4 ms·

And this is where I turn right around and advocate a UBI. The problem is that labor is not a free enough market. A giant clot of tiny worker friendly regs is o

And this is where I turn right around and advocate a UBI. The problem is that labor is not a free enough market. A giant clot of tiny worker friendly regs is one answer. I think a UBI and something reasonable for health care is better. Losing all your best workers because you create a place no one wants to work at is the best possible outcome for corporate doucheyness.

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
I'd also argue that protectionism would work as well. In the 50s and 60s before jobs were shipped overseas, unions were powerful enough to make a large, powerful middle class that led to a very strong economy. These unions were able to persist because the demand for labor was high enough. With globalization(and illegal immigration, but it's mostly globalization), the demand for labor has tanked, giving the worker very little leverage. I agree that socialism would be the better way to do this, but I'm not sure if our political system would ever allow it to happen.
- noonespecial 10y ago
  Unions tend to create their own distortions. The first thing they do when they achieve power is go right about manipulating the political environment to ensure that no one is able to work in their field without joining and paying the union. Empowering the individual is the answer. Not trading one master for another. Even if the new master double-pinky-swears he's gonna be better than the old one.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    A UBI makes the government itself that master. Everyone will be dependent on the payouts, and it will create a new baseline which will be consumed immediately. Pricing is relative. This will move the goal posts without making anyone functionally wealthier (except the fund's administrators, same as the union bosses always find ways to enrich themselves). Individuals must be empowered by keeping the markets not only open, but gaping. The government's actions should always open up competition. A great way to get started effecting this would be a liberalization of intellectual property law (trim the lifetime of copyrights to 5 years and patents to 7 years, for example, while also seriously weakening the extent of the monopolies they grant). Another way would be a modernization of the courts, to ensure that little people can have their concerns addressed speedily and at minimal cost. Cartels and monopolies should be aggressively disrupted (ideally through indirect action, though direct is not out of the realm of possibility), and market distorters like health insurers should be excised quickly.
    - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
      Your argument against UBI is similar to the argument against raising minimum wage, saying that any gains will instantly lost due to inflation. The problem with this is that it is false[1]. Also, inflation adjusted, minimum wage was actually higher in the 60s, meaning the lower class had greater purchasing power. I see no reason why this would differ with UBI. [1] https://medium.com/@discomfiting/debunking-if-you-raise-the-minimum-wage-it-will-cause-inflation-c0db32f579f8 https://medium.com/@discomfiting/debunking-if-you-raise-the-...
    - noonespecial 10y ago
      It's true. The UBI will move prices. But something interesting happens. If I have $1 and you have $1m, a UBI of $32k given to both of us will make me much richer in comparison even though we got the same handout. The UBI is like gravity pulling inequality towards the middle. A force that counteracts the "rich get richer" force that dominates today's economy.

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago

I'd also argue that protectionism would work as well. In the 50s and 60s before jobs were shipped overseas, unions were powerful enough to make a large, powerful middle class that led to a very strong economy. These unions were able to persist because the demand for labor was high enough. With globalization(and illegal immigration, but it's mostly globalization), the demand for labor has tanked, giving the worker very little leverage. I agree that socialism would be the better way to do this, but I'm not sure if our political system would ever allow it to happen.

noonespecial 10y ago
Unions tend to create their own distortions. The first thing they do when they achieve power is go right about manipulating the political environment to ensure that no one is able to work in their field without joining and paying the union. Empowering the individual is the answer. Not trading one master for another. Even if the new master double-pinky-swears he's gonna be better than the old one.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  A UBI makes the government itself that master. Everyone will be dependent on the payouts, and it will create a new baseline which will be consumed immediately. Pricing is relative. This will move the goal posts without making anyone functionally wealthier (except the fund's administrators, same as the union bosses always find ways to enrich themselves). Individuals must be empowered by keeping the markets not only open, but gaping. The government's actions should always open up competition. A great way to get started effecting this would be a liberalization of intellectual property law (trim the lifetime of copyrights to 5 years and patents to 7 years, for example, while also seriously weakening the extent of the monopolies they grant). Another way would be a modernization of the courts, to ensure that little people can have their concerns addressed speedily and at minimal cost. Cartels and monopolies should be aggressively disrupted (ideally through indirect action, though direct is not out of the realm of possibility), and market distorters like health insurers should be excised quickly.
  - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
    Your argument against UBI is similar to the argument against raising minimum wage, saying that any gains will instantly lost due to inflation. The problem with this is that it is false[1]. Also, inflation adjusted, minimum wage was actually higher in the 60s, meaning the lower class had greater purchasing power. I see no reason why this would differ with UBI. [1] https://medium.com/@discomfiting/debunking-if-you-raise-the-minimum-wage-it-will-cause-inflation-c0db32f579f8 https://medium.com/@discomfiting/debunking-if-you-raise-the-...
  - noonespecial 10y ago
    It's true. The UBI will move prices. But something interesting happens. If I have $1 and you have $1m, a UBI of $32k given to both of us will make me much richer in comparison even though we got the same handout. The UBI is like gravity pulling inequality towards the middle. A force that counteracts the "rich get richer" force that dominates today's economy.