4 ms·

Instead of basic income, which has the danger of creating a tribal, polarizing division between working and non-working people, economist richard d wolff sugges

by platz 9y ago

Instead of basic income, which has the danger of creating a tribal, polarizing division between working and non-working people, economist richard d wolff suggested (since he is an avowed socalist, amusingly, appearing in a Fox Business interview) that instead of basic income, we put everyone to work, while at the same time reducing everyone's hours. Work, but work less (adjust according to demand as needed, adjust compensation as necessary).

chrisco255 9y ago
This is not practical. Many folks are salaried. And many jobs take being on the job a certain number of hours to build up to maximum productivity.
- platz 9y ago
  In a world where all the current solutions are impractical, we'll have to find a way to make one of them practical. Also, no need to be overly categorical—certain jobs should stay the same as they are and of course be paid more. What we're talking about here is the bulk majority. Less hours could simply mean less days.
thriftwy 9y ago
> creating a tribal, polarizing division between working and non-working people I can't imagine how you would arrive at this idea. Unemployment benefits create a tribal, polarizing division between working and non-working people. Basic Income creates a continuum. You can have BI + leisure, BI + freelance, BI + 10 hr workweek, BI + regular load, BI + burning out. Whatever works for you.
- platz 9y ago
  When we sell "BI + burning out" to mainstream, who currently despise "Unemployment benefits", i'll be on board. Until then i'm skeptical that narrowing to just "Unemployment benefits" is the true underlying psych phenomenon at work here. c.f. quote from article which provides example of divisions that could from between working and non-working people which has nothing to do with unemployment benefits: > "How many working people would vote against taking universal basic income rights away from Nazis and terrorists? And once that is done, can we be sure they will not get an appetite to take them away from more and more people they dislike?"
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    USA has a special pass here because USA has working constitution (most countries, not really). You can pass amendment that every citizen is eligible for getting their BI, and power of random voter emotion will he checked.
    - platz 9y ago
      That not how 'power of random voter emotion' works, or "is checked". I'm not sure I'm following your argument here.
    - usrusr 9y ago
      And yet the USA happily denies the vote to felons. If the constitution allows that, it will surely not prevent other rights from being conditionally revoked.
      - Turing_Machine 9y ago
        "And yet the USA happily denies the vote to felons." Some states do. The USA as a whole does not. The Fourteenth Amendment allows states to remove voting rights for criminals, but does not require it. In fact, more states allow felons to vote than do not. The reason this is "allowed" is because the amendment specifically and explicitly permits that. I don't think that generalizes to other cases.
    - jtuente 9y ago
      Kind of like how the 2nd Amendment works... Just fill out these forms in quadruplicate and pay the $200-500 stamp tax to exempt yourself from the 10,000 pages of regulations on "firearms". Just replace "firearms" with "unpopular opinions". edit: The stamp tax is per firearm, so to be fair, this would apply to each unpopular opinion as well.
  - jpindar 9y ago
    >mainstream, who currently despise "Unemployment benefits" Got a cite for this? I've never heard of anyone who was against the US type of Unemployment Insurance, since to be eligible for it, you have to have been working for some time. > "How many working people would vote against taking universal basic income rights away from Nazis and terrorists? And once that is done, can we be sure they will not get an appetite to take them away from more and more people they dislike?" That is one of the biggest problems with UBI - how do you keep it universal?
KekDemaga 9y ago
> we put everyone to work > Work, but work less (adjust according to demand as needed, adjust compensation as necessary). "Hey Kek you are a programmer right?" "I am indeed" "We need you to work 80 hour weeks because we don't have many programmers, don't worry though we will give you another half ration to make up for it" "No, i'm only going to work 20 hours like the street cleaners" What does this fictional UBI government do then? Put a gun to my head and force me to work seems to be the most common solution to this problem historically. The problem is all human work can't be divided evenly among all humans, we need doctors more than we need fast food workers thus doctors typically work longer hours. For the system to be "fair" we can't pay doctors all that much more than fast food workers, maybe 10% - 15% or even 100% more but not the 1000% more they see currently. What if doctors decide that isn't enough and all become fast food workers instead? What do we do then? That is the problem UBI and Communism has yet to solve.
- platz 9y ago
  I didn't say anything about everyone getting the _same_ rate of pay, or that is it managed by a central planning government. please do not put words in my mouth
- ared38 9y ago
  UBI has an incredibly simple solution (that you already quoted): The programmer gets paid way way more than the basic income, because she also has a real job (vs a government subsidized basic job). If her current employer is demanding 80-hour weeks, she's free to quit and find another. Unless you're imagining a post-scarcity utopia, UBI isn't supposed to provide anything close to a luxurious life. For example, GiveDirectly has been experimenting with giving just enough money for food in Kenya. A first implementation in the US might be even less (relatively speaking), perhaps enough to make a minimum wage job livable. Practically speaking Communist countries also incentivize important work. Do you really think the NK scientists working on their missile just get "another half ration" more than farm workers?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
hammock 9y ago
That's pretty much communism. Everyone forced to work and compensated according to a centrally planned ("adjusted") economy. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx
- platz 9y ago
  I did not say anything about there needing being a government entity that centrally does things to people. The "adjust accordingly" part could simply be market forces that "adjust" wages. Also, I didn't say anything about everyone getting the same rate of pay. What I said was reduce total work hours (or blocks if req'd), pay them more, put more people to work. That's it. I agree I don't think this should be realized though communism.
- DonaldFisk 9y ago
  Under communism, you pretend to work and the Government pretends to pay you.

by platz 9y ago

chrisco255 9y ago

This is not practical. Many folks are salaried. And many jobs take being on the job a certain number of hours to build up to maximum productivity.

platz 9y ago
In a world where all the current solutions are impractical, we'll have to find a way to make one of them practical. Also, no need to be overly categorical—certain jobs should stay the same as they are and of course be paid more. What we're talking about here is the bulk majority. Less hours could simply mean less days.

thriftwy 9y ago

> creating a tribal, polarizing division between working and non-working people I can't imagine how you would arrive at this idea. Unemployment benefits create a tribal, polarizing division between working and non-working people. Basic Income creates a continuum. You can have BI + leisure, BI + freelance, BI + 10 hr workweek, BI + regular load, BI + burning out. Whatever works for you.

platz 9y ago
When we sell "BI + burning out" to mainstream, who currently despise "Unemployment benefits", i'll be on board. Until then i'm skeptical that narrowing to just "Unemployment benefits" is the true underlying psych phenomenon at work here. c.f. quote from article which provides example of divisions that could from between working and non-working people which has nothing to do with unemployment benefits: > "How many working people would vote against taking universal basic income rights away from Nazis and terrorists? And once that is done, can we be sure they will not get an appetite to take them away from more and more people they dislike?"
- thriftwy 9y ago
  USA has a special pass here because USA has working constitution (most countries, not really). You can pass amendment that every citizen is eligible for getting their BI, and power of random voter emotion will he checked.
  - platz 9y ago
    That not how 'power of random voter emotion' works, or "is checked". I'm not sure I'm following your argument here.
  - usrusr 9y ago
    And yet the USA happily denies the vote to felons. If the constitution allows that, it will surely not prevent other rights from being conditionally revoked.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      "And yet the USA happily denies the vote to felons." Some states do. The USA as a whole does not. The Fourteenth Amendment allows states to remove voting rights for criminals, but does not require it. In fact, more states allow felons to vote than do not. The reason this is "allowed" is because the amendment specifically and explicitly permits that. I don't think that generalizes to other cases.
  - jtuente 9y ago
    Kind of like how the 2nd Amendment works... Just fill out these forms in quadruplicate and pay the $200-500 stamp tax to exempt yourself from the 10,000 pages of regulations on "firearms". Just replace "firearms" with "unpopular opinions". edit: The stamp tax is per firearm, so to be fair, this would apply to each unpopular opinion as well.
- jpindar 9y ago
  >mainstream, who currently despise "Unemployment benefits" Got a cite for this? I've never heard of anyone who was against the US type of Unemployment Insurance, since to be eligible for it, you have to have been working for some time. > "How many working people would vote against taking universal basic income rights away from Nazis and terrorists? And once that is done, can we be sure they will not get an appetite to take them away from more and more people they dislike?" That is one of the biggest problems with UBI - how do you keep it universal?

KekDemaga 9y ago

> we put everyone to work > Work, but work less (adjust according to demand as needed, adjust compensation as necessary). "Hey Kek you are a programmer right?" "I am indeed" "We need you to work 80 hour weeks because we don't have many programmers, don't worry though we will give you another half ration to make up for it" "No, i'm only going to work 20 hours like the street cleaners" What does this fictional UBI government do then? Put a gun to my head and force me to work seems to be the most common solution to this problem historically. The problem is all human work can't be divided evenly among all humans, we need doctors more than we need fast food workers thus doctors typically work longer hours. For the system to be "fair" we can't pay doctors all that much more than fast food workers, maybe 10% - 15% or even 100% more but not the 1000% more they see currently. What if doctors decide that isn't enough and all become fast food workers instead? What do we do then? That is the problem UBI and Communism has yet to solve.

platz 9y ago
I didn't say anything about everyone getting the _same_ rate of pay, or that is it managed by a central planning government. please do not put words in my mouth
ared38 9y ago
UBI has an incredibly simple solution (that you already quoted): The programmer gets paid way way more than the basic income, because she also has a real job (vs a government subsidized basic job). If her current employer is demanding 80-hour weeks, she's free to quit and find another. Unless you're imagining a post-scarcity utopia, UBI isn't supposed to provide anything close to a luxurious life. For example, GiveDirectly has been experimenting with giving just enough money for food in Kenya. A first implementation in the US might be even less (relatively speaking), perhaps enough to make a minimum wage job livable. Practically speaking Communist countries also incentivize important work. Do you really think the NK scientists working on their missile just get "another half ration" more than farm workers?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

hammock 9y ago

That's pretty much communism. Everyone forced to work and compensated according to a centrally planned ("adjusted") economy. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx

platz 9y ago
I did not say anything about there needing being a government entity that centrally does things to people. The "adjust accordingly" part could simply be market forces that "adjust" wages. Also, I didn't say anything about everyone getting the same rate of pay. What I said was reduce total work hours (or blocks if req'd), pay them more, put more people to work. That's it. I agree I don't think this should be realized though communism.
DonaldFisk 9y ago
Under communism, you pretend to work and the Government pretends to pay you.