3 ms·
This creates an issue where jobs that pay only slightly more than $1k a month end up not being worth it. For example, someone working 30 hours a week at $10 an
by SkyBelow 7y ago
This creates an issue where jobs that pay only slightly more than $1k a month end up not being worth it. For example, someone working 30 hours a week at $10 an hour would see their income only go up ~$200. You could phase it, but that only weakens and does not remove the underlying issue and there are already existing cases where multiple problems with phasing stack, ending up in the same problem. Going with a simpler form of UBI that gives everyone $1k no matter what completely eliminates the issue (well, there is a minor issue given that money have a diminishing returns in value, but the impact of this is so far weaker than the issue of cut offs or phasing out benefits).
- cmendel 7y agoI mean, aren't they already not worth it? A job paying $10 an hour barely puts you above the poverty line even working full time.
- SkyBelow 7y agoYou can just double all the numbers used if you like, as $2000 UBI isn't some outlandish suggestion.
- kthejoker2 7y agoI disagree that someone would see it as "only" $200 a month. That's a 20% pay increase for 30 hours a week - hardly onerous. I mean, incentives 101 tell me lots of people would be happy to work 30 hours a week for extra cash.