John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why would it incentivise crime?? It would incentivise work. >> > > This is all predicated on there not being enough jobs. > So some people are going to have to make do with just the insufficient > universal income. > I think your definition of a "job" is oversimplified. A job is not a single unit entity. In many European countries nowadays the standard workweek is 35 hours. In the US it is more than 40 hours because many people do overtime or hold two jobs. If people had universal income, many people now working part-time jobs, and extra jobs, would quit. That would open up those jobs to others who want them. Other people would cut back on overtime. People who have built up a nest egg at age 50 might retire, or go to work for charity or teaching, or something socially redeeming. After a while I think the US would join Europe in making the 35 hour week mandatory (meaning if you work more than that you have to get overtime pay). This would open up still more jobs. In other words, the remaining pool of necessary labor that only humans can do would be divided among more people. Each person still working would put in fewer hours. Overall wages would not decline much, because the value of human labor would remain high, since workers would not be desperate for a job at any price. People looking for a job would be picky. They would resemble someone who is married to a spouse who makes $20,000 a year. If your actual spouse made $30,000, and the two of you made $20,000 in the universal income, you could afford to be very picky. You would not work for minimum wage at McDonald's for a mere $15,000. McDonald's would have to pay you a lot more or you would stay home. McDonald's would hustle to install robots, which is the outcome we want in this scenario. We just have keep raising the universal income to keep pace with advancing robotization. > I guess I have only one question... > > Please list the advantages of giving a universal wage to people in prison > assuming they aren't being charged for their stay. > The advantage would be they would spend the money eventually, or give it to their family who would spend it right away. Most people in prison are poor and their families need money. Poor people spend money as soon as they get it. One of the purposes of this program is to pump money into the economy by increasing demand. > Another thought, should unborn children get paid? > No. No one under 21 should get the money. > Should people in a coma but being taken care of by the state get paid? > No, that would in the same category as the severely disabled veteran who gets $100,000. That would be a means-tested benefit. All remaining means-tested benefits would be subtracted from this one, along with Social Security. > Should people in suspended animation get paid? (both with and without > expectation they will be recovered). > Yes, unless they are already getting means-tested money. I suppose by that standard prisoners should not get the universal income. > We still need truck drivers, for example. Although the technology for >> autonomous vehicles has been developed, it is not yet in use. >> > > No, but it sure seems right around the corner. > Well, when it happens we will need this program. > By the time the minimum wage comes in that job will be going out. > Truck drivers get more than minimum wage. Do you mean by the time this universal income is implemented that job will be going out? Probably yes. By the way, I would call this the National Automation Dividend. That has a nice ring to it. It sounds like something everyone deserves, and everyone should get as a matter of course. - Jed
