Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
I would think it would make people more picky about what kind of unpaid internships they'll do- they'd be less likely to put up with doing shit work for a chance at someday getting a low salary if they had something to fall back on.
I would think they'd be more likely to risk not getting paid now, for the reward of getting paid more later, because the risk/cost of not getting paid has been reduced.
Right now, the incentive for working for free is a chance at later raising your income from $0 to say $30,000
With the BIG, the incentive for working for free is a chance at going from $10,000 to $40,000
So yes, there's still that incentive, and some people will still take unpaid internships, but the incentive is reduced. So there will be fewer people doing it, which then creates more paid positions.
Due to the diminishing marginal value of money, going from 0 to 10k is a bigger reduction in risk/cost than going from 30k to 40k is in gain.
uh... yes? That's exactly my point. There's less of an incentive for doing a shitty unpaid internship in hopes of maybe landing a shitty low-paid job.
The shitty internship is made less shitty at a greater rate than the shitty low paying job is made more shitty.
Uh, i read that. So, in your model, you think there is no force causing the cost of capital to rise, correct?
But every time the question is asked "where does this money come from" the answer is, "Rich people who don't work!". Which to me means, we're gonna tax capital. Which, unless i miss my mark, should raise the cost of capital.
So, to your answer I say. Huh?
three errors here, all italicized. There may be four, depending on what you mean 'tax capital'.
You may notice that my model did not mention, anywhere, the source of revenue; this is because many GMI suggestions suggest replacing existing social spending, and the issue of raising revenue is quite identical, at the margin, to all other revenue-related issues. In general one always wants to minimize the unneeded costs of raising any given amount of revenue, after all.
Strictly speaking it isn't, in fact, obviously the case that taxing capital raises the cost of capital (typically referred to as rent), for the same reason raising labour taxes doesn't necessarily raise pre-tax wages. 'Capital' is too large a thing for what economists call "holding all other factors constant" to hold reliably true. This is a tangent not quite related, though, so I'll stop there.
Increasing the tax burden on rich people doesn't necessarily imply increasing taxes on capital gains, nor capital holding. It is quite possible, of course. But observe that a steeply progressive consumption tax would increase the tax burden on rich people.
OK, so as long as the money comes from nowhere, you're right.
or, you know, consumption taxes, or site taxes, or...
The impact of none of which you included in your model.
Uh, i read that. So, in your model, you think there is no force causing the cost of capital to rise, correct?
But every time the question is asked "where does this money come from" the answer is, "Rich people who don't work!". Which to me means, we're gonna tax capital. Which, unless i miss my mark, should raise the cost of capital.
So, to your answer I say. Huh?
three errors here, all italicized. There may be four, depending on what you mean 'tax capital'.
You may notice that my model did not mention, anywhere, the source of revenue; this is because many GMI suggestions suggest replacing existing social spending, and the issue of raising revenue is quite identical, at the margin, to all other revenue-related issues. In general one always wants to minimize the unneeded costs of raising any given amount of revenue, after all.
Strictly speaking it isn't, in fact, obviously the case that taxing capital raises the cost of capital (typically referred to as rent), for the same reason raising labour taxes doesn't necessarily raise pre-tax wages. 'Capital' is too large a thing for what economists call "holding all other factors constant" to hold reliably true. This is a tangent not quite related, though, so I'll stop there.
Increasing the tax burden on rich people doesn't necessarily imply increasing taxes on capital gains, nor capital holding. It is quite possible, of course. But observe that a steeply progressive consumption tax would increase the tax burden on rich people.
OK, so as long as the money comes from nowhere, you're right.
or, you know, consumption taxes, or site taxes, or...
The impact of none of which you included in your model.
I'm not sure you understand the phrase "many GMI suggestions suggest replacing existing social spending". Regardless neither consumption taxes nor site taxes increase the cost of capital in any obvious fashion.
That you are resorting to sophistry belies the weakness of your argument. If we were discussing, say, Walmart forcing employees to work unpaid overtime, I doubt you would be defending the folks in Bentonville. And you're opposed to exploitation of unpaid internships. But this is somehow fundamentally different?
Requiring existing employees to work unpaid overtime under threat of losing their only revenue source in life =/= soliciting volunteers through your blog.
Nobody is going to be fired from their job or lose their healthcare because they refused to accept Amanda Palmer's offer.
The relationship between the two parties is fundamentally different and this spells different consequences for refusal and different levels of negotiating power.
Except she wasn't "soliciting volunteers", she put out a standard pickup band job listing that would be a paid gig under most other musicians, then tried to use fluff to cover up that she was unwilling to pay (well, unless it was a major city, that is.) And this was after she had raised $1.2M from her fans, which was supposed to go in part to fund the tour.
I have no problem with bands using participant financing schemes like Kickstarter and such. I've said many times that I think they're part of the new way bands and their audience interact and they can be a fantastic resource, enabling bands to do things essentially in cooperation with their audience. It's pretty amazing actually.
It should be obvious also that having gotten over a million dollars from such an effort that it is just plain rude to ask for further indulgences from your audience, like playing in your backing band for free.
Fuck's sake a million dollars is a shitload of money. How can you possibly not have a bunch laying around after people just gave you a million dollars? I saw a breakdown about where the money went a while ago, and most everything in it was absurdly inefficient, including paying people to take care of spending the money itself, which seems like a crazy moebius strip of waste.
And finally, there's the fact that everyone else involved in the tour was getting paid. I seriously doubt that she was asking venues, crew, transport, etc. to work for free. Why is it acceptable for her to do so for local talent?
That you are resorting to sophistry belies the weakness of your argument. If we were discussing, say, Walmart forcing employees to work unpaid overtime, I doubt you would be defending the folks in Bentonville. And you're opposed to exploitation of unpaid internships. But this is somehow fundamentally different?
Requiring existing employees to work unpaid overtime under threat of losing their only revenue source in life =/= soliciting volunteers through your blog.
Nobody is going to be fired from their job or lose their healthcare because they refused to accept Amanda Palmer's offer.
The relationship between the two parties is fundamentally different and this spells different consequences for refusal and different levels of negotiating power.
Except she wasn't "soliciting volunteers", she put out a standard pickup band job listing that would be a paid gig under most other musicians, then tried to use fluff to cover up that she was unwilling to pay (well, unless it was a major city, that is.) And this was after she had raised $1.2M from her fans, which was supposed to go in part to fund the tour.
I have no problem with bands using participant financing schemes like Kickstarter and such. I've said many times that I think they're part of the new way bands and their audience interact and they can be a fantastic resource, enabling bands to do things essentially in cooperation with their audience. It's pretty amazing actually.
It should be obvious also that having gotten over a million dollars from such an effort that it is just plain rude to ask for further indulgences from your audience, like playing in your backing band for free.
Fuck's sake a million dollars is a shitload of money. How can you possibly not have a bunch laying around after people just gave you a million dollars? I saw a breakdown about where the money went a while ago, and most everything in it was absurdly inefficient, including paying people to take care of spending the money itself, which seems like a crazy moebius strip of waste.
then she gets crappier pickup bands...?
Don't get me wrong here, it's entirely fine for fans to say: I paid money to you for your support for higher wages for musicians, so you should pay higher wages as well. Or: I paid money to you already, stop asking me for more support. But I would that fans are economically literate to, in fact, recognize that this is what they are asking for.
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
I would think it would make people more picky about what kind of unpaid internships they'll do- they'd be less likely to put up with doing shit work for a chance at someday getting a low salary if they had something to fall back on.
I would think they'd be more likely to risk not getting paid now, for the reward of getting paid more later, because the risk/cost of not getting paid has been reduced.
There are two companies. Company A and Company B.
Company A offers an internship program where you spend most of your time going to the lounge to make a cappuccino for the boss, alphabetizing his ties, and sorting through the outgoing mail to make sure that his (fake) signature is on every piece of paper so it looks like he cares about the thousands of people he's mailing at once to spend the time to personally sign them. You don't get paid for this; instead, you are told you will get valuable experience that will get you a job that actually pays and sucks less later.
Company B used to offer the same thing, but after BIG legislation went through they changed it so they now offer $9/hr. to these people.
If you had a guaranteed income, which company would you work for?
You have successfully assumed the consequence. Good work!
And that's different from assuming that more people will be unpaid interns... how?
I didn't assume that, i argued for that.
Are you having trouble understanding the difference?
No, and you can cut the patronizing bullshit.
All I was doing was pointing out that if the same job existed in two places, but one paid and the other didn't, people would be more likely to choose the latter. And if you have a basic income, there's even less incentive to take an unpaid job you hate when there are alternatives.
Using a theoretical situation to show what you're arguing isn't necessarily an assumption.
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
I would think it would make people more picky about what kind of unpaid internships they'll do- they'd be less likely to put up with doing shit work for a chance at someday getting a low salary if they had something to fall back on.
I would think they'd be more likely to risk not getting paid now, for the reward of getting paid more later, because the risk/cost of not getting paid has been reduced.
There are two companies. Company A and Company B.
Company A offers an internship program where you spend most of your time going to the lounge to make a cappuccino for the boss, alphabetizing his ties, and sorting through the outgoing mail to make sure that his (fake) signature is on every piece of paper so it looks like he cares about the thousands of people he's mailing at once to spend the time to personally sign them. You don't get paid for this; instead, you are told you will get valuable experience that will get you a job that actually pays and sucks less later.
Company B used to offer the same thing, but after BIG legislation went through they changed it so they now offer $9/hr. to these people.
If you had a guaranteed income, which company would you work for?
You have successfully assumed the consequence. Good work!
And that's different from assuming that more people will be unpaid interns... how?
I didn't assume that, i argued for that.
Are you having trouble understanding the difference?
No, and you can cut the patronizing bullshit.
All I was doing was pointing out that if the same job existed in two places, but one paid and the other didn't, people would be more likely to choose the latter. And if you have a basic income, there's even less incentive to take an unpaid job you hate when there are alternatives.
Using a theoretical situation to show what you're arguing isn't necessarily an assumption.
In your question, you assume that a company would magically start offering 9$ an hour for what is now an unpaid internship.
I can't answer your question without conceding the assumption that such a thing would happen.
It is the same as asking someone if they've stopped beating their wife. The question assumes information.
Who would you rather spend Christmas eve with, Santa Claws or a drunken rapist?
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
unpaid internships feel most exploitative when they're dangled as a lottery
which, unfortunately, is what tends to happen when we march down the happy road of "new trainees should be paid more!!" etc. instead of targeting the highest paid directly
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
I would think it would make people more picky about what kind of unpaid internships they'll do- they'd be less likely to put up with doing shit work for a chance at someday getting a low salary if they had something to fall back on.
I would think they'd be more likely to risk not getting paid now, for the reward of getting paid more later, because the risk/cost of not getting paid has been reduced.
There are two companies. Company A and Company B.
Company A offers an internship program where you spend most of your time going to the lounge to make a cappuccino for the boss, alphabetizing his ties, and sorting through the outgoing mail to make sure that his (fake) signature is on every piece of paper so it looks like he cares about the thousands of people he's mailing at once to spend the time to personally sign them. You don't get paid for this; instead, you are told you will get valuable experience that will get you a job that actually pays and sucks less later.
Company B used to offer the same thing, but after BIG legislation went through they changed it so they now offer $9/hr. to these people.
If you had a guaranteed income, which company would you work for?
You have successfully assumed the consequence. Good work!
And that's different from assuming that more people will be unpaid interns... how?
I didn't assume that, i argued for that.
Are you having trouble understanding the difference?
No, and you can cut the patronizing bullshit.
All I was doing was pointing out that if the same job existed in two places, but one paid and the other didn't, people would be more likely to choose the latter. And if you have a basic income, there's even less incentive to take an unpaid job you hate when there are alternatives.
Using a theoretical situation to show what you're arguing isn't necessarily an assumption.
In your question, you assume that a company would magically start offering 9$ an hour for what is now an unpaid internship.
I can't answer your question without conceding the assumption that such a thing would happen.
It is the same as asking someone if they've stopped beating their wife. The question assumes information.
You don't have to assume. There are already $9/hr. coffee-getting jobs today.
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
Yes. Do you understand why they feel exploitative? Perhaps it may be because the employee has necessarily been running up debts to family and friends whilst working for no wages, and so the employer is placed in a superior negotiating position at the end of the period?
Except she wasn't "soliciting volunteers", she put out a standard pickup band job listing that would be a paid gig under most other musicians, then tried to use fluff to cover up that she was unwilling to pay (well, unless it was a major city, that is.) And this was after she had raised $1.2M from her fans, which was supposed to go in part to fund the tour.
You just told us all that context and phrasing aren't important; all that's important is that she's was running a for-profit endeavor. So whether her listing looked like a "standard pickup band job listing" or clearly said "volunteers wanted! I will pay you in beer and hugs!" isn't relevant for your argument.
For those in the audience following along who might actually care about such things, your characterization isn't very accurate. This is the blog post that started the shitstorm: http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120821/
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 I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
I would think it would make people more picky about what kind of unpaid internships they'll do- they'd be less likely to put up with doing shit work for a chance at someday getting a low salary if they had something to fall back on.
I would think they'd be more likely to risk not getting paid now, for the reward of getting paid more later, because the risk/cost of not getting paid has been reduced.
There are two companies. Company A and Company B.
Company A offers an internship program where you spend most of your time going to the lounge to make a cappuccino for the boss, alphabetizing his ties, and sorting through the outgoing mail to make sure that his (fake) signature is on every piece of paper so it looks like he cares about the thousands of people he's mailing at once to spend the time to personally sign them. You don't get paid for this; instead, you are told you will get valuable experience that will get you a job that actually pays and sucks less later.
Company B used to offer the same thing, but after BIG legislation went through they changed it so they now offer $9/hr. to these people.
If you had a guaranteed income, which company would you work for?
You have successfully assumed the consequence. Good work!
And that's different from assuming that more people will be unpaid interns... how?
I didn't assume that, i argued for that.
Are you having trouble understanding the difference?
No, and you can cut the patronizing bullshit.
All I was doing was pointing out that if the same job existed in two places, but one paid and the other didn't, people would be more likely to choose the latter. And if you have a basic income, there's even less incentive to take an unpaid job you hate when there are alternatives.
Using a theoretical situation to show what you're arguing isn't necessarily an assumption.
In your question, you assume that a company would magically start offering 9$ an hour for what is now an unpaid internship.
I can't answer your question without conceding the assumption that such a thing would happen.
It is the same as asking someone if they've stopped beating their wife. The question assumes information.
You don't have to assume. There are already $9/hr. coffee-getting jobs today.
You didn't say a coffee shop job, you said a company who currently offers an internship, would, after GMI, suddenly start paying 9$ an hour. That is what you said, there it sits in the quote tunnel.
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
Yes. Do you understand why they feel exploitative? Perhaps it may be because the employee has necessarily been running up debts to family and friends whilst working for no wages, and so the employer is placed in a superior negotiating position at the end of the period?
Ah, so what you're saying, is that after X months working for free, with a GMI the employee will be in a better position to go do something else. That may be true, but my claim is that more people will be willing to work those six months for free with a GMI than are willing to work those X months for free now.
Who would you rather spend Christmas eve with, Santa Claws or a drunken rapist?
You are being the silliest of all the geese here.
A $9 per hour menial task job is not "Santa Claws". Those jobs exist and will continue to exist. The assumption that they will continue to exist after BIG is implemented is not unreasonable, or in any way comparable to a fictional holiday figure.
I do like the characterization of unpaid internships as a drunken rapist, though!
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
Yes. Do you understand why they feel exploitative? Perhaps it may be because the employee has necessarily been running up debts to family and friends whilst working for no wages, and so the employer is placed in a superior negotiating position at the end of the period?
Ah, so what you're saying, is that after X months working for free, with a GMI the employee will be in a better position to go do something else. That may be true, but my claim is that more people will be willing to work those six months for free with a GMI than are willing to work those X months for free now.
True. Therefore, regarding your claim: do you understand that the marginal increase in the number of people who work as unpaid interns are necessarily composed of individuals who choose to do so in preference to what they are doing without a GMI? That there is an increase in the number of people because we would have made internships less, or not, exploitative?
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
I would think it would make people more picky about what kind of unpaid internships they'll do- they'd be less likely to put up with doing shit work for a chance at someday getting a low salary if they had something to fall back on.
I would think they'd be more likely to risk not getting paid now, for the reward of getting paid more later, because the risk/cost of not getting paid has been reduced.
There are two companies. Company A and Company B.
Company A offers an internship program where you spend most of your time going to the lounge to make a cappuccino for the boss, alphabetizing his ties, and sorting through the outgoing mail to make sure that his (fake) signature is on every piece of paper so it looks like he cares about the thousands of people he's mailing at once to spend the time to personally sign them. You don't get paid for this; instead, you are told you will get valuable experience that will get you a job that actually pays and sucks less later.
Company B used to offer the same thing, but after BIG legislation went through they changed it so they now offer $9/hr. to these people.
If you had a guaranteed income, which company would you work for?
You have successfully assumed the consequence. Good work!
And that's different from assuming that more people will be unpaid interns... how?
I didn't assume that, i argued for that.
Are you having trouble understanding the difference?
No, and you can cut the patronizing bullshit.
All I was doing was pointing out that if the same job existed in two places, but one paid and the other didn't, people would be more likely to choose the latter. And if you have a basic income, there's even less incentive to take an unpaid job you hate when there are alternatives.
Using a theoretical situation to show what you're arguing isn't necessarily an assumption.
In your question, you assume that a company would magically start offering 9$ an hour for what is now an unpaid internship.
I can't answer your question without conceding the assumption that such a thing would happen.
It is the same as asking someone if they've stopped beating their wife. The question assumes information.
You don't have to assume. There are already $9/hr. coffee-getting jobs today.
You didn't say a coffee shop job, you said a company who currently offers an internship, would, after GMI, suddenly start paying 9$ an hour. That is what you said, there it sits in the quote tunnel.
Coffee-getting for executives is not a coffee shop job.
And really, once you pay somebody to do those little menial things, can you really call that an internship anymore?
On a tangent: so, I understand what GMI stands for. What does BIG stand for? I get the feeling it's the same thing as GMI, only transmitted through twelve pages of Telephone.
e: oh, basic income guarantee. That'll teach me to think in terms of the literature.
ronya on
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
On a tangent: so, I understand what GMI stands for. What does BIG stand for? I get the feeling it's the same thing as GMI, only transmitted through twelve pages of Telephone.
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
Yes. Do you understand why they feel exploitative? Perhaps it may be because the employee has necessarily been running up debts to family and friends whilst working for no wages, and so the employer is placed in a superior negotiating position at the end of the period?
Ah, so what you're saying, is that after X months working for free, with a GMI the employee will be in a better position to go do something else. That may be true, but my claim is that more people will be willing to work those six months for free with a GMI than are willing to work those X months for free now.
True. Therefore, regarding your claim: do you understand that the marginal increase in the number of people who work as unpaid interns are necessarily composed of individuals who choose to do so in preference to what they are doing without a GMI? That there is an increase in the number of people because we would have made internships less, or not, exploitative?
Degrees of exploitative is hard to define. Is working for 9$ an hour more or less exploitative than working for nothing with the promise of an awesome job, then getting snowed?
Except she wasn't "soliciting volunteers", she put out a standard pickup band job listing that would be a paid gig under most other musicians, then tried to use fluff to cover up that she was unwilling to pay (well, unless it was a major city, that is.) And this was after she had raised $1.2M from her fans, which was supposed to go in part to fund the tour.
You just told us all that context and phrasing aren't important; all that's important is that she's was running a for-profit endeavor. So whether her listing looked like a "standard pickup band job listing" or clearly said "volunteers wanted! I will pay you in beer and hugs!" isn't relevant for your argument.
For those in the audience following along who might actually care about such things, your characterization isn't very accurate. This is the blog post that started the shitstorm: http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120821/
Actually it is accurate. I'm just not letting the fluff get in my eyes.
What she asked for was professional (or at the very least dedicated amateurs) who are knowledgeable enough to be able to take direction from someone they would have just met that day. They would need to be at the rehearsal, and then the show. All in all, you are looking at 3-4 hours of the musician's time.
And for all that, they get offered "beer and hugs"? By an individual who has been quite vocal about how musicians are abused by the big labels? Just because you're being openly shitty does not make your shittyness okay.
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
Yes. Do you understand why they feel exploitative? Perhaps it may be because the employee has necessarily been running up debts to family and friends whilst working for no wages, and so the employer is placed in a superior negotiating position at the end of the period?
Ah, so what you're saying, is that after X months working for free, with a GMI the employee will be in a better position to go do something else. That may be true, but my claim is that more people will be willing to work those six months for free with a GMI than are willing to work those X months for free now.
True. Therefore, regarding your claim: do you understand that the marginal increase in the number of people who work as unpaid interns are necessarily composed of individuals who choose to do so in preference to what they are doing without a GMI? That there is an increase in the number of people because we would have made internships less, or not, exploitative?
Degrees of exploitative is hard to define. Is working for 9$ an hour more or less exploitative than working for nothing with the promise of an awesome job, then getting snowed?
I suggest going with the great Joan Robinson and defining exploitation as the difference between marginal revenue product and labour wages.
I will leave the exercise of disentangling $9 an hour from lottery utility to you, since apparently revealed preference isn't cutting it for you.
Except she wasn't "soliciting volunteers", she put out a standard pickup band job listing that would be a paid gig under most other musicians, then tried to use fluff to cover up that she was unwilling to pay (well, unless it was a major city, that is.) And this was after she had raised $1.2M from her fans, which was supposed to go in part to fund the tour.
You just told us all that context and phrasing aren't important; all that's important is that she's was running a for-profit endeavor. So whether her listing looked like a "standard pickup band job listing" or clearly said "volunteers wanted! I will pay you in beer and hugs!" isn't relevant for your argument.
For those in the audience following along who might actually care about such things, your characterization isn't very accurate. This is the blog post that started the shitstorm: http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120821/
Actually it is accurate. I'm just not letting the fluff get in my eyes.
What she asked for was professional (or at the very least dedicated amateurs) who are knowledgeable enough to be able to take direction from someone they would have just met that day. They would need to be at the rehearsal, and then the show. All in all, you are looking at 3-4 hours of the musician's time.
And for all that, they get offered "beer and hugs"? By an individual who has been quite vocal about how musicians are abused by the big labels? Just because you're being openly shitty does not make your shittyness okay.
yes, and? "this job is difficult" has exactly jack all to do with whether someone else will do it for less
Again: I think you are confused about how many people who work unpaid internships are actually promised a job.
People who work an unpaid internship do so because they think it will lead to a job. It is exploitative because it does not always lead to a job, and often when it does lead to a job, it is not the job the intern believed they would get, but is instead worse.
If the word "promise" is a hang up here, feel free to discard it.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Let us be done discussing Amanda Palmer unless the post has specifically to do with BIG. Because 90% of the discussion surrounding her right now doesn't.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Except she wasn't "soliciting volunteers", she put out a standard pickup band job listing that would be a paid gig under most other musicians, then tried to use fluff to cover up that she was unwilling to pay (well, unless it was a major city, that is.) And this was after she had raised $1.2M from her fans, which was supposed to go in part to fund the tour.
You just told us all that context and phrasing aren't important; all that's important is that she's was running a for-profit endeavor. So whether her listing looked like a "standard pickup band job listing" or clearly said "volunteers wanted! I will pay you in beer and hugs!" isn't relevant for your argument.
For those in the audience following along who might actually care about such things, your characterization isn't very accurate. This is the blog post that started the shitstorm: http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120821/
Actually it is accurate. I'm just not letting the fluff get in my eyes.
What she asked for was professional (or at the very least dedicated amateurs) who are knowledgeable enough to be able to take direction from someone they would have just met that day. They would need to be at the rehearsal, and then the show. All in all, you are looking at 3-4 hours of the musician's time.
And for all that, they get offered "beer and hugs"? By an individual who has been quite vocal about how musicians are abused by the big labels? Just because you're being openly shitty does not make your shittyness okay.
yes, and? "this job is difficult" has exactly jack all to do with whether someone else will do it for less
So tell me, do you find this recent Tales From the Trenches to be acceptable because the way the game industry is set up, it allows the workers to be exploited?
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
Yes. Do you understand why they feel exploitative? Perhaps it may be because the employee has necessarily been running up debts to family and friends whilst working for no wages, and so the employer is placed in a superior negotiating position at the end of the period?
Ah, so what you're saying, is that after X months working for free, with a GMI the employee will be in a better position to go do something else. That may be true, but my claim is that more people will be willing to work those six months for free with a GMI than are willing to work those X months for free now.
True. Therefore, regarding your claim: do you understand that the marginal increase in the number of people who work as unpaid interns are necessarily composed of individuals who choose to do so in preference to what they are doing without a GMI? That there is an increase in the number of people because we would have made internships less, or not, exploitative?
Degrees of exploitative is hard to define. Is working for 9$ an hour more or less exploitative than working for nothing with the promise of an awesome job, then getting snowed?
I suggest going with the great Joan Robinson and defining exploitation as the difference between marginal revenue product and labour wages.
I will leave the exercise of disentangling $9 an hour from lottery utility to you, since apparently revealed preference isn't cutting it for you.
Since the preference is uninformed, I have trouble taking it at face value.
EDIT:
I guess i might as well say it. I find shifting people from a $9/h job into an unpaid internship that more often than they believe doesn't go anywhere to be an overall increase in exploitation.
Again: I think you are confused about how many people who work unpaid internships are actually promised a job.
People who work an unpaid internship do so because they think it will lead to a job. It is exploitative because it does not always lead to a job, and often when it does lead to a job, it is not the job the intern believed they would get, but is instead worse.
If the word "promise" is a hang up here, feel free to discard it.
Your assessment here is accurate but also doesn't paint the entire picture.
People take internships so they will get good professional experience that will qualify them for a job that requires those skill sets.
Yes, you're right and I'm agreeing with you that people think it will lead to a job. That isn't always the case, nor is it the case that once they get locked into the internship that they will acquire said skills.
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
Except she wasn't "soliciting volunteers", she put out a standard pickup band job listing that would be a paid gig under most other musicians, then tried to use fluff to cover up that she was unwilling to pay (well, unless it was a major city, that is.) And this was after she had raised $1.2M from her fans, which was supposed to go in part to fund the tour.
You just told us all that context and phrasing aren't important; all that's important is that she's was running a for-profit endeavor. So whether her listing looked like a "standard pickup band job listing" or clearly said "volunteers wanted! I will pay you in beer and hugs!" isn't relevant for your argument.
For those in the audience following along who might actually care about such things, your characterization isn't very accurate. This is the blog post that started the shitstorm: http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120821/
Actually it is accurate. I'm just not letting the fluff get in my eyes.
What she asked for was professional (or at the very least dedicated amateurs) who are knowledgeable enough to be able to take direction from someone they would have just met that day. They would need to be at the rehearsal, and then the show. All in all, you are looking at 3-4 hours of the musician's time.
And for all that, they get offered "beer and hugs"? By an individual who has been quite vocal about how musicians are abused by the big labels? Just because you're being openly shitty does not make your shittyness okay.
yes, and? "this job is difficult" has exactly jack all to do with whether someone else will do it for less
So tell me, do you find this recent Tales From the Trenches to be acceptable because the way the game industry is set up, it allows the workers to be exploited?
The problem isn't with "the way the game industry is set up", it's that people with marketable skills voluntarily undersell them to game companies because they (often irrationally) perceive there to be greater value working doing "something they love". It's not dissimilar in that respect to the problem musicians face. Too many people wanting to make a living as musicians means not many can. Too many people wanting to make games for a living means they drive wages (and working conditions) lower.
Except she wasn't "soliciting volunteers", she put out a standard pickup band job listing that would be a paid gig under most other musicians, then tried to use fluff to cover up that she was unwilling to pay (well, unless it was a major city, that is.) And this was after she had raised $1.2M from her fans, which was supposed to go in part to fund the tour.
You just told us all that context and phrasing aren't important; all that's important is that she's was running a for-profit endeavor. So whether her listing looked like a "standard pickup band job listing" or clearly said "volunteers wanted! I will pay you in beer and hugs!" isn't relevant for your argument.
For those in the audience following along who might actually care about such things, your characterization isn't very accurate. This is the blog post that started the shitstorm: http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120821/
Actually it is accurate. I'm just not letting the fluff get in my eyes.
What she asked for was professional (or at the very least dedicated amateurs) who are knowledgeable enough to be able to take direction from someone they would have just met that day. They would need to be at the rehearsal, and then the show. All in all, you are looking at 3-4 hours of the musician's time.
And for all that, they get offered "beer and hugs"? By an individual who has been quite vocal about how musicians are abused by the big labels? Just because you're being openly shitty does not make your shittyness okay.
yes, and? "this job is difficult" has exactly jack all to do with whether someone else will do it for less
So tell me, do you find this recent Tales From the Trenches to be acceptable because the way the game industry is set up, it allows the workers to be exploited?
Acceptable? Well, I wish people with skills in 'HTML, C#, LUA, Visual Studio, VBA for Excel, Microsoft Project, Outlook, Word, Photoshop, Maya, Bug Databases, and various other proprietary scripting languages, map editors, video, audio, and development kit management software' had better wage opportunities.
But I recognize, as you do not, that labour demand for specific industries is generally quite elastic, especially over the longer term, and that capital almost always deflects specific wage demands onto other elements of labour rather than bearing any of the incidence itself.
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
Yes. Do you understand why they feel exploitative? Perhaps it may be because the employee has necessarily been running up debts to family and friends whilst working for no wages, and so the employer is placed in a superior negotiating position at the end of the period?
Ah, so what you're saying, is that after X months working for free, with a GMI the employee will be in a better position to go do something else. That may be true, but my claim is that more people will be willing to work those six months for free with a GMI than are willing to work those X months for free now.
True. Therefore, regarding your claim: do you understand that the marginal increase in the number of people who work as unpaid interns are necessarily composed of individuals who choose to do so in preference to what they are doing without a GMI? That there is an increase in the number of people because we would have made internships less, or not, exploitative?
Degrees of exploitative is hard to define. Is working for 9$ an hour more or less exploitative than working for nothing with the promise of an awesome job, then getting snowed?
I suggest going with the great Joan Robinson and defining exploitation as the difference between marginal revenue product and labour wages.
I will leave the exercise of disentangling $9 an hour from lottery utility to you, since apparently revealed preference isn't cutting it for you.
Since the preference is uninformed, I have trouble taking it at face value.
This is frankly becoming bizarre. Do you object when people receive food stamps, because they might go on to make uninformed decisions instead of starving to death fully-informed?
e:
EDIT:
I guess i might as well say it. I find shifting people from a $9/h job into an unpaid internship that more often than they believe doesn't go anywhere to be an overall increase in exploitation.
It's a good thing we're discussing the ethics of a marginal influx of people from $0/h nothings into an unpaid internship instead, then.
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
Yes. Do you understand why they feel exploitative? Perhaps it may be because the employee has necessarily been running up debts to family and friends whilst working for no wages, and so the employer is placed in a superior negotiating position at the end of the period?
Ah, so what you're saying, is that after X months working for free, with a GMI the employee will be in a better position to go do something else. That may be true, but my claim is that more people will be willing to work those six months for free with a GMI than are willing to work those X months for free now.
It's entirely possible.
Why is it we want more people working more shitty jobs for free again?
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
Yes. Do you understand why they feel exploitative? Perhaps it may be because the employee has necessarily been running up debts to family and friends whilst working for no wages, and so the employer is placed in a superior negotiating position at the end of the period?
Ah, so what you're saying, is that after X months working for free, with a GMI the employee will be in a better position to go do something else. That may be true, but my claim is that more people will be willing to work those six months for free with a GMI than are willing to work those X months for free now.
It's entirely possible.
Why is it we want more people working more shitty jobs for free again?
Well, we don't. Work is not an end in itself here.
It's more: if you hand out money for nothing, then people who want unpaid internships now, in preference to their existing 'job' (which may include, e.g., homemaking) but can't afford to because they would starve to death would then go seek these unpaid internships.
This is very plausible when unpaid internships are attractive and unemployment is high to begin with. But it's an increase in exploitation only if we count the visible part and completely ignore the exploitation exerted by the threat of greater poverty.
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
Yes. Do you understand why they feel exploitative? Perhaps it may be because the employee has necessarily been running up debts to family and friends whilst working for no wages, and so the employer is placed in a superior negotiating position at the end of the period?
Ah, so what you're saying, is that after X months working for free, with a GMI the employee will be in a better position to go do something else. That may be true, but my claim is that more people will be willing to work those six months for free with a GMI than are willing to work those X months for free now.
True. Therefore, regarding your claim: do you understand that the marginal increase in the number of people who work as unpaid interns are necessarily composed of individuals who choose to do so in preference to what they are doing without a GMI? That there is an increase in the number of people because we would have made internships less, or not, exploitative?
Degrees of exploitative is hard to define. Is working for 9$ an hour more or less exploitative than working for nothing with the promise of an awesome job, then getting snowed?
I suggest going with the great Joan Robinson and defining exploitation as the difference between marginal revenue product and labour wages.
I will leave the exercise of disentangling $9 an hour from lottery utility to you, since apparently revealed preference isn't cutting it for you.
Since the preference is uninformed, I have trouble taking it at face value.
This is frankly becoming bizarre. Do you object when people receive food stamps, because they might go on to make uninformed decisions instead of starving to death fully-informed?
What now? If a person buys only vitamin water with their food stamps with the belief that it is all they need to live, and then die with 10,000 times their RDA of vitamin C in their bodies. That is uninformed.
I don't consider them buying vitamin water to be less exploitive than them buying food, because of expressed preference.
Maybe you don't understand what i meant by uninformed.
]
e:
EDIT:
I guess i might as well say it. I find shifting people from a $9/h job into an unpaid internship that more often than they believe doesn't go anywhere to be an overall increase in exploitation.
It's a good thing we're discussing the ethics of a marginal influx of people from $0/h nothings into an unpaid internship instead, then.
We're what now? when did we decide everyone who will be working an unpaid internship after GMI is currently unemployed?
Well I was thinking of specifically professional situations, where someone really needs a service done, and they can afford to hire a professional, and they ask you to do it for free even though you're not friends. You're right of course that there are other kinds of situations- maybe it's your friend and you help each other out all the time, or maybe they're just barely scraping by and they really can't afford to pay you. But it's definitely a huge problem right now, that people are so desperate for work that they'll do anything to try and get a leg up, including working for free to get experience, which then makes it that much harder for anyone else to find paying work.
Which is a sign that the labor being provided doesn't really have much market value, or the market is flooded with people willing to provide that labor.
Maybe "the market" isn't the allmighty perfect judge of human value that people pretend it is.
Which gets back to why a BIG is a really, really good idea.
In what way does a BID remove the free market as a judge of value? What does it replace it with? Why is this thing better?
it doesn't; one still receives a crappy pay for choosing to do jobs that are awash with volunteers for said job. so the market incentive for doing the job is still the same. but one suffers less due to the guaranteed income paid atop it.
Doesn't this seem like it will make more people willing to do unpaid internships, which will result in more exploiting of unpaid interns?
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
Yes. Do you understand why they feel exploitative? Perhaps it may be because the employee has necessarily been running up debts to family and friends whilst working for no wages, and so the employer is placed in a superior negotiating position at the end of the period?
Ah, so what you're saying, is that after X months working for free, with a GMI the employee will be in a better position to go do something else. That may be true, but my claim is that more people will be willing to work those six months for free with a GMI than are willing to work those X months for free now.
It's entirely possible.
Why is it we want more people working more shitty jobs for free again?
Posts
the funny thing is that if the money did come from nowhere, then you'd be right that it would generate inflation.
The shitty internship is made less shitty at a greater rate than the shitty low paying job is made more shitty.
The impact of none of which you included in your model.
I'm not sure you understand the phrase "many GMI suggestions suggest replacing existing social spending". Regardless neither consumption taxes nor site taxes increase the cost of capital in any obvious fashion.
Except she wasn't "soliciting volunteers", she put out a standard pickup band job listing that would be a paid gig under most other musicians, then tried to use fluff to cover up that she was unwilling to pay (well, unless it was a major city, that is.) And this was after she had raised $1.2M from her fans, which was supposed to go in part to fund the tour.
Steve Albini put it well:
And finally, there's the fact that everyone else involved in the tour was getting paid. I seriously doubt that she was asking venues, crew, transport, etc. to work for free. Why is it acceptable for her to do so for local talent?
then she gets crappier pickup bands...?
Don't get me wrong here, it's entirely fine for fans to say: I paid money to you for your support for higher wages for musicians, so you should pay higher wages as well. Or: I paid money to you already, stop asking me for more support. But I would that fans are economically literate to, in fact, recognize that this is what they are asking for.
No, and you can cut the patronizing bullshit.
All I was doing was pointing out that if the same job existed in two places, but one paid and the other didn't, people would be more likely to choose the latter. And if you have a basic income, there's even less incentive to take an unpaid job you hate when there are alternatives.
Using a theoretical situation to show what you're arguing isn't necessarily an assumption.
Alright, hold up. I've located an opportunity to squish a potential misunderstanding, before it gets any further:
To be clear here: do you understand that a GMI is paid regardless of whether one does unpaid internships?
In your question, you assume that a company would magically start offering 9$ an hour for what is now an unpaid internship.
I can't answer your question without conceding the assumption that such a thing would happen.
It is the same as asking someone if they've stopped beating their wife. The question assumes information.
Who would you rather spend Christmas eve with, Santa Claws or a drunken rapist?
Of course. Do you understand that people do unpaid internships, right now, with out a GMI?
which, unfortunately, is what tends to happen when we march down the happy road of "new trainees should be paid more!!" etc. instead of targeting the highest paid directly
You don't have to assume. There are already $9/hr. coffee-getting jobs today.
Yes. Do you understand why they feel exploitative? Perhaps it may be because the employee has necessarily been running up debts to family and friends whilst working for no wages, and so the employer is placed in a superior negotiating position at the end of the period?
You just told us all that context and phrasing aren't important; all that's important is that she's was running a for-profit endeavor. So whether her listing looked like a "standard pickup band job listing" or clearly said "volunteers wanted! I will pay you in beer and hugs!" isn't relevant for your argument.
For those in the audience following along who might actually care about such things, your characterization isn't very accurate. This is the blog post that started the shitstorm: http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120821/
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You didn't say a coffee shop job, you said a company who currently offers an internship, would, after GMI, suddenly start paying 9$ an hour. That is what you said, there it sits in the quote tunnel.
Ah, so what you're saying, is that after X months working for free, with a GMI the employee will be in a better position to go do something else. That may be true, but my claim is that more people will be willing to work those six months for free with a GMI than are willing to work those X months for free now.
You are being the silliest of all the geese here.
A $9 per hour menial task job is not "Santa Claws". Those jobs exist and will continue to exist. The assumption that they will continue to exist after BIG is implemented is not unreasonable, or in any way comparable to a fictional holiday figure.
I do like the characterization of unpaid internships as a drunken rapist, though!
True. Therefore, regarding your claim: do you understand that the marginal increase in the number of people who work as unpaid interns are necessarily composed of individuals who choose to do so in preference to what they are doing without a GMI? That there is an increase in the number of people because we would have made internships less, or not, exploitative?
Coffee-getting for executives is not a coffee shop job.
And really, once you pay somebody to do those little menial things, can you really call that an internship anymore?
e: oh, basic income guarantee. That'll teach me to think in terms of the literature.
I just assume they all stand for communism.
Degrees of exploitative is hard to define. Is working for 9$ an hour more or less exploitative than working for nothing with the promise of an awesome job, then getting snowed?
Actually it is accurate. I'm just not letting the fluff get in my eyes.
What she asked for was professional (or at the very least dedicated amateurs) who are knowledgeable enough to be able to take direction from someone they would have just met that day. They would need to be at the rehearsal, and then the show. All in all, you are looking at 3-4 hours of the musician's time.
And for all that, they get offered "beer and hugs"? By an individual who has been quite vocal about how musicians are abused by the big labels? Just because you're being openly shitty does not make your shittyness okay.
I suggest going with the great Joan Robinson and defining exploitation as the difference between marginal revenue product and labour wages.
I will leave the exercise of disentangling $9 an hour from lottery utility to you, since apparently revealed preference isn't cutting it for you.
yes, and? "this job is difficult" has exactly jack all to do with whether someone else will do it for less
People who work an unpaid internship do so because they think it will lead to a job. It is exploitative because it does not always lead to a job, and often when it does lead to a job, it is not the job the intern believed they would get, but is instead worse.
If the word "promise" is a hang up here, feel free to discard it.
So tell me, do you find this recent Tales From the Trenches to be acceptable because the way the game industry is set up, it allows the workers to be exploited?
Since the preference is uninformed, I have trouble taking it at face value.
EDIT:
I guess i might as well say it. I find shifting people from a $9/h job into an unpaid internship that more often than they believe doesn't go anywhere to be an overall increase in exploitation.
Your assessment here is accurate but also doesn't paint the entire picture.
People take internships so they will get good professional experience that will qualify them for a job that requires those skill sets.
Yes, you're right and I'm agreeing with you that people think it will lead to a job. That isn't always the case, nor is it the case that once they get locked into the internship that they will acquire said skills.
The problem isn't with "the way the game industry is set up", it's that people with marketable skills voluntarily undersell them to game companies because they (often irrationally) perceive there to be greater value working doing "something they love". It's not dissimilar in that respect to the problem musicians face. Too many people wanting to make a living as musicians means not many can. Too many people wanting to make games for a living means they drive wages (and working conditions) lower.
Acceptable? Well, I wish people with skills in 'HTML, C#, LUA, Visual Studio, VBA for Excel, Microsoft Project, Outlook, Word, Photoshop, Maya, Bug Databases, and various other proprietary scripting languages, map editors, video, audio, and development kit management software' had better wage opportunities.
But I recognize, as you do not, that labour demand for specific industries is generally quite elastic, especially over the longer term, and that capital almost always deflects specific wage demands onto other elements of labour rather than bearing any of the incidence itself.
This is frankly becoming bizarre. Do you object when people receive food stamps, because they might go on to make uninformed decisions instead of starving to death fully-informed?
e:
It's a good thing we're discussing the ethics of a marginal influx of people from $0/h nothings into an unpaid internship instead, then.
It's entirely possible.
Why is it we want more people working more shitty jobs for free again?
Well, we don't. Work is not an end in itself here.
It's more: if you hand out money for nothing, then people who want unpaid internships now, in preference to their existing 'job' (which may include, e.g., homemaking) but can't afford to because they would starve to death would then go seek these unpaid internships.
This is very plausible when unpaid internships are attractive and unemployment is high to begin with. But it's an increase in exploitation only if we count the visible part and completely ignore the exploitation exerted by the threat of greater poverty.
I don't consider them buying vitamin water to be less exploitive than them buying food, because of expressed preference.
Maybe you don't understand what i meant by uninformed.
We're what now? when did we decide everyone who will be working an unpaid internship after GMI is currently unemployed?
exactly, we don't.