3 ms·

Most people who cannot hold down a job are that way for basically psychological reasons, they can't bring themselves to consistently show up and quit any job yo

Most people who cannot hold down a job are that way for basically psychological reasons, they can't bring themselves to consistently show up and quit any job you give them within days/weeks. What would help them the most is creating a new class of labor which works on a day-to-day basis with no paperwork/bureaucracy setup to hire them and fire them. I'm talking about legalized and legitimized unorganized untaxed day-labor, so people who can't hold down a regular job can at least easily earn irregular money whenever they find themselves able. If it requires applying for one day then showing up the next, that disqualifies most chronically unemployed people. Unfortunately well-meaning people will insist on creating bureaucratic roadblocks in this program ostensibly for the benifit of the workers, to make sure the workers are getting benefits, safety training, etc, that have the end result of making it a job you have to apply for in advance and show up for later. And once this is done, it will be no different from the normal sort of job that some people can't hold onto because they can't bring themselves to show up reliably.

pi-e-sigma 3y ago
The bureaucratic roadblocks would be created because the employers would immediately exploit such a loophole in the employment law to treat their normal employees as just 'day-to-day' ones
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lupusreal 3y ago
  And so there will continue to be people who are unemployable because they're unreliable. We need both kinds of jobs; it shouldn't be impossible to have an economy where both exist... In fact we already do but the day-labor is done illegally under the table which makes it harder for low-motivation/ability people to get into. Besides, companies don't want unskilled day labor for most semi-skilled work anyway because the workers would do more damage than good, so regular jobs will still exist if irregular day labor is legalized and legitimized. For safe measure, make it illegal to refuse a day worker in Wednesday because he didn't show up on Tuesday, no implied fulltime contracts for day laborers, so companies will have to hire people on for regular jobs for work that requires training and regularity. Violations can be investigated at the government's expense, as is already the case with Department of Labor investigations.
  - antisthenes 3y ago
    > And so there will continue to be people who are unemployable because they're unreliable. We need both kinds of jobs; it shouldn't be impossible to have an economy where both exist... I think I would rather these unreliable people be paid basic income to just live than to try and invent some convoluted employment scheme for them, that will ultimately 90% benefit the bureaucrats and 10% to those people and that will also inevitably balloon to 5x its intended original size.
    - lupusreal 3y ago
      The idea is to create the least convoluted employment scheme conceivable. Convoluted employment schemes are exactly the problem that keeps people who can't handle their shit from working at all.
      - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
        But they are not convoluted purposely to make employment difficult. They are just the result of bad actors cheating the system. A lot of time it's the general population who insist to add all these complications. Like with Uber where at first anybody could be a driver, but some bad things happened and people demanded that a driver has to have a clean criminal record. Same thing would happen to your simple 'day-to-day' employee scheme. It would get abused and the people would demand the abuse to be curbed
antisthenes 3y ago
So like gig workers essentially? > I'm talking about legalized and legitimized unorganized untaxed day-labor, so people who can't hold down a regular job can at least easily earn irregular money whenever they find themselves able. Doing what exactly? How would the labor discovery process work here? The only people I know who do this kind of "untaxed day labor" are semi-legal immigrants in front of home improvement stores. > end result of making it a job you have to apply for in advance and show up for later. And once this is done, it will be no different from the normal sort of job that some people can't hold onto because they can't bring themselves to show up reliably. Has it ever crossed your mind that reliability is a big component of gainful employment? In your example of this word salad arrangement (legalized and legitimized unorganized untaxed, whatever that means) what's stopping from a more reliable company to swoop in with their employees and starting taking this type of labor from "people who can't show up on time" ?
- lupusreal 3y ago
  When I think "gig work" I think jobs that require you to use a smartphone app and your car, usually in a major urban area. It's work that requires you to interact with lots of strangers and travel around town all day and without supervision to keep you on task. These are daunting propositions to a lot of people. The sort of jobs I'm talking about are ones where you just have to get yourself to one place, a guy hands you a shovel and points at where you dig, then pays you cash at the end of the day. These jobs do exist but they aren't legal or legitimate, or if they are then you have to do paperwork and commit to a schedule to get into the tax system and compliance with government regulations. This friction keeps people who are struggling with the basics of life from working, this kind of irregular work would be much easier for people if the government removed their bureaucratic restrictions on it. Does this clarify the "word salad" for you? (BTW I don't appreciate your implication that I'm mentally ill. If you don't understand what I'm saying, it's not because I'm schizophrenic. More likely it's because you're misconstruing disagreement with confusion.)

pi-e-sigma 3y ago

The bureaucratic roadblocks would be created because the employers would immediately exploit such a loophole in the employment law to treat their normal employees as just 'day-to-day' ones

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lupusreal 3y ago
And so there will continue to be people who are unemployable because they're unreliable. We need both kinds of jobs; it shouldn't be impossible to have an economy where both exist... In fact we already do but the day-labor is done illegally under the table which makes it harder for low-motivation/ability people to get into. Besides, companies don't want unskilled day labor for most semi-skilled work anyway because the workers would do more damage than good, so regular jobs will still exist if irregular day labor is legalized and legitimized. For safe measure, make it illegal to refuse a day worker in Wednesday because he didn't show up on Tuesday, no implied fulltime contracts for day laborers, so companies will have to hire people on for regular jobs for work that requires training and regularity. Violations can be investigated at the government's expense, as is already the case with Department of Labor investigations.
- antisthenes 3y ago
  > And so there will continue to be people who are unemployable because they're unreliable. We need both kinds of jobs; it shouldn't be impossible to have an economy where both exist... I think I would rather these unreliable people be paid basic income to just live than to try and invent some convoluted employment scheme for them, that will ultimately 90% benefit the bureaucrats and 10% to those people and that will also inevitably balloon to 5x its intended original size.
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    The idea is to create the least convoluted employment scheme conceivable. Convoluted employment schemes are exactly the problem that keeps people who can't handle their shit from working at all.
    - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
      But they are not convoluted purposely to make employment difficult. They are just the result of bad actors cheating the system. A lot of time it's the general population who insist to add all these complications. Like with Uber where at first anybody could be a driver, but some bad things happened and people demanded that a driver has to have a clean criminal record. Same thing would happen to your simple 'day-to-day' employee scheme. It would get abused and the people would demand the abuse to be curbed

antisthenes 3y ago

So like gig workers essentially? > I'm talking about legalized and legitimized unorganized untaxed day-labor, so people who can't hold down a regular job can at least easily earn irregular money whenever they find themselves able. Doing what exactly? How would the labor discovery process work here? The only people I know who do this kind of "untaxed day labor" are semi-legal immigrants in front of home improvement stores. > end result of making it a job you have to apply for in advance and show up for later. And once this is done, it will be no different from the normal sort of job that some people can't hold onto because they can't bring themselves to show up reliably. Has it ever crossed your mind that reliability is a big component of gainful employment? In your example of this word salad arrangement (legalized and legitimized unorganized untaxed, whatever that means) what's stopping from a more reliable company to swoop in with their employees and starting taking this type of labor from "people who can't show up on time" ?

lupusreal 3y ago
When I think "gig work" I think jobs that require you to use a smartphone app and your car, usually in a major urban area. It's work that requires you to interact with lots of strangers and travel around town all day and without supervision to keep you on task. These are daunting propositions to a lot of people. The sort of jobs I'm talking about are ones where you just have to get yourself to one place, a guy hands you a shovel and points at where you dig, then pays you cash at the end of the day. These jobs do exist but they aren't legal or legitimate, or if they are then you have to do paperwork and commit to a schedule to get into the tax system and compliance with government regulations. This friction keeps people who are struggling with the basics of life from working, this kind of irregular work would be much easier for people if the government removed their bureaucratic restrictions on it. Does this clarify the "word salad" for you? (BTW I don't appreciate your implication that I'm mentally ill. If you don't understand what I'm saying, it's not because I'm schizophrenic. More likely it's because you're misconstruing disagreement with confusion.)