[Ark2]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think you're missing the point here, which is that a new system is meant to change the way things and the current system, and that if some of the same problems that exist today (inflation, tax avoidance) will exist tomorrow, that's ok, because they are not the problems being addressed.

If jobs need to be done, they should be paid enough to be done. If UBI makes it so that they need to be paid more to be done, then they will be paid more to be done. And if UBI does that, it suggests they were not properly valued in the first place, and were instead just taking advantage of a broken system. You essentially require all jobs that exist solely on the back of taking advantage of the need to survive, and you force them to be paid closer to the value of the work. Is being a janitor any less important or valuable than being an accountant? And if so, does the discrepancy between pay accurately reflect the discrepancy between value? Maybe not. Just because a job does not require an education, does not mean it holds significantly less value than one that does (this goes back to the education argument earlier). It feels vaguely like the perception that white collar work is more important or valuable than blue collar work, which I don't think is valid.

And unless you can show with some degree of evidence that the increase in tax avoidance and inflation will outweigh the benefits of UBI, it's not a compelling argument. Just saying some problems that currently exist will also exist later, is not swaying anyone.

Wages are dictated by supply and demand. The skillset that an accountant has is more rare and in higher demand than that of a janitor, hence the reason that the accountant is paid more. Paying someone more because you feel the job is undesirable despite the fact that it is a low skill position that is not highly in demand seems quite odd to me. It also leads me to think that you do not understand how markets work.