Post a response:
|
In such an economy, jobs that are most essential but were otherwise unpleasant would command a higher salary Except that thats not how things work. All attempts to determine the value of a job by top down analysis have ended in failure and starvation. So top down attempts to say that the value of garbage collectors is $50 an hour are doomed to failure. Value is exactly what someone is willing to pay for something, not what some random person determines it to be. You assume that no one would be a farmer if they could live on the barest minimum, despite farming yielding a substantially higher income Thats not what I have heard. Farming is a very difficult job, and is not greatly rewarding. It may yield a substantially higher income compared to UBI, but I would be skeptical of even that. And the amount of effort required to be a farmer is huge, so a good number of them may just decide its not worth it and claim UBI instead. If UBI were set at too high a level, then there would be insufficient goods and services produced to sustain UBI at that level. hahahaha. "insufficient goods and services produced". And why, exactly, would "insufficient goods and services be produced"? Its funny how theres absolutely no connection with reality and how goods and services are actually produced. Philippe Van Parijs suggests that UBI should be set at the highest level that is economically sustainable over the longer term. Why would I care what Philippe Van Parijs suggests? UBI has been trialled in at least one Scandinavian country( finland, I think) and was a total disaster. |