4 ms·

Doesn't that make it very hard for the private sector to recruit low-end employees?

by dasmoth 13y ago

yummyfajitas 13y ago
No, it makes it easier. All the private sector has to do is offer $11k. With a guaranteed income, $11k would likely be insufficient - why work for $11k when you can enjoy a life of leisure for $10k?
- dasmoth 13y ago
  I thought the discussion here was basic/universal income. Isn't the idea that the person paid $11k ends up receiving $10k + $11k - %tax. Otherwise you end up with 100% marginal tax rates, like in traditional benefit regimes.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  Do you seriously believe that anyone living in the US on $10K/year is "enjoying a life of leisure"? This is the same category of lunacy as the "the homeless are just too lazy to work" argument. Anyone who has even seen the reality on the ground for people in these situations would know not to make them.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    I strongly suspect most people living on $10k/year are enjoying a life of leisure. I don't have data on a $10k/year cutoff specifically, but available data on people below the official US poverty line certainly agrees with this general picture. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf (Note: I'm defining a "life of leisure" as one in which you choose not to work, and instead enjoy leisure time. This describes most of the poor in the US. Of course, if you define "life of leisure" as having a butler and a solid gold toilet, you get different results.)
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      Indeed, it appears we have the same definition of "life of leisure", but to be blunt, as someone who has worked in organizations that serve the poor, you are completely out to lunch. No one is enjoying life in this country at $10K/year. The life of someone at that level is a constant barrage of worries, of harassment, of choosing between having one basic necessity of life over another. No one chooses to be there, and certainly no one would stay if they had the opportunity to exceed it. > "but available data on people below the official US poverty line certainly agrees with this general picture." You're going to have to cite specifics from that document, because all I see are labor force participation rates and income levels - there is nothing in there about people choosing not to work in favor of "enjoying leisure time". > "This describes most of the poor in the US." Really? You think the day laborer standing outside Lowe's hoping for a job has chosen to be below the poverty line, and instead has chosen a life of leisure? I'm going to state this in the most civil way I know how: you are sorely lacking in perspective - and this is after reading all of your posts in this thread so far - and for your own sake, and the sake of people you share this society with, go volunteer at a poverty or homelessness-related organization for a month. You have beliefs that are in no way grounded in reality, and the numbers you continue to cite to make your argument are between nonsensical and specious. Please find some way to experience the issues from within.
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        Labor force participation rates are the relevant statistic. A person who chooses to either work or look for a job is participating in the labor force. You think the day laborer standing outside Lowe's hoping for a job has chosen to be below the poverty line, and instead has chosen a life of leisure? No, I think the 80% of the poor who chose not to participate in the labor force are the ones who have chosen a life of leisure. The day laborer you mention is one of the 20% or so who made a different choice.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      I strongly suspect most people living on $10k/year are enjoying a life of leisure. Not working for someone else is not the same thing as enjoying leisure, at all - you've built a castle of logic on a deeply flawed assumption. Look, if you only have $10k a year you can not buy a lot of stuff. That's just about enough to supply yourself with an adequate amount of food, clothing, and similar basic necessities if you are in some low-rent area - in short, for a single person to keep body and soul together. It's not enough to go out to restaurants or purchase more than necessities unless you enjoy some sort of additional subsidy from parents, spouse or wherever. You'll be cooking your own meals, carting your groceries around on foot, doing the same with your laundry (or washing it in the bathtub) because you can't afford a washing machine, and so on and so forth. You won't starve, but you'll have to work at things that other people pay to have done for them. This is, believe it or not, time-consuming, and effort-consuming too. It's not too bad for a single individual who's educated enough to have a meaningful inner life, but for a lot of people it means both boredom and a significant exclusion from social activity, and for an awful lot of other people (the sort you think chose to have vaginal sex instead of giving you a blowjob), it can mean dealing with children, which is extremely time-consuming. I think you mean well Chris, but you seem almost comically ignorant about the difficulties faced by other people who didn't have the good fortune to be you.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Wait a minute, you proposed 'to give everyone a guaranteed low wage job' for $10k. Now, I don't think this is so unreasonable, depending on how it's implemented, but it's not a 'life of leisure.' Have you switched to talking about unemployed people getting $10k, or what?
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    The guaranteed low wage job would not result in a life of leisure. The current welfare system does, and probably the basic income system also would.

Doesn't that make it very hard for the private sector to recruit low-end employees?

by dasmoth 13y ago

Doesn't that make it very hard for the private sector to recruit low-end employees?

No, it makes it easier. All the private sector has to do is offer $11k. With a guaranteed income, $11k would likely be insufficient - why work for $11k when you can enjoy a life of leisure for $10k?

dasmoth 13y ago
I thought the discussion here was basic/universal income. Isn't the idea that the person paid $11k ends up receiving $10k + $11k - %tax. Otherwise you end up with 100% marginal tax rates, like in traditional benefit regimes.
potatolicious 13y ago
Do you seriously believe that anyone living in the US on $10K/year is "enjoying a life of leisure"? This is the same category of lunacy as the "the homeless are just too lazy to work" argument. Anyone who has even seen the reality on the ground for people in these situations would know not to make them.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  I strongly suspect most people living on $10k/year are enjoying a life of leisure. I don't have data on a $10k/year cutoff specifically, but available data on people below the official US poverty line certainly agrees with this general picture. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2011.pdf (Note: I'm defining a "life of leisure" as one in which you choose not to work, and instead enjoy leisure time. This describes most of the poor in the US. Of course, if you define "life of leisure" as having a butler and a solid gold toilet, you get different results.)
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    Indeed, it appears we have the same definition of "life of leisure", but to be blunt, as someone who has worked in organizations that serve the poor, you are completely out to lunch. No one is enjoying life in this country at $10K/year. The life of someone at that level is a constant barrage of worries, of harassment, of choosing between having one basic necessity of life over another. No one chooses to be there, and certainly no one would stay if they had the opportunity to exceed it. > "but available data on people below the official US poverty line certainly agrees with this general picture." You're going to have to cite specifics from that document, because all I see are labor force participation rates and income levels - there is nothing in there about people choosing not to work in favor of "enjoying leisure time". > "This describes most of the poor in the US." Really? You think the day laborer standing outside Lowe's hoping for a job has chosen to be below the poverty line, and instead has chosen a life of leisure? I'm going to state this in the most civil way I know how: you are sorely lacking in perspective - and this is after reading all of your posts in this thread so far - and for your own sake, and the sake of people you share this society with, go volunteer at a poverty or homelessness-related organization for a month. You have beliefs that are in no way grounded in reality, and the numbers you continue to cite to make your argument are between nonsensical and specious. Please find some way to experience the issues from within.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      Labor force participation rates are the relevant statistic. A person who chooses to either work or look for a job is participating in the labor force. You think the day laborer standing outside Lowe's hoping for a job has chosen to be below the poverty line, and instead has chosen a life of leisure? No, I think the 80% of the poor who chose not to participate in the labor force are the ones who have chosen a life of leisure. The day laborer you mention is one of the 20% or so who made a different choice.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I strongly suspect most people living on $10k/year are enjoying a life of leisure. Not working for someone else is not the same thing as enjoying leisure, at all - you've built a castle of logic on a deeply flawed assumption. Look, if you only have $10k a year you can not buy a lot of stuff. That's just about enough to supply yourself with an adequate amount of food, clothing, and similar basic necessities if you are in some low-rent area - in short, for a single person to keep body and soul together. It's not enough to go out to restaurants or purchase more than necessities unless you enjoy some sort of additional subsidy from parents, spouse or wherever. You'll be cooking your own meals, carting your groceries around on foot, doing the same with your laundry (or washing it in the bathtub) because you can't afford a washing machine, and so on and so forth. You won't starve, but you'll have to work at things that other people pay to have done for them. This is, believe it or not, time-consuming, and effort-consuming too. It's not too bad for a single individual who's educated enough to have a meaningful inner life, but for a lot of people it means both boredom and a significant exclusion from social activity, and for an awful lot of other people (the sort you think chose to have vaginal sex instead of giving you a blowjob), it can mean dealing with children, which is extremely time-consuming. I think you mean well Chris, but you seem almost comically ignorant about the difficulties faced by other people who didn't have the good fortune to be you.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Wait a minute, you proposed 'to give everyone a guaranteed low wage job' for $10k. Now, I don't think this is so unreasonable, depending on how it's implemented, but it's not a 'life of leisure.' Have you switched to talking about unemployed people getting $10k, or what?
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  The guaranteed low wage job would not result in a life of leisure. The current welfare system does, and probably the basic income system also would.