6 ms·

The "So what" is that if pay for waiters and labourers has to compete with UBI, the cost of service, food, and housing increases significantly, putting it out o

The "So what" is that if pay for waiters and labourers has to compete with UBI, the cost of service, food, and housing increases significantly, putting it out of reach of more people, and contracting the entire economy as a result. You can postulate about how much we should value these jobs, but the reality is that most people wouldn't be able to afford a meal at a restaurant where all the staff make 50k, or a packet of strawberries picked by pickers who make the same.

CraigJPerry 5y ago
Who would pay the multi-million dollar salary of the top footballers if that came to pass? If people were suddenly paying a LOT more for strawberries and garbage collection, would they have disposable left over for footballers? There’d still be footballers - the person who was picking fruit left that role to follow their UBI funded dream of being a footballer. They’re just not going to make the same amount of money. Same goes for CEOs and other roles with comparatively enjoyable execution vs high pay. Every man and their granny will be a CEO of a one person company when you take all the risk out of the system by giving everyone a safety net. Enjoyable jobs will pay less, hard jobs will pay more.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Believe it or not, poor people generally don't buy football tickets. If their TVs were made by UBI workers, then they wouldn't be able to afford those either. Material things would become scarce again due to the artificially inflated cost of labour. You're basically rewinding all of the gains in productivity we've made by imposing a high floor. CEOs aren't paid a lot because the assume risk, they're paid a lot because business leadership is hard, and good leaders are scarce. I also don't know of many CEOs at large companies whose job I would classify as "enjoyable". > Every man and their granny will be a CEO of a one person company Then we'll need a new word for "company" as it's meant today. Also no one is stopping anyone from being an independent contractor, which is basically this. I'm not sure I'm following.
  - tremon 5y ago
    Then we'll need a new word for "company" as it's meant today Already ahead of you: a one-person company is called a ZZP'er here in NL. ZZP = zelfstandige zonder personeel == self-employed without employees.
    - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
      If you want to be the CEO of your own corporation, nothing beats DGA (Directeur-Grootaandeelhouder). The grandest title of them all!
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > Material things would become scarce again due to the artificially inflated cost of labour. A UBI would be more efficient than the extensive patch-work of policies and regulations that we use today to artificially redistribute income. There would be a lot more work happening on material things, not less - especially when adjusted for productivity. Minimum wage work today is some of the least productive.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      > There would be a lot more work happening on material things, not less Who will do all the hard, unpleasant work then? Who will pick strawberries, work retail, or do hard labour, for anything less than a fortune? What substitute to the current "don't starve/end up homeless" incentive structure will motivate people to do these jobs? Productivity improvements aren't universal, they're specific. We've not improved productivity for strawberry pickers because we've not come up with a way to automate the picking of strawberries. The least productive work tends to pay minimum wage.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        Who picks strawberries today in high-income countries/locations, where strawberry pickers have all sorts of alternatives available? There's your answer. It tends to cost more, but not much more. And the increased cost is offset to a large extent by improved specialization in those lines of work, and the ensuing productivity.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
danaris 5y ago
There's no competing with UBI. People with jobs still get UBI. That's what the "U" part means: Universal. Pay for waiters and labourers, like pay for everyone else, is on top of UBI. There's no particular reason it would have to rise by 2x or 3x—unless the industry is categorically unwilling or unable to ensure that their workers are treated well enough that they just don't see it as being worthwhile for less.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  I'm arguing that there are many industries that would not survive workers having an alternative that provides for their basic needs, or would be transformed into niche, artisanal goods/services that would be out of reach of ordinary people.
  - danaris 5y ago
    If an industry cannot survive without forcing workers into degrading conditions and poverty wages, then it does not deserve to survive.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      Right, but the people who will suffer first and most from an industry dying out, or costs increasing, would be the poorest people.
      - danaris 5y ago
        The people who will suffer most from continuing the way we're going are also the poorest people. If the industry is dying out because we introduce universal basic income, then the poorest people will still be at least as well off as they are now, and in many cases much better, because they are guaranteed to continue to be able to pay their bills, no matter what happens with their employment status.
        thegrimmest 5y ago

CraigJPerry 5y ago

Who would pay the multi-million dollar salary of the top footballers if that came to pass? If people were suddenly paying a LOT more for strawberries and garbage collection, would they have disposable left over for footballers? There’d still be footballers - the person who was picking fruit left that role to follow their UBI funded dream of being a footballer. They’re just not going to make the same amount of money. Same goes for CEOs and other roles with comparatively enjoyable execution vs high pay. Every man and their granny will be a CEO of a one person company when you take all the risk out of the system by giving everyone a safety net. Enjoyable jobs will pay less, hard jobs will pay more.

thegrimmest 5y ago
Believe it or not, poor people generally don't buy football tickets. If their TVs were made by UBI workers, then they wouldn't be able to afford those either. Material things would become scarce again due to the artificially inflated cost of labour. You're basically rewinding all of the gains in productivity we've made by imposing a high floor. CEOs aren't paid a lot because the assume risk, they're paid a lot because business leadership is hard, and good leaders are scarce. I also don't know of many CEOs at large companies whose job I would classify as "enjoyable". > Every man and their granny will be a CEO of a one person company Then we'll need a new word for "company" as it's meant today. Also no one is stopping anyone from being an independent contractor, which is basically this. I'm not sure I'm following.
- tremon 5y ago
  Then we'll need a new word for "company" as it's meant today Already ahead of you: a one-person company is called a ZZP'er here in NL. ZZP = zelfstandige zonder personeel == self-employed without employees.
  - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
    If you want to be the CEO of your own corporation, nothing beats DGA (Directeur-Grootaandeelhouder). The grandest title of them all!
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > Material things would become scarce again due to the artificially inflated cost of labour. A UBI would be more efficient than the extensive patch-work of policies and regulations that we use today to artificially redistribute income. There would be a lot more work happening on material things, not less - especially when adjusted for productivity. Minimum wage work today is some of the least productive.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    > There would be a lot more work happening on material things, not less Who will do all the hard, unpleasant work then? Who will pick strawberries, work retail, or do hard labour, for anything less than a fortune? What substitute to the current "don't starve/end up homeless" incentive structure will motivate people to do these jobs? Productivity improvements aren't universal, they're specific. We've not improved productivity for strawberry pickers because we've not come up with a way to automate the picking of strawberries. The least productive work tends to pay minimum wage.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      Who picks strawberries today in high-income countries/locations, where strawberry pickers have all sorts of alternatives available? There's your answer. It tends to cost more, but not much more. And the increased cost is offset to a large extent by improved specialization in those lines of work, and the ensuing productivity.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

danaris 5y ago

There's no competing with UBI. People with jobs still get UBI. That's what the "U" part means: Universal. Pay for waiters and labourers, like pay for everyone else, is on top of UBI. There's no particular reason it would have to rise by 2x or 3x—unless the industry is categorically unwilling or unable to ensure that their workers are treated well enough that they just don't see it as being worthwhile for less.

thegrimmest 5y ago
I'm arguing that there are many industries that would not survive workers having an alternative that provides for their basic needs, or would be transformed into niche, artisanal goods/services that would be out of reach of ordinary people.
- danaris 5y ago
  If an industry cannot survive without forcing workers into degrading conditions and poverty wages, then it does not deserve to survive.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Right, but the people who will suffer first and most from an industry dying out, or costs increasing, would be the poorest people.
    - danaris 5y ago
      The people who will suffer most from continuing the way we're going are also the poorest people. If the industry is dying out because we introduce universal basic income, then the poorest people will still be at least as well off as they are now, and in many cases much better, because they are guaranteed to continue to be able to pay their bills, no matter what happens with their employment status.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago