Hacker News Reader

Comment by weddpros | Hacker News Reader

I often hear this argument, but it sounds wrong to me. Benefits are cut when you start working, and resumed when you stop again.

Did you consider the fact that salaries WILL be lowered to compensate for BI ?

If BI is 1000, that 1200 paying job will become a 200 paying job... I just can't see where's the incentive to work. Who wants a 200 paying job when you get paid 1000 for just breathing ?

View on HN

I think you have your own answer. Nobody will do jobs like that.

Because why would they?

On the other hand, there are many jobs people are willing to do for free/minimum wage because they somehow like them. But they can't because without money they can't live or they have to maintain a very low living standard.

If BI is 1000, that 1200 paying job will become a 200 paying job... I just can't see where's the incentive to work. Who wants a 200 paying job when you get paid 1000 for just breathing ?

You've got it backwards. The incentive is not to work, the incentive is for employers to offer market value for their wages. When people have the power to choose not to work, the market will have to adapt. If nobody wants a 200 paying job, the pay will have to go up.

The current system we have forces people to work unfair wages just to support themselves. Basic income will make it a competitive, voluntary labour market.

Definitely. I do think that with a guaranteed income, minimum wage laws as well as welfare in most other forms should simply be eliminated. Pay a market rate for the work, if you don't pay enough, you don't deserve an employee. But you can also charge less for easy work and get away with it because to the employees it's basically just spending money to use for luxury items.

How much should a garbage man get paid? Arguably (to me) more than many other professions. The free market for labor is badly broken, and I think that a guaranteed income will help (although not perfectly). Besides, I for one think that giving people the freedom to raise their kids for a while, or do art, or start a company, is more valuable to society than having them work a very likely unnecessary job just because we incentivize working over value generation.

"The incentive is not to work": I meant to contest that assertion made by previous commenter. Actually I really don't think there's any valid incentive.

"the incentive is for employers to offer market value for their wages" You might put pressure on employers, for sure -> more unemployment. Maybe wages will go north. Then inflation.. then BI will have to increase too.

It's the first time I read that BI might cause wages to increase. Most advocates say "it will not change anything for you" if you already have a job :-)

Lastly, keep in mind that workers ARE the ones who will support the cost of BI. Not employers, not the government... Only workers.

So you'd better not increase unemployment :-) or the cost of work will raise a lot

Robots will want to do that job, keeping more high paying people employed.

Then employers would have to pay people more than an extra 200 dollars.

Or unemployment would raise sharply, taxes would raise sharply (to pay BI), then companies would relocate to a foreign country.

Or wages would raise, prices would raise (inflation), then BI would not anymore afford a minimal standard of living.

Or both: unemployment would raise, wages would raise, prices would raise, taxes would raise.. companies would go bankrupt or relocate, and most people on BI would be poor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com