8 ms·

It replaces minimum wage in that McDonalds is welcome to offer a job flipping burgers for $1 an hour if they want. However, because no one _needs_ a job to live

It replaces minimum wage in that McDonalds is welcome to offer a job flipping burgers for $1 an hour if they want. However, because no one _needs_ a job to live (because they can just live on the basic income) someone would only take that job if it was worth it/fulfilling to them.

_august 13y ago
Or alternatively, it could cause the wage to increase, as people won't be as desperate for just any job, driving down the demand for such jobs. It would start to make financial sense for McDonalds to invest in automating several tasks which are currently cheaper for McDonalds to hire someone for. Imagine if you order and pay through a machine (I saw one of these at Jack in the Box already). The person behind the counter could instead be working on their dreams of being a musician, artist, studying for college, etc.
jaredgeorge 13y ago
And this is why the model would not work. I don't believe that there are enough people who would find fulfillment in flipping burgers, unclogging toilets, roofing in AZ in July...
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > And this is why the model would not work. I don't believe that there are enough people who would find fulfillment in flipping burgers, unclogging toilets, roofing in AZ in July... I think you missed the "worth it" part, which substitutes for the "fulfilling" part. Unattractive but low-skill jobs would see higher wages (and, thus, greater incentives to find labor-saving alternatives) until the utility people doing those jobs provided to others was reflected in the reward people doing those jobs received.
- xymostech 13y ago
  Well, then McDonalds can offer more money to work there. Obviously, McDonalds wants to stay in business, so it has to offer up some incentive to get people to work for them. If they offer enough money, there will certainly be people who would work to flip burgers. The jobs' salaries match what they are actually worth, and can't be offered as minimum-wage jobs that people take because they don't have any money and can't get a job elsewhere.
  - buzaga41 13y ago
    not to mention mc donalds business would probably boost since now everybody can afford to have some junk food if they feel like it, paying some more wouldn't be a problem, I imagine.
  - lazyjones 13y ago
    > Well, then McDonalds can offer more money to work there. Which means burgers will cost much more than they currently do. The same will be true for all domestic products/services where a significant part of the work force currently has low wages. Which means that you and I will pay more for goods/services than previously. The effect will be similar to a significant sales tax, might as well try funding BI that way (at least imported goods will carry some of the tax burden) and look at published studies on the effects of sales taxes...
- bryanlarsen 13y ago
  On BI, it would be very difficult to afford the latest iPhone. If you have no skills but you want an iPhone you can either skip a few hundred meals or you can flip burgers and clean toilets for a few hours. Don't worry, the hedonistic urge is stronger than laziness in most people. Especially since lazy usually implies watching TV which continuously bombards you with advertisements to buy things...
PaulHoule 13y ago
How does this all interact with debt? Can I get a lump sum payment in return for my future wage? Can it be taken away to pay creditors, child support, back taxes, etc. ?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > How does this all interact with debt? Other than "you can use it to pay debt", not at all. > Can I get a lump sum payment in return for my future wage? If you mean "will someone loan me money in return for me pledging an amount equal to my future basic income for some period", maybe, but it would be a really bad idea to let it be redirected. > Can it be taken away to pay creditors, child support, back taxes, etc. ? Probably not -- there is already, AIUI, a "first $X" (which may vary under specific local rules depending on context) of income which is protected against garnishments, etc., and BI probably ought to fall within that (at least until the economy advances enough to support a more than pedestrian lifestyle on BI alone, at which point it might only be part of the BI that is within that protection.)
- NoodleIncident 13y ago
  I doubt lump-sums-in-advance would be permitted. I'm sure that predatory payday loan places would jump at the chance to fill the gap, though. I hope that if BI is ever implemented, that kind of stuff will be regulated.
- maxsilver 13y ago
  > Child support Presumably, Child Support would no longer exist for anyone. Children are people, with no income, they would essentially get a child-version of basic income, paid to their parents, to raise them, regardless of all other circumstances. (Similar to US taxes today, where the government effectively pays you some a small amount of money simply for having a child) If a couple conceives a child, and one parent abandons the other, the single parent keeps the whole state-provided income for that child, and uses it to raise the child. It eliminates the whole "penalty" system for distant parents, and if those people eventually get jobs, they pay into the basic income system just as anyone else does (so they aren't dis-incentivized to work).
baddox 13y ago
> However, because no one _needs_ a job to live (because they can just live on the basic income) Well, someone needs a job for the system to work, since it's presumably funded by taxation. At least one person (more realistically, a large portion of the population) still needs to be creating wealth.
- maxsilver 13y ago
  >someone needs a job I don't know that we necessarily need to have jobs. We could fund it by taxation of revenue and wages, rather than just wages. A company who fires all it's employees, and uses only robots, would see a huge surge in profit from reduced overhead. That profit could be taxed at something like 60%. The owner(s) of the business still see windfall from the cost savings of laying everyone off, and the basic income now rises for everyone and can now cover the lost wages of the newly unemployed, using the companies new profits as a funding source
  - baddox 13y ago
    > A company who fires all it's employees, and uses only robots, would see a huge surge in profit from reduced overhead. Where is their revenue coming from?
    - ryandrake 13y ago
      People spending their basic income :)
  - paulhauggis 13y ago
    so..redistribution of income? This isn't anything new. I find it interesting that so many people on a forum about technology and business would suggest punishing businesses for using technology to make their business so efficient. When the music and movie industry wanted more protection for their IP, many people here made comments about the horse and buggy/automobile and they just needed to "change with the times". Why should employment be any different? If your job is being taken by a robot..maybe you should think about learning another skill.
seanalltogether 13y ago
"someone would only take that job if it was worth it/fulfilling to them" e.g. Immigrants. I'm not sure if we should start calling them deltas or epsilons...

_august 13y ago

Or alternatively, it could cause the wage to increase, as people won't be as desperate for just any job, driving down the demand for such jobs. It would start to make financial sense for McDonalds to invest in automating several tasks which are currently cheaper for McDonalds to hire someone for. Imagine if you order and pay through a machine (I saw one of these at Jack in the Box already). The person behind the counter could instead be working on their dreams of being a musician, artist, studying for college, etc.

jaredgeorge 13y ago

And this is why the model would not work. I don't believe that there are enough people who would find fulfillment in flipping burgers, unclogging toilets, roofing in AZ in July...

dragonwriter 13y ago
> And this is why the model would not work. I don't believe that there are enough people who would find fulfillment in flipping burgers, unclogging toilets, roofing in AZ in July... I think you missed the "worth it" part, which substitutes for the "fulfilling" part. Unattractive but low-skill jobs would see higher wages (and, thus, greater incentives to find labor-saving alternatives) until the utility people doing those jobs provided to others was reflected in the reward people doing those jobs received.
xymostech 13y ago
Well, then McDonalds can offer more money to work there. Obviously, McDonalds wants to stay in business, so it has to offer up some incentive to get people to work for them. If they offer enough money, there will certainly be people who would work to flip burgers. The jobs' salaries match what they are actually worth, and can't be offered as minimum-wage jobs that people take because they don't have any money and can't get a job elsewhere.
- buzaga41 13y ago
  not to mention mc donalds business would probably boost since now everybody can afford to have some junk food if they feel like it, paying some more wouldn't be a problem, I imagine.
- lazyjones 13y ago
  > Well, then McDonalds can offer more money to work there. Which means burgers will cost much more than they currently do. The same will be true for all domestic products/services where a significant part of the work force currently has low wages. Which means that you and I will pay more for goods/services than previously. The effect will be similar to a significant sales tax, might as well try funding BI that way (at least imported goods will carry some of the tax burden) and look at published studies on the effects of sales taxes...
bryanlarsen 13y ago
On BI, it would be very difficult to afford the latest iPhone. If you have no skills but you want an iPhone you can either skip a few hundred meals or you can flip burgers and clean toilets for a few hours. Don't worry, the hedonistic urge is stronger than laziness in most people. Especially since lazy usually implies watching TV which continuously bombards you with advertisements to buy things...

PaulHoule 13y ago

How does this all interact with debt? Can I get a lump sum payment in return for my future wage? Can it be taken away to pay creditors, child support, back taxes, etc. ?

dragonwriter 13y ago
> How does this all interact with debt? Other than "you can use it to pay debt", not at all. > Can I get a lump sum payment in return for my future wage? If you mean "will someone loan me money in return for me pledging an amount equal to my future basic income for some period", maybe, but it would be a really bad idea to let it be redirected. > Can it be taken away to pay creditors, child support, back taxes, etc. ? Probably not -- there is already, AIUI, a "first $X" (which may vary under specific local rules depending on context) of income which is protected against garnishments, etc., and BI probably ought to fall within that (at least until the economy advances enough to support a more than pedestrian lifestyle on BI alone, at which point it might only be part of the BI that is within that protection.)
NoodleIncident 13y ago
I doubt lump-sums-in-advance would be permitted. I'm sure that predatory payday loan places would jump at the chance to fill the gap, though. I hope that if BI is ever implemented, that kind of stuff will be regulated.
maxsilver 13y ago
> Child support Presumably, Child Support would no longer exist for anyone. Children are people, with no income, they would essentially get a child-version of basic income, paid to their parents, to raise them, regardless of all other circumstances. (Similar to US taxes today, where the government effectively pays you some a small amount of money simply for having a child) If a couple conceives a child, and one parent abandons the other, the single parent keeps the whole state-provided income for that child, and uses it to raise the child. It eliminates the whole "penalty" system for distant parents, and if those people eventually get jobs, they pay into the basic income system just as anyone else does (so they aren't dis-incentivized to work).

baddox 13y ago

> However, because no one _needs_ a job to live (because they can just live on the basic income) Well, someone needs a job for the system to work, since it's presumably funded by taxation. At least one person (more realistically, a large portion of the population) still needs to be creating wealth.

maxsilver 13y ago
>someone needs a job I don't know that we necessarily need to have jobs. We could fund it by taxation of revenue and wages, rather than just wages. A company who fires all it's employees, and uses only robots, would see a huge surge in profit from reduced overhead. That profit could be taxed at something like 60%. The owner(s) of the business still see windfall from the cost savings of laying everyone off, and the basic income now rises for everyone and can now cover the lost wages of the newly unemployed, using the companies new profits as a funding source
- baddox 13y ago
  > A company who fires all it's employees, and uses only robots, would see a huge surge in profit from reduced overhead. Where is their revenue coming from?
  - ryandrake 13y ago
    People spending their basic income :)
- paulhauggis 13y ago
  so..redistribution of income? This isn't anything new. I find it interesting that so many people on a forum about technology and business would suggest punishing businesses for using technology to make their business so efficient. When the music and movie industry wanted more protection for their IP, many people here made comments about the horse and buggy/automobile and they just needed to "change with the times". Why should employment be any different? If your job is being taken by a robot..maybe you should think about learning another skill.

seanalltogether 13y ago

"someone would only take that job if it was worth it/fulfilling to them" e.g. Immigrants. I'm not sure if we should start calling them deltas or epsilons...