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.
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.
Everyone leaving the labor pool also: decreases demand for non-essential goods(someone McEarning 15k a year, has more money to spend than someone receiving 10k). The remaining workers can't earn more than the company makes. And each non worker decreases company income.
And increases the tax % required from the remaining workers(and companies), to support the new non-worker. You go from the government receiving a % of someones income, to the government providing all of it. Every person leaving the workforce reduces the pool the government can pull from.
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.
OK- suppose that another employee at your business convinces your boss to give him your job, plus his own. That employee is now working double the hours, for almost twice the pay, while you're out on the street. Then the boss tells all the other workers about this arrangement, and pretty soon half have "volunteered" to work double hours while the rest are canned. profits are up, wages are up, the only problem is unemployment.
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.
I work 50 - 60 hours doing research but at the cost of only getting paid for "40 hours". I have a part time job at a retail store to help pay for my school applications - this job I got because I actually applied/interviewed for the position and took the job seriously. Other people came with jeans and a t-shirt and assumed the position would be theirs because it was in retail. So, say what you will, maybe I'm "stealing" jobs - but it seems that the people that I "stole" the job from, didn't really want it. So, in essence, I'm making sacrifices at my main job and trying to make up for it with the part-time job. Selfish? Maybe. But I worked to get these two jobs. Hell, I was even doing a fulltime masters while doing research. Was I being selfish there? Taking that research position when I could've lived off loans?
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.
Everyone leaving the labor pool also: decreases demand for non-essential goods(someone McEarning 15k a year, has more money to spend than someone receiving 10k). The remaining workers can't earn more than the company makes. And each non worker decreases company income.
And increases the tax % required from the remaining workers(and companies), to support the new non-worker. You go from the government receiving a % of someones income, to the government providing all of it. Every person leaving the workforce reduces the pool the government can pull from.
By that argument the real solution would be for the government to demand all employers increase wages as this would cause an increase in demand, lets make the minimum wage 100 dollars an hour. That would also greatly devalue the dollar which would increase our exporting power, and create more jobs. Brilliant!
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.
MM, I have been with you for most of the thread, but an employee and employer generally don't come to an agreement. Sure , the employee is hired, but for most the agreement is generally"you do whatever I want you to do , when I want you too ( provided it is legal)."
And I am FINE with that, its just that isn't a true agreement. The job market is horrible right now. Most have almost no economic mobility. Its a prime example of asymetric power. Setting some hard limits on the work week and other working conditions might be a good 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.
OK- suppose that another employee at your business convinces your boss to give him your job, plus his own. That employee is now working double the hours, for almost twice the pay, while you're out on the street. Then the boss tells all the other workers about this arrangement, and pretty soon half have "volunteered" to work double hours while the rest are canned. profits are up, wages are up, the only problem is unemployment.
You're fine with this arrangement?
Yes. It's not my job to give up my income so other people can have a job. There are plenty of people who do this right now. Like doctors for instance. They don't make nearly as much money as you think they do... well... at least everyone but dermatologists. IT people come up as another example as people who usually work more than 40 hours just because the nature of their jobs.
I rarely have met anyone who works a full 80 hours a week in a single job. Plenty have two full time jobs though, which you are arguing against as a bad thing because that's another person that could be employed.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
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.
OK- suppose that another employee at your business convinces your boss to give him your job, plus his own. That employee is now working double the hours, for almost twice the pay, while you're out on the street. Then the boss tells all the other workers about this arrangement, and pretty soon half have "volunteered" to work double hours while the rest are canned. profits are up, wages are up, the only problem is unemployment.
You're fine with this arrangement?
I enjoy working/doing research/whatever. I'm supposed to be punished for that? Realize there are few people who are like me. I was willing to make sacrifices where other people weren't. Why shouldn't I have the positions?
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.
I work 50 - 60 hours doing research but at the cost of only getting paid for "40 hours". I have a part time job at a retail store to help pay for my school applications - this job I got because I actually applied/interviewed for the position and took the job seriously. Other people came with jeans and a t-shirt and assumed the position would be theirs because it was in retail. So, say what you will, maybe I'm "stealing" jobs - but it seems that the people that I "stole" the job from, didn't really want it. So, in essence, I'm making sacrifices at my main job and trying to make up for it with the part-time job. Selfish? Maybe. But I worked to get these two jobs. Hell, I was even doing a fulltime masters while doing research. Was I being selfish there? Taking that research position when I could've lived off loans?
That's fine, I don't want to insult you. I wrote "some people would say" because I don't actually think that myself. Actually when you said that, I thought you meant you had just one job, with a fixed salary, and you were working 80 hours to basically cover the work of two people on the salary of one. If you're doing research as a grad student, and working a part-time retail gig on the side to make ends meet that's a totally different situation.
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.
OK- suppose that another employee at your business convinces your boss to give him your job, plus his own. That employee is now working double the hours, for almost twice the pay, while you're out on the street. Then the boss tells all the other workers about this arrangement, and pretty soon half have "volunteered" to work double hours while the rest are canned. profits are up, wages are up, the only problem is unemployment.
You're fine with this arrangement?
Yes. It's not my job to give up my income so other people can have a job. There are plenty of people who do this right now. Like doctors for instance. They don't make nearly as much money as you think they do... well... at least everyone but dermatologists. IT people come up as another example as people who usually work more than 40 hours just because the nature of their jobs.
I rarely have met anyone who works a full 80 hours a week in a single job. Plenty have two full time jobs though, which you are arguing against as a bad thing because that's another person that could be employed.
I don't see a problem with workers doing that- I see a problem with companies that exploit the bad economy to force their employees to do that, just so the company can have bigger profits. If you work 80 hours just because you really care about the work, that's fine, but if you're doing it because that's the only way to make ends meet, that's a problem.
I don't see a problem with workers doing that- I see a problem with companies that exploit the bad economy to force their employees to do that, just so the company can have bigger profits. If you work 80 hours just because you really care about the work, that's fine, but if you're doing it because that's the only way to make ends meet, that's a problem.
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.
I work 50 - 60 hours doing research but at the cost of only getting paid for "40 hours". I have a part time job at a retail store to help pay for my school applications - this job I got because I actually applied/interviewed for the position and took the job seriously. Other people came with jeans and a t-shirt and assumed the position would be theirs because it was in retail. So, say what you will, maybe I'm "stealing" jobs - but it seems that the people that I "stole" the job from, didn't really want it. So, in essence, I'm making sacrifices at my main job and trying to make up for it with the part-time job. Selfish? Maybe. But I worked to get these two jobs. Hell, I was even doing a fulltime masters while doing research. Was I being selfish there? Taking that research position when I could've lived off loans?
That's fine, I don't want to insult you. I wrote "some people would say" because I don't actually think that myself. Actually when you said that, I thought you meant you had just one job, with a fixed salary, and you were working 80 hours to basically cover the work of two people on the salary of one. If you're doing research as a grad student, and working a part-time retail gig on the side to make ends meet that's a totally different situation.
Well, realize that some people who work 80 hours aren't getting paid that full 80. A lot of people that I know working 80 hours are under salary so it doesn't matter - they get the same pay. But some people, like nurses, take advantage of the shortage in supply in their jobs and work over 80 hours and get paid something similar to 100 hours of pay. So, the reasons for hourly employees getting paid that much isn't because they're screwing over other people. It's because no one is there to do that job.
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.
OK- suppose that another employee at your business convinces your boss to give him your job, plus his own. That employee is now working double the hours, for almost twice the pay, while you're out on the street. Then the boss tells all the other workers about this arrangement, and pretty soon half have "volunteered" to work double hours while the rest are canned. profits are up, wages are up, the only problem is unemployment.
You're fine with this arrangement?
I'm wouldn't be happy with it. But the other employee and my boss have every right, morally and legally, to enter into that arrangement.
I don't "own" my job. All I own is the right to be paid for my services at an agreed-on rate until either my employer fires me or I quit.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I don't see a problem with workers doing that- I see a problem with companies that exploit the bad economy to force their employees to do that, just so the company can have bigger profits. If you work 80 hours just because you really care about the work, that's fine, but if you're doing it because that's the only way to make ends meet, that's a problem.
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.
OK- suppose that another employee at your business convinces your boss to give him your job, plus his own. That employee is now working double the hours, for almost twice the pay, while you're out on the street. Then the boss tells all the other workers about this arrangement, and pretty soon half have "volunteered" to work double hours while the rest are canned. profits are up, wages are up, the only problem is unemployment.
You're fine with this arrangement?
I'm wouldn't be happy with it. But the other employee and my boss have every right, morally and legally, to enter into that arrangement.
I don't "own" my job. All I own is the right to be paid for my services at an agreed-on rate until either my employer fires me or I quit.
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.
OK- suppose that another employee at your business convinces your boss to give him your job, plus his own. That employee is now working double the hours, for almost twice the pay, while you're out on the street. Then the boss tells all the other workers about this arrangement, and pretty soon half have "volunteered" to work double hours while the rest are canned. profits are up, wages are up, the only problem is unemployment.
You're fine with this arrangement?
I'm wouldn't be happy with it. But the other employee and my boss have every right, morally and legally, to enter into that arrangement.
I don't "own" my job. All I own is the right to be paid for my services at an agreed-on rate until either my employer fires me or I quit.
wrongful termination. That'd be a huge red flag
I'm not sure what the basis would be for claiming wrongful termination. In the US, at least, this type of firing is perfectly legal.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
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.
OK- suppose that another employee at your business convinces your boss to give him your job, plus his own. That employee is now working double the hours, for almost twice the pay, while you're out on the street. Then the boss tells all the other workers about this arrangement, and pretty soon half have "volunteered" to work double hours while the rest are canned. profits are up, wages are up, the only problem is unemployment.
You're fine with this arrangement?
I'm wouldn't be happy with it. But the other employee and my boss have every right, morally and legally, to enter into that arrangement.
I don't "own" my job. All I own is the right to be paid for my services at an agreed-on rate until either my employer fires me or I quit.
wrongful termination. That'd be a huge red flag
I'm not sure what the basis would be for claiming wrongful termination. In the US, at least, this type of firing is perfectly legal.
Oh, I'm suggesting that as a possible reason for why it'd be wrong.
We could just print an extra $10,000 per person and give it all away. That would be the best solution. /sarc
The reason we have welfare programs is to make sure that people who can't find work or are unable to work don't die in the gutter. That's fine and necessary in a humane society. But what you seem to be proposing is simply giving everyone a handout, whether or not they're capable of working.
That's exactly what I'm proposing. What is your objection? Do you just feel a basic instinct that everyone should have to suffer if they want to live?
If everyone suddenly got 10,000 dollars, the costs of rent and food would go up to compensate (if you print it). Or you take that money from productive people and you shrink they pie because they don't want to create businesses in your community anymore...
...and the people in Bowen's neighbourhood have to eat rotten vegetables because fresh ones are no longer availible.
Why is having the biggest pie (economic growth) more important than having a pie that more people get shares of (economic development)?
It's a principle tenet of trickle-down - "a rising tide lifts all boats."
The fact it has been shown to be false over and over doesn't stop it from being sprouted.
Isn't trickle-down supposed to be more like "A rising fancy hovercraft can lift the tide up by it's bootstraps but usually can't be arsed to."
I don't see a problem with workers doing that- I see a problem with companies that exploit the bad economy to force their employees to do that, just so the company can have bigger profits. If you work 80 hours just because you really care about the work, that's fine, but if you're doing it because that's the only way to make ends meet, that's a problem.
I'm confused. What's the difference?
The former is a person who chooses freely to work long hours. The latter is a worker being exploited by his employer, because he has no recourse.
I don't see a problem with workers doing that- I see a problem with companies that exploit the bad economy to force their employees to do that, just so the company can have bigger profits. If you work 80 hours just because you really care about the work, that's fine, but if you're doing it because that's the only way to make ends meet, that's a problem.
I'm confused. What's the difference?
The former is a person who chooses freely to work long hours. The latter is a worker being exploited by his employer, because he has no recourse.
Well, anyone can quit. It might not be a great option, but it's there.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I don't see a problem with workers doing that- I see a problem with companies that exploit the bad economy to force their employees to do that, just so the company can have bigger profits. If you work 80 hours just because you really care about the work, that's fine, but if you're doing it because that's the only way to make ends meet, that's a problem.
I'm confused. What's the difference?
The former is a person who chooses freely to work long hours. The latter is a worker being exploited by his employer, because he has no recourse.
Well, anyone can quit. It might not be a great option, but it's there.
except for the fact that, you know, we need all need money so that we don't starve to death. And these days it's quite difficult to get another job.
Now, if only there were some sort of guaranteed income that you could still earn even if you quit... that'd be great, wouldn't it? That would allow a lot more power in negoiating work conditions with your employer.
Wrongful termination means that's wrong. It's not a reason at all.
But a lot of companies have outlines explaining what fits the bill for that.
Then name what in this scenario fits the bill.
I don't fuckin' know. I never said I agreed with the idea. lol I just know that HR has this clause and people can use it. I just heard it during my orientation and it stuck with me.
I don't see a problem with workers doing that- I see a problem with companies that exploit the bad economy to force their employees to do that, just so the company can have bigger profits. If you work 80 hours just because you really care about the work, that's fine, but if you're doing it because that's the only way to make ends meet, that's a problem.
I'm confused. What's the difference?
The former is a person who chooses freely to work long hours. The latter is a worker being exploited by his employer, because he has no recourse.
Well, anyone can quit. It might not be a great option, but it's there.
except for the fact that, you know, we need all need money so that we don't starve to death. And these days it's quite difficult to get another job.
Now, if only there were some sort of guaranteed income that you could still earn even if you quit... that'd be great, wouldn't it? That would allow a lot more power in negoiating work conditions with your employer.
Okay, it's not difficult to get another job. We need to clarify that point. It may be difficult to find a job that fits your standard of living, but it's not difficult to find a job.
LeCaustic on
Your sig is too tall. -Thanatos
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Okay, it's not difficult to get another job. We need to clarify that point. It may be difficult to find a job that fits your standard of living, but it's not difficult to find a job.
If you are a high-school dropout (and male or black to boot), finding a job can be downright hard. With a college degree, the unemployment rate is about 5%; meaning anyone who wants a job can have one. Just not necessarily the job or pay you want. But that's OK. Nobody owes you a job.
Okay, it's not difficult to get another job. We need to clarify that point. It may be difficult to find a job that fits your standard of living, but it's not difficult to find a job.
O_o
Are you familiar with the unemployment rate?
Yes. Are you saying everyone unemployed is trying 100% to get a job? Hell, I could easily find a job. Would it meet my standard of living? Probably not. But I could get it. There are jobs out there... it's not like there are places that aren't hiring. Until I see every place in the world saying "we're not hiring", then it means jobs are available. People just choose not to get those jobs.
Seems like the better solution to this "people working tons of overtime getting rid of jobs for others and doing it so they can make ends meat" reads to me as we should be getting rid of exempt status for salaried jobs and require overtime pay for things past an average of an hour a day.
I would not be against that but it just seems like employers would rather keep people at hourly so they can just keep a workforce of part time workers to cut costs even further.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
If you are a high-school dropout (and male or black to boot), finding a job can be downright hard. With a college degree, the unemployment rate is about 5%; meaning anyone who wants a job can have one. Just not necessarily the job or pay you want. But that's OK. Nobody owes you a job.
Well, it's not a market tailored to give you a job at your whim. You could volunteer at places you're interested in to show your interest. I know of plenty of people who did that and got a job through that way. I took a paycut to get this job (a severe paycut) but I knew it'd lead me to better alternatives. It all boils down to what you're willing to sacrifice. Some people just aren't willing to go that low.
The former is a person who chooses freely to work long hours. The latter is a worker being exploited by his employer, because he has no recourse.
See, now we're debating ideology again. I would say the former is an employee that is satisfied with the conditions of his employment, and the later is one that is dissatisfied and is free to find other employment.
You responded to some others that the plan of GBI also provides the employee more bargaining power (or the employer with less, more accurately), which I agree with. Use this as a plus for the proposal. Calling out someone for working long hours gets into "I have the right to a job" talk that you see above, just providing ammunition.
Okay, it's not difficult to get another job. We need to clarify that point. It may be difficult to find a job that fits your standard of living, but it's not difficult to find a job.
O_o
Are you familiar with the unemployment rate?
Yes. Are you saying everyone unemployed is trying 100% to get a job? Hell, I could easily find a job. Would it meet my standard of living? Probably not. But I could get it. There are jobs out there... it's not like there are places that aren't hiring. Until I see every place in the world saying "we're not hiring", then it means jobs are available. People just choose not to get those jobs.
Open positions in Philadelphia (where I live) average between 50 and 100 applicants. That's everything from McDonalds to paralegal work to IT.
With a very small margin for error, I feel confident in saying that it's not laziness that is pushing our unemployment rate.
There are a lot of problems with the blanket, "I just saw a job posting!" response. The job in your town doesn't help the person in the next town with no car, the person without the training, the person with a criminal record, etc.
i haven't read the last 10 pages or so but i'm gonna assume that there's a discussion going on and either way, i'd like to voice support for the argument against the idea of guaranteed basic income.
seeing as how i'm too lazy to keep up with the conversation, i know i'll probably be ignored here (which is completely fine) but I'd also like to posit that a lot of societal ills we see in America is a product of american culture and rhetoric rather than the lack of some sort of broad social institution. The economic landscape of america deserves some manner of restructuring, but I have little faith that blindly giving out free money to the masses would invigorate the lower class and stimulate the economy.
but that's all I had to say :P with that, I vanish *poof*
i haven't read the last 10 pages or so but i'm gonna assume that there's an discussion going on and either way, i'd like to voice support for the argument against the idea of guaranteed basic income.
seeing as how i'm too lazy to keep up with the conversation, i know i'll probably be ignored here (which is completely fine) but I'd also like to posit that a lot of societal ills we see in America is a product of american culture and rhetoric rather than the lack of some sort of broad social institution. The economic landscape of america deserves some manner of restructuring, but I have little faith that blindly giving out free money to the masses would invigorate the lower class and stimulate the economy.
but that's all I had to say :P with that, I vanish *poof*
Agreed, our current entitlements are, by in large, not considered sustainable without some serious steps being taken.
We also have a reputation for balking at austerity almost as much as we balk at tax increases.
I don't think it's a good idea to consider giving a country already too stingy to either raise taxes or cut entitlements another major entitlement.
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
No, you're not a workaholic. You're an incredibly silly goose. If you're working 80 hours, I would think yo need to reevaluate things.
The Puritan work ethic really needs to get the Ol Yeller treatment.
Posts
Everyone leaving the labor pool also: decreases demand for non-essential goods(someone McEarning 15k a year, has more money to spend than someone receiving 10k). The remaining workers can't earn more than the company makes. And each non worker decreases company income.
And increases the tax % required from the remaining workers(and companies), to support the new non-worker. You go from the government receiving a % of someones income, to the government providing all of it. Every person leaving the workforce reduces the pool the government can pull from.
OK- suppose that another employee at your business convinces your boss to give him your job, plus his own. That employee is now working double the hours, for almost twice the pay, while you're out on the street. Then the boss tells all the other workers about this arrangement, and pretty soon half have "volunteered" to work double hours while the rest are canned. profits are up, wages are up, the only problem is unemployment.
You're fine with this arrangement?
I work 50 - 60 hours doing research but at the cost of only getting paid for "40 hours". I have a part time job at a retail store to help pay for my school applications - this job I got because I actually applied/interviewed for the position and took the job seriously. Other people came with jeans and a t-shirt and assumed the position would be theirs because it was in retail. So, say what you will, maybe I'm "stealing" jobs - but it seems that the people that I "stole" the job from, didn't really want it. So, in essence, I'm making sacrifices at my main job and trying to make up for it with the part-time job. Selfish? Maybe. But I worked to get these two jobs. Hell, I was even doing a fulltime masters while doing research. Was I being selfish there? Taking that research position when I could've lived off loans?
By that argument the real solution would be for the government to demand all employers increase wages as this would cause an increase in demand, lets make the minimum wage 100 dollars an hour. That would also greatly devalue the dollar which would increase our exporting power, and create more jobs. Brilliant!
MM, I have been with you for most of the thread, but an employee and employer generally don't come to an agreement. Sure , the employee is hired, but for most the agreement is generally"you do whatever I want you to do , when I want you too ( provided it is legal)."
And I am FINE with that, its just that isn't a true agreement. The job market is horrible right now. Most have almost no economic mobility. Its a prime example of asymetric power. Setting some hard limits on the work week and other working conditions might be a good thing.
Yes. It's not my job to give up my income so other people can have a job. There are plenty of people who do this right now. Like doctors for instance. They don't make nearly as much money as you think they do... well... at least everyone but dermatologists. IT people come up as another example as people who usually work more than 40 hours just because the nature of their jobs.
I rarely have met anyone who works a full 80 hours a week in a single job. Plenty have two full time jobs though, which you are arguing against as a bad thing because that's another person that could be employed.
I enjoy working/doing research/whatever. I'm supposed to be punished for that? Realize there are few people who are like me. I was willing to make sacrifices where other people weren't. Why shouldn't I have the positions?
That's fine, I don't want to insult you. I wrote "some people would say" because I don't actually think that myself. Actually when you said that, I thought you meant you had just one job, with a fixed salary, and you were working 80 hours to basically cover the work of two people on the salary of one. If you're doing research as a grad student, and working a part-time retail gig on the side to make ends meet that's a totally different situation.
I don't see a problem with workers doing that- I see a problem with companies that exploit the bad economy to force their employees to do that, just so the company can have bigger profits. If you work 80 hours just because you really care about the work, that's fine, but if you're doing it because that's the only way to make ends meet, that's a problem.
I'm confused. What's the difference?
Well, realize that some people who work 80 hours aren't getting paid that full 80. A lot of people that I know working 80 hours are under salary so it doesn't matter - they get the same pay. But some people, like nurses, take advantage of the shortage in supply in their jobs and work over 80 hours and get paid something similar to 100 hours of pay. So, the reasons for hourly employees getting paid that much isn't because they're screwing over other people. It's because no one is there to do that job.
I don't "own" my job. All I own is the right to be paid for my services at an agreed-on rate until either my employer fires me or I quit.
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah.
Also, you don't like what doctors do, then?
wrongful termination. That'd be a huge red flag
Rigorous Scholarship
Oh, I'm suggesting that as a possible reason for why it'd be wrong.
Rigorous Scholarship
But a lot of companies have outlines explaining what fits the bill for that.
The former is a person who chooses freely to work long hours. The latter is a worker being exploited by his employer, because he has no recourse.
Then name what in this scenario fits the bill.
Rigorous Scholarship
except for the fact that, you know, we need all need money so that we don't starve to death. And these days it's quite difficult to get another job.
Now, if only there were some sort of guaranteed income that you could still earn even if you quit... that'd be great, wouldn't it? That would allow a lot more power in negoiating work conditions with your employer.
I don't fuckin' know. I never said I agreed with the idea. lol I just know that HR has this clause and people can use it. I just heard it during my orientation and it stuck with me.
Okay, it's not difficult to get another job. We need to clarify that point. It may be difficult to find a job that fits your standard of living, but it's not difficult to find a job.
O_o
Are you familiar with the unemployment rate?
Yes. Are you saying everyone unemployed is trying 100% to get a job? Hell, I could easily find a job. Would it meet my standard of living? Probably not. But I could get it. There are jobs out there... it's not like there are places that aren't hiring. Until I see every place in the world saying "we're not hiring", then it means jobs are available. People just choose not to get those jobs.
I would not be against that but it just seems like employers would rather keep people at hourly so they can just keep a workforce of part time workers to cut costs even further.
Well, it's not a market tailored to give you a job at your whim. You could volunteer at places you're interested in to show your interest. I know of plenty of people who did that and got a job through that way. I took a paycut to get this job (a severe paycut) but I knew it'd lead me to better alternatives. It all boils down to what you're willing to sacrifice. Some people just aren't willing to go that low.
See, now we're debating ideology again. I would say the former is an employee that is satisfied with the conditions of his employment, and the later is one that is dissatisfied and is free to find other employment.
You responded to some others that the plan of GBI also provides the employee more bargaining power (or the employer with less, more accurately), which I agree with. Use this as a plus for the proposal. Calling out someone for working long hours gets into "I have the right to a job" talk that you see above, just providing ammunition.
With a very small margin for error, I feel confident in saying that it's not laziness that is pushing our unemployment rate.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
When the hell did I become a liberal?
seeing as how i'm too lazy to keep up with the conversation, i know i'll probably be ignored here (which is completely fine) but I'd also like to posit that a lot of societal ills we see in America is a product of american culture and rhetoric rather than the lack of some sort of broad social institution. The economic landscape of america deserves some manner of restructuring, but I have little faith that blindly giving out free money to the masses would invigorate the lower class and stimulate the economy.
but that's all I had to say :P with that, I vanish *poof*
Agreed, our current entitlements are, by in large, not considered sustainable without some serious steps being taken.
We also have a reputation for balking at austerity almost as much as we balk at tax increases.
I don't think it's a good idea to consider giving a country already too stingy to either raise taxes or cut entitlements another major entitlement.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
No, you're not a workaholic. You're an incredibly silly goose. If you're working 80 hours, I would think yo need to reevaluate things.
The Puritan work ethic really needs to get the Ol Yeller treatment.
why
Because its gooseshit?
Replace it with the Khoo work ethic!