13 ms·

It's better to focus on the goals than on the means. Instead of talking about minimum wages, we should talk about minimum guaranteed income. For example, if som

It's better to focus on the goals than on the means. Instead of talking about minimum wages, we should talk about minimum guaranteed income. For example, if someone works in the long term 40+ hours/week in roles the society considers useful, they should enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. The required income might come from a combination of wages, welfare payments, and tax credits. If someone makes a useful full-time contribution to the society, they should be able to enjoy the benefits. And in the other direction: If someone has a full-time job but does not enjoy middle-class lifestyle, their job should by definition not be considered useful. By extension, businesses depending on such jobs would not be useful. Such businesses should still be allowed to exist, but if new taxes/regulations make them impossible, the society would not lose anything useful. Again by definition.

dredmorbius 5y ago
I'd expand the goals / means somewhat: Hierarchy of Failures in Problem Resolution https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarchy_of_failures_in_problem_resolution/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarc... (Invereting the senses it becomes a "kill chain" or success chain.) 0. Is there a problem? 1. What is the problem? 2. What is/are the root cause(s)? 3. What is/are the goal(s)? 4. How do we get there from here? 5. Who needs to be persuaded to help, or at least not obstruct, and how to communicate this? 6. Executing on project. 7. Assessment. Many people jump straight to method (sama here: boost minimum wage) or goal, without doing a deep think of cause. In some cases, the cause step isn't all that critical --- if someone's drowing or your tyre's flat, you don't launch a nine-month blue-ribbon commission to determine cause, you fix the problem and get people out of harms' way. If tyres keep going flat, or accidents occur, or houses burn down, or appliances electrocute people, etc., then you might want to spend some time on root cause, and address that. In the case of homelessness, housing, wages, and inequality, my very strong suspicion is that some very widely-accepted and held models are grossly wrong. Quite possibly because there's a beneficial interest in prolonging the problem or objecting to effective remedies, though various forms of local-minimal fixity might also play a large role.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  I think the root problem is not income. People don't inherently need pieces of paper with numbers and dead faces printed on them. Monetary income is simply the only way our primitive society has so far figured out how to provide for what people really need: Things like food, clothing, shelter, safety, autonomy, freedom, achieving their potential...basically everything up and down Maslow's hierarchy. You currently need monetary income to get these, but what if that wasn't so? How do we get to the point where everyone's life needs were simply met by default, and not dependent on their going off and working for these artificial money-points? We could, as a society, simply consider these needs to be rights, provide them to everyone, and skip the whole conversion to-and-from money. Let work and money be the "edge case" optional way for that motivated 1% of us to go out and get luxuries or privileges. It's not like we can't do this. We don't lack the technology, automation, mechanization... There is so much surplus economic value sloshing around that is simply captured and hoarded by the top 0.1%. We simply lack the political will to spread it around, and our existing winner-take-all power structures fiercely oppose anything like this utopia. Everybody is entitled to and receives subsistence food--but if you want a tasty steak, go work for a few bucks to get it. We can do this! It is not beyond our capability! We have so much food it goes to waste, surely everyone can be fed if there was political will. Everyone is entitled to and receives a home--but if you want a nice lake house, go work for it. We can do this too! There's no shortage of homes. The existing power structures just don't want it, and the rest of us are powerless to change their minds.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    So ... you haven't actually described what condition you're discussing, and if that's poverty, precarity, homelessness, inequality, ... One of the reasons I strongly suggest that as the first link on the chain. That said ... I suspect we agree on at least some bases. People don't want income in much the same sense that people don't want backups. Users of technological systems want restores. People want the ability to satisfy their needs. We live in a financialised society, in which for the majority of people, the means to the necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter --- you'll find these in Plato's Republic, in Mencius's writings, in Smith, in Marx, in Maslow) is through payment-based transactions. As opposed to self-sufficiency (at best rare in virtually all human history, far more likely nonexistant), tribal provision, socially-recognised entitlements, etc. There are people for whom this simply does not work. The very young, the very old, the phyisically ill, the mentally ill, addicts. Also those oppressed or excluded from societies. The idea that the market serves all is ... curiously unsupported. The "society of abundance" concept is one I'm familiar with. I have issues with that as well --- we have not entirely solved the problem of production, though I'd also argue that that problem is in many ways not what it's presented to be. There is necessary work which is unappealing and often pushed off to those least able to avoid it. And there's much that's unhealthy about even some of the best and most desired jobs (see this bit on burnout from two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31248787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31248787 ... itself a frequent HN topic, with 1,322 submissions found: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=burnout&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). My view is that there's probably a multi-factor approach that will be required: - Some form of income floor, established through a healthy union or labour movement, through a government employer of last resort, and/or a statutory minimum wage. These might be estabished nationwide, or within more regional markets. That last could be a national standard using localised price indices. - Some major form of housing reform. The notion of a housing supplier of last resort occurred to me some time ago. There is the notion of a Georgian land value tax. Major reforms to evictions should also be part of this. - Other areas of reform would include healthcare (still a mess within the US); mental health; reform to the police, courts, and penal systems; education; rights for workers, renters, women, underprivileged minorities, and others; and addressing systemic inequality. That's just scratching the surface. - All of this in a context in which the political and media systems are extraordinarily dysfunctional. (How individual readers interpret this will be ... interesting.) - And where there are a growing set of pressing global existential risks, most endogenous to humans --- we are our own greatest threat, rather than facing external threats, at present.
foogazi 5y ago
> in roles the society considers useful What does this mean ?
- jltsiren 5y ago
  It's up to the society to decide, as long as the society accepts the consequences. If a job is useful, the society should ensure that people doing it get a fair share of the wealth. If a job is not useful, nothing of real value is lost if all businesses relying on such jobs fail.
  - foogazi 5y ago
    But how does society decide a job’s usefulness in real life? How does this work? Edit: if you hire me for a job what do we need society for?
    - jltsiren 5y ago
      I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. There are countless formal and informal mechanisms societies use for building consensus on various topics. Even this discussion is one of them. For example, people generally believe that hotels are useful. Because somebody must clean the rooms between the visits but it's not reasonable to expect the guests to do it, the society has decided that hotel housekeeping is a useful job. However, if we leave it to the market, housekeeping does not pay enough to support a good life. Because there is a permanent need for housekeeping, we as a society must make a choice. Either we choose that some hardworking people do not deserve a good life, or we try building mechanisms that aim to fix the deficiencies of the market. Universal basic income could be one of those mechanisms, but because they are means rather than goals, it's better to leave them to experts.
      - foogazi 5y ago
        > For example, people generally believe that hotels are useful. When traveling, but if it’s too expensive they don’t stay there > Because somebody must clean the rooms between the visits but it's not reasonable to expect the guests to do it, the society has decided that hotel housekeeping is a useful job. For the right price- I would not stay at a $1,000/night hotel > However, if we leave it to the market, housekeeping does not pay enough to support a good life. The market is us - we decide we are not going to pay $300 a night at the Motel 6. > Either we choose that some hardworking people do not deserve a good life Why don’t we let the hard-working people decide were they want to work hard at ? > or we try building mechanisms that aim to fix the deficiencies of the market. You can stay at the Motel 6 and tip the staff $100 a night and fix the market

dredmorbius 5y ago

I'd expand the goals / means somewhat: Hierarchy of Failures in Problem Resolution https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarchy_of_failures_in_problem_resolution/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarc... (Invereting the senses it becomes a "kill chain" or success chain.) 0. Is there a problem? 1. What is the problem? 2. What is/are the root cause(s)? 3. What is/are the goal(s)? 4. How do we get there from here? 5. Who needs to be persuaded to help, or at least not obstruct, and how to communicate this? 6. Executing on project. 7. Assessment. Many people jump straight to method (sama here: boost minimum wage) or goal, without doing a deep think of cause. In some cases, the cause step isn't all that critical --- if someone's drowing or your tyre's flat, you don't launch a nine-month blue-ribbon commission to determine cause, you fix the problem and get people out of harms' way. If tyres keep going flat, or accidents occur, or houses burn down, or appliances electrocute people, etc., then you might want to spend some time on root cause, and address that. In the case of homelessness, housing, wages, and inequality, my very strong suspicion is that some very widely-accepted and held models are grossly wrong. Quite possibly because there's a beneficial interest in prolonging the problem or objecting to effective remedies, though various forms of local-minimal fixity might also play a large role.

ryandrake 5y ago
I think the root problem is not income. People don't inherently need pieces of paper with numbers and dead faces printed on them. Monetary income is simply the only way our primitive society has so far figured out how to provide for what people really need: Things like food, clothing, shelter, safety, autonomy, freedom, achieving their potential...basically everything up and down Maslow's hierarchy. You currently need monetary income to get these, but what if that wasn't so? How do we get to the point where everyone's life needs were simply met by default, and not dependent on their going off and working for these artificial money-points? We could, as a society, simply consider these needs to be rights, provide them to everyone, and skip the whole conversion to-and-from money. Let work and money be the "edge case" optional way for that motivated 1% of us to go out and get luxuries or privileges. It's not like we can't do this. We don't lack the technology, automation, mechanization... There is so much surplus economic value sloshing around that is simply captured and hoarded by the top 0.1%. We simply lack the political will to spread it around, and our existing winner-take-all power structures fiercely oppose anything like this utopia. Everybody is entitled to and receives subsistence food--but if you want a tasty steak, go work for a few bucks to get it. We can do this! It is not beyond our capability! We have so much food it goes to waste, surely everyone can be fed if there was political will. Everyone is entitled to and receives a home--but if you want a nice lake house, go work for it. We can do this too! There's no shortage of homes. The existing power structures just don't want it, and the rest of us are powerless to change their minds.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  So ... you haven't actually described what condition you're discussing, and if that's poverty, precarity, homelessness, inequality, ... One of the reasons I strongly suggest that as the first link on the chain. That said ... I suspect we agree on at least some bases. People don't want income in much the same sense that people don't want backups. Users of technological systems want restores. People want the ability to satisfy their needs. We live in a financialised society, in which for the majority of people, the means to the necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter --- you'll find these in Plato's Republic, in Mencius's writings, in Smith, in Marx, in Maslow) is through payment-based transactions. As opposed to self-sufficiency (at best rare in virtually all human history, far more likely nonexistant), tribal provision, socially-recognised entitlements, etc. There are people for whom this simply does not work. The very young, the very old, the phyisically ill, the mentally ill, addicts. Also those oppressed or excluded from societies. The idea that the market serves all is ... curiously unsupported. The "society of abundance" concept is one I'm familiar with. I have issues with that as well --- we have not entirely solved the problem of production, though I'd also argue that that problem is in many ways not what it's presented to be. There is necessary work which is unappealing and often pushed off to those least able to avoid it. And there's much that's unhealthy about even some of the best and most desired jobs (see this bit on burnout from two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31248787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31248787 ... itself a frequent HN topic, with 1,322 submissions found: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=burnout&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). My view is that there's probably a multi-factor approach that will be required: - Some form of income floor, established through a healthy union or labour movement, through a government employer of last resort, and/or a statutory minimum wage. These might be estabished nationwide, or within more regional markets. That last could be a national standard using localised price indices. - Some major form of housing reform. The notion of a housing supplier of last resort occurred to me some time ago. There is the notion of a Georgian land value tax. Major reforms to evictions should also be part of this. - Other areas of reform would include healthcare (still a mess within the US); mental health; reform to the police, courts, and penal systems; education; rights for workers, renters, women, underprivileged minorities, and others; and addressing systemic inequality. That's just scratching the surface. - All of this in a context in which the political and media systems are extraordinarily dysfunctional. (How individual readers interpret this will be ... interesting.) - And where there are a growing set of pressing global existential risks, most endogenous to humans --- we are our own greatest threat, rather than facing external threats, at present.

foogazi 5y ago

> in roles the society considers useful What does this mean ?

jltsiren 5y ago
It's up to the society to decide, as long as the society accepts the consequences. If a job is useful, the society should ensure that people doing it get a fair share of the wealth. If a job is not useful, nothing of real value is lost if all businesses relying on such jobs fail.
- foogazi 5y ago
  But how does society decide a job’s usefulness in real life? How does this work? Edit: if you hire me for a job what do we need society for?
  - jltsiren 5y ago
    I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. There are countless formal and informal mechanisms societies use for building consensus on various topics. Even this discussion is one of them. For example, people generally believe that hotels are useful. Because somebody must clean the rooms between the visits but it's not reasonable to expect the guests to do it, the society has decided that hotel housekeeping is a useful job. However, if we leave it to the market, housekeeping does not pay enough to support a good life. Because there is a permanent need for housekeeping, we as a society must make a choice. Either we choose that some hardworking people do not deserve a good life, or we try building mechanisms that aim to fix the deficiencies of the market. Universal basic income could be one of those mechanisms, but because they are means rather than goals, it's better to leave them to experts.
    - foogazi 5y ago
      > For example, people generally believe that hotels are useful. When traveling, but if it’s too expensive they don’t stay there > Because somebody must clean the rooms between the visits but it's not reasonable to expect the guests to do it, the society has decided that hotel housekeeping is a useful job. For the right price- I would not stay at a $1,000/night hotel > However, if we leave it to the market, housekeeping does not pay enough to support a good life. The market is us - we decide we are not going to pay $300 a night at the Motel 6. > Either we choose that some hardworking people do not deserve a good life Why don’t we let the hard-working people decide were they want to work hard at ? > or we try building mechanisms that aim to fix the deficiencies of the market. You can stay at the Motel 6 and tip the staff $100 a night and fix the market