5 ms·

I think you are missing the point: those who do certain jobs only do it to get fed and have shelter. There is no way to make them do it if they had the choice n

by hirako2000 5y ago

I think you are missing the point: those who do certain jobs only do it to get fed and have shelter. There is no way to make them do it if they had the choice not to do it. The extra money? It wouldn't make enough a difference to climb the ladder, they would try their chance doing something else. That's assuming UBI would actually cover the basics. If that's half the needs to sustain their life I agree they would do that cleaning job, which is getting back to the original situation: job filled only because of lack of choice.

pdimitar 5y ago
We're talking past each other. I'm not saying it's going to be the same group of people who will re-pick cleaning jobs. There's plenty of people out there who need the occasional physical thankless labor (myself included). As long as it's no more than 3-4h shift IMO there will be people who will do it. In my eyes the key element is having the choice of not doing it. UBI might give us that or it might be a half-arsed measure that only does things on paper. We have no way of knowing that right now though.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  I can see that scenario yes. I like that aspect of UBI, provide choice to take on those laborious unfulfilling jobs. Looking forward to see a country implementing it, we could the all quit speculating about the outcomes.
yazaddaruvala 5y ago
I’m a software engineer and fortunately don’t need to clean bathrooms to feed myself. But to your GP’s point I would for $1 MM per bathroom. While I’m using hyperbole, what it shows is that, there is some non-exploitative wage for cleaning bathrooms and while it might be “too high” for the current business that need clean bathrooms, supply and demand “should” figure out the rest.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  The issue is markets are not unregulated, and actors are not all made equals. You wouldn't clean bathrooms for 5 bucks an hour, but others will. And it isn't because they have more affinities with detergents and less distaste for scrubbing dirt.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > supply and demand “should” figure out the rest The problem is that the market is being distorted. It used to be that Alice would pay Bob $2000 per month to clean all of the bathrooms in her office. Now, Bob quit his job to live off of $2000 per month of UBI, and Alice's taxes got raised by $2000 per month to help pay for everyone's UBI.
  - 6510 5y ago
    It used to be that Alice owned Bob, she purchased him fairly at auction. His duty was to clean all of the bathrooms in the house. Now, if Bob is released he will get a similar job for $2000 per month and someone like Alice's has to pay that $2000. Surely this isn't fair for Alice?
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Abolishing slavery corrected a distortion and made the market more free. Unemployment bonuses and UBI are new distortions that make the market less free.
    - hirako2000 5y ago
      And she didn't own Bob, she paid Bob and not a previous owner. Information disimetry is what Alice benefited from, she has better skills, knowledge, or connections, or all of these. Bob has less and cleans other people's bathrooms instead of getting his cleaned while he can grow his wealth undisturbed by chores. The disymetry then keeps growing. I doubt the solution is to provide money as if it grew on trees to those who are below average in term of status and profit abilities in society. It would likely drag most people further down and keep a few at the top who will find ways to fund the mandiants somehow.

pdimitar 5y ago

We're talking past each other. I'm not saying it's going to be the same group of people who will re-pick cleaning jobs. There's plenty of people out there who need the occasional physical thankless labor (myself included). As long as it's no more than 3-4h shift IMO there will be people who will do it. In my eyes the key element is having the choice of not doing it. UBI might give us that or it might be a half-arsed measure that only does things on paper. We have no way of knowing that right now though.

hirako2000 5y ago
I can see that scenario yes. I like that aspect of UBI, provide choice to take on those laborious unfulfilling jobs. Looking forward to see a country implementing it, we could the all quit speculating about the outcomes.

yazaddaruvala 5y ago

I’m a software engineer and fortunately don’t need to clean bathrooms to feed myself. But to your GP’s point I would for $1 MM per bathroom. While I’m using hyperbole, what it shows is that, there is some non-exploitative wage for cleaning bathrooms and while it might be “too high” for the current business that need clean bathrooms, supply and demand “should” figure out the rest.

hirako2000 5y ago
The issue is markets are not unregulated, and actors are not all made equals. You wouldn't clean bathrooms for 5 bucks an hour, but others will. And it isn't because they have more affinities with detergents and less distaste for scrubbing dirt.
josephcsible 5y ago
> supply and demand “should” figure out the rest The problem is that the market is being distorted. It used to be that Alice would pay Bob $2000 per month to clean all of the bathrooms in her office. Now, Bob quit his job to live off of $2000 per month of UBI, and Alice's taxes got raised by $2000 per month to help pay for everyone's UBI.
- 6510 5y ago
  It used to be that Alice owned Bob, she purchased him fairly at auction. His duty was to clean all of the bathrooms in the house. Now, if Bob is released he will get a similar job for $2000 per month and someone like Alice's has to pay that $2000. Surely this isn't fair for Alice?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Abolishing slavery corrected a distortion and made the market more free. Unemployment bonuses and UBI are new distortions that make the market less free.
  - hirako2000 5y ago
    And she didn't own Bob, she paid Bob and not a previous owner. Information disimetry is what Alice benefited from, she has better skills, knowledge, or connections, or all of these. Bob has less and cleans other people's bathrooms instead of getting his cleaned while he can grow his wealth undisturbed by chores. The disymetry then keeps growing. I doubt the solution is to provide money as if it grew on trees to those who are below average in term of status and profit abilities in society. It would likely drag most people further down and keep a few at the top who will find ways to fund the mandiants somehow.