A $500 monthly boost led to significant employment growth, enhanced savings, improved debt management, and better quality of life for diverse King County residents facing poverty. The Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) Pilot, designed by the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County (WDC) and
Employment nearly doubled from 37% to 66%, and job quality dramatically increased with greater employee benefits coverage: retirement plans nearly tripled, and life and disability insurance participation showed considerable improvements. Moreover, the ability to cover expenses was consistently boosted, and the savings rate among families with children leapt from 0% to 42%.
If this helps with all of that, how do they prevent companies from pricing it in?
He means reduce wages by $500/month to account for the existence of the program
It’s a valid question I think; I kind of suspect that it doesn’t work that way (that the outcome would be more similar to “wah nobody wants to work for $12/hr anymore” and no workers), but I don’t know enough to say for sure.
Businesses don’t change wages based on tax credits and they don’t give raises based on people’s needs. Did any business cut wages when everyone got any previous rax rebates like the one for covid?
This is such a stupid worry that is just rich people propaganda meant to make people thing that UBI won’t be a positive thing so people don’t push for it. Just like they don’t want single payer healthcare because then they couldn’t use insurance as a way to discourage people from switching to better jobs.
Well, they do reduce wages based on anything and everything that they can get away with. If they’re already getting away with paying people $10/hr or whatever, I think it’s easily plausible that they would realize they can now get away with paying them minimum wage. I don’t think it’s instantly rich people propaganda or a silly concern. Like for example, Wal-Mart among other places definitely pays less because they’ve factored in that people can go on government assistance and stay just barely above water even receiving drowning wages.
Like I say, I don’t think it’ll work out this way in practice (in fact I would expect that it would raise wages because it would reduce people’s desperation and give them options beyond just taking whatever they could find for as many hours as they can stay awake) and it seems on the limited test like it doesn’t. But it doesn’t strike me as automatically a weird question or anything.
You can’t go lower than minimum wage. Those making minimum wage would benefit the most.
Companies still have to keep competitive salaries to maintain a workforce. If they lower their salaries they risk losing employees who can choose to go somewhere that doesn’t lower salaries.
It won’t cost employers anything to keep the same salary. This money would presumably be coming from reallocations of taxes that are currently being collected. For the employer it’s like getting a free raise for their employees.
You can’t go lower than minimum wage. Those making minimum wage would benefit the most.
Better to say “It’s unlawful to go lower than minimum wage”. Though, here are some lawful situations where employers pay sub-minimum wage. We all know companies don’t operate lawfully.
I knew there were circumstances where someone could be paid less than minimum wage but damn…we have a purpose made rule for people with disabilities? It makes me question the places I know have a tendency to hire people with mental disabilities. Did they do it to be kind? Or did they do it to have cheaper labor to go collect shopping carts?
If this helps with all of that, how do they prevent companies from pricing it in?
They already raise prices without rising wages, because prices are not tied to income.
He means reduce wages by $500/month to account for the existence of the program
It’s a valid question I think; I kind of suspect that it doesn’t work that way (that the outcome would be more similar to “wah nobody wants to work for $12/hr anymore” and no workers), but I don’t know enough to say for sure.
Businesses don’t change wages based on tax credits and they don’t give raises based on people’s needs. Did any business cut wages when everyone got any previous rax rebates like the one for covid?
This is such a stupid worry that is just rich people propaganda meant to make people thing that UBI won’t be a positive thing so people don’t push for it. Just like they don’t want single payer healthcare because then they couldn’t use insurance as a way to discourage people from switching to better jobs.
Well, they do reduce wages based on anything and everything that they can get away with. If they’re already getting away with paying people $10/hr or whatever, I think it’s easily plausible that they would realize they can now get away with paying them minimum wage. I don’t think it’s instantly rich people propaganda or a silly concern. Like for example, Wal-Mart among other places definitely pays less because they’ve factored in that people can go on government assistance and stay just barely above water even receiving drowning wages.
Like I say, I don’t think it’ll work out this way in practice (in fact I would expect that it would raise wages because it would reduce people’s desperation and give them options beyond just taking whatever they could find for as many hours as they can stay awake) and it seems on the limited test like it doesn’t. But it doesn’t strike me as automatically a weird question or anything.
Better to say “It’s unlawful to go lower than minimum wage”. Though, here are some lawful situations where employers pay sub-minimum wage. We all know companies don’t operate lawfully.
I knew there were circumstances where someone could be paid less than minimum wage but damn…we have a purpose made rule for people with disabilities? It makes me question the places I know have a tendency to hire people with mental disabilities. Did they do it to be kind? Or did they do it to have cheaper labor to go collect shopping carts?
Search deep within yourself of what you know of the American state
You know which is the answer
It has been with you, all this time