[AnthonyMouse]

> I was pointing out that GP's claim of people taking these jobs out of "self-volition" is directly at odds with their supposition that we might just not have enough well paying jobs for everyone. Minimum wage/UBI has no bearing on that.

But now you're using a different meaning of volition. They're not required to take a job at $6/hour instead of one at $10/hour. They might still choose to take it anyway if the higher paying job has a heinous commute or is third shift or dirty or dangerous etc. That's a choice, and removing it makes things worse for them.

If there is no $10/hour job at all, they still have a "choice" between the $6/hour job and not making rent, but that choice is between two bad options, and now you want to say that it isn't really a choice because a low-paying job is nothing compared to homelessness. But then you say this:

> Then the employer should raise their prices or the job shouldn't exist.

"Companies should raise prices so people can get paid more" is not how you cause people to have more. They just lose the higher nominal wages to higher prices. And in general if customers would pay more, they'd already be charging more.

So how are you squaring "the job shouldn't exist" with the job being their only alternative to something so unreasonable that you regard it as a lack of volition?

[Jochim]

> But now you're using a different meaning of volition. They're not required to take a job at $6/hour instead of one at $10/hour. They might still choose to take it anyway if the higher paying job has a heinous commute or is third shift or dirty or dangerous etc. That's a choice, and removing it makes things worse for them.

I've used the same meaning of volition throughout. GP posited that there may exist X well-paying jobs but Y people, where Y > X. In that situation there is no self volition once the well-paying jobs have been filled; even if some people willingly choose not to take them. Once again it's about agency not UBI or minimum wage.

> "Companies should raise prices so people can get paid more" is not how you cause people to have more. They just lose the higher nominal wages to higher prices.

That's pure conjecture, not fact. Productivity and wages decoupled 50 years ago.

> So how are you squaring "the job shouldn't exist" with the job being their only alternative to something so unreasonable that you regard it as a lack of volition?

The answer to a desperate child isn't paying them a pittance to clean a slaughterhouse. That we've decided to do so is a choice, not a necessity, and is an indictment of who we are as a society.

[AnthonyMouse]

> GP posited that there may exist X well-paying jobs but Y people, where Y > X. In that situation there is no self volition once the well-paying jobs have been filled; even if some people willingly choose not to take them.

By definition, people choosing not to take them is self-volition. They'd rather have the low-paying job because it's easier or closer, and they have a choice. There are also a large number of people for whom not working is a viable option, e.g. if your spouse makes at least twice minimum wage, your household has as much income as some couples who both work. Then a choice between a low-paying job or doing household labor is actually a choice.

But here is what I mean by two definitions. If you have to choose between low pay and homelessness, is that a choice? If it is, all of those jobs are volitional. If it isn't, "the job shouldn't exist" is the opposite of a solution.

> That's pure conjecture, not fact. Productivity and wages decoupled 50 years ago.

Average productivity and wages decoupled, highly asymmetrically. Someone who makes a computer that can do the work of a thousand bookkeepers or stenographers is extremely productive, even if they "only" get paid 10 times more than the bookkeepers did. But the productivity for cashiers and dishwashers is not much changed. Businesses are not going to opt to pay someone more than the value they produce for the business and the value produced by unskilled labor is commonly quite low.

> The answer to a desperate child isn't paying them a pittance to clean a slaughterhouse.

But then:

> Once again it's about agency not UBI or minimum wage

A UBI would provide agency by allowing someone to turn down a low-paying job without being in a state of desperation. The job might then have to pay more or offer some countervailing benefit to get anyone to take it, and the people who choose to or not would then actually be making a choice.

If not that then what are you proposing as a way to achieve agency? Expecting businesses to choose to pay people more than their labor is worth isn't going to do it.

[Jochim]

> If not that then what are you proposing as a way to achieve agency? Expecting businesses to choose to pay people more than their labor is worth isn't going to do it.

I'm not dismissing either solution, they're just not relevant to the original point of the discussion. My response to GP was in regards to the lack of agency in a situation where there were fewer "quality" jobs than those who desire them. How agency should be introduced to that scenario is irrelevant to the scenario itself.

> By definition, people choosing not to take them is self-volition. They'd rather have the low-paying job because it's easier or closer, and they have a choice. There are also a large number of people for whom not working is a viable option, e.g. if your spouse makes at least twice minimum wage, your household has as much income as some couples who both work. Then a choice between a low-paying job or doing household labor is actually a choice.

You've latched on to "some people choosing", ignoring that once the desirable jobs are chosen, they are no longer an option. If there are 5 high quality jobs, 5 low quality jobs, 12 people, and 2 people choose a low quality job; then 3 people have no choice of job, and 2 have no job at all.

> If not that then what are you proposing as a way to achieve agency? Expecting businesses to choose to pay people more than their labor is worth isn't going to do it.

Again, it's not the discussion I was looking to have.

[AnthonyMouse]

> You've latched on to "some people choosing", ignoring that once the desirable jobs are chosen, they are no longer an option. If there are 5 high quality jobs, 5 low quality jobs, 12 people, and 2 people choose a low quality job; then 3 people have no choice of job, and 2 have no job at all.

But none of those numbers were in the original scenario, and you've switched to low quality jobs from low paying jobs.

If there are 6 high paying jobs, 6 low paying jobs and 10 people, not all 10 people can have high paying jobs, but 4 or more of them might choose low paying jobs because of some countervailing advantage over the higher paying jobs.

The problem comes if you try to prohibit people from taking low paying jobs, because then you have 10 people and only 6 available jobs.

And even in your scenario, if you remove the option to take low paying jobs, what it does is cause 7 people to have no job instead of 2.