[joeyespo]

> I'm saying there are necessary and undesirable tasks

This is a good point.

It's also a reason why this idea is valuable. It enables people to turn away these undesirable tasks. Today, someone might take on a poor task with a poor working condition so their children can get the nutrition they need. A basic income provides the family with what they need without anyone becoming desperate enough to take a job for a lower pay than it's actually worth.

These jobs can finally be part of the open market. If nobody will do it for $12/hr, you increase the pay. When you start to see people taking the job again, you know you've hit the right income point. (People aren't getting rich off of basic income alone. The incentive to work is to have a more expensive lifestyle.)

This is the dual to pricing discussions here on HN. If the market won't buy at X, you don't withhold food from their tables to get them to buy. You either lower the price, or you make your product have more perceived valuable. With these undesirable jobs, you either raise the pay, or improve the working conditions.

[dudul]

So you increase the pay of the guy working at the bank teller, now you just cut into the bank profits, guess they'll just increase their processing fees. Now clients have to pay more to perform operations at the bank (since they have to pay the poor guy at the teller $20/h instead of 12), and now they need a bigger basic income to keep up.

I'm not necessarily rejecting the idea of a basic income, but to me it seems like the biggest flaw. I do not believe people would just sit around idle (at least most of them wouldn't), but I also believe that there are hard, not rewarding jobs out there that are crucial to a working society and to me it is unthinkable that someone would volunteer to take them if they don't need to.

[joeyespo]

> now you just cut into the bank profits

Sounds like bank profits are the underlying problem here (at least in this example). If they did increase their fees, people can always go to another bank that didn't. This is the beauty of a true open market. But if a teller is paid less than the job is worth, and the bank can't afford to increase fees, is withholding basic needs from the working class worth the extra cash for the much smaller group of shareholders?

So ok, I get what you're really trying to say. There are jobs that don't make sense to pay more than $X, and that are unpleasant. Take garbage pickup. (I don't know how unpleasant this job actually is, but I can't think of a better example right now.) If it's absolutely terrible at the current pay, and people don't have to do it, then it makes sense that people simply won't.

But now garbage will start to pile around people's homes, or be dumped irresponsibly. Are we all better off? Not at all, which (I think) is what you're implying. But there's more than one answer here.

- As the piles of trash grow in number, so does the value in collecting it. So the pay will increase naturally. People will be willing to put some of their income, basic or not, into garbage collection.

- Or a startup seizes the opportunity to create a better, on-demand garbage pickup service and charges a premium. That way they can afford to attract employees and still make a profit.

- Or people do volunteer and become neighborhood heros for it. In this case, the currency received is social instead of monetary.

- Or a someone automates trash collection and volunteering is no longer necessary.

Perhaps some jobs can't use any of these solutions. But I do think we can be more creative than forcing an entire class of people into desperation so they do the dirty work for us.