3 ms·

I think there's a quality-of-life factor worth considering too. There's value in stability for many people. Maybe they've be happy with being a dishwasher or

by hakfoo 5y ago

I think there's a quality-of-life factor worth considering too. There's value in stability for many people. Maybe they've be happy with being a dishwasher or whatever for the rest of their career, so long as they can pay the bills. Living on a cycle of "oh, your job has been DISRUPTED(tm), go learn how to be a (trendy new job)" every few years is going to be frustrating and stressful at best. A lot of opportunities to choose wrong or be stuck having to upend your non-work life to serve this change. We can improve conditions for low-skilled workers by cranking up regulation. It's not just about a $15 or $25 minimum wage, it would be things like replacing "right to work" with "you can only fire with cause and ample notice" and perhaps regulating the "shift from three full time employees with four who are each booked 29 hours a week to avoid getting benefits" strategy. Maybe we outright restrict automation-- if you're going to displace a worker for a machine, you'd have a social and legal obligation to support that worker until he gets back on his feet. Of course, people will turn on the water works and claim this will ruin small businesses. I believe they will adapt. If anything, removing the worst actors from the market might reduce pressure in the market overall-- you can charge the extra dime for a burger knowing the guy buying it is making a living wage, and you don't have to try to compete with someone who's managed to unload part of his cost structure on the food-stamps/medicaid/social welfare systems. There's also the claim that this will accelerate automation, but I'm wondering how long that Faustian bargain is relevant. Even if we said "okay, you can pay your burger flippers $1.50 an hour to discourage you from replacing them with robots", eventually the robot TCO hits $1.49 per hour, and the deal's off. We're going to have more workers chasing fewer jobs, and it's unrealistically optimistic to assume "we'll keep retraining and inventing new jobs to take their place." The other option is to extract low-skilled workers from the market economy: create state guaranteed-employment programmes to absorb their labour. They don't have to make a business case for paying people a living wage, or not replacing them with robots, since the purpose of the programme would be to stabilize society as much as it would be the "label on the box" purpose (environmental cleanup/infrastructure maintenance/educational support/whatever trendy thing we think up next) It always bothered me that you can get a guaranteed government job if you want to shoot holes in brown people, but there's no similar opportunity without the violent intent.

kokanator 5y ago
I was ready to reread your response until your last sentence. There are plenty of guaranteed jobs in the government which have nothing to do with shooting holes in any type of human.
- hakfoo 5y ago
  Perhaps I'm being overdramatic, but there's a distinct experience I'm picturing. Joining the armed services is basically an all-inclusive package-- you enroll, and then everything is handled by them: they evaluate and grade you and figure out what training and job path to throw you on, and ship you out to where the job will be done. In contrast, even for the civil service jobs which are "we'll hire anyone" desperate, there's no centralized onboarding process analogous to an Army recruiter. It's much more self-directed: you have to browse through a bunch of open listings, pick a job that's a reasonable fit to your background and skills, engage in a relatively complex and lengthy application process. There's also typically not going to be relocation or on-site housing, so the available jobs are limited to those in your backyard or ability to relocate. This is inherently a lot less accessible, especially if we're trying to replace the sort of quick-and-rough hiring processes you see for low-skill positions: "walk over to the burger joint across the street from where you live and fill out the standardized form on the counter" or "visit the call centre which is constantly advertising same-day interview "job fairs"."
  - kokanator 5y ago
    We bemoan historical systems ( even some modern ) that require you to perform a certain job/duty because the ruling/authority/oppressor power tells you too. I guess in this case the individual 'believes' or has been convinced there are no better opportunities than to make themselves a servant of the state. Millions of people have traversed the globe including jungles, raging oceans, hostile territories, etc. leaving family and everything they know often believing they will most likely die for the simple chance they may reach our shores. It would seem that someone who is already here could take a bit more initiative than to limit their job search to the fast food restaurant across the street. I am simply stating that inferring an individual should abdicate their initiative and free will to the state because they simply are not capable of managing either seems more like bigotry by low expectations.

by hakfoo 5y ago

kokanator 5y ago

I was ready to reread your response until your last sentence. There are plenty of guaranteed jobs in the government which have nothing to do with shooting holes in any type of human.

hakfoo 5y ago
Perhaps I'm being overdramatic, but there's a distinct experience I'm picturing. Joining the armed services is basically an all-inclusive package-- you enroll, and then everything is handled by them: they evaluate and grade you and figure out what training and job path to throw you on, and ship you out to where the job will be done. In contrast, even for the civil service jobs which are "we'll hire anyone" desperate, there's no centralized onboarding process analogous to an Army recruiter. It's much more self-directed: you have to browse through a bunch of open listings, pick a job that's a reasonable fit to your background and skills, engage in a relatively complex and lengthy application process. There's also typically not going to be relocation or on-site housing, so the available jobs are limited to those in your backyard or ability to relocate. This is inherently a lot less accessible, especially if we're trying to replace the sort of quick-and-rough hiring processes you see for low-skill positions: "walk over to the burger joint across the street from where you live and fill out the standardized form on the counter" or "visit the call centre which is constantly advertising same-day interview "job fairs"."
- kokanator 5y ago
  We bemoan historical systems ( even some modern ) that require you to perform a certain job/duty because the ruling/authority/oppressor power tells you too. I guess in this case the individual 'believes' or has been convinced there are no better opportunities than to make themselves a servant of the state. Millions of people have traversed the globe including jungles, raging oceans, hostile territories, etc. leaving family and everything they know often believing they will most likely die for the simple chance they may reach our shores. It would seem that someone who is already here could take a bit more initiative than to limit their job search to the fast food restaurant across the street. I am simply stating that inferring an individual should abdicate their initiative and free will to the state because they simply are not capable of managing either seems more like bigotry by low expectations.