That's only "inefficiency" if you see leisure as "waste".
(Waiting for SKFM post in 5, 4, 3, 2...)
No it's inefficiency
Efficiency is the amount of widgets you get out for the least amount of resources (employees, money, material). Efficiency is an amoral concept, and since the goal of a company is to maximize efficiency, the government needs to artificially deflate efficiency in some cases
Efficiency is how little you have to work to live. The more leisure time an economy can support, the more efficient it is.
I don't count being unemployed and broke as leisure time, in case you're wondering.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
A company, by its nature would not bother about the worker as anything other than a resource to be exploited. That's why productivity is at all time highs but our compensation for that productivity is staggeringly low.
A fully employed white male working the same job as his father did makes a considerable amount less than that father would have done. And that's before you get to underserved workers such as women and minorities.
This is why you need unions to put the screws on companies and the government to look out for the little guy. We don't have that anymore and so we don't grow together anymore; we're just growing further and further apart.
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
That's only "inefficiency" if you see leisure as "waste".
(Waiting for SKFM post in 5, 4, 3, 2...)
No it's inefficiency
Efficiency is the amount of widgets you get out for the least amount of resources (employees, money, material). Efficiency is an amoral concept, and since the goal of a company is to maximize efficiency, the government needs to artificially deflate efficiency in some cases
Paying 2 employees to work 30 hours isn't intrinsically more inefficienct than paying 1 to work 60. And as soon as you sya "Ah yes but admin overheads blah blah" I'll say "Ah yes but decreased effectiveness due to overwork, huge social costs, childcare blah blah"
Remember this part of the discussion originated in how to cope with the increasing per-employee productivity we get from automation. Since the world doesn't have infinite material resources, we can't just keep making more stuff (goods, services) for people to buy. Given that there's a physical limit on the stuff we make, and the employee hours per unit of stuff is rapidly decreasing, there's also a limit on the number of employee hours that's also declining. Either we can have the scenario we have at the moment where an ever-smaller number of people have jobs (and can afford to buy stuff), or we ensure that those hours are distributed more widely.
Two people doing my job would be a disaster. The pace of my work is such that dividing it into discrete chunks of time would involve constantly handing off the same project, which is very inefficient. You could have two people each take ownership for half my projects, but that would lead to a lot of dead time during the day where they both sit at their desks waiting for comments to come back on things they did. The only model I could really see working is shorter work weeks, which I for one would not mind
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
If someone wants to sell himself into slavery, I'm not going to stand in his way
If someone wants to get a job where they fire you if you won't work 30 hours of unpaid overtime a week I'm not going to stand in his way
See how that works?
Working for pay isn't slavery. That's like saying taxes are slavery.
Obviously all overtime should be paid as such. My friends are happy when they can get overtime. That's good money. I don't want a law that cuts them off at 40 hours.
I'm talking about what efficiency is or isn't and why it's bad to have too much of it, and you seem to think that I'm arguing that it's awesome, which is nonsense and I suggest you reread my post if you think I'm making the argument you think I'm making.
Again: efficiency is the one of the goals of a corporation (in service to the overall goal of profits). Efficiency gives you an absolute advantage over competition. Corporations are not moral things, they exist to generate profits through the most efficient means possible. Not all corporations actually do this, and many don't treat their employees like shit because it doesn't actually generate them more profit (skilled labor), but it absolutely is more efficient to treat your employees like shit in a lot of types of business.
Which, again, is where the government has to step in, OSHA is basically introduced inefficiency to protect the safety of workers. Environmental regulations are the same but for all of us. Typically these regulations create jobs, they certainly lead to a better workplace. What I am saying is that as efficiency increases via automation, the government will have to introduce fees and subsidies to keep places from firing people - they've failed spectacularly in this so far.
I generally agree with this post, until the conclusion. I don't understand why we would prefer forced inefficiency to efficient wealth production and efficient redistribution. Why is it better to have two men do the job of one than it is to have one man do that job but to provide for both men? At the very least, the latter world is better because the first can hone his craft while the second has greater opportunities to discover some other productive use of his time.
Well this idea has worked super well for us over the last 30 years, right? With real wages largely stagnating, inequality indexes soaring, corporate profits sky-rocketing, and unemployment getting higher and higher (especially if you factor in that the majority of new jobs are either part-time, minimum wage or both). Oh and let's not forget that 50 years ago, a single adult could support a family whereas now both parents generally have to work to maintain a similar standard of living. If we're so damb efficient, how come it takes twice as many of us to do the same job?
The ideal was that efficiency gains would release workers to work in other employment areas, increasing the total amount of stuff that gets produced. What actually happened is that when 1 guy can produce as much as 3 guys used to, then you can tell that guy to go fuck himself if he thinks he's getting a 200% rise, because those other 2 guys would love to have his job. And then even if those other guys do find some part time work between them, it doesn't really pay enough that they have any kind of economic independence or bargaining power. They're still desperate to get that "real" job.
In short, the vast majority of the rewards of increased efficiency have been concentrated in the hands of the emergent aristocracy.
And once again, it's not intrinsically more inefficient to have two guys working a 25 hour week than 1 guy working a 50 hour week and 1 guy collecting social security. (Or 4 guys working a 50 hour week instead of a 40 hour one, and 1 guy collecting social) .
Making that guy work 50 hours is a popular choice because you can always threaten him with that unemployed guy wanting his job, so you can underpay him because you can always replace him. As a happy bonus, because he doesn't get as much per hour as he should, he will actually fight any proposal that reduces the hours he has to work! But this policy has nothing to do with efficiency.
Meanwhile society shoulders the second-order costs of this policy, like increased drug use, crime and skill loss and general social alienation amongst the bored and hopeless unemployed, and also working parents lacking the time to look after their children properly. If we're going to talk about efficiency, how efficient is it to leave millions of educated able bodied adults on the unemployment scrapheap?
I'm talking about what efficiency is or isn't and why it's bad to have too much of it, and you seem to think that I'm arguing that it's awesome, which is nonsense and I suggest you reread my post if you think I'm making the argument you think I'm making.
Again: efficiency is the one of the goals of a corporation (in service to the overall goal of profits). Efficiency gives you an absolute advantage over competition. Corporations are not moral things, they exist to generate profits through the most efficient means possible. Not all corporations actually do this, and many don't treat their employees like shit because it doesn't actually generate them more profit (skilled labor), but it absolutely is more efficient to treat your employees like shit in a lot of types of business.
Which, again, is where the government has to step in, OSHA is basically introduced inefficiency to protect the safety of workers. Environmental regulations are the same but for all of us. Typically these regulations create jobs, they certainly lead to a better workplace. What I am saying is that as efficiency increases via automation, the government will have to introduce fees and subsidies to keep places from firing people - they've failed spectacularly in this so far.
I generally agree with this post, until the conclusion. I don't understand why we would prefer forced inefficiency to efficient wealth production and efficient redistribution. Why is it better to have two men do the job of one than it is to have one man do that job but to provide for both men? At the very least, the latter world is better because the first can hone his craft while the second has greater opportunities to discover some other productive use of his time.
Well this idea has worked super well for us over the last 30 years, right? With real wages largely stagnating, inequality indexes soaring, corporate profits sky-rocketing, and unemployment getting higher and higher (especially if you factor in that the majority of new jobs are either part-time, minimum wage or both). Oh and let's not forget that 50 years ago, a single adult could support a family whereas now both parents generally have to work to maintain a similar standard of living. If we're so damb efficient, how come it takes twice as many of us to do the same job?
The ideal was that efficiency gains would release workers to work in other employment areas, increasing the total amount of stuff that gets produced. What actually happened is that when 1 guy can produce as much as 3 guys used to, then you can tell that guy to go fuck himself if he thinks he's getting a 200% rise, because those other 2 guys would love to have his job. And then even if those other guys do find some part time work between them, it doesn't really pay enough that they have any kind of economic independence or bargaining power. They're still desperate to get that "real" job.
In short, the vast majority of the rewards of increased efficiency have been concentrated in the hands of the emergent aristocracy.
And once again, it's not intrinsically more inefficient to have two guys working a 25 hour week than 1 guy working a 50 hour week and 1 guy collecting social security. (Or 4 guys working a 50 hour week instead of a 40 hour one, and 1 guy collecting social) .
Making that guy work 50 hours is a popular choice because you can always threaten him with that unemployed guy wanting his job, so you can underpay him because you can always replace him. As a happy bonus, because he doesn't get as much per hour as he should, he will actually fight any proposal that reduces the hours he has to work! But this policy has nothing to do with efficiency.
Meanwhile society shoulders the second-order costs of this policy, like increased drug use, crime and skill loss and general social alienation amongst the bored and hopeless unemployed, and also working parents lacking the time to look after their children properly. If we're going to talk about efficiency, how efficient is it to leave millions of educated able bodied adults on the unemployment scrapheap?
And I am calling for a direct fix of the wealth concentration side of the equation. I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on why (political realities aside), it would be better to create inefficiencies in the labor market instead of producing a much as we can in the most inefficient manner that we can and then redistributing profits. What inherent superiority in forcing more work over leisure?
For instance I work 20 hours a week, no benefits apparently including overtime. This weekend I have to work 7-7 both days, which means on Sunday I have to take three one hour breaks.
Some weeks I literally work five hours.
Others I work seventy.
It's a nice balance I feel.
You're in the navy, quid, that doesn't count.
I mean for this kind of thing. Technically you're working all day erry day. For Freedom.
Technically, yes. But the place I work at right now is actually realistic about the demands of my job. There's no need for a regular 40 hour week and they don't try to pretend there is. Which is fantastic as far as I'm concerned.
I'm talking about what efficiency is or isn't and why it's bad to have too much of it, and you seem to think that I'm arguing that it's awesome, which is nonsense and I suggest you reread my post if you think I'm making the argument you think I'm making.
Again: efficiency is the one of the goals of a corporation (in service to the overall goal of profits). Efficiency gives you an absolute advantage over competition. Corporations are not moral things, they exist to generate profits through the most efficient means possible. Not all corporations actually do this, and many don't treat their employees like shit because it doesn't actually generate them more profit (skilled labor), but it absolutely is more efficient to treat your employees like shit in a lot of types of business.
Which, again, is where the government has to step in, OSHA is basically introduced inefficiency to protect the safety of workers. Environmental regulations are the same but for all of us. Typically these regulations create jobs, they certainly lead to a better workplace. What I am saying is that as efficiency increases via automation, the government will have to introduce fees and subsidies to keep places from firing people - they've failed spectacularly in this so far.
I generally agree with this post, until the conclusion. I don't understand why we would prefer forced inefficiency to efficient wealth production and efficient redistribution. Why is it better to have two men do the job of one than it is to have one man do that job but to provide for both men? At the very least, the latter world is better because the first can hone his craft while the second has greater opportunities to discover some other productive use of his time.
Well this idea has worked super well for us over the last 30 years, right? With real wages largely stagnating, inequality indexes soaring, corporate profits sky-rocketing, and unemployment getting higher and higher (especially if you factor in that the majority of new jobs are either part-time, minimum wage or both). Oh and let's not forget that 50 years ago, a single adult could support a family whereas now both parents generally have to work to maintain a similar standard of living. If we're so damb efficient, how come it takes twice as many of us to do the same job?
The ideal was that efficiency gains would release workers to work in other employment areas, increasing the total amount of stuff that gets produced. What actually happened is that when 1 guy can produce as much as 3 guys used to, then you can tell that guy to go fuck himself if he thinks he's getting a 200% rise, because those other 2 guys would love to have his job. And then even if those other guys do find some part time work between them, it doesn't really pay enough that they have any kind of economic independence or bargaining power. They're still desperate to get that "real" job.
In short, the vast majority of the rewards of increased efficiency have been concentrated in the hands of the emergent aristocracy.
And once again, it's not intrinsically more inefficient to have two guys working a 25 hour week than 1 guy working a 50 hour week and 1 guy collecting social security. (Or 4 guys working a 50 hour week instead of a 40 hour one, and 1 guy collecting social) .
Making that guy work 50 hours is a popular choice because you can always threaten him with that unemployed guy wanting his job, so you can underpay him because you can always replace him. As a happy bonus, because he doesn't get as much per hour as he should, he will actually fight any proposal that reduces the hours he has to work! But this policy has nothing to do with efficiency.
Meanwhile society shoulders the second-order costs of this policy, like increased drug use, crime and skill loss and general social alienation amongst the bored and hopeless unemployed, and also working parents lacking the time to look after their children properly. If we're going to talk about efficiency, how efficient is it to leave millions of educated able bodied adults on the unemployment scrapheap?
And as resources dwindle in the coming decades, prices will skyrocket further consolidating wealth and capital in this new aristocracy. The labor movement will grow again, out of sheer necessity, to combat the all too apparent stranglehold Wall Street has on government. As Krugman pointed out this morning, the inequalities only stand to become more obvious and I believe we're going to have a big debate on capitalism versus other economic structures (Marxism, Anarchism, etc.) as they did a century ago when inequality followed the same mold.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
For instance I work 20 hours a week, no benefits apparently including overtime. This weekend I have to work 7-7 both days, which means on Sunday I have to take three one hour breaks.
Some weeks I literally work five hours.
Others I work seventy.
It's a nice balance I feel.
You're in the navy, quid, that doesn't count.
I mean for this kind of thing. Technically you're working all day erry day. For Freedom.
Technically, yes. But the place I work at right now is actually realistic about the demands of my job. There's no need for a regular 40 hour week and they don't try to pretend there is. Which is fantastic as far as I'm concerned.
Well you're also not going to only get paid for five hours if that's all you work. I'm working part time right now and won't be getting paid for two weeks around xmas and new years because the building is simply closed. If I was guaranteed 400 bucks a week I wouldn't really care, but I'm not (nor are most people).
I'm talking about what efficiency is or isn't and why it's bad to have too much of it, and you seem to think that I'm arguing that it's awesome, which is nonsense and I suggest you reread my post if you think I'm making the argument you think I'm making.
Again: efficiency is the one of the goals of a corporation (in service to the overall goal of profits). Efficiency gives you an absolute advantage over competition. Corporations are not moral things, they exist to generate profits through the most efficient means possible. Not all corporations actually do this, and many don't treat their employees like shit because it doesn't actually generate them more profit (skilled labor), but it absolutely is more efficient to treat your employees like shit in a lot of types of business.
Which, again, is where the government has to step in, OSHA is basically introduced inefficiency to protect the safety of workers. Environmental regulations are the same but for all of us. Typically these regulations create jobs, they certainly lead to a better workplace. What I am saying is that as efficiency increases via automation, the government will have to introduce fees and subsidies to keep places from firing people - they've failed spectacularly in this so far.
I generally agree with this post, until the conclusion. I don't understand why we would prefer forced inefficiency to efficient wealth production and efficient redistribution. Why is it better to have two men do the job of one than it is to have one man do that job but to provide for both men? At the very least, the latter world is better because the first can hone his craft while the second has greater opportunities to discover some other productive use of his time.
Well this idea has worked super well for us over the last 30 years, right? With real wages largely stagnating, inequality indexes soaring, corporate profits sky-rocketing, and unemployment getting higher and higher (especially if you factor in that the majority of new jobs are either part-time, minimum wage or both). Oh and let's not forget that 50 years ago, a single adult could support a family whereas now both parents generally have to work to maintain a similar standard of living. If we're so damb efficient, how come it takes twice as many of us to do the same job?
The ideal was that efficiency gains would release workers to work in other employment areas, increasing the total amount of stuff that gets produced. What actually happened is that when 1 guy can produce as much as 3 guys used to, then you can tell that guy to go fuck himself if he thinks he's getting a 200% rise, because those other 2 guys would love to have his job. And then even if those other guys do find some part time work between them, it doesn't really pay enough that they have any kind of economic independence or bargaining power. They're still desperate to get that "real" job.
In short, the vast majority of the rewards of increased efficiency have been concentrated in the hands of the emergent aristocracy.
And once again, it's not intrinsically more inefficient to have two guys working a 25 hour week than 1 guy working a 50 hour week and 1 guy collecting social security. (Or 4 guys working a 50 hour week instead of a 40 hour one, and 1 guy collecting social) .
Making that guy work 50 hours is a popular choice because you can always threaten him with that unemployed guy wanting his job, so you can underpay him because you can always replace him. As a happy bonus, because he doesn't get as much per hour as he should, he will actually fight any proposal that reduces the hours he has to work! But this policy has nothing to do with efficiency.
Meanwhile society shoulders the second-order costs of this policy, like increased drug use, crime and skill loss and general social alienation amongst the bored and hopeless unemployed, and also working parents lacking the time to look after their children properly. If we're going to talk about efficiency, how efficient is it to leave millions of educated able bodied adults on the unemployment scrapheap?
And I am calling for a direct fix of the wealth concentration side of the equation. I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on why (political realities aside), it would be better to create inefficiencies in the labor market instead of producing a much as we can in the most inefficient manner that we can and then redistributing profits. What inherent superiority in forcing more work over leisure?
Because there are a finite amount of resources and things to do with those resources. We can get as efficient as we want, but that'll run us right into a brick wall. Wealth concentration is a side effect, not necessarily a root cause. Nationalizing production and spreading wealth on the labor side of the equation is the only way to avoid the otherwise endlessly reoccurring scenario where a tiny plutocracy controls all wealth, power, and redistribution.
Unless the rich like looking at guillotines, then they can feel free to proceed with business as usual.
Changing the full time work week to 36 hours + increasing the minimum wage to compensate would kick America's efficiency in the balls
It would be fucking amazing though. Right now America has the most efficient labor force in history, because our labor protections have been shredded one after another in recent history while the rest of the developed world has taken steps to protect their working class
override367 on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Changing the full time work week to 36 hours + increasing the minimum wage to compensate would kick America's efficiency in the balls
It would be fucking amazing though. Right now America has the most efficient labor force in history, because our labor protections have been shredded one after another in recent history while the rest of the developed world has taken steps to protect their working class
There are two types of efficiency that we are discussing here, and I think they are being conflated. First, there is efficiency in the sense of the amount of productive work that can be done by a person. I think there is little dispute that it is better to have one man supervise 10 robots than to commit 10 people to spending their time doing that work. The second efficiency is efficiency in profits. This type of efficiency naturally leads to inequality, as capital is able to retain more and more of the product of the work that is done, and labor gets less, since their involvement is lower. I think that our goal ought to be to maximize the first type of efficiency, but to do so in a manner that limits the wealth concentration from the second. What I don't u seedy and is why we would ever strive to limit the first type of efficiency just to counteract this concentration effect, when the same outcome can be obtained with less net human labor.
If we have to fire 9 people for that kind of efficiency, that's fine in my book, as long as those other 9 people have another direction to go in like becoming bloggers or painters or astronomers without worrying about becoming homeless to do so (guaranteed basic income wee)
Now that doesn't seem politically viable, it seems more politically viable to keep the company employing 10 people, because it feels less socialist.
override367 on
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
How does that unemployed guy get the capital to buy the equipment and training to become a professional woodworker? Borrow $250k from Mitt Romney's dad?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
How does that unemployed guy get the capital to buy the equipment and training to become a professional woodworker? Borrow $250k from Mitt Romney's dad?
If there is demand for such work, then having more people free to take those jobs is preferable to having artificial over employment in another sector. If there is no demand, what value in making everyone work a little vs having those among us who are driven and passionate for the work take it on (and be compensated) while the rest have leisure? If the robots allow us to move from 10 man weeks of labor a week to 1, should we really force all 10 men to work 1/10th of a week?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
Because I don't live in a world where fairy dust and pelicans bring us rice krispie treats and dr pepper every morning and we sleep each night on a daffodil pedal surrounded by busty women.
It just isn't a feasible way to run economic policy.
I'm not enamored with work for work's sake, I'm enamored with people being able to afford to eat and not sleep on the streets.
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
Because I don't live in a world where fairy dust and pelicans bring us rice krispie treats and dr pepper every morning and we sleep each night on a daffodil pedal surrounded by busty women.
It just isn't a feasible way to run economic policy.
I'm not enamored with work for work's sake, I'm enamored with people being able to afford to eat and not sleep on the streets.
That is why we should tax the rich so that we can both support a minimum income guarantee and provide retraining.
SKFM's entire argument is that you should allow the market to be efficient so that the money generated can be redistributed to those who are not working. We will get more wealth if we leave the situation alone rather then force inefficiency and then the extra wealth can provide even more public good then micromanaging companies would.
I disagree, and think that demanding a living wage and benefits and environmental protection and safety would not significantly harm growth; however, the idea that we should force real inefficiency, making more people work in industries they do not want to be working in, is insane.
Every advance in human society has reduce the number of people doing necessary work and added people doing new or non-critical work, then those new areas become the new norm creating a better society.
No one is talking about some fantasy world, we are talking about food stamps and extended unemployment and real welfare and inexpensive education and housing assistance.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You know what, I posted that thinking this was the labor thread.
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
Because I don't live in a world where fairy dust and pelicans bring us rice krispie treats and dr pepper every morning and we sleep each night on a daffodil pedal surrounded by busty women.
It just isn't a feasible way to run economic policy.
I'm not enamored with work for work's sake, I'm enamored with people being able to afford to eat and not sleep on the streets.
Also the more people working means the economy gets stronger since they're customers buying more things. Without jobs they can't afford as much to spend on and there are more customers for companies have to sell too. You can't have a strong economy if the work force becomes the equivalent of a third world country. Profits may be good now but it's a smaller pie, so capital will be more inclined to fuck over it labor force for the extra change. Can't have the peasants actually earning decent salaries, after all.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
Because I don't live in a world where fairy dust and pelicans bring us rice krispie treats and dr pepper every morning and we sleep each night on a daffodil pedal surrounded by busty women.
It just isn't a feasible way to run economic policy.
I'm not enamored with work for work's sake, I'm enamored with people being able to afford to eat and not sleep on the streets.
Also the more people working means the economy gets stronger since they're customers buying more things. Without jobs they can't afford as much to spend on and there are more customers for companies have to sell too. You can't have a strong economy if the work force becomes the equivalent of a third world country. Profits may be good now but it's a smaller pie, so capital will be more inclined to fuck over it labor force for the extra change. Can't have the peasants actually earning decent salaries, after all.
No one is suggesting his world though. We are talking about redistribution. That means people will have money to spend. The unemployed will have less than people that work, but more than they do now.
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
Because I don't live in a world where fairy dust and pelicans bring us rice krispie treats and dr pepper every morning and we sleep each night on a daffodil pedal surrounded by busty women.
It just isn't a feasible way to run economic policy.
I'm not enamored with work for work's sake, I'm enamored with people being able to afford to eat and not sleep on the streets.
Also the more people working means the economy gets stronger since they're customers buying more things. Without jobs they can't afford as much to spend on and there are more customers for companies have to sell too. You can't have a strong economy if the work force becomes the equivalent of a third world country. Profits may be good now but it's a smaller pie, so capital will be more inclined to fuck over it labor force for the extra change. Can't have the peasants actually earning decent salaries, after all.
No one is suggesting his world though. We are talking about redistribution. That means people will have money to spend. The unemployed will have less than people that work, but more than they do now.
I would like to point to the republican party with followers to see how your idea will play out in the real world. You working so that a stranger can sit on his behind all day? There are strong political movements and massive amounts of capital being spent to prevent just that from happening.
But I am not a republican, so I like your idea, but I only think your idea is good "on paper".
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
Because I don't live in a world where fairy dust and pelicans bring us rice krispie treats and dr pepper every morning and we sleep each night on a daffodil pedal surrounded by busty women.
It just isn't a feasible way to run economic policy.
I'm not enamored with work for work's sake, I'm enamored with people being able to afford to eat and not sleep on the streets.
Also the more people working means the economy gets stronger since they're customers buying more things. Without jobs they can't afford as much to spend on and there are more customers for companies have to sell too. You can't have a strong economy if the work force becomes the equivalent of a third world country. Profits may be good now but it's a smaller pie, so capital will be more inclined to fuck over it labor force for the extra change. Can't have the peasants actually earning decent salaries, after all.
No one is suggesting his world though. We are talking about redistribution. That means people will have money to spend. The unemployed will have less than people that work, but more than they do now.
I would like to point to the republican party with followers to see how your idea will play out in the real world. You working so that a stranger can sit on his behind all day? There are strong political movements and massive amounts of capital being spent to prevent just that from happening.
But I am not a republican, so I like your idea, but I only think your idea is good "on paper".
It's all how you phrase it. I have discussed the idea of a large, partially refundable credit with people as diverse as the McCain campaign's tax advisor and the main architect of the '86 tax code, and both agree that it would be good policy. I think that if you combined this approach with a consumption tax (this can be done on a revenue neutral basis according to the CBO, at least as of 6 years ago) you would have a very viable proposal.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
Because I don't live in a world where fairy dust and pelicans bring us rice krispie treats and dr pepper every morning and we sleep each night on a daffodil pedal surrounded by busty women.
It just isn't a feasible way to run economic policy.
I'm not enamored with work for work's sake, I'm enamored with people being able to afford to eat and not sleep on the streets.
Also the more people working means the economy gets stronger since they're customers buying more things. Without jobs they can't afford as much to spend on and there are more customers for companies have to sell too. You can't have a strong economy if the work force becomes the equivalent of a third world country. Profits may be good now but it's a smaller pie, so capital will be more inclined to fuck over it labor force for the extra change. Can't have the peasants actually earning decent salaries, after all.
No one is suggesting his world though. We are talking about redistribution. That means people will have money to spend. The unemployed will have less than people that work, but more than they do now.
I would like to point to the republican party with followers to see how your idea will play out in the real world. You working so that a stranger can sit on his behind all day? There are strong political movements and massive amounts of capital being spent to prevent just that from happening.
But I am not a republican, so I like your idea, but I only think your idea is good "on paper".
It's all how you phrase it. I have discussed the idea of a large, partially refundable credit with people as diverse as the McCain campaign's tax advisor and the main architect of the '86 tax code, and both agree that it would be good policy. I think that if you combined this approach with a consumption tax (this can be done on a revenue neutral basis according to the CBO, at least as of 6 years ago) you would have a very viable proposal.
Consumption tax can bite my ass, I don't care how guaranteed income is by the government.
Regressive as fuck and it doesn't surprise me in the least that the GOP would sign on.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
Because I don't live in a world where fairy dust and pelicans bring us rice krispie treats and dr pepper every morning and we sleep each night on a daffodil pedal surrounded by busty women.
It just isn't a feasible way to run economic policy.
I'm not enamored with work for work's sake, I'm enamored with people being able to afford to eat and not sleep on the streets.
Also the more people working means the economy gets stronger since they're customers buying more things. Without jobs they can't afford as much to spend on and there are more customers for companies have to sell too. You can't have a strong economy if the work force becomes the equivalent of a third world country. Profits may be good now but it's a smaller pie, so capital will be more inclined to fuck over it labor force for the extra change. Can't have the peasants actually earning decent salaries, after all.
No one is suggesting his world though. We are talking about redistribution. That means people will have money to spend. The unemployed will have less than people that work, but more than they do now.
I would like to point to the republican party with followers to see how your idea will play out in the real world. You working so that a stranger can sit on his behind all day? There are strong political movements and massive amounts of capital being spent to prevent just that from happening.
But I am not a republican, so I like your idea, but I only think your idea is good "on paper".
It's all how you phrase it. I have discussed the idea of a large, partially refundable credit with people as diverse as the McCain campaign's tax advisor and the main architect of the '86 tax code, and both agree that it would be good policy. I think that if you combined this approach with a consumption tax (this can be done on a revenue neutral basis according to the CBO, at least as of 6 years ago) you would have a very viable proposal.
Consumption tax can bite my ass, I don't care how guaranteed income is by the government.
Regressive as fuck and it doesn't surprise me in the least that the GOP would sign on.
If we could provide a guaranteed income of $30-40k a year (on an after tax basis), I would be quite willing to accept regressive taxation beyond that. . .
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
Because I don't live in a world where fairy dust and pelicans bring us rice krispie treats and dr pepper every morning and we sleep each night on a daffodil pedal surrounded by busty women.
It just isn't a feasible way to run economic policy.
I'm not enamored with work for work's sake, I'm enamored with people being able to afford to eat and not sleep on the streets.
Also the more people working means the economy gets stronger since they're customers buying more things. Without jobs they can't afford as much to spend on and there are more customers for companies have to sell too. You can't have a strong economy if the work force becomes the equivalent of a third world country. Profits may be good now but it's a smaller pie, so capital will be more inclined to fuck over it labor force for the extra change. Can't have the peasants actually earning decent salaries, after all.
No one is suggesting his world though. We are talking about redistribution. That means people will have money to spend. The unemployed will have less than people that work, but more than they do now.
I would like to point to the republican party with followers to see how your idea will play out in the real world. You working so that a stranger can sit on his behind all day? There are strong political movements and massive amounts of capital being spent to prevent just that from happening.
But I am not a republican, so I like your idea, but I only think your idea is good "on paper".
It's all how you phrase it. I have discussed the idea of a large, partially refundable credit with people as diverse as the McCain campaign's tax advisor and the main architect of the '86 tax code, and both agree that it would be good policy. I think that if you combined this approach with a consumption tax (this can be done on a revenue neutral basis according to the CBO, at least as of 6 years ago) you would have a very viable proposal.
Consumption tax can bite my ass, I don't care how guaranteed income is by the government.
Regressive as fuck and it doesn't surprise me in the least that the GOP would sign on.
If we could provide a guaranteed income of $30-40k a year (on an after tax basis), I would be quite willing to accept regressive taxation beyond that. . .
I would not. Regressive taxation is crap, regardless of how much each person is making. It's simply a question of fairness.
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
The problem is that allowing yourself to be worked past the standard amount is basically raising the bar, forcing others to do the same to keep up.
As someone who owns his own business in a labor intensive industry, I work more than that. This past year, between my various ventures, I will have had about 1.5 weeks off while averaging 60-70 hours of work per week.
However, I can't work less without endangering the future of my business. I'm just kicking things into high gear, so client acquisition is vital. I don't have the capital to hire another employee for about another year, so it's on me to keep everything running and growing.
I understand that most people don't want to or can't work this much. But the bar for the kind of success I want is already that high.
Also, we want more efficiency, period. I'd give my left nut to get all of my work done in half the time.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
The problem is that allowing yourself to be worked past the standard amount is basically raising the bar, forcing others to do the same to keep up.
As someone who owns his own business in a labor intensive industry, I work more than that. This past year, between my various ventures, I will have had about 1.5 weeks off while averaging 60-70 hours of work per week.
However, I can't work less without endangering the future of my business. I'm just kicking things into high gear, so client acquisition is vital. I don't have the capital to hire another employee for about another year, so it's on me to keep everything running and growing.
I understand that most people don't want to or can't work this much. But the bar for the kind of success I want is already that high.
Also, we want more efficiency, period. I'd give my left nut to get all of my work done in half the time.
You starting a business is not the same as McDonalds saving a salary by making their line cooks work 80 hours a week or Walmart firing half their staff and doubling hours for everyone else. Let's not get lost in false comparisons.
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
The problem is that allowing yourself to be worked past the standard amount is basically raising the bar, forcing others to do the same to keep up.
As someone who owns his own business in a labor intensive industry, I work more than that. This past year, between my various ventures, I will have had about 1.5 weeks off while averaging 60-70 hours of work per week.
However, I can't work less without endangering the future of my business. I'm just kicking things into high gear, so client acquisition is vital. I don't have the capital to hire another employee for about another year, so it's on me to keep everything running and growing.
I understand that most people don't want to or can't work this much. But the bar for the kind of success I want is already that high.
Also, we want more efficiency, period. I'd give my left nut to get all of my work done in half the time.
You starting a business is not the same as McDonalds saving a salary by making their line cooks work 80 hours a week or Walmart firing half their staff and doubling hours for everyone else. Let's not get lost in false comparisons.
Ah, so it would just be for employees then? I'm not sure that makes any more sense and would probably increase income inequality even more, as only owners would be able to work longer hours.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
The problem is that allowing yourself to be worked past the standard amount is basically raising the bar, forcing others to do the same to keep up.
As someone who owns his own business in a labor intensive industry, I work more than that. This past year, between my various ventures, I will have had about 1.5 weeks off while averaging 60-70 hours of work per week.
However, I can't work less without endangering the future of my business. I'm just kicking things into high gear, so client acquisition is vital. I don't have the capital to hire another employee for about another year, so it's on me to keep everything running and growing.
I understand that most people don't want to or can't work this much. But the bar for the kind of success I want is already that high.
Also, we want more efficiency, period. I'd give my left nut to get all of my work done in half the time.
You starting a business is not the same as McDonalds saving a salary by making their line cooks work 80 hours a week or Walmart firing half their staff and doubling hours for everyone else. Let's not get lost in false comparisons.
Ah, so it would just be for employees then? I'm not sure that makes any more sense and would probably increase income inequality even more, as only owners would be able to work longer hours.
Well this is more how it works now, where you can't work your workers to death (not you personally, any business) because that kind of thing used to happen basically always.
Whatever the system, if we're getting efficiency by firing people and increasing productivity of existing workers (which, in the world today we are) that burns me the wrong way.
I like efficiency, I like costs being down for everyone involved. I don't like it when it is used, as it is today, as a way for executives to reap massive rewards while shuffling the pain down the ladder.
Even with a basic income guarantee I'd still be pretty wary of this kind of talk.
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
The problem is that allowing yourself to be worked past the standard amount is basically raising the bar, forcing others to do the same to keep up.
As someone who owns his own business in a labor intensive industry, I work more than that. This past year, between my various ventures, I will have had about 1.5 weeks off while averaging 60-70 hours of work per week.
However, I can't work less without endangering the future of my business. I'm just kicking things into high gear, so client acquisition is vital. I don't have the capital to hire another employee for about another year, so it's on me to keep everything running and growing.
I understand that most people don't want to or can't work this much. But the bar for the kind of success I want is already that high.
Also, we want more efficiency, period. I'd give my left nut to get all of my work done in half the time.
You starting a business is not the same as McDonalds saving a salary by making their line cooks work 80 hours a week or Walmart firing half their staff and doubling hours for everyone else. Let's not get lost in false comparisons.
Ah, so it would just be for employees then? I'm not sure that makes any more sense and would probably increase income inequality even more, as only owners would be able to work longer hours.
Well this is more how it works now, where you can't work your workers to death (not you personally, any business) because that kind of thing used to happen basically always.
Whatever the system, if we're getting efficiency by firing people and increasing productivity of existing workers (which, in the world today we are) that burns me the wrong way.
I like efficiency, I like costs being down for everyone involved. I don't like it when it is used, as it is today, as a way for executives to reap massive rewards while shuffling the pain down the ladder.
Even with a basic income guarantee I'd still be pretty wary of this kind of talk.
I agree that there are problems with high workloads. However, a cap seems like a blunt instrument. I'm pro-union for this reason; these issues should be negotiated between parties.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
The problem is that allowing yourself to be worked past the standard amount is basically raising the bar, forcing others to do the same to keep up.
As someone who owns his own business in a labor intensive industry, I work more than that. This past year, between my various ventures, I will have had about 1.5 weeks off while averaging 60-70 hours of work per week.
However, I can't work less without endangering the future of my business. I'm just kicking things into high gear, so client acquisition is vital. I don't have the capital to hire another employee for about another year, so it's on me to keep everything running and growing.
I understand that most people don't want to or can't work this much. But the bar for the kind of success I want is already that high.
Also, we want more efficiency, period. I'd give my left nut to get all of my work done in half the time.
You starting a business is not the same as McDonalds saving a salary by making their line cooks work 80 hours a week or Walmart firing half their staff and doubling hours for everyone else. Let's not get lost in false comparisons.
Ah, so it would just be for employees then? I'm not sure that makes any more sense and would probably increase income inequality even more, as only owners would be able to work longer hours.
Well this is more how it works now, where you can't work your workers to death (not you personally, any business) because that kind of thing used to happen basically always.
Whatever the system, if we're getting efficiency by firing people and increasing productivity of existing workers (which, in the world today we are) that burns me the wrong way.
I like efficiency, I like costs being down for everyone involved. I don't like it when it is used, as it is today, as a way for executives to reap massive rewards while shuffling the pain down the ladder.
Even with a basic income guarantee I'd still be pretty wary of this kind of talk.
I agree that there are problems with high workloads. However, a cap seems like a blunt instrument. I'm pro-union for this reason; these issues should be negotiated between parties.
Agreed. A 60 hour work week at my job is going to be far less strenuous than even a 40 hour one at a plant or something.
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
Because I don't live in a world where fairy dust and pelicans bring us rice krispie treats and dr pepper every morning and we sleep each night on a daffodil pedal surrounded by busty women.
It just isn't a feasible way to run economic policy.
I'm not enamored with work for work's sake, I'm enamored with people being able to afford to eat and not sleep on the streets.
Also the more people working means the economy gets stronger since they're customers buying more things. Without jobs they can't afford as much to spend on and there are more customers for companies have to sell too. You can't have a strong economy if the work force becomes the equivalent of a third world country. Profits may be good now but it's a smaller pie, so capital will be more inclined to fuck over it labor force for the extra change. Can't have the peasants actually earning decent salaries, after all.
No one is suggesting his world though. We are talking about redistribution. That means people will have money to spend. The unemployed will have less than people that work, but more than they do now.
I would like to point to the republican party with followers to see how your idea will play out in the real world. You working so that a stranger can sit on his behind all day? There are strong political movements and massive amounts of capital being spent to prevent just that from happening.
But I am not a republican, so I like your idea, but I only think your idea is good "on paper".
It's all how you phrase it. I have discussed the idea of a large, partially refundable credit with people as diverse as the McCain campaign's tax advisor and the main architect of the '86 tax code, and both agree that it would be good policy. I think that if you combined this approach with a consumption tax (this can be done on a revenue neutral basis according to the CBO, at least as of 6 years ago) you would have a very viable proposal.
Consumption tax can bite my ass, I don't care how guaranteed income is by the government.
Regressive as fuck and it doesn't surprise me in the least that the GOP would sign on.
If we could provide a guaranteed income of $30-40k a year (on an after tax basis), I would be quite willing to accept regressive taxation beyond that. . .
I would not. Regressive taxation is crap, regardless of how much each person is making. It's simply a question of fairness.
Eh, I'd trade a minimum standard of living for a regressive consumption tax because it would likely be a net positive. Fairness matters less than overall beneficial outcomes.
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
edited December 2012
How would any kind of regressive tax benefit anyone except the rich?
Which beneficial outcomes are you talking about?
Edit: I see. Yes, well, when unicorns start shitting rainbows out of the sky then I guess a it'll be okay. Until then though, lets not, eh?
lu tze on
World's best janitor
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Explain to my why it's more efficient to have 4 guys working 50 hours and 1 guy unemployed than it is to have 5 guys working 40 hours.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
Because I don't live in a world where fairy dust and pelicans bring us rice krispie treats and dr pepper every morning and we sleep each night on a daffodil pedal surrounded by busty women.
It just isn't a feasible way to run economic policy.
I'm not enamored with work for work's sake, I'm enamored with people being able to afford to eat and not sleep on the streets.
Also the more people working means the economy gets stronger since they're customers buying more things. Without jobs they can't afford as much to spend on and there are more customers for companies have to sell too. You can't have a strong economy if the work force becomes the equivalent of a third world country. Profits may be good now but it's a smaller pie, so capital will be more inclined to fuck over it labor force for the extra change. Can't have the peasants actually earning decent salaries, after all.
No one is suggesting his world though. We are talking about redistribution. That means people will have money to spend. The unemployed will have less than people that work, but more than they do now.
I would like to point to the republican party with followers to see how your idea will play out in the real world. You working so that a stranger can sit on his behind all day? There are strong political movements and massive amounts of capital being spent to prevent just that from happening.
But I am not a republican, so I like your idea, but I only think your idea is good "on paper".
It's all how you phrase it. I have discussed the idea of a large, partially refundable credit with people as diverse as the McCain campaign's tax advisor and the main architect of the '86 tax code, and both agree that it would be good policy. I think that if you combined this approach with a consumption tax (this can be done on a revenue neutral basis according to the CBO, at least as of 6 years ago) you would have a very viable proposal.
Consumption tax can bite my ass, I don't care how guaranteed income is by the government.
Regressive as fuck and it doesn't surprise me in the least that the GOP would sign on.
If we could provide a guaranteed income of $30-40k a year (on an after tax basis), I would be quite willing to accept regressive taxation beyond that. . .
I would not. Regressive taxation is crap, regardless of how much each person is making. It's simply a question of fairness.
Eh, I'd trade a minimum standard of living for a regressive consumption tax because it would likely be a net positive. Fairness matters less than overall beneficial outcomes.
There wouldn't be though. "You pay more tax, I pay less but I guess we'll give you some food, too" doesn't strike me as something I'm going to get too excited about.
Posts
Efficiency is how little you have to work to live. The more leisure time an economy can support, the more efficient it is.
I don't count being unemployed and broke as leisure time, in case you're wondering.
A fully employed white male working the same job as his father did makes a considerable amount less than that father would have done. And that's before you get to underserved workers such as women and minorities.
This is why you need unions to put the screws on companies and the government to look out for the little guy. We don't have that anymore and so we don't grow together anymore; we're just growing further and further apart.
Two people doing my job would be a disaster. The pace of my work is such that dividing it into discrete chunks of time would involve constantly handing off the same project, which is very inefficient. You could have two people each take ownership for half my projects, but that would lead to a lot of dead time during the day where they both sit at their desks waiting for comments to come back on things they did. The only model I could really see working is shorter work weeks, which I for one would not mind
Working for pay isn't slavery. That's like saying taxes are slavery.
Obviously all overtime should be paid as such. My friends are happy when they can get overtime. That's good money. I don't want a law that cuts them off at 40 hours.
Well this idea has worked super well for us over the last 30 years, right? With real wages largely stagnating, inequality indexes soaring, corporate profits sky-rocketing, and unemployment getting higher and higher (especially if you factor in that the majority of new jobs are either part-time, minimum wage or both). Oh and let's not forget that 50 years ago, a single adult could support a family whereas now both parents generally have to work to maintain a similar standard of living. If we're so damb efficient, how come it takes twice as many of us to do the same job?
The ideal was that efficiency gains would release workers to work in other employment areas, increasing the total amount of stuff that gets produced. What actually happened is that when 1 guy can produce as much as 3 guys used to, then you can tell that guy to go fuck himself if he thinks he's getting a 200% rise, because those other 2 guys would love to have his job. And then even if those other guys do find some part time work between them, it doesn't really pay enough that they have any kind of economic independence or bargaining power. They're still desperate to get that "real" job.
In short, the vast majority of the rewards of increased efficiency have been concentrated in the hands of the emergent aristocracy.
And once again, it's not intrinsically more inefficient to have two guys working a 25 hour week than 1 guy working a 50 hour week and 1 guy collecting social security. (Or 4 guys working a 50 hour week instead of a 40 hour one, and 1 guy collecting social) .
Making that guy work 50 hours is a popular choice because you can always threaten him with that unemployed guy wanting his job, so you can underpay him because you can always replace him. As a happy bonus, because he doesn't get as much per hour as he should, he will actually fight any proposal that reduces the hours he has to work! But this policy has nothing to do with efficiency.
Meanwhile society shoulders the second-order costs of this policy, like increased drug use, crime and skill loss and general social alienation amongst the bored and hopeless unemployed, and also working parents lacking the time to look after their children properly. If we're going to talk about efficiency, how efficient is it to leave millions of educated able bodied adults on the unemployment scrapheap?
This was efficient:
And I am calling for a direct fix of the wealth concentration side of the equation. I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on why (political realities aside), it would be better to create inefficiencies in the labor market instead of producing a much as we can in the most inefficient manner that we can and then redistributing profits. What inherent superiority in forcing more work over leisure?
Technically, yes. But the place I work at right now is actually realistic about the demands of my job. There's no need for a regular 40 hour week and they don't try to pretend there is. Which is fantastic as far as I'm concerned.
And as resources dwindle in the coming decades, prices will skyrocket further consolidating wealth and capital in this new aristocracy. The labor movement will grow again, out of sheer necessity, to combat the all too apparent stranglehold Wall Street has on government. As Krugman pointed out this morning, the inequalities only stand to become more obvious and I believe we're going to have a big debate on capitalism versus other economic structures (Marxism, Anarchism, etc.) as they did a century ago when inequality followed the same mold.
Well you're also not going to only get paid for five hours if that's all you work. I'm working part time right now and won't be getting paid for two weeks around xmas and new years because the building is simply closed. If I was guaranteed 400 bucks a week I wouldn't really care, but I'm not (nor are most people).
So that's why I say it doesn't really count.
Because there are a finite amount of resources and things to do with those resources. We can get as efficient as we want, but that'll run us right into a brick wall. Wealth concentration is a side effect, not necessarily a root cause. Nationalizing production and spreading wealth on the labor side of the equation is the only way to avoid the otherwise endlessly reoccurring scenario where a tiny plutocracy controls all wealth, power, and redistribution.
Unless the rich like looking at guillotines, then they can feel free to proceed with business as usual.
It would be fucking amazing though. Right now America has the most efficient labor force in history, because our labor protections have been shredded one after another in recent history while the rest of the developed world has taken steps to protect their working class
There are two types of efficiency that we are discussing here, and I think they are being conflated. First, there is efficiency in the sense of the amount of productive work that can be done by a person. I think there is little dispute that it is better to have one man supervise 10 robots than to commit 10 people to spending their time doing that work. The second efficiency is efficiency in profits. This type of efficiency naturally leads to inequality, as capital is able to retain more and more of the product of the work that is done, and labor gets less, since their involvement is lower. I think that our goal ought to be to maximize the first type of efficiency, but to do so in a manner that limits the wealth concentration from the second. What I don't u seedy and is why we would ever strive to limit the first type of efficiency just to counteract this concentration effect, when the same outcome can be obtained with less net human labor.
@ronya - thoughts?
If we have to fire 9 people for that kind of efficiency, that's fine in my book, as long as those other 9 people have another direction to go in like becoming bloggers or painters or astronomers without worrying about becoming homeless to do so (guaranteed basic income wee)
Now that doesn't seem politically viable, it seems more politically viable to keep the company employing 10 people, because it feels less socialist.
Because the fifth man can accomplish more with the full 50 hours of leisure than the 5 of them could combined with their extra 10 each. The fifth man can use that time to develop and hone a completely different but beneficial skill. If the choice is 4 professional bakers and a professional woodworker or 5 professional bakers that all dabble in wood working, which is the better outcome for society?
How does that unemployed guy get the capital to buy the equipment and training to become a professional woodworker? Borrow $250k from Mitt Romney's dad?
If there is demand for such work, then having more people free to take those jobs is preferable to having artificial over employment in another sector. If there is no demand, what value in making everyone work a little vs having those among us who are driven and passionate for the work take it on (and be compensated) while the rest have leisure? If the robots allow us to move from 10 man weeks of labor a week to 1, should we really force all 10 men to work 1/10th of a week?
That is a ridiculous way to run a business and a society. "Sorry you're fired, guy. Hope I see some nice paintings from you soon!"
You think it is better to force over employment and inefficiency than to let as many people as possible do things they would prefer to do, and/or things that we have a real demand for? I really don't get why people are do enamoured with work for work's sake.
Because I don't live in a world where fairy dust and pelicans bring us rice krispie treats and dr pepper every morning and we sleep each night on a daffodil pedal surrounded by busty women.
It just isn't a feasible way to run economic policy.
I'm not enamored with work for work's sake, I'm enamored with people being able to afford to eat and not sleep on the streets.
That is why we should tax the rich so that we can both support a minimum income guarantee and provide retraining.
SKFM's entire argument is that you should allow the market to be efficient so that the money generated can be redistributed to those who are not working. We will get more wealth if we leave the situation alone rather then force inefficiency and then the extra wealth can provide even more public good then micromanaging companies would.
I disagree, and think that demanding a living wage and benefits and environmental protection and safety would not significantly harm growth; however, the idea that we should force real inefficiency, making more people work in industries they do not want to be working in, is insane.
Every advance in human society has reduce the number of people doing necessary work and added people doing new or non-critical work, then those new areas become the new norm creating a better society.
No one is talking about some fantasy world, we are talking about food stamps and extended unemployment and real welfare and inexpensive education and housing assistance.
Sorry guys.
Also the more people working means the economy gets stronger since they're customers buying more things. Without jobs they can't afford as much to spend on and there are more customers for companies have to sell too. You can't have a strong economy if the work force becomes the equivalent of a third world country. Profits may be good now but it's a smaller pie, so capital will be more inclined to fuck over it labor force for the extra change. Can't have the peasants actually earning decent salaries, after all.
No one is suggesting his world though. We are talking about redistribution. That means people will have money to spend. The unemployed will have less than people that work, but more than they do now.
I would like to point to the republican party with followers to see how your idea will play out in the real world. You working so that a stranger can sit on his behind all day? There are strong political movements and massive amounts of capital being spent to prevent just that from happening.
But I am not a republican, so I like your idea, but I only think your idea is good "on paper".
It's all how you phrase it. I have discussed the idea of a large, partially refundable credit with people as diverse as the McCain campaign's tax advisor and the main architect of the '86 tax code, and both agree that it would be good policy. I think that if you combined this approach with a consumption tax (this can be done on a revenue neutral basis according to the CBO, at least as of 6 years ago) you would have a very viable proposal.
Consumption tax can bite my ass, I don't care how guaranteed income is by the government.
Regressive as fuck and it doesn't surprise me in the least that the GOP would sign on.
If we could provide a guaranteed income of $30-40k a year (on an after tax basis), I would be quite willing to accept regressive taxation beyond that. . .
I would not. Regressive taxation is crap, regardless of how much each person is making. It's simply a question of fairness.
As someone who owns his own business in a labor intensive industry, I work more than that. This past year, between my various ventures, I will have had about 1.5 weeks off while averaging 60-70 hours of work per week.
However, I can't work less without endangering the future of my business. I'm just kicking things into high gear, so client acquisition is vital. I don't have the capital to hire another employee for about another year, so it's on me to keep everything running and growing.
I understand that most people don't want to or can't work this much. But the bar for the kind of success I want is already that high.
Also, we want more efficiency, period. I'd give my left nut to get all of my work done in half the time.
You starting a business is not the same as McDonalds saving a salary by making their line cooks work 80 hours a week or Walmart firing half their staff and doubling hours for everyone else. Let's not get lost in false comparisons.
Ah, so it would just be for employees then? I'm not sure that makes any more sense and would probably increase income inequality even more, as only owners would be able to work longer hours.
Well this is more how it works now, where you can't work your workers to death (not you personally, any business) because that kind of thing used to happen basically always.
Whatever the system, if we're getting efficiency by firing people and increasing productivity of existing workers (which, in the world today we are) that burns me the wrong way.
I like efficiency, I like costs being down for everyone involved. I don't like it when it is used, as it is today, as a way for executives to reap massive rewards while shuffling the pain down the ladder.
Even with a basic income guarantee I'd still be pretty wary of this kind of talk.
I agree that there are problems with high workloads. However, a cap seems like a blunt instrument. I'm pro-union for this reason; these issues should be negotiated between parties.
Agreed. A 60 hour work week at my job is going to be far less strenuous than even a 40 hour one at a plant or something.
Eh, I'd trade a minimum standard of living for a regressive consumption tax because it would likely be a net positive. Fairness matters less than overall beneficial outcomes.
Which beneficial outcomes are you talking about?
Edit: I see. Yes, well, when unicorns start shitting rainbows out of the sky then I guess a it'll be okay. Until then though, lets not, eh?
There wouldn't be though. "You pay more tax, I pay less but I guess we'll give you some food, too" doesn't strike me as something I'm going to get too excited about.