8 ms·

OK, say those "exploitive" businesses didn't exist. That doesn't subsequently mean "non-exploitive" alternatives would exist, it just means those customers/empl

OK, say those "exploitive" businesses didn't exist. That doesn't subsequently mean "non-exploitive" alternatives would exist, it just means those customers/employees would have no options (not even "exploitive" ones). Is having no option better than having a bad option, when good options aren't available?

johnpmayer 11y ago
I mean, it's all about "for whom" in this question. What's better, widgets and a polluted stream, or no widgets? Depends on whether society values the fish.
- tamana 11y ago
  ..or the people eating the fish and drinking the water.
ubernostrum 11y ago
That doesn't subsequently mean "non-exploitive" alternatives would exist, it just means those customers/employees would have no options (not even "exploitive" ones). The hidden assumption here is that producing the goods and services required to keep a single human being alive in relative comfort (fed, sheltered, educated, healthy) necessarily requires an expenditure of manual effort roughly equivalent to what that human being can do. Or, in other words, the assumption is that it is not and never can be the case that N people can be provided for by the effort of K people, where K < N. And yet that assumption is obviously false: we have, here and now, the ability to feed, shelter, educate and provide health care to every single human being on the planet, and the ability to do so without the need for many of them to work for it. In the western world this has manifested in the explosion of service-oriented industries and administrative roles, which are essentially make-work jobs to give society as a whole the feeling that people are "earning their keep". Even among these affluent, supposedly highly-skilled people, probably the majority of the jobs are simply unnecessary. What's needed is a realignment of our mentality about work: now that we have the ability to provide for everyone, we should simply do it regardless of whether everyone works or not. Will there be free riders as a result? Sure, but they're not actually a problem, and become less of one with every passing day (since the system that produces the necessary goods and services continues to grow in efficiency), and we just need to get over our fear that someone, somewhere might manage to have their needs provided for without working for it (we're already content to do this when someone inherits sufficient wealth to live without working, so this would just be an extension of that attitude: people living now and in the future will "inherit" the wealth of the past of the human species and be provided for out of it).
- tysonjennings 11y ago
  Or, in other words, the assumption is that it is not and never can be the case that N people can be provided for by the effort of K people, where K < N. This attitude is terrifying. As a matter of policy, you would have me work as a slave for someone else or in turn, benefit from the slavery of others? It would be total war first.
- bardworx 11y ago
  Isn't Communism very similar to your perfect world? All the people were provided for and they worked for everyone and everyone was equal. However, that didn't work out too well. In any system, some folk will always squatter and some will always attempt to gain power/advantage. Your world sounds too much like Atlas Shrugged.
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    The thing to realize here is that the number of humans who need to do work building/operating/maintaining the machinery that keeps everyone taken care of decreases over time. It's perfectly reasonable to expect a point in the future where most of the time, zero direct human work is required in order to provide for all humans. The issue is getting over the mental hurdle of enabling such a society. The technology is actually pretty straightforward, but the politics of it is full of people who just can't stand the idea of that filthy leeching parasite, he doesn't work as hard as I do, why does he get anything at all! He doesn't deserve it! Which in turn is an artifact of an economic system that's already firmly in the past of many developed nations (i.e., one in which all people needed to work constantly in order to produce enough to keep themselves alive). Of course this is a fundamentally irrational position to hold when one already lives in a society that's content to let people who never work a day in their lives have all their needs taken care of (see: inheritance). It also disregards the fact that many people who have everything literally handed to them from birth still feel a drive to try to do something meaningful with their lives. There are trust-fund parasites who don't do anything, of course, but it certainly isn't 100% of them. Plus, it's pretty well empirically established that humans do get bored and seek things to do even when they have no life-sustaining work left to perform (see: retirement).
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Make the alternatives exist. It's an engineering problem. Solve it.
- tmptmp 11y ago
  Can you please list some alternatives? That will help us understand the situation better.
  - tamana 11y ago
    Social Security. Unemployment insurance. WIC/SNAP (food stamps). Government mandates affordable housing on major transit lines. Non-usurious Government loans for the working poor, secured against income. Stuff we already do, but should do more.
  - chillingeffect 11y ago
    I think one of the keys would be allowing people to live in improvised housing, a la Brazilian favelas. Loosening or repealing housing standards and property would reduce stress on these people. e.g. let people in bushes or trailers without forcing them out. second, receiving mail was listed as a problem. how to get people their mail for important papers? third, allocating land for farming their own food. why should they have to take part in the rest of our food economy if they can't fork over $1.25 for an apple? Just let them tend trees with their time. fourth: transportation. often you have to get someplace. how can we design public transportation so it gets the poorest where they need to go reliably?
    - kspaans 11y ago
      Maybe if more towns had free PO boxes, then mail delivery wouldn't be interrupted by moves.
Consultant32452 11y ago
I think it depends. Not having access to temporary credit at all is better than pay day loans. Of course, I'm saying that from my proverbial ivory tower. Philosophically I don't support banning those things, but I'll be damned if they're not fucking evil incarnate.
- vkou 11y ago
  Not having access to temporary credit means that any hiccup in your finances has you facing eviction, late bill penalties, and in the case of unpaid fines, possibly jail time. Having access to temporary credit means that same problem, but next month.
  - Consultant32452 11y ago
    Having access to incredibly high interest temporary credit means having the same problem next month and this new problem of having to pay off the high interest credit bill. You're generally not going to be evicted for a temporary hiccup. Late bill penalties are almost certainly going to be less than the payday loan fees. I have mixed feelings about the making bail bit.
    - vkou 11y ago
      My bounced check fee is $30 from my landlord, $30 from my bank. My late rent fee is $30. My late utility fee is $5, but if I paid by a bounced check, that would be $35. In other cities, it could be much higher. The fee for not paying a fine on time can be a weekend stint in jail, whereby you will get charged for room and board. The fee for not being able to pay for car repairs is losing your job. The fee for not paying for needed medical attention when you aren't on insurance (Which, despite obamacare, many poor people lack) can be crippling. Poor people, in aggregate, aren't stupid - they wouldn't use payday loans if the alternatives weren't worse. Yes, it shifts the problem a month out, and puts you in debt for ~$100 dollars. So would juggling your missed payments (Meanwhile, giving you a black mark against your landlord). That's still better then having the problem today. And who knows? Next month, you may be a millionaire. Or dead. Better worry about that next month. If you want to kill payday loans, the best way to do that is by giving everyone a living wage/income.

johnpmayer 11y ago

I mean, it's all about "for whom" in this question. What's better, widgets and a polluted stream, or no widgets? Depends on whether society values the fish.

tamana 11y ago
..or the people eating the fish and drinking the water.

ubernostrum 11y ago

That doesn't subsequently mean "non-exploitive" alternatives would exist, it just means those customers/employees would have no options (not even "exploitive" ones). The hidden assumption here is that producing the goods and services required to keep a single human being alive in relative comfort (fed, sheltered, educated, healthy) necessarily requires an expenditure of manual effort roughly equivalent to what that human being can do. Or, in other words, the assumption is that it is not and never can be the case that N people can be provided for by the effort of K people, where K < N. And yet that assumption is obviously false: we have, here and now, the ability to feed, shelter, educate and provide health care to every single human being on the planet, and the ability to do so without the need for many of them to work for it. In the western world this has manifested in the explosion of service-oriented industries and administrative roles, which are essentially make-work jobs to give society as a whole the feeling that people are "earning their keep". Even among these affluent, supposedly highly-skilled people, probably the majority of the jobs are simply unnecessary. What's needed is a realignment of our mentality about work: now that we have the ability to provide for everyone, we should simply do it regardless of whether everyone works or not. Will there be free riders as a result? Sure, but they're not actually a problem, and become less of one with every passing day (since the system that produces the necessary goods and services continues to grow in efficiency), and we just need to get over our fear that someone, somewhere might manage to have their needs provided for without working for it (we're already content to do this when someone inherits sufficient wealth to live without working, so this would just be an extension of that attitude: people living now and in the future will "inherit" the wealth of the past of the human species and be provided for out of it).

tysonjennings 11y ago
Or, in other words, the assumption is that it is not and never can be the case that N people can be provided for by the effort of K people, where K < N. This attitude is terrifying. As a matter of policy, you would have me work as a slave for someone else or in turn, benefit from the slavery of others? It would be total war first.
bardworx 11y ago
Isn't Communism very similar to your perfect world? All the people were provided for and they worked for everyone and everyone was equal. However, that didn't work out too well. In any system, some folk will always squatter and some will always attempt to gain power/advantage. Your world sounds too much like Atlas Shrugged.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  The thing to realize here is that the number of humans who need to do work building/operating/maintaining the machinery that keeps everyone taken care of decreases over time. It's perfectly reasonable to expect a point in the future where most of the time, zero direct human work is required in order to provide for all humans. The issue is getting over the mental hurdle of enabling such a society. The technology is actually pretty straightforward, but the politics of it is full of people who just can't stand the idea of that filthy leeching parasite, he doesn't work as hard as I do, why does he get anything at all! He doesn't deserve it! Which in turn is an artifact of an economic system that's already firmly in the past of many developed nations (i.e., one in which all people needed to work constantly in order to produce enough to keep themselves alive). Of course this is a fundamentally irrational position to hold when one already lives in a society that's content to let people who never work a day in their lives have all their needs taken care of (see: inheritance). It also disregards the fact that many people who have everything literally handed to them from birth still feel a drive to try to do something meaningful with their lives. There are trust-fund parasites who don't do anything, of course, but it certainly isn't 100% of them. Plus, it's pretty well empirically established that humans do get bored and seek things to do even when they have no life-sustaining work left to perform (see: retirement).

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Make the alternatives exist. It's an engineering problem. Solve it.

tmptmp 11y ago
Can you please list some alternatives? That will help us understand the situation better.
- tamana 11y ago
  Social Security. Unemployment insurance. WIC/SNAP (food stamps). Government mandates affordable housing on major transit lines. Non-usurious Government loans for the working poor, secured against income. Stuff we already do, but should do more.
- chillingeffect 11y ago
  I think one of the keys would be allowing people to live in improvised housing, a la Brazilian favelas. Loosening or repealing housing standards and property would reduce stress on these people. e.g. let people in bushes or trailers without forcing them out. second, receiving mail was listed as a problem. how to get people their mail for important papers? third, allocating land for farming their own food. why should they have to take part in the rest of our food economy if they can't fork over $1.25 for an apple? Just let them tend trees with their time. fourth: transportation. often you have to get someplace. how can we design public transportation so it gets the poorest where they need to go reliably?
  - kspaans 11y ago
    Maybe if more towns had free PO boxes, then mail delivery wouldn't be interrupted by moves.

Consultant32452 11y ago

I think it depends. Not having access to temporary credit at all is better than pay day loans. Of course, I'm saying that from my proverbial ivory tower. Philosophically I don't support banning those things, but I'll be damned if they're not fucking evil incarnate.

vkou 11y ago
Not having access to temporary credit means that any hiccup in your finances has you facing eviction, late bill penalties, and in the case of unpaid fines, possibly jail time. Having access to temporary credit means that same problem, but next month.
- Consultant32452 11y ago
  Having access to incredibly high interest temporary credit means having the same problem next month and this new problem of having to pay off the high interest credit bill. You're generally not going to be evicted for a temporary hiccup. Late bill penalties are almost certainly going to be less than the payday loan fees. I have mixed feelings about the making bail bit.
  - vkou 11y ago
    My bounced check fee is $30 from my landlord, $30 from my bank. My late rent fee is $30. My late utility fee is $5, but if I paid by a bounced check, that would be $35. In other cities, it could be much higher. The fee for not paying a fine on time can be a weekend stint in jail, whereby you will get charged for room and board. The fee for not being able to pay for car repairs is losing your job. The fee for not paying for needed medical attention when you aren't on insurance (Which, despite obamacare, many poor people lack) can be crippling. Poor people, in aggregate, aren't stupid - they wouldn't use payday loans if the alternatives weren't worse. Yes, it shifts the problem a month out, and puts you in debt for ~$100 dollars. So would juggling your missed payments (Meanwhile, giving you a black mark against your landlord). That's still better then having the problem today. And who knows? Next month, you may be a millionaire. Or dead. Better worry about that next month. If you want to kill payday loans, the best way to do that is by giving everyone a living wage/income.