andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-09-01 08:21 am
andrewducker) wrote2003-09-01 08:21 am
Robots and Income
All you people interested in a possible future of income, go and have a read of this.
In it the writer points out that increasing automation is basically going to create an unemployed class and that something is going to have to be done about this. He basically invents Citizen's Income, an idea I'm wholly in favour of. I sent him an email telling him that the idea had been invented numerous times before (with a few links) and some off the top of my head figures:
In my opinion, the best way to manage citizen's income is as a percentage of the median wage, and then tax _everyone_ at 50% of their wages (obviously you don't tax the citizen's income bit), simultaneously simplifying the taxation of individuals so that there are no fiddly exemptions.
Let's say that the median wage is $30,000 and citizen's income is set at 2/3 of that ($20,000).
if the person was earning nothing, then suddenly they're $20,000 better off.
If they were earning a low wage of $15,000, then they're now earning ($15,000/2 + $20,000 = )$27,500, a substantial rise.
A person on the median wage goes from $30,000 to $35,000.
A person on a high wage ($100,000) is now on $70,000.
And a person on a ridiculous wage ($1,000,000) is now on $520,000
All of these final figured should, of course, be compared to the current income _after tax_.
Of course, living in a country, as I do, with a 40% upper tax bracket, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm not sure the average American is going to go for it, but it would certainly revolutionise the world - no more poor people, anywhere...
In it the writer points out that increasing automation is basically going to create an unemployed class and that something is going to have to be done about this. He basically invents Citizen's Income, an idea I'm wholly in favour of. I sent him an email telling him that the idea had been invented numerous times before (with a few links) and some off the top of my head figures:
In my opinion, the best way to manage citizen's income is as a percentage of the median wage, and then tax _everyone_ at 50% of their wages (obviously you don't tax the citizen's income bit), simultaneously simplifying the taxation of individuals so that there are no fiddly exemptions.
Let's say that the median wage is $30,000 and citizen's income is set at 2/3 of that ($20,000).
if the person was earning nothing, then suddenly they're $20,000 better off.
If they were earning a low wage of $15,000, then they're now earning ($15,000/2 + $20,000 = )$27,500, a substantial rise.
A person on the median wage goes from $30,000 to $35,000.
A person on a high wage ($100,000) is now on $70,000.
And a person on a ridiculous wage ($1,000,000) is now on $520,000
All of these final figured should, of course, be compared to the current income _after tax_.
Of course, living in a country, as I do, with a 40% upper tax bracket, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm not sure the average American is going to go for it, but it would certainly revolutionise the world - no more poor people, anywhere...
Re: Frankly, no
Right now you can get about £100 a week for free (income support + housing benefit). Get a minimum wage job (£160 a week) and you basically get an increase of £30 a week over that(after tax), meaning you work for £1 an hour increase in income, usually in a shitty job.
Who the hell wants to do that? Especially when unemployed people can usually get discounts off of a variety of things and don't pay poll tax, etc.
With my system, assuming that you were still getting paid £160 a week you'd get an extra £80 a week out of it, which is an amount that people might actually be interested in. It might actually encourage people back to work...
Oh, also, if you have a safety net it's much easier to say "Fuck You" to your boss and go find a differen minimum wage job that's a little less shitty, encouraging employers not to make cheap jobs as shitty as possible. I know people that were stuck in jobs that would have been bearable if they'd been run properly, but because they were stuck in a "shit job or starve to death" situation the management had no reason to make the job less evil.
All of this is from something I've been writing for months now, and is up to about 10,000 words. When it's finished and vaguely coherent I'll post a link to it :->
Frankly, no
As for employers... well, usually there's a reason that the wages and benefits package are shitty... usually, several alternatives have been considered, and the cheapest one wins out. The very real problem with creating added pressure on management to improve the quality of working remuneration is that it's very simple for them to out-source to eg India, or China, as I've seen with a few of my clients. As far as I know, there's no citizens wage in China.
Harsh realist? Maybe...
Adam
Re: Frankly, no
And you can't outsource shitty mcjobs like being a cinema usher. I remember when all of my friends worked at the local bingo and were unnecessarily badly treated. To treat them with a little respect would have cost the company nothing (or possibly peanuts), but the employees had no leverage to get that respect with, because they couldn't leave.