3 ms·
For this to work there really has to be significant rewards for working on the lower end. If people are guaranteed 40k but can make 50k toiling away at Walmart
by robryan 14y ago
For this to work there really has to be significant rewards for working on the lower end. If people are guaranteed 40k but can make 50k toiling away at Walmart full time it will likely become hard to find people to fill the jobs.
- maxerickson 14y agoJust take away $0.25 (of basic income) for every $1 earned working. Or whatever numbers make sense. But it should be straightforward enough to keep incentives available.
- mistercow 14y agoMaybe. The difference between 40k and 50k sounds small in terms of raw percentage, but if you consider disposable income, it's more significant. What I think you'd much more likely see is an increase in part time work. In your scenario, likely nobody would be willing to work full time as a cashier at Walmart. But they would work part time if they wanted to save up for a new car, for example. If the labor pool can support it, I think that's as it should be. The neat thing about the minimum guaranteed income is how well it scales as we automate jobs in the future. If we no longer need very many people working jobs at the skill level of Walmart cashiers, then raising the minimum income will account for that relatively painlessly. But it's obviously not something you can just slap into place. You have to analyze the problem to figure out both how to set the minimum income initially, and how to adjust it over time.
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoThat's why you grant a smaller basic income stipend (say, more like $15k/year -- equivalent to minimum wage at full time), but take away nothing for working. So if you grant $15k and Wal-Mart pays $15k (same wage levels as now), the worker has a total income of $30k.