The question is: how many people currently working would stop working if they didn't need to? (particularly in the areas vital for the basic functioning of society) That question is so impossibly difficult to answer that I don't think any system we come up with won't have potentially disastrous consequences.
I don't think it's all that difficult to answer. When I leave the office building I work at the end of my day, the janitors are just showing up. They probably already only get paid the basic livable wage (probably less), so why would they show up to work if they were getting the paycheck anyways? I can think of 100s of other jobs that someone wouldn't show up for because they aren't worth the time, they aren't fun, or even remotely interesting.
> When I leave the office building I work at the end of my day, the janitors are just showing up. They probably already only get paid the basic livable wage (probably less), so why would they show up to work if they were getting the paycheck anyways?
There's something that deeply bothers me about the notion that the above is a bad thing. Yes, you would no longer have access to low-wage janitorial services. But that's your problem, not your janitor's. Do you think he wants to be scrubbing toilets for a subsistence wage?
The world will not fall apart for want of janitors, or garbagemen, or baristas.
Imagine a world where, at some time t=0, there are zero people filling these jobs because of a basic income. It truly doesn't take all that much enterprise to see an opportunity in a world with no janitors. At t=1, there would still be janitors, but there would be fewer of them, the ones that exist would be better-paid, because they're now working for something approaching the wage that you might demand if someone asked you how much it would cost to clean their office.
Do you think he wants to be scrubbing toilets for a subsistence wage?
Thanks for proving my point. No, I highly doubt he wants to scrub a toilet for a subsistence wage. I think a janitorial job would go empty for a long, long time. So now, instead of me focusing on my job, I have to take time out of my day to do something I'd pay someone for.
It would be better if you get your basic livable wage but still have to work (exceptions made for childcare, students, disability, etc.) and depending on the job you get what the market deems as extra. So, if you get $20k per year as a livable wage (figure just chosen for easier math) and a job would've paid $25k, you get the $5k difference in your paycheck. This would help keep the low-interest, but easy, jobs staffed.
" I have to take time out of my day to do something I'd pay someone for. "
But apparently you wouldn't pay enough to have them do it, so it's more valuable to you to use your time to do that job.
If you paid more, you could more effectively utilize your time.
"So, if you get $20k per year as a livable wage (figure just chosen for easier math) and a job would've paid $25k, you get the $5k difference in your paycheck. This would help keep the low-interest, but easy, jobs staffed."
So you would only be getting paid 5k then. If I don't work at all, I get 20k. If I work, I get 25k.
I think that's what you're suggesting. Unless you're suggesting you get nothing if you don't work, at which point we don't have a basic income anymore, and this idea is moronic.
Basic income is just that - basic income. Some people who want to have more than that will work. Janitors still want iPads or cable television - and they will be incentized to work for that on a competitive market for those products and services.
0 hours of janitoring = small comfortable house and enough food
5 hours of janitoring = small comfortable hosue and enough food and cable televsion
If people simply stopped working when they could live "comfortably" why would they buy iPads, cable television, new cars? Employment history and reputation aren't going out the window with this plan either. A janitor will be good at his job because he knows if he gets fired he won't get reccomended for other janitorial jobs - and his chance of getting an iPad in the future goes way down.
I know janitors who buy lottery tickets, eat out at restaurants and have cable television - according to you those wouldn't exist because they could "janitor" less and live without those.
I never said any of those wouldn't exist, but I'm a firm believer in rewards. Right now a janitor is rewarding himself with a paycheck so he can do what he wants otherwise the flip side is poverty.
Here's the thing. Let's say you made $100k per year working 40 hours/week with benefits. If I were to pay you to not work but get a smaller wage (keeping your benefits), what percentage would be acceptable to you? 90%? 80%? 50%? What is it worth to you to not have to work?
There is a number that most janitors would probably accept. I think a fair number of retail employees too.
because they still would be better of working, just possibly at a lower hourly rate.
basic income: 1000 USD.
unemployed janitor: 1000 USD
employed janitor: 1300 USD.
He does not need to work anymore, but it might still be worth it.
I don't think it's all that difficult to answer. When I leave the office building I work at the end of my day, the janitors are just showing up. They probably already only get paid the basic livable wage (probably less), so why would they show up to work if they were getting the paycheck anyways? I can think of 100s of other jobs that someone wouldn't show up for because they aren't worth the time, they aren't fun, or even remotely interesting.