing the pay. You make this sound as if an employer simply can raise the pay of his employees without taking into account the realities of the market. Some services or products are worth less precisely because there is no customer available willing to pay more for it.
    - mcv 10y ago
      No, duress (which is what the prospect of death is) does not make a market more free. If you are forced to accept a crappy deal because otherwise you will die, you are not making a free decision. A fair deal in a free market is one that you can afford to say no to. > Some services or products are worth less precisely because there is no customer available willing to pay more for it. And for some services or products there simply isn't a viable market. If it's necessary to keep people in poverty to keep it viable, then I say we're better off without it.
redsummer 10y ago
"I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste" Garbage Disposal people earn over $100k. Software engineers earn about $80k. A job that can be outsourced or automated is not valuable. http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/24/news/economy/trash-workers-high-pay/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/24/news/economy/trash-workers-h...
- treerock 10y ago
  According to the article "Nationwide, the annual salary for a garbage truck driver is $40,000"
- morgante 10y ago
  > A job that can be outsourced or automated is not valuable. Garbage disposal is at this point a lot closer to automation than software development.
hasenj 10y ago
> I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste Do you see a moral justification for paying a doctor more than a receptionist? I see none for paying them the same.

danieldk 10y ago

I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste [1]. In general I agree. However, besides education costs (I have quite many friends who have a sizeable loan), software engineers also enter the workforce quite a bit later. E.g., taking Netherlands as an example: - Waste collector: age 12-16 VMBO - Software engineer: age 12-18 VWO, age 18-23 BA+MA university Also, very few students actually finish university in time. So, they are usually 24 or 25 when they are on the market. So, there would be less opportunity to build up a pension at equal wages.

toyg 10y ago
In the brave new world of guaranteed income, why would you need a pension?
- icen 10y ago
  The same reason you have pensions now, despite guaranteed state pensions. Whilst $10K is probably liveable, in some places, if you own a house, it's likely not going to be terribly comfortable.
- LukeB_UK 10y ago
  Because while the basic income would suffice for the basics, the pension allows you to live your retirement in comfort.
oselhn 10y ago
I think that most of those students already work during their studies and income difference is so big that they will definitely earn more money in total before 30. I would be more worried about doctors which start to work independently a lot later and do not earn much in the beginning of their carrier (at least in my country).

weddpros 10y ago

"I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste" That's because moral justification isn't at the center of our society. The market is. Many attempts have been made to switch from the market to something else, not many were brilliant. The "lucky historical accident" you cite isn't one... It's just the way our society was built. Also you could argue on many different levels. To me, long studies meant delayed enjoyment of life, less freedom until 23, etc... You get less immediately, more later. In the end, the question is really: "Do we want to use social engineering (as it's called) and try to build a brand new society, when all other attempts lead to poverty and war?"

mcv 10y ago
The labour market is not going away with BI. It will just become more free. Currently, many workers are forced to accept crappy jobs for little pay because the alternative is starvation. With BI, they can afford to say no when they don't think the compensation is worth it. If those crappy jobs are necessary, they will have to improve, either by making the jobs more fun or interesting, or increasing the pay.
- DominikR 10y ago
  If you subsidise people so they don't need to accept "crappy jobs" then it distorts the market instead of making it more "free" because now a potential worker with fewer skills valued by the market doesn't need to make his living by taking a job that is adequate for his level of education/skills. > If those crappy jobs are necessary, they will have to improve, either by making the jobs more fun or interesting, or increasing the pay. You make this sound as if an employer simply can raise the pay of his employees without taking into account the realities of the market. Some services or products are worth less precisely because there is no customer available willing to pay more for it.
  - mcv 10y ago
    No, duress (which is what the prospect of death is) does not make a market more free. If you are forced to accept a crappy deal because otherwise you will die, you are not making a free decision. A fair deal in a free market is one that you can afford to say no to. > Some services or products are worth less precisely because there is no customer available willing to pay more for it. And for some services or products there simply isn't a viable market. If it's necessary to keep people in poverty to keep it viable, then I say we're better off without it.

redsummer 10y ago

"I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste" Garbage Disposal people earn over $100k. Software engineers earn about $80k. A job that can be outsourced or automated is not valuable. http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/24/news/economy/trash-workers-high-pay/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/24/news/economy/trash-workers-h...

treerock 10y ago
According to the article "Nationwide, the annual salary for a garbage truck driver is $40,000"
morgante 10y ago
> A job that can be outsourced or automated is not valuable. Garbage disposal is at this point a lot closer to automation than software development.

hasenj 10y ago

> I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste Do you see a moral justification for paying a doctor more than a receptionist? I see none for paying them the same.