Europeans considering universal basic income and job guarantees

[Wiploc]

I have one thing for those who would have me be thankful for the privilege to serve my 'betters'.

You got me curious about what it may be.

Don't click on this:

:handGesture:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

At the low end employers bemoan the inability to find people who actually will show up reliably, sober and do what they're told--the stuff you don't consider job skills.

And you should take that as seriously as the employers who bemoan the fact that they can't find people to program a basic web app, even though those people definitely exist in the United States. Those employers would just rather pay them the standard wage an Indian would make in Chennai rather than what the skill commands in Los Angeles. Or a Pole, or a Ukranian.

A lot of the people who bemoan this offer a 2.15 tipped minimum wage to work as a server. No shit they can't find workers.


In any case, even if I grant you this is true for the sake of argument, you haven't established why UBI would make this a bigger problem. Which was your central claim.

UBI would mean more people that didn't know how to actually keep a job. Fine so long as UBI continued, a big problem if something happened that meant it couldn't be continued.

So people will stop wanting stuff like vacations because of UBI?

 

[J842P]

At the low end employers bemoan the inability to find people who actually will show up reliably, sober and do what they're told--the stuff you don't consider job skills.

And you should take that as seriously as the employers who bemoan the fact that they can't find people to program a basic web app, even though those people definitely exist in the United States. Those employers would just rather pay them the standard wage an Indian would make in Chennai rather than what the skill commands in Los Angeles. Or a Pole, or a Ukranian.

A lot of the people who bemoan this offer a 2.15 tipped minimum wage to work as a server. No shit they can't find workers.


In any case, even if I grant you this is true for the sake of argument, you haven't established why UBI would make this a bigger problem. Which was your central claim.

UBI would mean more people that didn't know how to actually keep a job. Fine so long as UBI continued, a big problem if something happened that meant it couldn't be continued.

Loren, you are question begging, I'm asking you *why*. And also, by how much? What is the size of this effect. You claim it would be a "big problem". Even if I grant you for the sake of argument there might be some effect in the direction you claim, why do you know it will be "big"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People not worth hiring could be those with a poor work history at other companies. Maybe they have a history of being a bad team player, insubordination, dishonest, attendance issues, theft, criminal history, and etc.

Which is a personal failure, some being flawed, others perhaps being overcome by life problems. A case by case issue.

But to at least some degree it's a failure to have learned better.

Getting rid of low-pay jobs is basically chopping off the ladder to success for the poor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And when it happens, when criminal acts are committed against an employer by an employee, or when the employee doesn't do the work, then you FIRE them and call the cops if necessary, and you do it WITH CAUSE and EVIDENCE. Then, they can go to vocational rehab assuming they claim to want to work, or to school assuming they claim they want to learn, public housing or their parents' basement or wherever if all the rest fall through. There are few of the latter and not working with any of the former purely to spite the last category is a fool's errand; this is, I think, the best way to shape a jobs guarantee - with education and assistance, with infrastructural systems to facilitate it all.

I think Loren's argument boils down to desperate people make better workers.

"Desperate" is much too strong a word.

People who don't need a job aren't likely to behave very well in a job that isn't interesting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some people aren't really cut out for work. That's not a problem, unless your society fails to support those people.

And every single last one of us is one of 'those people', for at least a part of our lives.

Frankly I would much rather my taxes paid to give the unemployable the things they need to live, than that the unemployable stole them from me (particularly at the heavy markdown and high ancillary costs that stolen goods imply).

But for most of them it's not an intrinsic failure, but how they were raised, and it can be overcome. That's a lot better than basically saying they are subhuman.

 

[bilby]

Some people aren't really cut out for work. That's not a problem, unless your society fails to support those people.

And every single last one of us is one of 'those people', for at least a part of our lives.

Frankly I would much rather my taxes paid to give the unemployable the things they need to live, than that the unemployable stole them from me (particularly at the heavy markdown and high ancillary costs that stolen goods imply).

But for most of them it's not an intrinsic failure, but how they were raised, and it can be overcome. That's a lot better than basically saying they are subhuman.

Why is it a 'failure' at all? Why should it need to be 'overcome'?

It's only a problem if you subscribe to the philosophy of the unfathomable protestants, with their inscrutable 'work ethic'.

Since the industrial revolution, society has needed fewer and fewer of its members to work in order to feed, clothe and house everyone. Why are you so keen to force work onto people who don't want it; to push employers to hire people that aren't desirable employees; and to punish those who cannot or don't want to work?

Why are you so committed to this bizarre philosophy that you think my description of people as 'not really cut out for work' is synonymous with saying that they are 'subhuman'? That's your assessment, not mine. Work, and the desire to work, are neither necessary nor sufficient to make someone human.

As I said in the post to which you're responding, every single last one of us is one of 'those people', for at least a part of our lives. How could you read that and believe that I was "basically saying they are subhuman"?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Some people aren't really cut out for work. That's not a problem, unless your society fails to support those people.

And every single last one of us is one of 'those people', for at least a part of our lives.

Frankly I would much rather my taxes paid to give the unemployable the things they need to live, than that the unemployable stole them from me (particularly at the heavy markdown and high ancillary costs that stolen goods imply).

But for most of them it's not an intrinsic failure, but how they were raised, and it can be overcome. That's a lot better than basically saying they are subhuman.

Why is it a 'failure' at all? Why should it need to be 'overcome'?

It's only a problem if you subscribe to the philosophy of the unfathomable protestants, with their inscrutable 'work ethic'.

Since the industrial revolution, society has needed fewer and fewer of its members to work in order to feed, clothe and house everyone. Why are you so keen to force work onto people who don't want it; to push employers to hire people that aren't desirable employees; and to punish those who cannot or don't want to work?

Why are you so committed to this bizarre philosophy that you think my description of people as 'not really cut out for work' is synonymous with saying that they are 'subhuman'? That's your assessment, not mine. Work, and the desire to work, are neither necessary nor sufficient to make someone human.

As I said in the post to which you're responding, every single last one of us is one of 'those people', for at least a part of our lives. How could you read that and believe that I was "basically saying they are subhuman"?

Buddy, no one really likes to work! It's just that everyone has different levels of motivation. I'm motivated, and I work at least 65 hours a week. But if could paid the same (with the same amount of future benefits); I'd sell and watch spongebob all day in a second!

 

[Jarhyn]

Why is it a 'failure' at all? Why should it need to be 'overcome'?

It's only a problem if you subscribe to the philosophy of the unfathomable protestants, with their inscrutable 'work ethic'.

Since the industrial revolution, society has needed fewer and fewer of its members to work in order to feed, clothe and house everyone. Why are you so keen to force work onto people who don't want it; to push employers to hire people that aren't desirable employees; and to punish those who cannot or don't want to work?

Why are you so committed to this bizarre philosophy that you think my description of people as 'not really cut out for work' is synonymous with saying that they are 'subhuman'? That's your assessment, not mine. Work, and the desire to work, are neither necessary nor sufficient to make someone human.

As I said in the post to which you're responding, every single last one of us is one of 'those people', for at least a part of our lives. How could you read that and believe that I was "basically saying they are subhuman"?

Buddy, no one really likes to work! It's just that everyone has different levels of motivation. I'm motivated, and I work at least 65 hours a week. But if could paid the same (with the same amount of future benefits); I'd sell and watch spongebob all day in a second!

Bullshit. See, everyone believes this, right up until they get the opportunity to actually do it. And usually when that happens, they find out how fucking empty their life becomes. Then they just go back to working again, if not for someone else then for themselves. Or they kill themselves.

Maybe you are an exception. But I doubt you are that shitty of a person, really.

 

[DBT]

People not worth hiring could be those with a poor work history at other companies. Maybe they have a history of being a bad team player, insubordination, dishonest, attendance issues, theft, criminal history, and etc.

Which is a personal failure, some being flawed, others perhaps being overcome by life problems. A case by case issue.

But to at least some degree it's a failure to have learned better.

You haven't considered human nature, genetic and psychological diversity and circumstances?

 

[bilby]

Why is it a 'failure' at all? Why should it need to be 'overcome'?

It's only a problem if you subscribe to the philosophy of the unfathomable protestants, with their inscrutable 'work ethic'.

Since the industrial revolution, society has needed fewer and fewer of its members to work in order to feed, clothe and house everyone. Why are you so keen to force work onto people who don't want it; to push employers to hire people that aren't desirable employees; and to punish those who cannot or don't want to work?

Why are you so committed to this bizarre philosophy that you think my description of people as 'not really cut out for work' is synonymous with saying that they are 'subhuman'? That's your assessment, not mine. Work, and the desire to work, are neither necessary nor sufficient to make someone human.

As I said in the post to which you're responding, every single last one of us is one of 'those people', for at least a part of our lives. How could you read that and believe that I was "basically saying they are subhuman"?

Buddy, no one really likes to work! It's just that everyone has different levels of motivation. I'm motivated, and I work at least 65 hours a week. But if could paid the same (with the same amount of future benefits); I'd sell and watch spongebob all day in a second!

Not only do most people like to work, but most people will do work they don't like, if it gets them something they desire.

Nobody's suggesting paying you the same as you get now for working 65 hours a week, so you can stay home and watch Spongebob. The proposal is to pay you enough that if you chose to stay home watching Spongebob, you wouldn't starve or be evicted.

Unless your hourly rate is astonishingly low, you will still need to work if you want a better life than just being able to eat and have a basic roof over your head, under UBI.

There are some jobs that are currently low paid, and which are so unpleasant that they can only attract workers whose alternative is homelessness and starvation. Those jobs would either have to start paying very well; Or be automated (many could be now, but it's cheaper to employ cheap labour); Or be made less unpleasant (for example by provision of more expensive tools, PPE, etc. than are currently provided); or be split amongst multiple workers (who don't mind doing it for say ten hours a week, but don't want to do it for forty, or sixty five); Or some combination of those things.

There are other jobs that people do because they love their work. These might become volunteer positions; Or be paid very little (with workers able to use their UBI rather than their wages for the majority of their living expenses).

The idea that nobody wants to work is simply false - as we see by observing the behaviour of people who are wealthy enough never to need to work again. Most of them work, despite the income they gain from that work having zero impact on their quality of life, or their ability to do whatever they please.

 

[barbos]

Not all people who like to work, work the work they like A lot of people work BS jobs and wish they had meaningful jobs.
Some (politicians for example) like their BS jobs, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some people aren't really cut out for work. That's not a problem, unless your society fails to support those people.

And every single last one of us is one of 'those people', for at least a part of our lives.

Frankly I would much rather my taxes paid to give the unemployable the things they need to live, than that the unemployable stole them from me (particularly at the heavy markdown and high ancillary costs that stolen goods imply).

But for most of them it's not an intrinsic failure, but how they were raised, and it can be overcome. That's a lot better than basically saying they are subhuman.

Why is it a 'failure' at all? Why should it need to be 'overcome'?

It's a failure of a very basic aspect of being alive--being able to take care of yourself.

It's only a problem if you subscribe to the philosophy of the unfathomable protestants, with their inscrutable 'work ethic'.

It's a problem for anyone who doesn't feel like supporting leeches.

Since the industrial revolution, society has needed fewer and fewer of its members to work in order to feed, clothe and house everyone. Why are you so keen to force work onto people who don't want it; to push employers to hire people that aren't desirable employees; and to punish those who cannot or don't want to work?

That effort should be used for the betterment of society.

Why are you so committed to this bizarre philosophy that you think my description of people as 'not really cut out for work' is synonymous with saying that they are 'subhuman'? That's your assessment, not mine. Work, and the desire to work, are neither necessary nor sufficient to make someone human.

Because anyone not disabled can care for themselves.

As I said in the post to which you're responding, every single last one of us is one of 'those people', for at least a part of our lives. How could you read that and believe that I was "basically saying they are subhuman"?

The only people that can't support themselves are the young and the disabled.

 

[bilby]

Why is it a 'failure' at all? Why should it need to be 'overcome'?

It's a failure of a very basic aspect of being alive--being able to take care of yourself.

Nobody's able to take care of themselves for their entire life; Nor even in most cases for the majority of it. The ability to support yourself without any assistance from others is assuredly NOT a basic aspect of being alive, and I find it horrific that you have such a warped worldview as to accept such an absurd claim without question.

It's only a problem if you subscribe to the philosophy of the unfathomable protestants, with their inscrutable 'work ethic'.

It's a problem for anyone who doesn't feel like supporting leeches.

Fuck off with your petty insults. A person who is temporarily unable to support himself financially isn't a "leech" if he accepts assistance from others. You need to be FAR more critical in your reading of Ayn Rand - She's a fucking idiot; Don't emulate her if you don't want to be thought an idiot too.

Since the industrial revolution, society has needed fewer and fewer of its members to work in order to feed, clothe and house everyone. Why are you so keen to force work onto people who don't want it; to push employers to hire people that aren't desirable employees; and to punish those who cannot or don't want to work?

That effort should be used for the betterment of society.

Yes. It should. You seem to have a VERY narrow view of what benefits society.

Why are you so committed to this bizarre philosophy that you think my description of people as 'not really cut out for work' is synonymous with saying that they are 'subhuman'? That's your assessment, not mine. Work, and the desire to work, are neither necessary nor sufficient to make someone human.

Because anyone not disabled can care for themselves.

Horseshit.

As I said in the post to which you're responding, every single last one of us is one of 'those people', for at least a part of our lives. How could you read that and believe that I was "basically saying they are subhuman"?

The only people that can't support themselves are the young and the disabled.

Traditionally, most people don't support themselves (except those living in poverty).

Middle class households typically had one 'breadwinner', whose work supported a spouse; children (including any unmarried adult children, particularly if they were female); Elderly relatives (particularly widows); and often various other wards, such as cousins, nephews and nieces.

The world is full of what you call "leeches", and it's the fact that they have that option that gives them the opportunity to make something of themselves. They're only a burden on anyone if you look at a fixed point in time - over their entire lives, they are often very productive indeed (certainly far more so than people who cannot afford not to spend most of their waking hours doing low-paid labour.

You desperately need to question your assumptions - and to look at people over their entire lives, not just dismiss them as "leeches" if they don't immediately provide for their every need without assistance from others.

Society can and should support its members. All of them. A society that allows people to starve as a result of misfortune is a badly broken society.

 

[barbos]

Food/starving should not be an issue even in ultra-capitalist countries such as US. US capitalism has long been about healthcare and education and to a lesser degree housing. That's where all the money are, food should be essentially free by now.

 

[bilby]

I think all discussion of initiatives like UBI or of other safety net or welfare schemes founder on the same fundamental problem: What is the victory condition?

How do you define one society as better (or worse) than another? Whether that's an assessment of the past vs the present vs a hoped-for (or to be guarded against) future; Or a comparison between contemporary societies in different places, we all seem to be able to point to extreme examples of societies we don't want to emulate, but it seems that nobody agrees on what we actually want to achieve.

Personally, I would happily sacrifice the ease of obtaining extraordinary wealth, if it allowed us to dramatically reduce poverty, homelessness, and lack of access to food, shelter, healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

But it seems that many people (*cough*Loren Pechtel*cough*) see the absence of freeloaders as more important than the universal availability of those things.

I suspect that there's a fundamental disagreement on what money does. We agree that it's a way to 'keep score' - that (in principle) the more you provide, the more money you should end up with. Indeed, wealth can reasonably be thought of as the debt society owes its holder.

The disagreement comes in the details. It's obvious to me (but apparently not to others) that there's an 'aggregating problem'. A person who invents a 'must have' widget, that almost everyone wants to own, and is prepared to pay $10 for, has perhaps provided $10 of value to each of a hundred million customers; But that doesn't imply that the inventor is owed $1billion by society. We currently use that very simple arithmetic equality, but even then we recognise that a portion of the $1bn 'earned' in this way should simply cease to exist (ie be taxed, which is one of the simplest ways for a currency issuing government to destroy money). Nevertheless, some people become insanely wealthy. Nobody's owed a third private jet because of the tiny value placed on their work by a huge number of people. Certainly not while there are people without sufficient food.

Equally, we accept that money should be created (via government spending), in pursuit of the building of infrastructure, and the provision of certain basics to people who are in need, but unable to provide for themselves. But there are HUGE disagreements as to the degree to which these things should occur, and the degree to which they should be interlinked.

To resolve these disagreements, we first need to decide what we want to achieve. What does a better society look like? What are the distinguishing features that separate a better society from a worse one? What features need to be compromised or traded off, and where are the optimal trade offs to be found? (A classic example being the trade-off between freedom and security, which apparently are antithetical to each other).

What, in short, are we trying to achieve?

 

[barbos]

What, in short, are we trying to achieve?

That's easy. We want more billionaires.

 

[bilby]

What, in short, are we trying to achieve?

That's easy. We want more billionaires.

Not a problem. We can all just move to Zimbabwe then.

 

[Canard DuJour]

A person who invents a 'must have' widget, that almost everyone wants to own, and is prepared to pay $10 for, has perhaps provided $10 of value to each of a hundred million customers; But that doesn't imply that the inventor is owed $1billion by society. We currently use that very simple arithmetic equality, but even then we recognise that a portion of the $1bn 'earned' in this way should simply cease to exist (ie be taxed, which is one of the simplest ways for a currency issuing government to destroy money). Nevertheless, some people become insanely wealthy. Nobody's owed a third private jet because of the tiny value placed on their work by a huge number of people. Certainly not while there are people without sufficient food.

This. And the aggregation effect is no less inequitable where the "widget" is a digital platform through which people sell their labour (or otherwise access the market). Aggregation effects give early leaders a self-reinforcing advantage so that they become a modern equivalent of the rentier class disparaged by Adam Smith, David Ricardo etc.

 

[Wiploc]

How do you define one society as better (or worse) than another? Whether that's an assessment of the past vs the present vs a hoped-for (or to be guarded against) future; Or a comparison between contemporary societies in different places, we all seem to be able to point to extreme examples of societies we don't want to emulate, but it seems that nobody agrees on what we actually want to achieve.

Suppose (as I do suppose) that in the future more and more wealth will be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, until rich people will be largely independent of government. "If you don't do what I want, I'll buy your company and fire everybody so as to bankrupt not only you but everyone you know." "If you press this lawsuit, I'll tie it up in court for ten years, by which time I'll have gotten the law changed so that I'm no longer technically in violation."

I'm remembering a story about whichever Henry got Richard Burton killed when he was Archbishop of Canterbury: King Henry saw a pretty girl, and wanted to have sex with her. Her father was greatly offended by Henry's advances. The father was advised to take counsel of a monk, and the monk advised that one should always go along with whatever powerful people want.

When my father tried to negotiate better fuel prices for his airplanes, the supplier said that he couldn't do that because dad's planes competed with a rich man's planes. If the supplier gave dad the same deal he gave the rich man, then the Seven Rich Men who ran our town would put him (the fuel supplier) out of business and arrange for some other guy to supply fuel.

I don't want to live in a world where it is reasonable to always yield to the powerful. That's one possible bad outcome.

I also don't want to live in a world in which a few people own all the robots, who do all the work, and the rest of us live on handouts. Bad outcome.

I also don't want to live in a world where we are justified in violently overthrowing the rich in order to more equitably distribute wealth. That's another bad outcome.