4 ms·

I realize that "feasible" is a messy word. The problem with such make-work is that you're paying people to do work which shouldn't be done. You're assuming tha

I realize that "feasible" is a messy word. The problem with such make-work is that you're paying people to do work which shouldn't be done. You're assuming that "staying at home watching TV" doesn't create any value—but it creates entertainment value for the consumer. If it didn't have any value, nobody would buy cable. Let's say we have some totally trivial job. Say, generating electricity from running on a bike. The market wage for this would be $1. In the status quo, we might assume that nobody would do that job. If nobody is willing to do that job, it means that their opportunity cost is greater than $1—ie. that even if they are unemployed, their non-market activity is worth more to them than $1/hr. Let's assume their non-market activity is worth $5/hr to them. Now a government subsidy comes in and pays the employer $5/hr for everyone they employ. So the employer starts advertising bicycle jobs at $6/hr (in practice, they would keep some of the subsidy for themselves). Now the individual is willing to take the job at $6/hr. Somewhat counterintuitively, this has destroyed value. In the status quo, we were paying nothing (no subsidy) and total value was $5/hr (the value the person gains from their leisure time). With a subsidy, we pay $5/hr and gain only $1/hr in total value (the benefit of the person riding the bike). This is obviously worse. The only way that your system makes sense is if you treat leisure time as worthless. But that's clearly false: if leisure time was workless, everyone would work every possible hour and unemployed people would all be walking around the streets looking for pennies.

simplify 10y ago
That's a really good, illustrative example. It seems true that, given a single hour, you're "destroying" the value of the individual's leisure. However, the individual wouldn't have to work away all their leisure time, would they? Assuming a living wage, they would still have the opportunity for leisure. Also, I would imagine that the world is big enough to get a job at company involved with a topic you're at least mildly interested in. I wonder if subsidized wages would better support art studios?
- morgante 10y ago
  > It seems true that, given a single hour, you're "destroying" the value of the individual's leisure. However, the individual wouldn't have to work away all their leisure time, would they? Sure, but every hour they're working would destroy valuable leisure time. > Also, I would imagine that the world is big enough to get a job at company involved with a topic you're at least mildly interested in. That's a really good point. There are whole classes of jobs which lie on this spectrum, up to "volunteering"—jobs which provide sufficient non-pecuniary benefits to not need a wage at all. It's also a big problem with the current system where jobs and living are inherently coupled. There might be a job which could pay $1/hr which I would gain $7/hr in satisfaction from, but such a job can't exist because of minimum wage laws. A wage subsidy might be a way of encouraging the fulfillment of such jobs, but it's unfortunately also going to end up subsidizing destructive jobs (like the minimum wage Walmart jobs that a sibling comment refers to). A subsidy program is very open to manipulation and also entrenches us in a model where a "job" should be the key determinant of income, even though lots of valuable work can be done through freelance or casual collaborations. In contrast, UBI directly addresses the problem of needing to work to live. So people can do thinks like focus on art studio work (which might be fulfilling enough to require no wage), but can also do slightly less fulfilling work (for example, trail maintenance) at below minimum wage.

simplify 10y ago

That's a really good, illustrative example. It seems true that, given a single hour, you're "destroying" the value of the individual's leisure. However, the individual wouldn't have to work away all their leisure time, would they? Assuming a living wage, they would still have the opportunity for leisure. Also, I would imagine that the world is big enough to get a job at company involved with a topic you're at least mildly interested in. I wonder if subsidized wages would better support art studios?

morgante 10y ago
> It seems true that, given a single hour, you're "destroying" the value of the individual's leisure. However, the individual wouldn't have to work away all their leisure time, would they? Sure, but every hour they're working would destroy valuable leisure time. > Also, I would imagine that the world is big enough to get a job at company involved with a topic you're at least mildly interested in. That's a really good point. There are whole classes of jobs which lie on this spectrum, up to "volunteering"—jobs which provide sufficient non-pecuniary benefits to not need a wage at all. It's also a big problem with the current system where jobs and living are inherently coupled. There might be a job which could pay $1/hr which I would gain $7/hr in satisfaction from, but such a job can't exist because of minimum wage laws. A wage subsidy might be a way of encouraging the fulfillment of such jobs, but it's unfortunately also going to end up subsidizing destructive jobs (like the minimum wage Walmart jobs that a sibling comment refers to). A subsidy program is very open to manipulation and also entrenches us in a model where a "job" should be the key determinant of income, even though lots of valuable work can be done through freelance or casual collaborations. In contrast, UBI directly addresses the problem of needing to work to live. So people can do thinks like focus on art studio work (which might be fulfilling enough to require no wage), but can also do slightly less fulfilling work (for example, trail maintenance) at below minimum wage.