3 ms·

Aside from the "robots could do it cheaper", it is a misallocation of resources, and that makes all of us poorer. The job is worth minimum wage ($12,000 / yr o

by tjic 18y ago

Aside from the "robots could do it cheaper", it is a misallocation of resources, and that makes all of us poorer. The job is worth minimum wage ($12,000 / yr or so) at best. In a free market, you could find folks who would work this job at that price. Some of these folks have so few skills that they would still work this job. Other of these folks have higher skills, and isntead of using them in some productive role (manager at a pharmacy, etc.), they're wasting their skills sitting on a stool making change. If you think that it's a good thing for unskilled labor to be paid - because of union monopolization of labor - far far above it's productive level, then why not make the minimum wage $70k/yr for everyone? Or better yet, $120k/yr ?

DabAsteroid 18y ago
The job is worth minimum wage ($12,000 / yr or so) at best. In a free market, you could find folks who would work this job at that price. A labor-market with a minimum wage is not a free market. In a free market, you could find folks who would work this job at one dollar per hour. But how could they afford to live? "Basic income" (unconditional trickle-capital) and deregulated construction and real-estate (e.g. $60/month apartments in major markets). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
jimbokun 18y ago
"far far above it's productive level, then why not make the minimum wage $70k/yr for everyone?" I'm intrigued with the idea of the government just delivering a bucket of money to every household once a year. An advantage is that you place some sort of floor under everyone's income, that would mitigate against basic poverty issues like homelessness, no money for food or health care, etc. Another advantage is that everyone still has the same incentives to work, because they can get ahead without worrying about losing their assistance from being too successful. And (bringing back to HN) having certain necessities taken care of could enable risk taking and entrepeneurship. Basically, the government paying for you ramen noodles, instead of pg :). I know there are lots of potential problems with this idea, but I've seen it proposed before, and think it makes a good starting point for a discussion of thinking of things like poverty, minimum wage, health care, etc. in a different way.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  I'm intrigued with the idea of the government just delivering a bucket of money to every household once a year. An advantage is that you place some sort of floor under everyone's income, that would mitigate against basic poverty issues like homelessness, no money for food or health care, etc. Another advantage is that everyone still has the same incentives to work Hmmm. That sounds like what I just wrote. Here is the link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income I know there are lots of potential problems with this idea Actually, there are not any problems with it. A capitalist society cannot function on a healthy level without universal no-strings-attached trickle-capital. However, I am interested in finding out what you find wrong with the idea.
  - jimbokun 18y ago
    I was assuming others would immediately find problems with the idea that I hadn't thought of. I really don't know what the downsides are. Thanks for the link! Interesting to see Alaska mentioned as an example of this idea, especially given current political discussions.

by tjic 18y ago

DabAsteroid 18y ago

The job is worth minimum wage ($12,000 / yr or so) at best. In a free market, you could find folks who would work this job at that price. A labor-market with a minimum wage is not a free market. In a free market, you could find folks who would work this job at one dollar per hour. But how could they afford to live? "Basic income" (unconditional trickle-capital) and deregulated construction and real-estate (e.g. $60/month apartments in major markets). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

jimbokun 18y ago

"far far above it's productive level, then why not make the minimum wage $70k/yr for everyone?" I'm intrigued with the idea of the government just delivering a bucket of money to every household once a year. An advantage is that you place some sort of floor under everyone's income, that would mitigate against basic poverty issues like homelessness, no money for food or health care, etc. Another advantage is that everyone still has the same incentives to work, because they can get ahead without worrying about losing their assistance from being too successful. And (bringing back to HN) having certain necessities taken care of could enable risk taking and entrepeneurship. Basically, the government paying for you ramen noodles, instead of pg :). I know there are lots of potential problems with this idea, but I've seen it proposed before, and think it makes a good starting point for a discussion of thinking of things like poverty, minimum wage, health care, etc. in a different way.

DabAsteroid 18y ago
I'm intrigued with the idea of the government just delivering a bucket of money to every household once a year. An advantage is that you place some sort of floor under everyone's income, that would mitigate against basic poverty issues like homelessness, no money for food or health care, etc. Another advantage is that everyone still has the same incentives to work Hmmm. That sounds like what I just wrote. Here is the link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income I know there are lots of potential problems with this idea Actually, there are not any problems with it. A capitalist society cannot function on a healthy level without universal no-strings-attached trickle-capital. However, I am interested in finding out what you find wrong with the idea.
- jimbokun 18y ago
  I was assuming others would immediately find problems with the idea that I hadn't thought of. I really don't know what the downsides are. Thanks for the link! Interesting to see Alaska mentioned as an example of this idea, especially given current political discussions.