4 ms·

> "That's a problem with how welfare is structured, that can be fixed with changing welfare." That's what UBI is...? UBI is changing welfare to not be means-te

> "That's a problem with how welfare is structured, that can be fixed with changing welfare." That's what UBI is...? UBI is changing welfare to not be means-tested. > "Why would you think it wouldn't?" There are many reasons to think it wouldn't. For example, lots of people work two jobs. People work full time when they could work part time. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc all still work. The vast majority of people in a modern economy work more than they need to in order to earn what a UBI would pay. The rest of your post is not relevant to the question you originally asked ("What is the actual case for Basic Income?")

klmadfejno 6y ago
> There are many reasons to think it wouldn't. For example, lots of people work two jobs. People work full time when they could work part time. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc all still work. The vast majority of people in a modern economy work more than they need to in order to earn what a UBI would pay. Bill Gates works, but he doesn't work as a janitor. Who is going to scrub the toilets for a meager supplement to a guaranteed living wage?
- 3131s 6y ago
  You almost understand. They'll have to raise the wage to get anyone to scrub those toilets, and that's the whole point. UBI reduces the power asymmetry between employer and employee, and gives the employee more leverage to negotiate better wages and conditions.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    Ok, and if they raise wages, they'll need to raise prices. The price level at which it's economical to pay someone wages that incentive them to work as a janitor rather than investing in themselves is the price level at which the janitor cannot afford to invest in themselves without work. I'd buy that the janitor might be a bit better off in this situation, but you haven't solved any critical problems. Your basic income quickly becomes insufficient. Without controls for rent, debt, medical, schooling, etc. it's not hard to imagine that in real terms the poor become poorer.
    - JoeSmithson 6y ago
      > Ok, and if they raise wages, they'll need to raise prices. No, not necessarily. In fact if they were able raise prices, surely they would have done so already? What they would actually do is either go without a janitor, or go without something else - a coffee machine, or computer upgrades or something. The point is, unskilled labour is currently priced against desperation on the part of the worker. With a UBI it's priced against the actual benefit to the consumer. The question is, what value is having clean toilets? If a company in an office block doesn't value clean toilets more than anyone is willing to clean the toilets for, then they will just be dirty. In actual fact they are likely to value clean toilets highly - more than what someone is willing to clean them for.
      - klmadfejno 6y ago
        > No, not necessarily. In fact if they were able raise prices, surely they would have done so already? What they would actually do is either go without a janitor, or go without something else - a coffee machine, or computer upgrades or something. I think you're underestimating the necessity of janitors, but for the sake of arguments, let's switch to another low paid shitty job that's definitely necessary. Say... slaughterhouse workers. A lot of food products are extremely competitive and run on super thin margins. An increase to gross costs means prices must rise or you'll be running a loss on each one. You can't just hand wave that off with coffee machines. Most businesses that aren't fancy tech companies are really cheap when it comes to employee benefits to begin with. > The point is, unskilled labour is currently priced against desperation on the part of the worker. With a UBI it's priced against the actual benefit to the consumer. I get that's the point. I contest that this strategy makes any sense. A lot the economy is premised on people doing unpleasant jobs because they require a paycheck to live. Current prices cannot pay for premium blue collar labor. The jobs that can't be moved will need to pay more and raise prices. Anything that can be moved will have massively increased incentive to outsource to another country. And then you have a real trap. If everyone has a UBI, but prices rise, your UBI is no longer sufficient, but your doubly f*ed because there's fewer jobs in your country because labor is way cheaper elsewhere. So your would-be factory workers don't have a less than basic wage and no factory to work at. More simply, however, if you recognize that we need these jobs to be done (we do), then you have a much easier option available to you than implementing ubi: raising the minimum wage.

klmadfejno 6y ago

> There are many reasons to think it wouldn't. For example, lots of people work two jobs. People work full time when they could work part time. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos etc all still work. The vast majority of people in a modern economy work more than they need to in order to earn what a UBI would pay. Bill Gates works, but he doesn't work as a janitor. Who is going to scrub the toilets for a meager supplement to a guaranteed living wage?

3131s 6y ago
You almost understand. They'll have to raise the wage to get anyone to scrub those toilets, and that's the whole point. UBI reduces the power asymmetry between employer and employee, and gives the employee more leverage to negotiate better wages and conditions.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  Ok, and if they raise wages, they'll need to raise prices. The price level at which it's economical to pay someone wages that incentive them to work as a janitor rather than investing in themselves is the price level at which the janitor cannot afford to invest in themselves without work. I'd buy that the janitor might be a bit better off in this situation, but you haven't solved any critical problems. Your basic income quickly becomes insufficient. Without controls for rent, debt, medical, schooling, etc. it's not hard to imagine that in real terms the poor become poorer.
  - JoeSmithson 6y ago
    > Ok, and if they raise wages, they'll need to raise prices. No, not necessarily. In fact if they were able raise prices, surely they would have done so already? What they would actually do is either go without a janitor, or go without something else - a coffee machine, or computer upgrades or something. The point is, unskilled labour is currently priced against desperation on the part of the worker. With a UBI it's priced against the actual benefit to the consumer. The question is, what value is having clean toilets? If a company in an office block doesn't value clean toilets more than anyone is willing to clean the toilets for, then they will just be dirty. In actual fact they are likely to value clean toilets highly - more than what someone is willing to clean them for.
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      > No, not necessarily. In fact if they were able raise prices, surely they would have done so already? What they would actually do is either go without a janitor, or go without something else - a coffee machine, or computer upgrades or something. I think you're underestimating the necessity of janitors, but for the sake of arguments, let's switch to another low paid shitty job that's definitely necessary. Say... slaughterhouse workers. A lot of food products are extremely competitive and run on super thin margins. An increase to gross costs means prices must rise or you'll be running a loss on each one. You can't just hand wave that off with coffee machines. Most businesses that aren't fancy tech companies are really cheap when it comes to employee benefits to begin with. > The point is, unskilled labour is currently priced against desperation on the part of the worker. With a UBI it's priced against the actual benefit to the consumer. I get that's the point. I contest that this strategy makes any sense. A lot the economy is premised on people doing unpleasant jobs because they require a paycheck to live. Current prices cannot pay for premium blue collar labor. The jobs that can't be moved will need to pay more and raise prices. Anything that can be moved will have massively increased incentive to outsource to another country. And then you have a real trap. If everyone has a UBI, but prices rise, your UBI is no longer sufficient, but your doubly f*ed because there's fewer jobs in your country because labor is way cheaper elsewhere. So your would-be factory workers don't have a less than basic wage and no factory to work at. More simply, however, if you recognize that we need these jobs to be done (we do), then you have a much easier option available to you than implementing ubi: raising the minimum wage.