5 ms·

I'm not a UBI proponent, nor am I a fan of exploiting people. There is a truth: some business cannot exist profitably if you have to pay market wages for labor.

I'm not a UBI proponent, nor am I a fan of exploiting people. There is a truth: some business cannot exist profitably if you have to pay market wages for labor. Reason: we've had a glut in workers for decades. Now the glut is over, and workers are scarce. We're finding out the value of an employee isn't some index number like minimum wage, or "local prevailing wage over the last 18 months", it is what it costs to hire someone today. That number goes up and up. Bottom line: exploitative employers are going to have to change how they do business.

nsonha 5y ago
Instead of UBI the gov can subsidise salary for those businesses.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Subsidised salaries do not create new workers, they (create an incentive to) move workers from non-subsidised jobs. It is effectively the non-subsidised workers whose taxes pay for the subsidies. That kind of thing is best kept for where markets don’t accurately price externalities, not ”$foo businesses can’t find staff at a price they are happy with”.
  - rdtwo 5y ago
    Nursing and teaching would be a good place for subsidized wages
    - ben_w 5y ago
      I don’t know what things are like where you are, but in the U.K. both of those are[0] public sector jobs. That makes them[0] 100% “subsidised”, though I can’t help but feel there’s a better word for it in this case. [0] mostly
      - nsonha 5y ago
        wow, I don't even believe 100% of the tax dollars spent on education would be justified, but I'll still prefer such a system.
- imtringued 5y ago
  It's called negative income tax.
ThePadawan 5y ago
I feel like right now, society has just over-committed to wasteful use of resources. There is a gas station attendant working at 4am because they only cost $8/h and the company makes enough revenue during that hour that that is worth it. If they need to start paying $15h/h and have to close from 1am to 5am, some people might not be able to get cigarettes from the gas station, or buy gas without a credit card. Or maybe, out of 5 gas stations, 1 will remain open and now have 5 times as many customers during those hours, so it's worth it to stay open again. But right now, 4 out of 5 gas stations are open simply because they can be, no matter how useful they are.
- marcusverus 5y ago
  This is a bizarre argument. The $15/h wage in your example put four people out of work (How many end up on the dole? How much new taxation will be required to support them?) and potentially squashed other economic activity by closing the shops. You're arguing for the destruction of economic activity in the name of reducing the 'wasteful use of resources', which is just silly. You're just making it harder for these folks to support themselves, while burdening others with the need to support them.
  - hirako2000 5y ago
    Good point. it doesn't imply though that the 4am worker would be left doing nothing. He could well be providing another service less wastful, day time, for 8 dollars per hour or more, or less. Unless or course those who want to buy stuff at the gas station at any hour of the night would not trade that convenience for any other service they aren't getting yet.
    - indymike 5y ago
      > Good point. it doesn't imply though that the 4am worker would be left doing nothing. This assumes the worker isn't doing something valuable during the day. I worked some night shifts to pay for college. > day time, for 8 dollars per hour or more, I got paid more for the night shift than the workers on the day shift. Fewer people wanted to be awake at 3:30AM. Even fewer wanted to work.

nsonha 5y ago

Instead of UBI the gov can subsidise salary for those businesses.

ben_w 5y ago
Subsidised salaries do not create new workers, they (create an incentive to) move workers from non-subsidised jobs. It is effectively the non-subsidised workers whose taxes pay for the subsidies. That kind of thing is best kept for where markets don’t accurately price externalities, not ”$foo businesses can’t find staff at a price they are happy with”.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Nursing and teaching would be a good place for subsidized wages
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I don’t know what things are like where you are, but in the U.K. both of those are[0] public sector jobs. That makes them[0] 100% “subsidised”, though I can’t help but feel there’s a better word for it in this case. [0] mostly
    - nsonha 5y ago
      wow, I don't even believe 100% of the tax dollars spent on education would be justified, but I'll still prefer such a system.
imtringued 5y ago
It's called negative income tax.

ThePadawan 5y ago

I feel like right now, society has just over-committed to wasteful use of resources. There is a gas station attendant working at 4am because they only cost $8/h and the company makes enough revenue during that hour that that is worth it. If they need to start paying $15h/h and have to close from 1am to 5am, some people might not be able to get cigarettes from the gas station, or buy gas without a credit card. Or maybe, out of 5 gas stations, 1 will remain open and now have 5 times as many customers during those hours, so it's worth it to stay open again. But right now, 4 out of 5 gas stations are open simply because they can be, no matter how useful they are.

marcusverus 5y ago
This is a bizarre argument. The $15/h wage in your example put four people out of work (How many end up on the dole? How much new taxation will be required to support them?) and potentially squashed other economic activity by closing the shops. You're arguing for the destruction of economic activity in the name of reducing the 'wasteful use of resources', which is just silly. You're just making it harder for these folks to support themselves, while burdening others with the need to support them.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  Good point. it doesn't imply though that the 4am worker would be left doing nothing. He could well be providing another service less wastful, day time, for 8 dollars per hour or more, or less. Unless or course those who want to buy stuff at the gas station at any hour of the night would not trade that convenience for any other service they aren't getting yet.
  - indymike 5y ago
    > Good point. it doesn't imply though that the 4am worker would be left doing nothing. This assumes the worker isn't doing something valuable during the day. I worked some night shifts to pay for college. > day time, for 8 dollars per hour or more, I got paid more for the night shift than the workers on the day shift. Fewer people wanted to be awake at 3:30AM. Even fewer wanted to work.