4 ms·

This proposal does make a lot of sense when you think about it, unlike the basic income schemes that sometimes get posted here on HN.

derivagral 12y ago
Why do you think those schemes don't make a lot of sense?
- cpncrunch 12y ago
  Because there is a reduced incentive to work whenever you don't have to work to make a basic living. Who, therefore, is going to pick up the trash, clean the toilets, etc.? With a high minimum wage, on the other hand, there is actually an increased incentive to work, and you will probably draw many people off the dole and back into the workplace.
  - adaml_623 12y ago
    Wouldn't it be great if the people who did the crappy jobs like picking up the rubbish and cleaning the toilets got paid a decent amount of money! There's your incentive
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    You treat "reduced incentive to work" as if it means "zero incentive to work." More incentive to work is not always better. We could increase incentive to work even more: Eliminate all charity and welfare programs. Or heck, death penalty for failure to hold a job! When we have more people trying to work than we have work available (as exhibited by a high unemployment rate), reducing incentive to work is a feature not a bug - provided we don't reduce incentive to work too much. Who is going to pick up the trash and clean the toilets? People who want the extra money more than they want to avoid doing those jobs. And yes, those jobs will have to pay more, but there's nothing wrong with that - that's obviously part of the outcome of a minimum wage too. Moreover, "draw many people off the dole" points at another huge issue - with needs-based assistance that goes away when you start working (or working for enough), the change in my situation when I start working is the wage offered minus the assistance I'm losing, substantially lowering the effective wage at the low end. A basic income does not have that problem.
    - cpncrunch 12y ago
      Yes, that makes sense. I guess it all depends on the level of the basic income. It should be enough to live on, but not enough to live very comfortably.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        "It should be enough to live on, but not enough to live very comfortably." That is more or less my guess, yeah.
webmaven 12y ago
The general effect of basic income and a living minimal wage is fairly similar, and not incompatible with each other (figuring out the 'right' mix between the two is an interesting problem, and I am surprised more work hasn't been done on it).
- dllthomas 12y ago
  With a sufficient basic income, zero is a living wage, and forcing a higher needlessly prevents some instances of cooperation. As far as I am concerned, it remains an open question whether the ideal level of basic income, all things factored in, is "sufficient" to that end (and, for that matter, what that ideal level of basic income is).
- cpncrunch 12y ago
  See my reply to derivagral explaining why they are not similar.
rrss1122 12y ago
It does make more sense when you stop to consider that more money in people's pockets stimulate the economy. It's why tax holidays generate so much revenue and economic activity. And the example the author used involving Henry Ford is great. Ford gave his workers enough money to buy his own cars and in this way increased business. And it's money changing hands among private individuals, instead of the government giving everyone money.

derivagral 12y ago

Why do you think those schemes don't make a lot of sense?

cpncrunch 12y ago
Because there is a reduced incentive to work whenever you don't have to work to make a basic living. Who, therefore, is going to pick up the trash, clean the toilets, etc.? With a high minimum wage, on the other hand, there is actually an increased incentive to work, and you will probably draw many people off the dole and back into the workplace.
- adaml_623 12y ago
  Wouldn't it be great if the people who did the crappy jobs like picking up the rubbish and cleaning the toilets got paid a decent amount of money! There's your incentive
- dllthomas 12y ago
  You treat "reduced incentive to work" as if it means "zero incentive to work." More incentive to work is not always better. We could increase incentive to work even more: Eliminate all charity and welfare programs. Or heck, death penalty for failure to hold a job! When we have more people trying to work than we have work available (as exhibited by a high unemployment rate), reducing incentive to work is a feature not a bug - provided we don't reduce incentive to work too much. Who is going to pick up the trash and clean the toilets? People who want the extra money more than they want to avoid doing those jobs. And yes, those jobs will have to pay more, but there's nothing wrong with that - that's obviously part of the outcome of a minimum wage too. Moreover, "draw many people off the dole" points at another huge issue - with needs-based assistance that goes away when you start working (or working for enough), the change in my situation when I start working is the wage offered minus the assistance I'm losing, substantially lowering the effective wage at the low end. A basic income does not have that problem.
  - cpncrunch 12y ago
    Yes, that makes sense. I guess it all depends on the level of the basic income. It should be enough to live on, but not enough to live very comfortably.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "It should be enough to live on, but not enough to live very comfortably." That is more or less my guess, yeah.

webmaven 12y ago

The general effect of basic income and a living minimal wage is fairly similar, and not incompatible with each other (figuring out the 'right' mix between the two is an interesting problem, and I am surprised more work hasn't been done on it).

dllthomas 12y ago
With a sufficient basic income, zero is a living wage, and forcing a higher needlessly prevents some instances of cooperation. As far as I am concerned, it remains an open question whether the ideal level of basic income, all things factored in, is "sufficient" to that end (and, for that matter, what that ideal level of basic income is).
cpncrunch 12y ago
See my reply to derivagral explaining why they are not similar.

rrss1122 12y ago

It does make more sense when you stop to consider that more money in people's pockets stimulate the economy. It's why tax holidays generate so much revenue and economic activity. And the example the author used involving Henry Ford is great. Ford gave his workers enough money to buy his own cars and in this way increased business. And it's money changing hands among private individuals, instead of the government giving everyone money.