3 ms·

"Well then cut down working hours instead of having half the population work full time and pay for the other half" That doesn't work. The reality is, and I'm

"Well then cut down working hours instead of having half the population work full time and pay for the other half" That doesn't work. The reality is, and I'm sorry to say, but the required IQ to be economically relevant is increasing every year. Your plan doesn't work because you can't spread out the work that way. Increasing minimum wages will only just accelerate automation and exacerbate the problem. My concern about UBI is that it won't properly track inflation and will quickly become not enough and all the welfare programs are gone, so people are doubly screwed. Other than that, I like it. I'd like to see more "pay to go to school" programs, though. We'd end up with fewer Trumps...

danbruc 10y ago
The reality is, and I'm sorry to say, but the required IQ to be economically relevant is increasing every year. Your plan doesn't work because you can't spread out the work that way. That is only a real problem if the population does not keep up with this development. I can not tell whether requirements are (now) growing faster then capabilities but both certainly grew ever since. The other thing is that it seems to me that - at least to some extend - the capabilities are the controlling factor here. The economy can demand whatever it needs, if it is not available the economy will have to adopt. Increasing minimum wages will only just accelerate automation and exacerbate the problem. I did not mean to increase minimum wages more and more just to make any job viable, this of course only leads to inflation. I meant to let non-viable [EDIT: This read »no viable« before.] jobs die or automate. If people are not willing to pay enough for getting their lawn mowed - not sure if that is a good example - to make a living from it, then there never was a market for lawn mowing. Subsidizing it by the rest of the population with government benefits of any kind is not a solution.
- mac01021 10y ago
  > I meant to let no viable jobs die or automate. Are you saying you'd outlaw self-service gas pumps and checkout stations? Robotic assembly lines and autonomous vehicles? A large fraction of the population has no distinguishing skills. That segment of the population is going to find itself with ever fewer ways to earn a living.
  - danbruc 10y ago
    That was meant to read »non-viable«, i.e. if customers are not willing to pay enough for a product or service so that a full time worker can live on the salary, then efficiency must improve, the job must be automate away entirely or the business must go out of business. I consider neither simply exploiting the employees nor subsidizing the business and customers by giving benefits to the employees a good solution. Besides that I am not sure about you comment, I am not sure how you interpreted my comment with the spelling error. I am especially confused because your first paragraph sounds like you are arguing for automation, the second paragraphs sounds like you consider it harmful for unskilled workers. I don't want to outlaw any automation, quite the opposite, I would consider the ultimate goal a world where all work is done by robots and nobody has to work.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      What's wrong with letting the work be done at a market rate lower than the current (ideally abolished) minimum wage? I'd pay someone $5/hr to pull weeds, but I won't pay them $10 or $15/hr. Now, in which system can a neighbor earn an extra $20 a week for a morning of work? In which system does my front garden look nicer from the sidewalk? Someone (probably a teen) gets some walking around money, the whole neighborhood gets a nicer sidewalk view, and I don't have to do an optional job that I dislike. Sounds like a winner all around to me, but no way is "pulling weeds" a full-time, live alone and without additional support career.
      - danbruc 10y ago
        I mentioned that in another comment, there are certainly a lot of cases like your example where it makes no or not much sense to apply a minimum wage. I want the minimum wage to target specifically normal (full time) employment. An employer should not be able to pocket most of the money for say selling relatively expensive cloths but pay shitty wages to its sewers. You might argue that employees are free to negotiate wages and free to not accept bad conditions, but that easily fails if, for example, there is a surplus of possible employees. Sure, it is an important mechanism to reduce costs for consumers, but that should in my mind not come at the expenses of the employees.
- djrogers 10y ago
  > If people are not willing to pay enough for getting their lawn mowed - not sure if that is a good example - to make a living from it, then there never was a market for lawn mowing. You are actually in favor of outlawing lawn mowing as a job? My 14 year old kid can't take a $20 from my neighbor to get some fresh air and weekend spending money? Are you serious????
  - danbruc 10y ago
    If you are a professional lawn mower, there should be a minimum wage that ensures that you can live on that income. What is the point of mowing lawns all day long and not ending up with enough money to live? So kids mowing lawns bellow market rates because they don't have to live from that income are creating downward pressure on the price. And why wouldn't you pay market rates in the first place, same work, same pay? There seems also not to be such a huge difference to black labor - you cut some of the costs, taxes and insurances or living with your parents, and harm others trying to make a living with that job. It seems actually pretty difficult to have a balanced solution and as I acknowledged in another comment, this might actually be one of the stronger arguments for a universal basic income because it may allow to sidestep some of those difficult gray area problems.
mac01021 10y ago
> My concern about UBI is that it won't properly track inflation Have the Fed stop causing inflation?

danbruc 10y ago

The reality is, and I'm sorry to say, but the required IQ to be economically relevant is increasing every year. Your plan doesn't work because you can't spread out the work that way. That is only a real problem if the population does not keep up with this development. I can not tell whether requirements are (now) growing faster then capabilities but both certainly grew ever since. The other thing is that it seems to me that - at least to some extend - the capabilities are the controlling factor here. The economy can demand whatever it needs, if it is not available the economy will have to adopt. Increasing minimum wages will only just accelerate automation and exacerbate the problem. I did not mean to increase minimum wages more and more just to make any job viable, this of course only leads to inflation. I meant to let non-viable [EDIT: This read »no viable« before.] jobs die or automate. If people are not willing to pay enough for getting their lawn mowed - not sure if that is a good example - to make a living from it, then there never was a market for lawn mowing. Subsidizing it by the rest of the population with government benefits of any kind is not a solution.

mac01021 10y ago
> I meant to let no viable jobs die or automate. Are you saying you'd outlaw self-service gas pumps and checkout stations? Robotic assembly lines and autonomous vehicles? A large fraction of the population has no distinguishing skills. That segment of the population is going to find itself with ever fewer ways to earn a living.
- danbruc 10y ago
  That was meant to read »non-viable«, i.e. if customers are not willing to pay enough for a product or service so that a full time worker can live on the salary, then efficiency must improve, the job must be automate away entirely or the business must go out of business. I consider neither simply exploiting the employees nor subsidizing the business and customers by giving benefits to the employees a good solution. Besides that I am not sure about you comment, I am not sure how you interpreted my comment with the spelling error. I am especially confused because your first paragraph sounds like you are arguing for automation, the second paragraphs sounds like you consider it harmful for unskilled workers. I don't want to outlaw any automation, quite the opposite, I would consider the ultimate goal a world where all work is done by robots and nobody has to work.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    What's wrong with letting the work be done at a market rate lower than the current (ideally abolished) minimum wage? I'd pay someone $5/hr to pull weeds, but I won't pay them $10 or $15/hr. Now, in which system can a neighbor earn an extra $20 a week for a morning of work? In which system does my front garden look nicer from the sidewalk? Someone (probably a teen) gets some walking around money, the whole neighborhood gets a nicer sidewalk view, and I don't have to do an optional job that I dislike. Sounds like a winner all around to me, but no way is "pulling weeds" a full-time, live alone and without additional support career.
    - danbruc 10y ago
      I mentioned that in another comment, there are certainly a lot of cases like your example where it makes no or not much sense to apply a minimum wage. I want the minimum wage to target specifically normal (full time) employment. An employer should not be able to pocket most of the money for say selling relatively expensive cloths but pay shitty wages to its sewers. You might argue that employees are free to negotiate wages and free to not accept bad conditions, but that easily fails if, for example, there is a surplus of possible employees. Sure, it is an important mechanism to reduce costs for consumers, but that should in my mind not come at the expenses of the employees.
djrogers 10y ago
> If people are not willing to pay enough for getting their lawn mowed - not sure if that is a good example - to make a living from it, then there never was a market for lawn mowing. You are actually in favor of outlawing lawn mowing as a job? My 14 year old kid can't take a $20 from my neighbor to get some fresh air and weekend spending money? Are you serious????
- danbruc 10y ago
  If you are a professional lawn mower, there should be a minimum wage that ensures that you can live on that income. What is the point of mowing lawns all day long and not ending up with enough money to live? So kids mowing lawns bellow market rates because they don't have to live from that income are creating downward pressure on the price. And why wouldn't you pay market rates in the first place, same work, same pay? There seems also not to be such a huge difference to black labor - you cut some of the costs, taxes and insurances or living with your parents, and harm others trying to make a living with that job. It seems actually pretty difficult to have a balanced solution and as I acknowledged in another comment, this might actually be one of the stronger arguments for a universal basic income because it may allow to sidestep some of those difficult gray area problems.

mac01021 10y ago

> My concern about UBI is that it won't properly track inflation Have the Fed stop causing inflation?