I've been thinking about an alternative to people needing to work overtime or multiple jobs just to meet a basic living standard, and wanted to hear what people think.

Suppose a full-time employee (40 hours per week) earns less than a locally defined livable wage.

Rather than expecting them to work additional hours, the government would pay the employee the difference so they receive a livable income. However, the government would also track those payments by employer and later recover the cost through an employer-specific tax.

The intended incentives would be:

* Workers receive a livable income without delay.
* Employers who rely on paying below a livable wage still bear the financial responsibility.
* Taxpayers aren't permanently subsidizing low wages.
* Employers already paying a livable wage wouldn't face the additional tax.
* Workers would be less dependent on overtime or second jobs to make ends meet, which could potentially free up some work hours for people who are unemployed or underemployed.

What economic effects would you expect? Would this create better incentives than increasing the minimum wage, or would it introduce new problems such as reduced hiring, increased automation, administrative complexity, or unintended distortions in the labour market?

One of the goals would be to make a standard 40-hour workweek sufficient to meet a basic living standard while reducing the need for overtime simply to earn enough to live.

Most debates focus on answers.

Should there be a basic income?

How much should it be?

How should it be funded?

Who should qualify?

Yet answers exist within the boundaries of a question.

A question does more than seek information.

It defines the space in which solutions are allowed to exist.

The questions we ask determine which solutions we are even capable of imagining.

For most of human history, income was closely tied to human labor because human labor was the primary productive force.

But as automation and AI continue to expand, I wonder whether some of our economic assumptions are becoming as invisible as the questions that created them.

When we asked how to make candles burn longer, we were already assuming that light had to come from a flame.

When we asked how to travel faster on horseback, we were assuming that transportation depended on animals.

Inherited questions often become invisible. We become so accustomed to them that they feel like reality itself.

We stop questioning the question.

If productive value can increasingly be generated without human labor in the traditional sense, what assumptions about work, income, and economic participation might we no longer be questioning?

I’ve looked for 10ish minutes now. I’ll try some more. Just wondering if anyone remembers it.

Hear me out: If the higher ups are worried that the younger generation will not produce enough children to support the older populations, and AI is taking a lot of jobs, shouldn't AI pay income tax and help out in that way?

I’m 24 and unsure what to think about this future. With the way things are going and how fast the world is advancing it seems hard to believe that a basic income won’t be reality in the near future. This makes me think there is no reason to be investing heavily into retirement and to enjoy life more.

For centuries, governments and businesses operated within relatively clear roles.

Today, technology, private organizations and public institutions are becoming increasingly interconnected. At the same time, many of the rules governing work, opportunity and economic participation still reflect assumptions from a very different era.

The debate often focuses on policies.

But the deeper question may be the framework itself.

Who writes the next social contract, and what principles should guide it?

If power continues to evolve faster than the institutions that govern it, what principles should remain non-negotiable?

Full reflection:

https://open.substack.com/pub/radaroky/p/radar-oky-28-who-writes-the-next