9 ms·
These two paragraphs in particular stuck out to me: > Critics of labor-market programs such as the Job Guarantee argue that they enable precisely this sort of
by cocacola1 4y ago
These two paragraphs in particular stuck out to me:
> Critics of labor-market programs such as the Job Guarantee argue that they enable precisely this sort of choice—they make it easier to decline work that one doesn’t like. One program participant in his thirties told me that, while on unemployment benefits, he’d been offered a job cleaning toilets at a gas station; he’d decided that he didn’t want “that sort of job,” and had instead found work in the carpentry workshop. If everyone were guaranteed a reasonably pleasant job, suited to their interests and needs and paying a living wage, who would do the grungy, difficult work? Austrian employers, like those in America, are currently having difficulty hiring people to take hard, poorly paid jobs; many of the workers in Austria who wash dishes or clean hotel rooms are immigrants from Eastern Europe, and during the pandemic many of them went home, some for good. Jörg Flecker, a sociologist at the University of Vienna who is evaluating the program in Gramatneusiedl, told me that pressure from employers could prevent its expansion across Austria. “Employers say, ‘There are so many unemployed. We have to have a tougher regime for them because we have jobs to fill.’ ”
>
> Lukas Lehner and Maximilian Kasy, economists at Oxford who are evaluating data from Gramatneusiedl, argue that competition with the private sector is a good thing. “I think, from an economic perspective, that argument doesn’t make much sense,” Kasy said, of the dirty-jobs view. “If they’re shit jobs, try to pay them as well as possible. Try to change the working conditions as much as possible until you reach the point that somebody wants to do them, or automate them if you can. And then, if nobody wants to do them, maybe we shouldn’t do them.” Kasy thinks that an important function of initiatives like job guarantees—and of universal basic incomes—is to improve the bargaining positions of people who want to change their lives. “Whether it’s abuse from an employment relationship, a bureaucrat in the welfare state, or a romantic relationship, the question is, What’s your outside option?” he said. “Having the safety of the basic income or a guaranteed job improves your outside option. If your boss is abusive, or doesn’t respect your hours, or is harassing you or whatever, you have the option to say no.”
- mgrthrow 4y agoThis is the classic answer to the classic question about anarchy: "who will do the unpleasant, demeaning work?" "We only think it's unpleasant because we make it unpleasant. We can have clean, well lit factories. We just have to prioritize making that work more pleasant."
- maerF0x0 4y agoAlso perhaps the least dignified work should be the highest paid? Unfortunately America has a sort of wealth cult going on that we dignify (and deify) those who are already wealthy.
- kaesar14 4y agoThe unfortunate reality is because these jobs are plentiful and easy to do (NOT saying they aren’t demanding, just that they don’t require advanced training) it incentivizes a race to the bottom in terms of wages - but we should do better as a society in guaranteeing high working standards and wages through regulation instead.
- lesam 4y agoIf there was an alternative in the form of a guaranteed not-terrible job at minimum wage, wouldn’t that necessarily raise wages (or maybe working conditions) for currently terrible jobs? Giving people a real choice seems easier than regulating every possible kind of job.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoWhy even bother with a guaranteed not terrible job? Seems simpler to go with universal basic income than wasting resources on uneconomic jobs.
- andrepd 4y agoThere is a problem right with the motion of "uneconomic". If fixing basic infrastructure or growing food is unprofitable, but building sportscars or yachts is not... that seems to indicate a problem with the economic system of allocation of resources.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoIf society thinks there are too many sports cars or yachts, then it can increase marginal wealth/income/property/sales taxes. And if society thinks there is insufficient food or infrastructure, then it can pay people to make food and build infrastructure. Either way, if both are competing for the same supply of labor, only the highest bidder will get it.
- Spooky23 4y agoIn general, there’s a scratch for every itch. There’s no dishonor in cleaning toilets, but if you’re aspiring to be a carpenter, it’s not an optimal choice. The manipulative behavior around hours and time off traps people in jobs and makes them “dirty jobs”. I have a high fulutin’ tech gig, but I worked on farms and in retail in high school and college. The laws don’t protect workers, and the people who were working in those jobs for a living were beaten down and exploited because the employers could.
- zozbot234 4y agoThe criticism has some merit if the carpentry job was subsidized by the government whilst the toilet cleaning was not. Why should the latter be less deserving of a subsidy than the former? Ultimately, established social programs such as the EITC are intended to address this in a comprehensive, neutral way.
- pfisherman 4y ago> Austrian employers, like those in America, are currently having difficulty hiring people to take hard, poorly paid jobs Sounds like a signal from the market that they are not paying enough. One might argue about how social welfare programs and / or importing cheap labor distort the labor market; but it doesn’t change the fact that jobs are the dregs of the labor market.
- euroderf 4y agoI thought society was supposed to have learned its lesson during the pandemic, that the "low-end" jobs are often the most critical. But it seems that John Q Public has the memory of a goddamned fruit fly. So what do "we" do to make these jobs more tolerable, perhaps better-rewarded ? Nothing, apparently, because "we" wants the cheapest possibly everything. If jobs that are tangibly important are still treating workers badly, simply because formal qualifications don't exist or are in oversupply, and then economic pressures push people into these crappy jobs despite poor pay & working conditions, then that's a sign that our oh-so-holy "market" is fundamentally dysfunctional, treating human beings like barely sentient Roombas-with-mops. Rant concludes here.
- luckylion 4y agoIt is that signal, but are we ready to pay everyone more, even for low-skill jobs? How much more is everyone willing to pay for groceries? How much more for health care? For most people here, that won't matter, because paying 50% more for groceries would barely be noticeable, and neither would 50% more for health care be. But for society at large, that would kill many lifestyles.
- mgbmtl 4y agoWhile many large corporations declare record profits, I doubt that the person cleaning the toilets is really a major issue.
- luckylion 4y agoIt's not only about the person cleaning the toilets, companies often have more than one employee that's paid too little. Look at nurses for example: you need plenty of them in hospitals and nursing homes, they are (in my opinion) severely underpaid. Raise their wages by 50%. You can make an educated guess how that will influence the price of healthcare or living in a nursing home.
- guerrilla 4y ago> who would do the grungy, difficult work? Austrian employers, like those in America, are currently having difficulty hiring people to take hard, poorly paid jobs > “If they’re shit jobs, try to pay them as well as possible. Try to change the working conditions as much as possible until you reach the point that somebody wants to do them, or automate them if you can. And then, if nobody wants to do them, maybe we shouldn’t do them.” Seriously, if you can't find people to do those jobs then you're simply not paying them enough. This whole idea of intentionally disadvantaging people in order to force them to do what you want them to do is some comic book super villain thinking.
- unity1001 4y ago> who would do the grungy, difficult work Robots.
- hef19898 4y agoNah, too expensive as long as there are poor and desperate people that can be abused.
- unity1001 4y agoJust a little standardization of things like bathrooms, kitchens would enable robots, leave aside automated bathrooms, kitchens themselves.
- almost_usual 4y agoAt that point Robots will do all the work.
- phkahler 4y ago>> If everyone were guaranteed a reasonably pleasant job, suited to their interests and needs and paying a living wage, who would do the grungy, difficult work? Austrian employers, like those in America, are currently having difficulty hiring people to take hard, poorly paid jobs; ma.... That the answer. Pay people more to do the jobs nobody wants!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- danieltillett 4y agoOr pay people less to do the pleasant jobs.
- euroderf 4y agoOr if not pleasant, then at least the jobs that people are intrinsically motivated to do. This is how America treats its teachers. Teachers want to do the job, so skimp on their pay and call it a budgetary victory. Other countries will choose to value teachers, and pay them well, and generate more competition for positions, and reach a higher general level of qualifications & abilities.
- 29083011397778 4y agoDon't we already? That was the reason work lots of people enjoy doing, like game development, paid peanuts and/or worked through so many people.
- davethedevguy 4y agoI think this would cause a fundamental shift in our society. Who would want to work minimum wage server jobs when offered the same salary for something more rewarding? Who wants to do gruelling, poorly paid labouring on a construction site, if the alternative is training to be a craftsman for the same wage? Those jobs would either need to be paid much more attractively (pushing up the cost of restaurant food and construction, in these examples), or - as quoted above - eliminated entirely. I would be really interested to see how this would play out at scale.
- zozbot234 4y agoRestaurant food and construction are in the non-tradables sector, so we can just look at places where these jobs pay more by virtue of location - such as expensive city cores, particularly outside the U.S. Looks like they still have restaurants and construction and they're priced roughly the same as anywhere else, so paying low-skilled labor so much more can't be affecting them all that much.
- majewsky 4y ago> where these jobs pay more by virtue of location - such as expensive city cores The way this works is that the workers are commuting in from poorer neighborhoods on the outskirts, since they cannot afford to live in the rich communities that they serve because of the low salaries.