Comment by jwagenet

I'd say basic needs are a safe place to live, food, and some kind of transportation (unless the area is reasonably walkable).

As far as who does the shitty labor jobs, they would need to incentivize that work to make it desirable for people, instead of just expecting someone to need to do it to not die. We are also at a point where a lot of those jobs could be done by machines.

> Finally, who drives garbage trucks, picks food in hot fields, delivers goods by driving all night, etc when they have all of their basic needs met for free?

The idea that we need to ensure that a large enough group is struggling enough to work unsavory jobs is a predatory mindset.

If less people want to work a certain job for any reason, that means that the demand is greater than the supply. In that scenario, the traditional way to get people to work those jobs is to offer more money or other compensation.

Just because people have some food, clothing and shelter does not mean that they won't want better food, better clothing or better shelter.

> What does that look like in terms of actual implementation? Also, where do we draw the line between basic needs and extras?

The most realistic version seems to be Universal Basic Income. Realistic because it’s so simple to implement cf. any system that has to evaluate who is “eligible” and what each person “needs”.

There’s still a debate to be had about how much the UBI should be. Linking it to some linear combination of a food price index and a housing price index seems like a good alternative.

> Finally, who drives garbage trucks, picks food in hot fields, delivers goods by driving all night, etc when they have all of their basic needs met for free?

“Basic needs” could mean many things. Many people arguing for UBI just want to give everyone enough money to afford to rent a small moldy basement and eat something basic for dinner every day. I would assume most people want something more out of life.

> Finally, who drives garbage trucks, picks food in hot fields, delivers goods by driving all night

Someone's children - which is why the scramble for elite education and employment is so brutal as well.

Maybe something like the food stamp program. I haven’t personally used it but it seems to work, considering I’ve never seen an emaciated homeless person in the US.

This question always seemed strange to me. Jobs that no one wants to do, simply don't get done. Simple. If people want something done, they will do it. Not for pay, but for the community. If everyone is truly too selfish to do vital jobs we have 2 choices. Come up with some other way to accomplish the same thing that people do want to do, or that society fails. It's not what people want to hear, but relying on people to be desperate enough to do jobs which they have no say in, simply to avoid dying, seems like a good recipe for a lot of inequality and resentment. Oh wait...

This is a fantastic question.

In nature, every individual has to fight for survival. The strong eat the weak, there is no justice, only a fight to survive.

Civilized society, in my opinion at least, aspires to be something else, something more. There should be justice. We should not impose on the rights of others without due cause.

Currently, as your question points out, we rely on keeping people desperate enough to do uncomfortable jobs for little pay in order to survive. Our economic polices in the U.S. deliberately keep some percentage of the population desperate, whether that's targeting a 4% unemployment rate, keeping a rock bottom minimum wage, trade policy, healthcare policy, I could go on all day.

What if society didn't function this way? What if the wealth that already exists were distributed in a way that people were not desperate just to survive? One mechanism might be a UBI that was sufficient for bare-minimum housing and food costs. Then we'd have to pay people enough that it was worth their time to do those jobs. Goods and services, especially those currently underpaid, would be more expensive. But the people working those jobs would have a lot more income, which would be spent and re-injected into the economy, probably the local economy. I believe that would tend to bubble up the chain - Why should I deal with all the stress of project deadlines if I could check groceries for a similar paycheck? Things would cost more, but we would also be paid more.

Ultimately I think the goal would be a more equitable distribution of wealth. The counter-argument I usually see is that wealthy individuals have created the wealth they have, and have a right to it. I would disagree, pointing to the same policies above that depress wages and encourage people to take poorly paying jobs.

Europe (i.e. Austria) seems to have this down pretty well. Of course, the trade-off is no hyper capitalism, really high taxes and getting most innovations much later than most.

On the other hand no Austrian citizen had to worry about starving, affording higher education, landing on the streets, getting medical care, etc. in a long long long(!) while.

I think if basic needs are met, then abled-bodied and able-minded individuals will still want to work. They'll just be empowered to have more choice in where they work and how much they work for.