[adventured]

That presumes that Amazon can't substantially automate their labor away, which is exactly what they'll aggressively do if you raise said cost of labor a lot.

The actual end result will be far greater tax payer cost for fully subsidizing people that no longer have any employment, versus partial subsidization.

There isn't an advanced economy in all of Europe for example that doesn't use heavy government (aka the top 50% of income earners) subsidization for the benefit of the bottom 50% of earners. The healthcare systems in Britain and France? The bottom 50% of employed persons are not primarily paying for those very expensive benefits, they're receiving large government subsidies that help offset their terrible pay, in the form of all sorts of welfare benefits. Britain for example has such a low median wage, it barely qualifies them as the 50th poorest US state, how do you think their bottom 50% of workers get by if not through huge subsidies via the government to offset that terrible pay? For some reason when companies in the US do the same exact thing, it's evil.

[zaroth]

I think the base economic theory is that companies will pay for labor exactly what that labor is worth to them. Analogous to the concepts of full-time and part-time employment, is the concept of full-coverage pay or partial coverage where the government picks up the rest.

The problem I have with the system is that everyone who is actually paying receives the least benefits. It's just wealth redistribution. But inevitably it also disincentives work the more the subsides increase in value, and the sharper the drop-off as additional work is performed.

So how do you structure a system which encourages work? The obvious solution is that benefits should increase as tax payments increase. The makes working super-incentivized, and provides a massive boost to productivity.

Aside from technology improvements, which the economists tell us aren't really providing bang for the buck anymore, increasing the size of the workforce increases GDP growth.

[cakedoggie]

> I think the base economic theory is that companies will pay for labor exactly what that labor is worth to them.

I imagine they would pay less, rather than just break even.

[throw2016]

I think if efficiency conscious companies like Amazon or fast food inc could find savings in automation they would.

They have workers because they need them to run their business, not out of a sense of charity.

Talk of automation as a 'threat' every time workers rights are brought up is disingenuous and a bit self serving.

[bitJericho]

Why's that a problem? I'd love for robots to take care of me.

[adventured]

It's a problem because universal basic income can't even remotely work mathematically and is wildly regressive. That leaves only the option of taxing the new robotic labor to offset the FICA tax losses from millions of unemployed persons at the exact time when entitlement costs are exploding upwards. There's no other means to fill in the gap that will be left in the tax revenue from any meaningful leap in automation near-term (next 10-20 years). Will those new taxes come to be, and will they make sense (ie not cause chaos and or economic disaster)? At least in the US, one would have to bet against it working out well given the extreme government dysfunction and inability to solve even simple problems; even just the odds of any such taxes getting implemented is a long shot (the Republican Party will oppose it for better or worse).

[zaroth]

Basic income at what level can't even remotely work? Of course there are funding levels where basic income does work, and then everyone is then free to go to work and earn any additional amount they desire.

One key point is that being able to work to subsidize the basic income makes the income much more powerful than "phantom" dollars that disappear as soon as you start to work.

The trick is that the funding level of basic income doesn't have to "fully cover" a family of four. The family of four will be able to supplement the income, rather than today being locked into receiving it. Also, it doesn't mean that programs like SSDI go away, you still can provide national disability insurance.

[Mz]

One of the problems is that powerful people are predicting widespread, permanent unemployment and proposing basic income as a solution to this. Then the same article that says this has glowing, warm stories about how basic income can supplement your underpaid job and says not one word about how dreadful it will be to live in a world where you have to get by on basic income, possibly forever after, with little or no hope of supplementing it with an earned income.

That's a pretty grim picture that no one seems to be acknowledging.

[bitJericho]

What's grim is getting a tooth ache and having no where to go, so you go to the ER, they prescribe you pain meds that don't work, and then tell you to go see your regular doctor, which you don't have, because you're poor.

Grim is having an infection with no way to get antibiotics, but you use your friend's because he had some that he never used.

Grim is going to the food pantry because you ran out of money and then you have to fill out a promise to get financial help if you need to use the food pantry too often, as if you don't know how money works.

Sounds to me like you need to get out more and see how people really live.

I'd rather live in a world where I can't watch all the tv I want cuz i can't afford any, but at least I get basic healthcare.

[Mz]

I am pro universal basic healthcare. I have written about that. I am also homeless and run the San Diego Homeless Survival Guide.

Maybe you should check profiles before saying ugly things like "you need to get out more and see how people really live."

http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/

http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/ir2.html

[maxerickson]

Can you explain more about how a basic income must be regressive?

Like what if it is implemented as a negative income tax?

Would a sub-basic income of $5 (implemented as a negative income tax) be regressive?