4 ms·

Unemployment is not the metric I would use here. Those people cost money to exist and show up for work. How are those costs being paid?

gruez 5y ago
>Those people cost money to exist and show up for work. How are those costs being paid? Same way farmers get paid. Why don't we worry about the price of corn going to $0 a bushel and nobody wanting to plant corn? The market will find a price point where supply meets demand.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Not everyone is a farmer. And we subsidize them too.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Not everyone is a farmer. supply and demand applies the same way. > And we subsidize them too. the same supply/demand dynamics apply to non-subsidized goods/services
    - ddingus 5y ago
      Mere supply and demand fails to value basic labors in a way that makes them economically viable. Which is it? We continue to undervalue basic labors, and by that I mean the income from them is less than it actually costs laborers to perform them , or We subsidize them? If we agree to the latter, then we need to make sure all that makes sense and there should be no shame, no blame, and it should be ordinary and expected to be getting assistance despite working. Right now, we consider that labor near worthless, despite society depending on it massively, and we discourage people from getting assistance and do all manner of things to basically shame people doing those labors despite the fact that we know they are necessary in most cases and we know a lot of people will be doing them. Again, which is it?
      - gruez 5y ago
        >Mere supply and demand fails to value basic labors in a way that makes them economically viable. >Which is it? >We continue to undervalue basic labors, and by that I mean the income from them is less than it actually costs laborers to perform them >, or >We subsidize them? We're already doing the latter, because if it's really the case that they're not "economically viable", the people would have starved to death long time ago. >there should be no shame, no blame, and it should be ordinary and expected to be getting assistance despite working. >[...] we discourage people from getting assistance and do all manner of things to basically shame people doing those labors despite the fact that we know they are necessary in most cases and we know a lot of people will be doing them. I'm not against society subsidizing the lifestyle of people who are not productive enough to afford it, but judging by your other comments, you seem to be against companies hiring the very same people for extra money. >Right now, we consider that labor near worthless, despite society depending on it massively that's not a contradiction. Civilization is "massively" dependent on clean drinking water, yet you can get it from the tap for pennies a gallon.
        ddingus 5y ago
        BTW: you totally sucked me back in. Great discussion partner. Normally, when I say I won't respond again, I don't. Never personal, just letting the other parties know intent. Giving consideration. Hoping to get it back and usually I do. In your case, the great comments... ah well. Happens. Nicely done.

gruez 5y ago

>Those people cost money to exist and show up for work. How are those costs being paid? Same way farmers get paid. Why don't we worry about the price of corn going to $0 a bushel and nobody wanting to plant corn? The market will find a price point where supply meets demand.

ddingus 5y ago
Not everyone is a farmer. And we subsidize them too.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Not everyone is a farmer. supply and demand applies the same way. > And we subsidize them too. the same supply/demand dynamics apply to non-subsidized goods/services
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Mere supply and demand fails to value basic labors in a way that makes them economically viable. Which is it? We continue to undervalue basic labors, and by that I mean the income from them is less than it actually costs laborers to perform them , or We subsidize them? If we agree to the latter, then we need to make sure all that makes sense and there should be no shame, no blame, and it should be ordinary and expected to be getting assistance despite working. Right now, we consider that labor near worthless, despite society depending on it massively, and we discourage people from getting assistance and do all manner of things to basically shame people doing those labors despite the fact that we know they are necessary in most cases and we know a lot of people will be doing them. Again, which is it?
    - gruez 5y ago
      >Mere supply and demand fails to value basic labors in a way that makes them economically viable. >Which is it? >We continue to undervalue basic labors, and by that I mean the income from them is less than it actually costs laborers to perform them >, or >We subsidize them? We're already doing the latter, because if it's really the case that they're not "economically viable", the people would have starved to death long time ago. >there should be no shame, no blame, and it should be ordinary and expected to be getting assistance despite working. >[...] we discourage people from getting assistance and do all manner of things to basically shame people doing those labors despite the fact that we know they are necessary in most cases and we know a lot of people will be doing them. I'm not against society subsidizing the lifestyle of people who are not productive enough to afford it, but judging by your other comments, you seem to be against companies hiring the very same people for extra money. >Right now, we consider that labor near worthless, despite society depending on it massively that's not a contradiction. Civilization is "massively" dependent on clean drinking water, yet you can get it from the tap for pennies a gallon.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        BTW: you totally sucked me back in. Great discussion partner. Normally, when I say I won't respond again, I don't. Never personal, just letting the other parties know intent. Giving consideration. Hoping to get it back and usually I do. In your case, the great comments... ah well. Happens. Nicely done.