3 ms·

Have you thought about the psychological impact of what you’re describing? Why would someone work 40 hours a week to earn $2680 a month when they can earn $2600

Have you thought about the psychological impact of what you’re describing? Why would someone work 40 hours a week to earn $2680 a month when they can earn $2600 a month sitting on their couch and playing video games?

shadowgovt 6y ago
They wouldn't. They might work 40 hours a week because they believe in the cause; I know people who are independently wealthy or otherwise not in need of paid employment who put that time in for volunteer projects.
Drakim 6y ago
Isn't that part of the point? Right now there is an incredible power imbalance between employers and employees, where for the employer it's an inconvenience if they lose the employee, while for the employee it's loss of access to food, shelter and medicine if they lose their employer. This means that the employer can squeeze the employee, allowing them to pile on with abusive working conditions, bad pay, and poor compensation. Lots of workplaces outright steal out of the paychecks for the employees in plain daylight and get away with it because the employee knows that if they raise a fuss they might get fired. Nobody would work for 1 dollar an hour, as you say. So companies will have to offer more to attract workers. And the workers have the option of saying "no" if what they offer just isn't good enough. So they would be two equal parties, bargaining over what the labor is worth, without neither having a gun pushed against their head if they say "no". Weirdly, a lot of people seem to think things are as they should be. People should starve and be homeless if they aren't willing to work under unsafe condition, or being blackmailed into working for bottom wages just to have food to eat tomorrow. I'm not a fan of that sort of Social Darwinism though.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  Yes! With a robust, livable UBI, even without a minimum wage, you wouldn't see $2/hr jobs. Can you think of a job you'd personally take for an extra $2/hr if your needs were already being met by UBI? Wages would have to be set to a level that incentivize working. Shitty jobs would actually have to pay more than fun or easy jobs, because "not taking the job" is always a realistic option.
  - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    “Shitty” jobs wouldn’t have to pay more. Those jobs wouldn’t exist.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Can you think of a job you'd personally take for an extra $2/hr if your needs were already being met by UBI? Yes, if it prepared you for better jobs. Low wage dead-end jobs might not exist (then again, they might, different people have different utility functions), but low-wage on-ramp jobs that cannot exist now certainly would.
jellicle 6y ago
Your figures are wrong. If they worked (and received UBI, because that's what UBI means), their monthly income would be $5280 vs. $2600 for playing video games.
munificent 6y ago
People are downvoting this, but I think you point to a real problem. Yes, people are generally good and want to do meaningful things and contribute to society. But we're also lazy, selfish, and good at convincing ourselves to make short-term choices with poor long-term consequences. I think with UBI, there would be a whole lot of couch potatoes. I don't think that's necessarily morally a bad thing, but if the ratio of couch potatoes to people producing economic activity that pays into the UBI fund is bad enough, it can make UBI simply economically unsustainable whether you think it's a moral good or not. So there is a balance between: A. Keeping UBI low enough to incentivize people to produce labor such that UBI is financial self-sustaining. B. Keeping UBI high enough that people who do not work are not destitute. I think fans of UBI have a tacit assumption that A is well above B, but I am not so certain.

shadowgovt 6y ago

They wouldn't. They might work 40 hours a week because they believe in the cause; I know people who are independently wealthy or otherwise not in need of paid employment who put that time in for volunteer projects.

Drakim 6y ago

Isn't that part of the point? Right now there is an incredible power imbalance between employers and employees, where for the employer it's an inconvenience if they lose the employee, while for the employee it's loss of access to food, shelter and medicine if they lose their employer. This means that the employer can squeeze the employee, allowing them to pile on with abusive working conditions, bad pay, and poor compensation. Lots of workplaces outright steal out of the paychecks for the employees in plain daylight and get away with it because the employee knows that if they raise a fuss they might get fired. Nobody would work for 1 dollar an hour, as you say. So companies will have to offer more to attract workers. And the workers have the option of saying "no" if what they offer just isn't good enough. So they would be two equal parties, bargaining over what the labor is worth, without neither having a gun pushed against their head if they say "no". Weirdly, a lot of people seem to think things are as they should be. People should starve and be homeless if they aren't willing to work under unsafe condition, or being blackmailed into working for bottom wages just to have food to eat tomorrow. I'm not a fan of that sort of Social Darwinism though.

ryandrake 6y ago
Yes! With a robust, livable UBI, even without a minimum wage, you wouldn't see $2/hr jobs. Can you think of a job you'd personally take for an extra $2/hr if your needs were already being met by UBI? Wages would have to be set to a level that incentivize working. Shitty jobs would actually have to pay more than fun or easy jobs, because "not taking the job" is always a realistic option.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  “Shitty” jobs wouldn’t have to pay more. Those jobs wouldn’t exist.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Can you think of a job you'd personally take for an extra $2/hr if your needs were already being met by UBI? Yes, if it prepared you for better jobs. Low wage dead-end jobs might not exist (then again, they might, different people have different utility functions), but low-wage on-ramp jobs that cannot exist now certainly would.

jellicle 6y ago

Your figures are wrong. If they worked (and received UBI, because that's what UBI means), their monthly income would be $5280 vs. $2600 for playing video games.

munificent 6y ago

People are downvoting this, but I think you point to a real problem. Yes, people are generally good and want to do meaningful things and contribute to society. But we're also lazy, selfish, and good at convincing ourselves to make short-term choices with poor long-term consequences. I think with UBI, there would be a whole lot of couch potatoes. I don't think that's necessarily morally a bad thing, but if the ratio of couch potatoes to people producing economic activity that pays into the UBI fund is bad enough, it can make UBI simply economically unsustainable whether you think it's a moral good or not. So there is a balance between: A. Keeping UBI low enough to incentivize people to produce labor such that UBI is financial self-sustaining. B. Keeping UBI high enough that people who do not work are not destitute. I think fans of UBI have a tacit assumption that A is well above B, but I am not so certain.