One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
I used to think a utopia would involve no one having to work. And then I grew up and realized that work is actually good for you. Responsibility and being accountable isn't just a burden, its character building and positive. Being a productive member of society provides more good than merely the productivity of your work. It also builds social ties, ties to society and provides structure.
There' nothing magical about a 40 hour work week, of course. But something that requires no real effort or sacrifice or commitment won't do the same things IMO
The problem is all this is walking off the post-scarcity pier. We're a long way from that being a problem. Robot labor + solar power == free resources for everyone indefinitely.
The issue is we're not there, and in the meantime America and other western nations have a big problem with how they deal with poverty - both lifting people out of and and keeping people out of it. Like, you could solve a lot of the short term problems by simply eliminating the stupid things like Walmart socializing all it's negatives and privatizing the profits, or the funding motivations for local government in poor communities. Which is kind of ably summarized under "have less stupid tax law in the US".
+3
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
There's a pretty big difference between "I need to get out of the house" and "work or die". You also need a sense of pain to function, doesn't mean you need the pain.
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
There's a pretty big difference between "I need to get out of the house" and "work or die". You also need a sense of pain to function, doesn't mean you need the pain.
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
I think that depression you speak of has to do with the contrast between how you feel when you're working and how you feel when you're not working. A person born into a post-scarcity leisure society probably won't have that problem because they won't even know what "work because you have to" even feels like.
Global unemployment is already insane due to global economic stagnation and income disparity. We could be looking at an unemployment rates akin to the late Roman empire.
This is simply untrue. The global unemployment rate is near a historic low and the global labor participation rate is largely unchanged over the last 30 years. And given that a generation or two ago the number of women in the workforce was much smaller, it should be obvious that this is untrue.
Also citing the Roman Empire should probably make you take a step back and examining how grandiose your claims are and how narrow. The Roman Empire as something that "fell" and ended civilization is a myopically Western Euro-centric and discredited vision of history.
I think @That_Guy 's reference here is not about the fall of Rome specifically, but about the urban life of the poor in Rome proper. Rome was a gigantic city, larger than any other Western city until London around Industrialization iirc. Roman life in the Later Republic/Early Imperial era was reaching a crisis point due to the shift of wealth towards large landholding elites in the country, causing the amount of small holding-freeman farms to diminish. These huge farms operated completely on slave power, which meant as they gobbled up the small holders, people didn't only lose their land, they also lost their employment. And so many people who didn't sell themselves or their children into slavery to survive went to Rome for any sort of opportunity to pull them back up the social scale. But there still were far too many people relative to the amount of wage labor available. And so enters Patronage, which was something that existed since back in the times of Romulus and Remus, but became an institution in the Roman Republic era. Wealthy Patricians would hold audience with these unemployed Plebs and creating a relationship between the two, for a little coin from the Patrician, the Pleb would be in his master's 'service'. Although in practice it seems this mostly to have been a way of showing conspicuous wealth, because being to call upon a large network of patrons was considered very prestigious.
This was one part of the pleb's income. The other was the grain dole, which was original a populist maneuver by Gracchi brothers in the form of a subsidized grain price to allow the Plebs to live on the high cost of food in the city. The dole as we recognize it today was established as a platform of the popularii in Rome by Cladius Pulcher, and was continued on by Caesar and Augustus. With the capture of Alexandria by Pompey, Rome had access to the breadbasket of Egypt, and it was from here that much of the grain supplied to Rome originated. And so this is basically how things were maintained in Rome until the Empire's focus was reoriented eastward and Constantinople became the destination for the bread (which continued until the Arab conquest).
And anyways, the point of bringing up Rome is that the city itself was the home of a large underclass of people (like 25% of its population, possibly more) being supported on something akin to a basic income. And the other parallel being that this mass of poor may have been result of a huge concentration of wealth and a switch to a slave-centric economy.
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
There's a pretty big difference between "I need to get out of the house" and "work or die". You also need a sense of pain to function, doesn't mean you need the pain.
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
I think a lot of people who hate their job and want to do something they think will make them happy will try to do that if there isn't the risk of their family starving on the streets or ending up so in debt they can't hope to recover.
I sort of think that would make the world a much better, more full of a diversity of interesting stuff and freer, happier people who can choose more what they want to pursue.
Sort of a shame that the socialist counties with good social support also have a) a lot of people who can't work if they want to, and b) 8 months of dark cold winter.
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
I used to think a utopia would involve no one having to work. And then I grew up and realized that work is actually good for you. Responsibility and being accountable isn't just a burden, its character building and positive. Being a productive member of society provides more good than merely the productivity of your work. It also builds social ties, ties to society and provides structure.
There' nothing magical about a 40 hour work week, of course. But something that requires no real effort or sacrifice or commitment won't do the same things IMO
Being stressed by working a shitty job and constantly worrying about money is physically harmful, and leads to poor decision making that focuses on short term gain and being overly risk averse.
Some meaningful work and even periods of mild stress are good though.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
+10
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
There's a pretty big difference between "I need to get out of the house" and "work or die". You also need a sense of pain to function, doesn't mean you need the pain.
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
I think that depression you speak of has to do with the contrast between how you feel when you're working and how you feel when you're not working. A person born into a post-scarcity leisure society probably won't have that problem because they won't even know what "work because you have to" even feels like.
Well I don't know what "work because you have to" feels like either, doesn't stop me from being depressed. The "have" here doesn't refer to the fact you may starve if you don't work but rather to the fact that others expect things of you. That is, you have to go to work because others are dependent on you being there. What you do matters to others. Seeing that makes you feel better. And that's just one of the benefits. (it also creates and improves social ties and provides structure.)
It's the same reason it is much easier to work out/play sports if you do it with a buddy or group. If you do it solo you only screw yourself if you don't do it, whereas you will screw your buddy or group too if you have one.
Also note that it also works for volunteer work. The work doesn't have to be paid.
The problem is all this is walking off the post-scarcity pier. We're a long way from that being a problem. Robot labor + solar power == free resources for everyone indefinitely.
As long as the robots can repair themselves.
And the solar panels.
And the maintenance robots.
And do anything and everything people want to be done.
And have some kind of method for distributing inherently scarce resources such as land.
And for mediating disputes between individuals.
And for directing and regulating how robots and solar panels are organized and used.
The death of scarcity is more than just a long way away. If we need people to do anything, we need a way to incentivize that behavior.
Take a person sitting on a nice sandy beach, enjoying the sun and tropical quiet. Suddenly someone else shows up and starts directing his robots to build an ugly monstrosity of a McMansion in the middle of the beach. It will ruin the enjoyment of everyone else but his closest house is 2 miles away and he's too lazy to go home. How do you get him to stop?
Property rights? Oh hell now we have scarcity again.
Take him to court for being an asshole? Where are juries and lawyers and judges coming from? Why are they going to show up to work when they could be having sex with robot prostitutes and doing space cocaine?
Can you sue for being an asshole? Who knows because who is going to bother regulating anything when there's no scarcity? And how would you enforce? He could just have some new robots built
By the standards of the 1800s the US already lives in a magical utopia where scarcity doesn't really exist. And yet it does.
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
There's a pretty big difference between "I need to get out of the house" and "work or die". You also need a sense of pain to function, doesn't mean you need the pain.
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
And how much of that depression comes from not knowing how long that money is going to last?
The super-rich are actually an interesting point here. Buffet could have retired fuck-all-knows how many years ago. But whether out of boredom, status, a sense of duty, he doesn't.
It's not though. Technology fits in to existing society. And is heavily impeded by existing structures.
The telephone is a bad example because it's not like there was a bunch of pre-existing infrastructure that got in it's way. (Though there was a lack of infrastructure to support it and that took a long time to deal with) And that's what I'm talking about. It's what you are mentioning when you say buildings are not designed to be Roomba-friendly. It's what you see in issues like digitizing paper records.
And to say it doesn't really stop it is to embrace the silliness of technological inevitability. Some technologies fail.
Do you have any idea how much of a pain in the ass it was to actually get all those wires to all of those locations? To this day it is a rather expensive endeavor, even though we're vastly better at it now.
I mean I guess a mountain is not "infrastructure" but it's kind of a bigger obstacle using that day's technology than the changing the shape of bed frames that Ikea makes going forward.
Yes, and if I proposed an idea and said "The only problem is those mountains", it would be a problem.
But that's beside the point since mountains aren't infrastructure by any definition of the word. They aren't pre-existing ways people live and build and act.
There are shifts in how buildings are made all of the time. Eventually someone is going to start building factories which are better-designed for automated cleaning. Stores are are already built somewhat in mind for the use of cleaning machines - look at the bottom of a shelf in a major chain and notice the specific choices they made to keep the floor scrubber from tearing shit up. The built environment is really dynamic on the larger scale.
Not as much as you are claiming here. Especially in residential construction.
Shit, we can't even get people to build homes that help reduce their costs via small design changes that cost essentially nothing.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
There's a pretty big difference between "I need to get out of the house" and "work or die". You also need a sense of pain to function, doesn't mean you need the pain.
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
And how much of that depression comes from not knowing how long that money is going to last?
The super-rich are actually an interesting point here. Buffet could have retired fuck-all-knows how many years ago. But whether out of boredom, status, a sense of duty, he doesn't.
hes addicted to the sensation of his investments balling outta control
its like me even if i wasnt paid i would still ball hard, u dig?
People keep talking about basic income but I don't see that happening in many countries. It's not politically possible in right wing countries like America. I can see Scandinavia doing it, maybe some other European countires. I don't see Canada doing it, where I live. Also guaranteed income doesn't really work when 30%+ of people are unemployed. It's simply too much tax payer dollars. Scandinavia already sort of has guaranteed income but it only works when 5-10% of people are unemployed.
People keep talking about basic income but I don't see that happening in many countries. It's not politically possible in right wing countries like America. I can see Scandinavia doing it, maybe some other European countires. I don't see Canada doing it, where I live. Also guaranteed income doesn't really work when 30%+ of people are unemployed. It's simply too much tax payer dollars. Scandinavia already sort of has guaranteed income but it only works when 5-10% of people are unemployed.
Production levels stay the same or increase, while income is concentrated into higher tax brackets, and costs plummet.
Only reasons it would not work is because the rich would be even better able to control the democratic process, would hire tax lawyers, and not compete for lower prices.
All of which can be solved by the people taking control of the means of production, and liberating the nation's wealth from those seeking to sequester it.
The problem is all this is walking off the post-scarcity pier. We're a long way from that being a problem. Robot labor + solar power == free resources for everyone indefinitely.
The issue is we're not there, and in the meantime America and other western nations have a big problem with how they deal with poverty - both lifting people out of and and keeping people out of it. Like, you could solve a lot of the short term problems by simply eliminating the stupid things like Walmart socializing all it's negatives and privatizing the profits, or the funding motivations for local government in poor communities. Which is kind of ably summarized under "have less stupid tax law in the US".
I don't want to be that guy, and I'm certainly not defending Walmart's predatory scheduling practice, but it always feels weird to claim that Walmart is subsidizing all of its workers.
If people on Walmart are on some form of welfare, they were going to be on that welfare whether or not Walmart hired them. While they certainly could afford to pay more, I think it's really pointless to say "they should pay enough nobody they hire is on welfare," because then e.g. welfare benefits having a higher minimum would require Walmart to increase their salary.
I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, or can't afford to do so, but they aren't really "subsidizing" their work force since it's not like their employees are being told "work at Walmart or don't receive welfare."
People keep talking about basic income but I don't see that happening in many countries. It's not politically possible in right wing countries like America. I can see Scandinavia doing it, maybe some other European countires. I don't see Canada doing it, where I live. Also guaranteed income doesn't really work when 30%+ of people are unemployed. It's simply too much tax payer dollars. Scandinavia already sort of has guaranteed income but it only works when 5-10% of people are unemployed.
Unemployment doesn't matter. What matters is that the country is capable of meeting people's basic needs through local production or has a positive trade balance allowing it to import what it can't provide, so that people can buy it with the basic income.
If your country produces enough food for its population of 10 million people, but only 9 million people actually have the money to afford it due to 10% unemployment, and 1 million people's worth of food just goes to waste, then clearly you have an inefficiency in your economy.
If those 1 million people, if given a basic income, buys up that 1 million people's worth of wasted food, then everyone wins. 1 million people get food, the people producing the food get paid.
If you have a fiat currency and are monetarily sovereign, taxes are just a balancing act to make sure inflation doesn't get out of hand.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The problem is all this is walking off the post-scarcity pier. We're a long way from that being a problem. Robot labor + solar power == free resources for everyone indefinitely.
The issue is we're not there, and in the meantime America and other western nations have a big problem with how they deal with poverty - both lifting people out of and and keeping people out of it. Like, you could solve a lot of the short term problems by simply eliminating the stupid things like Walmart socializing all it's negatives and privatizing the profits, or the funding motivations for local government in poor communities. Which is kind of ably summarized under "have less stupid tax law in the US".
I don't want to be that guy, and I'm certainly not defending Walmart's predatory scheduling practice, but it always feels weird to claim that Walmart is subsidizing all of its workers.
If people on Walmart are on some form of welfare, they were going to be on that welfare whether or not Walmart hired them. While they certainly could afford to pay more, I think it's really pointless to say "they should pay enough nobody they hire is on welfare," because then e.g. welfare benefits having a higher minimum would require Walmart to increase their salary.
I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, or can't afford to do so, but they aren't really "subsidizing" their work force since it's not like their employees are being told "work at Walmart or don't receive welfare."
Uh... America is subsidizing Walmart by making up the shortfalls their employees' compensation and their cost of living.
Walmart doesn't have to pay their people enough to live, so Walmart is more profitable than it would otherwise be.
Oh... People on welfare are told in most stares, find a job or lose your support, and Walmart is one of the few places always hiring unskilled workers. There are a limited number of unskilled positions available, and the government is telling a number of people in excess of that, you need to get a job or we take your benefits away. Basically, some portion of the population must work at Walmart for not enough to live on.
The problem is all this is walking off the post-scarcity pier. We're a long way from that being a problem. Robot labor + solar power == free resources for everyone indefinitely.
The issue is we're not there, and in the meantime America and other western nations have a big problem with how they deal with poverty - both lifting people out of and and keeping people out of it. Like, you could solve a lot of the short term problems by simply eliminating the stupid things like Walmart socializing all it's negatives and privatizing the profits, or the funding motivations for local government in poor communities. Which is kind of ably summarized under "have less stupid tax law in the US".
I don't want to be that guy, and I'm certainly not defending Walmart's predatory scheduling practice, but it always feels weird to claim that Walmart is subsidizing all of its workers.
If people on Walmart are on some form of welfare, they were going to be on that welfare whether or not Walmart hired them. While they certainly could afford to pay more, I think it's really pointless to say "they should pay enough nobody they hire is on welfare," because then e.g. welfare benefits having a higher minimum would require Walmart to increase their salary.
I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, or can't afford to do so, but they aren't really "subsidizing" their work force since it's not like their employees are being told "work at Walmart or don't receive welfare."
Uh... America is subsidizing Walmart by making up the shortfalls their employees' compensation and their cost of living.
Walmart doesn't have to pay their people enough to live, so Walmart is more profitable than it would otherwise be.
I understand that concept. My point is that saying "Walmart is getting subsidized" is disingenuous, and the frequent cry of "Walmart should pay enough its employees aren't subsidized" is really bad way of arguing that Walmart should pay its employees more.
The people working at Walmart would be paid welfare regardless of whether or not they worked at Walmart. Similarly, if welfare stopped existing, Walmart would probably be able to pay its employees the exact same amount and still have no issues staffing their stores, or would have to pay somewhat more. Just because Walmart employees are getting welfare benefits does not mean that Walmart is being directly or indirectly subsidized by the government; Walmart employees are simply getting welfare benefits.
I agree that Walmart's hiring and scheduling practices are generally predatory and that they could do a lot of good for their employees by paying them more. I also understand the argument that people should get a living wage for working full time (at least, as long as working full time is a relevant thing, given the thread topic). But I think the "Walmart is subsidized" argument is disingenuous and used because it makes Walmart an even easier, more evil target.
The problem is all this is walking off the post-scarcity pier. We're a long way from that being a problem. Robot labor + solar power == free resources for everyone indefinitely.
The issue is we're not there, and in the meantime America and other western nations have a big problem with how they deal with poverty - both lifting people out of and and keeping people out of it. Like, you could solve a lot of the short term problems by simply eliminating the stupid things like Walmart socializing all it's negatives and privatizing the profits, or the funding motivations for local government in poor communities. Which is kind of ably summarized under "have less stupid tax law in the US".
I don't want to be that guy, and I'm certainly not defending Walmart's predatory scheduling practice, but it always feels weird to claim that Walmart is subsidizing all of its workers.
If people on Walmart are on some form of welfare, they were going to be on that welfare whether or not Walmart hired them. While they certainly could afford to pay more, I think it's really pointless to say "they should pay enough nobody they hire is on welfare," because then e.g. welfare benefits having a higher minimum would require Walmart to increase their salary.
I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, or can't afford to do so, but they aren't really "subsidizing" their work force since it's not like their employees are being told "work at Walmart or don't receive welfare."
Uh... America is subsidizing Walmart by making up the shortfalls their employees' compensation and their cost of living.
Walmart doesn't have to pay their people enough to live, so Walmart is more profitable than it would otherwise be.
I understand that concept. My point is that saying "Walmart is getting subsidized" is disingenuous, and the frequent cry of "Walmart should pay enough its employees aren't subsidized" is really bad way of arguing that Walmart should pay its employees more.
The people working at Walmart would be paid welfare regardless of whether or not they worked at Walmart. Similarly, if welfare stopped existing, Walmart would probably be able to pay its employees the exact same amount and still have no issues staffing their stores, or would have to pay somewhat more. Just because Walmart employees are getting welfare benefits does not mean that Walmart is being directly or indirectly subsidized by the government; Walmart employees are simply getting welfare benefits.
I agree that Walmart's hiring and scheduling practices are generally predatory and that they could do a lot of good for their employees by paying them more. I also understand the argument that people should get a living wage for working full time (at least, as long as working full time is a relevant thing, given the thread topic). But I think the "Walmart is subsidized" argument is disingenuous and used because it makes Walmart an even easier, more evil target.
If the benefits ended and Walmart and other employers didn't increase wages, it would probably result in massive labor strikes for livable wages at best and riots at worse.
Maintaining a social order where they can get away with such low pay is subsidizing Walmart. Its subsidizing everyone who pays less than a livable wage.
That is the point of welfare in a capitalist economy.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The problem is all this is walking off the post-scarcity pier. We're a long way from that being a problem. Robot labor + solar power == free resources for everyone indefinitely.
The issue is we're not there, and in the meantime America and other western nations have a big problem with how they deal with poverty - both lifting people out of and and keeping people out of it. Like, you could solve a lot of the short term problems by simply eliminating the stupid things like Walmart socializing all it's negatives and privatizing the profits, or the funding motivations for local government in poor communities. Which is kind of ably summarized under "have less stupid tax law in the US".
I don't want to be that guy, and I'm certainly not defending Walmart's predatory scheduling practice, but it always feels weird to claim that Walmart is subsidizing all of its workers.
If people on Walmart are on some form of welfare, they were going to be on that welfare whether or not Walmart hired them. While they certainly could afford to pay more, I think it's really pointless to say "they should pay enough nobody they hire is on welfare," because then e.g. welfare benefits having a higher minimum would require Walmart to increase their salary.
I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, or can't afford to do so, but they aren't really "subsidizing" their work force since it's not like their employees are being told "work at Walmart or don't receive welfare."
Uh... America is subsidizing Walmart by making up the shortfalls their employees' compensation and their cost of living.
Walmart doesn't have to pay their people enough to live, so Walmart is more profitable than it would otherwise be.
I understand that concept. My point is that saying "Walmart is getting subsidized" is disingenuous, and the frequent cry of "Walmart should pay enough its employees aren't subsidized" is really bad way of arguing that Walmart should pay its employees more.
The people working at Walmart would be paid welfare regardless of whether or not they worked at Walmart. Similarly, if welfare stopped existing, Walmart would probably be able to pay its employees the exact same amount and still have no issues staffing their stores, or would have to pay somewhat more. Just because Walmart employees are getting welfare benefits does not mean that Walmart is being directly or indirectly subsidized by the government; Walmart employees are simply getting welfare benefits.
I agree that Walmart's hiring and scheduling practices are generally predatory and that they could do a lot of good for their employees by paying them more. I also understand the argument that people should get a living wage for working full time (at least, as long as working full time is a relevant thing, given the thread topic). But I think the "Walmart is subsidized" argument is disingenuous and used because it makes Walmart an even easier, more evil target.
If the benefits ended and Walmart and other employers didn't increase wages, it would probably result in massive labor strikes for livable wages at best and riots at worse.
Maintaining a social order where they can get away with such low pay is subsidizing Walmart.
True! However, I find that hard to be considered a direct subsidy for two reasons:
That argument applies to pretty much all jobs, including in places where absolutely nobody is being subsidized to welfare. If welfare ceased to exist, it would probably e.g. shut down chemical plants due to labor shortages elsewhere. In that respect, welfare paid to workers of Company A subsidizes Companies B, C, and D, which are all skilled labor.
People frequently phrase the argument as "America is paying Walmart X billion dollars a year" where X billion dollars is the amount of money Walmart employees earn in welfare benefits. Welfare benefits could still be much lower without a disruption to Walmart's work force, so saying that Walmart is being subsidized the whole amount is inaccurate.
I'm not saying that Walmart isn't benefiting from welfare; practically everything in the US benefits from welfare to some extent. I just think the typical argument when people say "Walmart is being subsidized by welfare" is super disingenuous because it's a lot more complicated than the government simply handing Walmart billions of dollars every year.
The problem is all this is walking off the post-scarcity pier. We're a long way from that being a problem. Robot labor + solar power == free resources for everyone indefinitely.
The issue is we're not there, and in the meantime America and other western nations have a big problem with how they deal with poverty - both lifting people out of and and keeping people out of it. Like, you could solve a lot of the short term problems by simply eliminating the stupid things like Walmart socializing all it's negatives and privatizing the profits, or the funding motivations for local government in poor communities. Which is kind of ably summarized under "have less stupid tax law in the US".
I don't want to be that guy, and I'm certainly not defending Walmart's predatory scheduling practice, but it always feels weird to claim that Walmart is subsidizing all of its workers.
If people on Walmart are on some form of welfare, they were going to be on that welfare whether or not Walmart hired them. While they certainly could afford to pay more, I think it's really pointless to say "they should pay enough nobody they hire is on welfare," because then e.g. welfare benefits having a higher minimum would require Walmart to increase their salary.
I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, or can't afford to do so, but they aren't really "subsidizing" their work force since it's not like their employees are being told "work at Walmart or don't receive welfare."
Uh... America is subsidizing Walmart by making up the shortfalls their employees' compensation and their cost of living.
Walmart doesn't have to pay their people enough to live, so Walmart is more profitable than it would otherwise be.
I understand that concept. My point is that saying "Walmart is getting subsidized" is disingenuous, and the frequent cry of "Walmart should pay enough its employees aren't subsidized" is really bad way of arguing that Walmart should pay its employees more.
The people working at Walmart would be paid welfare regardless of whether or not they worked at Walmart. Similarly, if welfare stopped existing, Walmart would probably be able to pay its employees the exact same amount and still have no issues staffing their stores, or would have to pay somewhat more. Just because Walmart employees are getting welfare benefits does not mean that Walmart is being directly or indirectly subsidized by the government; Walmart employees are simply getting welfare benefits.
I agree that Walmart's hiring and scheduling practices are generally predatory and that they could do a lot of good for their employees by paying them more. I also understand the argument that people should get a living wage for working full time (at least, as long as working full time is a relevant thing, given the thread topic). But I think the "Walmart is subsidized" argument is disingenuous and used because it makes Walmart an even easier, more evil target.
If the benefits ended and Walmart and other employers didn't increase wages, it would probably result in massive labor strikes for livable wages at best and riots at worse.
Maintaining a social order where they can get away with such low pay is subsidizing Walmart.
True! However, I find that hard to be considered a direct subsidy for two reasons:
That argument applies to pretty much all jobs, including in places where absolutely nobody is being subsidized to welfare. If welfare ceased to exist, it would probably e.g. shut down chemical plants due to labor shortages elsewhere. In that respect, welfare paid to workers of Company A subsidizes Companies B, C, and D, which are all skilled labor.
People frequently phrase the argument as "America is paying Walmart X billion dollars a year" where X billion dollars is the amount of money Walmart employees earn in welfare benefits. Welfare benefits could still be much lower without a disruption to Walmart's work force, so saying that Walmart is being subsidized the whole amount is inaccurate.
I'm not saying that Walmart isn't benefiting from welfare; practically everything in the US benefits from welfare to some extent. I just think the typical argument when people say "Walmart is being subsidized by welfare" is super disingenuous because it's a lot more complicated than the government simply handing Walmart billions of dollars every year.
Except that is fundamentally what is happening - the government is allowing Walmart to take in greater profit by subsidizing their labor force, allowing Walmart to pay less. Since money is fungible, it really is ultimately a transfer of money from the state to Walmart. And when states like Maryland fought back by adding penalties to counter that transfer...boy did Walmart raise a shitfit.
The problem is all this is walking off the post-scarcity pier. We're a long way from that being a problem. Robot labor + solar power == free resources for everyone indefinitely.
The issue is we're not there, and in the meantime America and other western nations have a big problem with how they deal with poverty - both lifting people out of and and keeping people out of it. Like, you could solve a lot of the short term problems by simply eliminating the stupid things like Walmart socializing all it's negatives and privatizing the profits, or the funding motivations for local government in poor communities. Which is kind of ably summarized under "have less stupid tax law in the US".
I don't want to be that guy, and I'm certainly not defending Walmart's predatory scheduling practice, but it always feels weird to claim that Walmart is subsidizing all of its workers.
If people on Walmart are on some form of welfare, they were going to be on that welfare whether or not Walmart hired them. While they certainly could afford to pay more, I think it's really pointless to say "they should pay enough nobody they hire is on welfare," because then e.g. welfare benefits having a higher minimum would require Walmart to increase their salary.
I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, or can't afford to do so, but they aren't really "subsidizing" their work force since it's not like their employees are being told "work at Walmart or don't receive welfare."
Uh... America is subsidizing Walmart by making up the shortfalls their employees' compensation and their cost of living.
Walmart doesn't have to pay their people enough to live, so Walmart is more profitable than it would otherwise be.
I understand that concept. My point is that saying "Walmart is getting subsidized" is disingenuous, and the frequent cry of "Walmart should pay enough its employees aren't subsidized" is really bad way of arguing that Walmart should pay its employees more.
The people working at Walmart would be paid welfare regardless of whether or not they worked at Walmart. Similarly, if welfare stopped existing, Walmart would probably be able to pay its employees the exact same amount and still have no issues staffing their stores, or would have to pay somewhat more. Just because Walmart employees are getting welfare benefits does not mean that Walmart is being directly or indirectly subsidized by the government; Walmart employees are simply getting welfare benefits.
I agree that Walmart's hiring and scheduling practices are generally predatory and that they could do a lot of good for their employees by paying them more. I also understand the argument that people should get a living wage for working full time (at least, as long as working full time is a relevant thing, given the thread topic). But I think the "Walmart is subsidized" argument is disingenuous and used because it makes Walmart an even easier, more evil target.
If the benefits ended and Walmart and other employers didn't increase wages, it would probably result in massive labor strikes for livable wages at best and riots at worse.
Maintaining a social order where they can get away with such low pay is subsidizing Walmart.
True! However, I find that hard to be considered a direct subsidy for two reasons:
That argument applies to pretty much all jobs, including in places where absolutely nobody is being subsidized to welfare. If welfare ceased to exist, it would probably e.g. shut down chemical plants due to labor shortages elsewhere. In that respect, welfare paid to workers of Company A subsidizes Companies B, C, and D, which are all skilled labor.
People frequently phrase the argument as "America is paying Walmart X billion dollars a year" where X billion dollars is the amount of money Walmart employees earn in welfare benefits. Welfare benefits could still be much lower without a disruption to Walmart's work force, so saying that Walmart is being subsidized the whole amount is inaccurate.
I'm not saying that Walmart isn't benefiting from welfare; practically everything in the US benefits from welfare to some extent. I just think the typical argument when people say "Walmart is being subsidized by welfare" is super disingenuous because it's a lot more complicated than the government simply handing Walmart billions of dollars every year.
Except that is fundamentally what is happening - the government is allowing Walmart to take in greater profit by subsidizing their labor force, allowing Walmart to pay less. Since money is fungible, it really is ultimately a transfer of money from the state to Walmart. And when states like Maryland fought back by adding penalties to counter that transfer...boy did Walmart raise a shitfit.
As I said, I agree with the concept Walmart is benefitting from welfare, I just find it disingenuous to claim that Walmart is being subsidized 100% of the welfare money being paid to their employees for reasons above. It oversimplifies the issue to make it easier to shout at Walmart. I also agree that Walmart should treat their employees much better.
The Maryland law is interesting, because arguments about it's legitimacy/constitutionality aside, it was literally a law that targeted and only applicable to Walmart.
I think that is fair. Walmart is clearly being used as a scapegoat/boogeyman for propaganda.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Like, it is political rhetoric. And as political rhetoric goes, it is fairly accurate. Particularly when compared to other political rhetoric about economics, poor people and welfare. Or about big ass corporations.
It is effective cause a lot of people who would otherwise support Walmart because they are a big corporation, really dislike the welfare and government handouts. So it triggers all this great cognitive dissonance in probusiness fiscal conservatives.
So it works and is more or less true.
Typically you would want to tie in the fact that much of that money is going to be spent at Walmart, because employees get a discount and can't afford to shop elsewhere. Which really will upset the the pro labor crowd, cause you are basically making an allusion to company script and perpetual poverty and debt and all the other things that come along with it. Like, you get the memories of murder mine workers for free.
I think that is fair. Walmart is clearly being used as a scapegoat/boogeyman for propaganda.
Sidenote: The same thing applies to McDonalds pretty often. McDonalds is usually the leader in terms of fast food reliability, proper food prep/storage, employee benefits, and nutritional information* because they're the most common scapegoat. Everybody immediately targets them so much they're basically forced to be the industry frontrunner in a lot of ways, or at least to be above average.
*McDonalds isn't healthy for you, but they're certainly the first fast food place to make a big campaign about healthy options, actually add some reasonably healthy options to kids meals, and display any nutritional information while ordering.
The Maryland law is interesting, because arguments about it's legitimacy/constitutionality aside, it was literally a law that targeted and only applicable to Walmart.
Nope! There are actually several employers who met the workforce requirements in MD. The only difference was that the others were actually meeting the legal requirements of the law.
The Maryland law is interesting, because arguments about it's legitimacy/constitutionality aside, it was literally a law that targeted and only applicable to Walmart.
Nope! There are actually several employers who met the workforce requirements in MD. The only difference was that the others were actually meeting the legal requirements of the law.
One was Johns Hopkins, one was a military contractor, one was a local grocery chain, and one was Walmart. The local grocery chain is of the type that uses its employee treatment and healthy options as a selling point.
So yes, you are correct that there were other employers who met the workforce requirement. That does not change that it was a law targeted at and only applicable to Walmart; the other companies that met the workforce requirement were either full-time skilled labor or used good employee benefits as part of their brand.
EDIT: Further, because of the specific way the bill was structured (Payroll must be comprised of at least 8% healthcare benefits), it would not apply to any company that could potentially break the 10,000 employee threshold unless they were also a company that hired many part-time, no/low skilled employees. The only companies that could fit that criteria are large grocery chains or possibly fast-food locations.
The Maryland law is interesting, because arguments about it's legitimacy/constitutionality aside, it was literally a law that targeted and only applicable to Walmart.
Nope! There are actually several employers who met the workforce requirements in MD. The only difference was that the others were actually meeting the legal requirements of the law.
One was Johns Hopkins, one was a military contractor, one was a local grocery chain, and one was Walmart. The local grocery chain is of the type that uses its employee treatment and healthy options as a selling point.
So yes, you are correct that there were other employers who met the workforce requirement. That does not change that it was a law targeted at and only applicable to Walmart; the other companies that met the workforce requirement were either full-time skilled labor or used good employee benefits as part of their brand.
EDIT: Further, because of the specific way the bill was structured (Payroll must be comprised of at least 8% healthcare benefits), it would not apply to any company that could potentially break the 10,000 employee threshold unless they were also a company that hired many part-time, no/low skilled employees. The only companies that could fit that criteria are large grocery chains or possibly fast-food locations.
Again, it is not a law "only applicable" to Walmart, as there are other employers that are under the law's auspices - they just met the requirements of the law through actually providing the benefits required by the law. Now, saying that the law was "targeted at" Walmart is more accurate, but only in that Walmart was egregiously abusing the state through their use of state benefits as a corporate subsidy, so the state created a law plugging that particular loophole. Which is how we actually want the law to work.
The Maryland law is interesting, because arguments about it's legitimacy/constitutionality aside, it was literally a law that targeted and only applicable to Walmart.
Nope! There are actually several employers who met the workforce requirements in MD. The only difference was that the others were actually meeting the legal requirements of the law.
One was Johns Hopkins, one was a military contractor, one was a local grocery chain, and one was Walmart. The local grocery chain is of the type that uses its employee treatment and healthy options as a selling point.
So yes, you are correct that there were other employers who met the workforce requirement. That does not change that it was a law targeted at and only applicable to Walmart; the other companies that met the workforce requirement were either full-time skilled labor or used good employee benefits as part of their brand.
EDIT: Further, because of the specific way the bill was structured (Payroll must be comprised of at least 8% healthcare benefits), it would not apply to any company that could potentially break the 10,000 employee threshold unless they were also a company that hired many part-time, no/low skilled employees. The only companies that could fit that criteria are large grocery chains or possibly fast-food locations.
Again, it is not a law "only applicable" to Walmart, as there are other employers that are under the law's auspices - they just met the requirements of the law through actually providing the benefits required by the law. Now, saying that the law was "targeted at" Walmart is more accurate, but only in that Walmart was egregiously abusing the state through their use of state benefits as a corporate subsidy, so the state created a law plugging that particular loophole. Which is how we actually want the law to work.
Yeah. The fact that Walmart is the only business covered run by such morally bankrupt parasites that they need to be told not to be socially corrosive predators doesn't mean they are being unfairly targeted, any moreso than it would be unfair if we forgot to make murder illegal and only one person killed someone in cold blood and planned to keep killing people in cold blood, so we made murder illegal.
+12
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
The Maryland law is interesting, because arguments about it's legitimacy/constitutionality aside, it was literally a law that targeted and only applicable to Walmart.
Nope! There are actually several employers who met the workforce requirements in MD. The only difference was that the others were actually meeting the legal requirements of the law.
One was Johns Hopkins, one was a military contractor, one was a local grocery chain, and one was Walmart. The local grocery chain is of the type that uses its employee treatment and healthy options as a selling point.
So yes, you are correct that there were other employers who met the workforce requirement. That does not change that it was a law targeted at and only applicable to Walmart; the other companies that met the workforce requirement were either full-time skilled labor or used good employee benefits as part of their brand.
EDIT: Further, because of the specific way the bill was structured (Payroll must be comprised of at least 8% healthcare benefits), it would not apply to any company that could potentially break the 10,000 employee threshold unless they were also a company that hired many part-time, no/low skilled employees. The only companies that could fit that criteria are large grocery chains or possibly fast-food locations.
Again, it is not a law "only applicable" to Walmart, as there are other employers that are under the law's auspices - they just met the requirements of the law through actually providing the benefits required by the law. Now, saying that the law was "targeted at" Walmart is more accurate, but only in that Walmart was egregiously abusing the state through their use of state benefits as a corporate subsidy, so the state created a law plugging that particular loophole. Which is how we actually want the law to work.
The law got struck down though. How would you go about fixing Walmart's abuses if the courts stymie any effort to do so?
The Maryland law is interesting, because arguments about it's legitimacy/constitutionality aside, it was literally a law that targeted and only applicable to Walmart.
Nope! There are actually several employers who met the workforce requirements in MD. The only difference was that the others were actually meeting the legal requirements of the law.
One was Johns Hopkins, one was a military contractor, one was a local grocery chain, and one was Walmart. The local grocery chain is of the type that uses its employee treatment and healthy options as a selling point.
So yes, you are correct that there were other employers who met the workforce requirement. That does not change that it was a law targeted at and only applicable to Walmart; the other companies that met the workforce requirement were either full-time skilled labor or used good employee benefits as part of their brand.
EDIT: Further, because of the specific way the bill was structured (Payroll must be comprised of at least 8% healthcare benefits), it would not apply to any company that could potentially break the 10,000 employee threshold unless they were also a company that hired many part-time, no/low skilled employees. The only companies that could fit that criteria are large grocery chains or possibly fast-food locations.
Again, it is not a law "only applicable" to Walmart, as there are other employers that are under the law's auspices - they just met the requirements of the law through actually providing the benefits required by the law. Now, saying that the law was "targeted at" Walmart is more accurate, but only in that Walmart was egregiously abusing the state through their use of state benefits as a corporate subsidy, so the state created a law plugging that particular loophole. Which is how we actually want the law to work.
The law got struck down though. How would you go about fixing Walmart's abuses if the courts stymie any effort to do so?
different laws less specifically targeted at walmart which that take into account why the other law was struck down.
and pogroms against the lines of the the judges involved of course.
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
There's a pretty big difference between "I need to get out of the house" and "work or die". You also need a sense of pain to function, doesn't mean you need the pain.
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
I think that depression you speak of has to do with the contrast between how you feel when you're working and how you feel when you're not working. A person born into a post-scarcity leisure society probably won't have that problem because they won't even know what "work because you have to" even feels like.
Well I don't know what "work because you have to" feels like either, doesn't stop me from being depressed. The "have" here doesn't refer to the fact you may starve if you don't work but rather to the fact that others expect things of you. That is, you have to go to work because others are dependent on you being there. What you do matters to others. Seeing that makes you feel better. And that's just one of the benefits. (it also creates and improves social ties and provides structure.)
It's the same reason it is much easier to work out/play sports if you do it with a buddy or group. If you do it solo you only screw yourself if you don't do it, whereas you will screw your buddy or group too if you have one.
Also note that it also works for volunteer work. The work doesn't have to be paid.
There's a flipside. You consider this aspect of a sense of obligation to others as a positively enforcing motivation, making you feel good for helping others who depend on your efforts at work. Consider that the exact same situation can be a negatively enforcing motivation. The same motivation to get moving, get the work done out of a sense of obligation, but instead of feeling good about it, you feel resentment towards the people depending on you. It varies a lot based on how much you enjoy the activity in question.
It's just another form of peer pressure, with both positive and negative results.
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
There's a pretty big difference between "I need to get out of the house" and "work or die". You also need a sense of pain to function, doesn't mean you need the pain.
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
I think that depression you speak of has to do with the contrast between how you feel when you're working and how you feel when you're not working. A person born into a post-scarcity leisure society probably won't have that problem because they won't even know what "work because you have to" even feels like.
Well I don't know what "work because you have to" feels like either, doesn't stop me from being depressed. The "have" here doesn't refer to the fact you may starve if you don't work but rather to the fact that others expect things of you. That is, you have to go to work because others are dependent on you being there. What you do matters to others. Seeing that makes you feel better. And that's just one of the benefits. (it also creates and improves social ties and provides structure.)
It's the same reason it is much easier to work out/play sports if you do it with a buddy or group. If you do it solo you only screw yourself if you don't do it, whereas you will screw your buddy or group too if you have one.
Also note that it also works for volunteer work. The work doesn't have to be paid.
There's a flipside. You consider this aspect of a sense of obligation to others as a positively enforcing motivation, making you feel good for helping others who depend on your efforts at work. Consider that the exact same situation can be a negatively enforcing motivation. The same motivation to get moving, get the work done out of a sense of obligation, but instead of feeling good about it, you feel resentment towards the people depending on you. It varies a lot based on how much you enjoy the activity in question.
It's just another form of peer pressure, with both positive and negative results.
I don't get it. Why are you choosing to do an activity you don't enjoy(find fulfilling, really... the specific action obviously might suck and still be worth it)? This premise implies it is not to accrue wealth. If you don't like the people and think the expect an unreasonable amount from you, why would you give a fuck about that social status? If it is an intrinsic 'I'm a self actualized person doing this because it makes me feel better to help' thing then you should feel comfortable saying, 'sorry, I'm not this committed to your thing. I am willing to do y amount of x, but I don't have to do that with your group.'
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
There's a pretty big difference between "I need to get out of the house" and "work or die". You also need a sense of pain to function, doesn't mean you need the pain.
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
I think that depression you speak of has to do with the contrast between how you feel when you're working and how you feel when you're not working. A person born into a post-scarcity leisure society probably won't have that problem because they won't even know what "work because you have to" even feels like.
Well I don't know what "work because you have to" feels like either, doesn't stop me from being depressed. The "have" here doesn't refer to the fact you may starve if you don't work but rather to the fact that others expect things of you. That is, you have to go to work because others are dependent on you being there. What you do matters to others. Seeing that makes you feel better. And that's just one of the benefits. (it also creates and improves social ties and provides structure.)
It's the same reason it is much easier to work out/play sports if you do it with a buddy or group. If you do it solo you only screw yourself if you don't do it, whereas you will screw your buddy or group too if you have one.
Also note that it also works for volunteer work. The work doesn't have to be paid.
There's a flipside. You consider this aspect of a sense of obligation to others as a positively enforcing motivation, making you feel good for helping others who depend on your efforts at work. Consider that the exact same situation can be a negatively enforcing motivation. The same motivation to get moving, get the work done out of a sense of obligation, but instead of feeling good about it, you feel resentment towards the people depending on you. It varies a lot based on how much you enjoy the activity in question.
It's just another form of peer pressure, with both positive and negative results.
I don't get it. Why are you choosing to do an activity you don't enjoy(find fulfilling, really... the specific action obviously might suck and still be worth it)? This premise implies it is not to accrue wealth. If you don't like the people and think the expect an unreasonable amount from you, why would you give a fuck about that social status? If it is an intrinsic 'I'm a self actualized person doing this because it makes me feel better to help' thing then you should feel comfortable saying, 'sorry, I'm not this committed to your thing. I am willing to do y amount of x, but I don't have to do that with your group.'
If you care about someone who is incapable of providing for his or her self, you would feel obligated to do an activity for his or her sake, even if you don't like the activity in question.
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
There's a pretty big difference between "I need to get out of the house" and "work or die". You also need a sense of pain to function, doesn't mean you need the pain.
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
I think that depression you speak of has to do with the contrast between how you feel when you're working and how you feel when you're not working. A person born into a post-scarcity leisure society probably won't have that problem because they won't even know what "work because you have to" even feels like.
Well I don't know what "work because you have to" feels like either, doesn't stop me from being depressed. The "have" here doesn't refer to the fact you may starve if you don't work but rather to the fact that others expect things of you. That is, you have to go to work because others are dependent on you being there. What you do matters to others. Seeing that makes you feel better. And that's just one of the benefits. (it also creates and improves social ties and provides structure.)
It's the same reason it is much easier to work out/play sports if you do it with a buddy or group. If you do it solo you only screw yourself if you don't do it, whereas you will screw your buddy or group too if you have one.
Also note that it also works for volunteer work. The work doesn't have to be paid.
There's a flipside. You consider this aspect of a sense of obligation to others as a positively enforcing motivation, making you feel good for helping others who depend on your efforts at work. Consider that the exact same situation can be a negatively enforcing motivation. The same motivation to get moving, get the work done out of a sense of obligation, but instead of feeling good about it, you feel resentment towards the people depending on you. It varies a lot based on how much you enjoy the activity in question.
It's just another form of peer pressure, with both positive and negative results.
I don't get it. Why are you choosing to do an activity you don't enjoy(find fulfilling, really... the specific action obviously might suck and still be worth it)? This premise implies it is not to accrue wealth. If you don't like the people and think the expect an unreasonable amount from you, why would you give a fuck about that social status? If it is an intrinsic 'I'm a self actualized person doing this because it makes me feel better to help' thing then you should feel comfortable saying, 'sorry, I'm not this committed to your thing. I am willing to do y amount of x, but I don't have to do that with your group.'
If you care about someone who is incapable of providing for his or her self, you would feel obligated to do an activity for his or her sake, even if you don't like the activity in question.
True, I suppose, but germain to the current conversation, where people not forced to labor are choosing a thing to do other than idleness? I would suggest no.
redx on
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
There's a pretty big difference between "I need to get out of the house" and "work or die". You also need a sense of pain to function, doesn't mean you need the pain.
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
I think that depression you speak of has to do with the contrast between how you feel when you're working and how you feel when you're not working. A person born into a post-scarcity leisure society probably won't have that problem because they won't even know what "work because you have to" even feels like.
Well I don't know what "work because you have to" feels like either, doesn't stop me from being depressed. The "have" here doesn't refer to the fact you may starve if you don't work but rather to the fact that others expect things of you. That is, you have to go to work because others are dependent on you being there. What you do matters to others. Seeing that makes you feel better. And that's just one of the benefits. (it also creates and improves social ties and provides structure.)
It's the same reason it is much easier to work out/play sports if you do it with a buddy or group. If you do it solo you only screw yourself if you don't do it, whereas you will screw your buddy or group too if you have one.
Also note that it also works for volunteer work. The work doesn't have to be paid.
There's a flipside. You consider this aspect of a sense of obligation to others as a positively enforcing motivation, making you feel good for helping others who depend on your efforts at work. Consider that the exact same situation can be a negatively enforcing motivation. The same motivation to get moving, get the work done out of a sense of obligation, but instead of feeling good about it, you feel resentment towards the people depending on you. It varies a lot based on how much you enjoy the activity in question.
It's just another form of peer pressure, with both positive and negative results.
I don't disagree that there are negatives but the positive aspect that I'm talking about here is from that motivation and sense of obligation. That is, you feel more connected and like what you do matters due to your obligations, regardless of whether you enjoy them or not. It may also be the case that your obligations are too much or you so hate the work that it pains you but that is a different aspect of it.
You may enjoy your obligations or not, but the feeling you get from not having them at all is different from that of not enjoying them.
One thing about work is that it provides an external motivator. A lot of people have trouble with maintaining structure solely for themselves. Having things that you need to do is beneficial.
I would hesitate to completely eliminate work. Work is beneficial for humans and provides structure on which to build further structure. But that doesn't mean we need to work 40 hours a week for the rest of our lives. Working half that should be enough to get the benefits, and indeed many people in the Netherlands work part-time while not having dependants to care for.
There's a pretty big difference between "I need to get out of the house" and "work or die". You also need a sense of pain to function, doesn't mean you need the pain.
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
I think that depression you speak of has to do with the contrast between how you feel when you're working and how you feel when you're not working. A person born into a post-scarcity leisure society probably won't have that problem because they won't even know what "work because you have to" even feels like.
Well I don't know what "work because you have to" feels like either, doesn't stop me from being depressed. The "have" here doesn't refer to the fact you may starve if you don't work but rather to the fact that others expect things of you. That is, you have to go to work because others are dependent on you being there. What you do matters to others. Seeing that makes you feel better. And that's just one of the benefits. (it also creates and improves social ties and provides structure.)
It's the same reason it is much easier to work out/play sports if you do it with a buddy or group. If you do it solo you only screw yourself if you don't do it, whereas you will screw your buddy or group too if you have one.
Also note that it also works for volunteer work. The work doesn't have to be paid.
There's a flipside. You consider this aspect of a sense of obligation to others as a positively enforcing motivation, making you feel good for helping others who depend on your efforts at work. Consider that the exact same situation can be a negatively enforcing motivation. The same motivation to get moving, get the work done out of a sense of obligation, but instead of feeling good about it, you feel resentment towards the people depending on you. It varies a lot based on how much you enjoy the activity in question.
It's just another form of peer pressure, with both positive and negative results.
I don't disagree that there are negatives but the positive aspect that I'm talking about here is from that motivation and sense of obligation. That is, you feel more connected and like what you do matters due to your obligations, regardless of whether you enjoy them or not. It may also be the case that your obligations are too much or you so hate the work that it pains you but that is a different aspect of it.
You may enjoy your obligations or not, but the feeling you get from not having them at all is different from that of not enjoying them.
I feel you are kinda conflating? a few different things.
People need to feel they are part of a group.
People need to feel they can accomplish things.
People need a sense of worth.
And people frequently need external motion to do things.
These don't all need to be delivered by a single occupation.
Posts
I used to think a utopia would involve no one having to work. And then I grew up and realized that work is actually good for you. Responsibility and being accountable isn't just a burden, its character building and positive. Being a productive member of society provides more good than merely the productivity of your work. It also builds social ties, ties to society and provides structure.
There' nothing magical about a 40 hour work week, of course. But something that requires no real effort or sacrifice or commitment won't do the same things IMO
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The issue is we're not there, and in the meantime America and other western nations have a big problem with how they deal with poverty - both lifting people out of and and keeping people out of it. Like, you could solve a lot of the short term problems by simply eliminating the stupid things like Walmart socializing all it's negatives and privatizing the profits, or the funding motivations for local government in poor communities. Which is kind of ably summarized under "have less stupid tax law in the US".
Plenty of people fall into depression when they're out of work even if they have the money to survive. Getting out of the house (or bed) to do things can be really hard if you don't have to do things. Some people find enough internal motivation to do that, but plenty of people don't.
Of course a basic income wouldn't eliminate the need for work and there is no reason to think people would quit their work en masse if provided a basic income.
I think that depression you speak of has to do with the contrast between how you feel when you're working and how you feel when you're not working. A person born into a post-scarcity leisure society probably won't have that problem because they won't even know what "work because you have to" even feels like.
I think @That_Guy 's reference here is not about the fall of Rome specifically, but about the urban life of the poor in Rome proper. Rome was a gigantic city, larger than any other Western city until London around Industrialization iirc. Roman life in the Later Republic/Early Imperial era was reaching a crisis point due to the shift of wealth towards large landholding elites in the country, causing the amount of small holding-freeman farms to diminish. These huge farms operated completely on slave power, which meant as they gobbled up the small holders, people didn't only lose their land, they also lost their employment. And so many people who didn't sell themselves or their children into slavery to survive went to Rome for any sort of opportunity to pull them back up the social scale. But there still were far too many people relative to the amount of wage labor available. And so enters Patronage, which was something that existed since back in the times of Romulus and Remus, but became an institution in the Roman Republic era. Wealthy Patricians would hold audience with these unemployed Plebs and creating a relationship between the two, for a little coin from the Patrician, the Pleb would be in his master's 'service'. Although in practice it seems this mostly to have been a way of showing conspicuous wealth, because being to call upon a large network of patrons was considered very prestigious.
This was one part of the pleb's income. The other was the grain dole, which was original a populist maneuver by Gracchi brothers in the form of a subsidized grain price to allow the Plebs to live on the high cost of food in the city. The dole as we recognize it today was established as a platform of the popularii in Rome by Cladius Pulcher, and was continued on by Caesar and Augustus. With the capture of Alexandria by Pompey, Rome had access to the breadbasket of Egypt, and it was from here that much of the grain supplied to Rome originated. And so this is basically how things were maintained in Rome until the Empire's focus was reoriented eastward and Constantinople became the destination for the bread (which continued until the Arab conquest).
And anyways, the point of bringing up Rome is that the city itself was the home of a large underclass of people (like 25% of its population, possibly more) being supported on something akin to a basic income. And the other parallel being that this mass of poor may have been result of a huge concentration of wealth and a switch to a slave-centric economy.
I think a lot of people who hate their job and want to do something they think will make them happy will try to do that if there isn't the risk of their family starving on the streets or ending up so in debt they can't hope to recover.
I sort of think that would make the world a much better, more full of a diversity of interesting stuff and freer, happier people who can choose more what they want to pursue.
Sort of a shame that the socialist counties with good social support also have a) a lot of people who can't work if they want to, and b) 8 months of dark cold winter.
Being stressed by working a shitty job and constantly worrying about money is physically harmful, and leads to poor decision making that focuses on short term gain and being overly risk averse.
Some meaningful work and even periods of mild stress are good though.
Well I don't know what "work because you have to" feels like either, doesn't stop me from being depressed. The "have" here doesn't refer to the fact you may starve if you don't work but rather to the fact that others expect things of you. That is, you have to go to work because others are dependent on you being there. What you do matters to others. Seeing that makes you feel better. And that's just one of the benefits. (it also creates and improves social ties and provides structure.)
It's the same reason it is much easier to work out/play sports if you do it with a buddy or group. If you do it solo you only screw yourself if you don't do it, whereas you will screw your buddy or group too if you have one.
Also note that it also works for volunteer work. The work doesn't have to be paid.
As long as the robots can repair themselves.
And the solar panels.
And the maintenance robots.
And do anything and everything people want to be done.
And have some kind of method for distributing inherently scarce resources such as land.
And for mediating disputes between individuals.
And for directing and regulating how robots and solar panels are organized and used.
The death of scarcity is more than just a long way away. If we need people to do anything, we need a way to incentivize that behavior.
Take a person sitting on a nice sandy beach, enjoying the sun and tropical quiet. Suddenly someone else shows up and starts directing his robots to build an ugly monstrosity of a McMansion in the middle of the beach. It will ruin the enjoyment of everyone else but his closest house is 2 miles away and he's too lazy to go home. How do you get him to stop?
Property rights? Oh hell now we have scarcity again.
Take him to court for being an asshole? Where are juries and lawyers and judges coming from? Why are they going to show up to work when they could be having sex with robot prostitutes and doing space cocaine?
Can you sue for being an asshole? Who knows because who is going to bother regulating anything when there's no scarcity? And how would you enforce? He could just have some new robots built
By the standards of the 1800s the US already lives in a magical utopia where scarcity doesn't really exist. And yet it does.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And how much of that depression comes from not knowing how long that money is going to last?
The super-rich are actually an interesting point here. Buffet could have retired fuck-all-knows how many years ago. But whether out of boredom, status, a sense of duty, he doesn't.
... Yes. That's what I said. Workload is not going down.
Yes, and if I proposed an idea and said "The only problem is those mountains", it would be a problem.
But that's beside the point since mountains aren't infrastructure by any definition of the word. They aren't pre-existing ways people live and build and act.
Not as much as you are claiming here. Especially in residential construction.
Shit, we can't even get people to build homes that help reduce their costs via small design changes that cost essentially nothing.
hes addicted to the sensation of his investments balling outta control
its like me even if i wasnt paid i would still ball hard, u dig?
Production levels stay the same or increase, while income is concentrated into higher tax brackets, and costs plummet.
Only reasons it would not work is because the rich would be even better able to control the democratic process, would hire tax lawyers, and not compete for lower prices.
All of which can be solved by the people taking control of the means of production, and liberating the nation's wealth from those seeking to sequester it.
I don't want to be that guy, and I'm certainly not defending Walmart's predatory scheduling practice, but it always feels weird to claim that Walmart is subsidizing all of its workers.
If people on Walmart are on some form of welfare, they were going to be on that welfare whether or not Walmart hired them. While they certainly could afford to pay more, I think it's really pointless to say "they should pay enough nobody they hire is on welfare," because then e.g. welfare benefits having a higher minimum would require Walmart to increase their salary.
I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more, or can't afford to do so, but they aren't really "subsidizing" their work force since it's not like their employees are being told "work at Walmart or don't receive welfare."
Unemployment doesn't matter. What matters is that the country is capable of meeting people's basic needs through local production or has a positive trade balance allowing it to import what it can't provide, so that people can buy it with the basic income.
If your country produces enough food for its population of 10 million people, but only 9 million people actually have the money to afford it due to 10% unemployment, and 1 million people's worth of food just goes to waste, then clearly you have an inefficiency in your economy.
If those 1 million people, if given a basic income, buys up that 1 million people's worth of wasted food, then everyone wins. 1 million people get food, the people producing the food get paid.
If you have a fiat currency and are monetarily sovereign, taxes are just a balancing act to make sure inflation doesn't get out of hand.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Uh... America is subsidizing Walmart by making up the shortfalls their employees' compensation and their cost of living.
Walmart doesn't have to pay their people enough to live, so Walmart is more profitable than it would otherwise be.
Oh... People on welfare are told in most stares, find a job or lose your support, and Walmart is one of the few places always hiring unskilled workers. There are a limited number of unskilled positions available, and the government is telling a number of people in excess of that, you need to get a job or we take your benefits away. Basically, some portion of the population must work at Walmart for not enough to live on.
I understand that concept. My point is that saying "Walmart is getting subsidized" is disingenuous, and the frequent cry of "Walmart should pay enough its employees aren't subsidized" is really bad way of arguing that Walmart should pay its employees more.
The people working at Walmart would be paid welfare regardless of whether or not they worked at Walmart. Similarly, if welfare stopped existing, Walmart would probably be able to pay its employees the exact same amount and still have no issues staffing their stores, or would have to pay somewhat more. Just because Walmart employees are getting welfare benefits does not mean that Walmart is being directly or indirectly subsidized by the government; Walmart employees are simply getting welfare benefits.
I agree that Walmart's hiring and scheduling practices are generally predatory and that they could do a lot of good for their employees by paying them more. I also understand the argument that people should get a living wage for working full time (at least, as long as working full time is a relevant thing, given the thread topic). But I think the "Walmart is subsidized" argument is disingenuous and used because it makes Walmart an even easier, more evil target.
If the benefits ended and Walmart and other employers didn't increase wages, it would probably result in massive labor strikes for livable wages at best and riots at worse.
Maintaining a social order where they can get away with such low pay is subsidizing Walmart. Its subsidizing everyone who pays less than a livable wage.
That is the point of welfare in a capitalist economy.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
True! However, I find that hard to be considered a direct subsidy for two reasons:
That argument applies to pretty much all jobs, including in places where absolutely nobody is being subsidized to welfare. If welfare ceased to exist, it would probably e.g. shut down chemical plants due to labor shortages elsewhere. In that respect, welfare paid to workers of Company A subsidizes Companies B, C, and D, which are all skilled labor.
People frequently phrase the argument as "America is paying Walmart X billion dollars a year" where X billion dollars is the amount of money Walmart employees earn in welfare benefits. Welfare benefits could still be much lower without a disruption to Walmart's work force, so saying that Walmart is being subsidized the whole amount is inaccurate.
I'm not saying that Walmart isn't benefiting from welfare; practically everything in the US benefits from welfare to some extent. I just think the typical argument when people say "Walmart is being subsidized by welfare" is super disingenuous because it's a lot more complicated than the government simply handing Walmart billions of dollars every year.
Except that is fundamentally what is happening - the government is allowing Walmart to take in greater profit by subsidizing their labor force, allowing Walmart to pay less. Since money is fungible, it really is ultimately a transfer of money from the state to Walmart. And when states like Maryland fought back by adding penalties to counter that transfer...boy did Walmart raise a shitfit.
As I said, I agree with the concept Walmart is benefitting from welfare, I just find it disingenuous to claim that Walmart is being subsidized 100% of the welfare money being paid to their employees for reasons above. It oversimplifies the issue to make it easier to shout at Walmart. I also agree that Walmart should treat their employees much better.
The Maryland law is interesting, because arguments about it's legitimacy/constitutionality aside, it was literally a law that targeted and only applicable to Walmart.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
It is effective cause a lot of people who would otherwise support Walmart because they are a big corporation, really dislike the welfare and government handouts. So it triggers all this great cognitive dissonance in probusiness fiscal conservatives.
So it works and is more or less true.
Typically you would want to tie in the fact that much of that money is going to be spent at Walmart, because employees get a discount and can't afford to shop elsewhere. Which really will upset the the pro labor crowd, cause you are basically making an allusion to company script and perpetual poverty and debt and all the other things that come along with it. Like, you get the memories of murder mine workers for free.
Sidenote: The same thing applies to McDonalds pretty often. McDonalds is usually the leader in terms of fast food reliability, proper food prep/storage, employee benefits, and nutritional information* because they're the most common scapegoat. Everybody immediately targets them so much they're basically forced to be the industry frontrunner in a lot of ways, or at least to be above average.
*McDonalds isn't healthy for you, but they're certainly the first fast food place to make a big campaign about healthy options, actually add some reasonably healthy options to kids meals, and display any nutritional information while ordering.
Nope! There are actually several employers who met the workforce requirements in MD. The only difference was that the others were actually meeting the legal requirements of the law.
There are four employers that fit the workforce criteria in Maryland.
One was Johns Hopkins, one was a military contractor, one was a local grocery chain, and one was Walmart. The local grocery chain is of the type that uses its employee treatment and healthy options as a selling point.
So yes, you are correct that there were other employers who met the workforce requirement. That does not change that it was a law targeted at and only applicable to Walmart; the other companies that met the workforce requirement were either full-time skilled labor or used good employee benefits as part of their brand.
EDIT: Further, because of the specific way the bill was structured (Payroll must be comprised of at least 8% healthcare benefits), it would not apply to any company that could potentially break the 10,000 employee threshold unless they were also a company that hired many part-time, no/low skilled employees. The only companies that could fit that criteria are large grocery chains or possibly fast-food locations.
Again, it is not a law "only applicable" to Walmart, as there are other employers that are under the law's auspices - they just met the requirements of the law through actually providing the benefits required by the law. Now, saying that the law was "targeted at" Walmart is more accurate, but only in that Walmart was egregiously abusing the state through their use of state benefits as a corporate subsidy, so the state created a law plugging that particular loophole. Which is how we actually want the law to work.
Yeah. The fact that Walmart is the only business covered run by such morally bankrupt parasites that they need to be told not to be socially corrosive predators doesn't mean they are being unfairly targeted, any moreso than it would be unfair if we forgot to make murder illegal and only one person killed someone in cold blood and planned to keep killing people in cold blood, so we made murder illegal.
The law got struck down though. How would you go about fixing Walmart's abuses if the courts stymie any effort to do so?
different laws less specifically targeted at walmart which that take into account why the other law was struck down.
and pogroms against the lines of the the judges involved of course.
There's a flipside. You consider this aspect of a sense of obligation to others as a positively enforcing motivation, making you feel good for helping others who depend on your efforts at work. Consider that the exact same situation can be a negatively enforcing motivation. The same motivation to get moving, get the work done out of a sense of obligation, but instead of feeling good about it, you feel resentment towards the people depending on you. It varies a lot based on how much you enjoy the activity in question.
It's just another form of peer pressure, with both positive and negative results.
I don't get it. Why are you choosing to do an activity you don't enjoy(find fulfilling, really... the specific action obviously might suck and still be worth it)? This premise implies it is not to accrue wealth. If you don't like the people and think the expect an unreasonable amount from you, why would you give a fuck about that social status? If it is an intrinsic 'I'm a self actualized person doing this because it makes me feel better to help' thing then you should feel comfortable saying, 'sorry, I'm not this committed to your thing. I am willing to do y amount of x, but I don't have to do that with your group.'
If you care about someone who is incapable of providing for his or her self, you would feel obligated to do an activity for his or her sake, even if you don't like the activity in question.
True, I suppose, but germain to the current conversation, where people not forced to labor are choosing a thing to do other than idleness? I would suggest no.
I don't disagree that there are negatives but the positive aspect that I'm talking about here is from that motivation and sense of obligation. That is, you feel more connected and like what you do matters due to your obligations, regardless of whether you enjoy them or not. It may also be the case that your obligations are too much or you so hate the work that it pains you but that is a different aspect of it.
You may enjoy your obligations or not, but the feeling you get from not having them at all is different from that of not enjoying them.
I feel you are kinda conflating? a few different things.
People need to feel they are part of a group.
People need to feel they can accomplish things.
People need a sense of worth.
And people frequently need external motion to do things.
These don't all need to be delivered by a single occupation.