undefined | Better HN

0 pointsf_allwein10y ago0 comments

The general argument (made e.g,. in the Alec Ross book) is that there will not be enough paid work left as more and more jobs are automated. So paying a basic income would become necessary to ensure people's survival (or prevent social unrest).

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

ancap10y ago· 4 in thread

Just around my home I could easily hire a few people to do various jobs at any given time, but it is not cheap enough for me to justify doing that. Automation comes at a cost, and often humans laborers can do the job cheaper. The thing that will be pushing people out of a job is minimum wage, not the automation which often results in reaction to minimum wage.

mercutio210y ago

Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part of the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage.

Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be much less need for low end wage distortions.

Admittedly, many wealthy people seem to prefer having subsistence not guaranteed, it makes negotiating for low wage low skill servants much easier. I suspect once we have BI, it will be much more expensive to pay someone to come clean your house.

ancap10y ago

>Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part of the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage.

Nope.

>Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be much less need for low end wage distortions.

No, minimum wage is a political stunt which results unemployment. That is why you now see the same union lobbyists who pushed for the $15 minimum wage now lobbying for exemptions for their unions.

>Admittedly, many wealthy people seem to prefer having subsistence not guaranteed, it makes negotiating for low wage low skill servants much easier.

Are you suggesting that wealthy people are ok if all of their workers died? Seems pretty ridiculous. If I am opposed to someone stealing my wallet, does that mean I am in favor of their kids starving to death?

tzs10y ago

You seem to be unaware that there is a minimum income required to survive. If one cannot get that income from their job(s), then they must get it from charity, welfare, theft, or some other means, or they must move to someplace where the minimum survival income is lower, or they must die.

ancap10y ago

What makes you think I'm unaware? What's wrong with the charity option?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

ancap10y ago· 4 in thread

mercutio210y ago

Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part of the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage.

Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be much less need for low end wage distortions.

ancap10y ago

>Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part of the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage.

Nope.

>Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be much less need for low end wage distortions.

No, minimum wage is a political stunt which results unemployment. That is why you now see the same union lobbyists who pushed for the $15 minimum wage now lobbying for exemptions for their unions.

>Admittedly, many wealthy people seem to prefer having subsistence not guaranteed, it makes negotiating for low wage low skill servants much easier.

tzs10y ago

ancap10y ago

What makes you think I'm unaware? What's wrong with the charity option?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse