4 ms·

> It lets the person whose labor is only worth $3/hour take a $3/hour job and still not starve to death. You'd still know that your labor is worth only $3/hour

by aylmao 9y ago

> It lets the person whose labor is only worth $3/hour take a $3/hour job and still not starve to death. You'd still know that your labor is worth only $3/hour, and if you're not starving to death it's because you're on this safety net. How is this feeling "you're serving a purpose" and that "there's value in what you do" as per my parent comment? Again, a job is about much more than the money, and "not starving to death".

bllguo 9y ago
Sure, ideally everyone gets well-paid, fulfilling jobs... So, when do we start talking about practical solutions?
- aylmao 9y ago
  A reasonable minimum wage
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    What about the people whose labor is not worth your minimum wage?
  - bllguo 9y ago
    I do believe in raising the minimum wage, but how does that address the fact that outsourcing and automation have been reducing and will continue to reduce the supply of jobs? Thousands of people have skills that are not worth enough, these days, to support the lifestyle they are used to. That's the problem here.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> You'd still know that your labor is worth only $3/hour, and if you're not starving to death it's because you're on this safety net. But your labor is worth only $3/hour. The only way to change that is for the person to improve their skillset, but if that was practical in a given case then it would happen regardless.
- aylmao 9y ago
  Value is not intrinsic to the object, but varies depending on the market and its rules. Go to another country and your labour might be worth more or less. So your labor is not worth $3/hour, it's worth $3/hour in this market. The approach I think would be better for everyone is designing the market so that your labor holds some value.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > Value is not intrinsic to the object, but varies depending on the market and its rules. Go to another country and your labour might be worth more or less. Sure, but the issue is the relative difference between what your labor is worth and what your costs are. Automation reduces unskilled wages, meanwhile the worker's costs for necessities like housing have if anything gone up over time. You could try to fix this by artificially raising wages for unskilled workers, but that's counterproductive. Increasing costs will increase prices workers pay when they buy things or drive people to substitute with alternatives that cause workers to lose their jobs. Exactly the opposite of the desired result. What you really want is to reduce the cost of necessities so the wages they actually earn will go further. Doing so using government subsidies brings us right back to a UBI, and you seem to want something else. The something else is basically changing the laws around housing and medicine to increase competition and drive down prices. Doing that is a good idea but good luck with that. The incumbents have a ton of lobbyists and a vested interest in staying fat.

by aylmao 9y ago

bllguo 9y ago

Sure, ideally everyone gets well-paid, fulfilling jobs... So, when do we start talking about practical solutions?

aylmao 9y ago
A reasonable minimum wage
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  What about the people whose labor is not worth your minimum wage?
- bllguo 9y ago
  I do believe in raising the minimum wage, but how does that address the fact that outsourcing and automation have been reducing and will continue to reduce the supply of jobs? Thousands of people have skills that are not worth enough, these days, to support the lifestyle they are used to. That's the problem here.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> You'd still know that your labor is worth only $3/hour, and if you're not starving to death it's because you're on this safety net. But your labor is worth only $3/hour. The only way to change that is for the person to improve their skillset, but if that was practical in a given case then it would happen regardless.

aylmao 9y ago
Value is not intrinsic to the object, but varies depending on the market and its rules. Go to another country and your labour might be worth more or less. So your labor is not worth $3/hour, it's worth $3/hour in this market. The approach I think would be better for everyone is designing the market so that your labor holds some value.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > Value is not intrinsic to the object, but varies depending on the market and its rules. Go to another country and your labour might be worth more or less. Sure, but the issue is the relative difference between what your labor is worth and what your costs are. Automation reduces unskilled wages, meanwhile the worker's costs for necessities like housing have if anything gone up over time. You could try to fix this by artificially raising wages for unskilled workers, but that's counterproductive. Increasing costs will increase prices workers pay when they buy things or drive people to substitute with alternatives that cause workers to lose their jobs. Exactly the opposite of the desired result. What you really want is to reduce the cost of necessities so the wages they actually earn will go further. Doing so using government subsidies brings us right back to a UBI, and you seem to want something else. The something else is basically changing the laws around housing and medicine to increase competition and drive down prices. Doing that is a good idea but good luck with that. The incumbents have a ton of lobbyists and a vested interest in staying fat.