Elizabeth Warren out of race

[Mr Greene]

There would be no reason or need to.

Except the ever present bottom line; reduction of costs, massaging of profit margin.
Employers pay women less on average because women will accept a lower wage. If workers are receiving an income from elsewhere the employers will offer lower wages expecting workers to make up the shortfall from their UBI.
This is exactly the same process that occurred with agricultural subsidies allowing supermarkets to offer lower-than-cost prices for produce and forcing farmers to plan based on maximizing subsidies over any other considerations.

[Mister Agenda]

I think the job title that would suit Warren best would be majority leader of the Senate. The governor of Massachusetts is a Republican, if she steps down as a Senator, he picks her replacement.

[EgoDeath]

There would be no reason or need to.

Except the ever present bottom line; reduction of costs, massaging of profit margin.
Employers pay women less on average because women will accept a lower wage. If workers are receiving an income from elsewhere the employers will offer lower wages expecting workers to make up the shortfall from their UBI.
This is exactly the same process that occurred with agricultural subsidies allowing supermarkets to offer lower-than-cost prices for produce and forcing farmers to plan based on maximizing subsidies over any other considerations.

So the argument being that business simply would because they could. Basically, "I'm going to pay you less to do this job because I know you're making money elsewhere." That logic doesn't really follow... but I suppose if employers knew for a fact that everyone is making, say, $12k a year through their UBI, they could use it as an excuse to penny-pinch. Though, there has to be some regulation to prevent that, no? Red flags would go up if employers are suddenly paying every employee they have $4 less per hour, so there has to be some regulation to prevent that. Then, of course, the issue is, how much regulation is appropriate? I do believe in a free market, after all.

So, I hear you. But I don't think that's an end-all reason to simply dismiss the UBI concept.

---

So an quote which addresses nothing

---

There would be no reason or need to.

True

OLB is... OLB. I like the guy but sometimes I don't follow his line of thinking. Which is okay.

Also... I'm not hard-pressed to believe that companies will do anything to improve the bottom line, but that sort of logic doesn't really apply if someone has a second job, does it? I don't think so. However, like I said, if companies knew for a fact that everyone is making $12k a year already, they could be tempted to use it as an excuse to pay less, but I think regulations could be put in place to prevent that. I don't know. I think the concept is interesting; it's a huge reason I was a bit drawn to Yang, before realizing that the media and the DNC were dead-set on not letting him become POTUS. Though, I'm not necessarily married to the idea, nor am I going to rail against it so viciously like some people here have.

I think it's worth a shot. In America, we're always going to strive to be better. And what's good for one of us is good for all of us, and vice-versa. Imagine if we could actually say that we didn't have homeless people in this country... that would be amazing. And maybe it's a pipe-dream. But why does it have to be? We've done things here that fifty years ago were thought unthinkable. So I don't know. I'm truly interested to see what our country will be in, say, 25 years.

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be difficult for employers paying minimum wage to decide that they're going to pay less than that.

[onlinebiker]

It would be difficult for employers paying minimum wage to decide that they're going to pay less than that.

LOL...

There's an optimist......

...

Minimimum wage will make it all better.....
Or just give out Sharpies and everyone csn add zeroes to their money when they cash their paycheck........Put inflation right out front.


And - big fun - everyone will have 3 jobs - because employers will cut hours so all employees.are part time - and exempt from getting benefits such as insurance and holiday pay.... Plus - plan on a heavier work load. Gotta keep the number of employees at an absolute minimum.

Then you can add a bunch of new laws - making it even tougher on these evil employers - making the businesses so unprofitable they go out of business...


That'll show 'em...

[The Grand Nudger]

Cool story, I'm just pointing out that minimum wage earners will be on a hypothetical UBI, and it isn't really an option for employers to pay less than the minimum wage.

UBI isn't going to put walmart out of business. They'll just suck up their employees UBI, like they already do with their welfare. Anytime I hear people talk as though there are businesses out there surviving on a fraction of a percent, a fraction of a percent which would disappear if people had more money to spend....I can only conclude that they're shitty at business and deserve to be driven under the big blue heel. The costs of doing business are already factored into an employers calculations - and a UBI would be funded by those already accounted for costs.

For a brief moment, the poor will have money in their pockets, and then it will end up where it always does. That's really all that a UBI is, or would do. Personally, I think it's a shitty idea - mostly a way to continue justifying making people pay for food, and water, and shelter..rather than addressing the fact that having to pay for these things is the root of the problem - particularly in our alleged meritocracy.

See how easy it is to point out some actual defect of a UBI?

[Mr Greene]

It'll hit skilled workers, technical staff, admin, anyone below management level. All would become minimum wage positions.

Legislation tends to be reactive rather than proactive so the problem would actually have to occur and get bad enough to cause a stink in Washington before regulations would even be written.

Current minimum wage positions would most likely become automated.

How many Americans would recognise this?

[onlinebiker]

Cool story, I'm just pointing out that minimum wage earners will be on a hypothetical UBI, and it isn't really an option for employers to pay less than the minimum wage.

UBI isn't going to put walmart out of business.  They'll just suck up their employees UBI, like they already do with their welfare.  Anytime I hear people talk as though there are businesses out there surviving on a fraction of a percent, a fraction of a percent which would disappear if people had more money to spend....I can only conclude that they're shitty at business and deserve to be driven under the big blue heel.  The costs of doing business are already factored into an employers calculations - and a UBI would be funded by those already accounted for costs.

For a brief moment, the poor will have money in their pockets, and then it will end up where it always does.  That's really all that a UBI is, or would do.  Personally, I think it's a shitty idea - mostly a way to continue justifying making people pay for food, and water, and shelter..rather than addressing the fact that having to pay for these things is the root of the problem - particularly in our alleged meritocracy.  

See how easy it is to point out some actual defect of a UBI?

No fairy tale too it.

If you believe the fantasy of minimum wage (actually working) - you might as well believe in UBI as well.....


Flat Earth, Sasquatch and the Loch Ness monster as well....

[The Grand Nudger]

You're all over the board OLB. Do I sound like a person who thinks that a minimum wage works...or a UBI? No, ofc not. It's still a fact that the minimum wage exists, and minimum wage employers would not be able to drop their wages..below...wait for it..minimum wage.

I suppose they could shaft their higher paid workers, and hope to be able to compete with other employers while shafting them - but here again I see bad at business.

Self checkout lines aren't automation. They're just getting you, a real human being, to do hourly work for free. Still waiting to see the prices for groceries come down....

[Mr Greene]

We distinguish between high, medium and low risk occupations, depending on their probability of computerisation. We make no attempt to estimate the number of jobs that will actually be automated, and focus on potential job automatability over some unspecified number of years. According to our estimates around 47 percent of total US employment is in the high risk category. We refer to these as jobs at risk – i.e. jobs we expect could be automated relatively soon, perhaps over the next decade or two.

Future of Employment?