The only solution to exploitation is to make "do nothing" a viable alternative. Right now, in America at least, welfare is a difficult and humiliating process. Employment is the only way to have any dignity at all, and employers exploit that - they underpay for awful jobs, and force employees to rely on welfare anyway. And this isn't even considering all those whom, for whatever reason, aren't really able to work. Physical or mental health, family needs, and more can all impair the ability to do a job even if one is available, and the government supported alternatives are, again, difficult and humiliating.
If employers were forced to compete not against humiliation, but rather against choice, they'd have to make the jobs suck less and pay more. Even burger-flipping would need to start getting decent treatment, the kind those of us in high demand jobs have come to expect.
Yes. I've been leaning toward that idea. Retired people need to be able to do nothing, and why not most people? If you want to live in a small house and grow your own food, why should that be prevented? Property taxes need to be zero for people, and cost of living needs to be as close to zero as possible. Then you don't need higher wages or welfare for people to get by. Instead we give tax breaks to companies and tax the heck out of people. Then wonder how to support those who can't work, or don't have in-demand skills. Speaking of skills, how about low cost education instead of government backed free for all in tuition costs?
Actually they think something even more naive, that the individual immoralities and egoisms at play (maximizing individual profit) work out for the benefit of all in the end.
In reality the difference between capitalism and communism has nothing to do with money, it is about control. In capitalism those with money (who made previously successful economic decisions) mostly decide. In communism the government (who are people too) decide directly.
The problem with government decisions/communism is that people always seem to refuse to accept reality in some way. Something must keep existing, and damn the economic impact. Then the impact becomes significant compared to the size of the economy, and the system dies.
Capitalism forces governments to accept the confines of reality (mostly), communism does not. This is unfortunately exactly the problem most socialist thinkers have with it. For example, climate change might be unsolvable under capitalism. What you don't realize is that this is a good thing, not a bad thing, as the only alternative is to expend all resources we have in a failed attempt at achieving that. The only thing that would happen if we did that, of course, is the collapse of our society. (just using this as an example, I'm not saying preventing climate change is unachievable)
I think a significant result of these sort of minimum income ideas would be an explosion in the amount of people that opt for risky entrepreneurial ventures (eg. a startup) instead of working bad jobs for the basic necessities. I think many people would rather make art or pursue other risky, generally low income, creative careers than do low skill, uninteresting work.
A result could be that companies offering low skill, minimum wage jobs could have to raise wages or improve their jobs in other ways in order to attract workers.
Automation is not a new thing. Imagine if the people who built the pyramids had trucks.
There was a commenter on HN who said once: "When cars replaced carriages, did the horses get new jobs?"
I mean, lets pretend you get $400/w from the government, and you are okay living on that. Now lets assume you decide you want a new toy, or some general spending money. Your base government income has your rent and food paid for, but you want fun money.
How much time is that fun money worth? Would you work a whole week for $50? What about $200?
I also wonder if there's a bit of a mental incentive to push you to better yourself. If you're working a week for $200, maybe you consider it a waste of your time. So, you fight for a better job, maybe through training or education. Now you've got plenty of fun money, but you also start to raise your base lifestyle (and income requirements).
I don't think any of these are absolutes of course, i'm just curious what would happen in these sort of environments. Everything i say here is a question, not an answer.
There's this concept throughout American politics, and I don't think it's at all true, that most people are just lazy thieves, and would happily sit on their butts watching reruns all day if they could sponge off others to do it. Of course, no one putting this theory forth thinks it applies to them - they want to work hard for the sheer pride of it.
I do, however, think there's a massive tradeoff of doing a dayjob that you hate to keep a roof over your head, versus doing something you love that won't really generate cash. I'd go farther and say many of the best-paying jobs pay well not because they're high-skilled, but rather because they're low-morality. If you're willing to do unethical things to people, you can make a lot of money, legally.
At any rate, if people want a better than minimum standard of living, they'll get a job. If they have an alternative, they're more likely to do a job they love. And a lot of people would do stuff they love for no "job" at all, if it was a choice.
What people will tell you about other people is much more reliable than what they'll tell you about themselves.