4 ms·

I agree with almost everything pg said in that essay. But I also agree that the the best economy of the future will (someday) include a minimum living wage lik

by JDulin 13y ago

I agree with almost everything pg said in that essay. But I also agree that the the best economy of the future will (someday) include a minimum living wage like this. That's because it's not a bill in pursuit of some Utopian equality: It's a survival bill. Giving someone $2,800 a month without explicitly taxing the rich to fund it is hardly an attempt at eliminating income inequality. I would call this type of wage a 'freedom-wage' more than anything else because it would give people (Like college students with mountains of debt or unskilled middle-age workers.) more economic freedom to do great things like start companies, learn new skills, and practice art. The goal here is survivability and freedom, not "fixing" massive inequality.

ericd 13y ago
This hits the mark, hard. It would introduce so much more flexibility into the economy. Some people would abuse it, and critics of these bills generally harp on how no one would do anything, but that's overblown, and the flip side is that people will be free to reeducate and relocate themselves rather than getting stuck in poverty traps and becoming slaves to their short term needs. The lack of that severe risk will allow people to take much bolder risks. This won't eliminate people's drive to excel, become wealthy, etc - we're biologically driven to try to look better than other people to be more attractive, and to provide our children with a good start. This will just make the failure mode not so bad, and enable people to try again, or switch course. If we can stomach the direct tax impact, I think this would be the most positive transformative change we could make in the near future. Being able to eliminate almost every other entitlement program and their associated bureacracies would be a nice side benefit.
icelancer 13y ago
It will also be necessary as productivity continues to climb through innovation and automation. Low/no-skill jobs are being removed from the economy in huge swaths.
- eatitraw 13y ago
  You might want to know, that the situation isn't unique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

by JDulin 13y ago

ericd 13y ago

This hits the mark, hard. It would introduce so much more flexibility into the economy. Some people would abuse it, and critics of these bills generally harp on how no one would do anything, but that's overblown, and the flip side is that people will be free to reeducate and relocate themselves rather than getting stuck in poverty traps and becoming slaves to their short term needs. The lack of that severe risk will allow people to take much bolder risks. This won't eliminate people's drive to excel, become wealthy, etc - we're biologically driven to try to look better than other people to be more attractive, and to provide our children with a good start. This will just make the failure mode not so bad, and enable people to try again, or switch course. If we can stomach the direct tax impact, I think this would be the most positive transformative change we could make in the near future. Being able to eliminate almost every other entitlement program and their associated bureacracies would be a nice side benefit.

icelancer 13y ago

It will also be necessary as productivity continues to climb through innovation and automation. Low/no-skill jobs are being removed from the economy in huge swaths.

eatitraw 13y ago
You might want to know, that the situation isn't unique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite