5 ms·

No one is forced to do anything. Anyone who doesn't want a government job is free to refuse and make their own way in the world - in fact, that's the preferred

No one is forced to do anything. Anyone who doesn't want a government job is free to refuse and make their own way in the world - in fact, that's the preferred option. If you are actually saying you don't want your children taken care of by someone doing it for the money (or prefer a person selling the "artisinal child care" persona), that's fine. Many wealthy people in the west can afford to hold out for such things. Others are less picky and just need a responsible adult to keep their children from eating poop or dying of thirst, and teaching them a little Marathi is just a bonus. Should those people be deprived since the service doesn't meet your standards? Note that public schools mainly just meet the latter standard - should we get rid of them also?

auggierose 10y ago
It is a matter of how that job offer is set up. If the terms are "pick one of these 100 government jobs or we cut your benefits" then clearly the people you will get for that job will be different than your standard public school teacher, who is supposed to have studied for that job (at least that is how it is in Germany). IF on the other hand you establish child care as a proper job that people can take or leave, just like being a public school teacher, then that would be adequate. But I would want some government regulated certification for that job, because what being a "responsible adult" means is too vague and too subjective for child care. So, if child care is just another job (as it is now), what would your proposal mean? Basically, that the government pays for an army of child carers, and that that army would be funded by tax. Just like the public school system.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  As I said repeatedly above, the basic job guarantee is just another job. It pays primarily in-kind benefits (i.e. rooms in govt dorms, govt cafeteria food, etc) and little money, and it's available to anyone who wants it. Also welfare is eliminated the day we create the basic job (or after some phase-in period, more realistically). So basically yes, the government will pay for an army of child carers, an army of infrastructure fixers, an army of trash picker uppers, etc. It just won't pay very much and most of what it pays will be in-kind benefits rather than money (e.g. rooms in government dorms in low cost areas). It's interesting that you are suggesting people who are currently on government benefits are disproportionately unsuitable for child care. Can you expand on this? My attempts to fill in the blanks here lead me to the idea that poor people are irresponsible and morally defective (e.g., they might ignore it when children start hitting each other with rocks), but I suspect that isn't a claim you'll endorse. Could you clarify in detail what you mean?
  - auggierose 10y ago
    Please don't put words in my mouth I didn't say. It is a matter of motivation, you need people who are motivated to do a job and skilled enough to do it. YOU brought up the public school teacher as an example, and I like it. A child carer needs to be compensated with money, just as any other professional or teacher, because money means choice and power. A child carer should not be forced into a salary race to the bottom, and it is ridiculous to assume that a child carer would want to work just for food and a roof over his/her head. This is NOT a deal any responsible adult in my opinion should take, and somebody who takes that deal is per se disqualified to take care of my children.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I didn't put words in your mouth. I explicitly said that was just the only thing I could come up with to fill in the blanks, and I explicitly asked for you to clarify. So again, here's the concrete question. It's a positive question about the world, not a normative question about what you think should happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement#Positive_statements_and_normative_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement#Positive_st... Suppose we implement my scheme and people who can't find a job wind up caring for children in return for in-kind benefits. What objectively bad things will happen to the children as a result and why will those things happen? What I'm trying to disambiguate here is moral/aesthetic preferences ("should not be forced into a salary race to the bottom" because I don't like it) and positive claims about the world ("a basic job will cause children to die of aids after former welfare recipients stab them with dirty needles").
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        A "positive question" about "objectively bad" is a oxymoron. "Bad" is inherently subjective and, always a normative rather than positive issue.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        True. A better way to phrase it would have been "are there any objectively measurable things that happen to the children which are widely perceived to be bad?"

auggierose 10y ago

It is a matter of how that job offer is set up. If the terms are "pick one of these 100 government jobs or we cut your benefits" then clearly the people you will get for that job will be different than your standard public school teacher, who is supposed to have studied for that job (at least that is how it is in Germany). IF on the other hand you establish child care as a proper job that people can take or leave, just like being a public school teacher, then that would be adequate. But I would want some government regulated certification for that job, because what being a "responsible adult" means is too vague and too subjective for child care. So, if child care is just another job (as it is now), what would your proposal mean? Basically, that the government pays for an army of child carers, and that that army would be funded by tax. Just like the public school system.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
As I said repeatedly above, the basic job guarantee is just another job. It pays primarily in-kind benefits (i.e. rooms in govt dorms, govt cafeteria food, etc) and little money, and it's available to anyone who wants it. Also welfare is eliminated the day we create the basic job (or after some phase-in period, more realistically). So basically yes, the government will pay for an army of child carers, an army of infrastructure fixers, an army of trash picker uppers, etc. It just won't pay very much and most of what it pays will be in-kind benefits rather than money (e.g. rooms in government dorms in low cost areas). It's interesting that you are suggesting people who are currently on government benefits are disproportionately unsuitable for child care. Can you expand on this? My attempts to fill in the blanks here lead me to the idea that poor people are irresponsible and morally defective (e.g., they might ignore it when children start hitting each other with rocks), but I suspect that isn't a claim you'll endorse. Could you clarify in detail what you mean?
- auggierose 10y ago
  Please don't put words in my mouth I didn't say. It is a matter of motivation, you need people who are motivated to do a job and skilled enough to do it. YOU brought up the public school teacher as an example, and I like it. A child carer needs to be compensated with money, just as any other professional or teacher, because money means choice and power. A child carer should not be forced into a salary race to the bottom, and it is ridiculous to assume that a child carer would want to work just for food and a roof over his/her head. This is NOT a deal any responsible adult in my opinion should take, and somebody who takes that deal is per se disqualified to take care of my children.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I didn't put words in your mouth. I explicitly said that was just the only thing I could come up with to fill in the blanks, and I explicitly asked for you to clarify. So again, here's the concrete question. It's a positive question about the world, not a normative question about what you think should happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement#Positive_statements_and_normative_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement#Positive_st... Suppose we implement my scheme and people who can't find a job wind up caring for children in return for in-kind benefits. What objectively bad things will happen to the children as a result and why will those things happen? What I'm trying to disambiguate here is moral/aesthetic preferences ("should not be forced into a salary race to the bottom" because I don't like it) and positive claims about the world ("a basic job will cause children to die of aids after former welfare recipients stab them with dirty needles").
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      A "positive question" about "objectively bad" is a oxymoron. "Bad" is inherently subjective and, always a normative rather than positive issue.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        True. A better way to phrase it would have been "are there any objectively measurable things that happen to the children which are widely perceived to be bad?"