4 ms·

the guy has some interesting points (hard to say valid ones since we are all just guessing how future will shape up), but constant mentioning of minimal guarant

the guy has some interesting points (hard to say valid ones since we are all just guessing how future will shape up), but constant mentioning of minimal guaranteed income as cure-it-all-for-our-bright-future is a bit too much to swallow (mentality of quite a few nations i know is, hand out anything, and you remove the only motivation for them do do anything positive or even neutral to society) The last line of article says it all - Tom Streithorst has been a union member... - in my own personal experience, unions are plague, nothing to be proud of, but that's another topic altogether. This makes it automatically a left-wing-orientated article, which is OK by principle, but not in sync with my inner beliefs and all experiences in my whole life so far (and I've seen the world a bit here & there)

SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
Unions are why we have the forty hour/five day work week. Guaranteed income is probably the only sane way to move forward. Your description of "mentality of nations" make very little sense, and doesn't actually mesh with the many studies on what happens when you invest in people.
- golergka 11y ago
  > unions are plague, nothing to be proud of > Unions are why we have the forty hour/five day work week. Just for the record, these two statements don't contradict each other in any way. What unions did 80 years ago and what they're became now are two completely different things.
  - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
    Unions aren't perfect, granted. But even now they serve a purpose.
    - golergka 11y ago
      My comment didn't imply any judgement; I was just pointing out the semantics of the thread, that althoigh two statements can appear contradictory, they aren't necessarily. Personally, I don't have enough information abou unions to offer any opinion.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  I don't have problem with concept of minimal income, likewise i don't have so many issues with theory of communism. It's this harsh reality we call life when these utopias fail so spectacularly, because of... so many things. World is fragmented, people have so vastly different mentalities and goals in life (if at all), and I cannot imagine one realistic way to enforce this globally. I am more interested into iterations striving for improvement of our lives, rather than massively under-planned revolutions which might look appealing at first glance. And as for unions, another poster expressed it perfectly. The current political reality of them is pure shame, nothing I would ever, anywhere put into my signature as something to be proud of. So that tells you/me soemthign about author. Btw, why unions left for example doctors out of that 40-hour work week? Or you think that having over-exhausted expert, who hadn't slept for a day or two, decide on your best treatment for some acute life threatening state, when you take your own medications, have your own allergies and set of other important conditions to consider?
  - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
    Unions didn't "leave out" anyone. Doctors have a professional association, which as you point out isn't quite sane in what it allows in terms of overtime. But as a result becoming a doctor is a far more exclusive endeavor. Doctors are also paid quite well, in large part because of that exclusivity. Not trying to defend the worst of current union behavior, but even now unions are useful; thinking particularly about teachers' unions, which fight to get teachers decent pay. It doesn't work, unfortunately -- teachers are paid less than babysitters -- but they'd be paid even less without unions. That said, teacher tenure is too well protected by unions; a teacher who is no longer trying should be able to be fired. Not sure what a better alternative to union organization is. Probably workers earning equity in companies they join, as much as possible. And I'm not talking communism; there are companies today that practice this. But it could be that unions are like democracy: A terrible way to run things, but all the other options are worse.
    - dagw 11y ago
      teachers are paid less than babysitters -- but they'd be paid even less without unions. Maybe in the median, but certainly not in the right tail. Lots of schools and their 'customers' are well aware of the value of great teachers, and freed from the 'fear' of being stuck with a bad tenured teachers combined with the competition to hire the best possible teachers will no doubt push their salary up. The real down side I see is that once the salary gap between the best and worst teachers starts to widen, then the schools in poorer areas and with lower budgets won't have a chance to afford employing good teachers and will be stuck with the 'leftovers' to an even bigger degree than now.

SomeCallMeTim 11y ago

Unions are why we have the forty hour/five day work week. Guaranteed income is probably the only sane way to move forward. Your description of "mentality of nations" make very little sense, and doesn't actually mesh with the many studies on what happens when you invest in people.

golergka 11y ago
> unions are plague, nothing to be proud of > Unions are why we have the forty hour/five day work week. Just for the record, these two statements don't contradict each other in any way. What unions did 80 years ago and what they're became now are two completely different things.
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  Unions aren't perfect, granted. But even now they serve a purpose.
  - golergka 11y ago
    My comment didn't imply any judgement; I was just pointing out the semantics of the thread, that althoigh two statements can appear contradictory, they aren't necessarily. Personally, I don't have enough information abou unions to offer any opinion.
saiya-jin 11y ago
I don't have problem with concept of minimal income, likewise i don't have so many issues with theory of communism. It's this harsh reality we call life when these utopias fail so spectacularly, because of... so many things. World is fragmented, people have so vastly different mentalities and goals in life (if at all), and I cannot imagine one realistic way to enforce this globally. I am more interested into iterations striving for improvement of our lives, rather than massively under-planned revolutions which might look appealing at first glance. And as for unions, another poster expressed it perfectly. The current political reality of them is pure shame, nothing I would ever, anywhere put into my signature as something to be proud of. So that tells you/me soemthign about author. Btw, why unions left for example doctors out of that 40-hour work week? Or you think that having over-exhausted expert, who hadn't slept for a day or two, decide on your best treatment for some acute life threatening state, when you take your own medications, have your own allergies and set of other important conditions to consider?
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  Unions didn't "leave out" anyone. Doctors have a professional association, which as you point out isn't quite sane in what it allows in terms of overtime. But as a result becoming a doctor is a far more exclusive endeavor. Doctors are also paid quite well, in large part because of that exclusivity. Not trying to defend the worst of current union behavior, but even now unions are useful; thinking particularly about teachers' unions, which fight to get teachers decent pay. It doesn't work, unfortunately -- teachers are paid less than babysitters -- but they'd be paid even less without unions. That said, teacher tenure is too well protected by unions; a teacher who is no longer trying should be able to be fired. Not sure what a better alternative to union organization is. Probably workers earning equity in companies they join, as much as possible. And I'm not talking communism; there are companies today that practice this. But it could be that unions are like democracy: A terrible way to run things, but all the other options are worse.
  - dagw 11y ago
    teachers are paid less than babysitters -- but they'd be paid even less without unions. Maybe in the median, but certainly not in the right tail. Lots of schools and their 'customers' are well aware of the value of great teachers, and freed from the 'fear' of being stuck with a bad tenured teachers combined with the competition to hire the best possible teachers will no doubt push their salary up. The real down side I see is that once the salary gap between the best and worst teachers starts to widen, then the schools in poorer areas and with lower budgets won't have a chance to afford employing good teachers and will be stuck with the 'leftovers' to an even bigger degree than now.