3 ms·

Who would take a job for significantly less than they receive from the government?

• tremon 5y ago
  The U in UBI stands for universal: everyone gets the same amount, regardless of whether they have a job. Taking a job is additive with UBI, there is no "significantly less money". Under UBI, a government could do away with minimum wage completely because there is no coercion by necessity. The employer only needs to pay enough to make it worthwhile for the employee to show up.
  • mchusma 5y ago
    +1 Using UBI to eliminating minimum wage, government unemployment insurance, and other problematic/expensive programs is one of my favorite parts of UBI.
    • zozbot234 5y ago
      Some short-term unemployment insurance would likely still exist under UBI - the two programs have sharply different goals, and a viable UBI would generally be too low for a "full" income. But UBI would almost certainly allow for more flexibility in the labor market, that would make extended UI a lot less relevant.
  • cgriswald 5y ago
    That only follows with a theoretically perfect UBI which either matches everyone at the highest COL or matches everyone with their local COL and reacts instantaneously with increases due to changes in the market. If there is a delay in UBI increases, or if the UBI is not properly matched to the COL, there will still be pockets of people who must work by necessity.
  • RussianCow 5y ago
    > The employer only needs to pay enough to make it worthwhile for the employee to show up. That's exactly my point—why would you show up to a job that pays you less than you receive by default? It doesn't make sense to go from working 0 hours to working 40 for a less than 50% increase in income.