Everyone Deserves to Make a Living Wage Regardless of Job/Status

[niztheundead87]

This is the most simplified solution but there is still the issue of the cost of living being drastically different throughout the country. I chat with a co-workers brother that lives in Georga (me and co-worker in FL) and when the question of our job situation comes up, I'm reminded how different our wages are along with the cost I have to pay for the rent of $1200 compared to his being around $700 last I heard.

Would the UBI be the same for everyone or take CoL based on location as a factor?

- - - Updated - - -



What does socialism have to do with the thread?

It's a joke

[PC2]

This is the most simplified solution but there is still the issue of the cost of living being drastically different throughout the country. I chat with a co-workers brother that lives in Georga (me and co-worker in FL) and when the question of our job situation comes up, I'm reminded how different our wages are along with the cost I have to pay for the rent of $1200 compared to his being around $700 last I heard.

Would the UBI be the same for everyone or take CoL based on location as a factor?

It would be more accurate to call it "contextual" basic income if the payment is largely based on special conditions. Either that or perhaps half the country is going to want to live in a high-end place like Manhatten where you'll get $3k for living in a nice place instead of getting only $500 for living in some backwater swamp. If you say "it's not for everyone everywhere" well then it's no longer universal which means it's not UBI.

[Endus]

This is the most simplified solution but there is still the issue of the cost of living being drastically different throughout the country. I chat with a co-workers brother that lives in Georga (me and co-worker in FL) and when the question of our job situation comes up, I'm reminded how different our wages are along with the cost I have to pay for the rent of $1200 compared to his being around $700 last I heard.

Would the UBI be the same for everyone or take CoL based on location as a factor?

You'd have to incorporate cost-of-living somewhat. Possibly as a separate thing; set a baseline UBI and then have regional "bump-ups"; not just for cities, places in the high North have way higher prices for consumer goods that have to be shipped in, for instance. Should probably try and limit that to a single figure for an entire city, rather than getting more granular than that.

If you don't, you still have issues with cities like San Francisco being unlivable.

The framework's already kind of there with the high North, though; there are bonuses paid to government employees for working up there, for instance, for exactly this reason, in Canada; your pay is set by seniority and position, and then you get that additional bonus, there's zero room for personal negotiation (collective, through unions, though, yes).

What does socialism have to do with the thread?

The main goal of socialism is to ensure the welfare and support of the citizenry as the primary focus of the government and economy. As opposed to, say, the capitalist class, for capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

It would be more accurate to call it "contextual" basic income if the payment is largely based on special conditions. Either that or perhaps half the country is going to want to live in a high-end place like Manhatten where you'll get $3k for living in a nice place instead of getting only $500 for living in some backwater swamp. If you say "it's not for everyone everywhere" well then it's no longer universal which means it's not UBI.

That's not what "universal" means. That word means everyone receives a stipend. It doesn't mean everyone has to get exactly equal payments, it should be equitable. Your position here is like arguing that it's "unfair" that someone with a congential chronic medical issue gets way more health care support than you do, as a healthy person. It's nonsense.

Also, no, people wouldn't all choose to live in Manhattan. They aren't going to be living any better there than anywhere else. That's literally the point. If you're getting $3k rather than $500, it's because it costs you $2500 to get by with the same quality of life there as it would where you'd only get $500.

[PC2]

That's not what "universal" means. That word means everyone receives a stipend. It doesn't mean everyone has to get exactly equal payments, it should be equitable. Your position here is like arguing that it's "unfair" that someone with a congential chronic medical issue gets way more health care support than you do, as a healthy person. It's nonsense.

Also, no, people wouldn't all choose to live in Manhattan. They aren't going to be living any better there than anywhere else.[/B] That's literally the point. If you're getting $3k rather than $500, it's because it costs you $2500 to get by with the same quality of life there as it would where you'd only get $500.

The problem is that what is "equitable" is subjective based on how you perceive peoples context and their quality of life. Andrew Yang got this part of his plan right, the idea of coming up with some kind of "equity formula" that isn't chock-full of subjective weightings is pure nonsense.

Not that any of this matters because there is no major country that is seriously working on changing their budget to make room for UBI.

[Endus]

The problem is that what is "equitable" is subjective based on how you perceive peoples context and their quality of life.

Nothing about that is a "problem" in the first place.

Congratulations, you've discovered that sometimes we have to make judgements and decisions.

Other things that are subjective; justice, security, safety, etc. Pretty much everything government handles is subjective.

[Elegiac]

There isn't one, at this point. Communism failed spectacularly and killed untold millions in the process. Nothing about their system respected human life or dignity at all. So which magical, utopian system are you positing?

Can we cut it out with the "anyone who criticises capitalism is automatically supporting communism" strawman and similar bullshit?

It is not 1963, and the machine is not going to give you treats for shilling for it.

[kail]

The main goal of socialism is to ensure the welfare and support of the citizenry as the primary focus of the government and economy. As opposed to, say, the capitalist class, for capitalism.

Regardless of the goal, if the livable wage is effectively an implementation of the minimum wage which we've had for a long time. It certainly applies to a UBI system but unless wage increase comes out of tax revenue, it's just an expansion to worker's rights and benefits.

[Endus]

Regardless of the goal, if the livable wage is effectively an implementation of the minimum wage which we've had for a long time. It certainly applies to a UBI system but unless wage increase comes out of tax revenue, it's just an expansion to worker's rights and benefits.

UBI does come from tax revenue. It's meant to actually achieve what a minimum wage set out to do, but has pretty systemically failed to provide.

[Cruor]

I've long supported a universal basic income. It has a lot of potential advantages;

1. Eliminates the overhead on most support programs. A UBI just needs to confirm citizenship once, and then maintain address info, and watch for end-of-life. Monthly checks are largely not required, like they are for welfare and unemployment. A huge reduction in admin costs, relative to support.
2. The economy is a consumer economy. A UBI ensures that consumption continues, even during an employment slowdown; this should help mitigate recessions and depressions.
3. Elimination of the minimum wage. A UBI means you really can just let people work for whatever they want to. Because now, they have the freedom to say "nah, fuck it" and refuse a job offer that doesn't pay enough, and live off their UBI. Again, this reduces oversight requirements. And improves competition in the labor market.
4. Moderates the workforce in positive ways. You no longer have to work; if you want to sit around and play Xbox all day, fine. That means you're not plugging up the job market and taking positions other workers would actually want. It means you're not longer expected to go to post-secondary school. Etc.
5. Supports the arts. You want to make art, of whatever kind, but it's not selling yet/you're still learning your skills? UBI has your back. Live your dream.
6. Lowers crime. You don't need to turn to crime because you're out of options. UBI is your option.

The resistance seems mostly to be predicated on the idea that human suffering is a virtuous necessity of society, somehow. That poor people need to struggle to feed themselves and fail to get proper support for themselves and their families, because that suffering is "right". I cannot see how that's reasonable. I understand the argument, about fostering ambition and drive, but that's not what actually happens. It's a claim that fails the test in practice. In practice, it just encourages suffering, and presents that suffering as desirable. That's what evil looks like.

I think you under estimate how many people would say "fuck it" to working if UBI paid enough to live in comfort. Who is going to pay for all that? This is what people who want free everything can never explain.

[Thee ANCOM]

I think you under estimate how many people would say "fuck it" to working if UBI paid enough to live in comfort. Who is going to pay for all that? This is what people who want free everything can never explain.

I don't know if you're aware, but money isn't real. it's made up. its why our stock market hasn't collapsed from the government choosing to throw trillions of dollars on wall street. where is all THAT money coming from?

[Endus]

I think you under estimate how many people would say "fuck it" to working if UBI paid enough to live in comfort.

Why is that a problem? We already have stay-at-home parents and the like. If it means jobs go unfilled, then employers clearly need to offer better compensation to entice workers.

Who is going to pay for all that? This is what people who want free everything can never explain.

No, we explain it every time, folks like yourself just jam your fingers in your ears.

Income taxes. There wouldn't be a need for a tax-free introductory bracket, and we can scale up the tax rates on the wealthy and well-off corporations. Problem solved.

And before you say "but the rich will just move!" it's trivial to create laws to prevent moving large amounts of wealth outside the country, without it being taxed. Profit-seeking corporations won't just ignore a profitable market because they'll make a little less profit. And tax rates can't render a company unprofitable, to begin with.

[Logwyn]

I think you under estimate how many people would say "fuck it" to working if UBI paid enough to live in comfort. Who is going to pay for all that? This is what people who want free everything can never explain.

The same way it is paid for now. My understanding is UBI is not to live comfortably. It would pay for basic housing, basic food, basic utilities, and healthcare. I'm just throwing numbers out there but you'd get enough to live in that is one room with heat/AC, the water runs and lights turn on. You can go to the Dr and hospital.
You don't get money to afford a 4 bedroom 3 bathroom house with a Tesla sitting in the driveway all sitting on 20 acres of land. No Cable TV. No cell phone.
I might be pushing it too far in the minium direction but if you want more than the basics then you need to get a job to do that.

Also, my understanding is that many social programs pretty much go away. They are no longer needed as you use your UBI to provide for those items. This plays into the idea that it would be cheaper to do UBI than all the welfare and social programs.

Someone can correct me of course as I'm not an expert. But the Covid -19 is showing that something needs to be in place for those just in case moments.

[wunksta]

I think you under estimate how many people would say "fuck it" to working if UBI paid enough to live in comfort. Who is going to pay for all that? This is what people who want free everything can never explain.

There have been UBI experiments and most people keep working. Some even advance to the point they no longer need UBI. Some may be lazy but its negligible.

[kail]

I think you under estimate how many people would say "fuck it" to working if UBI paid enough to live in comfort. Who is going to pay for all that? This is what people who want free everything can never explain.

Most people want to live with no luxuries and nothing else to do? I think you underestimate people in general. Working for a more comfortable life sounds far better than working to live a life at all.

[silveth]

I agree with the statement of the thread, but glancing through the posts....

You want everyone to make a living wage? You have to raise the value of the labor. You have to make the worker's work worth more. When there are more jobs then works for them, the pay goes up because the jobs need to be done and you have to attract the employee. This works from the lowest all the way up. Of course you can't do that unless you limit the available work force, which is why Trump and for many.many,many years, Bernie agreed that illegal and mass immigration hurts the workers. I believe Bernie use to call it a Kock brothers conspiracy to allow them to have unlimited, cheap labor.

The government saying you must pay x will hurt the economy over time. Companies forced to pay x because that is what it would cost to get employees to join is the better way.

That's why UBI fails. If everyone gets x, then x is the new starting point, its no longer 0. That means that pricing for things will go up because businesses know that everyone will at least have x to spend.

Its like the celebrities and rich democrats saying that the rich should be taxed more... But never seem to put their money where their mouth is. They could donate a large portion to the government, its on the tax forms. They could donate the large portions to what. They want 50 percent tax rate they should show us by doing it by choice themselves. But they always seem to push for "you first". A movie star that makes 50 million a year and gives away 2 but then pushes for huge taxes? Lets see them give away 25, show that 50 percent tax choice.

[Elegiac]

I agree with the statement of the thread, but glancing through the posts....

You want everyone to make a living wage? You have to raise the value of the labor. You have to make the worker's work worth more. When there are more jobs then works for them, the pay goes up because the jobs need to be done and you have to attract the employee. This works from the lowest all the way up. Of course you can't do that unless you limit the available work force, which is why Trump and for many.many,many years, Bernie agreed that illegal and mass immigration hurts the workers. I believe Bernie use to call it a Kock brothers conspiracy to allow them to have unlimited, cheap labor.

You have it backwards, hun. If people are no longer required to participate in the labor force because they don't have to choose between an exploitative shitty job and destitution, the value of labor increases because the coercive element employers use to keep wages and benefits low disappears. Suddenly employers are going to have to start offering decent wages and benefits for shitty jobs, or else people won't bother doing them otherwise.

Guaranteed basic income is the only way for the real value of labor to be made apparent, QED. Y'all are just squeamish because you're worried about what an economy in which people cannot be exploited to mass produce cheap consumer goods might look like.

Which really is just a modern day rehash of the "but if we free the slaves then wage labor will be worthless because of all the new workers wanting wages" argument. Lul.

[wunksta]

I agree with the statement of the thread, but glancing through the posts....

You want everyone to make a living wage? You have to raise the value of the labor. You have to make the worker's work worth more. When there are more jobs then works for them, the pay goes up because the jobs need to be done and you have to attract the employee. This works from the lowest all the way up. Of course you can't do that unless you limit the available work force, which is why Trump and for many.many,many years, Bernie agreed that illegal and mass immigration hurts the workers. I believe Bernie use to call it a Kock brothers conspiracy to allow them to have unlimited, cheap labor.

The government saying you must pay x will hurt the economy over time. Companies forced to pay x because that is what it would cost to get employees to join is the better way.

That's why UBI fails. If everyone gets x, then x is the new starting point, its no longer 0. That means that pricing for things will go up because businesses know that everyone will at least have x to spend.

Its like the celebrities and rich democrats saying that the rich should be taxed more... But never seem to put their money where their mouth is. They could donate a large portion to the government, its on the tax forms. They could donate the large portions to what. They want 50 percent tax rate they should show us by doing it by choice themselves. But they always seem to push for "you first". A movie star that makes 50 million a year and gives away 2 but then pushes for huge taxes? Lets see them give away 25, show that 50 percent tax choice.

This is the age old argument over increasing minimum wage. The problem is that inflation is already increasing prices and wages aren't keeping up. Worker productivity has consistently increased. Corporations are making record profits.

[Endus]

I agree with the statement of the thread, but glancing through the posts....

You want everyone to make a living wage? You have to raise the value of the labor. You have to make the worker's work worth more.

Just so we're clear, this concept is directly antithetical to the base principles of capitalism. Capitalism is meant to drive profits, and that means you need to pay employees as little as you can manage to.

Literally why we have minimum wages, because in the absence of such, capitalists drive wages down so low you need to work 16+ hours a day, 6+ days a week, and you've got to get your kids to work as well, or you can't afford to feed yourselves and your family. That's literally what happened, during the Industrial Revolution.

When there are more jobs then works for them, the pay goes up because the jobs need to be done and you have to attract the employee. This works from the lowest all the way up. Of course you can't do that unless you limit the available work force, which is why Trump and for many.many,many years, Bernie agreed that illegal and mass immigration hurts the workers. I believe Bernie use to call it a Kock brothers conspiracy to allow them to have unlimited, cheap labor.

As I said early on, this is part of what a UBI serves to do; it gets the shiftless who don't want to work to stay out of the workforce, meaning there's less competition for jobs, and those in the workforce actually want to be part of it, rather than being forced there by duress.

The government saying you must pay x will hurt the economy over time. Companies forced to pay x because that is what it would cost to get employees to join is the better way.

The broad success of Western economies since the Great Depression shows this claim to just be false, objectively.

That's why UBI fails. If everyone gets x, then x is the new starting point, its no longer 0. That means that pricing for things will go up because businesses know that everyone will at least have x to spend.

This does not make any sense. Prices simply do not react this way to increases in spending capacity. There are a lot of other factors that play into pricing. Most of the effect minimum wage increases have on inflation is from the direct impact from the small proportion of cost of production that goes to wages. Which is vastly smaller than the gain in terms of spending capacity, for those earning that minimum wage. Has to be so, mathematically, all other things remaining equal.

https://www.upjohn.org/research-high...-higher-prices

[Forgettable]

Yeah, that was a pretty stupid point.

Here's a counterpoint: If you were born the same year as Jesus, and made $7,000 per hour, every hour of the day, including when you were sleeping, you would still not be as rich as Jeff Bezos.

I don't see how it's a counterpoint, but you're right otherwise. Pretty close though at $122 billion.

[Themius]

People in the 80s flipping burgers made about 18 an hour for men 15 for women when adjusted for spending power.