7 ms·
Sometimes when we spend tax payer dollars, we get back orders of magnitude returns in indirect benefits. This may or may not be a 100% return, but I’m happy to
by adamcstephens 5y ago
Sometimes when we spend tax payer dollars, we get back orders of magnitude returns in indirect benefits.
This may or may not be a 100% return, but I’m happy to invest in my fellow citizens who didn’t have a chair when the music stopped.
- mhb 5y agoWe're not investing. Our kids and grandkids and great grandkids are.
- adamcstephens 5y agoOh, since when do our grandkids and great grandkids get consideration in our actions? If they did get consideration, wouldn’t we want to reconsider a market-based economic system that destroys the natural systems they’ll be stuck with? That seems far more destructive to me than some human created currency numbers.
- josephcsible 5y ago> my fellow citizens who didn’t have a chair when the music stopped You're mixing up two different groups of people: those who lost their job and want a new one but can't find one, with those who just decided they don't feel like working anymore. I'm happy to invest in the former but not the latter.
- PascLeRasc 5y agoThe jobs are bullshit. There’s no benefit to society if someone spends 40 hours doing telemarketing or filling out paperwork.
- josephcsible 5y agoSome of them might be, but a lot of them aren't. Look at all of the restaurants and stores that can't stay open because they can't find workers.
- dorchadas 5y agoThose would be the perfect example of bullshit jobs. Erratic hours, no benefits, low pay. Yep, sounds like bullshit jobs to me.
- defterGoose 5y agoYou're redefining the term here. Yes, the employee might say "this is bullshit" to low pay and long hours, but the term "bullshit jobs" is meant to refer to jobs that have no tangible benefit to society. These jobs are typically mid level management type jobs that could be eliminated if not for our society's sense that managers are necessary. Cf. Arguments about the financialization of the economy and correlation of per capita lawyers in a society with that society's impending doom. Edit: oh, also healthcare in America. Very much healthcare in america.
- UncleOxidant 5y agoIf they didn't have erratic hours, provided benefits (or if we had universal healthcare) and paid a decent wage those restaurant and store jobs would at least have some meaning. Many people working at Facebook or Google making the big bucks often wonder if their work has any meaning - getting people emotionally charged so that they engage with your site doesn't ultimately have any meaning (it's even worse than that it's leading to societal trouble). But it pays really well so they keep at it.
- robotresearcher 5y agoIs that second group large enough that it should influence policy very much? Put another way, is the cost of administering a system that can tell the difference worth the savings?
- josephcsible 5y agoGiven the number of unfilled jobs that basically anyone is qualified for, I'd say yes it is.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Applejinx 5y agoI think those latter people are just as capable of being my customers and providing an environment where _I_ can invent/produce something of note. Why should I care whether they toiled miserably in order to be able to buy my thing? Maybe it would be better if they were leisurely, the better to go and search out the best things, allowing me to devote my efforts to MAKING said best things. Let 'em be thing-mavens, sipping lattes. They can compete over who is the coolest thing-maven. You're not thinking creatively enough.
- sokoloff 5y agoIf they’re living off their own resources, enjoying their life, while I work to make something they want to buy, more power to them, that’s awesome. If they’re living off the taxpayer dime, enjoying their life, while I work to make something for them to buy, then turn around and, as the taxpayer, give them the money to buy my thing, that’s substantially less awesome.
- solaceb 5y agoI think your mistake is: "living off their own resources" generally equals, for many people: "living in active exploitation in a ruthless work environment destroying their mental and physical health, because they literally need money to live, like anyone" Whereas: "living off the taxpayer dime" generally equals, for many people: "living free to do whatever they wish, for the most part" [and you find this absolutely abhorrent]
- Applejinx 5y agoIf it's working out that well for me that I'm thousands, millions of times richer than them (since there's a LOT of them and they all want to buy my things) I'm still getting a lot more from them than they're getting from me. Let 'em have some of it back, I will still be obscenely wealthy off exploiting their inability to produce on their own. Still seems like you're not quite grasping how this works.
- sokoloff 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- adamcstephens 5y agoI’m mixing up nobody. They all get my support, as I believe in my fellow citizens and their desire to feel useful in this world. Sure, some people will abuse the system, but the benefits of treating everyone equally outweigh the costs. When you means test, you require more bureaucracy while less effectively covering the people who need support.
- josephcsible 5y agoLet me clarify: I meant you made a good argument that we should support the first group, but the rest of this discussion is about the second group.
- res0nat0r 5y agoFrankly I find it perfectly acceptable that if someone is making $X from their job, and the government says the minimum amount to survive per month is $Y and is going to pay you that amount, and $Y > $X, then why would I return to work if my job is paying me starvation wages?
- XorNot 5y agoThe other thing is this is not new in the US, COVID-19 just dragged it into sharp focus. It is a standard employment practice at Walmart to walk their staff through signing up for food stamps - which they qualify for because Walmart doesn't pay them a living wage. Walmart costs you the tax payer more money every time they open a store.
- jandrewrogers 5y agoI don't understand this line of reasoning. If someone lacks the skills to produce enough value to earn a living wage then the taxpayer is going to be paying for them regardless. At least with the job that cost is partially offset by productive employment and there is an opportunity to develop skills so that they can earn a living wage in the future.
- res0nat0r 5y agoThey're only not earning enough to make a living wage because companies which are making billions of dollars a year in profit can get away with not being forced to pay a living wage.
- XorNot 5y agoThe government has no responsibility, nor should it, to subsidize your business. If you can't pay someone a living wage, then you shouldn't be in business.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoShould a high schooler working part time for gas money be paid a living wage? If the answer is yes, most jobs for high schoolers will disappear.
- ModernMech 5y agoThis perspective seems to presuppose that people who don’t work for corporations aren’t doing any useful work for society. In fact, people who don’t have jobs are engaged in all kinds of productive work that keeps society moving. This includes: - childcare - eldercare - homemaking (cooking, cleaning) - educating (homeschooling) - creating art - open source coding - volunteering Etc. We should absolutely invest in these people. Their work goes unpaid because it is not immediately profitable, but make no mistake it is absolutely necessary to society.
- UncleOxidant 5y agoGoogle, Facebook and Twitter could disappear tomorrow and there really wouldn't be much loss to society, in fact we'd likely benefit from their disappearance. And yet they rake in huge amounts of $$ while people engaged in things you mention like eldercare and childcare make a pittance.
- mbg721 5y agoIf Google disappeared tomorrow, I would think the biggest immediate effect would be people scrambling to figure out what to do about their lost email. The other two probably aren't very important, but that would hurt; Google has some pretty dangerous leverage.
- nostromo 5y agoBorrowing to build a bridge is economically rational. Borrowing to pay someone who could work not to isn’t. That’s not an investment, it’s just debt. (Debt that has to be paid back, usually with another person's labor.) If people want these programs, do the hard work and start championing for large tax increases.
- daniellarusso 5y agoWhat about paying them to stay out of prison?
- chillwaves 5y agoIt's more economically rational to build prisons. Think of the jobs!
- Daishiman 5y agoI believe they are alreading working on increasing the tax rate for similar reasons.
- treeman79 5y agoMy 50% tax rare isn’t enough? My wife likes to work, yet contributes nothing due to taxes. Accounting for extra expenses.
- Daishiman 5y agoA lot of jobs are basically untenable if you account for extra expenses, including a lot of the "gig economy" scams. I don't really believe you're actually paying a 50% tax rate. Unless you mean a _marginal_ tax rate.
- gpapilion 5y agoProbably not federal, but I pay that much in state and federal combined. It’s believable for a tech worker in ca.