4 ms·

> If these jobs truly are necessary, then wages would rise to the point where people would be attracted to do them. If truck driving paid as much as FAANG softw

> If these jobs truly are necessary, then wages would rise to the point where people would be attracted to do them. If truck driving paid as much as FAANG software engineering, I assure you there'd be no shortage of truck drivers (even if it required grinding a trucker Leetcode). This is exactly the problem though. The costs for all of those basic necessities that aren't fun go up relative to everything else. Most of the things poor people rely on fall into this category.

JSavageOne 5y ago
This would not disproportionately harm poor people. In fact, poor people would be significantly better off due to the increased income from UBI + higher wages. Poor people are the ones doing those sh*tty jobs you're complaining about wages rising for. Those at the bottom would have their incomes multiplied. Actually those at the bottom are homeless, and UBI would virtually eliminate involuntary homelessness, so the idea that UBI makes poor people off is ludicrous and divorced from reality.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > In fact, poor people would be significantly better off due to the increased income from UBI + higher wages You're assuming two things that exclude each other. Wages will only rise if some people drop out of the workforce, lowering supply. Those who drop out then don't benefit from the raising wages, and only end up paying increased costs. The likely result is a kind of bullwhip, where people drop out, prices and wages rise, the value of the UBI diminishes, this forces the people who dropped out right back into the shitty jobs they left a year or two prior, now with the relative prices of many goods jacked up until a new equilibrium is found. Depending on the UBI the new equilibrium may be better for them, it may be worse, but, as of now, some people will be forced to do those shitty jobs. No amount of Government intervention will prevent low skilled labor from being low paid relative to other goods. Market competition just won't allow it.

JSavageOne 5y ago

This would not disproportionately harm poor people. In fact, poor people would be significantly better off due to the increased income from UBI + higher wages. Poor people are the ones doing those sh*tty jobs you're complaining about wages rising for. Those at the bottom would have their incomes multiplied. Actually those at the bottom are homeless, and UBI would virtually eliminate involuntary homelessness, so the idea that UBI makes poor people off is ludicrous and divorced from reality.

BobbyJo 5y ago
> In fact, poor people would be significantly better off due to the increased income from UBI + higher wages You're assuming two things that exclude each other. Wages will only rise if some people drop out of the workforce, lowering supply. Those who drop out then don't benefit from the raising wages, and only end up paying increased costs. The likely result is a kind of bullwhip, where people drop out, prices and wages rise, the value of the UBI diminishes, this forces the people who dropped out right back into the shitty jobs they left a year or two prior, now with the relative prices of many goods jacked up until a new equilibrium is found. Depending on the UBI the new equilibrium may be better for them, it may be worse, but, as of now, some people will be forced to do those shitty jobs. No amount of Government intervention will prevent low skilled labor from being low paid relative to other goods. Market competition just won't allow it.