The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
"Slackers" implies people who can work, but don't want to.
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
Nowadays "Hipsters" are a good euphemism for "Slackers."
My loathing of them aside, hipsters tend to fall into the college-educated urban-dwellling demographic. Which is a group with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. They're not the people we're really talking about here.
Actually... the way I imagined this... that demographic would probably be one of the most likely to quit their jobs, and devote their time to something unpaid, like volunteering or artwork. But other people think that this is just a good way to help the really needy, and that's fine too.
Yeah I mean that will probably happen. But I don't think it will invoke everything else you cited in your post.
First off, most hipsters don't work at McDonalds.
:P
No they work as waiters, bartenders, "baristas", in retail, or by temping. If all the hipsters quit because work is uncool (and we decide as society that we're willing to subsidize the wastes), who's going to do the work?
People who want money?
I hope this isn't a real argument
T: cncaudata
I don't feel comfortable saying it is or isn't a right per se, but I definitely feel that whatever it IS, a government should be doing it.
So, let's not derail the thread. Hopefully Pi-r8 and Arch (not meaning to lump you in, here, but you were arguing the point) can admit that food, shelter, etc. are not basic rights (simple argument against - what if you are the last human alive) or at least that they're not guaranteed by the DI, but rather that, since the government seems to be in the business of doing this sort of stuff anyway, maybe we should try to do it more effectively. Is that possible?
Yeah I basically don't believe in the concept of "unalienable rights". But I do think the government should be doing that, for all citizens.
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
"Slackers" implies people who can work, but don't want to.
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
Nowadays "Hipsters" are a good euphemism for "Slackers."
My loathing of them aside, hipsters tend to fall into the college-educated urban-dwellling demographic. Which is a group with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. They're not the people we're really talking about here.
Actually... the way I imagined this... that demographic would probably be one of the most likely to quit their jobs, and devote their time to something unpaid, like volunteering or artwork. But other people think that this is just a good way to help the really needy, and that's fine too.
Yeah I mean that will probably happen. But I don't think it will invoke everything else you cited in your post.
First off, most hipsters don't work at McDonalds.
:P
No they work as waiters, bartenders, "baristas", in retail, or by temping. If all the hipsters quit because work is uncool (and we decide as society that we're willing to subsidize the wastes), who's going to do the work?
In some cases wages will rise until they find someone that will still do that work. In other cases, the owner of the restaurant, or the chef, or whoever is in a higher up position can do it. Many times, that job doesn't really need to be done. I actually prefer restaurants where I can pick up my food at the counter instead of ordering from a waiter, because I feel uncomfortable at basically giving orders to a temporary servant.
Pi-r8 on
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
"Slackers" implies people who can work, but don't want to.
Frankly, if a person falls into that category, he can fuck off and die.
Nowadays "Hipsters" are a good euphemism for "Slackers."
My loathing of them aside, hipsters tend to fall into the college-educated urban-dwellling demographic. Which is a group with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. They're not the people we're really talking about here.
Actually... the way I imagined this... that demographic would probably be one of the most likely to quit their jobs, and devote their time to something unpaid, like volunteering or artwork. But other people think that this is just a good way to help the really needy, and that's fine too.
Yeah I mean that will probably happen. But I don't think it will invoke everything else you cited in your post.
First off, most hipsters don't work at McDonalds.
:P
No they work as waiters, bartenders, "baristas", in retail, or by temping. If all the hipsters quit because work is uncool (and we decide as society that we're willing to subsidize the wastes), who's going to do the work?
People who want money?
I hope this isn't a real argument
T: cncaudata
I don't feel comfortable saying it is or isn't a right per se, but I definitely feel that whatever it IS, a government should be doing it.
It most certainly is a real argument. If the government is going to give you $10,000 for doing jack, what is the incentive to work a part time "shitty" job that will pay you about $10,000 per year.
Awesome! If we can stay out of the ideology ladden topics like that we'll be in better shape. This is what got me (as a very fiscally conservative fellow) so out of whack and opposed to any progressive program for so long. As long as we're talking about matters of degree, and solving efficiency problems, I think we can have an intelligent discussion.
I.e. we think that grandma shouldn't be left to starve. Who should help? The government? Well, someone would need to, and we can't trust the church. Ok. Now, should we let 20% of grandmas die, or should we help a few slackers so we can save another 15% of grandmas?
So... I am lazy and other people have numbers at their fingertips. If we cut the military budget in half, killed SS, and somehow increased tax revenue by, say, whatever the latest balanced budget proposal had, how much money would that give us to spend?
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
Pardon the snideness, but enjoy watching the economy implode. Any welfare system sufficiently generous to live that cuts no one off will bankrupt any present-day economy. We continue to live in a world defined by scarcity.
For some people, the opportunity cost of working for an extra 10k when you already have 10k and could just be enjoying your free time must not seem worth it
By Pi-r8's own reasoning: why have 20k and have 20k of expenses (savings be damned) and no free time when you can have 10k and have 10k of expenses and have all the free time in the world?
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
Yes, but you have half that without having to do a damn thing and it's not like you'll need the other 10k for savings... these are hipsters we're talking about. They're a lazy, delusional, short-sighted bunch.
How many slackers are you willing to subsidize?
How many truly needy are you willing to cut off?
Which is why the specifics are just about all that matters here. It's a trade-off question whose universally correct answer (assuming it exists) we don't know.
My answer is: 100% of slackers, 0% of the truly needy. It's not like the declaration of independance says "all men have a right to life, except for slackers because fuck those guys".
Pardon the snideness, but enjoy watching the economy implode. Any welfare system sufficiently generous to live that cuts no one off will bankrupt any present-day economy. We continue to live in a world defined by scarcity.
for a lot of things, sure. But, for all the basic things that people need to live, there's easily enough for everybody. Hell, we basically subsidize farmers NOT to go crops, and we have a crisis with housing prices because so many people are selling at the same time. The only scarcity is in luxuries.
In some cases wages will rise until they find someone that will still do that work. In other cases, the owner of the restaurant, or the chef, or whoever is in a higher up position can do it. Many times, that job doesn't really need to be done. I actually prefer restaurants where I can pick up my food at the counter instead of ordering from a waiter, because I feel uncomfortable at basically giving orders to a temporary servant.
Or, in many cases, the business will go under (restaurants especially have a tough time surviving). High-end restaurants where waiters make a lot of money will survive, I suppose. But a lot of other restaurants would end up as places where food pops out of an automated slot or something. Your personal preference WRT restaurants isn't really a justification for wiping out a lot of small businesses.
Your proposed system would lead to people leaving the workforce, and many smaller businesses going under. As more people lose their jobs, how do you suggest continuing to pay for this?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Some people will choose not to work. Please provide your estimate of how many that is, and then provide an estimate of the number of grandmas that you'd allow to starve in order to prevent those people from quitting their Starbucks jobs.
Or, you could make criminal income on the side and enjoy your government cheese on top of that.
Two other points:
1. I would support a guaranteed government job ("workfare") before supporting an unconditional GBI.
2. Part of the reason I immigrated to this country is because of the much smaller welfare state. I think this is very common among immigrants. If the U.S. become Europe II, I suspect you would lose much of the "immigration destination of choice" benefit that the U.S. currently enjoys.
In some cases wages will rise until they find someone that will still do that work. In other cases, the owner of the restaurant, or the chef, or whoever is in a higher up position can do it. Many times, that job doesn't really need to be done. I actually prefer restaurants where I can pick up my food at the counter instead of ordering from a waiter, because I feel uncomfortable at basically giving orders to a temporary servant.
Or, in many cases, the business will go under (restaurants especially have a tough time surviving). High-end restaurants where waiters make a lot of money will survive, I suppose. But a lot of other restaurants would end up as places where food pops out of an automated slot or something. Your personal preference WRT restaurants isn't really a justification for wiping out a lot of small businesses.
Your proposed system would lead to people leaving the workforce, and many smaller businesses going under. As more people lose their jobs, how do you suggest continuing to pay for this?
The wikipedia article I linked has its own sources that showed that an NIT would result in about a 1-2% reduction in the workforce. That's noteworthy, but hardly catastrophic.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
for a lot of things, sure. But, for all the basic things that people need to live, there's easily enough for everybody. Hell, we basically subsidize farmers NOT to go crops, and we have a crisis with housing prices because so many people are selling at the same time. The only scarcity is in luxuries.
Because people are forced ("incentivized") to work. Watch that abundance disappear when people don't have to work anymore.
Some people will choose not to work. Please provide your estimate of how many that is, and then provide an estimate of the number of grandmas that you'd allow to starve in order to prevent those people from quitting their Starbucks jobs.
False dichotomy. We already have programs in place to prevent grandmas from starving. I don't see the point of replacing those programs with ones that will lead to more lazy layabouts not having to work.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
1. I would support a guaranteed government job ("workfare") before supporting an unconditional GBI.
This is another option that on its face, like the shoebox and cheese option, appears to solve a ton of problems all at once, but is very hard to figure out the details of and seems likely to end of less efficient than simply handing out the money. I.e. if you're going to hire people to tennis ball the walmart floors, then tax them to pay for your programs, why don't you just let them stay home (or go to school!) and pay them 15% less?
1. I would support a guaranteed government job ("workfare") before supporting an unconditional GBI.
This is another option that on its face, like the shoebox and cheese option, appears to solve a ton of problems all at once, but is very hard to figure out the details of and seems likely to end of less efficient than simply handing out the money. I.e. if you're going to hire people to tennis ball the walmart floors, then tax them to pay for your programs, why don't you just let them stay home (or go to school!) and pay them 15% less?
I'd rather support government inefficiency that goes towards the construction, education, or maintenance of something (do this, receive money) than government inefficiency that goes towards nothing (do nothing, receive money)
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Some people will choose not to work. Please provide your estimate of how many that is, and then provide an estimate of the number of grandmas that you'd allow to starve in order to prevent those people from quitting their Starbucks jobs.
False dichotomy. We already have programs in place to prevent grandmas from starving. I don't see the point of replacing those programs with ones that will lead to more lazy layabouts not having to work.
It is not a false dichotomy. Any program with barriers to entry will leave out some "deserving" person (even if only because they die before the application is approved). Any program without infinite barriers to entry will support some slackers.
I guarantee that there is at least one grandma who is starving. How many slackers would you be willing to support in order to save her?
1. I would support a guaranteed government job ("workfare") before supporting an unconditional GBI.
This is another option that on its face, like the shoebox and cheese option, appears to solve a ton of problems all at once, but is very hard to figure out the details of and seems likely to end of less efficient than simply handing out the money. I.e. if you're going to hire people to tennis ball the walmart floors, then tax them to pay for your programs, why don't you just let them stay home (or go to school!) and pay them 15% less?
I'd rather support government inefficiency that goes towards the construction, education, or maintenance of something than government inefficiency that goes towards nothing
Fair enough. I do think if you could structure it very very well it would work.
Some people will choose not to work. Please provide your estimate of how many that is, and then provide an estimate of the number of grandmas that you'd allow to starve in order to prevent those people from quitting their Starbucks jobs.
False dichotomy. We already have programs in place to prevent grandmas from starving. I don't see the point of replacing those programs with ones that will lead to more lazy layabouts not having to work.
And again just giving people money doesn't necessarily solve the problem that something like this is supposed to solve. They need to spend the money wisely to uproot themselves on necessities before luxuries. Many won't choose to do that. They might get some really basic needs like rent or food out of the way, but health-care or saving for the future or education or rainy day funds? Forget it.
The below addresses health care specifically but it's interesting because these guys go around interviewing able bodied hipsters in Hollywood and talk about what they are spending their money on. There are some necessities but the response of "supplements" and "clothes" over things like insurance keeps cropping up. And these are semi intelligent people who have jobs. I can't imagine what the responses would look like in South Los Angeles.
This idea is insane right from the start. The OP admits this will cost roughly 1/5th of the GDP. The current government is already taxing north of 25% of the GDP, To pay for this would require doubling current taxes(ignore the obvious effect that fewer people working lowers the GDP, and that current taxes aren't high enough to cover current expenses).
That said, if this ever looks like an idea this insane were going to pass I'm buying stock in Blizzard. 10k a year to sit on your ass and play WoW...there are worse deals.
If you want to make working a shitty job less shitty, raise the EIC limits.
In some cases wages will rise until they find someone that will still do that work. In other cases, the owner of the restaurant, or the chef, or whoever is in a higher up position can do it. Many times, that job doesn't really need to be done. I actually prefer restaurants where I can pick up my food at the counter instead of ordering from a waiter, because I feel uncomfortable at basically giving orders to a temporary servant.
Or, in many cases, the business will go under (restaurants especially have a tough time surviving). High-end restaurants where waiters make a lot of money will survive, I suppose. But a lot of other restaurants would end up as places where food pops out of an automated slot or something. Your personal preference WRT restaurants isn't really a justification for wiping out a lot of small businesses.
Your proposed system would lead to people leaving the workforce, and many smaller businesses going under. As more people lose their jobs, how do you suggest continuing to pay for this?
If a restaurant has such a thin profit margin that they really can't afford to pay their wait staff a wage that's competitive with $10,000 a year, then obviously that restaurant isn't valued very highly by the community. And that's not my personal preference, that's just capitalism allowing people to vote with their wallot.
The people who quit their jobs are, presumably, the people who make such a small amount that $10,000 a year is attractive to them. Those people pay an extremely small portion of national tax revenues- something like 2%.
Some people will choose not to work. Please provide your estimate of how many that is, and then provide an estimate of the number of grandmas that you'd allow to starve in order to prevent those people from quitting their Starbucks jobs.
False dichotomy. We already have programs in place to prevent grandmas from starving. I don't see the point of replacing those programs with ones that will lead to more lazy layabouts not having to work.
It is not a false dichotomy. Any program with barriers to entry will leave out some "deserving" person (even if only because they die before the application is approved). Any program without infinite barriers to entry will support some slackers.
I guarantee that there is at least one grandma who is starving. How many slackers would you be willing to support in order to save her?
There's an underlying moral assumption here that slacking is intrinsically bad.
There should be a population, ideally tiny but extant, for whom the lowest wages are not sufficient to bring them into work. This would imply that there is negotiation between the workforce and employers. Right now, there are people for whom their only choice is to work or starve - even if the conditions of working are untenable. We address these conditions explicitly through labor law, but as Ronya implied earlier, the law is a clumsy blunt instrument while economics can be more subtle. If people had a meaningful choice whether to work or not, there would be more incentive for employers to improve working hours and conditions.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Well the big problem I see is that all of the real, literal, needs have already been filled. What do you need, exactly? You need food, shelter, medicine, and some clothes to stay warm. That's it. You don't need anything else. All of those things are produced by huge, multi-national organisations, which an independant startup can't possibly compete with. And the same problem exists with the indirect needs- stuff like cars, and computers, stuff which isn't strictly necessary but helps a lot with everything in modern society- you can't do that yourself. There's a small number of people who produce enough to go around, for everyone. We don't need anyone else producing those things.
When people go in to business for themselves, what they do is produce luxuries. Stuff like handmade crafts, or paintings, or computer games, or a coffee shop, or a restaurant- all that stuff is fun, and I enjoy it, but we don't really need it. And they're all competing with each other- people only have a small amount of excess income to spend on luxuries like that. In order for a new startup like that to succeed, another small business has to lose money. Those small businesses would be more pleasant if they weren't trying to cut each others' throat to stay alive.
edit- there is another way to run the economy. There's a small group of people with effectively infinite income to spend on luxuries- the super rich. We can all start small businesses that service their every desire. That's pretty much the way the US economy is headed right now - a small group of oligarchs, and their servants. I just really don't want to go down that road.
is amazingly straight out of 1920s Progressivism, right down to the proclamations of the ascendancy of the faceless assembly line, the desire to rationalize competition, and the confidence that all material wants had been satisfied by the technology of the day. Unfortunately, there is a good reason 1940s Progressivism replaced 1920s Progressivism, and that is because the latter was a terrible idea, and mostly wrong about its empirical predictions.
Do you have any sources that address this? Because this is still the argument most convincing to me personally, and I don't think anyone has directly addressed this yet.
Some people will choose not to work. Please provide your estimate of how many that is, and then provide an estimate of the number of grandmas that you'd allow to starve in order to prevent those people from quitting their Starbucks jobs.
False dichotomy. We already have programs in place to prevent grandmas from starving. I don't see the point of replacing those programs with ones that will lead to more lazy layabouts not having to work.
It is not a false dichotomy. Any program with barriers to entry will leave out some "deserving" person (even if only because they die before the application is approved). Any program without infinite barriers to entry will support some slackers.
I guarantee that there is at least one grandma who is starving. How many slackers would you be willing to support in order to save her?
There's an underlying moral assumption here that slacking is intrinsically bad.
There should be a population, ideally tiny but extant, for whom the lowest wages are not sufficient to bring them into work. This would imply that there is negotiation between the workforce and employers. Right now, there are people for whom their only choice is to work or starve - even if the conditions of working are untenable. We address these conditions explicitly through labor law, but as Ronya implied earlier, the law is a clumsy blunt instrument while economics can be more subtle. If people had a meaningful choice whether to work or not, there would be more incentive for employers to improve working hours and conditions.
OR, they'd just hire illegal immigrants. Employers always look for the best route, whether legal/illegal. Imo, people have too much pride in themselves to sacrifice their time to take a certain job because it's not what they want. That is probably a large number that assume they're suited for better things when that job isn't out there.
I think people need to get over themselves and make sacrifices. Not the other way around - people who have jobs who made the sacrifice are basically being punished at the expense of what amounts to slackers.
Has anyone else pointed out that people opting out of working because the pay/effort rate is too low, decreases the pay/effort rate of everyone else? At some % of the population not working, the people left working will be earning less an hour post taxes, than the initial wave of people who opted out of work.
edit: Actually this is true for some people at any % of non-workers. There will be people who were marginally above the work-don't work threshold, that will be pushed below it by the tax increase.
Has anyone else pointed out that people opting out of working because the pay/effort rate is too low, decreases the pay/effort rate of everyone else? At some % of the population not working, the people left working will be earning less an hour post taxes, than the initial wave of people who opted out of work.
Actually it would have the opposite effect. With fewer people seeking employment, wages would rise. Imagine the extreme case where one person does all the work in the country- every one else has to pay that person for his services, so he gets an exhorbitant wage.
Has anyone else pointed out that people opting out of working because the pay/effort rate is too low, decreases the pay/effort rate of everyone else? At some % of the population not working, the people left working will be earning less an hour post taxes, than the initial wave of people who opted out of work.
This doesn't seem to follow. Every person leaving the labor force reduces the labor supply, increasing the negotiating power of every remaining worker. If employers refuse to meet the newly increased wage demands, then even more will leave until it does even out. At no point could I see pay decreasing as a result.
Some people will choose not to work. Please provide your estimate of how many that is, and then provide an estimate of the number of grandmas that you'd allow to starve in order to prevent those people from quitting their Starbucks jobs.
False dichotomy. We already have programs in place to prevent grandmas from starving. I don't see the point of replacing those programs with ones that will lead to more lazy layabouts not having to work.
It is not a false dichotomy. Any program with barriers to entry will leave out some "deserving" person (even if only because they die before the application is approved). Any program without infinite barriers to entry will support some slackers.
I guarantee that there is at least one grandma who is starving. How many slackers would you be willing to support in order to save her?
There's an underlying moral assumption here that slacking is intrinsically bad.
There should be a population, ideally tiny but extant, for whom the lowest wages are not sufficient to bring them into work. This would imply that there is negotiation between the workforce and employers. Right now, there are people for whom their only choice is to work or starve - even if the conditions of working are untenable. We address these conditions explicitly through labor law, but as Ronya implied earlier, the law is a clumsy blunt instrument while economics can be more subtle. If people had a meaningful choice whether to work or not, there would be more incentive for employers to improve working hours and conditions.
OR, they'd just hire illegal immigrants. Employers always look for the best route, whether legal/illegal. Imo, people have too much pride in themselves to sacrifice their time to take a certain job because it's not what they want. That is probably a large number that assume they're suited for better things when that job isn't out there.
I think people need to get over themselves and make sacrifices. Not the other way around - people who have jobs who made the sacrifice are basically being punished at the expense of what amounts to slackers.
Like Feral said, you still make the assumption that a "slacker" is bad, and someone with a job is good. No matter what. Even if that job creates harmful externalities, and the person got it only by taking it away from a "slacker".
Has anyone else pointed out that people opting out of working because the pay/effort rate is too low, decreases the pay/effort rate of everyone else? At some % of the population not working, the people left working will be earning less an hour post taxes, than the initial wave of people who opted out of work.
Actually it would have the opposite effect. With fewer people seeking employment, wages would rise. Imagine the extreme case where one person does all the work in the country- every one else has to pay that person for his services, so he gets an exhorbitant wage.
Larger burden on the government = increased taxes = decreased wages. Am I doing the math wrong, here?
Some people will choose not to work. Please provide your estimate of how many that is, and then provide an estimate of the number of grandmas that you'd allow to starve in order to prevent those people from quitting their Starbucks jobs.
False dichotomy. We already have programs in place to prevent grandmas from starving. I don't see the point of replacing those programs with ones that will lead to more lazy layabouts not having to work.
It is not a false dichotomy. Any program with barriers to entry will leave out some "deserving" person (even if only because they die before the application is approved). Any program without infinite barriers to entry will support some slackers.
I guarantee that there is at least one grandma who is starving. How many slackers would you be willing to support in order to save her?
There's an underlying moral assumption here that slacking is intrinsically bad.
There should be a population, ideally tiny but extant, for whom the lowest wages are not sufficient to bring them into work. This would imply that there is negotiation between the workforce and employers. Right now, there are people for whom their only choice is to work or starve - even if the conditions of working are untenable. We address these conditions explicitly through labor law, but as Ronya implied earlier, the law is a clumsy blunt instrument while economics can be more subtle. If people had a meaningful choice whether to work or not, there would be more incentive for employers to improve working hours and conditions.
OR, they'd just hire illegal immigrants. Employers always look for the best route, whether legal/illegal. Imo, people have too much pride in themselves to sacrifice their time to take a certain job because it's not what they want. That is probably a large number that assume they're suited for better things when that job isn't out there.
I think people need to get over themselves and make sacrifices. Not the other way around - people who have jobs who made the sacrifice are basically being punished at the expense of what amounts to slackers.
Like Feral said, you still make the assumption that a "slacker" is bad, and someone with a job is good. No matter what. Even if that job creates harmful externalities, and the person got it only by taking it away from a "slacker".
I have my own interpretation of a slacker, which might be a more severe definition than what other people use, and that's why I'd assume they're bad. But I'm biased because I work 80 hours a week and don't understand the idea/notion that you can't make sacrifices in your day to help. Oh, that's because I'm a workaholic. lol
Has anyone else pointed out that people opting out of working because the pay/effort rate is too low, decreases the pay/effort rate of everyone else? At some % of the population not working, the people left working will be earning less an hour post taxes, than the initial wave of people who opted out of work.
This doesn't seem to follow. Every person leaving the labor force reduces the labor supply, increasing the negotiating power of every remaining worker. If employers refuse to meet the newly increased wage demands, then even more will leave until it does even out. At no point could I see pay decreasing as a result.
$10K isn't all that much money. There are very few people who can live off of that. Certainly no one with kids.
So, if you do institute this, I don't think many people will actually leave the workforce. But, employers will be able to drop wages for everyone left (or, at least, everyone who gets the free $10K), because they know that everyone already has $10K to start with.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Has anyone else pointed out that people opting out of working because the pay/effort rate is too low, decreases the pay/effort rate of everyone else? At some % of the population not working, the people left working will be earning less an hour post taxes, than the initial wave of people who opted out of work.
Actually it would have the opposite effect. With fewer people seeking employment, wages would rise. Imagine the extreme case where one person does all the work in the country- every one else has to pay that person for his services, so he gets an exhorbitant wage.
Larger burden on the government = increased taxes = decreased wages. Am I doing the math wrong, here?
Oh i missed that you're talking about after-tax income. The majority of the tax burden would be on people that are earning far more than the basic income. With a $10,000 income, that problem wouldn't happen unless at least 4/5 of the country quit their jobs. I'm assuming that won't happen (and if it does, we'd decrease the amount).
So, if you do institute this, I don't think many people will actually leave the workforce. But, employers will be able to drop wages for everyone left (or, at least, everyone who gets the free $10K), because they know that everyone already has $10K to start with.
Within reason - there's a point where people will all up and leave if employers start doing that. But that argument is pointless since I agree with you
Some people will choose not to work. Please provide your estimate of how many that is, and then provide an estimate of the number of grandmas that you'd allow to starve in order to prevent those people from quitting their Starbucks jobs.
False dichotomy. We already have programs in place to prevent grandmas from starving. I don't see the point of replacing those programs with ones that will lead to more lazy layabouts not having to work.
It is not a false dichotomy. Any program with barriers to entry will leave out some "deserving" person (even if only because they die before the application is approved). Any program without infinite barriers to entry will support some slackers.
I guarantee that there is at least one grandma who is starving. How many slackers would you be willing to support in order to save her?
There's an underlying moral assumption here that slacking is intrinsically bad.
There should be a population, ideally tiny but extant, for whom the lowest wages are not sufficient to bring them into work. This would imply that there is negotiation between the workforce and employers. Right now, there are people for whom their only choice is to work or starve - even if the conditions of working are untenable. We address these conditions explicitly through labor law, but as Ronya implied earlier, the law is a clumsy blunt instrument while economics can be more subtle. If people had a meaningful choice whether to work or not, there would be more incentive for employers to improve working hours and conditions.
OR, they'd just hire illegal immigrants. Employers always look for the best route, whether legal/illegal. Imo, people have too much pride in themselves to sacrifice their time to take a certain job because it's not what they want. That is probably a large number that assume they're suited for better things when that job isn't out there.
I think people need to get over themselves and make sacrifices. Not the other way around - people who have jobs who made the sacrifice are basically being punished at the expense of what amounts to slackers.
Like Feral said, you still make the assumption that a "slacker" is bad, and someone with a job is good. No matter what. Even if that job creates harmful externalities, and the person got it only by taking it away from a "slacker".
I have my own interpretation of a slacker, which might be a more severe definition than what other people use, and that's why I'd assume they're bad. But I'm biased because I work 80 hours a week and don't understand the idea/notion that you can't make sacrifices in your day to help. Oh, that's because I'm a workaholic. lol
Some people would say that, by working 80 hours a week, you're basically stealing a full-time job from someone else, at a time when millions are unemployed and desperate for work. Not to mention giving increased power to the business owners, to demand that their employees work longer hours. That's not a good thing, that's a bad thing.
Some people would say that, by working 80 hours a week, you're basically stealing a full-time job from someone else, at a time when millions are unemployed and desperate for work. Not to mention giving increased power to the business owners, to demand that their employees work longer hours. That's not a good thing, that's a bad thing.
Or, you know, he and his employer have come to an agreement when it comes to hours and work that they can both live with.
Which is none of your business or anyone else's.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Posts
People who want money?
I hope this isn't a real argument
T: cncaudata
I don't feel comfortable saying it is or isn't a right per se, but I definitely feel that whatever it IS, a government should be doing it.
Of course I bring up another good point? Wow, I'm moving up in the world.
Us Arch'es gotta stick together.
Yeah I basically don't believe in the concept of "unalienable rights". But I do think the government should be doing that, for all citizens.
also arguing with you makes me confused!
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
In some cases wages will rise until they find someone that will still do that work. In other cases, the owner of the restaurant, or the chef, or whoever is in a higher up position can do it. Many times, that job doesn't really need to be done. I actually prefer restaurants where I can pick up my food at the counter instead of ordering from a waiter, because I feel uncomfortable at basically giving orders to a temporary servant.
It most certainly is a real argument. If the government is going to give you $10,000 for doing jack, what is the incentive to work a part time "shitty" job that will pay you about $10,000 per year.
I.e. we think that grandma shouldn't be left to starve. Who should help? The government? Well, someone would need to, and we can't trust the church. Ok. Now, should we let 20% of grandmas die, or should we help a few slackers so we can save another 15% of grandmas?
So... I am lazy and other people have numbers at their fingertips. If we cut the military budget in half, killed SS, and somehow increased tax revenue by, say, whatever the latest balanced budget proposal had, how much money would that give us to spend?
Pardon the snideness, but enjoy watching the economy implode. Any welfare system sufficiently generous to live that cuts no one off will bankrupt any present-day economy. We continue to live in a world defined by scarcity.
By Pi-r8's own reasoning: why have 20k and have 20k of expenses (savings be damned) and no free time when you can have 10k and have 10k of expenses and have all the free time in the world?
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
for a lot of things, sure. But, for all the basic things that people need to live, there's easily enough for everybody. Hell, we basically subsidize farmers NOT to go crops, and we have a crisis with housing prices because so many people are selling at the same time. The only scarcity is in luxuries.
Your proposed system would lead to people leaving the workforce, and many smaller businesses going under. As more people lose their jobs, how do you suggest continuing to pay for this?
Rigorous Scholarship
Two other points:
1. I would support a guaranteed government job ("workfare") before supporting an unconditional GBI.
2. Part of the reason I immigrated to this country is because of the much smaller welfare state. I think this is very common among immigrants. If the U.S. become Europe II, I suspect you would lose much of the "immigration destination of choice" benefit that the U.S. currently enjoys.
The wikipedia article I linked has its own sources that showed that an NIT would result in about a 1-2% reduction in the workforce. That's noteworthy, but hardly catastrophic.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Because people are forced ("incentivized") to work. Watch that abundance disappear when people don't have to work anymore.
Rigorous Scholarship
This is another option that on its face, like the shoebox and cheese option, appears to solve a ton of problems all at once, but is very hard to figure out the details of and seems likely to end of less efficient than simply handing out the money. I.e. if you're going to hire people to tennis ball the walmart floors, then tax them to pay for your programs, why don't you just let them stay home (or go to school!) and pay them 15% less?
I'd rather support government inefficiency that goes towards the construction, education, or maintenance of something (do this, receive money) than government inefficiency that goes towards nothing (do nothing, receive money)
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
It is not a false dichotomy. Any program with barriers to entry will leave out some "deserving" person (even if only because they die before the application is approved). Any program without infinite barriers to entry will support some slackers.
I guarantee that there is at least one grandma who is starving. How many slackers would you be willing to support in order to save her?
Fair enough. I do think if you could structure it very very well it would work.
And again just giving people money doesn't necessarily solve the problem that something like this is supposed to solve. They need to spend the money wisely to uproot themselves on necessities before luxuries. Many won't choose to do that. They might get some really basic needs like rent or food out of the way, but health-care or saving for the future or education or rainy day funds? Forget it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT3KiB2otV0
The below addresses health care specifically but it's interesting because these guys go around interviewing able bodied hipsters in Hollywood and talk about what they are spending their money on. There are some necessities but the response of "supplements" and "clothes" over things like insurance keeps cropping up. And these are semi intelligent people who have jobs. I can't imagine what the responses would look like in South Los Angeles.
That said, if this ever looks like an idea this insane were going to pass I'm buying stock in Blizzard. 10k a year to sit on your ass and play WoW...there are worse deals.
If you want to make working a shitty job less shitty, raise the EIC limits.
If a restaurant has such a thin profit margin that they really can't afford to pay their wait staff a wage that's competitive with $10,000 a year, then obviously that restaurant isn't valued very highly by the community. And that's not my personal preference, that's just capitalism allowing people to vote with their wallot.
The people who quit their jobs are, presumably, the people who make such a small amount that $10,000 a year is attractive to them. Those people pay an extremely small portion of national tax revenues- something like 2%.
There's an underlying moral assumption here that slacking is intrinsically bad.
There should be a population, ideally tiny but extant, for whom the lowest wages are not sufficient to bring them into work. This would imply that there is negotiation between the workforce and employers. Right now, there are people for whom their only choice is to work or starve - even if the conditions of working are untenable. We address these conditions explicitly through labor law, but as Ronya implied earlier, the law is a clumsy blunt instrument while economics can be more subtle. If people had a meaningful choice whether to work or not, there would be more incentive for employers to improve working hours and conditions.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Do you have any sources that address this? Because this is still the argument most convincing to me personally, and I don't think anyone has directly addressed this yet.
OR, they'd just hire illegal immigrants. Employers always look for the best route, whether legal/illegal. Imo, people have too much pride in themselves to sacrifice their time to take a certain job because it's not what they want. That is probably a large number that assume they're suited for better things when that job isn't out there.
I think people need to get over themselves and make sacrifices. Not the other way around - people who have jobs who made the sacrifice are basically being punished at the expense of what amounts to slackers.
edit: Actually this is true for some people at any % of non-workers. There will be people who were marginally above the work-don't work threshold, that will be pushed below it by the tax increase.
Actually it would have the opposite effect. With fewer people seeking employment, wages would rise. Imagine the extreme case where one person does all the work in the country- every one else has to pay that person for his services, so he gets an exhorbitant wage.
This doesn't seem to follow. Every person leaving the labor force reduces the labor supply, increasing the negotiating power of every remaining worker. If employers refuse to meet the newly increased wage demands, then even more will leave until it does even out. At no point could I see pay decreasing as a result.
Like Feral said, you still make the assumption that a "slacker" is bad, and someone with a job is good. No matter what. Even if that job creates harmful externalities, and the person got it only by taking it away from a "slacker".
Larger burden on the government = increased taxes = decreased wages. Am I doing the math wrong, here?
I have my own interpretation of a slacker, which might be a more severe definition than what other people use, and that's why I'd assume they're bad. But I'm biased because I work 80 hours a week and don't understand the idea/notion that you can't make sacrifices in your day to help. Oh, that's because I'm a workaholic. lol
So, if you do institute this, I don't think many people will actually leave the workforce. But, employers will be able to drop wages for everyone left (or, at least, everyone who gets the free $10K), because they know that everyone already has $10K to start with.
Rigorous Scholarship
Oh i missed that you're talking about after-tax income. The majority of the tax burden would be on people that are earning far more than the basic income. With a $10,000 income, that problem wouldn't happen unless at least 4/5 of the country quit their jobs. I'm assuming that won't happen (and if it does, we'd decrease the amount).
Within reason - there's a point where people will all up and leave if employers start doing that. But that argument is pointless since I agree with you
Some people would say that, by working 80 hours a week, you're basically stealing a full-time job from someone else, at a time when millions are unemployed and desperate for work. Not to mention giving increased power to the business owners, to demand that their employees work longer hours. That's not a good thing, that's a bad thing.
Which is none of your business or anyone else's.
Rigorous Scholarship