> I never heard a low-paid worker throw this argument. It always comes from people who have better jobs and more stable income

I grew up in dirt poor family of 6 in a post civil war country and my mother is a nurse - I'm very familiar with the realities of these jobs. I just know for a fact that if a nurse would start making 2x her salary a lot of people would suddenly not have access to assisted care. It's a shitty situation - but supply of cheap labor solves the problems of poor people - if you can't see that you're out of touch.

Rich and well off people will always have access - they already pay more anyway for quality.

So your mother said that she wanted this low paying job because noone would do the job otherwise? I am trying to figure out how you are contradicting my argument that only people with better jobs propagate these things

It appears as a variant of the 'check your privilege' argument. Everyone who disagrees with UBI, minimum wage increases is privileged and lacking empathy according to this generalization.

While the actual thread appears to be about incentives.

There are many who have worked entry level jobs who would object to UBI or minimum wage price fixing on purely economic terms.

There are also those who are unable to afford the current cost of living or gain employment due to interventions in the market. It wouldn't be difficult to unfairly characterize interventionists as insensitive to the plight of the poor.

> Everyone who disagrees with UBI, minimum wage increases is privileged and lacking empathy according to this generalization.

First, I didn't make such a generalization and second, even if I did, you would have inverted the logic.

I said argument X comes only from people of category R, who are not affected by a problem.

This doesn't mean all people in R agree with argument X. It means That I've never heard argument X from people outside R