4 ms·

> UBI funded with high taxation, supported by low regulatory burden and a gig economy. Why would any member member of the working class want to be relegated to

by rfrank 10y ago

> UBI funded with high taxation, supported by low regulatory burden and a gig economy. Why would any member member of the working class want to be relegated to the gig economy, outside of being forced there by economic conditions?

Bartweiss 10y ago
They wouldn't. The article suggests that the segmentation of work is somehow a "good thing", but in general it's unreliable, unpredictable (which cripples spending and stresses workers), and pays questionable average wages compared to equivalent dedicated work (TaskRabbit vs. being a maid). It's an obviously shitty solution, but so is European-style mass unemployment without gig work or UBI. All I really meant to say was that this is a way more coherent vision than "UBI, but people will work like they do now!" or "the gig economy will be totally sufficient for low-wage workers!"
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Why would any member member of the working class want to be relegated to the gig economy, outside of being forced there by economic conditions? With a robust UBI funded by strongly-progressive taxation replacing the social security provided by traditional employment protections (and not having the paternalistic tie to a particular employer), this could be better for the working class. But a robust enough UBI probably requires considerable productivity advances to be economically viable, and even then the details of the implementation and the transition plan will be key.
- rfrank 10y ago
  Considering how well productivity gains have treated the working class from the 70's until now, I'm not optimistic.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    A UBI funded by strongly progressive taxation is a means of forcing productivity gains to help those in the bottom half (or more, depending on the exact setup) of the income distribution. But to have a UBI sufficient to provide benefits to replace traditional employment protections (as well as social safety nets) and make the gig economy a net win for workers seems like it would take significant productivity advances from where we are now. But, no, its not automatic in any case -- its an active step, and in many ways in an opposite direction to the neoliberal "reforms" many jurisdictions have adopted since the 1970s which have assured that productivity gains do not benefit the poor and working class.

by rfrank 10y ago

Bartweiss 10y ago

They wouldn't. The article suggests that the segmentation of work is somehow a "good thing", but in general it's unreliable, unpredictable (which cripples spending and stresses workers), and pays questionable average wages compared to equivalent dedicated work (TaskRabbit vs. being a maid). It's an obviously shitty solution, but so is European-style mass unemployment without gig work or UBI. All I really meant to say was that this is a way more coherent vision than "UBI, but people will work like they do now!" or "the gig economy will be totally sufficient for low-wage workers!"

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Why would any member member of the working class want to be relegated to the gig economy, outside of being forced there by economic conditions? With a robust UBI funded by strongly-progressive taxation replacing the social security provided by traditional employment protections (and not having the paternalistic tie to a particular employer), this could be better for the working class. But a robust enough UBI probably requires considerable productivity advances to be economically viable, and even then the details of the implementation and the transition plan will be key.

rfrank 10y ago
Considering how well productivity gains have treated the working class from the 70's until now, I'm not optimistic.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  A UBI funded by strongly progressive taxation is a means of forcing productivity gains to help those in the bottom half (or more, depending on the exact setup) of the income distribution. But to have a UBI sufficient to provide benefits to replace traditional employment protections (as well as social safety nets) and make the gig economy a net win for workers seems like it would take significant productivity advances from where we are now. But, no, its not automatic in any case -- its an active step, and in many ways in an opposite direction to the neoliberal "reforms" many jurisdictions have adopted since the 1970s which have assured that productivity gains do not benefit the poor and working class.