6 ms·

Add MMT to the list. LVT is good for state governments that don't have their own currency.

Ericson2314 6y ago
Modern Monetary theory is theory not policy. The jobs guarantee that goes with it I really don't like. It's stupid in 2020 to not be trying to reduce the total labor per person. Sure, some infrastructure projects are really important, not profitable, and might even require the training of new labor to get it done. They should definitely still happen. But I see no good reason to hitch that to jobs guarantee.
- bhawks 6y ago
  Reducing labor as a goal seems rather odd. Why do you feel people should not have the freedom to work? What would you rather people do instead?
  - lupinglade 6y ago
    Live?
    - bryan_w 6y ago
      But then who would do the work?
      - lupinglade 6y ago
        More automation.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Let's look at this in aggregate: Fact: Productivity growth stars exceeding whole economy growth sometime in the 1970s. Rather than a shrinking workday or mass unemployment, we get mass underemployment. What this means is no one can survive without a job so inefficient or pointless work grows rapidly, fed by the margins of the labor market. This ultimately discourages further investment, technological progress, and will lead to falling median productivity and then mean productivity. This is extremely dangerous for society. We'll end up paupers in the ruins of our past greatness. Maybe we already have, if one looks at our infrastructure. Basically, you can think of the lack of a UBI as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) on the labor market.
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      A website like HN should be nakedly self-interestedly be for this, because a labor shortage is the best thing to "make technology great again".
- pydry 6y ago
  The most convincing argument for job guarantee over UBI I saw was plan jefes in argentina. It started out as a job guarantee, where women were given jobs as caregivers and got shifted to UBI where the women were told they didn't have to do the jobs but they'd still get the money. They still did the jobs when they didn't have to. They said it provided them with a social network and social interactions and most importantly, with purpose. One of the things that bugs me the most about UBI is the idea that people would rather just laze at home and do their own thing given the chance and the money to make that possible. I don't believe that's true. I think humans have a deep seated need to be part of a community, to have purpose and to leave a mark. The new deal was a spectacular illustration of that. The people who took part in public works projects were justifiably proud of what they'd done - building bridges, art works, schools, sewers, streets and more.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    > The most convincing argument for job guarantee over UBI I saw was plan jefes in argentina. The rest of your text seems to be an argument for UBI and against job guarantee. Is that first sentence what you meant?
    - pydry 6y ago
      Yes. I don't really see how I was arguing in favor of UBI.
      - enriquto 6y ago
        You wrote this: 1. a group of people were assured jobs 2. the job assurance was changed to a basic income, no need to work anymore 3. people still showed up to work errr... seems OK to me? It proves that even if there is an UBI most people will still work. The UBI is just a safety net that assures you do not die of exposure if you get to spend some time without working (for whatever reason). Your example proves that the UBI does not really distort the job market (except for the most shitty jobs, which is alright if they disappear). Also, your example proves that the existence of an UBI does not turn people lazy. All in all, your example is a great argument for the UBI!

Modern Monetary theory is theory not policy. The jobs guarantee that goes with it I really don't like. It's stupid in 2020 to not be trying to reduce the total labor per person. Sure, some infrastructure projects are really important, not profitable, and might even require the training of new labor to get it done. They should definitely still happen. But I see no good reason to hitch that to jobs guarantee.

bhawks 6y ago
Reducing labor as a goal seems rather odd. Why do you feel people should not have the freedom to work? What would you rather people do instead?
- lupinglade 6y ago
  Live?
  - bryan_w 6y ago
    But then who would do the work?
    - lupinglade 6y ago
      More automation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Let's look at this in aggregate: Fact: Productivity growth stars exceeding whole economy growth sometime in the 1970s. Rather than a shrinking workday or mass unemployment, we get mass underemployment. What this means is no one can survive without a job so inefficient or pointless work grows rapidly, fed by the margins of the labor market. This ultimately discourages further investment, technological progress, and will lead to falling median productivity and then mean productivity. This is extremely dangerous for society. We'll end up paupers in the ruins of our past greatness. Maybe we already have, if one looks at our infrastructure. Basically, you can think of the lack of a UBI as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) on the labor market.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    A website like HN should be nakedly self-interestedly be for this, because a labor shortage is the best thing to "make technology great again".
pydry 6y ago
The most convincing argument for job guarantee over UBI I saw was plan jefes in argentina. It started out as a job guarantee, where women were given jobs as caregivers and got shifted to UBI where the women were told they didn't have to do the jobs but they'd still get the money. They still did the jobs when they didn't have to. They said it provided them with a social network and social interactions and most importantly, with purpose. One of the things that bugs me the most about UBI is the idea that people would rather just laze at home and do their own thing given the chance and the money to make that possible. I don't believe that's true. I think humans have a deep seated need to be part of a community, to have purpose and to leave a mark. The new deal was a spectacular illustration of that. The people who took part in public works projects were justifiably proud of what they'd done - building bridges, art works, schools, sewers, streets and more.
- enriquto 6y ago
  > The most convincing argument for job guarantee over UBI I saw was plan jefes in argentina. The rest of your text seems to be an argument for UBI and against job guarantee. Is that first sentence what you meant?
  - pydry 6y ago
    Yes. I don't really see how I was arguing in favor of UBI.
    - enriquto 6y ago
      You wrote this: 1. a group of people were assured jobs 2. the job assurance was changed to a basic income, no need to work anymore 3. people still showed up to work errr... seems OK to me? It proves that even if there is an UBI most people will still work. The UBI is just a safety net that assures you do not die of exposure if you get to spend some time without working (for whatever reason). Your example proves that the UBI does not really distort the job market (except for the most shitty jobs, which is alright if they disappear). Also, your example proves that the existence of an UBI does not turn people lazy. All in all, your example is a great argument for the UBI!