[calvinbhai]

If UBI is the way, do you agree or disagree that there should be no minimum wage?

Decide minimum wage, then give UBI to adults based on that.

If $15 per hr is minimum wage, UBI should be $2600 per month.

Once someone is getting this UBI, it should be legal to have jobs that pay $1 per hr or $0.5 per hr.

[shadowgovt]

To a first approximation, I'm inclined to agree with this reasoning. The main point of minimum wage (in the US) was to back-stop a buyer's market for labor from leading to mass deprivation among American workers. If UBI can guarantee a dignified minimum standard of living, minimum wage becomes redundant.

Hell, in a world of UBI, I'd anticipate volunteer organizations to flourish.

[calvinbhai]

That’s just the first of the what if’s I ask.

Next would be, are they up for removal of all subsidies / free programs (e.g., SNAP / food stamps)?

How can health care costs be addressed with fixed UBI?

I can see UBI succeeding or at least not failing in countries like Canada since healthcare costs are zero for individuals, no matter how poor or moneyless they are.

Without having a similar Healthcare system, how can UBI be even implemented?

Ps: I’m neither strongly for/against UBI yet, but curious to see how it can solve the problem. I just have a lot of unanswered questions when asking them to UBI supporters.

[AniseAbyss]

Social safety nets were designed to keep society from unraveling when desperate people take to the streets in the endless boom-bust cycle of capitalism. Many of the wealthiest countries in the world have found it economically more desirable than the alternative even when you ignore the ethics

Opponents of UBI often ignore the word BASIC.

[justinator]

You can't pay for UBI without taxing wages (well everyone's taxes 'cause how you going to pay for it?), so actually the best scenario would be a higher minimum wage than now, plus UBI. Removing minimum wage but just providing UBI would be particularly crippling to the poor who already now have little hope on moving up financially.

[AbrahamParangi]

Maybe. States and municipalities should figure it out. Diversity is good, and allows us to experiment & learn ethically and inexpensively.

[newacct583]

I could get behind that. Again, though, UBI is sort of a fantasy legislation for neoliberal wonks to argue about. It's not relevant to the current situation, really, at all. There's no way to make that kind of bureaucratic change on the kind of schedule we're forced into at all. It only seems simple to software geeks in HN threads.

[true_religion]

You know people said the same thing about social security, and on a more recent note... desegregation and the end of Jim Crow.

Change always seems fast and overwhelming until it’s done, then we realize that support for it had been growing bit by bit, and all that was left was that final leap.

Even if the UBI is impossible to attain tomorrow, we should still lobby for it so it will be attainable someday.

[smileysteve]

> though, UBI is sort of a fantasy legislation for neoliberal wonks

Did the U.S. not send $1200 to every citizen (under a means test) in May?

And several European nations.

[nickthemagicman]

I think they're speculating prepare for something like this in the future because this is not the last time this will happen.

[ed25519FUUU]

Have you thought about the psychological impact of what you’re describing? Why would someone work 40 hours a week to earn $2680 a month when they can earn $2600 a month sitting on their couch and playing video games?

[Drakim]

Isn't that part of the point?

Right now there is an incredible power imbalance between employers and employees, where for the employer it's an inconvenience if they lose the employee, while for the employee it's loss of access to food, shelter and medicine if they lose their employer.

This means that the employer can squeeze the employee, allowing them to pile on with abusive working conditions, bad pay, and poor compensation. Lots of workplaces outright steal out of the paychecks for the employees in plain daylight and get away with it because the employee knows that if they raise a fuss they might get fired.

Nobody would work for 1 dollar an hour, as you say. So companies will have to offer more to attract workers. And the workers have the option of saying "no" if what they offer just isn't good enough. So they would be two equal parties, bargaining over what the labor is worth, without neither having a gun pushed against their head if they say "no".

Weirdly, a lot of people seem to think things are as they should be. People should starve and be homeless if they aren't willing to work under unsafe condition, or being blackmailed into working for bottom wages just to have food to eat tomorrow. I'm not a fan of that sort of Social Darwinism though.

[ryandrake]

Yes! With a robust, livable UBI, even without a minimum wage, you wouldn't see $2/hr jobs. Can you think of a job you'd personally take for an extra $2/hr if your needs were already being met by UBI? Wages would have to be set to a level that incentivize working. Shitty jobs would actually have to pay more than fun or easy jobs, because "not taking the job" is always a realistic option.

[dragonwriter]

> Can you think of a job you'd personally take for an extra $2/hr if your needs were already being met by UBI?

Yes, if it prepared you for better jobs. Low wage dead-end jobs might not exist (then again, they might, different people have different utility functions), but low-wage on-ramp jobs that cannot exist now certainly would.

[ed25519FUUU]

“Shitty” jobs wouldn’t have to pay more. Those jobs wouldn’t exist.

[shadowgovt]

They wouldn't. They might work 40 hours a week because they believe in the cause; I know people who are independently wealthy or otherwise not in need of paid employment who put that time in for volunteer projects.

[munificent]

People are downvoting this, but I think you point to a real problem.

Yes, people are generally good and want to do meaningful things and contribute to society. But we're also lazy, selfish, and good at convincing ourselves to make short-term choices with poor long-term consequences.

I think with UBI, there would be a whole lot of couch potatoes. I don't think that's necessarily morally a bad thing, but if the ratio of couch potatoes to people producing economic activity that pays into the UBI fund is bad enough, it can make UBI simply economically unsustainable whether you think it's a moral good or not.

So there is a balance between:

A. Keeping UBI low enough to incentivize people to produce labor such that UBI is financial self-sustaining.

B. Keeping UBI high enough that people who do not work are not destitute.

I think fans of UBI have a tacit assumption that A is well above B, but I am not so certain.

[jellicle]

Your figures are wrong. If they worked (and received UBI, because that's what UBI means), their monthly income would be $5280 vs. $2600 for playing video games.