[Ark2]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yes, wages are tied to supply and demand, obviously, thank you. But it feels like you forgot the supply part of the equation. The supply of workforce doesn't just depend on skillset, it also depends on willingness to do the work/desirability of the job and location of the workforce (amongst other things).

Agreed. And I have never meant to suggest that I think otherwise. Supply means actual supply. Not people that could do it but won't. I assumed that was self-explanatory.

Right now, being a janitor is a low-demand job, right? It's essential, many businesses and buildings need janitors, but there is a large supply of workforce because the skillset required is not hard to obtain nor is it rare.

I would go one further and question just how essential it is. Most small and medium sized companies do not require full time janitorial services. Many businesses are able to get by with a cleaning person that comes in after hours for a couple hours throughout the week.

But the willingness to do the work/desirability of the job is low, so that should remove a large portion of the supply, thus creating higher wages, right?

Is it difficult to hire a janitor? Are there janitorial job postings that go for months on end without being filled? I've never heard this so please advise if so. On the other hand, if these jobs are filled rather quickly, then I would say that at worst, the supply is adequate for the demand. At worst, there is excess supply for the demand.

But let's explore this a bit more: even if you have a skillset for a job that is rare, it does not mean that you will be able to command a high wage. That job also needs to have a high perceived value (again, this is something that I roll into demand). Would a full time janitorial position have that much value to you as a business owner when you can get away with having someone come in for 2 hours 3 nights a week and pay them out of petty cash?

Well, it doesn't, because people need to work to survive, and even the lowest paid job is still a job. So the supply is artificially propped up.

Again, statements like this make it sound like you don't understand how markets work. Business owners don't get together and arbitrarily decide to suppress wages for certain jobs.

That's the issue. With a UBI, that supply would diminish so wages would be forced to go up to compensate, and reflect something that is probably closer to the true value of the work.

Why would the supply diminish? Just about everyone advocating for UBI is insisting that people wouldn't drop out of the workforce if given UBI. If low skilled workers are only capable of performing these undesirable jobs, and if they definitely would continue to work, I fail to see how the supply would be impacted by this.

Here's the thing: you and I would like to see the same thing, which is people ultimately earning better wages. We just fundamentally disagree on how to go about achieving this. My view is that the best way someone can earn a better living is to develop a skillset that is in demand and rare. Do that and you are guaranteed to earn more. I think this is also far more practical a solution than UBI which I feel would be unsustainable financially, and also extremely deleterious to our democracy.