also employees don’t need to have a shitty job to survive.
Now people have to decide between “doing a shitty job” and “starving”. With UBI people can choose between “doing a shitty job” and “chilling at home”. So if employers want their shitty job to be done, they will actually have to make it worth it (either by increasinge wages, or by making the job less shitty).
in other words: good jobs will get subsidized by UBI. Shitty jobs will compete with UBI
There may be some holes I’m not seeing in your logic, but at face value, there’s no fat in that argument and I would vote for that policy, or something close to it.
It’s also important to note that there are plenty of valuable jobs that simply aren’t getting done because there’s no economic incentive for it. I could definitely see someone on UBI making it their “job” to generally help out poor pensioners in their neighbourhood, just as one example.
Basically, everything falling under the banner of volunteer work could be done full time, if people are passionate enough about it.
Yes. Except UBI is a collective systematic improvement subsidizing everyone, including employers, while tipping is an individual act that keeps wages depressed and subsidizes employers only.
How? If the employee isn’t forced to work or starve or be on the streets, they can tell the shitty paying employers to get fucked. If you have no employees who want to work for your offered wage, you either raise your wage, go out of business, or have a closed shop with a No OnE wAnTs To WoRk sign on the door.
The difference with tips is, to be paid tips depends on having a job at a waiter, and that is what makes tips effectively a subsidy; the value accrues to and is ultimately under the control of the business owner, even if they are never the ones holding the money. The draw of a restaurant job is wages+tips, and therefore the labor is paid for with tips.
With a UBI, the whole idea is that the payment does not depend on or have anything to do with employment status. If your job pays terribly and you want to quit, having a UBI makes quitting more attractive and plausible, not less.
zzz
yes.
also employees don’t need to have a shitty job to survive.
Now people have to decide between “doing a shitty job” and “starving”. With UBI people can choose between “doing a shitty job” and “chilling at home”. So if employers want their shitty job to be done, they will actually have to make it worth it (either by increasinge wages, or by making the job less shitty).
in other words: good jobs will get subsidized by UBI. Shitty jobs will compete with UBI
There may be some holes I’m not seeing in your logic, but at face value, there’s no fat in that argument and I would vote for that policy, or something close to it.
It’s also important to note that there are plenty of valuable jobs that simply aren’t getting done because there’s no economic incentive for it. I could definitely see someone on UBI making it their “job” to generally help out poor pensioners in their neighbourhood, just as one example.
Basically, everything falling under the banner of volunteer work could be done full time, if people are passionate enough about it.
Yes. Except UBI is a collective systematic improvement subsidizing everyone, including employers, while tipping is an individual act that keeps wages depressed and subsidizes employers only.
How? If the employee isn’t forced to work or starve or be on the streets, they can tell the shitty paying employers to get fucked. If you have no employees who want to work for your offered wage, you either raise your wage, go out of business, or have a closed shop with a No OnE wAnTs To WoRk sign on the door.
The difference with tips is, to be paid tips depends on having a job at a waiter, and that is what makes tips effectively a subsidy; the value accrues to and is ultimately under the control of the business owner, even if they are never the ones holding the money. The draw of a restaurant job is wages+tips, and therefore the labor is paid for with tips.
With a UBI, the whole idea is that the payment does not depend on or have anything to do with employment status. If your job pays terribly and you want to quit, having a UBI makes quitting more attractive and plausible, not less.
Or Walmart is subsidized by the current programs?
Of course they are.
Any employee that receives foodstamps or any other form of welfare is a subsidy that Walmart is, in a way, receiving.
Put another way, if Walmart were paying a fair wage, the employee wouldn’t need or even be eligible for welfare programs.
Even better – the employees end up spending most of their paycheck and benefit dollars…at Walmart.
Like tipping culture but the govt funds the tipa
Minimum wage is intended to guarantee workers have a livable income. If everyone already has a livable income, why would we need minimum wage?