6 ms·

> Note that I have no particular objection whatsoever to having the government end welfare/unemployment/etc, and simply provide low wage employment for anyone w

by sedachv 11y ago

> Note that I have no particular objection whatsoever to having the government end welfare/unemployment/etc, and simply provide low wage employment for anyone who wants it building public works of various sorts. But my reasons for supporting this are simply because I favor creating disincentives for idleness, not because I think only the government can engage in productive investment. I think we argued about this before. Why do you hate people who choose to spend time as they wish instead of being coerced into unwanted employment? The only thing massive unwanted public infrastructure projects are good for is ruining the environment. Public works policy in Japan is a great example of top quality bridges to nowhere and concrete ditches that no one cares about that also happen to do nothing "for the economy": http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/business/international/a-building-boom-in-japan-has-echoes-from-the-lost-decade.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/business/international/a-b... Why not invest the money into things that actually produce results: education and fundamental research? Let's figure out how to get robots to meet our material needs so we can spend more time not working.

tsotha 11y ago
>Why do you hate people who choose to spend time as they wish instead of being coerced into unwanted employment? Why should money be taken from my paycheck to support idle people who could be working? In general it's none of my business how people choose to spend their time, but if they expect me to pay their expenses it becomes my business and I have to ask why they can't go to work like I do.
- sedachv 11y ago
  > Why should money be taken from my paycheck to support idle people who could be working? In general it's none of my business how people choose to spend their time, but if they expect me to pay their expenses it becomes my business and I have to ask why they can't go to work like I do. You mean like retired people drawing a pension?
  - tsotha 11y ago
    It's not the same. People drawing pensions are simply collecting on a benefit they earned earlier in life. In the US, anyway, if you don't pay in to the pension system when you're working you don't get a pension. Also, the exact amount of your check depends on what you paid in. The government take 8% or so of my paycheck every pay cycle, and when I retire I'll collect a pension because I paid for it. That's a whole different world than paying someone because they don't want to work.
    - sedachv 11y ago
      > The government take 8% or so of my paycheck every pay cycle, and when I retire I'll collect a pension because I paid for it. You are actually paying for the pensions of current retirees. The expectation for almost all pension schemes is that future taxes will fund your retirement. That's the issue behind the Social Security shortfall and the dramatic cuts in retirement benefits as part of austerity measures post-Great Recession in EU member countries. > That's a whole different world than paying someone because they don't want to work. By definition retirees are people who could still be working but choose not to. How about the disabled and the infirm? Those between jobs? The real issue you seem to have is the "I paid for it" part. Where in the economic cycle is this money extracted? Would you feel better if it came from taxes on corporate revenue? Out of sales tax on luxury yachts? The issue has been framed by trickle down ideologues as "this money comes from your paycheck!" What is the logic behind getting rid of anything that looks like income guarantees when it comes to you as a worker as opposed to an owner of a business? Step 1: Eliminate minimum wage/welfare/unemployment/whatever Step 2: ... Step 3: Your salary goes up! How does step 3 follow from step 1? Increased supply of labor is only going to bring your salary down.
      - EdSharkey 11y ago
        Soc security has a shortfall?? Congress SPENT the money in the fund. They're paying back the fund with "interest" from the general fund year-to-year. Had the funds been INVESTED and not STOLEN by our beloved congressweasels, soc security would be superstylin.
      - 11y ago
- EdSharkey 11y ago
  My mind meta-boils your question down to: "can't I demand some results from the way my taxes are invested?" Is what we're discussing, floating the jobless/low earner-producer, 'investment' at all? I'd personally like to understand the doublethink and mental laziness that led sedachv to make that passive-aggressive rhetorical crack about yummyfajitas hating all the poor souls who choose not to work. The hard questions regarding govt spending for me are: * Is it healthy (societally, fiscally, spiritually) long term to consider government to be the charity that can only grow - the ultimate backstop for all bad things that can happen to its people? A charity with unquestionable power to implement its shifting, sometimes controversial/immoral/amoral, agenda? * Is it okay for the government to prioritize everything and therefore have no priorities at all? Should infrastructure be prioritized over military? What's the proper role of federal involvement in local schools? Should we cap or continue the folly of "non-discretionary" funding of entitlements that dwarf and crowd out all other federal spending? Ultimately, our allowing perpetual deficit spending is what makes this priorities-free dream that we are all living in possible. * how much of a service delivery role should government have given its track record? The perennial VA healthcare debacles spring to mind. And the raided soc security trust fund that should have been invested and grown, but has been busted since Johnson. Student loans and the skyrocketing college tuitions. Unintended consequences! At least [my favorite congresscritter] meant well. It fascinates me how smart people whose arguments in favor of government as 'the answer' to X can instantly shift their argument for X from a learned basis like statistical evidence/quoting an expert to a faith-driven, eye-squinting, chasm-leaping abstraction, or worse, emotional outbursts (frequently rude) - and sometimes ALL IN THE SAME BREATH. I find such people, like sedachv, troublesome and no fun at parties. We might be doomed.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >I'd personally like to understand the doublethink and mental laziness that led sedachv to make that passive-aggressive rhetorical crack about yummyfajitas hating all the poor souls who choose not to work. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around logic that assumes people who don't work by choice are entitled to the results of my efforts and yet have the gall to paint me as selfish for protesting.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
This idea of "hate" is silly, as is "coerced". I simply propose that if we are paying people who claim to be unable to find a job, we might as well get some productive labor out of them. If you believe that there is no productive labor that the government can perform, that's fine - I guess you oppose all new spending?

by sedachv 11y ago

tsotha 11y ago

>Why do you hate people who choose to spend time as they wish instead of being coerced into unwanted employment? Why should money be taken from my paycheck to support idle people who could be working? In general it's none of my business how people choose to spend their time, but if they expect me to pay their expenses it becomes my business and I have to ask why they can't go to work like I do.

sedachv 11y ago
> Why should money be taken from my paycheck to support idle people who could be working? In general it's none of my business how people choose to spend their time, but if they expect me to pay their expenses it becomes my business and I have to ask why they can't go to work like I do. You mean like retired people drawing a pension?
- tsotha 11y ago
  It's not the same. People drawing pensions are simply collecting on a benefit they earned earlier in life. In the US, anyway, if you don't pay in to the pension system when you're working you don't get a pension. Also, the exact amount of your check depends on what you paid in. The government take 8% or so of my paycheck every pay cycle, and when I retire I'll collect a pension because I paid for it. That's a whole different world than paying someone because they don't want to work.
  - sedachv 11y ago
    > The government take 8% or so of my paycheck every pay cycle, and when I retire I'll collect a pension because I paid for it. You are actually paying for the pensions of current retirees. The expectation for almost all pension schemes is that future taxes will fund your retirement. That's the issue behind the Social Security shortfall and the dramatic cuts in retirement benefits as part of austerity measures post-Great Recession in EU member countries. > That's a whole different world than paying someone because they don't want to work. By definition retirees are people who could still be working but choose not to. How about the disabled and the infirm? Those between jobs? The real issue you seem to have is the "I paid for it" part. Where in the economic cycle is this money extracted? Would you feel better if it came from taxes on corporate revenue? Out of sales tax on luxury yachts? The issue has been framed by trickle down ideologues as "this money comes from your paycheck!" What is the logic behind getting rid of anything that looks like income guarantees when it comes to you as a worker as opposed to an owner of a business? Step 1: Eliminate minimum wage/welfare/unemployment/whatever Step 2: ... Step 3: Your salary goes up! How does step 3 follow from step 1? Increased supply of labor is only going to bring your salary down.
    - EdSharkey 11y ago
      Soc security has a shortfall?? Congress SPENT the money in the fund. They're paying back the fund with "interest" from the general fund year-to-year. Had the funds been INVESTED and not STOLEN by our beloved congressweasels, soc security would be superstylin.
    - 11y ago
EdSharkey 11y ago
My mind meta-boils your question down to: "can't I demand some results from the way my taxes are invested?" Is what we're discussing, floating the jobless/low earner-producer, 'investment' at all? I'd personally like to understand the doublethink and mental laziness that led sedachv to make that passive-aggressive rhetorical crack about yummyfajitas hating all the poor souls who choose not to work. The hard questions regarding govt spending for me are: * Is it healthy (societally, fiscally, spiritually) long term to consider government to be the charity that can only grow - the ultimate backstop for all bad things that can happen to its people? A charity with unquestionable power to implement its shifting, sometimes controversial/immoral/amoral, agenda? * Is it okay for the government to prioritize everything and therefore have no priorities at all? Should infrastructure be prioritized over military? What's the proper role of federal involvement in local schools? Should we cap or continue the folly of "non-discretionary" funding of entitlements that dwarf and crowd out all other federal spending? Ultimately, our allowing perpetual deficit spending is what makes this priorities-free dream that we are all living in possible. * how much of a service delivery role should government have given its track record? The perennial VA healthcare debacles spring to mind. And the raided soc security trust fund that should have been invested and grown, but has been busted since Johnson. Student loans and the skyrocketing college tuitions. Unintended consequences! At least [my favorite congresscritter] meant well. It fascinates me how smart people whose arguments in favor of government as 'the answer' to X can instantly shift their argument for X from a learned basis like statistical evidence/quoting an expert to a faith-driven, eye-squinting, chasm-leaping abstraction, or worse, emotional outbursts (frequently rude) - and sometimes ALL IN THE SAME BREATH. I find such people, like sedachv, troublesome and no fun at parties. We might be doomed.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >I'd personally like to understand the doublethink and mental laziness that led sedachv to make that passive-aggressive rhetorical crack about yummyfajitas hating all the poor souls who choose not to work. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around logic that assumes people who don't work by choice are entitled to the results of my efforts and yet have the gall to paint me as selfish for protesting.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

This idea of "hate" is silly, as is "coerced". I simply propose that if we are paying people who claim to be unable to find a job, we might as well get some productive labor out of them. If you believe that there is no productive labor that the government can perform, that's fine - I guess you oppose all new spending?