Does being unexploited pay the heating bill? That's all minimum wage workers really care about. Not some nebulous ivory tower view on economics.

No, but as soon as there's enough permanently unemployed workers, the sooner we get our precious guaranteed income, right?

This is similar to the logic people use with the War on Drugs. As soon as there are enough dead Mexicans and gangsters in the street, eventually they HAVE to lift prohibition, right?

The government can remain irrational for longer than we can remain alive.

Look at countries like India or even China. Countries can survive hundreds of years with high level of poverty.

The key thing is if the situation in the US will get worse faster or slower than the slow mentality shift that is required to considered poor people as disposable.

I believe he's being satirical. Obviously a bad job is (usually) better than no job, that's the point. The whole concept of "exploitation" makes no sense. The businesses that do hire are benefiting people way more than those that don't hire any at all or have replaced workers with automation.

Something like a basic income could distribute money from all those industries at the same time to those who need it. It would solve the unemployment problem, or at least make it more bearable, and improve working conditions for these workers.

Totally agree. As productivity continually improves, I see no way to move forward without a basic income. And this is coming from a person with libertarian-leaning ideals.

Every luddite fights technological improvement.

The hoe displaced farm workers. Machines replaces lots of farm workers.

Shipping containers destroyed the massive labor requirement and theft of the shipping industry. Several orders of magnitude of jobs destroyed.

People don't just wither and die; the efficiencies offered by technological change turn into new industries and higher quality of life for everyone. Would you really be better off if everyone had to farm or hunt their own food?

But hey, at least everyone would be employed.

I actually agree with you; my point was more driving towards the need for a basic income as productivity continues to improve.

They're going to be replaced by robots either way. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated decently in the meantime.

So we can give them a living wage, which will accelerate the development of a robotic replacement, so that they can earn a bit more in the meantime, before their inevitable unemployment?

The earlier mass unemployment comes the better. Only that will necessitate some major rethinking of classical employment and welfare ideas, and very likely, finally have us implement basic income.

As opposed to what? Deliberately staggering progress in an effort to maintain a society of contrived busywork so people can slave away for pennies? You might as well just give away the pennies rather than deliberately embrace inefficiency in an effort to keep these jobs in existence.