4 ms·

> Everybody should be able to live comfortably, working at most 40 hours / week. What if they aren’t productive enough to earn that amount of money? Where does

by jpxw 6y ago

> Everybody should be able to live comfortably, working at most 40 hours / week. What if they aren’t productive enough to earn that amount of money? Where does the money come from?

adrianN 6y ago
Other people of course. Just like for people who can't work at all, for example because their health doesn't allow it.
- jpxw 6y ago
  How is this any different to a welfare state, then?
  - AndrewDucker 6y ago
    It's not any different. If by "welfare state" you mean "a decent social safety net". Which the USA should definitely have.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    Why does it need to be different from a welfare state?
    - nvoid 6y ago
      I don't think you have a picture of what a welfare state is. Sometimes it helps to take it to the extreme: You have millions of people sitting in their government provided housing, waiting for their government provided payouts, so they can avoid having to get out and work. This sound familiar yet? Then what you have to do, after production grounds to a halt, is to start to force people to work which is exactly how you get labor camps.
      - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        Ah yes, the well known labour camps of Scandinavia. I'm pretty sure you may be trolling but if you're not, reading up on the western european welfare states would probably be a good idea.
        nvoid 6y ago
        I was taking it to the extreme as I said above. Obviously it is possible to have a country that has welfare without labor camps. I was merely trying to point out that by having unemployment benefits, you actively discourage people to get jobs and essentially tax payers pay for people to not work. At least in the UK, we have an inordinate amount of benefits cheats that live off other people's money. If you only extend benefits to people who physically cannot work -i.e. disability benefits, then you stop this happening.
        peteretep 6y ago
        > At least in the UK, we have an inordinate amount of benefits cheats that live off other people's money ... > perceptions among the British public were that benefit fraud was high – on average people thought that 27% of the British welfare budget is claimed fraudulently; however, official UK Government figures have stated that the proportion of fraud stands at 0.7% of the total welfare budget in 2011/12 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_fraud_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_fraud_in_the_United_...
        nvoid 6y ago
        Sorry but my definition of a benefit cheat is much more liberal than the government's: > Fraud: Cases where all three of the following conditions apply: The conditions for receipt of benefit, or the rate of benefit in payment, are not being met The claimant can reasonably be expected to be aware of the effect on entitlement Benefit stops or reduces as a result of the review. [1] < Firstly, the data is only from those who got caught. I would say there is probably a lot more that haven't been. Also, you can claim benefits by going to the job centre every so often, but you don't need to actually get a job. Anecdotally, my mate's dad does this. He has been living off of benefits for 10+ years, even though he is more than able to work. If someone can get away with it for that long, how is the system not broken? [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-2018-to-2019-estimates https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fraud-and-error-in-...
oezi 6y ago
I think this argument makes sense in white collar jobs, but productivity in blue collar jobs is very scalable by capital (e.g. automation). People without much qualifications can make a multiple if there are adequate jobs.
issamehh 6y ago
It's a real good thing that all of the money was imaginary in the first place. It can come from wherever. It's just a means to allocate the resources that actually hold the value, but is not valuable itself.
d3ckard 6y ago
That’s a false argument. Pretty much every employee is productive enough to be living a decent life. The same can’t be said about their bargaining power.

by jpxw 6y ago

> Everybody should be able to live comfortably, working at most 40 hours / week. What if they aren’t productive enough to earn that amount of money? Where does the money come from?

adrianN 6y ago

Other people of course. Just like for people who can't work at all, for example because their health doesn't allow it.

jpxw 6y ago
How is this any different to a welfare state, then?
- AndrewDucker 6y ago
  It's not any different. If by "welfare state" you mean "a decent social safety net". Which the USA should definitely have.
- peteretep 6y ago
  Why does it need to be different from a welfare state?
  - nvoid 6y ago
    I don't think you have a picture of what a welfare state is. Sometimes it helps to take it to the extreme: You have millions of people sitting in their government provided housing, waiting for their government provided payouts, so they can avoid having to get out and work. This sound familiar yet? Then what you have to do, after production grounds to a halt, is to start to force people to work which is exactly how you get labor camps.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      Ah yes, the well known labour camps of Scandinavia. I'm pretty sure you may be trolling but if you're not, reading up on the western european welfare states would probably be a good idea.
      - nvoid 6y ago
        I was taking it to the extreme as I said above. Obviously it is possible to have a country that has welfare without labor camps. I was merely trying to point out that by having unemployment benefits, you actively discourage people to get jobs and essentially tax payers pay for people to not work. At least in the UK, we have an inordinate amount of benefits cheats that live off other people's money. If you only extend benefits to people who physically cannot work -i.e. disability benefits, then you stop this happening.
        peteretep 6y ago
        > At least in the UK, we have an inordinate amount of benefits cheats that live off other people's money ... > perceptions among the British public were that benefit fraud was high – on average people thought that 27% of the British welfare budget is claimed fraudulently; however, official UK Government figures have stated that the proportion of fraud stands at 0.7% of the total welfare budget in 2011/12 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_fraud_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_fraud_in_the_United_...
        nvoid 6y ago
        Sorry but my definition of a benefit cheat is much more liberal than the government's: > Fraud: Cases where all three of the following conditions apply: The conditions for receipt of benefit, or the rate of benefit in payment, are not being met The claimant can reasonably be expected to be aware of the effect on entitlement Benefit stops or reduces as a result of the review. [1] < Firstly, the data is only from those who got caught. I would say there is probably a lot more that haven't been. Also, you can claim benefits by going to the job centre every so often, but you don't need to actually get a job. Anecdotally, my mate's dad does this. He has been living off of benefits for 10+ years, even though he is more than able to work. If someone can get away with it for that long, how is the system not broken? [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-2018-to-2019-estimates https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fraud-and-error-in-...

oezi 6y ago

I think this argument makes sense in white collar jobs, but productivity in blue collar jobs is very scalable by capital (e.g. automation). People without much qualifications can make a multiple if there are adequate jobs.

issamehh 6y ago

It's a real good thing that all of the money was imaginary in the first place. It can come from wherever. It's just a means to allocate the resources that actually hold the value, but is not valuable itself.

d3ckard 6y ago

That’s a false argument. Pretty much every employee is productive enough to be living a decent life. The same can’t be said about their bargaining power.