16 ms·

>This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage. Oh good lord no

>This is why I believe a Job Guarantee to be a better policy. Basically, have a program that ensures infinite demand for labor at a fixed wage. Oh good lord no. First of all, this means the creation of countless "dig a hole, fill it back in" jobs. Second of all, it will leave us stuck in this barbaric form of living once we can automate everything because the mega-rich with their robot work force aren't going to want to contribute "their" earnings to basic income. And finally, basic income is just that: it's income for everyone. It doesn't mean you can't work if you want to. In fact it's better because it means you can truly choose what you want to do with your life instead of being under pressure to avoid starvation or living on the street.

chii 13y ago
The mega-rich will _never_ want to contribute any significant amount of their money (gained from the output of their automated robots and factories/greenhouses) towards feeding those who are not working, unless forced to. They might pay lip service, and donate to some charity/feed the poor program, but they don't do it due to the goodness of their hearts - they do it due to the need to look to be charitable (i.e., marketing/PR reasons). Its a business cost. I bet if you asked them to make these donations completely anonymously, and never admit to having made them to anyone, most would not comply (and note, not like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw).
- michas 13y ago
  And they shouldn't be forced, because it's their money after all. Just because they are richer than you that doesn't mean they owe you anything. Also, you contradict yourself by first saing that rich "never want to contribute" and later giving example of people actualy doing this for "marketing/PR reasons". Those reasons may be selfish, but still people like Bill Gates donate literaly billions of dollars to help others.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    It's not "their money after all". They did not make it alone, they were supported by the community in countless ways. How do you propose the government be paid for? How do you propose we deal with people for which there is no work to do? If you don't have some kind of solution for the poor then they'll simply kill these rich people and take everything they have. And since you don't want taxes to pay for the police, they'll be shooting in the same direction.
    - michas 13y ago
      They were not "supported by the community", they used other's people work to get rich but they paid each of those people fair amount of money, called "salary". that's all they owe society: paying their workers their salary. I also never told I don't want to pay the police, in fact it is one of three things that are worth paying taxes for: police and courts to provide internal safety and justice, and army to protect from external enemies (other countries, terrorists etc.) Also, unemployment is an artificial problem that only exists in fundamentally sick, socialist economies. In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. You can only break this by introducing high employment costs. If you tax work at the same level as luxury goods (and all taxes average worker has to pay add up to about 50% of his gross income) then work itself becomes "luxury". And if you pay people for doing nothing large part of them will have no motivation to find any meaningful job.
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        >they used other's people work to get rich but they paid each of those people fair amount of money If they paid them a "fair" amount of money, how did they get so fabulously rich? But even if I allow your dubious use of fair, did they really pay them all? Did they pay for the streets that they used? Did they pay a higher price for the fire department since they probably have a lot more, much more expensive properties than me? Did the pay the police more for similar reasons? Did they pay their parents for raising them into privilege? And on, and on, and on. Anyone rich today got there on the backs of the society they lived in. Elon Musk would be nothing had he been born and raised in an Amazon tribe and you know it. >Also, unemployment is an artificial problem that only exists in fundamentally sick, socialist economies. Now you're just showing off ignorance [1]. Chile was as close to laissez faire as has ever been tried on that scale. Where did their mass unemployment come from? >In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. Ideological dreaming. Nothing more. > And if you pay people for doing nothing large part of them will have no motivation to find any meaningful job. Reagan's "welfare queens" lives on. Anyway, even if that's true, how about you mind your own goddamn business and stop worrying about what other people choose to do with their lives? I suspect we'd get enough Tesla's out of such a system to offset all your mythical welfare queens. [1] http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC11.html http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC11.html
  - chii 13y ago
    > contradict yourself by first saing that rich "never want to contribute" and later giving example of people actualy doing this its not an contradiction - i assumed it was obvious that "never want to contribute" implies true altruistic behaviour, where as doing it for "PR" reasons dont count. IN any case, yes its true that the rich shouldn't be forced to give up their assets for those who didn't earn it. But for BI to work, this essentially _has_ to be the case! Lets say the total amount of money (however you want to count it) is M, while the total amount of goods and services produced in 1 period of time is P. If BI were instated, how could it be paid for? Either increase M (by printing money essentially), or by keeping M constant, but redistribute it from those who have more (the machine owners) to those who don't have as much. Increasing M simply causes inflation, since P didn't change in this case, and so after a while, shit just gets more and more expensive. Redistributing M is what you said above - forcibly taking the assets from someone and give it to someone else. Neither is going to work imho. You might say P would increase, offsetting the problem of increasing M and the inflation it causes. THat might happen, but i don't think the rate at which P increases will match the rate at which M increases.
    - michas 13y ago
      Ok, so now you're saying that "the rich shouldn't be forced to give up their assets for those who didn't earn it." and still "for BI to work, this essentially _has_ to be the case!" So basically you're saying that BI is in it's essence totally immoral, which is exactly what I wanted to prove.
- rthomas6 13y ago
  Except for, you know, All these people: http://givingpledge.org/ http://givingpledge.org/
  - Avshalom 13y ago
    I can't help but notice that they are still super rich.
    - rthomas6 13y ago
      What has that got to do with anything? If someone donates half their wealth to charity and keeps the other half for their heirs and family, is that morally wrong? How does them still being super rich in any way negate their massive charitable contributions? At what point is it enough? 50%? 70%? 90%? I bet I can find examples for each of those percentages where billionaires gave up about that percentage of their wealth. Surely that disproves the OP's claim that the super rich NEVER give significant portions of their wealth to charity.
      - Avshalom 13y ago
        > If someone donates half their wealth to charity They haven't yet have they.
        rthomas6 13y ago
        Do you suspect that they are lying? I guess only time will tell. I sincerely, for the good of all of us, hope that you are wrong. But there are many wealthy philanthropists who have already given away the majority of their wealth. For instance, John Templeton and Chuck Feeney. And perhaps you're forgetting about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?
nhaehnle 13y ago
Why do you assume that a Job Guarantee would mean the creation of "dig a hole, fill it back in" jobs? Out in the real world, there is a wealth of useful things that could be done, especially at the local level but also in non-profits, but that are currently not being done because of a "lack of money". Just put one and one together.

chii 13y ago

The mega-rich will _never_ want to contribute any significant amount of their money (gained from the output of their automated robots and factories/greenhouses) towards feeding those who are not working, unless forced to. They might pay lip service, and donate to some charity/feed the poor program, but they don't do it due to the goodness of their hearts - they do it due to the need to look to be charitable (i.e., marketing/PR reasons). Its a business cost. I bet if you asked them to make these donations completely anonymously, and never admit to having made them to anyone, most would not comply (and note, not like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw).

michas 13y ago
And they shouldn't be forced, because it's their money after all. Just because they are richer than you that doesn't mean they owe you anything. Also, you contradict yourself by first saing that rich "never want to contribute" and later giving example of people actualy doing this for "marketing/PR reasons". Those reasons may be selfish, but still people like Bill Gates donate literaly billions of dollars to help others.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  It's not "their money after all". They did not make it alone, they were supported by the community in countless ways. How do you propose the government be paid for? How do you propose we deal with people for which there is no work to do? If you don't have some kind of solution for the poor then they'll simply kill these rich people and take everything they have. And since you don't want taxes to pay for the police, they'll be shooting in the same direction.
  - michas 13y ago
    They were not "supported by the community", they used other's people work to get rich but they paid each of those people fair amount of money, called "salary". that's all they owe society: paying their workers their salary. I also never told I don't want to pay the police, in fact it is one of three things that are worth paying taxes for: police and courts to provide internal safety and justice, and army to protect from external enemies (other countries, terrorists etc.) Also, unemployment is an artificial problem that only exists in fundamentally sick, socialist economies. In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. You can only break this by introducing high employment costs. If you tax work at the same level as luxury goods (and all taxes average worker has to pay add up to about 50% of his gross income) then work itself becomes "luxury". And if you pay people for doing nothing large part of them will have no motivation to find any meaningful job.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      >they used other's people work to get rich but they paid each of those people fair amount of money If they paid them a "fair" amount of money, how did they get so fabulously rich? But even if I allow your dubious use of fair, did they really pay them all? Did they pay for the streets that they used? Did they pay a higher price for the fire department since they probably have a lot more, much more expensive properties than me? Did the pay the police more for similar reasons? Did they pay their parents for raising them into privilege? And on, and on, and on. Anyone rich today got there on the backs of the society they lived in. Elon Musk would be nothing had he been born and raised in an Amazon tribe and you know it. >Also, unemployment is an artificial problem that only exists in fundamentally sick, socialist economies. Now you're just showing off ignorance [1]. Chile was as close to laissez faire as has ever been tried on that scale. Where did their mass unemployment come from? >In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available. Ideological dreaming. Nothing more. > And if you pay people for doing nothing large part of them will have no motivation to find any meaningful job. Reagan's "welfare queens" lives on. Anyway, even if that's true, how about you mind your own goddamn business and stop worrying about what other people choose to do with their lives? I suspect we'd get enough Tesla's out of such a system to offset all your mythical welfare queens. [1] http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC11.html http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC11.html
- chii 13y ago
  > contradict yourself by first saing that rich "never want to contribute" and later giving example of people actualy doing this its not an contradiction - i assumed it was obvious that "never want to contribute" implies true altruistic behaviour, where as doing it for "PR" reasons dont count. IN any case, yes its true that the rich shouldn't be forced to give up their assets for those who didn't earn it. But for BI to work, this essentially _has_ to be the case! Lets say the total amount of money (however you want to count it) is M, while the total amount of goods and services produced in 1 period of time is P. If BI were instated, how could it be paid for? Either increase M (by printing money essentially), or by keeping M constant, but redistribute it from those who have more (the machine owners) to those who don't have as much. Increasing M simply causes inflation, since P didn't change in this case, and so after a while, shit just gets more and more expensive. Redistributing M is what you said above - forcibly taking the assets from someone and give it to someone else. Neither is going to work imho. You might say P would increase, offsetting the problem of increasing M and the inflation it causes. THat might happen, but i don't think the rate at which P increases will match the rate at which M increases.
  - michas 13y ago
    Ok, so now you're saying that "the rich shouldn't be forced to give up their assets for those who didn't earn it." and still "for BI to work, this essentially _has_ to be the case!" So basically you're saying that BI is in it's essence totally immoral, which is exactly what I wanted to prove.
rthomas6 13y ago
Except for, you know, All these people: http://givingpledge.org/ http://givingpledge.org/
- Avshalom 13y ago
  I can't help but notice that they are still super rich.
  - rthomas6 13y ago
    What has that got to do with anything? If someone donates half their wealth to charity and keeps the other half for their heirs and family, is that morally wrong? How does them still being super rich in any way negate their massive charitable contributions? At what point is it enough? 50%? 70%? 90%? I bet I can find examples for each of those percentages where billionaires gave up about that percentage of their wealth. Surely that disproves the OP's claim that the super rich NEVER give significant portions of their wealth to charity.
    - Avshalom 13y ago
      > If someone donates half their wealth to charity They haven't yet have they.
      - rthomas6 13y ago
        Do you suspect that they are lying? I guess only time will tell. I sincerely, for the good of all of us, hope that you are wrong. But there are many wealthy philanthropists who have already given away the majority of their wealth. For instance, John Templeton and Chuck Feeney. And perhaps you're forgetting about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?

nhaehnle 13y ago

Why do you assume that a Job Guarantee would mean the creation of "dig a hole, fill it back in" jobs? Out in the real world, there is a wealth of useful things that could be done, especially at the local level but also in non-profits, but that are currently not being done because of a "lack of money". Just put one and one together.