5 ms·

There's plenty of fat in this budget. The hypothetical worker in your link might consider increasing his labor supply beyond eight hours a day. Maybe he could f

by cltby 6y ago

There's plenty of fat in this budget. The hypothetical worker in your link might consider increasing his labor supply beyond eight hours a day. Maybe he could forego his biannual iPhone upgrade. He might even cut his consumption of high-dollar first world medical care. Now, I understand you think these are all things that, as a matter of decency, our citizens should have. That's great! Then pay for it, and stop saddling everyone else with the costs of your morality.

arcticbull 6y ago
Take it up with MIT, not me. I'm sure they'd love to hear your theories about how fridges aren't necessities in the winter :) I take it you're an expert in living wage calculation? For what it's worth when I reviewed their methodology, as I suggest you do, I didn't see a line-item for "biannual iPhone upgrade." [1] And re: medical care, I'm sure you know someone making $12/hr can't afford to set foot in a hospital in America. For a single-income household of 2 parents and a child, the threshold for Medicaid eligibility is $15/hr. As a taxpayer, I retort, stop saddling me with the bill for the employees time you're consuming but refusing to pay for. If their services are that important to you, I'm sure you can pay what it costs without forcing me to split it with you. As a fine upstanding participant in this nation's economy, I'm confident you'll find a way. Maybe forego that biannual iPhone upgrade ;) [1] https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-Users-Guide-Technical-Documentation-2020.pdf https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-Users-Guide...
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  Sorry society doesn't get to declare an arbitrary "living wage" target for entitlement eligibility and then claim I'm mooching off society when I can't afford to pay their made-up number. If society wants to mandate a $16.09/hr wage, then it will have to accept that jobs that are not worth $16.09/hr will disappear, and we'll have more people with no income at all to deal with.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    Let them dissappear then. I am quite sure someone else will be willing to step up and get that work done. Can't afford often means unwilling to pay, not unable to pay. Where there is demand for that work, there is also strong incentive to make money getting that work done. Someone will. And they will do it differently, take a lower margin, bundle it with other work to bring the value up, increase their pricing, etc...
    - nickpp 6y ago
      > Someone will. Yup. Robots. Can’t wait.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        We are no where close to automating most basic labors. The hard truth is the investment is huge! And general automation, sufficient to replace basic labors on a meaningful scale is still in development. May happen some day. It will be a long while though. Plenty long enough for this discussion to remain relevant. Secondly, say we arrive at that point. What changes? People have costs to exist and be humans. I put this in another comment: if we truly do not pay those costs, people die and or do not show up for work. Lots of dead people is not helpful or desirable. So what do we expect them to do?
        nickpp 6y ago
        > We are no where close to automating most basic labors. Crap like this is giving us the motivation for finding solutions and getting closer. Just like the danger of starvation is giving people the motivation to get off their asses and get to work and improve themselves. We're pretty simple energy conservation machines otherwise. Give me a small stipend for weed, games and porn and I’d still be living in my parents basement.
        ddingus 6y ago
        Go get motivated! :D That's not crap. It is reality. Both the cost and capability of automation tech needs very significant improvement before we can talk realistically about it actually replacing basic labors. I have experience with these things. We have come far. There is far to go. I am not being negative here, just brutally realistic. About as brutal and real as the problems related to low wage employment. And as I said above, whether we have that available as a meaningful component in the discussion changes nothing. One other argument is all our innovation and increased productivity was supposed to be associated with it being far cheaper to live. Increased automation augments that promise. Fact is Americans face ever higher cost and risk exposure relative to their income despite much progress on those fronts. We are not seeing it get cheaper to live so far. Will we? Fair question. We will need to see that happen, or automation changes nothing about the basic discussion we are having here, and that is people have costs to exist and show up for work. And at some point, we can also say, if there is work to show up for, but we do not have to say that today, and for a reasonable future given where we are and the current pace of advancement. There is a lot of work to do, that we need to do, and we might as well employ people respectably and invest in them to get those works done, in addition to the massive value basic labors already add to our lives. I don't know about you, but my time is worth a lot! There is a great chance we both can do work that isn't basic too. Those people doing basic labor enable us to do that which we do. How much is that worth? I would suggest it is worth enough for them to make it and show up for work, same as us. (I am not suggesting they get a wage same as ours, just one that allows for a reasonable, modest, dignified life, and that they get it because what they do is necessary.) Up thread I posed a question, "which is it?" Corporations fully funding their labor, or government insuring that and corporations pay what they feel they can or should pay? Someone has to pay, or they die and don't show up for work. I don't care which. I do care that we continue to refuse to discuss which way it should be and instead treat all this like some problem the people doing basic labors for us should solve on their own, despite their contributions having good value and being necessary.

by cltby 6y ago

arcticbull 6y ago

Take it up with MIT, not me. I'm sure they'd love to hear your theories about how fridges aren't necessities in the winter :) I take it you're an expert in living wage calculation? For what it's worth when I reviewed their methodology, as I suggest you do, I didn't see a line-item for "biannual iPhone upgrade." [1] And re: medical care, I'm sure you know someone making $12/hr can't afford to set foot in a hospital in America. For a single-income household of 2 parents and a child, the threshold for Medicaid eligibility is $15/hr. As a taxpayer, I retort, stop saddling me with the bill for the employees time you're consuming but refusing to pay for. If their services are that important to you, I'm sure you can pay what it costs without forcing me to split it with you. As a fine upstanding participant in this nation's economy, I'm confident you'll find a way. Maybe forego that biannual iPhone upgrade ;) [1] https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-Users-Guide-Technical-Documentation-2020.pdf https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-Users-Guide...

throwaway201103 6y ago
Sorry society doesn't get to declare an arbitrary "living wage" target for entitlement eligibility and then claim I'm mooching off society when I can't afford to pay their made-up number. If society wants to mandate a $16.09/hr wage, then it will have to accept that jobs that are not worth $16.09/hr will disappear, and we'll have more people with no income at all to deal with.
- ddingus 6y ago
  Let them dissappear then. I am quite sure someone else will be willing to step up and get that work done. Can't afford often means unwilling to pay, not unable to pay. Where there is demand for that work, there is also strong incentive to make money getting that work done. Someone will. And they will do it differently, take a lower margin, bundle it with other work to bring the value up, increase their pricing, etc...
  - nickpp 6y ago
    > Someone will. Yup. Robots. Can’t wait.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      We are no where close to automating most basic labors. The hard truth is the investment is huge! And general automation, sufficient to replace basic labors on a meaningful scale is still in development. May happen some day. It will be a long while though. Plenty long enough for this discussion to remain relevant. Secondly, say we arrive at that point. What changes? People have costs to exist and be humans. I put this in another comment: if we truly do not pay those costs, people die and or do not show up for work. Lots of dead people is not helpful or desirable. So what do we expect them to do?
      - nickpp 6y ago
        > We are no where close to automating most basic labors. Crap like this is giving us the motivation for finding solutions and getting closer. Just like the danger of starvation is giving people the motivation to get off their asses and get to work and improve themselves. We're pretty simple energy conservation machines otherwise. Give me a small stipend for weed, games and porn and I’d still be living in my parents basement.
        ddingus 6y ago
        Go get motivated! :D That's not crap. It is reality. Both the cost and capability of automation tech needs very significant improvement before we can talk realistically about it actually replacing basic labors. I have experience with these things. We have come far. There is far to go. I am not being negative here, just brutally realistic. About as brutal and real as the problems related to low wage employment. And as I said above, whether we have that available as a meaningful component in the discussion changes nothing. One other argument is all our innovation and increased productivity was supposed to be associated with it being far cheaper to live. Increased automation augments that promise. Fact is Americans face ever higher cost and risk exposure relative to their income despite much progress on those fronts. We are not seeing it get cheaper to live so far. Will we? Fair question. We will need to see that happen, or automation changes nothing about the basic discussion we are having here, and that is people have costs to exist and show up for work. And at some point, we can also say, if there is work to show up for, but we do not have to say that today, and for a reasonable future given where we are and the current pace of advancement. There is a lot of work to do, that we need to do, and we might as well employ people respectably and invest in them to get those works done, in addition to the massive value basic labors already add to our lives. I don't know about you, but my time is worth a lot! There is a great chance we both can do work that isn't basic too. Those people doing basic labor enable us to do that which we do. How much is that worth? I would suggest it is worth enough for them to make it and show up for work, same as us. (I am not suggesting they get a wage same as ours, just one that allows for a reasonable, modest, dignified life, and that they get it because what they do is necessary.) Up thread I posed a question, "which is it?" Corporations fully funding their labor, or government insuring that and corporations pay what they feel they can or should pay? Someone has to pay, or they die and don't show up for work. I don't care which. I do care that we continue to refuse to discuss which way it should be and instead treat all this like some problem the people doing basic labors for us should solve on their own, despite their contributions having good value and being necessary.