We should honestly let kids who dont want to go to college start apprenticing around age 15
15 is too young to decide you're not going to college.
I'm not saying leave school
Maybe take one less class, get off school early and work for 3 or 4 hours. This would be something the student actively had to try to get into as well. I have a vision of a highschool that starts branching in such a way that by senior year there are a couple of distinct paths: technical education, university, apprenticeship (or internships), hired killer, etc.
Of course Override's Grand Unified Theory of education is mostly just "give poor people enough money so the kids don't feel poor"
Not to sound alarmist, but we actually are moving towards a point where most tasks will be able to be performed by machines, especially with AI improving.
At some point, it is more or less inevitable that most people won't be able to earn money, but the producers of foods, goods, and services will still expect to be paid full price.
If we are not prepared for that, things could get nasty fast when it happens. And unfortunately if you increase the cost of human labor you will also push us closer to machines being more cost effective than humans.
Go in, get the girl, kill the dragon. What's so hard about that? ... Oh, so THAT'S what a dragon looks like.
As someone who oversees productions servers that run an army of manufacturing robots across the globe, the AI will look at me as a treasured pet and not one to be eliminated
it's actually really simple galdon, we will get over our fear of socialism and intentionally introduce inefficiency into the economy to keep it viable, or let everything burn
As someone who oversees productions servers that run an army of manufacturing robots across the globe, the AI will look at me as a treasured pet and not one to be eliminated
it's actually really simple galdon, we will get over our fear of socialism and intentionally introduce inefficiency into the economy to keep it viable, or let everything burn
Or maybe we'll get over our obsession with making everyone work 40-50 hours a week. Who knows!
As someone who oversees productions servers that run an army of manufacturing robots across the globe, the AI will look at me as a treasured pet and not one to be eliminated
it's actually really simple galdon, we will get over our fear of socialism and intentionally introduce inefficiency into the economy to keep it viable, or let everything burn
Or maybe we'll get over our obsession with making everyone work 40-50 hours a week. Who knows!
I think that's the inefficiency he was refering to actually. (Unless he meant 'or' rather than 'and')
galdon on
Go in, get the girl, kill the dragon. What's so hard about that? ... Oh, so THAT'S what a dragon looks like.
It would be inefficent, if it was just a everyone works 6 hour days change. A better solution is to add Friday to the weekend somehow. I know (especially in the summer when AC gets pricey) some places by me will go to 4x10s, so they can turn the AC off for 3 days. Saves workers commuting time and gas too.
It would be inefficent, if it was just a everyone works 6 hour days change. A better solution is to add Friday to the weekend somehow. I know (especially in the summer when AC gets pricey) some places by me will go to 4x10s, so they can turn the AC off for 3 days. Saves workers commuting time and gas too.
It'll depend on the type of work being done, tbh. Some jobs suit a shorter work day, others a shorter work week, others might work best with skipping 1 week in 3 or 4.
Increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment. Allowing the real minimum wage to decline through inflation decreases unemployment until equilibrium is reached and the minimum wage is no longer doing anything.
The typical minimum wage earner lives in a middle-class household. The typical minimum wage earner works for minimum wage for less than one year before getting a raise. The typical household living in poverty is not headed by a minimum wage earner, but rather by someone unemployed or underemployed.
(this was all in congressional testimony but can't find the cite right now.)
Minimum wage is not an effective or efficient tool for combating poverty. If nothing else, it would make more sense just to add consumption or payroll taxes and then use that revenue to help people in poverty.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It would be inefficent, if it was just a everyone works 6 hour days change. A better solution is to add Friday to the weekend somehow. I know (especially in the summer when AC gets pricey) some places by me will go to 4x10s, so they can turn the AC off for 3 days. Saves workers commuting time and gas too.
It'll depend on the type of work being done, tbh. Some jobs suit a shorter work day, others a shorter work week, others might work best with skipping 1 week in 3 or 4.
Agree that this is very industry dependent, but as a general proposition, having a smaller number of people work will always be more efficient than a larger number unless the small number is working so many hours as to become slower, less efficient, or more mistake prone (I.e., doctors workin 36 hour shifts). This is all to say that the correct solution is not forcing over employment, but to discourage overworking people, and to strive for efficient employment levels.
Edit: plus the dreaded redistribution of the wealth that is created, of course.
Then what happens when consumption and payrolls bottom out next time?
Raising the minimum wage is a better solution, but it's still only a stopgap. Our global economic system is fundamentally flawed, and we will continue to see these periods of extreme inequality and worker oppression followed by half-measures until the system is reset and the labor movement takes control.
The typical minimum wage earner lives in a middle-class household. The typical minimum wage earner works for minimum wage for less than one year before getting a raise. The typical household living in poverty is not headed by a minimum wage earner, but rather by someone unemployed or underemployed.
gunna have to disagree with that bit, I don't have much of a house, and the rent I pay for it is fairly low, but I can barely afford it with a bit over ten dollars an hour, 40 hours a week. not only that, but I earn a mere 100 dollars a month above the cut off for financial aid programs in my area.
so in truth, the only people who can live in a middle class home on minimum wage are people supported by so-called entitlement programs such as food stamps. everyone else at that pay level lives with other family or in the slums.
galdon on
Go in, get the girl, kill the dragon. What's so hard about that? ... Oh, so THAT'S what a dragon looks like.
Increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment. Allowing the real minimum wage to decline through inflation decreases unemployment until equilibrium is reached and the minimum wage is no longer doing anything.
Those citations are totally out of date. The econometric methods employed suffered from a statistical flaw by failing to control for trends. Read this, since published in the peer-reviewed Review of Economics and Statistics, to get up to date:
It would be inefficent, if it was just a everyone works 6 hour days change. A better solution is to add Friday to the weekend somehow. I know (especially in the summer when AC gets pricey) some places by me will go to 4x10s, so they can turn the AC off for 3 days. Saves workers commuting time and gas too.
It'll depend on the type of work being done, tbh. Some jobs suit a shorter work day, others a shorter work week, others might work best with skipping 1 week in 3 or 4.
Agree that this is very industry dependent, but as a general proposition, having a smaller number of people work will always be more efficient than a larger number unless the small number is working so many hours as to become slower, less efficient, or more mistake prone (I.e., doctors workin 36 hour shifts). This is all to say that the correct solution is not forcing over employment, but to discourage overworking people, and to strive for efficient employment levels.
Edit: plus the dreaded redistribution of the wealth that is created, of course.
One extreme example that springs to mind is seasonal fishing; you'll get guys that are working pretty much every minute they aren't asleep... for 2 or 3 months.
At the other end of the spectrum, you have France's 35-hour week working limit.
Neither model is viable for most jobs (if I was away from my job for 9 months, I'd pretty much have to retrain from scratch). But what would you think of a yearly working hour limit? Base it on a 32-hour week (from a notional standard of 8 hours, 4 days/week, with 4 weeks holiday) and you get 48x8x4= a 1536 working hour year.
It would be inefficent, if it was just a everyone works 6 hour days change. A better solution is to add Friday to the weekend somehow. I know (especially in the summer when AC gets pricey) some places by me will go to 4x10s, so they can turn the AC off for 3 days. Saves workers commuting time and gas too.
It'll depend on the type of work being done, tbh. Some jobs suit a shorter work day, others a shorter work week, others might work best with skipping 1 week in 3 or 4.
Agree that this is very industry dependent, but as a general proposition, having a smaller number of people work will always be more efficient than a larger number unless the small number is working so many hours as to become slower, less efficient, or more mistake prone (I.e., doctors workin 36 hour shifts). This is all to say that the correct solution is not forcing over employment, but to discourage overworking people, and to strive for efficient employment levels.
Edit: plus the dreaded redistribution of the wealth that is created, of course.
One extreme example that springs to mind is seasonal fishing; you'll get guys that are working pretty much every minute they aren't asleep... for 2 or 3 months.
At the other end of the spectrum, you have France's 35-hour week working limit.
Neither model is viable for most jobs (if I was away from my job for 9 months, I'd pretty much have to retrain from scratch). But what would you think of a yearly working hour limit? Base it on a 32-hour week (from a notional standard of 8 hours, 4 days/week, with 4 weeks holiday) and you get 48x8x4= a 1536 working hour year.
I'm a little confused about what happens once you hit the limit. You get paid overtime?
It would be inefficent, if it was just a everyone works 6 hour days change. A better solution is to add Friday to the weekend somehow. I know (especially in the summer when AC gets pricey) some places by me will go to 4x10s, so they can turn the AC off for 3 days. Saves workers commuting time and gas too.
It'll depend on the type of work being done, tbh. Some jobs suit a shorter work day, others a shorter work week, others might work best with skipping 1 week in 3 or 4.
Agree that this is very industry dependent, but as a general proposition, having a smaller number of people work will always be more efficient than a larger number unless the small number is working so many hours as to become slower, less efficient, or more mistake prone (I.e., doctors workin 36 hour shifts). This is all to say that the correct solution is not forcing over employment, but to discourage overworking people, and to strive for efficient employment levels.
Edit: plus the dreaded redistribution of the wealth that is created, of course.
One extreme example that springs to mind is seasonal fishing; you'll get guys that are working pretty much every minute they aren't asleep... for 2 or 3 months.
At the other end of the spectrum, you have France's 35-hour week working limit.
Neither model is viable for most jobs (if I was away from my job for 9 months, I'd pretty much have to retrain from scratch). But what would you think of a yearly working hour limit? Base it on a 32-hour week (from a notional standard of 8 hours, 4 days/week, with 4 weeks holiday) and you get 48x8x4= a 1536 working hour year.
I'm a little confused about what happens once you hit the limit. You get paid overtime?
I guess, or you've worked all the time you're due to earn your yearly salary.
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
Pretty much all employers are, though. Unless it's in the medical/legal/law enforcement fields.
It's hard enough just to get full time (35+hrs/wk) employment anymore.
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.
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
Pretty much all employers are, though. Unless it's in the medical/legal/law enforcement fields.
It's hard enough just to get full time (35+hrs/wk) employment anymore.
I think we really have a very polar situations. You are either working fulltime, where that means 45+ hours a week. Or you are working partime, and will be lucky to see 28hrs a week.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
Pretty much all employers are, though. Unless it's in the medical/legal/law enforcement fields.
It's hard enough just to get full time (35+hrs/wk) employment anymore.
With more redistribution (particularly UHC), the incentive to keep many part time employees instead of a smaller number of full time employees drops greatly, and one would think such a shift would lead to net productivity gains.
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.
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.
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
Pretty much all employers are, though. Unless it's in the medical/legal/law enforcement fields.
It's hard enough just to get full time (35+hrs/wk) employment anymore.
With more redistribution (particularly UHC), the incentive to keep many part time employees instead of a smaller number of full time employees drops greatly, and one would think such a shift would lead to net productivity gains.
A strong labor/union force with the political will to bring capital to heel is what we need. Until then it's only table scraps at best and that isn't good enough.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
Pretty much all employers are, though. Unless it's in the medical/legal/law enforcement fields.
It's hard enough just to get full time (35+hrs/wk) employment anymore.
With more redistribution (particularly UHC), the incentive to keep many part time employees instead of a smaller number of full time employees drops greatly, and one would think such a shift would lead to net productivity gains.
A strong labor/union force with the political will to bring capital to heel is what we need. Until then it's only table scraps at best and that isn't good enough.
What does this have to do with anything? The problem we are discussing is how to ensure people have a decent standard of living. Why would a labor movement be better at that than the government? Why would the typeof redistribution I and others have posed be "table scraps"?
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.
Pretty much all employers are, though. Unless it's in the medical/legal/law enforcement fields.
It's hard enough just to get full time (35+hrs/wk) employment anymore.
With more redistribution (particularly UHC), the incentive to keep many part time employees instead of a smaller number of full time employees drops greatly, and one would think such a shift would lead to net productivity gains.
A strong labor/union force with the political will to bring capital to heel is what we need. Until then it's only table scraps at best and that isn't good enough.
What does this have to do with anything? The problem we are discussing is how to ensure people have a decent standard of living. Why would a labor movement be better at that than the government? Why would the typeof redistribution I and others have posed be "table scraps"?
The government doesn't just do things, it requires pressure. The reason that the tax code allows jobs like yours to operate the way they do, why our tax system is far less progressive than it should be, why education is the first on the chopping block, why we don't have take your pick, is because no one with influence is really lobbying for those things.
Unless and until labor unions can outspend the super rich in the halls of Congress the government isn't going to be looking out for the average American worker.
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
Pretty much all employers are, though. Unless it's in the medical/legal/law enforcement fields.
It's hard enough just to get full time (35+hrs/wk) employment anymore.
With more redistribution (particularly UHC), the incentive to keep many part time employees instead of a smaller number of full time employees drops greatly, and one would think such a shift would lead to net productivity gains.
A strong labor/union force with the political will to bring capital to heel is what we need. Until then it's only table scraps at best and that isn't good enough.
What does this have to do with anything? The problem we are discussing is how to ensure people have a decent standard of living. Why would a labor movement be better at that than the government?
Without a strong labor movement to force the government to do serious politically manuvering nothing is stopping capital running amok on the working class. In case you haven't noticed things are getting worse, not better. Even the Dems have done a lackluster job assisting the unions and the GOP sure as hell isn't interested in doing anything other then bowing down to the capital overlords. The standard of living for workers will be raised further by unions and workers winning in the political and business atmosphere. That is not what's going on right now. Hasn't been for decades.
Why would the typeof redistribution I and others have posed be "table scraps"?
Because that's what it is. Compared to unions or labor laws in Europe what America has done for its workers are a bad joke. Until serious things are done in the political landscape to give unions and workers a seat at the table equal to capital all progress (which is rare) is a lesser evil short term solution to a long term problem.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If someone wants to work 60 hours/week x 50 weeks/year, I'm not going to stand in his way.
Pretty much all employers are, though. Unless it's in the medical/legal/law enforcement fields.
It's hard enough just to get full time (35+hrs/wk) employment anymore.
With more redistribution (particularly UHC), the incentive to keep many part time employees instead of a smaller number of full time employees drops greatly, and one would think such a shift would lead to net productivity gains.
A strong labor/union force with the political will to bring capital to heel is what we need. Until then it's only table scraps at best and that isn't good enough.
What does this have to do with anything? The problem we are discussing is how to ensure people have a decent standard of living. Why would a labor movement be better at that than the government?
Without a strong labor movement to force the government to do serious politically manuvering nothing is stopping capital running amok on the working class. In case you haven't noticed things are getting worse, not better. Even the Dems have done a lackluster job assisting the unions and the GOP sure as hell isn't interested in doing anything other then bowing down to the capital overlords. The standard of living for workers will be raised further by unions and workers winning in the political and business atmosphere. That is not what's going on right now. Hasn't been for decades.
Why would the typeof redistribution I and others have posed be "table scraps"?
Because that's what it is. Compared to unions or labor laws in Europe what America has done for its workers are a bad joke. Until serious things are done in the political landscape to give unions and workers a seat at the table equal to capital all progress (which is rare) is a lesser evil short term solution to a long term problem.
I question whether American unions will ever advocate for employment laws (substantive protections for workers) over labor laws (substantive protections for unions). Perhaps if they were stronger, but I do t see that happening.
But political forces aside, why would unions or labor laws be preferable to a world where we redistribute from the rich to the poor to ensure that they can get by? Put another (and more directly on topic way), if we had a choice between major substantive protections for all workers like high, inflation indexed minimum wages, rigorous safety regulations, UHC, and statutory severance or a choice of stronger unions to negotiate on behalf of their members at companies which happen to be unionized, why would we prefer the latter?
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
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.
I mean unless your idea of a good time is to have a world where a few percent of the people are meaningfully employed and are effectively an aristocracy. In which case, carry on.
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.
override367 on
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
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.
Posts
I'm not saying leave school
Maybe take one less class, get off school early and work for 3 or 4 hours. This would be something the student actively had to try to get into as well. I have a vision of a highschool that starts branching in such a way that by senior year there are a couple of distinct paths: technical education, university, apprenticeship (or internships), hired killer, etc.
Of course Override's Grand Unified Theory of education is mostly just "give poor people enough money so the kids don't feel poor"
At some point, it is more or less inevitable that most people won't be able to earn money, but the producers of foods, goods, and services will still expect to be paid full price.
If we are not prepared for that, things could get nasty fast when it happens. And unfortunately if you increase the cost of human labor you will also push us closer to machines being more cost effective than humans.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UChq0-eLNiMaJlIjqerf0v2A? <-- Game related youtube stuff
http://galdon.newgrounds.com/games/ <-- games I've made. (spoiler warning: They might suck!)
it's actually really simple galdon, we will get over our fear of socialism and intentionally introduce inefficiency into the economy to keep it viable, or let everything burn
Or maybe we'll get over our obsession with making everyone work 40-50 hours a week. Who knows!
I think that's the inefficiency he was refering to actually. (Unless he meant 'or' rather than 'and')
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UChq0-eLNiMaJlIjqerf0v2A? <-- Game related youtube stuff
http://galdon.newgrounds.com/games/ <-- games I've made. (spoiler warning: They might suck!)
(Waiting for SKFM post in 5, 4, 3, 2...)
Haven't read the article yet, but that graph doesn't make much sense. Apparently, everyone got paid 0% for 0% productivity up till 1948?
It'll depend on the type of work being done, tbh. Some jobs suit a shorter work day, others a shorter work week, others might work best with skipping 1 week in 3 or 4.
a lot of employers pay 0% for 0% production now. it's called being fired.
but I agree, this chart isn't well presented.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UChq0-eLNiMaJlIjqerf0v2A? <-- Game related youtube stuff
http://galdon.newgrounds.com/games/ <-- games I've made. (spoiler warning: They might suck!)
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/4964
Increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment. Allowing the real minimum wage to decline through inflation decreases unemployment until equilibrium is reached and the minimum wage is no longer doing anything.
http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/2992?e=coopermicro-ch10_s02
The typical minimum wage earner lives in a middle-class household. The typical minimum wage earner works for minimum wage for less than one year before getting a raise. The typical household living in poverty is not headed by a minimum wage earner, but rather by someone unemployed or underemployed.
(this was all in congressional testimony but can't find the cite right now.)
Minimum wage is not an effective or efficient tool for combating poverty. If nothing else, it would make more sense just to add consumption or payroll taxes and then use that revenue to help people in poverty.
Fairly sure that's meant to be the % increase starting in 1948.
Agree that this is very industry dependent, but as a general proposition, having a smaller number of people work will always be more efficient than a larger number unless the small number is working so many hours as to become slower, less efficient, or more mistake prone (I.e., doctors workin 36 hour shifts). This is all to say that the correct solution is not forcing over employment, but to discourage overworking people, and to strive for efficient employment levels.
Edit: plus the dreaded redistribution of the wealth that is created, of course.
Raising the minimum wage is a better solution, but it's still only a stopgap. Our global economic system is fundamentally flawed, and we will continue to see these periods of extreme inequality and worker oppression followed by half-measures until the system is reset and the labor movement takes control.
gunna have to disagree with that bit, I don't have much of a house, and the rent I pay for it is fairly low, but I can barely afford it with a bit over ten dollars an hour, 40 hours a week. not only that, but I earn a mere 100 dollars a month above the cut off for financial aid programs in my area.
so in truth, the only people who can live in a middle class home on minimum wage are people supported by so-called entitlement programs such as food stamps. everyone else at that pay level lives with other family or in the slums.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UChq0-eLNiMaJlIjqerf0v2A? <-- Game related youtube stuff
http://galdon.newgrounds.com/games/ <-- games I've made. (spoiler warning: They might suck!)
Those citations are totally out of date. The econometric methods employed suffered from a statistical flaw by failing to control for trends. Read this, since published in the peer-reviewed Review of Economics and Statistics, to get up to date:
irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
Not just that, but also a specific career path. Most people in college have trouble just deciding on a major.
If you want more people in vocational schools, then you need to give them more opportunities to try out different things in advance.
One extreme example that springs to mind is seasonal fishing; you'll get guys that are working pretty much every minute they aren't asleep... for 2 or 3 months.
At the other end of the spectrum, you have France's 35-hour week working limit.
Neither model is viable for most jobs (if I was away from my job for 9 months, I'd pretty much have to retrain from scratch). But what would you think of a yearly working hour limit? Base it on a 32-hour week (from a notional standard of 8 hours, 4 days/week, with 4 weeks holiday) and you get 48x8x4= a 1536 working hour year.
I'm a little confused about what happens once you hit the limit. You get paid overtime?
I guess, or you've worked all the time you're due to earn your yearly salary.
Productivity isn't a %. The chart is normalized to 1948 levels of productivity to show how changes have occurred since then
Pretty much all employers are, though. Unless it's in the medical/legal/law enforcement fields.
It's hard enough just to get full time (35+hrs/wk) employment anymore.
I think we really have a very polar situations. You are either working fulltime, where that means 45+ hours a week. Or you are working partime, and will be lucky to see 28hrs a week.
With more redistribution (particularly UHC), the incentive to keep many part time employees instead of a smaller number of full time employees drops greatly, and one would think such a shift would lead to net productivity gains.
Some weeks I literally work five hours.
Others I work seventy.
It's a nice balance I feel.
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.
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.
A strong labor/union force with the political will to bring capital to heel is what we need. Until then it's only table scraps at best and that isn't good enough.
What does this have to do with anything? The problem we are discussing is how to ensure people have a decent standard of living. Why would a labor movement be better at that than the government? Why would the typeof redistribution I and others have posed be "table scraps"?
The government doesn't just do things, it requires pressure. The reason that the tax code allows jobs like yours to operate the way they do, why our tax system is far less progressive than it should be, why education is the first on the chopping block, why we don't have take your pick, is because no one with influence is really lobbying for those things.
Unless and until labor unions can outspend the super rich in the halls of Congress the government isn't going to be looking out for the average American worker.
This is, unfortunately, political reality.
Without a strong labor movement to force the government to do serious politically manuvering nothing is stopping capital running amok on the working class. In case you haven't noticed things are getting worse, not better. Even the Dems have done a lackluster job assisting the unions and the GOP sure as hell isn't interested in doing anything other then bowing down to the capital overlords. The standard of living for workers will be raised further by unions and workers winning in the political and business atmosphere. That is not what's going on right now. Hasn't been for decades.
Because that's what it is. Compared to unions or labor laws in Europe what America has done for its workers are a bad joke. Until serious things are done in the political landscape to give unions and workers a seat at the table equal to capital all progress (which is rare) is a lesser evil short term solution to a long term problem.
I question whether American unions will ever advocate for employment laws (substantive protections for workers) over labor laws (substantive protections for unions). Perhaps if they were stronger, but I do t see that happening.
But political forces aside, why would unions or labor laws be preferable to a world where we redistribute from the rich to the poor to ensure that they can get by? Put another (and more directly on topic way), if we had a choice between major substantive protections for all workers like high, inflation indexed minimum wages, rigorous safety regulations, UHC, and statutory severance or a choice of stronger unions to negotiate on behalf of their members at companies which happen to be unionized, why would we prefer the latter?
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
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?
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.
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.