2 ms·

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 ind

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.

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.