4 ms·

Who would do those jobs? And who would pay for the tax revenue lost when the production those jobs create disappears to fund the BI going forward? Also, becaus

Who would do those jobs? And who would pay for the tax revenue lost when the production those jobs create disappears to fund the BI going forward? Also, because you'll say people will work on better jobs and make more production how do you know they'll do this: If they have the income they need why would someone work and say not save it and spend it in a 3rd world country where everything is cheaper? Its so likely it creates a cycle of poverty.

conanbatt 11y ago
Likely the same people, but with a large salary bonus! If you agree or find reasonable that the incentive to "not work" of BI affects the lowest paying jobs the most, lets go around a few cases. 1) Automatable-minimum wage jobs: today they are not replaced by machinery because its either expensive or through social concern (i.e. Walmart doesnt fire all the cashiers and replace them with automatic ones because of many political, social and some economic measures). In the world today such automation is not pursued because of its consequences and the marginal profit. If these people stop working, we would quikcly start finding automatic solutions. Bartending, cashiers, some construction, product assembly etc. I would expect these jobs to dissapear from human hands. 2) Non-automatable jobs: if the minimum wage people drop jobs that are too hard to automate or require a human touch (retail sales, nannies/child care, cleaning?, Garbage management, etc.) lots of people would drop out, which would reduce supply. So income would increase a lot for those that still do those jobs. TLDR; decreased supply would increase wages and let this work still happen but it would be more expensive for businesses, and it would push automation.
c22 11y ago
It's possible that any jobs that no one would do under these conditions are jobs that are not necessary. If the jobs are necessary and still no one is willing to do them then they're probably currently vastly undervalued.

conanbatt 11y ago

Likely the same people, but with a large salary bonus! If you agree or find reasonable that the incentive to "not work" of BI affects the lowest paying jobs the most, lets go around a few cases. 1) Automatable-minimum wage jobs: today they are not replaced by machinery because its either expensive or through social concern (i.e. Walmart doesnt fire all the cashiers and replace them with automatic ones because of many political, social and some economic measures). In the world today such automation is not pursued because of its consequences and the marginal profit. If these people stop working, we would quikcly start finding automatic solutions. Bartending, cashiers, some construction, product assembly etc. I would expect these jobs to dissapear from human hands. 2) Non-automatable jobs: if the minimum wage people drop jobs that are too hard to automate or require a human touch (retail sales, nannies/child care, cleaning?, Garbage management, etc.) lots of people would drop out, which would reduce supply. So income would increase a lot for those that still do those jobs. TLDR; decreased supply would increase wages and let this work still happen but it would be more expensive for businesses, and it would push automation.

c22 11y ago

It's possible that any jobs that no one would do under these conditions are jobs that are not necessary. If the jobs are necessary and still no one is willing to do them then they're probably currently vastly undervalued.