SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Basic Income is a subject that regularly surfaces in Soylent discussions, so here's a story about Finland's impending experiment with it:
Finland has become the first country in Europe to pay its unemployed citizens a basic monthly income, amounting to 560 euros ($587 US), in a unique social experiment which is hoped to cut government red tape, reduce poverty and boost employment.
Olli Kangas from the Finnish government agency KELA, which is responsible for the country's social benefits, said Monday that the two-year trial with the 2,000 randomly picked citizens who receive unemployment benefits kicked off Jan. 1.
Those chosen will receive 560 euros every month, with no reporting requirements on how they spend it. The amount will be deducted from any benefits they already receive.
The average private sector income in Finland is 3,500 euros per month, according to official data.
Also at The Guardian and swissinfo.ch.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TheRaven on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:30AM
It would likely have a lot more subtle effects than simply driving up the cost of everything. It won't push up the cost of production much for anything where labour is not a significant part of the cost. For many things, the retail cost is limited by the cost of production because there are multiple competing providers and putting the price up just reduces your share of the market, it doesn't increase your sales.
Additionally, injecting money at the bottom has been shown to increase overall liquidity in the economy. If you give rich people money, then they will invest it, often in other countries or in things like real estate or gold that don't contribute much to the economy. If you give poor people money, then they spend most of it. More poor people spending money means that there is more work for shop keepers, which increases the efficiency of shops and can drive prices down if they're not already near saturation point (things like shops and restaurants have large fixed costs and relatively small per-unit costs, so increasing the number of customers doesn't significantly increase the costs, but does increase the income). A lot of what the shops sell will be imported, but not everything, and so this stimulates other local industries.
The more interesting outcomes are likely to be a shift in the wages for low skill jobs. No one grows up wanting to be a toilet cleaner, but (until we have much better robots) someone needs to do the job. Without something like UBI, you can pay these jobs minimum wage and you'll have people willing to do them because they have no other choice. With UBI, the marginal utility of the money from a minimum wage job is much lower and so there will be a fall-off in supply for these jobs and a need to increase wages.
Most of the economic models show UBI as an overall benefit. I suspect that the problems are likely to be social. We already have a section of the population that regards society in general, and the government in particular, with a large sense of entitlement: society exists to provide for their needs, they don't expect to contribute anything. UBI is likely to make this worse. A large-scale introduction needs to be coupled with something else that stimulates individual engagement with society.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:44AM
No one grows up wanting to be a toilet cleaner, but (until we have much better robots) someone needs to do the job. Without something like UBI, you can pay these jobs minimum wage and you'll have people willing to do them because they have no other choice.
I've volunteered to clean toilets, because hey guess what, moron, I can't get paid for it. You have no clue how competitive janitorial jobs are in the real world, egghead. No other choice means you don't have any job anywhere, not even at minimum wage, presumptuous asshole.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:50PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday January 04 2017, @01:42PM
Thats where you run into strange definition games and the experiment can be pushed to various local definitions of success or failure.
For example, "many theoretical models" assume the janitor would continue to get the basic income regardless of other income sources, much as the police don't stop patrolling my neighborhood because I get a pay raise or the DOT doesn't stop repairing streets because incomes are too high.
So before basic income the janitor got $0 of basic income plus $290/wk for plunging toilets and after spending $285 on fixed expenses (a place to sleep, food, laundry) his "real living" is he plunges toilets for 40 hours a week in exchange for $5/wk of "fun living". Now after basic income he gets $250/wk of basic income, plus the same $290/wk for plunging toilets and after spending, maybe, $300 on slightly inflated fixed expenses, his "real living" is he plunges toilets for 40 hours a week in exchange for $200/wk of "fun living" which is 40 time more "fun" than he bought before basic income. You're claiming no one will plunge toilets because with a basic income plunging a toilet will be paid by 40 times more fun.
Now some people close to retirement are going to say "F it" and some will quit and go back to school or work on "art" or "music" or "entrepreneur" or whatever, which is all good. So there's fewer people to plunge, even though plunging toilets is 40 times more desirable work with a BI, so wages MIGHT go up. On the other hand business owners aren't going to allow employees to smile all day so wages MIGHT go down, obviously there's plenty of applicants when the job only pays $5/wk of discretionary income, so I wouldn't be surprised to see many wages collapse down to minimum wage.
Probably the most interesting effect would be forcing people into contractor relationships where the contracted profit rate is like $1/hr and people are chill with that. The IRS and various state wage/employment departments will absolutely shit a brick when that happens. If, theoretically, you could actually live on BI alone, you have to realize that today there are a hell of a lot of people on the planet living on less than $40/week of discretionary income.
Another fun definition game to get into is do you allow people with IRS or child support debts to get a penny? I mean if you debtor's prison kill them or force them completely off the grid you get no money from them at all ever again.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:00PM
I suspect that the problems are likely to be social. We already have a section of the population that regards society in general, and the government in particular, with a large sense of entitlement: society exists to provide for their needs, they don't expect to contribute anything. UBI is likely to make this worse. A large-scale introduction needs to be coupled with something else that stimulates individual engagement with society.
This, precisely this. Until and unless the societal problem is solved, you are just pandering to - and expanding - the FSA [urbandictionary.com].
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:16PM
Sounds a lot like corporations and the wealthy who do whatever it takes to hide money from Uncle Sam and pay as little as possible to its labor force.
Ah I see. Lets blame the liberal darkies. Great plan. Meanwhile, in the rural white south.....
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 04 2017, @03:12PM
It isn't the liberal darkies who are to blame. It's the rich authoritarian white bastards who cater to those liberal darkies who are to blame. Dirt poor darkies in the ghetto don't decide how much money to spend on welfare. The authoritarians make those decisions. Each and every decision is designed to make those poor darkies more dependent on the authoritarians.
Hell man, if you offered me $500/week for nothing, I'd take it. Or, I'd sure be tempted to take it. But - that road would lead to me being dependent upon you, and your
continued good will. So, I'd turn down your money. Whatever else poor generational welfare dark skinned people might be, they aren't especially stupid. They take your money. As long as you are fool enough to give money away, they're going to take it. The brighter blacks will turn the money down, or find some way to become independent of that money. The less bright blacks, AND WHITES, take all the money you care to shovel at them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @06:28PM
So much supposition and assumption. The smart people turn down assistance? You're insane, bootstrapping yourself into a logically comfortable position where you can have shitty fucking ideals and deceive yourself into believing they're "good and righteous". There are two very large issues that relate to this topic:
1. Systemic problems causing massive wealth inequality that can not be avoided. No amount of willpower and hard work will bring everyone a good job, there literally are not enough good jobs to go around.
2. People like you who blame the victims of our broken system. You enable the wealthy to continue their greedy destruction by buying into the class/race/culture wars they promote.
Your group of people also believes that welfare supporters are secret authoritarians, yet the conservatives are always the ones pushing massive restrictions on personal freedoms and legislating against behavior they don't like. I'll take the liberal "authoritarians" who provide programs to help humanity and not the conservative types that want to imprison and stomp on the faces of humanity that doesn't make the cut.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 04 2017, @09:02PM
yet the conservatives are always the ones pushing massive restrictions on personal freedoms and legislating against behavior they don't like.
You mean like placing high taxes on cigarettes and soda? Strictly regulating e-cigarettes and cigars? Passing restrictions on free speech and owning guns? Requiring health insurance and what kind you must have? Restricting private property rights? Requiring how much you can pay workers? Requiring that 15% of your earnings pay for old people's income? Requiring you to pay for public schools that you don't use? Those policies?
I hate to tell you this, but all those massive restrictions on personal freedoms are NOT pushed by conservatives.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 05 2017, @04:07AM
I think it is more like outright banning things like alcohol and various other drugs that the wrong people use. Passing restrictions on speech and other forms of expression that is offensive to them such as anything sex related as well as preventing whole classes of people from owning weapons (certain colours of people and anyone considered dishonest even though the right applies to every person).
It's true that they're usually OK with not paying workers and requiring some % of income to pay for corporations to exist. And of course, lots of right wing countries force people to pay for churches that they don't use, often by just saying that they don't have to pay for the road that serves them.
I'd suggest that you visit one of the conservative allies of the USA to see how far restricting rights can go. Perhaps Saudi Arabia, as conservative of a country as you'll find.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday January 05 2017, @04:52AM
The point is, far left and far right are both authoritarians and taken to extremes both with try to restrict freedoms in many horrible ways. Lately in the US it's been the left attacking free speech, going further trying to do that than I ever thought I would see happen. If you're looking at extremes there is no more freedom-restricting regime than the far-left North Korea or Communist China. Conservatives certainly have no monopoly on authoritarianism.
BTW, if you want churches, mosques, synagogues and the like to pay property taxes, you also have to remove the tax exemption from all other charities, homeless shelters (often church-based), soup kitchens (often church-based), orphanages, museums, cemeteries, and others. I guess that might be a good thing because then the authoritarian left can then stop telling religious leaders what they can and can't say all the time. I'm assuming this is just you hating religions (probably only SOME of them), because as SCOTUS stated in McCulloch v. Maryland "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."
Not sure WTF you're talking about with income taxes being paid to let corporations exist. I mean, WTF? I wasn't even talking about income taxes, I was talking about payroll taxes, but you don't seem to know the difference. Do you even know where income taxes go? They go into the Treasury, and that pays for EVERYTHING the government does. But do they tax wealth? NO they tax the only thing that poor people have: their LABOR. How's THAT for a fucked up restriction on freedom? The Federal government takes 15% right off the top, BEFORE income taxes.
So I'll go to Saudi Arabia if you go to North Korea. Good luck, comrade!
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday January 06 2017, @05:40AM
It's not so much hard left or hard right, it's authoritarian left or right. Hard left should mean no government for example. Not sure what hard right would be though they even have a libertarian wing.
Around here, while church's get (property) tax free status automatically, other tax free institutions have their tax free status looked at every year and if they're not improving the community, they lose it. Should be the same for religious institutions, some do good and some don't.
Different jurisdictions handle payroll taxes and income taxes differently. Here a lot of seniors get their government pension plan topped up out of general revenue, especially people such as housewives who didn't pay much payroll tax to begin with, being busy with non-productive stuff such as bringing up children.
Last government, a right wing one, operated like all they existed for was to help big business. Taxpayer research was only to be done to help business and the taxpayers weren't even allowed to see the science and the government employees weren't allowed to speak to the taxpayers without going through a political.
N. Korea and especially China have gone so far left that they're now right. N. Korea basically has a monarchy even if they do call themselves a republic and China seems like one of the most business friendly governments in the world.
Of course right and left are not things that you can easily point to and especially in America their meanings seem very fluid with both sides having a fantasy about what they really mean
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:52AM
You are not wrong and I hate the authoritarians on the left just as I hate them on the right. However rules and regulations are a part of government and the discussion should be more about which ones are worthwhile. Some things are necessary because we live in a society, this weird pure freedom idea is so far removed from reality that I'm not sure what to say... Its a wonderful idea if it could work without tossing millions to the wolves, or allowing the wolves to get worse, but that is not the reality we live in.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday January 04 2017, @09:56PM
> The smart people turn down assistance?
All the time. Look at how offended the Big Oil executives look when they get their subsidies.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:20AM
"The smart people turn down assistance?"
Have you visited the ghettos? Have you been in the housing projects? What you will find there, is not "assisstance", but a "way of life". Street gangs, and baby mamas, all living off of government largesse and illicit drug money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @06:12AM
I'm tired of debating with the idiots of this site. It pains me because you're not actually an idiot, just stuck in a narrow minded belief system because you think you've "figured out" the world. The problem with all human "figuring out" is that we're pretty terrible at seeing our own presumptions, hindsight is 20/20, etc. There are people who actually study these social problems yet you are able to come up with a simple answer when you haven't really studied the problems and haven't even lived in the conditions you describe. It takes effort to keep your mind from running on its existing thought patterns, until you can accomplish that and broaden your mental horizons I bid you good day.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @06:21AM
It pains me because you're not actually an idiot, just stuck in a narrow minded belief system because you think you've "figured out" the world.
Nope, not nearly. Runaway1254 is actually an idiot, and he hasn't figured out anything. His VCR is still blinking. When his wife goes to play bingo, he believes her. He actually thinks he served in the navy! No, stupid, uneducated, delusional, racist, Fox News listener and Breetfart reader. As dumb as they come. That's our Runaway! And correct, there is no point to debating him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:49PM
"No amount of willpower and hard work will bring everyone a good job, there literally are not enough good jobs to go around."
you make your own job, ffs.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:21PM
Um, Runaway, did you just say "darkies"? You quite definitely are a moran and a racist, and you do not deserve a basic income! Nor do you deserve a response. UnAmerican Traitor! Please leave this site, you are giving everyone a bad reputation.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:17AM
I said "darkies" and I've said worse. Often when referring to you, Aristarchus!
(Score: 2, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:12AM
Yes, we are all well aware. But this is why you are banned from everywhere on the internets except here. You share this honor [sic] with Ethanol_fueled and MikeeUSA, an anti-semite and a pedophile. Does this not embarrass you? It is not that there is a difference of opinion here, you are just socially unacceptable, even if you try to cloak it in "politically uncorrect". No, you are just an unthinking prejudiced asshole hillbilly from the South, from the state that gave us the Clintons, and you think you can contribute anything meaningful to the discussion here on SoylentNews? No, you do not, and now it is time for you to grow a pair and just log off and shut your mouth. Before you embarrass yourself more, and smear the reputation of SoylentNews further. I am serious.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 05 2017, @10:58PM
We've gone over this idea before. I'm not banned from the internets. In fact, you commented once about my karma rating. Despite all your efforts, my karma stays right up there near 50. You throw a hissy fit, use your sock puppets to mod me down, and reasonable people repair the damage you do.
Have you read this submission yet? https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=17777¬e=&title=not+alt-right%2C+but+POPULISM [soylentnews.org]
Your greatest problem is that you are an idealogue. You actually believe in all that stupid shit the politicians toss at you to keep you distracted from real issues. You actually believe that gay marriage was important, you actually believe that SJW's know what they are talking about, you believe in your left/liberal/progressive/democrat heros.
Hell man, only the very worst of the worst on the Republican/right side believe in the party's heros, like you believe in Hillary. I guess that just makes you a chump.
Anyway, my views are far more "mainstream" than you can possibly imagine. (not that I claim to be "mainstream", only that you can't imagine what "mainstream" really means) You're out of touch with reality, dude.
Trump won. He beat the "best" that your party had to offer, he beat the "best" that the other party had to offer - because WE ARE ALL SICK OF YOUR IDEOLOGIES!!
It's time for you to get in touch with reality, man. Or, not. YOu can, if you insist, rant and rave like a madman for the next 4 years, or 8 years, or 80 years.
Embarrassed. Yes, many of us are embarrssed when you post your meaningless nonsense here. But, we must defend YOUR freedom of speech, or we will surely lose our own freedom of speech. But, I learned that concept as a very young child. Obviously, you have never learned it. Being the c̶h̶a̶n̶c̶r̶e̶ ̶ anchor baby of a pair of foreigners, you weren't born to a real American war hero, or his bride who all but worshipped the man for fighting in the Pacific.
Trump won. Get used to the idea. Or, you can be like the Republicans, whose own party revolted on them, and threw them under the bus. Maybe Bernie can win the next nomination, without your favored criminals standing in is way?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 06 2017, @12:13AM
Tell us more, Runaway! You are so average! Share your homespun wisdom with the rest of us. Please?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 06 2017, @01:53AM
You don't listen. I'm only willing to waste so much time on you.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 06 2017, @03:36AM
Oh, come on, Runaway! Tell about your encounter with the jigaboos! Expound on the constitutional grounds for striping citizenship from anchor babies! Affirm once again that you are not racist! We all love to hear your opinions on topics like these. Please go on, Runaway!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 06 2017, @02:56PM
I'm terribly racist, and known for my racism, right here in real life, Aristarchus. Monday, I returned to work after 7 weeks off for surgery. Want to know what happened when I walked in the door? An attractive 30-something black lady squealed, and hollered my name before I walked the short distance from the door, to the break room. As I walked into the break room, tall muscular black dude hammered my shoulder, and tells me "bout time you brought your lazy ass back to work!" This particular black dude is also a former squid - I think he missed swapping sea stories. Dropped my gear in the break room, and walked to the ops office. Little Mexican gal, 40 something, dropped what she was doing, and took the three paces to the door to give me a hug. My boss seemed to have an urge to hug me, but she restrained herself - which is just as well, 'cause she's not nearly so hot as the 40-something. After flapping my gums for a bit in the office, I walked out on the floor, to be loudly greeted by two more black ladies. All the guys, black, white, and Mexican, have a word of welcome for me, although few are as loud and boisterous as the women. Then, there's this nubile little thing who used to work third shift with us, but has moved to day shift. She's 23, and hot, hot, hot. When she saw me in the morning, she came running, and I though she was going to jump on me and hug me to death. I suppose that she remembered just in time that I am something of a lecher - she stopped, and beamed the most beautiful 23-year old nubilbe baby-doll smile at me, and chattered away for five minutes. Beautiful little anchor baby, that girl is.
I am hardly any less outspoken at work than I am here on the forum. I speak my mind in real life, just as I do here. Some people agree with some of my opinions, other people agree with other opinions, and some of my opinions don't have any real followers at all. But, these coworkers still love me.
Think about that for a bit. People who have worked with me for a decade, on a daily basis, people who have seen me at my best and my worst, don't seem to think that I'm a racist.
Do ya think that just maybe, the racism problem here is all in your head? Possibly, it's you who is the racist?
BTW - that lovely little anchor baby KNOWS that she's an anchor baby. Both her, and her big brother. Their opinions on the matter differ from mine, but we respect each other enough that we can actually discuss things like anchor babies.
Unlike here, where people of certain persuasions deem me to be subhuman because I know their politics are nothing but shit.
Damn, I wish I were about 40 years younger. I'd chase that little girl all around the plant . . . .
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 06 2017, @10:22PM
I'd chase that little girl all around the plant . . . .
So, racist who wants to deport your fellow workers, but still a nice guy. This is the cognitive dissonance that we do not understand. You either are faking the politeness, or you are not serious about your political views. But it seems you are more on the side of pedophilia than anti-semitism? Umm, OK. . . . .
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 06 2017, @10:30PM
As sweet and beautiful as this little girl is, her parents were law breakers. They USED their children to get a toe in the door. I'll be OK if her parents are deported, and she and her brother are left here. Or, they can choose to leave with their parents. It's not that big a deal. Mexico hasn't been hit with a meteor, and become uninhabitable, since her parents left there.
Remember - illegal isn't a race. Illegal is illegal though.
If these Mexicans I work with can accept my point of view, WTF can't you? Were YOUR parents illegals? So, you take it personally?
Once again, the amendment was aimed at former slaves, and the offspring of former slaves. It was never intended to open the gates for an invading force of 50 million.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 06 2017, @11:04PM
You attack any American citizen, you attack them all! Doesn't matter whether you personally think they are legal, or not. You child lecher, you! What makes you even think I am one, though? Nationalism is an artificial and repugnant notion, as both you and the Donald are making abundantly clear. It is a betrayal of the principles of the American and French revolutions, which asserted the Rights of Man (Thomas Paine?), and Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. So why do you hate America?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 07 2017, @12:18AM
Utter horse shit. Pure, utter horse shit.
Citizenship is conferred via parentage, not by an accident of location at birth.
"Nationalism is an artificial and repugnant notion"
THIS is why you are no American. You've rejected the very concept of Americanism. You've rejected the concept of German, French, British, or Chinese citizenship, along with American citizenship. In your view of the world, anyone can come from anywhwere, and demand an equal voice in government. It is you and your kind who betray America.
Oh - the French revolution? A bit of mass hysteria, really. http://articles.latimes.com/1989-11-24/news/vw-242_1_salem-witch-trials [latimes.com]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday January 07 2017, @12:31AM
I now have reliable intelligence that shows "Runaway1956" to be a 16-year-old female working in a "fake-news" operation in Macedonia. She has evaded detection for so long because she is almost a perfect facsimile of an older middle-aged redneck hillbilly male from the Southern United States of America. Reports suggest that the "fake-news" operation was in fact set up several years ago by Russian operatives paving the way for Donald Trump to be elected President of the US. Not only a traitor, but not even a real person. Cool story, bro!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 07 2017, @12:51AM
When you've run out of sensible things to say, always fall back on personal attacks. That's the ticket, Aristarchus. Chapter six in the SJW manual, right?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday January 07 2017, @02:06AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/06/the-hillary-for-mayor-story-proves-that-we-learn-nothing/ [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 07 2017, @02:36AM
Mannfred Mann for Mayor? Alright, I'll go for that. Well, I would if I were eligible to vote in NYC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:44PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:58PM
That makes sense when the problem you are trying to solve is not enough people working hard enough to ensure that the needs of society are being met. But when the problem you are trying to solve is that there's actually a surplus of labor and not enough jobs, then the people who aren't contributing labor at all but are sitting around living on their poverty-level government handout are in fact helping to solve your problem. That's in general the problem that capitalism is running into: It has no good built-in mechanism for dealing with a general surplus of productivity.
What this would trigger, though, is a re-alignment in how employers can treat their employees. With UBI, employees would always have a viable option of walking away from their job. I don't think most people would, because the income from UBI is poverty-level and most people want to live better than that, but it would definitely change the power balance, because without a welfare system and without savings (which most people don't have), the options are either (A) work, or (B) starve to death, whereas with UBI the options are either (A) work, or (B) live at a poverty-level income. I don't think anybody knows what the effects of that will be.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 04 2017, @08:39PM
It won't push up the cost of production much for anything where labour is not a significant part of the cost.
This assumption makes no sense. Labor costs will absolutely increase, because you will have a smaller labor force, with people opting out of work because they are receiving a UBI, and others refusing certain jobs because they are receiving a UBI. Businesses would HAVE to offer higher wages in order to attract the same labor force.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday January 04 2017, @10:12PM
The point is, that labor costs are already only a small fraction of the production cost of most goods and many services. Even if you double the cost of labor, if that was only 10% of the cost of making a widget, the cost to buy a widget will only increase 10%.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:30AM
Sure, but you still have to INSTALL the widget, so it's still going to cost you 110% more unless you can somehow install it yourself. That kills the service industry, which is pretty much ALL labor costs, and is also where the labor costs will increase the most. And that's where most of the jobs have been created lately. Uber won't be finding drivers when the government has just provided the extra incoming they were getting driving for nothing.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:38AM
Nothing will cost you 110% more. The widget costs 10% more, and the installation costs twice as much. But if your widget needs installing, installation is almost certainly only a fraction of the cost of the widget itself, so the overall cost is still only increased by that fraction.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:06AM
Are you trying to do math? You may need some help.
Widget costs $5. Assume (for the sake of argument), that to make it costs $4, and 10% is labor costs of $0.40. Installation is all labor, and that's $2.50 (pretty common, for something simple, labor is about 1/2 the cost of the part, on average, can be a lot more, but this is a generic widget, so that's a good rule of thumb).
So the UBI comes in, wages go up. Company ends up paying double in labor costs to attract enough workers (they're making more widgets, too, because more people can afford them).
So now labor is $0.80 to make one widget, and company passes on the increase and it now costs $5.50.
Installation labor also doubles, to $5.
Now you're paying $11 for something that used to cost $7.50. So it's really only around 70%, not 110%, but you get the point.
Also, you haircut went from $20 to $40, your maid is charging $200 a week instead of $100, that Uber ride (if there are any left) went from $15 to $30, and cab rides have increased even more, because the cab company is paying double for not just drivers, but also for the mechanics and the dispatchers. If you think those increases are bad, wait until you see how much your hospital and doctors bills go up when nurses and orderlies are demanding more pay. Grocery stores operate on very TINY margins, so, yes, food will increase a lot more than just farmer labor costs, because they also have to pay for cashier, stock boys, cleaning crews, and that goes for pretty much all the retail stores and all those little service industry shops sharing the same strip mall where your grocery store is.
So, yes, there is a LOT more to labor costs that you're thinking about.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @06:19AM
Good! I kinda like the idea of people being paid fair wages and costs rising higher so that it becomes cost effective to fix things instead of buying new ones.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday January 05 2017, @10:50AM
sudo mod me up