4 ms·

That's what Basic Income is.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
That's my underlying point. Everyone complains that the minimum wage is going to drive more work to automation. Good. That's exactly what it should do. Those efficiency gains fund a basic income. I can envision a future where we have two tiers of income. One for basic necessities everyone gets, and another "luxury" tier, for services and goods not necessary to survive.
- kasey_junk 11y ago
  You can make a pretty compelling argument that we are already at a two tiered system (at least in the west). The problem is the definition of "basic necessities". Imagine that functional immortality becomes a possibility. Does it fall into the "basic" tier or the "luxury" tier. Drawing those lines is precisely what we are doing everyday with politics.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- greggyb 11y ago
  Is it an efficiency gain if it is only viable by pricing out the best alternative?
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Yes. We don't consider slavery a viable labor option, so why would be consider paying people substandard wages any different?
    - mason240 11y ago
      Because one is done by force, one is voluntary.
    - greggyb 11y ago
      This is not addressing my question at all. Efficiency can be understood as maximizing output for a given input (vernacular definition in use here). The morality of slavery is a red herring. We will ignore the research that suggests there was actually an efficiency cost to utilizing slavery over voluntary paid labor, because that is also irrelevant to the question. The question is whether forcing costs to be higher is an efficiency gain - it is not. We can now consider economic efficiency. One common measure is Pareto efficiency, which any change to the minimum wage cannot be in isolation, as one of the criteria is that no one be made worse off. The existence of a minimum wage also implies the existence of a Pareto optimal point. Another common measure of efficiency is Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, which basically takes the Pareto efficient criteria and modifies them such that there is a hypothetical compensation such that those being made better off could compensate those being made worse off to the point where all are made better off as a result. Essentially positive net utility change from some intervention. Note that the compensation is purely hypothetical, not necessarily monetary, and consequently unmeasurable. Kaldor-Hicks is the efficiency model wherein forcing a higher price can increase efficiency. You've not addressed this with a vague appeal to morality. Note: I am not trying to be hypercritical, only very clear in my statement.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> That's what Basic Income is. Except not; BI proponents -- even left-of-center BI proponents -- generally propose it as an alternative to the minimum wage. BI, in principle, solves the same problem as minimum wage -- substandard wages cease to be exploitive if people are no longer compelled to work for those wages by the threat of not having minimal needs met if they choose no to accept them, they are genuinely voluntary.

That's my underlying point. Everyone complains that the minimum wage is going to drive more work to automation. Good. That's exactly what it should do. Those efficiency gains fund a basic income. I can envision a future where we have two tiers of income. One for basic necessities everyone gets, and another "luxury" tier, for services and goods not necessary to survive.

kasey_junk 11y ago
You can make a pretty compelling argument that we are already at a two tiered system (at least in the west). The problem is the definition of "basic necessities". Imagine that functional immortality becomes a possibility. Does it fall into the "basic" tier or the "luxury" tier. Drawing those lines is precisely what we are doing everyday with politics.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
greggyb 11y ago
Is it an efficiency gain if it is only viable by pricing out the best alternative?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Yes. We don't consider slavery a viable labor option, so why would be consider paying people substandard wages any different?
  - mason240 11y ago
    Because one is done by force, one is voluntary.
  - greggyb 11y ago
    This is not addressing my question at all. Efficiency can be understood as maximizing output for a given input (vernacular definition in use here). The morality of slavery is a red herring. We will ignore the research that suggests there was actually an efficiency cost to utilizing slavery over voluntary paid labor, because that is also irrelevant to the question. The question is whether forcing costs to be higher is an efficiency gain - it is not. We can now consider economic efficiency. One common measure is Pareto efficiency, which any change to the minimum wage cannot be in isolation, as one of the criteria is that no one be made worse off. The existence of a minimum wage also implies the existence of a Pareto optimal point. Another common measure of efficiency is Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, which basically takes the Pareto efficient criteria and modifies them such that there is a hypothetical compensation such that those being made better off could compensate those being made worse off to the point where all are made better off as a result. Essentially positive net utility change from some intervention. Note that the compensation is purely hypothetical, not necessarily monetary, and consequently unmeasurable. Kaldor-Hicks is the efficiency model wherein forcing a higher price can increase efficiency. You've not addressed this with a vague appeal to morality. Note: I am not trying to be hypercritical, only very clear in my statement.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> That's what Basic Income is. Except not; BI proponents -- even left-of-center BI proponents -- generally propose it as an alternative to the minimum wage. BI, in principle, solves the same problem as minimum wage -- substandard wages cease to be exploitive if people are no longer compelled to work for those wages by the threat of not having minimal needs met if they choose no to accept them, they are genuinely voluntary.