Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sergarr]

Horseshoe theory, man.

Anti-EU? Are they anti-NATO, too, per chance, or are they less of a political prostitutes that will sell their own country to an enemy power (like National Front to Russia)?

Ar you calling anti-NATO parties political prostitutes? Damn, I thought you were a cliché Russian

Well what else they are, if they (National Front and the others of that kind) get a big chunk of their funding from Russia?

They betray interests of their own country politically for money, like a prostitute. Hence "political prostitutes".

[SirQuiamus]

This is a nice infographic.

[Reelya]

Unskilled labor means jobs that don't require much training or special knowledge. If you're only able to mop floors, then you're up shit creek when they invent a floor-cleaning machine. "everyone" doesn't have to be able to do "everything". Specialization just means you have to find a single thing you're good at.

The only way to prevent unskilled jobs being lost is some sort of government sanction on doing things in a more sensible manner. Or maybe we abolish minimum wage and also abolish welfare, and let employers pick up desperate people for 50 cents and hour.

If you're not good at anything, then you are royally screwed, but it's not anyone's fault. It's just inevitable.

If you apply Hume's guillotine on a Pollyanna and a Pragmatist, which one will lose their head?
I know that I'm far out in terms of starry-eyed idealism, but I honestly believe that we should stop obsessing over efficiency, as long as it doesn't mean being less ecological. If being humane means being inefficient, why are we always opting for inhumanity?

Spoiler: all-too-personal, and kinda offtopic. (click to show/hide)

Thinking about this from my own point of view: Yes, I'm in need of cash and a bit ... unemployable. And yes, I would very much like to work (temporarily) in a crappy unskilled-labour job, but that ain't gonna happen. I've sent applications and gone to interviews, with predictable results: "You're in your late twenties and you have a blank CV? And an extensive history of mental illness and substance abuse? Sorry mate, but you're not fit to shovel shit with those qualifications ... go die in a ditch or something." It may sound strange, but I don't want any more free time. I want to do something and get paid for it; I want to stop myself from starving with my own strength. That option is not available to me in this society.

That's a huge straw man, and off-tangent to the discussion. Which is the industrial economy vs the service economy.

People needs jobs. But we already make too much shit. Hence, service jobs are on the rise.

"efficiency" is just another way of saying "cost". what really matters is that people take price into consideration when buying things. A factory owner can't just say "to hell with efficiency, i'm hiring more unskilled labor" ... because this will mean he will have to price his goods higher than the current market price. That guy doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's up to the consumers to vote with their dollars how things are made.

As for the personal stuff ... removing 'efficiency' won't necessarily help you get a job. If they do that then prices will inevitably go up, but you might still not be employable. Also, with less output per person, wages will need to drop. So you have higher prices and lower wages, meaning a real drop in how much each person can afford whether you're working or not. Of course with pressure on higher prices and lower wages, demand will slump to bring things back into balance. Which will reduce labor demands and put further downward pressure on wages. If this is any more than a token amount of the workforce, then there is a real risk of a deflationary spiral / depression.

[Descan]

The easy solution is a basic income, whether it'd work or not is hard to tell, but it's not something that's (politically) easy to put in place, especially in a way that won't result in run-away inflation. But it'd mean you didn't need to work to not starve, you'd be able to survive not finding a job, free to work on your skills to get some income going, or be able to just coast on it and leave a position open in the workforce for someone who does want to work.

[Reelya]

A basic income plan is great. One thing is that providing everyone with a base income could replace some of the progressive tax rates for low to medium earners. You know how people under income X don't pay tax etc? with a basic income you don't need to track earned income at all when working out benefits.

e.g. if everyone got $10K a year in basic income then income tax was a flat-rate on every dollar earned, you could have a simpler tax system while also providing for the poor, without those perverse incentives that penalize you for taking part-time work. This would even work if a fair chunk was taken out of earned dollars. e.g. if 30% income tax was paid, and 10K per year given in basic income, then the tax rate on the rich earners would approach 30%, while people under $33000 would effectively pay zero or negative tax rates. All without needing to calculate tax returns or progressive taxes. So, yeah, much simpler system and streamlines the tax office and welfare system.

[SirQuiamus]

People needs jobs. But we already make too much shit. Hence, service jobs are on the rise.

Shouldn't we be hiring more people and making less shit? Of course not, that'd be crazy.
But that's the thing... you cannot purposefully undermine efficiency in a market economy because that'll just lead into depression and poverty. On the other hand, increasing efficiency by lowering wages and firing most of the workforce might also create poverty, but it will do so much good for stock prices and dividends ... which will eventually somehow benefit everyone, the liberalists say. I obviously have no idea how to fix this, but my inebry-addled brain is saying that it's wrong, wrong, wrong.

EDIT:
Basic income would be great, but we can't have nice things because lol austerity. Gotta make cuts and increase that efficiency!       

[Reelya]

Austerity only exists because of the huge amount of government money that keeps the economy afloat. If pure capitalism worked, there wouldn't be any such thing as austerity. Even in the USA, government spending is about 40% of the economy. So much for the capitalist mecca. But ... if austerity is even a concept, then your entire economy is running on hand-outs.

But in the long run, if the government constantly spends more than they tax then inflation has to rise to cover that, making everyone poorer. What's the alternative to austerity? A massive tax hike, borrow huge amounts of money from other countries, or print fake money. Any of these, or austerity, is going to screw you over massively in the long or short term. It's just a matter of which hole you prefer to take it in.

[Frumple]

Pretty sure basic income's major opposition is less austerity and more just-world fallacy. Lot of the time giving people a basic livable income means you can just outright scrap most of the rest of welfare system and save money per head, nevermind the knock-on effects (greater productivity in those who still work, which is a majority, significant increase in entrepreneurial efforts since folks can suddenly afford to take risks, etc., etc.) of having people not having to worry about starving to death on the streets.

And yeah, we're well aware at this point from the statistics of it that trickle-down just doesn't bleedin' work, from what I remember. Wealth concentration in the top echelons just means greater wealth disparity and a steady decrease in median wealth for the country in question. Give "better" stock prices and more dividends and most of what you end up with is fewer, richer, rich people.

[Sergarr]

The easy solution is a basic income, whether it'd work or not is hard to tell, but it's not something that's (politically) easy to put in place, especially in a way that won't result in run-away inflation. But it'd mean you didn't need to work to not starve, you'd be able to survive not finding a job, free to work on your skills to get some income going, or be able to just coast on it and leave a position open in the workforce for someone who does want to work.

What about something like "basic welfare", some guaranteed minimal set of goods for everyone? That way you at least bypass the inflation issues.

And it would be logical to have, too. Just like we already have some human rights - for freedom of speech and the like - written in constitutions, we would just have to add the rights of humans to live - and a right for what is required for human to live.

[Frumple]

From what I recall, a basic income is actually better at doing that than, well, that. Does mostly the same thing, but allows for extra bits (excess education, minor capital investment, business startup, limited entertainment, etc.) on the side, while also cutting out part of the administration burden. Just givin' everyone cash takes less bureaucracy than giving them gift baskets or whatev', takes advantage of already existent infrastructure, and lets 'em better tailor the resources to their personal situation.

You just have to, y'know, peg the basic income to inflation and maybe general cost of living, instead of doing stupid shit like we do over here in the states and fight over the amounts every few years.

'Course, it'd probably be easier to institute a universal goods welfare type thing than basic income at the moment, so maybe as a transitional effort?

[SirQuiamus]

Pretty sure basic income's major opposition is less austerity and more just-world fallacy.

Judging by the local debate around here, I'd say both, equally. "We cannot afford it" and "you don't deserve it" are regularly articulated together. Thing is, with a magnificent, capitalistic market economy, we could get rid of the former, but not the latter of those two idiocies. The society would still be divided into "haves" and "have-nots," not so much on the basis of money, but on the basis of work and the associated social status -- the useful versus the useless. Can everyone be self-employed? Some say yes, others say no ... I don't know.

[Sergarr]

From what I recall, a basic income is actually better at doing that than, well, that. Does mostly the same thing, but allows for extra bits (excess education, minor capital investment, business startup, limited entertainment, etc.) on the side, while also cutting out part of the administration burden. Just givin' everyone cash takes less bureaucracy than giving them gift baskets or whatev', takes advantage of already existent infrastructure, and lets 'em better tailor the resources to their personal situation.

You just have to, y'know, peg the basic income to inflation and maybe general cost of living, instead of doing stupid shit like we do over here in the states and fight over the amounts every few years.

'Course, it'd probably be easier to institute a universal goods welfare type thing than basic income at the moment, so maybe as a transitional effort?

The basic welfare is better in a sense that (humans basics needs) change much slower than prices.

It's also much less exploitable.

[Descan]

How do you expect them to exploit it? Most systems have it working through the tax system, so trying to get more would be tax fraud of some nature, which are already gone after.

[Reelya]

Pre-determined handouts are harder to do than you think as well. Try and come up with a set of rations that will do for everyone in an entire country. You obviously want something that doesn't spoil, so any fresh food is a no-no. But what if people don't want what you're handing out. I've had charity food before. About 70% of the weight is food you will never eat.

Also, what about clothes? It's not like you can hand out "units of clothes" in any reasonable way that everyone will want.

[Sergarr]

How do you expect them to exploit it? Most systems have it working through the tax system, so trying to get more would be tax fraud of some nature, which are already gone after.

Well, since basic income is the same for all people, maximizing the number of people = maximizing the basic income.
Also, that basic income can be used in self-destructive purposes, like on excessive amounts of alcohol and such.
And there's also the risk of some charismatic guy going in and crowdfunding all that money away from people for his own purposes, leaving those people with no money to live on.

Pre-determined handouts are harder to do than you think as well. Try and come up with a set of rations that will do for everyone in an entire country. You obviously want something that doesn't spoil, so any fresh food is a no-no. But what if people don't want what you're handing out. I've had charity food before. About 70% of the weight is food you will never eat.

Also, what about clothes? It's not like you can hand out "units of clothes" in any reasonable way that everyone will want.

Army, prisons and hospitals have already solved all these problems, with rations and clothes for everyone.