6 ms·

>The more time goes on, the more I think maybe a minimum guaranteed income is the solution that makes the most sense. Why? Someone has to pay for it.

by jimzvz 14y ago

ken_railey 14y ago
Not coming down for or against, but one argument is that it causes less market distortion than a minimum wage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
mistercow 14y ago
>Why? See the rest of my comment. >Someone has to pay for it. Of course, and those would be the people who choose to work in order to earn more than the guaranteed minimum. The result would be more available jobs with more relaxing hours, giving people more time to spend with their families, on side projects, or on creative pursuits that enrich our culture. The idea that automation and technological advancement can cause people to go hungry is frankly crazy. Instead of celebrating the fact that humans don't have to waste their time on menial crap, we are forced by our economic system to wring our hands over the fact that that menial crap can no longer be used as an arbitrary metric for distributing resources.
- jimzvz 14y ago
  >Of course, and those would be the people who choose to work in order to earn more than the guaranteed minimum. The result would be more available jobs with more relaxing hours, giving people more time to spend with their families, on side projects, or on creative pursuits that enrich our culture. I don't follow this logic. The easier it is for people to skate through life without working or working effectively, the less incentive they have to contribute. The people that pay for this life will decrease and quality of life will decrease for everyone.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    >The easier it is for people to skate through life without working or working effectively, the less incentive they have to contribute. We do not currently have a problem with people not wanting to work. We currently have a problem with people being unable to find work. >The people that pay for this life will decrease and quality of life will decrease for everyone. That's why the system has to be dynamic. If you have a surplus of jobs, you reduce the GMI so that people have to work more. If you have a deficit of jobs, you increase the GMI accordingly.
jvm 14y ago
Someone has to pay for the increased minimum wage too. I agree with parent that EITC has more bang for the buck if you're interested in helping the poor. I guess someone on the right would just want neither; fair enough I say. WONKY ASIDE: The incidence of the minimum wage is almost certainly equivalent to that of a regressive consumption tax. So assuming no disemployment effects, it basically transfers wealth from everyone who buys the products of low-wage labor (disproportionately from the poor) to people who work minimum wage jobs, some of whom are also poor. It also kills some low-wage workers' jobs. By contrast, EITC is a transfer from people who pay income tax (disproportionately the rich) to people with low incomes. So unlike the minimum wage increase, it is unambiguously beneficial to the poor. In my personal opinion, one of the big reasons the minimum wage is so popular (and it really is, even across party lines) is that the costs are hidden, so people can pretend it's being paid for by big bad corporations even though the costs are ultimately borne by disproportionately poor consumers.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Why do you assume that consumers will pay the cost of higher wages, and not owners (via lower profits)?
  - pixl97 14y ago
    >and not owners (via lower profits)? Because 'free market' competition would have already reduced that cost/profit via other market factors. Assume the market is colluding on price and it's not hard to see that consumers could pay the cost.

>The more time goes on, the more I think maybe a minimum guaranteed income is the solution that makes the most sense. Why? Someone has to pay for it.

by jimzvz 14y ago

>The more time goes on, the more I think maybe a minimum guaranteed income is the solution that makes the most sense. Why? Someone has to pay for it.

ken_railey 14y ago

Not coming down for or against, but one argument is that it causes less market distortion than a minimum wage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

mistercow 14y ago

>Why? See the rest of my comment. >Someone has to pay for it. Of course, and those would be the people who choose to work in order to earn more than the guaranteed minimum. The result would be more available jobs with more relaxing hours, giving people more time to spend with their families, on side projects, or on creative pursuits that enrich our culture. The idea that automation and technological advancement can cause people to go hungry is frankly crazy. Instead of celebrating the fact that humans don't have to waste their time on menial crap, we are forced by our economic system to wring our hands over the fact that that menial crap can no longer be used as an arbitrary metric for distributing resources.

jimzvz 14y ago
>Of course, and those would be the people who choose to work in order to earn more than the guaranteed minimum. The result would be more available jobs with more relaxing hours, giving people more time to spend with their families, on side projects, or on creative pursuits that enrich our culture. I don't follow this logic. The easier it is for people to skate through life without working or working effectively, the less incentive they have to contribute. The people that pay for this life will decrease and quality of life will decrease for everyone.
- mistercow 14y ago
  >The easier it is for people to skate through life without working or working effectively, the less incentive they have to contribute. We do not currently have a problem with people not wanting to work. We currently have a problem with people being unable to find work. >The people that pay for this life will decrease and quality of life will decrease for everyone. That's why the system has to be dynamic. If you have a surplus of jobs, you reduce the GMI so that people have to work more. If you have a deficit of jobs, you increase the GMI accordingly.

jvm 14y ago

Someone has to pay for the increased minimum wage too. I agree with parent that EITC has more bang for the buck if you're interested in helping the poor. I guess someone on the right would just want neither; fair enough I say. WONKY ASIDE: The incidence of the minimum wage is almost certainly equivalent to that of a regressive consumption tax. So assuming no disemployment effects, it basically transfers wealth from everyone who buys the products of low-wage labor (disproportionately from the poor) to people who work minimum wage jobs, some of whom are also poor. It also kills some low-wage workers' jobs. By contrast, EITC is a transfer from people who pay income tax (disproportionately the rich) to people with low incomes. So unlike the minimum wage increase, it is unambiguously beneficial to the poor. In my personal opinion, one of the big reasons the minimum wage is so popular (and it really is, even across party lines) is that the costs are hidden, so people can pretend it's being paid for by big bad corporations even though the costs are ultimately borne by disproportionately poor consumers.

Evbn 14y ago
Why do you assume that consumers will pay the cost of higher wages, and not owners (via lower profits)?
- pixl97 14y ago
  >and not owners (via lower profits)? Because 'free market' competition would have already reduced that cost/profit via other market factors. Assume the market is colluding on price and it's not hard to see that consumers could pay the cost.