4 ms·

This bill is clearly not one that is particularly compassionate. They're not creating new social safety nets. Do you really need us to spell it out?

floatingatoll 5y ago
I’ll spell it out for the unaware, especially those in non-US countries that lack context. There’s a lot of assumptions built into this summary, and it is not clear whether it’s fully accurate or not, but it does help convey the viewpoint you’re referring to in a more comprehensive fashion. America was and continues to be built in large part by wage theft and labor exploitation. We don’t provide the social support services that are taken for granted in first-world countries like Canada, because doing so conflicts with the strongly-held belief — the ideology — that the best way to support the poor is to ensure that they’re employed in a job, no matter how terrible the working conditions or pay. Workers are told that this is a “ladder of success”, but upward mobility has stalled due to the wealth being drained out of the system into the ultra-wealthy and their families. Workers are encouraged to work for local businesses, who are themselves going bankrupt and collapsing at the swordpoints of Walmart, Amazon, and Covid. Health care costs have skyrocketed, health insurance is only offered to a subset of the workforce, and minimum wage doesn’t cover rent, food, and health care (pick one only). So, Montana is canceling unemployment as a way to force people to work at jobs they otherwise wouldn’t work at. This forces people back into the modern enslavement system, and takes for granted that enough employers are left in Montana to hire those workers. Rather than assessing whether enough jobs exist for their citizens and then requiring businesses to pay a reasonable wage that covers living costs, or offering benefits to attract workers, the state of Montana will simply block unemployment benefits. Employers that offer miserable wages, no health insurance, and poor working conditions are expected to see an increase in workers applying for those roles, further weakening the negotiating position of workers versus employers. The best analogy, then, for the perceived cruelty of these motivations is, in these modified words of the consultant from “Office Space”: “We fixed the glitch. So they won’t be receiving an unemployment check anymore. So it’ll just work itself out naturally.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is
- keeganpoppen 5y ago
  looks like we've found David Graeber's account... ;P
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    I looked up this guy and apparently there's one of three things intended by this comment. Either you're complimenting me (but the emoji and throwaway nature of the comment suggest otherwise), you're insulting me by calling me an economist (not exactly a common insult, but it's definitely not a favored profession), or you're comparing me to someone who's dead (which is terrifying and probably not what you meant, but who even knows with today's trolls). Of those options, I think you meant this to be an insulting and dismissive comment, wherein you jokingly compare me to a dead man in order to weaken or diminish the views represented in my detailed writeup of the 'unspoken' viewpoint referenced upthread. If so, you will find that Hacker News is not a reliably effective venue for that sort of manipulation of others. If I'm wrong in my interpretation, I of course welcome clarification. :)
    - 0xBDB 5y ago
      David Graeber was an anthropologist, not an economist, and a leader of Occupy Wall Street and author of "Debt: The First 5000 Years". I think the reference is to the latter. Whether you should take it seriously or consider it flattering I couldn't say, but having read the book and your comment, they are in fact quite aligned.
      - floatingatoll 5y ago
        Ah, interesting! I will add it to a list, thank you.
    - keeganpoppen 5y ago
      uhhhh none of the above? you just sound like him. nice to just fly off the handle based on a bunch of assumptions about my intent, though i think your assumptions and hostility say more about you than me. the emoticon was because it was teasing-- that's what the tongue out emoticon means. didn't even know he was dead-- read his book not that long ago. not sure what the fuck you're on about comparing people to dead people-- are we just supposed to stop speaking of the dead altogether?
jl2718 5y ago
Hmmm... I was trying to point out that speculation may be more ideological than evidentiary. Was that missed, or am I the one driving in the slow lane?

floatingatoll 5y ago

I’ll spell it out for the unaware, especially those in non-US countries that lack context. There’s a lot of assumptions built into this summary, and it is not clear whether it’s fully accurate or not, but it does help convey the viewpoint you’re referring to in a more comprehensive fashion. America was and continues to be built in large part by wage theft and labor exploitation. We don’t provide the social support services that are taken for granted in first-world countries like Canada, because doing so conflicts with the strongly-held belief — the ideology — that the best way to support the poor is to ensure that they’re employed in a job, no matter how terrible the working conditions or pay. Workers are told that this is a “ladder of success”, but upward mobility has stalled due to the wealth being drained out of the system into the ultra-wealthy and their families. Workers are encouraged to work for local businesses, who are themselves going bankrupt and collapsing at the swordpoints of Walmart, Amazon, and Covid. Health care costs have skyrocketed, health insurance is only offered to a subset of the workforce, and minimum wage doesn’t cover rent, food, and health care (pick one only). So, Montana is canceling unemployment as a way to force people to work at jobs they otherwise wouldn’t work at. This forces people back into the modern enslavement system, and takes for granted that enough employers are left in Montana to hire those workers. Rather than assessing whether enough jobs exist for their citizens and then requiring businesses to pay a reasonable wage that covers living costs, or offering benefits to attract workers, the state of Montana will simply block unemployment benefits. Employers that offer miserable wages, no health insurance, and poor working conditions are expected to see an increase in workers applying for those roles, further weakening the negotiating position of workers versus employers. The best analogy, then, for the perceived cruelty of these motivations is, in these modified words of the consultant from “Office Space”: “We fixed the glitch. So they won’t be receiving an unemployment check anymore. So it’ll just work itself out naturally.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUE0PPQI3is

keeganpoppen 5y ago
looks like we've found David Graeber's account... ;P
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  I looked up this guy and apparently there's one of three things intended by this comment. Either you're complimenting me (but the emoji and throwaway nature of the comment suggest otherwise), you're insulting me by calling me an economist (not exactly a common insult, but it's definitely not a favored profession), or you're comparing me to someone who's dead (which is terrifying and probably not what you meant, but who even knows with today's trolls). Of those options, I think you meant this to be an insulting and dismissive comment, wherein you jokingly compare me to a dead man in order to weaken or diminish the views represented in my detailed writeup of the 'unspoken' viewpoint referenced upthread. If so, you will find that Hacker News is not a reliably effective venue for that sort of manipulation of others. If I'm wrong in my interpretation, I of course welcome clarification. :)
  - 0xBDB 5y ago
    David Graeber was an anthropologist, not an economist, and a leader of Occupy Wall Street and author of "Debt: The First 5000 Years". I think the reference is to the latter. Whether you should take it seriously or consider it flattering I couldn't say, but having read the book and your comment, they are in fact quite aligned.
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      Ah, interesting! I will add it to a list, thank you.
  - keeganpoppen 5y ago
    uhhhh none of the above? you just sound like him. nice to just fly off the handle based on a bunch of assumptions about my intent, though i think your assumptions and hostility say more about you than me. the emoticon was because it was teasing-- that's what the tongue out emoticon means. didn't even know he was dead-- read his book not that long ago. not sure what the fuck you're on about comparing people to dead people-- are we just supposed to stop speaking of the dead altogether?

jl2718 5y ago

Hmmm... I was trying to point out that speculation may be more ideological than evidentiary. Was that missed, or am I the one driving in the slow lane?