The "goal" of a low wage job is for an employer to make a profit from someone else's labor, and to only allow them to subsist.

UBI promotes subsistence but crucially allows someone enough time to find more substantial opportunities.

And UBI won't necessarily kill low-wage work – in some ways, it makes space for it. I'm an EMT, and I make minimum wage, and I work 48-72 hours a week on the ambulance. UBI would make it so that I don't need another job to support a family, and could live healthily and with dignity on just those 48-72 hours a week.

>>The "goal" of a low wage job is for an employer to make a profit from someone else's labor

That is the goal of all jobs, high, low, middle

Employers are not charity, they do not employ people so they can have a good income.

Employers employ people because they need work done to make money off that work, the second you cost your employer more than they make off your work you are out of a job.

Sometimes that cut off is more direct (i.e if you make widgets your per hour the rate of manufacture can easily be factored into the cost of making the widget) but if you some do something more nebulous like cleaning the floors, or filing papers, that can be harder to calculate but every business does.

That's right, but we don't have a society unless people have incomes so maybe this isn't a good model for funding a civil society?

This is not the case - there's plenty of civil societies that have existed over the millennia that are subsistence economies. They aren't wealthy, but that isn't the point.

> However, these jobs are not meant to create wealth. They're meant to provide subsistance. This is much the same goal of UBI.

I'm not even a proponent of UBI, but I immediately see a few problems with your argument here:

1) They often don't provide subsistence, hence the necessity for many people to have multiple jobs. While we can adjust UBI accordingly (to some extent, obviously CoL is a thing), it's significantly more difficult to adjust around people working multiple jobs.

2) You're missing a critical component of UBI, which is that people are free to pursue whatever they might like (including nothing at all) without the fear of losing basic necessities. Low wage jobs obviously preclude you from doing that--because you're, well, spending your time working those jobs.

This is hyperbole of course, but we may very well be missing out on a modern-era Emily Dickinson or Darwin because they're spending all their time working minimum wage jobs.

3) Everyone's already moving heavily towards automation. Corporations don't employ people out of the goodness of their hearts. The second it becomes cheaper to automate something, those jobs will disappear. You can already see this to some extent with automated checkout lines, internet vs. retail shopping, etc. Unless you do something drastic ala NJ and Oregon with enforcing low-wage work like gas station attendants, those jobs quickly fade away.

> one problem with UBI is that it comes at the expense of personal gratification and economic productivity

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. UBI allows people to pursue what they are passionate about, work where they truly want to, and help start a new business. The data backs that people will not work less, but be able to have more freedom in what job they do work in. I highly recommend Yang's book about this: https://www.hachettebooks.com/titles/andrew-yang/the-war-on-...

> However, many state that one problem with UBI is that it comes at the expense of personal gratification and economic productivity.

Personal gratification in the form of extremely boring, demeaning, repetitive work which barely gives you enough money to live in poverty?

> However, these jobs are not meant to create wealth. They're meant to provide subsistance.

Minimum wage jobs are not meant to provide subsistence. They're meant to extract maximum profit from financially vulnerable people.

> Rather than pushing up wages for low wage work, dis-incentivization of low wage will push employers towards automation.

That's already the case regardless of UBI.

> As such, low wage is a support of employment generally.

Not really, I doubt Google's software engineer hiring gets harder or doctors go out of work if less people are willing to work minimum wage at Walmart.

Why does it make sense to force private industry to provide a UBI? A minimum wage job puts a floor on what can be paid and this fundementally distorts the labor market. If a job does not provide enough value to the employer to meet minimum wage it will not exist for very long. This rules out many types of work where the value is hard to capture and pushes all of that work into the domain of either being funded by government or non-profits. This also potentially prevents labor participation by certain categories of handicapped individuals who have the potential to provide value to society and experience satisfaction in their work but can't compete in a marketplace distorted by a minimum wage.

If anything, a UBI enables low-wage work, especially when that work provides satisfaction to the employed. It also can increase economic productivity because the labor market will be able to distribute labor more efficiently.

This brings up the interesting (to discuss) idea that if a UBI is implemented, there should no longer be a minimum wage as the UBI places a floor on income. In many ways the minimum wage doesn't offer benefit in an economy where the self-employed will participate out of their free will in income generation through service such as Uber, DoorDash, Etsy. Often those self-income sources generate less on a per-hour basis than minimum wage, however, since the income earner is free to stop and start at will the presence of a floor of hourly wage has no impact.

It seems like you could pair a gradual introduction of a UBI with a commensurate reduction in the minimum wage and slowly find the sweet spot for our current economy. It seems like this could be a good form of economic stimulus during downturns.

I think employers will move toward automation regardless, so in a way UBI has an advantage there. I also think preventing automation just so humans have something to do isn't reasonable. Let's progress technology, and think of ways to give more dignity to humans at the same time!

Lastly, the benefits point you made does make sense, except a "retirement" benefit shouldn't be needed (it only exists because eventually you can't do work but need money - basically what UBI already is)

Yes, Social Security and Pension benefits are indeed a form of UBI, earned through employment contributions.

Also to add to your points above, in the scenario where all possible low wage jobs are eliminated through automation, this would require a dramatic restructuring of the labor pool and economic environment. This is further evidence of the role low wage plays in current economy.

In the situation where low wage jobs are fully eliminated, all that remains are concentrations of high wage / self-employed pools and a very large amount of automation systems that would require management.

Perhaps one alternative to UBI is the creation of patronage systems that can support human endeavors where no productivity output is required, but human creativity output is desired. Something to think about.

The typical low wage job is meant to (using your term) build wealth for the employer.

That is often the case. The function of the low wage job is for the benefit of the employer, not the employee. The function of UBI is neither to build wealth for the individual nor the economy as a whole. Wealth still becomes concentrated with the smaller pool of individuals in control of resources and means of production.

It seems to me that the difference is that with UBI you can use the time that you would otherwise be working to prepare for a new job, look for a new job, or to do work that doesn't pay (e.g. art).

On the other hand, a low wage job takes up the same amount of time as a regular job but doesn't provide many of the benefits (e.g. financial security, sufficient discretionary money to pursue your goals, the ability to purchase a house, etc.).

Just that earning that little and not being able to just quit and being highly dependend is exactly what a ubi is trying to fix.

My position pays well and I'm an expert. I can choose my job to a certain degree and people are looking for me to keep me.

This is luxury. You are at the grace of your shift manager.

Our society needs a way to ubi to find a new more fulfilling future with tons of automatization. Like in Star trek.

Unfortunately the existing landscape of flipping burgers and driving for Uber Eats is fairly limited.

UBI allows people to be productive in ways that haven't always been appreciated by society such as raising children, producing a profound portfolio of art, or caring for the disadvantaged.