Drawbacks of very robust social safety net + deregulation of labor

[Crazy_Canuck]

@septimus

Again, this points directly to a key advantage of my model, where free or or subsidized goods and services would be emphasized rather than cash.

Here’s my problem with your model. How do you prevent corruption on determining which goods are subsidized, and by who? If you give cash out, the free market will at least prevent the worst excesses. In a subsidized system, if the governer’s brother opens the world’s worst daycare at the taxpayer’s costs, what incentives does he have to provide anything resembling reasonable service? And how can anyone compete with that daycare when they don’t have a family member in government?

[septimus]

@Crazy_Canuck

Here’s my problem with your model. How do you prevent corruption on determining which goods are subsidized, and by who? If you give cash out, the free market will at least prevent the worst excesses. In a subsidized system, if the governer’s brother opens the world’s worst daycare at the taxpayer’s costs, what incentives does he have to provide anything resembling reasonable service? And how can anyone compete with that daycare when they don’t have a family member in government?

At the present time, Billy’s parents will take Billy to the A Childcare service and, if it’s no good, they may switch to B and give their $X to B instead.
in my model, Billy’s parents will take Billy to the A Childcare service and, if it’s no good, they may switch to B and the government gives $X to B instead.

What’s the difference again? The economic decision for the parents is the same in other case since zero minus zero is the same as $X minus $X.

Yes, I’ve oversimplified … but so have you.

[Voyager]

@puddleglum

The second and more important problem is that it will eliminate entry level jobs. No one would do any low wage work and so the low skilled would have no way of learning skills on the job. This would bifurcate society. You would have the smart and highly skilled people with good jobs, being taxed at a punishing level and a poor class who has no jobs skills and no way of learning any. The rich would resent the poor for sponging off them and the poor would resent the rich for locking them into poverty.

It might eliminate dead end entry level jobs, but low paid entry level jobs with a clear path of advancement for most who make an effort would solve this problem.
In the old days people could start in the mail room, learn the company, and advance from there. Now the mail room is probably outsourced so there is no room for advancement.
This especially applies to craft jobs, since the proposal would make internships possible for not just the wealthy who can survive on no pay.

[puddleglum]

@k9bfriender

It is way too expensive given the current costs of goods and services that are necessary for survival. It is quite possible to get those costs down substantially, especially as the biggest cost, labor, is what is getting removed from the equation.

Why do you think this? I would think that it would increase the entry level job, as an employee is taking less of a risk in changing industries and learning a new trade. They will not need to demand a living wage from their new employer who doesn’t want to pay that much to someone they are paying to train in the first place. They could even work for free while learning on the job.

Low wage work would still pay for luxuries that are not paid for or provided as the necessities are. People would be happy to throw in a few hours a day to afford a new phone or game or some other minor luxury.

This is once again forgetting the reason for all these out of work people, the automation of their jobs. Those with good jobs would not be taxed at a punishing level to afford to have automated systems provide basic necessities. If these goods are coming at too high a price, bucea the owners of the capital charge a high price for their goods and services, well, it is exactly those owners of the capital that are being taxed. If they insist on having excessive profits on their automated systems, then they can pay higher taxes too.
I don’t disagree with a negative income tax, but I am concerned that it would be just as expensive or more than other proposals, especially if that was the only change made to economic policy. $500 a month does not get you far.

It would eliminate entry level jobs because people would be faced with a choice of staying home and getting high and earning the UBI or going to a job and earning the UBI plus a small amount. Not enough people would choose the second option. Faced with a lack of labor, businesses would have to automate those jobs. There would still be part time jobs or jobs like Uber but those are the least likely to lead to advancement.

[k9bfriender]

@puddleglum

It would eliminate entry level jobs because people would be faced with a choice of staying home and getting high and earning the UBI or going to a job and earning the UBI plus a small amount. Not enough people would choose the second option. F*aced with a lack of labor, businesses would have to automate those jobs. *There would still be part time jobs or jobs like Uber but those are the least likely to lead to advancement.

How are they going to afford the drugs to get high without a job?
Once again, you are entirely missing the point. Businesses are already automating these jobs, it is not a lack of labor that is the problem, it is a lack of jobs that is.

Honestly, if the choice is to prevent companies from automating to make sure that some people still have low paying low skilled jobs, or allowing companies to innovate and automate in such a way that those jobs will no longer be necessary, why do you feel the first choice is superior?

And if someone wants to sit at home collecting UBI and spend their time working on a book or a painting or a musical composition, then that’s great. That’s something that a robot cannot do, that only a human mind with idle time away from the stress of survival can do.

People keep trying to say that businesses won’t have employees with his model, when the entire reason for this model is that many businesses will not need employees. The businesses that do need employees can pay what an employee feels is worth their time, as opposed to the current environment, when a business will pay as little as they can get away with, as they know the employee cannot quit easily.

[iiandyiiii]

@puddleglum

It would eliminate entry level jobs because people would be faced with a choice of staying home and getting high and earning the UBI or going to a job and earning the UBI plus a small amount. Not enough people would choose the second option. Faced with a lack of labor, businesses would have to automate those jobs. There would still be part time jobs or jobs like Uber but those are the least likely to lead to advancement.

Why would people choose to stay home and get high (and how do you know they’d have enough money to “get high”, when the UBI is just enough to pay for rent and food)? Wouldn’t people also want things like video games, better food than the bare minimum, decent furnishings, TV and entertainment, etc. – all of which would require working, even if it were only a handful of hours per week?

[Shagnasty]

@k9bfriender

How are they going to afford the drugs to get high without a job?

The same way that they do now - improvisation, the black market and criminal activity. Some of you are wayyy too optimistic about human nature. Not everyone will do that of course but a lot will just because they are bored and they can.

[k9bfriender]

@Shagnasty

The same way that they do now - improvisation, the black market and criminal activity. Some of you are wayyy too optimistic about human nature. Not everyone will do that of course but a lot will just because they are bored and they can.

But that is not them sitting around on UBI and getting high, that means that they are out working, even if the work is not of a legal sort. They could instead get a legal job to pay for their drugs.

I am not optimistic about human nature, I am pretty realistic when it comes to it. But people are not going to pick the harder, more dangerous and illegal method of getting their drug money, that’s not what humans do. They are going to pick the easy method, and that is going to get a job.