Re:Uber will charge significantly more per trip as new Seatt...
by AnthonyMouse on Thursday December 31, 2020 @02:28AM
(#25590430)
> A living wage for an individual with no children in King County, Washington is $16.09 per hour worked. If you pay less than that, the government via entitlement programs makes up the difference.
That isn't how a NIT/UBI works. There is no making up the difference, everyone gets the same amount from the government in all cases.
Moreover, the frame you're using is that the employer owes the employee a living wage. It assumes that if the employer can't stay in business paying $16.09 then the employee will get the higher wage regardless. But if that alternative was available, why wouldn't they have taken the other, higher paying job to begin with? And if the alternative is instead unemployment, you are obviously doing no one any favors by prohibiting them from making some money rather than none.
Meanwhile it doesn't take into account the cost differences inherent in different forms of employment. If you work across the street from where you live, you have no commuting expense. If you work 60 miles away, at $.59/mile you have >$70/day in commuting expense, equivalent to $8.85/hour in wages. After taxes. And you lose two hours a day to sitting in traffic. It would be totally rational for someone to prefer the job across the street for $7.50/hour to the one 60 miles away for $16.09/hour, but your position is that they should be prohibited from taking that job even though it would be better for both them and society.
That isn't how a NIT/UBI works. There is no making up the difference, everyone gets the same amount from the government in all cases.
Moreover, the frame you're using is that the employer owes the employee a living wage. It assumes that if the employer can't stay in business paying $16.09 then the employee will get the higher wage regardless. But if that alternative was available, why wouldn't they have taken the other, higher paying job to begin with? And if the alternative is instead unemployment, you are obviously doing no one any favors by prohibiting them from making some money rather than none.
Meanwhile it doesn't take into account the cost differences inherent in different forms of employment. If you work across the street from where you live, you have no commuting expense. If you work 60 miles away, at $.59/mile you have >$70/day in commuting expense, equivalent to $8.85/hour in wages. After taxes. And you lose two hours a day to sitting in traffic. It would be totally rational for someone to prefer the job across the street for $7.50/hour to the one 60 miles away for $16.09/hour, but your position is that they should be prohibited from taking that job even though it would be better for both them and society.