3 ms·

This seems like the worst possible option. Forcing the time to be "wasted" destroys the potential of doing any creative, productive work, self betterment activi

• andrewla 10y ago
  I appreciate the feedback; these are interesting points. To be clear, though, these are all attributes of the current system. The potential isn't destroyed, it just requires a rational examination of the tradeoffs. And this is assuming that the minimum wage offered here would be far inferior to what someone would get through UBI -- a UBI that amounts to a baseline income of $10,000 a year, for example, is unlikely to inspire hoards of people to become artists or to take classes; they'll likely have to take minimum wage jobs to make up for the price increases that will be associated with the UBI. Similarly, if the wasted-wage salary level is set to something higher; like if working a 20 hour week would be sufficient to support a family, then I feel like it would provide the benefits that you associate with UBI. In my mind this is more a question of how much benefit could be provided given that both programs would (theoretically) receive the same funding. Given that most people would not be participating in the "wasted-wage" program, coupled with the reduction in overhead for preventing personal-identity-based fraud, I think bang for the buck you could fund a much higher effective part-time salary with "wasted-wage" instead of UBI.