Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

Well, I think my plan of giving every adult individual 20k a year would change that paradigm. Thats why I am saying it would be one of the benefits

You have too much faith in average American's saving habits. Call me cynical but I think if you give a struggling family $20k, they will go buy a yacht. I'm sorry but I've been around too many unbelievable people in US.

 

[The Technomancer]

You have too much faith in average American's saving habits. Call me cynical but I think if you give a struggling family $20k, they will go buy a yacht. I'm sorry but I've been around too many unbelievable people in US.

I can never hear the word yacht without thinking of the old Looney Toons cartoon

"My name is Elmer Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht"

 

[Piecake]

YES! Food is the one thing we won't be trusting robots to do. I mean try and open a restaurant and see how hard it is. There are a lot of hoops to jump through when it comes to handling food, I wrote about it a year or two back. It's relatively easy stuff, but easy to screw up as well. There isn't a whole lot of room for error when it comes to food, one under-cooked burger and you've got food poisoning. We aren't going to be replacing food service workers anytime soon.

we have a good shot of replacing truck and taxi cab drivers though sometime in the near future. And truck drivers is the most common job in the united states for men and pays a decent amount as well.

So its not just check out lines. Hell, even writers are being replaced by algorithms. I am not saying its all doom and gloom, but giving everyone a livable income is a way for us to solve poverty and simply not have to worry about technology replacing our existing jobs

You have too much faith in average American's saving habits. Call me cynical but I think if you give a struggling family $20k, they will go buy a yacht. I'm sorry but I've been around too many unbelievable people in US.

They'd actually get 40k under my plan. And considering my plan would cost a shit ton in taxes my guess is that the salary that they make now would drastically decrease. Companies would pay their workers a lot less because they would now be able to. Its not a proposal to rain a wad of cash on every poor person and tell them to go to town

 

[B-Dubs]

we have a good shot of replacing truck and taxi cab drivers though sometime in the near future. And truck drivers is the most common job in the united states for men and pays a decent amount as well.

So its not just check out lines. Hell, even writers are being replaced by algorithms. I am not saying its all doom and gloom, but giving everyone a livable income is a way for us to solve poverty and simply not have to worry about technology replacing our existing jobs

:lolno

That's the one thing you can't replace. I'd like to see an algorithm write Slaughterhouse-Five or Ulysses. Or if you want to talk Journalism, Hiroshima.

 

[Black Mamba]

Well, those shitty jobs suddenly become extremely well paying jobs that I am sure someone will want to do. And cash register jobs can simply be done by automation

In some areas, not all. But I don't want to harp on 1 specific type of job, I was merely using your example for consistency. The point was those types of jobs.

I'm not sure how those jobs becomes extremely well paying. How will companies afford to pay them? Where is the money coming from?

I am not endorsing home-schooling. I am endorsing giving parents the opportunity to stay home with their 0-4 yearold kid, instead of shipping him off to some shitty daycare place. That is the time we are failing our kids. It isnt the school system that is the problem. It is our complete failure in early childhood education because parents do not have a suitable place to put their kids when they work and can't simply forgo because they need the paycheck

This is something we can deal with in other ways.

As for production, well, I guess we will have to see what the tipping point is and whether automation and the like can make up or make many of our individual production irreleveant

On some things, not everything. As an example, taking care of the elderly which is only going to go up in demand over the next few decades. There will always be "ugly" jobs necessary for people to do, not machines, and we can't risk eliminating those.

Totally srs. shitty baggage from the industrial age. gotta get rid of that shit in the coming decades, especially by the time almost any job involving hard manual labor will be automated(this actually really isn't all that far off, you guys. it's one of my bigger worries, right after climate change and nuclear proliferation.).


haha, I happen to be quite familiar with this field and I have no idea where you got this from. Never seen anyone draw this connection, nor would I call the seventies particular impressive compared to the oughties when it comes to computing technology advances.

What paved the way? When our economy booms, more people can take chances on tech and other things. More people working means more people trying to come up with ideas.

It's all inter-connected. Technological Progress is driven by individual desires. If no one has to work ever and they have whatever they need and want, for the most part, what's going to drive people to innovate? Sure, it won't just completely stop but you're going to slow it down by many factors.


And you're conflating work with exploitation by bringing up the industrial age, earlier. People have always worked, whether it be tending to children, the farm, fishing, etc. There has never been a time when people, in general, didn't work for the livelihood. The Industrial age only brought on the massive exploitation of that laborer by owners of capital, it wasn't the beginning of working.

 

[Piecake]

:lolno

That's the one thing you can't replace. I'd like to see an algorithm write Slaughterhouse-Five or Ulysses. Or if you want to talk Journalism, Hiroshima.

I didnt say all writers. Doesnt change the fact that articles are being written by algorithms now, articles that were formerly written by people.

 

[B-Dubs]

I didnt say all writers. Doesnt change the fact that articles are being written by algorithms now, articles that were formerly written by people.

Can you point to some examples? I've heard of algorithms writing headlines for the internet but that's about it, either way you'll still need a journalist for the research. May as well have him/her write it while he/she's at it.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Maybe like autopilot for truckers probably, not outright replacement. Same with cars, right now that R&D is used as safety and efficiency tools.
Retail stores have more of a chance for full automation given Amazon and Redbox style distribution.

 

[bonercop]

The automation fetish irks me. Like self-checkout is fine and all, but I doubt we are going to be seeing any type of fully automated kitchen or store. It's one of the reasons Fresh and Easy failed to catch on, Americans simply don't like that style.

you're thinking kinda small here, no offense. Stuff like this and this and this and this are examples of technology which pose a real risk to jobs people depend on and are constantly getting better by the day(some of these are already at the point where they can take over, and it's just a matter of proliferation)

Maybe like autopilot for truckers probably, not outright replacement. Same with cars, right now that R&D is used as safety and efficiency tools.

That's not google's long term plan with these things!

And you're conflating work with exploitation by bringing up the industrial age, earlier. People have always worked, whether it be tending to children, the farm, fishing, etc. There has never been a time when people, in general, didn't work for the livelihood. The Industrial age only brought on the massive exploitation of that laborer by owners of capital, it wasn't the beginning of working.

If you agree that people have always worked and are naturally inclined to do so, then I don't see the problem with dropping the whole "job" thing.

 

[Black Mamba]

If you agree that people have always worked and are naturally inclined to do so, then I don't see the problem with dropping the whole "job" thing.

If nobody is working at a "job", how is google making a self-driving car?

 

[Piecake]

If nobody is working at a "job", how is google making a self-driving car?

His point was that you don't have to force people into doing work by making their existence depend on finding a job. The vast majority of people will want to work and feel productive no matter what

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Assembly lines for some cars and motorcycles have an incredible amount of automation (just-in-time systems) but they still employ large amounts of labor.
I'm not saying that will never happen, but it's not a solution to throw up our hands and say "robots" to every social and economic problem. In labor related threads that's been quite the norm on gaf.

 

[Black Mamba]

His point was that you don't have to force people into doing work by making their existence depend on finding a job. The vast majority of people will want to work and feel productive no matter what

Based on what? My point earlier wasn't that people are naturally inclined to work. My point was that work did not begin with the IR, it began from the beginning out of necessity for survival and eventually additional desires. If you don't farm or fish, you don't eat or trade for better material for clothing.

I think it's folly to believe people would work hard if everything was provided for and everyone could just shoot the shit. Again, who is going to willingly take care of the elderly? Clean up their shit, wash and bathe them? You think enough people are out there to do this for nothing other than feeling good about themselves?

 

[bonercop]

If nobody is working at a "job", how is google making a self-driving car?

Well, let me rephrase that then: I don't see the problem with dropping the whole "everyone must have a job" thing.

I believe there are plenty of smart, passionate programmers and engineers who would gladly work on making self-driving cars, without needing the threat of poverty hanging over their heads coercing them into doing it. People aren't naturally inclined towards being couch potatoes! Especially not talented people.

As for the shitty jobs: I think people would gladly do them if they're probably compensated, which they would have to be in a world with guaranteed basic income, since eliminating the threat of poverty would give workers a hell of a lot more bargaining power.

Hell, check the wikipedia page for it, I think it goes a good job summarizing the pros and cons.

I'm not saying that will never happen, but it's not a solution to throw up our hands and say "robots" to every social and economic problem. In labor related threads that's been quite the norm on gaf.

I don't think jobs being destroyed is a solution to anything. I think it's a very big problem, especially in the current dominant socio-economic paradigm.

 

[Piecake]

Assembly lines for some cars and motorcycles have an incredible amount of automation (just-in-time systems) but they still employ large amounts of labor.
I'm not saying that will never happen, but it's not a solution to throw up our hands and say "robots" to every social and economic problem. In labor related threads that's been quite the norm on gaf.

Do you think companies will pay the same amount to a driver who is just there to basically be there in case shit hits the fan than a person actually driving a truck?

Assembly line workers used to be paid a good middle wage that could support a family. Now? Nope. Even if elimination doesnt happen, its still going to hurt the lower and middle class

Based on what? My point earlier wasn't that people are naturally inclined to work. My point was that work did not begin with the IR, it began from the beginning out of necessity for survival and eventually additional desires. If you don't farm or fish, you don't eat or trade for better material for clothing.

I think it's folly to believe people would work hard if everything was provided for and everyone could just shoot the shit. Again, who is going to willingly take care of the elderly? Clean up their shit, wash and bathe them? You think enough people are out there to do this for nothing other than feeling good about themselves?

Id rather find another solution than force people to work such shitty jobs in the first place. Hell, since I love direct transfer payments, people can get 10k a year for taking care of their parents.

 

[bonercop]

Based on what? My point earlier wasn't that people are naturally inclined to work. My point was that work did not begin with the IR, it began from the beginning out of necessity for survival and eventually additional desires. If you don't farm or fish, you don't eat or trade for better material for clothing.

I think it's folly to believe people would work hard if everything was provided for and everyone could just shoot the shit. Again, who is going to willingly take care of the elderly? Clean up their shit, wash and bathe them? You think enough people are out there to do this for nothing other than feeling good about themselves?

Doing nothing is really, really boring and people like to feel productive. They also like cash, which they would get from working in a system with GMI. It ain't primitivism.

 

[Black Mamba]

Well, let me rephrase that then: I don't see the problem with dropping the whole "everyone must have a job" thing.

I believe there are plenty of smart, passionate programmers and engineers who would gladly work on making self-driving cars, without needing the threat of poverty hanging over their heads coercing them into doing it. People aren't naturally inclined towards being couch potatoes! Especially not talented people.

People are naturally selfish and will do selfish things. There will always be some people who are going to do as you say, but the numbers will drop by many factors.

As for the shitty jobs: I think people would gladly do them if they're probably compensated, which they would have to be in a world with guaranteed basic income, since eliminating the threat of poverty would give workers a hell of a lot more bargaining power.

How would it be remotely profitable to do so? of course it gives workers more bargaining power but it also makes the entire industry unworkable. Only the really rich could afford it.

Hell, check the wikipedia page for it, I think it goes a good job summarizing the pros and cons.

Again, we have the EITC which I support and would even raise. Go back and you will see I said as much. I'm not opposed to these things but remember, this is the exact comment you made I was addressing towards you:

"I think people should just do whatever they want to do with their time. fuck calvinism/protestant ethics"

This is more than "basic income." This is people having enough for what the need and mostly what they want. In this world, shit doesn't get done.

Doing nothing is really, really boring and people like to feel productive. They also like cash, which they would get from working in a system with GMI. It ain't primitivism.

People wouldn't be productive by doing the "ugly" jobs though. They do it by going surfing, maybe writing code, writing books, doing art, building weapons, etc but a lot will be lose in the process.

Id rather find another solution than force people to work such shitty jobs in the first place. Hell, since I love direct transfer payments, people can get 10k a year for taking care of their parents.

Said by someone who clearly has never taken care of their parents. BTW, I do have some experience here.

 

[East Lake]

Man I don't really care about the argument but the distant future is going to be ugly. I'm sure we'll get to the point where we can automate necessities but you'll still have class warfare because the dirty slobs get nice fruit or something and the dude designing and manufacturing the latest sex robot has a few old models stolen out of his warehouse. If only the freeloaders would work they could pay for it.

 

[bonercop]

People are naturally selfish and will do selfish things. There will always be some people who are going to do as you say, but the numbers will drop by many factors.

There's nothing selfless about the behavior I described. Smart, talented people will continue to do work on challenging problems because they like doing that, whether they are getting a no-catch 30,000$ check per month along with their pay or not

How would it be remotely profitable to do so? of course it gives workers more bargaining power but it also makes the entire industry unworkable. Only the really rich could afford it.

Piecake already covered this last page. The money from the job would act as a supplement to the average person's monthly guaranteed budget so they can have spending money.

Again, we have the EITC which I support and would even raise. Go back and you will see I said as much. I'm not opposed to these things but remember, this is the exact comment you made I was addressing towards you:

"I think people should just do whatever they want to do with their time. fuck calvinism/protestant ethics"

This is more than "basic income." This is people having enough for what the need and mostly what they want. In this world, shit doesn't get done.

Alright, let me clarify then: I think basic income should cover what people need.

ps. i think that's totally consistent with a "fuck calivinism" philosphy.and the whole " I think people should just do whatever they want to do with their time" sentiment.

 

[Gotchaye]

In some areas, not all. But I don't want to harp on 1 specific type of job, I was merely using your example for consistency. The point was those types of jobs.

I'm not sure how those jobs becomes extremely well paying. How will companies afford to pay them? Where is the money coming from?

But this is something markets are really good at sorting out. Nobody here is proposing a ridiculously high basic income, where it's plausible that if you did that, and pegged it to inflation, the economy simply wouldn't be producing enough stuff to possibly convince enough people to do certain jobs. I've seen $10k-$20k tossed around here, and serious proposals usually hover around $20k. I think it's really unlikely that lots of people opt out of work entirely in such a way that there's no market wage that can get enough people to do a job that doesn't also cause massive inflation. Maybe we have to pay two or three times as much for really unpleasant labor. Is that actually a bad thing?

Consider that this was one of the most popular arguments for why slavery was necessary. "Yeah, slavery is a lot better for the masters than for the slaves, but the system requires that some people be slaves." Now, I'm not saying that what you're doing is the moral equivalent of defending slavery - at minimum you're not advocating for nearly as much immiseration - but I think the logic is similar, and you need an account of why it was wrong then but not now. I think the analogy also makes clear how inegalitarian this thinking is. You're arguing that an underclass who has no choice but to do crappy jobs for low pay is necessary.

Also, I think we have some pretty good evidence that a $15k basic income wouldn't produce opting out on a massive scale. Even using conservative estimates for long-term inflation-adjusted stock market gains, you don't need to amass that much money to be able to rely on being able to withdraw $15k every year for 50 years. And yet even though a bunch of people start making $50-$80k right out of college at age 22 or 23, we just don't see any significant number of them retiring at 30. It seems like we should, if you're right. So that seems to put a ceiling on how high wages need to go in order to get people to keep working full time even if they can count on ~$15k/year. And of course that really is just a ceiling, since even you're fine with people working less and surely it's acceptable for some people to opt out.

Edit: Bonercop just went for a $30k basic income. I'd be uncomfortable starting at this level, but even for a basic income that high we just don't see people quitting their jobs left and right when they can be more-or-less assured of having that kind of income through their investments for the rest of their lives. These are still normal people with normal jobs; I'm not relying on workaholic CEOs who amass more money than they can possibly spend.

 

[Black Mamba]

There's nothing selfless about the behavior I described. Smart, talented people will continue to do work on challenging problems because they like doing that, whether they are getting a no-catch 30,000$ check per month along with their pay or not


Piecake already covered this last page. The money from the job would act as a supplement to the average person's monthly guaranteed budget so they can have spending money.

Alright, let me clarify then: I think basic income should cover what people need.

ps. i think that's totally consistent with a "fuck calivinism" philosphy.and the whole " I think people should just do whatever they want to do with their time" sentiment.

I think the disabled and the elderly should be covered without question. I think those who become unemployed should also be covered for a time (and I'd even support maintaining their previous standard of living up to the median wage or higher).

I don't think people should have to work 2 jobs to sustain their family. Or work super long hours/days. I think everyone should have paid time off without repercussions, etc.

I believe that these things can be achieved through various programs, but without a doubt mandatory wages should be part of it. For one, people feel better about receiving compensation through wages rather than welfare for obvious psychological reasons. For another, I don't want direct transfers to be so high as to dissuade people from working these necessary lower paying jobs.

what I'm saying is I want to cover people, everyone in fact. But I don't want to make it so that people won't become janitors, caregivers, busboys etc because being so isn't worth it since the direct transfers are so high. Good intentions don't make good policy. The problem isn't that people have to be janitors, the problem is that a janitor shouldn't have to work any more than anyone else to provide adequately for their family. That should be the goal and I don't believe solely using direct transfers accomplishes this at all.

 

[bonercop]

But this is something markets are really good at sorting out. Nobody here is proposing a ridiculously high basic income, where it's plausible that if you did that, and pegged it to inflation, the economy simply wouldn't be producing enough stuff to possibly convince enough people to do certain jobs. I've seen $10k-$20k tossed around here, and serious proposals usually hover around $20k. I think it's really unlikely that lots of people opt out of work entirely in such a way that there's no market wage that can get enough people to do a job that doesn't also cause massive inflation. Maybe we have to pay two or three times as much for really unpleasant labor. Is that actually a bad thing?

Consider that this was one of the most popular arguments for why slavery was necessary. "Yeah, slavery is a lot better for the masters than for the slaves, but the system requires that some people be slaves." Now, I'm not saying that what you're doing is the moral equivalent of defending slavery - at minimum you're not advocating for nearly as much immiseration - but I think the logic is similar, and you need an account of why it was wrong then but not now. I think the analogy also makes clear how inegalitarian this thinking is. You're arguing that an underclass who has no choice but to do crappy jobs for low pay is necessary.

Also, I think we have some pretty good evidence that a $15k basic income wouldn't produce opting out on a massive scale. Even using conservative estimates for long-term inflation-adjusted stock market gains, you don't need to amass that much money to be able to rely on being able to withdraw $15k every year for 50 years. And yet even though a bunch of people start making $50-$80k right out of college at age 22 or 23, we just don't see any significant number of them retiring at 30. It seems like we should, if you're right. So that seems to put a ceiling on how high wages need to go in order to get people to keep working full time even if they can count on ~$15k/year. And of course that really is just a ceiling, since even you're fine with people working less and surely it's acceptable for some people to opt out.

This gem from the minimum wage thread seems relevant:

1842: If workers can strike legally, no business will be able to survive!
1887: Give blacks an entire dollar for a day's labor? Might as well burn my business to the ground!
1912: Worker deaths are tragic, but anti-sweatshop laws would be the death of industry in America!
1915: When workers can't be fired for joining a union, how can anyone stay in business?
1924: Banning child labor would destroy the economy!
1938: We can't have a forty hour work week, because if we do there'll be no employers left to hire anyone!
1964: Equal pay for women and blacks? Business can't stay afloat if federal regulations strangle us!
1970: Health and safety laws are a formula for massive permanent unemployment!

I think the disabled and the elderly should be covered without question. I think those who become unemployed should also be covered for a time (and I'd even support maintaining their previous standard of living up to the median wage or higher).

I don't think people should have to work 2 jobs to sustain their family. Or work super long hours/days. I think everyone should have paid time off without repercussions, etc.

I believe that these things can be achieved through various programs, but without a doubt mandatory wages should be part of it. For one, people feel better about receiving compensation through wages rather than welfare for obvious psychological reasons. For another, I don't want direct transfers to be so high as to dissuade people from working these necessary lower paying jobs.

what I'm saying is I want to cover people, everyone in fact. But I don't want to make it so that people won't become janitors, caregivers, busboys etc because being so isn't worth it since the direct transfers are so high. Good intentions don't make good policy. The problem isn't that people have to be janitors, the problem is that a janitor shouldn't have to work any more than anyone else to provide adequately for their family. That should be the goal and I don't believe solely using direct transfers accomplishes this at all.

Alright, that all seems fair and reasonable. I think we just disagree on the details, namely that I seem to have slightly more faith(naivety?) in humanity being able to stop being jerks about things!

 

[Black Mamba]

But this is something markets are really good at sorting out. Nobody here is proposing a ridiculously high basic income, where it's plausible that if you did that, and pegged it to inflation, the economy simply wouldn't be producing enough stuff to possibly convince enough people to do certain jobs. I've seen $10k-$20k tossed around here, and serious proposals usually hover around $20k. I think it's really unlikely that lots of people opt out of work entirely in such a way that there's no market wage that can get enough people to do a job that doesn't also cause massive inflation. Maybe we have to pay two or three times as much for really unpleasant labor. Is that actually a bad thing?

The problem isn't with the idea of paying people more for unpleasant labor. The problem is setting up the system so that it makes economic sense to hire these people for those wages to begin with. There is a wage that exists to convince these people to work but is that wage feasible from the provider's end?

The only way this works is if the gov't pays for these jobs. But at this point, you might as well just have the gov't provide all the jobs, which I'm sure some people support, but I wouldn't classify this as the "market sorting things out."

Consider that this was one of the most popular arguments for why slavery was necessary. "Yeah, slavery is a lot better for the masters than for the slaves, but the system requires that some people be slaves." Now, I'm not saying that what you're doing is the moral equivalent of defending slavery - at minimum you're not advocating for nearly as much immiseration - but I think the logic is similar, and you need an account of why it was wrong then but not now. I think the analogy also makes clear how inegalitarian this thinking is. You're arguing that an underclass who has no choice but to do crappy jobs for low pay is necessary.

This is a ridiculous comparison because I agree with providing a lot more for people but disagree in the approach of how to get it to them. I'm arguing forcing higher wages mixed in with some transfers is more efficient, psychologically rewarding, and practical than simply 100% wealth transfers and I've explained why.

I am not arguing for an underclass that has no choice to do crappy jobs. I'm saying crappy jobs have to be done and in order to get people to do them, they have to be tied to wages (wages I would forcibly increase). You cannot run the risk of nobody doing those jobs because of poorly thought out economic policies to achieve the same goal.

As they say, the devil is in the details.

Also, I think we have some pretty good evidence that a $15k basic income wouldn't produce opting out on a massive scale. Even using conservative estimates for long-term inflation-adjusted stock market gains, you don't need to amass that much money to be able to rely on being able to withdraw $15k every year for 50 years. And yet even though a bunch of people start making $50-$80k right out of college at age 22 or 23, we just don't see any significant number of them retiring at 30. It seems like we should, if you're right. So that seems to put a ceiling on how high wages need to go in order to get people to keep working full time even if they can count on ~$15k/year. And of course that really is just a ceiling, since even you're fine with people working less and surely it's acceptable for some people to opt out.

I've never stated to know where that line exists so this is a red herring. I also didn't argue it would cause people who make $80k to drop out of the labor force (that claim was directly tied to boner's original assertion that people should just do whatever the fuck they want which implied money and jobs are irrelevant to your life), not a basic income.


I think you should go back and re-read my arguments as I am clearly in favor of a transfer of wealth towards the lower end of the spectrum. The disagreements I have is the overall process in accomplishing that goal. I am 100% in favor of gov't intervention, here. I am not in support of unregulated market deciding this. I am not happy with the current state of things. My posts in this thread should make this obvious. And even though you said it wasn't a direct comparison, I find the "slavery" comparison used as quite offensive to my arguments I've made because I am very vocal about my support of improving the lives of those in the lower classes through gov't intervention. I have no idea how me arguing "I'd like a mix of direct transfers and forced higher wages instead of just direct transfers" brings out the slavery mention.

Alright, that all seems fair and reasonable. I think we just disagree on the details, namely that I seem to have slightly more faith(naivety?) in humanity being able to stop being jerks about things!

My reasoning is we wouldn't be in the spot we're in had there been reason to have faith in humanity.

 

[TheHeretic]

The minimum wage is an economic debate about whether raises can actually increase standards of living or whether they just push certain industries further into automation and increase prices to the point of having null effect. But if you strawman the argument into people disagreeing with you hating the poor, then I suppose you win by definition.

 

[Black Mamba]

nm

 

[TheHeretic]

I get straw manned, then you complain I straw manned the straw man. Okay.

Plus, you straw man my argument right here. I never argued anyone said I hated the poor. I said I found the comparison of my arguments to arguments about slavery offensive and ridiculous.

Good job.

I didn't quote you, nor was I responding to you. What an odd post.

 

[Black Mamba]

I didn't quote you, nor was I responding to you. What an odd post.

I saw it directly after my post and thought it was a reply to me.

Re-reading it I see how it was a general response. Sorry, it occurred during an "active" conversation so I made a bad assumption thinking that it was a direct response.

My bad. hugz!?

PS: I blame this awful USC-Hawaii game on it.

 

[eBay Huckster]

PS: I blame this awful USC-Hawaii game on it.

I'm streaming that game right now and I absolutely do not blame you for that

 

[Gotchaye]

The problem isn't with the idea of paying people more for unpleasant labor. The problem is setting up the system so that it makes economic sense to hire these people for those wages to begin with. There is a wage that exists to convince these people to work but is that wage feasible from the provider's end?

The only way this works is if the gov't pays for these jobs. But at this point, you might as well just have the gov't provide all the jobs, which I'm sure some people support, but I wouldn't classify this as the "market sorting things out."

But most of my post was about how we have every reason to expect that those wages are at most, say, three times higher than they are now for basic incomes at levels people are actually proposing. That's not a qualitative difference. If you're just meaning to argue against effectively doing away with compensation for labor entirely by giving everyone so much that additional money isn't useful, then fine, but I don't think that's a fair interpretation of what bonercop said (and he's since clarified that it's not what he meant). I'm not really sure what you're talking about when you say that this only works if the government is providing the jobs - if it is literally true that people have no use for work, there is /no/ wage at which they're going to be willing to work. That the basic income is at some high finite level is implicit in what you're saying here - what level of basic income are you arguing against?

This is a ridiculous comparison because I agree with providing a lot more for people but disagree in the approach of how to get it to them. I'm arguing forcing higher wages mixed in with some transfers is more efficient, psychologically rewarding, and practical than simply 100% wealth transfers and I've explained why.

I am not arguing for an underclass that has no choice to do crappy jobs. I'm saying crappy jobs have to be done and in order to get people to do them, they have to be tied to wages (wages I would forcibly increase). You cannot run the risk of nobody doing those jobs because of poorly thought out economic policies to achieve the same goal.

I tried to be clear that I'm not saying your argument is evil or even that it must be wrong (although of course I think it's wrong). I'm pointing out what I see as a similarity between it and an argument that we all agree is wrong. I was explicit that I don't read you as saying we should be nearly as bad to the worst-off.

And if you're actually not arguing for an underclass then I was very wrong in my interpretation of you. But right after denying that that's what you're doing you talk about a risk of "nobody doing those jobs". Who do you envision doing those jobs? Are you talking about such a high minimum wage (and probably job-specific wages, if we're going to be trying to make unpleasant jobs pay more) that a significant number of children coming from the top 30% of households will be at least a little tempted to take one of these unpleasant, un-skilled jobs instead of going to college? If you're not advocating for such high minimum wages, aren't you advocating for a class structure?

It's the need of poor people to have some income, and their lack of opportunity to make themselves candidates for better jobs, that keeps the wages of some very unpleasant jobs so low. I don't see how you can both argue that a high basic income would be disastrous because the wage you'd need to offer to get people to do these jobs would be too high and that the existence of an underclass isn't necessary for what you're advocating. The property of a high basic income that bothers you is that it eliminates a major difference between the poor and everyone else - that the poor can be made to take some very unpleasant jobs for low pay, where "low" really only makes sense as "lower than anyone with any real choices is willing to do them for".

 

[Jimothy]

Why isn't there an MMT OT? ClassyPenguin or ev need to get on that shit and start educating some plebs.

 

[TheHeretic]

Why isn't there an MMT OT? ClassyPenguin or ev need to get on that shit and start educating some plebs.

Just remember to throw some laffer curves and Austrian economics in there for good measure.

 

[jamesinclair]

One day, when I want to be perm banned, I will start a minimum wage thread.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I am honored to be mentioned in the same sentence as empty vessel but like Jon Snow, I know nothing.

 

[The Librarian]

Hell, even writers are being replaced by algorithms. I am not saying its all doom and gloom, but giving everyone a livable income is a way for us to solve poverty and simply not have to worry about technology replacing our existing jobs

Care to name some examples of writers being replaced by robots? Theoretically you can create advanced AI to the point where they're better at writing everything (movies, TV shows, reports, etc). Theoretically. If you're a reporter and worried about being replaced by a robot, how is this theoretical robot going to receive the necessary information to write an article? Is someone going to type in the subject and whatnot? In that case, why not just have a human write the article? How are you going to get a robot out to a press conference? Is the president going to end up talking to a bunch of robots for reporters?

(No.)

Do you think companies will pay the same amount to a driver who is just there to basically be there in case shit hits the fan than a person actually driving a truck?

That's why, when robots begin to seriously threaten a huge number of jobs, the government, in order to give people jobs, will likely mandate businesses to employ a certain number of human workers.

 

[Wilsongt]

Good morning, and welcome to another edition of "Shut the FUCK UP, Ted Cruz!"

Ted Cruz Tells Rush Limbaugh: Syria and Obamacare Are ‘Tied Together’

During an interview with Rush Limbaugh this week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) attempted to link the international story that’s dominating the news media to the domestic one that is dominating Republican politics. The senator explained to Limbaugh how the potential U.S. military action in Syria and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act are fundamentally “tied together.”

“Fundamentally, actually, these two issues, you look at Syria, you look at Obamacare. They’re tied together. They’re tied together by an arrogance of this administration, that they don’t believe they’re accountable to the American people, and they are going to jam their agenda down the throats of the American people.

And on both of them, the answer is the same as it was on guns; it’s the same as it is on stopping amnesty, which is the American people have to rise up and hold every elected official accountable, Democrat and Republican. Every one of us, including me.”

Limbaugh told Cruz he was “right,” but added, “the American people ought to have a political party that’s willing to stand up and join them in stopping this, too, and right now they don’t think they do.”

Because the healthcare of American citizens completely correlates with an on-going civil war in Syria.

Detox, if you would, pls.

Thank you, Detox.

In other news this morning, it looks like we are in for more budget shenanigans.

GOP senator: 'No common ground' in budget talks

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House and a breakout group of eight Republican senators have been unable to find agreement in their attempts at reaching a bipartisan budget deal, separated by long-standing differences over whether to only reduce spending on large benefit programs or whether to combine those cuts with increased tax revenue.

Following a meeting Thursday in the White House, one of the Republicans, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, said the talks had gone nowhere.

"It's pretty evident that there's no common ground right now," Corker said.

The White House described the talks as candid and helpful. Obama has insisted in the past that a big deal over the budget had to include closing tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy.

The eight senators, some participating by teleconference, met in the White House Situation Room with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, deputy chief of staff Rob Nabors and budget director Sylvia Mathews Burwell. The group last met at the White House four weeks ago.

At the conclusion of Thursday's meeting, no future meeting was scheduled.

The setback comes just ahead of negotiations designed to avoid a government shutdown after the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 and about six weeks before the administration says the government will hits its borrowing limit.

Both the White House and congressional Republicans are bracing themselves for a confrontation. While both sides believe they might avoid a government shutdown with a stop gap measure in September, neither side has yet figured out how to extend the debt ceiling after it hits the $16.7 trillion limit.

Obama has said he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling, arguing that brinkmanship over raising it in 2011 harmed the economy. House Speaker John Boehner, however, is under pressure to use the debt ceiling as an opportunity to get reductions in entitlement programs and even to delay enactment of Obama's health care law.

"It may be unfair, but what I'm trying to do here is to leverage the political process to produce more change than what it would produce if left to its own devices," Boehner said at a fundraiser in Idaho this week. "We're going to have a whale of a fight."

The talks between the White House and the group of Republicans were not necessarily meant to resolve those coming entanglements. Indeed, from the beginning the talks were based more on hope than pragmatism. Both sides came to recognize that a deal between the White House and a small group of Senate Republicans would do little to sway the Republican majority in the House.

The eight senators, a cross-section of Senate Republicans, are Corker, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, John McCain of Arizona, Dan Coats of Indiana, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, John Hoeven of North Dakota and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

They have been among the senators who had dinner with Obama during a spring get-to-know-you effort by the president that was designed to break down partisan barriers and lay the foundation for potential agreements.

But the budget talks have always split over Obama's insistence that any reduction in programs such as Social Security or Medicare be accompanied by tax increases or closed loopholes for the rich that would generate more revenue.

Obama did win more than $600 billion in tax increases over 10 years on wealthier taxpayers earlier this year and Republicans have said they would not cede more.

Rupaul, your response to Congressional Republicans' actions?

Thank you, gurl.

In more uplifting news this morning, do you remember that school that gave out that outrageous creationist science quiz? Well, they are closing.


Christian School With Creationist 'Science' Quiz Closing Down For Financial Reasons

Blue Ridge Christian Academy, the school that made headlines after one of its creationist "science" quizzes was posted online, is officially closing down, according to the Travelers Rest Tribune.

The private, religious South Carolina school received attention in April when one of its science quizzes was posted on Reddit and subsequently went viral. The quiz, which was meant for fourth graders and titled “Dinosaurs: Genesis and the Gospel,” affirmed creationist beliefs, including the notion that dinosaurs and humans previously roamed the earth together and that God created dinosaurs.

While the school received an onslaught of criticism for the quiz, administrators also thought the attention could be a blessing in disguise. After the quiz was posted online, the financially troubled school began receiving monetary donations from around the world.

By late May the school had received about $15,000 from more than 70 countries. Still, the school needed $200,000 in order to operate during the 2013–2014 school year, according to the Travelers Rest Tribune.

“A lot of the messages that have come through [are], ‘We support your right from a biblical perspective in your school,’” Diana Baker, the administrator for the school, told The Huffington Post over the phone in May. “We have gotten emails from all over the world, and it’s been a real joy to see that people just show support and love for a ministry that they had never heard of before.”

Teacher Bernice Buchanan noted the school was in deep financial trouble due to the fact that 40 percent of its 139 students received scholarships. Still, she said she expected something to work out.

“We’re trying to make private Christian education readily available to students who normally couldn’t afford that,” Buchanan told HuffPost several months ago. “[God] is going to meet all our needs, what that will look like we don’t know, but he is good.”

According to the school’s Facebook page, the school has been holding closing sales and giving the proceeds to paying off debt, including two months of teacher salaries.

While terrible for the teachers, it's a positive for lovers of science.

Shangela, your response?

Erm... Not quite what I was expecting. Thank you, Shangela.

Tune in late for more good news or bad news. It's Friday, so you never know.

 

[The Librarian]

Brian Beutler goodness.

Former Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill. — yup, he was actually an elected official — took to his radio show to read a white conservative “I Have a Dream” speech.

I have a dream that all black parents will have the right to choose where their kids attend school.

I have a dream that all black boys and girls will grow up with a father.

I have a dream that young black men will stop shooting other young black men.

I have a dream that all young black men will say ‘no’ to gangs and to drugs.

I have a dream that all black young people will graduate from high school.

I have a dream that young black men won’t become fathers until after they’re married and they have a job.

I have a dream that young unmarried black women will say “no” to young black men who want to have sex.

I have a dream that today’s black leadership will quit blaming racism and “the system” for what ails black America.

I have a dream that black America will take responsibility for improving their own lives.

I have a dream that one day black America will cease their dependency on the government plantation, which has enslaved them to lives of poverty, and instead depend on themselves, their families, their churches, and their communities.​

That’s the official version. If you have the stomach, you can listen to the one he actually delivered here.

Earlier in the week, as my colleague Joan Walsh noted, conservative hero/terrible person Laura Ingraham interrupted tape of a speech by civil rights hero John Lewis with what sounded like the clap of a gunshot. Fortunately, Ingraham’s besties at NewsBusters weighed in to clarify that the sound effect was actually an explosion, not a gunshot, so I guess we’re cool here?

Leading conservative voices were at turns nasty and ethnocentric about the festivities. Fox News helpfully noted that “50 years after march on Washington some see rap music as a problem.”​

 

[Wilsongt]

Racism is totally dead, guys!

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I have a dream that today’s black leadership will quit blaming racism and “the system” for what ails black America.

...

I have a dream that one day black America will cease their dependency on the government plantation, which has enslaved them to lives of poverty, and instead depend on themselves, their families, their churches, and their communities.

So they should stop blaming the system, but it's OK to blame the system?

 

[Diablos]

In more uplifting news this morning, do you remember that school that gave out that outrageous creationist science quiz? Well, they are closing.


Christian School With Creationist 'Science' Quiz Closing Down For Financial Reasons

So I just looked at their application:

LOL. CHECK YES OR NO TO JAYSUS.

SO tempted to troll them and fill the whole thing out but checking NO to that question, then sending it in. They'd prolly go after me for fraud.

 

[bonercop]

speaking of the march on washington, I thought this was a fairly interesting perspective on the president's speech

President Obama's fondness of chastising black people comes out of a long tradition of black respectability. However, that tough love approach was offered up by race men and race women who were proud of the race, and invested in the Black Freedom Struggle all the while calling for black self-improvement and success.

Obama is President of the United States of America. He rejected the mantle of "race man" long ago.

Remember, you cannot get upset at Obama for a lack of transparency on this issue. He told the black community exactly where he stood on "the race question" and social justice years ago with his statement that "I am president of the United States of America" and not black America.

Ironically, President Obama dons the robe and hem of Chief Executive of Negroes only when necessary to criticize African-Americans as only he, the country's first black president, is uniquely able to do.

 

[User 406]

For one, people feel better about receiving compensation through wages rather than welfare for obvious psychological reasons.

Those psychological reasons are a direct result of Calvinist philosophy. You don't work, you're a bad person, so people on welfare have low self-esteem and are scorned by others. If everyone gets a basic income, then there is no longer any reason to look down someone's nose for taking welfare because everyone is taking welfare anyway.

But in fact, a basic income is not at all incompatibile with a work ethic, since there's no reason to believe that if everyone has a place to live, food to eat, health care, and free access to education and the internet, they'll stop wanting to compete with each other for more luxuries and social esteem. With a basic income, people who work will still be admired more, and they get the benefit of extra money to spend on luxuries beyond their basic needs. So I guess we'll keep the Calvinism, but at least the people who end up on the bottom rung of that system will not be in a terrible struggle for basic survival while still feeling inadequate.

Furthermore, the dirty jobs that need to be done will have to be compensated much more highly to attract people, and one benefit of this will be that society will start properly valuing people who do the necessary important work. Which brings us to the epithet "unskilled". Work that is important and vital is not any less important or vital just because a larger number of people can do it. Sure, you don't need a lot of training to do these kinds of jobs, but let's face it, we need garbage collectors a lot more than we need many office jobs that require a college degree. The work is also riskier and harder, but curiously even though our society always goes on about "hard work", the people who work the hardest and go home bone tired or injured don't get that kind of respect simply because their labor didn't start with a higher education. That needs to change, and a basic income would help move that social needle. I want to see janitors and elderly caregivers admired, emulated, and driving around in fancy sports cars with big houses too. They fucking deserve it.

If anything, a basic income will free up a lot more energy for personal ambition and motivation since it won't be ground away by treading water in a job that barely provides survival.

 

[empty vessel]

speaking of the march on washington, I thought this was a fairly interesting perspective on the president's speech

I don't disagree with that perspective.

 

[The Librarian]

speaking of the march on washington, I thought this was a fairly interesting perspective on the president's speech

Interesting, but seems unnecessarily cynical. Where in the speech was Obama chastising blacks?

Ironically, President Obama dons the robe and hem of Chief Executive of Negroes only when necessary to criticize African-Americans as only he, the country's first black president, is uniquely able to do.

His reaction to the George Zimmerman case?

 

[RustyNails]

Alex Jones and his nutballs have invaded the incendiary attack in syria thread.

Alex Jones is cancer.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Interesting, but seems unnecessarily cynical. Where in the speech was Obama chastising blacks?

His reaction to the George Zimmerman case?

That article's main problem is assuming talking with a group about personal responsibility is a negative. "Personal responsibility" has been code so long for "screw the poor people" that the positive intent of the message is completely lost.

In other words, as Dax says, needlessly cynical.

It's completely legit to push personal responsibilty *and* recognize that the system in institutionally racist.

 

[RDreamer]

Oh Walker, you make no goddamned sense:

"My goal wasn't so much to hit a magic number as much as it was, in the four years before I took office, when I was campaigning, I saw that we lost over 133,000 jobs in the state. I said, 'it's really not about jobs, it's about real people, real jobs like those here, and more importantly, affecting real families all across the state,'" Walker said.

 

[Wilsongt]

Oh Walker, you make no goddamned sense:

What? You lost jobs, but they weren't real jobs? What kind of jobs were they, then?

 

[bonercop]

Interesting, but seems unnecessarily cynical. Where in the speech was Obama chastising blacks?

His reaction to the George Zimmerman case?

I'd say he was referring to certain parts of the speech like this:

And then, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that during the course of 50 years, there were times when some of us claiming to push for change lost our way. The anguish of assassinations set off self-defeating riots. Legitimate grievances against police brutality tipped into excuse-making for criminal behavior. Racial politics could cut both ways, as the transformative message of unity and brotherhood was drowned out by the language of recrimination.

and especially this:

And what had once been a call for equality of opportunity, the chance for all Americans to work hard and get ahead was too often framed as a mere desire for government support -- as if we had no agency in our own liberation, as if poverty was an excuse for not raising your child, and the bigotry of others was reason to give up on yourself.

I can see where's he coming from, tbh. Obama made these comments in a segment that was basically meant to illustrate how both sides of the debate on minorities' basic civil rights were responsible for "stalling progress".

edit:for clarification

 

[empty vessel]

He made these comments in a segment that was basically meant to illustrate how both sides were bad and responsible for "stalling progress".

Both sides of what?

 

[Wilsongt]

As a new form of torture, Republicans who say stupid shit should be placed in a room for 24 hours. Only one light and have the stupid shit they say as a recorded played back to them over and over and over again until they crack. Jesus.