3 ms·

Exactly. We need to start addressing both culturally and politically the fact that unemployment in a modern economy is going to get progressively worse as it in

Exactly. We need to start addressing both culturally and politically the fact that unemployment in a modern economy is going to get progressively worse as it increasingly requires less manual labor and more intellectual prowess to create value. The only way to deal with it is proper social welfare, because you can't just "create jobs." We could have a freer market and near full-employment if we replaced all our social welfare programs with a single minimum living stipend (you apply if you make below it, and if you qualify, get a check for the difference), and abolished minimum wage. It would save tons of money to as so much complicated and unnecessary administration of multiple agencies would be eliminated. Sadly, a proper social welfare system is exactly what the US refuses to implement. From healthcare to unemployment to disability. The economy is fine. It's not booming, but companies are flush with cash. The only thing wrong is unemployment, and the only option to deal with it is some form of welfare. The other option is to let the number of unemployed get to a point that social unrest starts becoming a problem.

daniel_solano 15y ago
We could have a freer market and near full-employment if we replaced all our social welfare programs with a single minimum living stipend (you apply if you make below it, and if you qualify, get a check for the difference), and abolished minimum wage. I disagree. A minimum stipend, at least in the way that you described, would create a perverse incentive. Let's say this stipend is $20,000/year. Why should anyone who makes $5,000/year and get $15,000 free want to work harder to earn the same amount? A slightly better take on this is to have some sort system were it always pays to earn more. For example, you get 1/3 of the difference between what you earn and $30,000. Under such a system, if you earn $10,000, you would get $6,667 for a total of $16,667. If you earn $15,000, you get $5,000 for a total of $20,000. Thus, it always pays to earn more/work harder. Personally, I don't like either idea. In my opinion, things like the minimum wage only serve to create unemployment. By making it more expensive to hire workers, companies find other means of being more productive, such as automation or illegal labour.
- dreamdu5t 15y ago
  Well they could only qualify if they were looking for work, disabled, or a senior. People who literally choose to do nothing but are able to work should be exempt. You could abolish minimum wage if you had a system of welfare that covered everybody adequately.
anonymoushn 15y ago
Rather than having an increasingly small portion of the population work 40 hours (and often much more) a week to provide for the living of all members of the population, why not have more people work for less time? I understand that there are forces at play that make this difficult, but if we are willing to steal from some people to give money to others it seems like we would be morally no more wrong to say that people may only work some smaller number of hours a week from now on, with this and that exception for emergencies.

daniel_solano 15y ago

We could have a freer market and near full-employment if we replaced all our social welfare programs with a single minimum living stipend (you apply if you make below it, and if you qualify, get a check for the difference), and abolished minimum wage. I disagree. A minimum stipend, at least in the way that you described, would create a perverse incentive. Let's say this stipend is $20,000/year. Why should anyone who makes $5,000/year and get $15,000 free want to work harder to earn the same amount? A slightly better take on this is to have some sort system were it always pays to earn more. For example, you get 1/3 of the difference between what you earn and $30,000. Under such a system, if you earn $10,000, you would get $6,667 for a total of $16,667. If you earn $15,000, you get $5,000 for a total of $20,000. Thus, it always pays to earn more/work harder. Personally, I don't like either idea. In my opinion, things like the minimum wage only serve to create unemployment. By making it more expensive to hire workers, companies find other means of being more productive, such as automation or illegal labour.

dreamdu5t 15y ago
Well they could only qualify if they were looking for work, disabled, or a senior. People who literally choose to do nothing but are able to work should be exempt. You could abolish minimum wage if you had a system of welfare that covered everybody adequately.

anonymoushn 15y ago

Rather than having an increasingly small portion of the population work 40 hours (and often much more) a week to provide for the living of all members of the population, why not have more people work for less time? I understand that there are forces at play that make this difficult, but if we are willing to steal from some people to give money to others it seems like we would be morally no more wrong to say that people may only work some smaller number of hours a week from now on, with this and that exception for emergencies.