What do you want to do with the little people?

[Rhea]

This topic is about what a society should do with work-marginalized workers/citizens


There are a lot of discussions about how mega wealth is okay because they "did something" that made them deserve to reap benefits on the labors of people who are not paid enough to live decently.
There are also discussions of how automation is a great thing in pursuit of lower cost products and higher margins for investors.
There are also discussions about how we need to stop using fossil fuels and go to nuclear, which needs far less labor.
There are also discussions about how today's economy needs higher education or training to remain viable in a living wage.
There are discussions about replacing fossil fuels with renewables that move the jobs to geographically new (and potentially crowded and expensive) areas.
There are discussions about how a "market wage" is justifiable as the intersection between what a powerful employer will offer and a powerless worker will accept.

There are many more discussions of various stripes that have one thing in common:
They advocate for the reduction in jobs (or pay level) for those who are not trained to work on the Right Thing (tm)

Here's my question for discussion and producing a viable answer:

What do you DO with the people unable to train or move?

Maybe they can't move because they are a caregiver for a disabled or elderly person who needs to remain.
Maybe they can't go to college and become a programmer because they are in the lower half of intellectual capability - they just plain aren't smart enough.
Maybe they can't go to college because they are a caregiver.
Maybe ADHD makes them unable to perform a trade, and working at a big box store is what they can do - and they'd be happy there if only it paid enough to live on.
Maybe they got sick from coal mining and would not be hired by a windmill firm due to the impending obligations?

So what you we propose that we DO with all of these people?

Do we want them to just die from starvation after their job are automated?
Do we want to empty out the rural states and force all of the people there to move to squalid tenements near a factory in a high cost dense population?
Do we want people who aren't smart enough to become engineers and doctors to just die of preventable diseases because they can't afford health care or a safe house?


I think about all these people who are against progressive taxation or universal income or raised minimum wages, and I wonder
(a) what is it you think will happen to all of these people? You think they'll suddenly become suitable for college? or
(b) are you actually okay if they all just die?
(c) what are justifiable reasons to allow someone to live (or be raised in) abject poverty?
(d) if we don't think that, what should we DO to plan for them to continue living without abject poverty?
(e) other? What else? What do you think should happen to them?

 

[Politesse]

Are you only accepting answers from people who agree with all points in the straw man you constructed in the top half of the post? Because this may be a short thread if so.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Are you only accepting answers from people who agree with all points in the straw man you constructed in the top half of the post? Because this may be a short thread if so.

Not exactly, a lot of conservatives are just totally fine with poor people dying.

 

[Politesse]

Are you only accepting answers from people who agree with all points in the straw man you constructed in the top half of the post? Because this may be a short thread if so.

Not exactly, a lot of conservatives are just totally fine with poor people dying.

Ah, but are they also okay with the onset of renewable energy replacing coal, and a strong emphasis on pursuing higher education?

 

[Rhea]

Are you only accepting answers from people who agree with all points in the straw man you constructed in the top half of the post? Because this may be a short thread if so.

Nope, sorry, I did not intend that.
Add option e
(e) other? What else? What do you think should happen to them?

I genuinely do not know what others think should happen to them and I would like to know. I wonder if those are their answers, but I don't know, so I am asking. I added (e) to make that more clear.
Add (f) - (zz) if you've got 'em.

 

[ZiprHead]

Are you only accepting answers from people who agree with all points in the straw man you constructed in the top half of the post? Because this may be a short thread if so.

"Straw man"? I've seen all of those points raised here.

 

[Rhea]

Are you only accepting answers from people who agree with all points in the straw man you constructed in the top half of the post? Because this may be a short thread if so.

Oh, wait, you are saying the TOP HALF is the straw man?
I created this post because threads where people say exactly that have always made me wonder, "so what DO you think those people should do?"

So yeah, I guess this is addressed at those who think there should be no minimum wage, or those who think the minimum wage should not rise with inflation, or those who say people should "just go to school" if they want better pay, or those who say, "those job were never meant to provide a living wage".

If you've never thought something that sounds like you don't care about the resources or struggles of those advocating for progressive taxation, welfare, minimum wage increase or universal health care, then, indeed this question is not for you. Although I welcome your opinions, but, yeah, that's the position that I don't understand and I am trying to.

 

[Politesse]

I guess it just seems like a weird mish-mash of conservative/liberal talking points, to me. Most people are not out to "kill the poor" by any and every means possible, I don't think. Like, I can understand the need for a conversation about how a transition from coal to wind power will affect the job market. But that to me is not the same conversation as what to do about nuclear power, or what the role of automation should be in manufacturing. I'm not sure how to respond to the OP meaningfully without writing a monster paragraph on each of the issues raised.

And then it ends on this seeming accusation that anyone who advocates any of the above wants poor people to die, or at least does not care whether they do or not. And I do not think that is true. Most everyone I meet thinks that they are the champions of the working class, somehow or other. Is there anyone who doesn't think their paradigm is, in and of itself, the best of limited options and the option that will ultimately benefit everyone?

 

[Swammerdami]

Good question, Rhea! A good question without easy answers.

At some point the best option will be to follow some variation of Andrew Wang's proposal: basic income for everyone. Many developed countries already have a "safety net" much better than the U.S.'s: at least children are taken care of without wresting them from their parents. Many developing countries have non-government safety nets, e.g. free food and shelter in temples.

At some point, society may need to re-calibrate what its real needs and wants are. Do we really need to eat so much beef? Is our frantic automobile-crazed life-style necessary? Do we really need to encourage an unsustainably high population? Mixing metaphors I worry that the human species — much like the apocryphal lemmings which race off a cliff — may have "painted itself into a corner."


Simple solutions like minimum wage hikes may be misdirected; it would be much better to focus attention on affordable healthcare, childcare and education. Wage hikes do NOT help the unemployed. As wages increase, unskilled workers will face increased price competition from robots and from workers in low-wage countries.

... There are a lot of discussions about how mega wealth is okay because they "did something" that made them deserve to reap benefits on the labors of people who are not paid enough to live decently.
...

There are plenty of steps that should be taken to reduce income inequality. "Right-to-work" laws should be repealed. Tax codes should be made more progressive. Regulations to curb pollution and to improve consumer and employee safety should be strengthened.

But the meme that great wealth is built by exploiting cheap labor is, at best, misleading; pushing this false meme just helps right-wing propagandists. Drug companies make huge profits — are their employees mistreated? Are Microsoft employees not paid enough to live decently? — I thought people were usually delighted to get a job at a company like that. Who has Warren Buffett exploited? How about Elon Musk? Unless I am mistaken, many of the companies that will be hardest hit by minimum wage hikes are tiny businesses where the owners themselves are barely making ends meet.

Of course we need to increase taxes on corporations and rich individuals. But progressives need to focus their message on helping many millions of Americans, and NOT on "punishing" the rich.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why can't we eat them? I say shut off all unearned benefits and aid to persons who are unable to support themselves. Balance this out with massive inheritance taxation to pay for the new program enforcement. This way even the wealthy and privileged will have to earn their keep no matter how wealthy their parents. Fair is fair.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Are you only accepting answers from people who agree with all points in the straw man you constructed in the top half of the post? Because this may be a short thread if so.

"Straw man"? I've seen all of those points raised here.

So have I, in the exact same form the OP raised them. "My opponents say .... well, how do you defend that?"

 

[Rhea]

At some point the best option will be to follow some variation of Andrew Wang's proposal: basic income for everyone.

I feel like, ultimately, humanity will have to decide exactly this.
Example, for a very long time, humanity decided that when people were too old to contribute, society did not have an obligation to help them stay alive.
Over time, societies adopted things like social security and public pensions to say, "we get that you can't work any more, we believe society should provide you with enough to continue living." Not all countries do this, and those that do are not perfect, but it seems like an inflection point that society took.

At some point, society may need to re-calibrate what its real needs and wants are. Do we really need to eat so much beef? Is our frantic automobile-crazed life-style necessary? Do we really need to encourage an unsustainably high population? Mixing metaphors I worry that the human species — much like the apocryphal lemmings which race off a cliff — may have "painted itself into a corner."

I wonder more along the lines of, "if we can produce the beef and cars without needing people to do it, do we, at some point, celebrate that we've created a society where people CAN have more without having to personally work for it?"

Is there some kind of problem with saying, "we can feed the world, and so let's do it?"

Simple solutions like minimum wage hikes may be misdirected; it would be much better to focus attention on affordable healthcare, childcare and education. Wage hikes do NOT help the unemployed. As wages increase, unskilled workers will face increased price competition from robots and from workers in low-wage countries.

True; minimum wage does not help the unemployed. But what do we do with the unskilled workers when they are outcompeted by robots?

But the meme that great wealth is built by exploiting cheap labor is, at best, misleading; pushing this false meme just helps right-wing propagandists. Drug companies make huge profits — are their employees mistreated? Are Microsoft employees not paid enough to live decently? — I thought people were usually delighted to get a job at a company like that. Who has Warren Buffett exploited? How about Elon Musk?

Well, I think we can consider that all of these companies are taking a huge slice of the pie that was baked by the workers. The fact that they CAN do this does not mean they SHOULD do this, nor that society really benefits from having a system that favors them doing this over the workforce that is making the pies. And we do currently have a set up where the more money you have, the more leverage you have over the people doing the work.

For example one of our posters is fond of saying that the fact that a worker will choose to die slowly over dying quickly is proof that he voluntarily supports the low wage that he has gotten (because he isn't quitting). And that any laws or regulations that force a company to give a larger slice of the pie to the workers is inherently wrong. That he is approving of the idea that starving people slowly is an acceptable business practice, and that the only way to object is to starve quickly.

Unless I am mistaken, many of the companies that will be hardest hit by minimum wage hikes are tiny businesses where the owners themselves are barely making ends meet.

I believe you are mistaken. These business will get more business from their local shoppers when the local shoppers have enough money to NOT go to Walmart. There are many studies on this. Small businesses benefit from more business when the money stays in the community due to even slightly higher wages.

Of course we need to increase taxes on corporations and rich individuals. But progressives need to focus their message on helping many millions of Americans, and NOT on "punishing" the rich.

I don't think any progressive wants to "punish." I believe most want to stop the unfair welfare to the wealthy. If you use employees to make a product with a certain high value, it is the employees who brought you that, and they should be compensated justly.

 

[Rhea]

Are you only accepting answers from people who agree with all points in the straw man you constructed in the top half of the post? Because this may be a short thread if so.

"Straw man"? I've seen all of those points raised here.

So have I, in the exact same form the OP raised them. "My opponents say .... well, how do you defend that?"

Let me be clear again.
I do not ask anyone to defend the statements that I made. I may be wrong. They are examples that made me wonder the question,
WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD HAPPEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT KEEP UP.

There are those people, there have always been those people. There are more and more of those people as things get higher tech and more automated.
So far, there has been GREAT resistance to forcing the lowest paying jobs to maintain their ability to support a person by forcing a minimum wage that grows with inflation. Great resistance to this.

So I ask, "what do you expect these people to DO?"

There's no need to dance and dodge and pretend the question is about whether you really said the minimum wage should stay at $7.25 or Unions should be broken. Because the reality is, people are falling behind in their ability to live.

Maybe you have never thought about what happens to them, so this question really feels like a surprise, or a trick, or something.

I don't know.

But the question is, "what should society DO with the people on the bottom of the economic ladder?" anything?

 

[Rhea]

I guess it just seems like a weird mish-mash of conservative/liberal talking points, to me.

Yes. That is exactly what they are. I tried to include statements from both conservative and liberal ideas that will have an impact on the jobs available to those people who are or may be falling behind.

50% of the population is below average in their ability to learn or earn. The bottom half of THAT is becoming less and less able to cope.
What do we do with them. They are live humans right now. When their job goes away forever, there may not actually ever be one to replace it. So then what?

Most people are not out to "kill the poor" by any and every means possible, I don't think. Like, I can understand the need for a conversation about how a transition from coal to wind power will affect the job market. But that to me is not the same conversation as what to do about nuclear power, or what the role of automation should be in manufacturing. I'm not sure how to respond to the OP meaningfully without writing a monster paragraph on each of the issues raised.

I'm talking about the fundamental that at some point people from any of those situations may be unemployable. What do we do with those humans?

And then it ends on this seeming accusation that anyone who advocates any of the above wants poor people to die, or at least does not care whether they do or not. And I do not think that is true. Most everyone I meet thinks that they are the champions of the working class, somehow or other. Is there anyone who doesn't think their paradigm is, in and of itself, the best of limited options and the option that will ultimately benefit everyone?

It has certainly been said here often enough, "they should just get an education." or "work harder," or "That's their problem and I shouldn't be expected to pay for it."

So what are the consequences to the poor in those cases? Is it the consequence we intend? Are we truthful when we suggest that if they just got a better job, they'd be fine?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

"All Democrats are communists!"
"Waah why are you making straw men wahh."

 

[ZiprHead]

Are you only accepting answers from people who agree with all points in the straw man you constructed in the top half of the post? Because this may be a short thread if so.

"Straw man"? I've seen all of those points raised here.

So have I, in the exact same form the OP raised them. "My opponents say .... well, how do you defend that?"

I have seen all of those arguments used by the " opponents". That you missed them is your problem.

 

[DBT]

Hardly call them arguments, more like rationales for excessive wealth and greed.

 

[Rhea]

Humor break - I am reading this while eating an enormous cookie with a dollar sign on it.

My treat from my company to celebrate last year’s “goal sharing” where we all get a bonus based on how well the company did.
Yeah, an obscenely large cookie with a green dollar sign on it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So have I, in the exact same form the OP raised them. "My opponents say .... well, how do you defend that?"

I have seen all of those arguments used by the " opponents". That you missed them is your problem.

Cite?

 

[Rhea]

Jason, do you have anything at all to say on the topic of what you think should happen to people who lose jobs to automation and are not able to train for something more complex?

Do you have anything to say on the topic of people who cannot survive on minimum wage and are unable to qualify for higher paying jobs?