Tom Walker answered:
I'd have a look at John Maurice Clark's writing
on labour as an overhead
cost (in his _Studies in the Economics of Overhead Costs_). The
justification is that a wage system is no longer appropriate to the way that
a modern economy works. The wage system is a form of contract, not a fact of
nature.
In the modern economy, the social costs of raising, sustaining, educating
and retiring the labour force far outweighs the marginal cost of each hour
of work performed. Employers don't cut those social costs when they reduce
their workforce, they only shift the costs to the state, to other workers
and other companies and to the unemployed themselves. When everyone tries to
get in on the act of shifting costs, the entire burden falls on those least
able to shift *their* costs.
A basic, guaranteed income is not a panacea and it won't solve all the
problems. But it is an important part of the solution (along with reduced
standard work time). As long as we don't see those parts of the solution
being seriously addressed by government, we can be sure that governments are
not even trying to solve the problem.
Regards,
Tom Walker
cost (in his _Studies in the Economics of Overhead Costs_). The
justification is that a wage system is no longer appropriate to the way that
a modern economy works. The wage system is a form of contract, not a fact of
nature.
In the modern economy, the social costs of raising, sustaining, educating
and retiring the labour force far outweighs the marginal cost of each hour
of work performed. Employers don't cut those social costs when they reduce
their workforce, they only shift the costs to the state, to other workers
and other companies and to the unemployed themselves. When everyone tries to
get in on the act of shifting costs, the entire burden falls on those least
able to shift *their* costs.
A basic, guaranteed income is not a panacea and it won't solve all the
problems. But it is an important part of the solution (along with reduced
standard work time). As long as we don't see those parts of the solution
being seriously addressed by government, we can be sure that governments are
not even trying to solve the problem.
Regards,
Tom Walker
Thomas
If I can try and paraphrase your answer, it
would be that we should change because "a wage system is no longer
appropriate to the way that a modern economy works." And because of
this, the cost of providing a worker is borne by society as a whole and when
business becomes more efficient and produces more with less labour the costs to
society increase. Therefore the current system has an imbalance in the
redistribution of income.
I think many would agree with you but the
question I would ask is what philosophical reason would justify introducing a
Basic Income in answer to the unspoken question of those who are benefiting from
the current system?
