4 ms·

Why would the wages need to increase? UBI is additive to wages. It is not like welfare where one loses the money when one starts working. For the welfare state,

Why would the wages need to increase? UBI is additive to wages. It is not like welfare where one loses the money when one starts working. For the welfare state, you absolutely have to raise the wages to be above whatever the government is giving to those without money. UBI is explicitly intended to do away with that problem. In other words, if someone is willing to work for 20k a year now and we roll out a UBI that gives everyone 12k a year, then the 20k job is still an attractive option and would net them 32k. Now, it may be the case that the wage goes down to 8k which effectively leads to a UBI subsidizing the employers. That would be unfortunate and is a risk, but it certainly does not lead to a disadvantage compared to other countries in terms of employers though it may lead to disadvantages for attracting high earners. A UBI also opens up the possibility of removing the minimum wage which not only allows for more people to obtain jobs, but also raises the competitiveness with other countries, potentially (it depends on whether the minimum wage is actually effective in raising wages above the market rate).

spywaregorilla 4y ago
Doing a grueling low wage job because you need those wages to survive makes sense. Doing low wage jobs for the extra cash is not, because it's not a lot of cash. Money, like everything, has a diminishing marginal value. The first bunch of money is keeping you alive. If the government provides you that first bunch, your employer is providing much less value to you. Everyone preaches about how UBI will allow people to start businesses and learn skills. Well yeah, but that means they're dropping out of the labor force because they don't need to do those jobs. How do you incentivize people to work? Pay them more.
- immibis 4y ago
  In other words: We have to keep the slaves in poor conditions or else they'll quit working. The only thing we are able to provide to make them work, is a threat of death if they don't. No carrots, only sticks.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    If you're in a globalized economy that has scarcity, yes. That is the unfortunate truth of it. And you're mostly deluding yourself if you manage to outsource your need for slaves to other countries and think you've done anything particularly good. It's a prisoner's dilemma over and over.
    - immibis 4y ago
      What if we redistribute the scarcity so the people with way too much have less and the people with way too little have more?
incrudible 4y ago
You already figured out the problem. If you agree to work a job for 20k, why would you not agree to work a job for 12 plus 8k? Earnings are the same, except now every net tax payer pays a subsidy for employers to pay pityful wages. If mass unemployment was a substantial problem, this may well be an acceptable tradeoff, but in the current economy it is not.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  This is backwards and incorrect. If you make $1M per year working very hard and now get $999k for free, are you going to work very hard for the extra $1k? No, because the marginal value of the $1k is trivial, but the labor effort is the same. If you get just enough to survive from the government, and employers try to reduce wages because you'll net out the same, you probably won't accept the job. It's not worth your time. Even as a dirt poor person, your time is valuable. An employer needs to pay you more so that it's worth your effort again. You have much higher freedom to shop around too. If the government does not pay you enough to survive (non basic income), you're still in a precarious position, but you are still in a BETTER position than you were without the funds. This will RAISE wages, which will in turn RAISE prices, until the equilibrium is found where the UBI is distinctly not sufficient and you need to work to survive. You will still be poor. You will make more wages, but have about the same level of real wealth. You will be a bit safer due the guaranteed portion of income. Until globalization kicks in and makes your specific local circumstances much worse.

spywaregorilla 4y ago

Doing a grueling low wage job because you need those wages to survive makes sense. Doing low wage jobs for the extra cash is not, because it's not a lot of cash. Money, like everything, has a diminishing marginal value. The first bunch of money is keeping you alive. If the government provides you that first bunch, your employer is providing much less value to you. Everyone preaches about how UBI will allow people to start businesses and learn skills. Well yeah, but that means they're dropping out of the labor force because they don't need to do those jobs. How do you incentivize people to work? Pay them more.

immibis 4y ago
In other words: We have to keep the slaves in poor conditions or else they'll quit working. The only thing we are able to provide to make them work, is a threat of death if they don't. No carrots, only sticks.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  If you're in a globalized economy that has scarcity, yes. That is the unfortunate truth of it. And you're mostly deluding yourself if you manage to outsource your need for slaves to other countries and think you've done anything particularly good. It's a prisoner's dilemma over and over.
  - immibis 4y ago
    What if we redistribute the scarcity so the people with way too much have less and the people with way too little have more?

incrudible 4y ago

You already figured out the problem. If you agree to work a job for 20k, why would you not agree to work a job for 12 plus 8k? Earnings are the same, except now every net tax payer pays a subsidy for employers to pay pityful wages. If mass unemployment was a substantial problem, this may well be an acceptable tradeoff, but in the current economy it is not.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
This is backwards and incorrect. If you make $1M per year working very hard and now get $999k for free, are you going to work very hard for the extra $1k? No, because the marginal value of the $1k is trivial, but the labor effort is the same. If you get just enough to survive from the government, and employers try to reduce wages because you'll net out the same, you probably won't accept the job. It's not worth your time. Even as a dirt poor person, your time is valuable. An employer needs to pay you more so that it's worth your effort again. You have much higher freedom to shop around too. If the government does not pay you enough to survive (non basic income), you're still in a precarious position, but you are still in a BETTER position than you were without the funds. This will RAISE wages, which will in turn RAISE prices, until the equilibrium is found where the UBI is distinctly not sufficient and you need to work to survive. You will still be poor. You will make more wages, but have about the same level of real wealth. You will be a bit safer due the guaranteed portion of income. Until globalization kicks in and makes your specific local circumstances much worse.