7 ms·

The problem there is that you have a cushy programming job. The bigger question is what about the gas station clerks? Or cleaning people? Or wait staff? Or

The problem there is that you have a cushy programming job. The bigger question is what about the gas station clerks? Or cleaning people? Or wait staff? Or any of the people working the millions of other jobs that just totally suck. Having done it in the past, I'm 100% sure nobody wakes up totally stoked to go bus tables or wash dishes. So, maybe people who have awesome jobs will just keep doing what they're doing, but for people with shitty jobs, why not say, "F* it, I can get by with the guaranteed minimum, so why bother?"

mtsr 11y ago
Depends. If every euro you earn there adds to your unconditional minimum income, instead of replacing a euro from welfare, the motivation to work for that new car, or whatever, becomes pretty tangible. Note that €900 (or €1300 for a family) is pretty barebones. You won't be putting much more than bread and potatoes on the table using that. And you'll probably live in a rather small house too.
- Cthulhu_ 11y ago
  Yeah but at the same time, it would allow people to be more picky about where they work. "I need money so I'll take any job" is a different mindset than "I am financially independent and I'm looking to make more monies in a job I like"
  - mtsr 11y ago
    The I'll-take-any-job crowd might not be very motivated in their work anyway. At worst this will force us to pay better salaries for ALL jobs that have fewer applicants, instead of only the ones that require a higher education or lots of experience. Seems fair to me.
- moonchrome 11y ago
  Income has a diminishing return, once you're out of "minimum income" the ammount requred to take the shit job is not linear. You can either lowball the minimum income to the point where you can't realistically live on it for long or a lot of services get more expensive + tax hike to support it = lower standard of living for normal people (unaffected by minimum income but not rich enouh to ignore the costs)
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    The idea of basic income is to take people out of starvation and lack of shelter. It would still leave people wanting to earn in order to e.g. go on holiday, own a computer, go to a bar, go to a restaurant, eat nice food, own a car (in Europe where owning a car is not required at least) etc - i.e. still plenty of incentive to work, earn and save just more freedom to take risks by e.g. starting that business... You also miss a basic premise of basic income - everyone gets it with no means testing. It is a different concept to current benefit systems. Normal people would receive it as much as unemployed people.
    - moonchrome 11y ago
      I doubt people are starving in developed countries so I wouldnt say it's taking anyone out of starvation, it's an alternative to existing welfare in that regard. And when we get to "basic shelter" well coupled with free health care I guarantee you there are people out there who have very little ambition beyond that, I know more than a few from highschool that literally said things like "all i need is enough money to play WoW" or just work enough to earn money for weed and go out with their friends and live with their parents (and these are people in late 20s early 30s). People with ambition aren't the ones that benefit from minimum income (unless they get really unlucky, which I guess is a valid concern, but then again those same people are not the ones doing the bottom tier jobs, at least not for long). Also that's not how I saw basic income schemes suggested, usually it's paid out to people below min income and then progressively lowered to some point otherwise the taxes would have to be insane to finance it.
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        > Also that's not how I saw basic income schemes suggested, usually it's paid out to people below min income and then progressively lowered to some point This is not basic income.
        moonchrome 11y ago
        Yes it is - it's been a while since I studied economics but I beleive it's called negative income tax.
- adamhepner 11y ago
  And if that does not satisfy you, you've got all the time in the day to cultivate your own cabbage garden on balcony.
maehwasu 11y ago
> So, maybe people who have awesome jobs will just keep doing what they're doing, but for people with shitty jobs, why not say, "F* it, I can get by with the guaranteed minimum, so why bother?" As more of their jobs get automated away, this could be seen as a feature.
jkarneges 11y ago
If nobody is required to do the "shitty jobs", I wonder if those jobs would increase in value as less people do them? Maybe having a waiter at a restaurant would become a luxury. Perhaps all the jobs would continue to exist but there'd be some very interesting rebalancing.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  yeah what I fear it would happen is either all wages go down of an equivalent amount, or an inversion of wages according to job satisfaction, or a cycle on inflation with prices surging and minimum wages following in this experiment they can test the latter, since the scale is too small to affect global pricing. I wonder how far the 'unregulated' goes: could one pocket the monthly allowance and then live on a cheap city abroad while maintaining citizenship and privileges? at the very least this should promote entrepreneurship: given social security that what I'd do. I can't risk anything now as I have no savings and live in a country that offer zero (monetary) supports to startups via neither private nor public capitals.
- Dzidas 11y ago
  Robots and automation. I think in near future (put your number here) only cool jobs will be available for humans and shitty jobs will be done by robots. So, we need to find a way how to feed and entertain let say 90% of population.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  Very likely. Think of how uncommon household servants are today compared to before the industrial revolution. Now only the super-rich have them, as a rule. The rest of us get by with automation (washing machines, vacuum cleaners), with the occasional hiring of a temporary "servant" when neccessary (e.g., calling a cab compared to having a dedicated chauffeur, or having a landscaper or cleaning service come in once in a while).
  - jlarocco 11y ago
    I'm almost certain household servants have always been for the rich. I'm curious what makes you think otherwise?
gohrt 11y ago
people with shitty jobs will be willing to do less-shitty jobs that pay less.
- onion2k 11y ago
  Which means the shitty jobs will have to pay more in order to attract people to do them. People should be paid well for taking on a job no one else wants. That's how the free market is supposed to work.
  - fwn 11y ago
    So what makes you think that's not the case? We're not observing a shortage in unskilled work right now.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      People aren't necessarily compensated extra for taking on a job that nobody wants.
      - fwn 11y ago
        ...because there are enough people wanting to do the job in the first place.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        Yes, but that includes wanting to do the job because they want to live, but not necessarily because they see it as a good use of their time beyond that.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      Because right now, people are forced to work in order to survive. Meaning they have to take the shitty jobs for shitty pay because that's what they can get. If you remove the forced to work part, then they can be more selective.
belorn 11y ago
If you are 20-something living on minimal income that barely covers food and a roof, would you take a job working as a gas station clerk in order to afford to go out and eat and socialize, buy a drink in a bar, or participate in the culture of everyone else around you? If you asked a anthropologist, I suspect you would hear a pattern of human beings doing all kind of work in order to increase their status in society and finding a mate. Working in a low status work is not perfect but it is better than nothing and money is quite useful when it can be used on things beyond a 1-room apartment and basic food.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >If you asked a anthropologist, I suspect you would hear a pattern of human beings doing all kind of work in order to increase their status in society and finding a mate. Being a garbageman wouldn't help with this nearly as much as spending 4 hours in the gym and then spending 4 hours building socializing skills. Especially since the other side is now guaranteed being provided for thus reducing the already low impact that being a good provider has on mate finding.
- jlarocco 11y ago
  Most of the time, I wouldn't. To be more realistic, most of the time I wouldn't even take a job programming if I had food and housing covered. I might do a contracting gig here or there to buy a new bike or skis, or pay for a big trip somewhere, but it's very unlikely I'd work all the time. I've considered doing something like that now. I have enough savings to pull it off for a few years, so why not take a few years off and play? With a guaranteed minimum income it'd be an even longer time. I like the idea of providing for everybody, but people need to be realistic about what could actually happen. If it's just a plan to shame and guilt trip everybody into working all the time, I'd prefer we don't do it.
smhg 11y ago
I'm not saying the shitty job argument is invalid, but it is much more complex. It has so many different sides a test sounds like a good idea. Taking the shitty out of a Subway (sandwiches) employee's job might now sound hard. But there are so many solutions to this single situation. And these might be fairly different for many shitty jobs. Just to name a few in this case: better pay, automation, better working conditions, smaller one-person franchises, disappear altogether,... It's nearly impossible to find the solution upfront nor generalize. I personally believe society's creativity can easily solve this.
ZenoArrow 11y ago
"So, maybe people who have awesome jobs will just keep doing what they're doing, but for people with shitty jobs, why not say, "F* it, I can get by with the guaranteed minimum, so why bother?"" That'd be a good thing. People leave the bad jobs behind, which would either free up room to automate them without social consequences, or the job would have to be made more attractive in some way (shared between multiple people for less stress, better pay, etc...).
s73v3r 11y ago
You don't think they have hobbies and interests?
__z 11y ago
>I'm 100% sure nobody wakes up totally stoked to go bus tables or wash dishes. Maybe you don't but there's some people who do. I, personally, actually did enjoy my time working at food service. The first place I worked was poorly run and it sucked but the second place I worked at great management and it was generally a good job minus the pay. I enjoyed my time there. I also know someone (with a degree) who is a restaurant manager who loves her job as well. > why not say, "F* it, I can get by with the guaranteed minimum, so why bother?" Because, most people want to be able to do more. Working at McDonalds might give you enough spending cash to be able to do the stuff you want to do like have a fancy car, jewelry, nights out, vacations, etc.

mtsr 11y ago

Depends. If every euro you earn there adds to your unconditional minimum income, instead of replacing a euro from welfare, the motivation to work for that new car, or whatever, becomes pretty tangible. Note that €900 (or €1300 for a family) is pretty barebones. You won't be putting much more than bread and potatoes on the table using that. And you'll probably live in a rather small house too.

Cthulhu_ 11y ago
Yeah but at the same time, it would allow people to be more picky about where they work. "I need money so I'll take any job" is a different mindset than "I am financially independent and I'm looking to make more monies in a job I like"
- mtsr 11y ago
  The I'll-take-any-job crowd might not be very motivated in their work anyway. At worst this will force us to pay better salaries for ALL jobs that have fewer applicants, instead of only the ones that require a higher education or lots of experience. Seems fair to me.
moonchrome 11y ago
Income has a diminishing return, once you're out of "minimum income" the ammount requred to take the shit job is not linear. You can either lowball the minimum income to the point where you can't realistically live on it for long or a lot of services get more expensive + tax hike to support it = lower standard of living for normal people (unaffected by minimum income but not rich enouh to ignore the costs)
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  The idea of basic income is to take people out of starvation and lack of shelter. It would still leave people wanting to earn in order to e.g. go on holiday, own a computer, go to a bar, go to a restaurant, eat nice food, own a car (in Europe where owning a car is not required at least) etc - i.e. still plenty of incentive to work, earn and save just more freedom to take risks by e.g. starting that business... You also miss a basic premise of basic income - everyone gets it with no means testing. It is a different concept to current benefit systems. Normal people would receive it as much as unemployed people.
  - moonchrome 11y ago
    I doubt people are starving in developed countries so I wouldnt say it's taking anyone out of starvation, it's an alternative to existing welfare in that regard. And when we get to "basic shelter" well coupled with free health care I guarantee you there are people out there who have very little ambition beyond that, I know more than a few from highschool that literally said things like "all i need is enough money to play WoW" or just work enough to earn money for weed and go out with their friends and live with their parents (and these are people in late 20s early 30s). People with ambition aren't the ones that benefit from minimum income (unless they get really unlucky, which I guess is a valid concern, but then again those same people are not the ones doing the bottom tier jobs, at least not for long). Also that's not how I saw basic income schemes suggested, usually it's paid out to people below min income and then progressively lowered to some point otherwise the taxes would have to be insane to finance it.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      > Also that's not how I saw basic income schemes suggested, usually it's paid out to people below min income and then progressively lowered to some point This is not basic income.
      - moonchrome 11y ago
        Yes it is - it's been a while since I studied economics but I beleive it's called negative income tax.
adamhepner 11y ago
And if that does not satisfy you, you've got all the time in the day to cultivate your own cabbage garden on balcony.

maehwasu 11y ago

> So, maybe people who have awesome jobs will just keep doing what they're doing, but for people with shitty jobs, why not say, "F* it, I can get by with the guaranteed minimum, so why bother?" As more of their jobs get automated away, this could be seen as a feature.

jkarneges 11y ago

If nobody is required to do the "shitty jobs", I wonder if those jobs would increase in value as less people do them? Maybe having a waiter at a restaurant would become a luxury. Perhaps all the jobs would continue to exist but there'd be some very interesting rebalancing.

LoSboccacc 11y ago
yeah what I fear it would happen is either all wages go down of an equivalent amount, or an inversion of wages according to job satisfaction, or a cycle on inflation with prices surging and minimum wages following in this experiment they can test the latter, since the scale is too small to affect global pricing. I wonder how far the 'unregulated' goes: could one pocket the monthly allowance and then live on a cheap city abroad while maintaining citizenship and privileges? at the very least this should promote entrepreneurship: given social security that what I'd do. I can't risk anything now as I have no savings and live in a country that offer zero (monetary) supports to startups via neither private nor public capitals.
Dzidas 11y ago
Robots and automation. I think in near future (put your number here) only cool jobs will be available for humans and shitty jobs will be done by robots. So, we need to find a way how to feed and entertain let say 90% of population.
Turing_Machine 11y ago
Very likely. Think of how uncommon household servants are today compared to before the industrial revolution. Now only the super-rich have them, as a rule. The rest of us get by with automation (washing machines, vacuum cleaners), with the occasional hiring of a temporary "servant" when neccessary (e.g., calling a cab compared to having a dedicated chauffeur, or having a landscaper or cleaning service come in once in a while).
- jlarocco 11y ago
  I'm almost certain household servants have always been for the rich. I'm curious what makes you think otherwise?

gohrt 11y ago

people with shitty jobs will be willing to do less-shitty jobs that pay less.

onion2k 11y ago
Which means the shitty jobs will have to pay more in order to attract people to do them. People should be paid well for taking on a job no one else wants. That's how the free market is supposed to work.
- fwn 11y ago
  So what makes you think that's not the case? We're not observing a shortage in unskilled work right now.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    People aren't necessarily compensated extra for taking on a job that nobody wants.
    - fwn 11y ago
      ...because there are enough people wanting to do the job in the first place.
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        Yes, but that includes wanting to do the job because they want to live, but not necessarily because they see it as a good use of their time beyond that.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Because right now, people are forced to work in order to survive. Meaning they have to take the shitty jobs for shitty pay because that's what they can get. If you remove the forced to work part, then they can be more selective.

belorn 11y ago

If you are 20-something living on minimal income that barely covers food and a roof, would you take a job working as a gas station clerk in order to afford to go out and eat and socialize, buy a drink in a bar, or participate in the culture of everyone else around you? If you asked a anthropologist, I suspect you would hear a pattern of human beings doing all kind of work in order to increase their status in society and finding a mate. Working in a low status work is not perfect but it is better than nothing and money is quite useful when it can be used on things beyond a 1-room apartment and basic food.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>If you asked a anthropologist, I suspect you would hear a pattern of human beings doing all kind of work in order to increase their status in society and finding a mate. Being a garbageman wouldn't help with this nearly as much as spending 4 hours in the gym and then spending 4 hours building socializing skills. Especially since the other side is now guaranteed being provided for thus reducing the already low impact that being a good provider has on mate finding.
jlarocco 11y ago
Most of the time, I wouldn't. To be more realistic, most of the time I wouldn't even take a job programming if I had food and housing covered. I might do a contracting gig here or there to buy a new bike or skis, or pay for a big trip somewhere, but it's very unlikely I'd work all the time. I've considered doing something like that now. I have enough savings to pull it off for a few years, so why not take a few years off and play? With a guaranteed minimum income it'd be an even longer time. I like the idea of providing for everybody, but people need to be realistic about what could actually happen. If it's just a plan to shame and guilt trip everybody into working all the time, I'd prefer we don't do it.

smhg 11y ago

I'm not saying the shitty job argument is invalid, but it is much more complex. It has so many different sides a test sounds like a good idea. Taking the shitty out of a Subway (sandwiches) employee's job might now sound hard. But there are so many solutions to this single situation. And these might be fairly different for many shitty jobs. Just to name a few in this case: better pay, automation, better working conditions, smaller one-person franchises, disappear altogether,... It's nearly impossible to find the solution upfront nor generalize. I personally believe society's creativity can easily solve this.

ZenoArrow 11y ago

"So, maybe people who have awesome jobs will just keep doing what they're doing, but for people with shitty jobs, why not say, "F* it, I can get by with the guaranteed minimum, so why bother?"" That'd be a good thing. People leave the bad jobs behind, which would either free up room to automate them without social consequences, or the job would have to be made more attractive in some way (shared between multiple people for less stress, better pay, etc...).

s73v3r 11y ago

You don't think they have hobbies and interests?

__z 11y ago

>I'm 100% sure nobody wakes up totally stoked to go bus tables or wash dishes. Maybe you don't but there's some people who do. I, personally, actually did enjoy my time working at food service. The first place I worked was poorly run and it sucked but the second place I worked at great management and it was generally a good job minus the pay. I enjoyed my time there. I also know someone (with a degree) who is a restaurant manager who loves her job as well. > why not say, "F* it, I can get by with the guaranteed minimum, so why bother?" Because, most people want to be able to do more. Working at McDonalds might give you enough spending cash to be able to do the stuff you want to do like have a fancy car, jewelry, nights out, vacations, etc.