7 ms·

The article doesn't say it of course, but the big question is what happens when the government keeps the dole, at least past midterm elections? There's tremend

The article doesn't say it of course, but the big question is what happens when the government keeps the dole, at least past midterm elections? There's tremendous automation happening right now, and it'll accelerate, to the point where if the government waits 2 years, a good portion of those jobs likely won't exist, and the government will never be able to get rid of the dole. It's kind of like quantitative easing infinity, except for the poors.

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
The United States is already at the point where a senatorial candidate campaigned on ‘vote for me and you’ll get that $2,000 check’. You can Google Raphael Warnock’s exact phrasing on the campaign ad but that was basically the pitch in the GA runoffs. The dole is here to stay.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Thank goodness. I'm sick of programming pointless shit; I want to be paid to automate things humans actually toil at.
  - machiaweliczny 5y ago
    Yes, if they raise minimum wage we can finally automate most work :)
- tjs8rj 5y ago
  Isn’t this the classic argument about how Athenian democracy dies? Either a majority oppresses a minority or the people start voting for excesses until the society goes bankrupt
asciimov 5y ago
We already have the dole it's known as food stamps, wic, ssi, government subsidies, etc. Instead of padding the pockets of Walmart or McDonald's by supplementing their labor costs, why don't we give the money straight to the people. Then force these companies to pay the true cost of their discounted labor.
- pilsetnieks 5y ago
  Because that goes against raising work, especially as hard and as much as possible, as a virtue, and directly challenges the protestant work ethic [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic
  - icelancer 5y ago
    It's also wildly unpopular amongst liberal groups in America who think people can't be trusted to be given cash; also disincentivizes the need for public workers to allocate the resources "properly," etc. Conservatives fear a "welfare state." It's a tried and true bi-partisan way to make sure the poor are worse off and feeling that we need to coddle them.
    - pilsetnieks 5y ago
      I believe it's a deeper cultural trait that goes beyond the current left/right extreme divide. It also doesn't help that at its best, it brings notable achievement in many spheres, but it does not assign value to the general welfare of people.
hardwaresofton 5y ago
Well we’ve had QE and tax cuts for the rich for a good long while now, pendulum swinging the other way feels warranted. You know what’s crazy? The solution is very simple. Pay workers more. The minimum wage is not a living wage. Heavily fine companies that attempt to run models that cannot support paying a living wage. The uninformed think that this will stop innovation, but it will only slow it, and that’s OK. Innovation is fueled by need or greed, and the VCs who complain about mandated high wages will indeed be greedy enough to fund the next batch of companies, because even if your returns go from 1000x to 100x (when you win), the returns still beat a lot of other investment vehicles.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  No, raising the minimum wage subsidizes innovation. It's better for the people and the technology. The only risk is that if gets so high there is more incentive for illegal work. That's one reason why UBI is better.
  - hardwaresofton 5y ago
    > No, raising the minimum wage subsidizes innovation. It's better for the people and the technology. I agree with that as a long term result, but what I'm arguing against is the common refrain of the immediate detrimental effect on current business of increasing minimum wages to living wages. Higher wages for society does lots of great things I didn't get into, but the common refrain is that it will "hurt small businesses". More people that can take more shots at innovating (also, producing culture which is an exportable good if not valuable in and of itself) is a great thing. > The only risk is that if gets so high there is more incentive for illegal work. That's one reason why UBI is better. I don't understand the point here on illegal work -- could you lay out the scenario? I'm not sold on UBI -- no one has managed to give a satisfactory answer for why it won't lead to persistent (even if minuscule) inflation everywhere. The best people get at is "competition", but very few "free" markets are as competitive as people think they are. Once UBI takes hold, companies will rush to gain a percentage of that UBI (this is almost like securing a government contract that never ends), and businesses will raise prices because at least intuitively every single customer now has more purchasing power and there's room for more profit. Remember that time that the government gave out $X checks and a lot of products magically became just around $X (in the recent years, very large TVs and stuff)? The market does react when it sees the government give out free money and I'm not sure why people think UBI will be any different. Don't add some new system that will be broken in new novel ways -- just help the people at the bottom of the economy right now, we know how to do it, we just won't because right now we are valuing economic growth more than stability/societal benefit. [EDIT] - I want to add a personal anecdote -- I have business owners in my family and during the pandemic, and we disagreed over a few things: - which businesses are really "essential" - the fact that more people at the bottom of the economy with disposable income means more profit for their own businesses, and just about every business. This means paying their employees more actually results in more profits for themselves in the long run (of course there's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma here). - The "job creator" narrative really is so ingrained at this point that it was hard to argue my point that businesses do not create jobs, demand creates jobs. Demand comes overwhelmingly from the middle and lower classes (well, except for very specific goods) -- most of the time smart businesses actually do their best to remove jobs (make their operations "lean"). Somewhat out of left field, but a lot has been said about the decline of the music industry -- but if you can get 1% of America to listen to your music, and give you a $1 for an album, that is 3 million dollars. It gets easier and easier to charge the more wages people make -- $5 a lot easier to pay when it's maybe 15mins of work for a worker. This kind of rising tide lifts all boats.
pilsetnieks 5y ago
It has a name [1] except everyone is really careful not to say it to not piss off the right wingers and get called communists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income
- vmception 5y ago
  I also avoid words I say things like "California is not a market-based economy right now" instead of saying what non-market-based systems are called. It goes over better with Americans who are more universally triggered by certain words, instead of their definitions. second example I've had surprising luck with over the past several years is that I tell people that big pharma doesn't want them to know that our body can build immunity by being exposed to weakened and dead versions of viruses. They're like "I knew it, natural remedies all along!", they are just allergic to the word vaccine and not the concept.
- lainga 5y ago
  Isn't UBI supposed to be funded by taxes and thus not as inflationary as giving new money where it's most likely to be spent?
  - skybrian 5y ago
    UBI doesn't say anything directly about where the money comes from. It's whatever plan you want it to be. (Or more charitably, a family of plans with a common feature.) You can get any redistribution you like depending on how the offsetting taxes work (if any).
  - pilsetnieks 5y ago
    The basic tenet is the "universal basic income" part, the source of funding is not as clear cut. It could be funded by taxes, it could be funded by inflation, it could be funded by something else. Except funding it by inflation long term would probably not be too healthy for the economy as a whole.
  - lupire 5y ago
    Yes, that's why senators and president are proposing tax hikes.
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
It was prescheduled to expire in September, and I haven't seen any major voices argue for extending it.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  If the politicians aren't whipping up support when the deadline looks, they are worse at politics than I thought.
nerdponx 5y ago
This is a great outcome in my opinion, as long as you can capture some of those gains from automation and use it to fund the "dole".

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago

The United States is already at the point where a senatorial candidate campaigned on ‘vote for me and you’ll get that $2,000 check’. You can Google Raphael Warnock’s exact phrasing on the campaign ad but that was basically the pitch in the GA runoffs. The dole is here to stay.

Ericson2314 5y ago
Thank goodness. I'm sick of programming pointless shit; I want to be paid to automate things humans actually toil at.
- machiaweliczny 5y ago
  Yes, if they raise minimum wage we can finally automate most work :)
tjs8rj 5y ago
Isn’t this the classic argument about how Athenian democracy dies? Either a majority oppresses a minority or the people start voting for excesses until the society goes bankrupt

asciimov 5y ago

We already have the dole it's known as food stamps, wic, ssi, government subsidies, etc. Instead of padding the pockets of Walmart or McDonald's by supplementing their labor costs, why don't we give the money straight to the people. Then force these companies to pay the true cost of their discounted labor.

pilsetnieks 5y ago
Because that goes against raising work, especially as hard and as much as possible, as a virtue, and directly challenges the protestant work ethic [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic
- icelancer 5y ago
  It's also wildly unpopular amongst liberal groups in America who think people can't be trusted to be given cash; also disincentivizes the need for public workers to allocate the resources "properly," etc. Conservatives fear a "welfare state." It's a tried and true bi-partisan way to make sure the poor are worse off and feeling that we need to coddle them.
  - pilsetnieks 5y ago
    I believe it's a deeper cultural trait that goes beyond the current left/right extreme divide. It also doesn't help that at its best, it brings notable achievement in many spheres, but it does not assign value to the general welfare of people.

hardwaresofton 5y ago

Well we’ve had QE and tax cuts for the rich for a good long while now, pendulum swinging the other way feels warranted. You know what’s crazy? The solution is very simple. Pay workers more. The minimum wage is not a living wage. Heavily fine companies that attempt to run models that cannot support paying a living wage. The uninformed think that this will stop innovation, but it will only slow it, and that’s OK. Innovation is fueled by need or greed, and the VCs who complain about mandated high wages will indeed be greedy enough to fund the next batch of companies, because even if your returns go from 1000x to 100x (when you win), the returns still beat a lot of other investment vehicles.

Ericson2314 5y ago
No, raising the minimum wage subsidizes innovation. It's better for the people and the technology. The only risk is that if gets so high there is more incentive for illegal work. That's one reason why UBI is better.
- hardwaresofton 5y ago
  > No, raising the minimum wage subsidizes innovation. It's better for the people and the technology. I agree with that as a long term result, but what I'm arguing against is the common refrain of the immediate detrimental effect on current business of increasing minimum wages to living wages. Higher wages for society does lots of great things I didn't get into, but the common refrain is that it will "hurt small businesses". More people that can take more shots at innovating (also, producing culture which is an exportable good if not valuable in and of itself) is a great thing. > The only risk is that if gets so high there is more incentive for illegal work. That's one reason why UBI is better. I don't understand the point here on illegal work -- could you lay out the scenario? I'm not sold on UBI -- no one has managed to give a satisfactory answer for why it won't lead to persistent (even if minuscule) inflation everywhere. The best people get at is "competition", but very few "free" markets are as competitive as people think they are. Once UBI takes hold, companies will rush to gain a percentage of that UBI (this is almost like securing a government contract that never ends), and businesses will raise prices because at least intuitively every single customer now has more purchasing power and there's room for more profit. Remember that time that the government gave out $X checks and a lot of products magically became just around $X (in the recent years, very large TVs and stuff)? The market does react when it sees the government give out free money and I'm not sure why people think UBI will be any different. Don't add some new system that will be broken in new novel ways -- just help the people at the bottom of the economy right now, we know how to do it, we just won't because right now we are valuing economic growth more than stability/societal benefit. [EDIT] - I want to add a personal anecdote -- I have business owners in my family and during the pandemic, and we disagreed over a few things: - which businesses are really "essential" - the fact that more people at the bottom of the economy with disposable income means more profit for their own businesses, and just about every business. This means paying their employees more actually results in more profits for themselves in the long run (of course there's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma here). - The "job creator" narrative really is so ingrained at this point that it was hard to argue my point that businesses do not create jobs, demand creates jobs. Demand comes overwhelmingly from the middle and lower classes (well, except for very specific goods) -- most of the time smart businesses actually do their best to remove jobs (make their operations "lean"). Somewhat out of left field, but a lot has been said about the decline of the music industry -- but if you can get 1% of America to listen to your music, and give you a $1 for an album, that is 3 million dollars. It gets easier and easier to charge the more wages people make -- $5 a lot easier to pay when it's maybe 15mins of work for a worker. This kind of rising tide lifts all boats.

pilsetnieks 5y ago

It has a name [1] except everyone is really careful not to say it to not piss off the right wingers and get called communists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income

vmception 5y ago
I also avoid words I say things like "California is not a market-based economy right now" instead of saying what non-market-based systems are called. It goes over better with Americans who are more universally triggered by certain words, instead of their definitions. second example I've had surprising luck with over the past several years is that I tell people that big pharma doesn't want them to know that our body can build immunity by being exposed to weakened and dead versions of viruses. They're like "I knew it, natural remedies all along!", they are just allergic to the word vaccine and not the concept.
lainga 5y ago
Isn't UBI supposed to be funded by taxes and thus not as inflationary as giving new money where it's most likely to be spent?
- skybrian 5y ago
  UBI doesn't say anything directly about where the money comes from. It's whatever plan you want it to be. (Or more charitably, a family of plans with a common feature.) You can get any redistribution you like depending on how the offsetting taxes work (if any).
- pilsetnieks 5y ago
  The basic tenet is the "universal basic income" part, the source of funding is not as clear cut. It could be funded by taxes, it could be funded by inflation, it could be funded by something else. Except funding it by inflation long term would probably not be too healthy for the economy as a whole.
- lupire 5y ago
  Yes, that's why senators and president are proposing tax hikes.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

It was prescheduled to expire in September, and I haven't seen any major voices argue for extending it.

Ericson2314 5y ago
If the politicians aren't whipping up support when the deadline looks, they are worse at politics than I thought.

nerdponx 5y ago

This is a great outcome in my opinion, as long as you can capture some of those gains from automation and use it to fund the "dole".