I am guessing that if there was universal basic income, people would not be very interested in digging soda cans out of people's garbage for 5 cents a pop.

Meanwhile, there's not, so while the street looks like a war zone on recycling day (because people rip open bags to get cans while the bottles and everything else blows away), it's a symptom of a much deeper problem that nobody really wants to address. The income from collecting cans is all some people have to live on.

My understanding is that the city's latest plan is to arrest people for stealing their valuable cans; curbside recycling is a revenue generator! You know you don't have enough crime when this is what we're paying our detectives to investigate.

With universal basic wage, I wonder if people would be interested in sorting soda cans at a recycling facility. I guess they'll have to pay people more, or automate it. Of course having to pay people more makes it easier to financially justify further automation. As I understand it, increasing automation reducing opportunities for laborers is one of the major arguments for universal basic income. It seems to me that universal basic income justifies itself by increasing automation. Is this loop the path to fully automated space communism?

> that can be difficult for a number of reasons.

Not least of which is that they'd almost certainly need to be paid far, far more than they're making when they do it on their own.

Not that I disagree, though: overall the idea/point you made is a good one.

On the other hand their productivity in a well organized sorting facility might go up, such that you're paying them a fair and legal hourly wage but the price per sorted item remains similar. Maybe.

There are other complications though. The willingness of the public to employ such people, and the willingness of such people to be employed.

In Copenhagen, many of the bins have a little shelf where you can leave the bottles.

https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/recycling/blogs/deposit-shelf-...