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.'
Why is one choosing to do an activity (a job) one does not enjoy, with people one does not wish to associate with? Because as things are, people need money. And if you lack viable alternative sources for it, you work a job you fucking hate with people whose very existence you loathe to feed, house and clothe yourself and your family.
Frankly, I don't buy this supposed "benefit" from forming social ties by de facto force, especially if it's with people you don't wish to associate with. It could be beneficial in some powerplay bullshit, but I don't believe that such a situation provides a better quality of life compared to a guaranteed basic income and the freedom to work or not work, and time to associate with people you wish to associate with.
For many careers, such a social aspect is essentially mandatory, whether you like it or not. There are people who lie and fake their way such jobs through their life, hating every second, because it's simply necessary for them. Be it an issue of money, limited paths for a desired future, or whatnot.
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.
If this were true, nobody would have hobbies. They're not forced to knit, paint, do sports, practice blacksmithing, whatever. There are plenty of things people want to do, but cannot due to lack of free time and/or energy. Unless you enjoy your work greatly, it's directly away from your free time and activities you enjoy.
Unless, of course, you count all free time activities and hobbies as 'idleness'.
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.
Why are these connections intrinsically a "good" thing? What if you had to form connections to people you simply cannot stand, who in no way contribute towards your quality of life? Why is connectedness by itself beneficial? It requires associating with the people you're connected with, and if you don't enjoy it and are miserable as a consequence, why is this a net positive?
Motivation and obligation are neutral concepts. I could provide motivation to do something by holding a gun to your head. Would this be a positive?
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.
Or not. I don't hate my job, but I'm still planning on retiring ASAP. Doesn't mean I'll do nothing at all after though
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.'
Why is one choosing to do an activity (a job) one does not enjoy, with people one does not wish to associate with? Because as things are, people need money. And if you lack viable alternative sources for it, you work a job you fucking hate with people whose very existence you loathe to feed, house and clothe yourself and your family.
Frankly, I don't buy this supposed "benefit" from forming social ties by de facto force, especially if it's with people you don't wish to associate with. It could be beneficial in some powerplay bullshit, but I don't believe that such a situation provides a better quality of life compared to a guaranteed basic income and the freedom to work or not work, and time to associate with people you wish to associate with.
For many careers, such a social aspect is essentially mandatory, whether you like it or not. There are people who lie and fake their way such jobs through their life, hating every second, because it's simply necessary for them. Be it an issue of money, limited paths for a desired future, or whatnot.
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.
If this were true, nobody would have hobbies. They're not forced to knit, paint, do sports, practice blacksmithing, whatever. There are plenty of things people want to do, but cannot due to lack of free time and/or energy. Unless you enjoy your work greatly, it's directly away from your free time and activities you enjoy.
Unless, of course, you count all free time activities and hobbies as 'idleness'.
Uhhhh.... Ok. I am not sure what you are arguing.
My point is that socially minimum guaranteed income in a world where most labor has been supplemented by automation is a good thing that will increase personal freedom, will create a society with more art(broad definition all that stuff you just mentioned as hobbies+visual art+performing arts+cuisine), and a population that has less fear of failure and can therefore innovate and undertake entrepreneurial endeavors.
The idea that people need an occupation(broad definition again: including employment and art and volunteerism) to give them a sense of fulfilment and motivation.
I agree with this, but think it is a need people can fill themselves without being forced through an economic need.
The motivating factor was was cast as having others dependent on an individual, and it was pointed out that if a person is forced to do these things(typically though economic factors) that it can be a source of stress and cause a person to feel their efforts are underappreciated.
I observed that without the economic factors(ie without social support, minimum income), why would a person choose to be involved with such groups.
Someone brought up, basically, family members who can't support themselves(implication is children or the infirm).
While those can be involuntary stressors, it is not really relevant to a discussion of people not being forced to work sitting around doing nothing because they aren't being forced to by economic necessity(in fact, strong social support and several billion extra man hours of unused labor would probably make these situations easier).
quoting a couple of posts together like that kinda implies you are arguing with someone. But, I am having a difficult time seeing points of contention.
Most people can and would find something to do besides be couch potatoes even in the absence of compensated work. The difference is it then becomes a hobby, but if looking at, say, a DND club, you'd still leave the house, meet new people, have responsibilities, use creative skills, use math, etc, etc. I'd do my military job for free if I could do the good parts without the bullshit (and I define "good parts" very loosely here).
Though, on the military angle, there's some part of that is relevant to this discussion. There may be things we hopefully don't need, and may not want to bring into the future. I think today, a lot of people should, for practical and moral reasons, be able to fight to the death and win at a moment's notice. I would hope that sentence sounds insane in a century or two*. A world with the internet and universal literacy and almost free paper has degraded our memories compared to equally intelligent people in ancient times. Plenty of famous orators were better at memorizing speeches than I am. OTOH, the overall situation is better now, as if you ask me the average weight of an adult male red fox, well, I can tell you within 2 minutes, whereas they would need hours, if they could at all. People may overall gain from a shift to more leisure, because while they may lose some of their structure and responsibility, I think it's a hard sell to say that flipping burgers genuinely improves the moral character of a person in a way that is not achievable by other means.
Besides, if we want to obligate people to do things, requiring every adult without a valid medical excuse to be what would be considered extremely physically fit in 2015 America would require far less than 40 hours of training a week, and produce useful medical and social benefits. Or require them to read at least X amount a week, or whatever. Even if people benefit from external motivation, you'd be doing people a favor by automating almost all work away, and then requiring them to focus on improving themselves, and/or rearing their kids better.
* And even then, if you're in the first world in 2015, you're already shielded from much of that necessity compared to many parts of the world, or much of human history.
I think we need to take into account that this is becoming an issue, not because the bots will replace all human jobs in the next few years (I would not be surprised if that took hundreds of years). The issue is that we poised for a breakthrough where robots, likely in transportation, will replace the current workforce in a short amount of time and that just isn't enough jobs available to those individuals that are out of jobs.
The thing is technology really isn't making more jobs than it replaces. Sure we find more work for people to do, but plenty of that is just busy work. Often the new work requires even more training. Training in our current economy requires time in all cases, and in many, employers expect the workers to foot the bill. So we have this nasty catch 22, where someone on the dole is being treated like shit, but given no real viable way to pay for the training they need and have the required time to be able to work the jobs that are still available. The idea behind a guaranteed income is that those individuals can get proper medical care (which would include dental and vision), a residence, a means to get to work, a means to undergo training and keep them entertained.
The whole "circus" of "bread and circus," really isn't that hard. As someone said earlier, plenty of NEETs in Japan are able to get by for little, as long as, they have an internet connection. The "circus" part is just hard right now, if one tries to not pirate shit because there already plenty of IP works out in the world and that will grow rather quickly, if people have the option to try their hand at the "arts" without the current economic risks, that exists in the current system. I'd argue the bigger concerns are either.
-Too many people getting too invested in just being leisurely, that they stop being active in politics. Resulting in less people participating in the democratic process and making it more likely that some uber douche Calvinist asshole gets in, guts the whole thing and this leads to a series of events, that have a huge body count. Ironically, I'd argue that would be the reverse of our current situation, where the citizenry doesn't have adequate time to properly invest in the system (working a 40 hour job, I wish I could get the same annual pay, working at least 10, if not 20 hours less because let's be honest, many of us that 40 hour week also means 2.5 hours of lunch at work and 2.5-10 hours of commuting to work).
-We end up a shitty system of government, or just a shitty administration, where the people feel dissatisfied and with all their new found free time, they start being assholes. I believe that we see this playing out with many of the Gulf emirates in the Middle East.
-With basic needs met, people end up becoming too leisurely and thus become very undisciplined. Having to learn to be responsible is a good thing, but as the saying goes "everything in moderation," and I don't think we really need 40 or even 30 hour work weeks to achieve that. Hell, some of the discipline can be achieved without even measuring time, since some stuff is less about quantity and more about quality. I'd also rather have people developing that discipline doing tings they find fulfilling or see if they find something fulfilling, that to be miserable for their entire life working a shit job they hate, interacting with people they hate, barely getting by to live in a home they fucking hate and barely being able to afford food, that they fucking hate (for the record, I'm not here, but I know such individuals exist).
Now none of those are compelling reasons to forgo guaranteed minimum wage or an intentional inefficiency where people work less hours, but getting the same pay, while employers are forced to hire more employees to cover production in areas where the bots aren't going to cut it. I mean that would be akin to argument made to not have ACA in favor of the BS system we had before. Or not having unions because of corruption, while wealthy assholes continue to fuck the working class. Or not using automobiles because they aren't perfect and sticking with flawed human drivers. The proper approach is acknowledging there are cons and finding ways to minimize those cons.
Regardless, it's going to come down to the rich being forced to act because a guaranteed minimum income is going to need the rich to pay their fair share. Likewise, having the required work hours is going to mean that the rich would need to double people hourly pay. I mean right now, I make 440 a week (if I don't work over time). With my current living arrangement I pay 400 for rent, gas and utilities put together (Yay, for having roommates and one of them working for the same company that I work for). My stable grocery bill for the month is around 100 dollars. I have to take medication for a health issue, that 10 dollars a month. I haven't been employed long enough to feel comfortable putting a dollar figure on the stuff that really isn't a monthly expense (doctor visits, hygiene products, some frivolous purchases). So halving current hours, would really suck for me, if wages weren't adjusted (I'd probably be able to barely get by). It would; however, destroy anyone making minimum wage, if they couldn't offset the lost hours or be completely useless. Hell, have people at my company that make 10.25 an hour, aren't wasteful with their money, and still have to work an additional part time job to support their families.
Pretty much, if one is concerned about how the future of automation will impact the labor market and make it harder to make a living with the current system. Then that is someone that better make sure participate in the political process, by at least voting for people that acknowledge this is going to be an issue that has to be addressed. They better not be geese that stay home because right now, the people that seem to have the ear of the most politicians don't think it is any issue. Many of those wealthy individuals are A-KO with letting the needy die in the streets because they believe that anyone on the dole, is a moocher.
Many of those wealthy individuals are A-KO with letting the needy die in the streets because they believe that anyone on the dole, is a moocher.
I know someone like this! They're ultra wealthy (in the "4 trips per year to the Alps" sense), in finance, and they think they're middle class and bitch about all the taxes they pay. They also believe that the only functions of government should be the military and the police (to protect their property, of course). Even murder should be handled with a civil suit.
They're Exhibit A for why I hate my party's stance on taxing the rich: the rich are useless fucking idiots. It'd be one thing if we had a bunch of Fords or Carnegies, people who actually built or invented things, but if you shuffle magic numbers around? Screw those parasites.
Still, would taxing the rich produce enough dough for a guaranteed minimum income? It seems like we'd also have to ensure corps pay their taxes (we should do this anyway) and do some fiddling with trade. Our trade deficits are absolutely enormous.
Still, would taxing the rich produce enough dough for a guaranteed minimum income? It seems like we'd also have to ensure corps pay their taxes
These are one and the same
The difference is that an income tax on the rich stays on the rich, while (under current policy) a tax on corporations inevitably becomes a tax on their employees and customers.
Which then becomes a tax on the poor.
Tax capital gains. Tax financial instruments like derivatives. Tax stock transactions. Tax inheritances. These are the ways the wealthy get there and stay there at the expense of the rest of us.
Still, would taxing the rich produce enough dough for a guaranteed minimum income? It seems like we'd also have to ensure corps pay their taxes
These are one and the same
The difference is that an income tax on the rich stays on the rich, while (under current policy) a tax on corporations inevitably becomes a tax on their employees and customers.
Which then becomes a tax on the poor.
Tax capital gains. Tax financial instruments like derivatives. Tax stock transactions. Tax inheritances. These are the ways the wealthy get there and stay there at the expense of the rest of us.
Also ban payroll tax holidays and tax currency being moved overseas.
Still, would taxing the rich produce enough dough for a guaranteed minimum income? It seems like we'd also have to ensure corps pay their taxes
These are one and the same
The difference is that an income tax on the rich stays on the rich, while (under current policy) a tax on corporations inevitably becomes a tax on their employees and customers.
Which then becomes a tax on the poor.
Tax capital gains. Tax financial instruments like derivatives. Tax stock transactions. Tax inheritances. These are the ways the wealthy get there and stay there at the expense of the rest of us.
Also ban payroll tax holidays and tax currency being moved overseas.
Well sure
Except corporations can respond to an increase in taxes by raising prices or reducing costs. Both of which end up being regressive taxes.
You can get some tax money there, for sure. But if you want a guaranteed basic income you need to look at things like the derivatives market, whose value exceeds that of all wealth in the world combined. You need to go big. You need sustainable revenue sources. The rich won't stop investing just because they earn 50 cents on the dollar rather than 15. They still make money.
Still, would taxing the rich produce enough dough for a guaranteed minimum income? It seems like we'd also have to ensure corps pay their taxes
These are one and the same
The difference is that an income tax on the rich stays on the rich, while (under current policy) a tax on corporations inevitably becomes a tax on their employees and customers.
Which then becomes a tax on the poor.
Tax capital gains. Tax financial instruments like derivatives. Tax stock transactions. Tax inheritances. These are the ways the wealthy get there and stay there at the expense of the rest of us.
Also ban payroll tax holidays and tax currency being moved overseas.
Well sure
Except corporations can respond to an increase in taxes by raising prices or reducing costs. Both of which end up being regressive taxes.
You can get some tax money there, for sure. But if you want a guaranteed basic income you need to look at things like the derivatives market, whose value exceeds that of all wealth in the world combined. You need to go big. You need sustainable revenue sources. The rich won't stop investing just because they earn 50 cents on the dollar rather than 15. They still make money.
Except this is a bullshit argument. Corporations are subject to anti-cartel and anti-monopoly law. If they have the finances to move money overseas and wait for a payroll tax holiday to repatriate it, then they have more then enough money to afford to take the hit in order to remain competitive.
So let them. If they want to collaborate to try and collectively push prices up to make a political point, I will laugh while imprisoning their board members.
Still, would taxing the rich produce enough dough for a guaranteed minimum income? It seems like we'd also have to ensure corps pay their taxes
These are one and the same
The difference is that an income tax on the rich stays on the rich, while (under current policy) a tax on corporations inevitably becomes a tax on their employees and customers.
Which then becomes a tax on the poor.
Tax capital gains. Tax financial instruments like derivatives. Tax stock transactions. Tax inheritances. These are the ways the wealthy get there and stay there at the expense of the rest of us.
Also ban payroll tax holidays and tax currency being moved overseas.
Well sure
Except corporations can respond to an increase in taxes by raising prices or reducing costs. Both of which end up being regressive taxes.
You can get some tax money there, for sure. But if you want a guaranteed basic income you need to look at things like the derivatives market, whose value exceeds that of all wealth in the world combined. You need to go big. You need sustainable revenue sources. The rich won't stop investing just because they earn 50 cents on the dollar rather than 15. They still make money.
Except this is a bullshit argument. Corporations are subject to anti-cartel and anti-monopoly law. If they have the finances to move money overseas and wait for a payroll tax holiday to repatriate it, then they have more then enough money to afford to take the hit in order to remain competitive.
So let them. If they want to collaborate to try and collectively push prices up to make a political point, I will laugh while imprisoning their board members.
That doesn't seem like a realistic expectation from an American POV
Still, would taxing the rich produce enough dough for a guaranteed minimum income? It seems like we'd also have to ensure corps pay their taxes
These are one and the same
The difference is that an income tax on the rich stays on the rich, while (under current policy) a tax on corporations inevitably becomes a tax on their employees and customers.
Which then becomes a tax on the poor.
Tax capital gains. Tax financial instruments like derivatives. Tax stock transactions. Tax inheritances. These are the ways the wealthy get there and stay there at the expense of the rest of us.
Also ban payroll tax holidays and tax currency being moved overseas.
Well sure
Except corporations can respond to an increase in taxes by raising prices or reducing costs. Both of which end up being regressive taxes.
You can get some tax money there, for sure. But if you want a guaranteed basic income you need to look at things like the derivatives market, whose value exceeds that of all wealth in the world combined. You need to go big. You need sustainable revenue sources. The rich won't stop investing just because they earn 50 cents on the dollar rather than 15. They still make money.
Except this is a bullshit argument. Corporations are subject to anti-cartel and anti-monopoly law. If they have the finances to move money overseas and wait for a payroll tax holiday to repatriate it, then they have more then enough money to afford to take the hit in order to remain competitive.
So let them. If they want to collaborate to try and collectively push prices up to make a political point, I will laugh while imprisoning their board members.
No collusion required. "We took an unanticipated tax expense this quarter so we're laying off x number of people/shelving plans to open a new factory/forgoing annual raises (but not for the C-suite of course)" is a likely outcome.
It won't happen all at once, and it won't be to make a political point. Companies will make less profit temporarily, they'll adjust their business models to make more profit again, and the board members aren't the ones who end up suffering for the policy in the long run. Especially if you're talking about the kind of tax with enough impact to fund even a portion of something like a basic income. That's going to have repercussions on the market out of sheer necessity.
Not that taxing wealthy individuals won't make some waves, but it's far more difficult for someone banking a few hundred thousand a year in capital gains to externalize his taxes than it is for Apple to figure out a way to offset theirs somewhere else.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
So let them. If they want to collaborate to try and collectively push prices up to make a political point, I will laugh while imprisoning their board members.
That doesn't seem like a realistic expectation from an American POV
IIRC electricitylikesme is British. It's still what we should be doing, though we might have to put in some new laws. What's that? Your CEO needs a whole dream team of lawyers? Fuck that, you get one lawyer. They shouldn't get bail, either, and should have their fancy-shmancy doors busted down by jackbooted thugs ala Alan Jones' paranoid fantasies. They're never in handcuffs when they're on the tv.
Not that taxing wealthy individuals won't make some waves, but it's far more difficult for someone banking a few hundred thousand a year in capital gains to externalize his taxes than it is for Apple to figure out a way to offset theirs somewhere else.
Then ban the latter. It shouldn't be legal for companies to do things expressly to lower their taxes, unless it's "donate to the American Red Cross".
I cannot fathom how "you only get one lawyer" makes any sense, nor can I understand how it's possible to enforce.
Mandatory state funded lawyers for everybody!
Everyone goes to jail!
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
Real median wages (yearly and hourly) have actually gone up since the 90s, though they aren't as high as the all time high in the 70s.
I understand that doom and gloom is the name of the game, especially when it comes to anything capitalism related and anything that could potentially remove jobs from the market, but by a almost all metrics we are recovering (slowly) from a big slump, not trending ever downwards. Things actually are better, it's just that by virtue of the internet's ease of news access and ease of polarization, people think things are worse.
Real median wages (yearly and hourly) have actually gone up since the 90s, though they aren't as high as the all time high in the 70s.
I understand that doom and gloom is the name of the game, especially when it comes to anything capitalism related and anything that could potentially remove jobs from the market, but by a almost all metrics we are recovering (slowly) from a big slump, not trending ever downwards. Things actually are better, it's just that by virtue of the internet's ease of news access and ease of polarization, people think things are worse.
Gloom and doom is reasonably warranted (well, less gloom and doom than anger). The reason real median wages haven't increased since the 70s is because a very small cabal of ultra rich parasites have stolen almost a half century of human progress. US income inequality has only gotten worse since the 90's as well. And it's no accident, it is part of a campaign of deliberate malfeasance.
We absolutely should not accept the current state of affairs.
I cannot fathom how "you only get one lawyer" makes any sense, nor can I understand how it's possible to enforce.
One of the big reasons why the DOJ goes after settlements with no admissions of wrongdoing and not convictions, criminal or otherwise, is because the corporations they fight put a dozen lawyers on the case vs the DOJ's one. Making sure they can't do that would go a long way towards getting convictions.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Why are these connections intrinsically a "good" thing? What if you had to form connections to people you simply cannot stand, who in no way contribute towards your quality of life? Why is connectedness by itself beneficial? It requires associating with the people you're connected with, and if you don't enjoy it and are miserable as a consequence, why is this a net positive?
Motivation and obligation are neutral concepts. I could provide motivation to do something by holding a gun to your head. Would this be a positive?
If motivation were a truly neutral concept then a complete lack of motivation would also be neutral, which it isn't. If connections were neutral we wouldn't go mad in isolation.
I feel like you're misreading me though. I don't think people have to or should be forced to connect to people they don't want to connect with. What I'm saying is that in some sense people should be pushed to form connections and create obligations for their own benefit. In a post-scarcity leisure society it becomes increasingly easy to do things entirely at your own discretion, to never do anything that you don't want to at that moment. But people need to do things they don't want to at times, like cleaning their house or getting out of bed to go somewhere or help a friend.
The point about work is that for many people work provides this. That doesn't mean people should be forced to work or starve or anything, but a society that moves towards a basic income needs to account for the structures we've created with work. Work, doing things you maybe don't really want to do, has benefits and it is smart to provide structures to satisfy the need that is currently being met with paid work. And given that we already have those structures currently why not just keep paid work? A basic income would ensure that people don't need to work to live and so don't work jobs they don't enjoy or work more than they would like. Work that people do would be voluntary and done more for it's benefits.
I cannot fathom how "you only get one lawyer" makes any sense, nor can I understand how it's possible to enforce.
One of the big reasons why the DOJ goes after settlements with no admissions of wrongdoing and not convictions, criminal or otherwise, is because the corporations they fight put a dozen lawyers on the case vs the DOJ's one. Making sure they can't do that would go a long way towards getting convictions.
The Doj isn't limited to one lawyer, I don't know where you picked that up.
The Doj goes for settlements because white collar crime is much more difficult than many other areas of criminal law.
The statutes are more complex, the evidence is more complex (many of the more complicated evidentiary rules show up in these cases) and you are dealing with sophisticated defendants and opposing counsel.
Limiting a defendant's right to use the legal representation of their choice is going to be considered a 6th amendment violation.
Not to mention if you piss off the ABA and association of trial lawyers you can kiss that money and knowledge goodbye.
Also, things would get amusing really damn quick with such a restriction when you have groups like the ACLU step in to help various defendants, seeing as legal help is one of their forms of assistance.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
The Doj isn't limited to one lawyer, I don't know where you picked that up.
The Doj goes for settlements because white collar crime is much more difficult than many other areas of criminal law.
The statutes are more complex, the evidence is more complex (many of the more complicated evidentiary rules show up in these cases) and you are dealing with sophisticated defendants and opposing counsel.
Limiting a defendant's right to use the legal representation of their choice is going to be considered a 6th amendment violation.
Not to mention if you piss off the ABA and association of trial lawyers you can kiss that money and knowledge goodbye.
So what's to be done, then? There isn't political will to match the corps lawyer-for-lawyer.
The Doj isn't limited to one lawyer, I don't know where you picked that up.
The Doj goes for settlements because white collar crime is much more difficult than many other areas of criminal law.
The statutes are more complex, the evidence is more complex (many of the more complicated evidentiary rules show up in these cases) and you are dealing with sophisticated defendants and opposing counsel.
Limiting a defendant's right to use the legal representation of their choice is going to be considered a 6th amendment violation.
Not to mention if you piss off the ABA and association of trial lawyers you can kiss that money and knowledge goodbye.
So what's to be done, then? There isn't political will to match the corps lawyer-for-lawyer.
Continue to work towards developing the political will to do something. Vote for people like Warren or Sanders. Or barring candidates like them vote for ones who won't actively oppose policy that helps. Donate to causes that work to close the gap between the rich and the poor. Be active in your own community.
There's not really going to be any single thing one person does that stops it.
Real median wages (yearly and hourly) have actually gone up since the 90s, though they aren't as high as the all time high in the 70s.
I understand that doom and gloom is the name of the game, especially when it comes to anything capitalism related and anything that could potentially remove jobs from the market, but by a almost all metrics we are recovering (slowly) from a big slump, not trending ever downwards. Things actually are better, it's just that by virtue of the internet's ease of news access and ease of polarization, people think things are worse.
Gloom and doom is reasonably warranted (well, less gloom and doom than anger). The reason real median wages haven't increased since the 70s is because a very small cabal of ultra rich parasites have stolen almost a half century of human progress. US income inequality has only gotten worse since the 90's as well. And it's no accident, it is part of a campaign of deliberate malfeasance.
We absolutely should not accept the current state of affairs.
I totally agree... your post demonstrates the issue I have with Luddite threads. Unemployment and low wages are better understood as political, distributive problems, not inevitable effects of technological progress.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+12
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered 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.
I also think it's a societal thing. We tend to look down at people who don't work.
When I wasn't working for a year, I couched my language in what I was doing with my time to avoid saying that I was out of work, even though it was by choice.
Do the super rich get depressed more than average?
Continue to work towards developing the political will to do something. Vote for people like Warren or Sanders. Or barring candidates like them vote for ones who won't actively oppose policy that helps. Donate to causes that work to close the gap between the rich and the poor. Be active in your own community.
There's not really going to be any single thing one person does that stops it.
That's the "switch to fluorescent lightbulbs in your house and help the environment!" approach. It helps, but a legislative solution would help a lot more, and that's what I was asking about. Let me restate my previous question-
So let's say we've packed Congress full of Bernie Sanders clones. What then? What laws/law do we pass to help bring the corps and the financiers to heel? Or would the Bernie Sanders solution just be a bigger budget for the DOJ and some fellas with a backbone in the SEC?
Continue to work towards developing the political will to do something. Vote for people like Warren or Sanders. Or barring candidates like them vote for ones who won't actively oppose policy that helps. Donate to causes that work to close the gap between the rich and the poor. Be active in your own community.
There's not really going to be any single thing one person does that stops it.
That's the "switch to fluorescent lightbulbs in your house and help the environment!" approach. It helps, but a legislative solution would help a lot more, and that's what I was asking about. Let me restate my previous question-
So let's say we've packed Congress full of Bernie Sanders clones. What then? What laws/law do we pass to help bring the corps and the financiers to heel? Or would the Bernie Sanders solution just be a bigger budget for the DOJ and some fellas with a backbone in the SEC?
Whatever legislation they want. Guaranteed income, higher taxes on the rich, stronger regulations, etc.
Continue to work towards developing the political will to do something. Vote for people like Warren or Sanders. Or barring candidates like them vote for ones who won't actively oppose policy that helps. Donate to causes that work to close the gap between the rich and the poor. Be active in your own community.
There's not really going to be any single thing one person does that stops it.
That's the "switch to fluorescent lightbulbs in your house and help the environment!" approach. It helps, but a legislative solution would help a lot more, and that's what I was asking about. Let me restate my previous question-
So let's say we've packed Congress full of Bernie Sanders clones. What then? What laws/law do we pass to help bring the corps and the financiers to heel? Or would the Bernie Sanders solution just be a bigger budget for the DOJ and some fellas with a backbone in the SEC?
1) Void corporate income tax, replace it with a VAT: corporations just pass the cost of those taxes onto consumers, so it might as well be a form of sales tax which is based on the products they make or services they provide. This also removes all question of "corporate inversions" or any other such BS: you want to do business in the U.S., you're going to pay the U.S. VAT, in full. Tax breaks to encourage good behavior would target products in question (lower VAT for solar-power related goods and services, say).
2) All income (outside of personal gifts of $10k or less) shall be treated equal. No distinctions for earned interest, capital gains, etc. Then raise the scale for the tax bracket to get more from the 1%, .1%, and .01%.
3) Small fee on stock trades. This would annihilate microarbitrage and be like a giant, permanent cooling rod in the stock market making it vastly harder to overheat.
What to do with this money? Well, some things to spend it on are vastly better than others, but pretty much any avenue of having this money spent instead of horded will reduce inequality in the long run. Minimum income, boosts to the existing welfare system, more schoolteachers, free cars for everyone, helicopter money, whatever.
+1
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
2 and 3 sound good, although you'd have to put an exception in for retirement money for 2.
As the ignorant, right-leaning jingo, what exactly is VAT? I know it stands for "value-added tax" and I know Britain has it. That's about the extent of my knowledge.
2 and 3 sound good, although you'd have to put an exception in for retirement money for 2.
As the ignorant, right-leaning jingo, what exactly is VAT? I know it stands for "value-added tax" and I know Britain has it. That's about the extent of my knowledge.
It's a sales tax that goes in behind the scenes. One could argue that it's regressive, but corporate tax costs are passed on anyway, and the important thing of it is that it captures the value-added at the source, basically. While we rely upon taxing corporate income at the end of the fiscal year, which allows for offshoring of profits and all sorts of loopholes to apply, this gets the money right when the product is moved, and because it's "value added" rather than "sales" it hits at every stage of the process (bearing in mind that corporate income tax hits at every stage of the process as well) rather than just at the consumer end.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Oh, so if you're making a chair, the corporation running the forestry operation gets taxed a bit on the lumber, and then the sawmill gets a small amount of tax per board, and then the furniture factory gets taxed on the furniture, and then it all gets passed on to the consumer instead of a sales tax. That sounds...different. How do you stop companies from just importing parts and doing the assembly in one step? Do you add the tax on imports? We'd have to get rid of our free trade for that.
Posts
Why is one choosing to do an activity (a job) one does not enjoy, with people one does not wish to associate with? Because as things are, people need money. And if you lack viable alternative sources for it, you work a job you fucking hate with people whose very existence you loathe to feed, house and clothe yourself and your family.
Frankly, I don't buy this supposed "benefit" from forming social ties by de facto force, especially if it's with people you don't wish to associate with. It could be beneficial in some powerplay bullshit, but I don't believe that such a situation provides a better quality of life compared to a guaranteed basic income and the freedom to work or not work, and time to associate with people you wish to associate with.
For many careers, such a social aspect is essentially mandatory, whether you like it or not. There are people who lie and fake their way such jobs through their life, hating every second, because it's simply necessary for them. Be it an issue of money, limited paths for a desired future, or whatnot.
If this were true, nobody would have hobbies. They're not forced to knit, paint, do sports, practice blacksmithing, whatever. There are plenty of things people want to do, but cannot due to lack of free time and/or energy. Unless you enjoy your work greatly, it's directly away from your free time and activities you enjoy.
Unless, of course, you count all free time activities and hobbies as 'idleness'.
Why are these connections intrinsically a "good" thing? What if you had to form connections to people you simply cannot stand, who in no way contribute towards your quality of life? Why is connectedness by itself beneficial? It requires associating with the people you're connected with, and if you don't enjoy it and are miserable as a consequence, why is this a net positive?
Motivation and obligation are neutral concepts. I could provide motivation to do something by holding a gun to your head. Would this be a positive?
Or not. I don't hate my job, but I'm still planning on retiring ASAP. Doesn't mean I'll do nothing at all after though
Uhhhh.... Ok. I am not sure what you are arguing.
My point is that socially minimum guaranteed income in a world where most labor has been supplemented by automation is a good thing that will increase personal freedom, will create a society with more art(broad definition all that stuff you just mentioned as hobbies+visual art+performing arts+cuisine), and a population that has less fear of failure and can therefore innovate and undertake entrepreneurial endeavors.
The idea that people need an occupation(broad definition again: including employment and art and volunteerism) to give them a sense of fulfilment and motivation.
I agree with this, but think it is a need people can fill themselves without being forced through an economic need.
The motivating factor was was cast as having others dependent on an individual, and it was pointed out that if a person is forced to do these things(typically though economic factors) that it can be a source of stress and cause a person to feel their efforts are underappreciated.
I observed that without the economic factors(ie without social support, minimum income), why would a person choose to be involved with such groups.
Someone brought up, basically, family members who can't support themselves(implication is children or the infirm).
While those can be involuntary stressors, it is not really relevant to a discussion of people not being forced to work sitting around doing nothing because they aren't being forced to by economic necessity(in fact, strong social support and several billion extra man hours of unused labor would probably make these situations easier).
quoting a couple of posts together like that kinda implies you are arguing with someone. But, I am having a difficult time seeing points of contention.
Though, on the military angle, there's some part of that is relevant to this discussion. There may be things we hopefully don't need, and may not want to bring into the future. I think today, a lot of people should, for practical and moral reasons, be able to fight to the death and win at a moment's notice. I would hope that sentence sounds insane in a century or two*. A world with the internet and universal literacy and almost free paper has degraded our memories compared to equally intelligent people in ancient times. Plenty of famous orators were better at memorizing speeches than I am. OTOH, the overall situation is better now, as if you ask me the average weight of an adult male red fox, well, I can tell you within 2 minutes, whereas they would need hours, if they could at all. People may overall gain from a shift to more leisure, because while they may lose some of their structure and responsibility, I think it's a hard sell to say that flipping burgers genuinely improves the moral character of a person in a way that is not achievable by other means.
Besides, if we want to obligate people to do things, requiring every adult without a valid medical excuse to be what would be considered extremely physically fit in 2015 America would require far less than 40 hours of training a week, and produce useful medical and social benefits. Or require them to read at least X amount a week, or whatever. Even if people benefit from external motivation, you'd be doing people a favor by automating almost all work away, and then requiring them to focus on improving themselves, and/or rearing their kids better.
* And even then, if you're in the first world in 2015, you're already shielded from much of that necessity compared to many parts of the world, or much of human history.
The thing is technology really isn't making more jobs than it replaces. Sure we find more work for people to do, but plenty of that is just busy work. Often the new work requires even more training. Training in our current economy requires time in all cases, and in many, employers expect the workers to foot the bill. So we have this nasty catch 22, where someone on the dole is being treated like shit, but given no real viable way to pay for the training they need and have the required time to be able to work the jobs that are still available. The idea behind a guaranteed income is that those individuals can get proper medical care (which would include dental and vision), a residence, a means to get to work, a means to undergo training and keep them entertained.
The whole "circus" of "bread and circus," really isn't that hard. As someone said earlier, plenty of NEETs in Japan are able to get by for little, as long as, they have an internet connection. The "circus" part is just hard right now, if one tries to not pirate shit because there already plenty of IP works out in the world and that will grow rather quickly, if people have the option to try their hand at the "arts" without the current economic risks, that exists in the current system. I'd argue the bigger concerns are either.
-Too many people getting too invested in just being leisurely, that they stop being active in politics. Resulting in less people participating in the democratic process and making it more likely that some uber douche Calvinist asshole gets in, guts the whole thing and this leads to a series of events, that have a huge body count. Ironically, I'd argue that would be the reverse of our current situation, where the citizenry doesn't have adequate time to properly invest in the system (working a 40 hour job, I wish I could get the same annual pay, working at least 10, if not 20 hours less because let's be honest, many of us that 40 hour week also means 2.5 hours of lunch at work and 2.5-10 hours of commuting to work).
-We end up a shitty system of government, or just a shitty administration, where the people feel dissatisfied and with all their new found free time, they start being assholes. I believe that we see this playing out with many of the Gulf emirates in the Middle East.
-With basic needs met, people end up becoming too leisurely and thus become very undisciplined. Having to learn to be responsible is a good thing, but as the saying goes "everything in moderation," and I don't think we really need 40 or even 30 hour work weeks to achieve that. Hell, some of the discipline can be achieved without even measuring time, since some stuff is less about quantity and more about quality. I'd also rather have people developing that discipline doing tings they find fulfilling or see if they find something fulfilling, that to be miserable for their entire life working a shit job they hate, interacting with people they hate, barely getting by to live in a home they fucking hate and barely being able to afford food, that they fucking hate (for the record, I'm not here, but I know such individuals exist).
Now none of those are compelling reasons to forgo guaranteed minimum wage or an intentional inefficiency where people work less hours, but getting the same pay, while employers are forced to hire more employees to cover production in areas where the bots aren't going to cut it. I mean that would be akin to argument made to not have ACA in favor of the BS system we had before. Or not having unions because of corruption, while wealthy assholes continue to fuck the working class. Or not using automobiles because they aren't perfect and sticking with flawed human drivers. The proper approach is acknowledging there are cons and finding ways to minimize those cons.
Regardless, it's going to come down to the rich being forced to act because a guaranteed minimum income is going to need the rich to pay their fair share. Likewise, having the required work hours is going to mean that the rich would need to double people hourly pay. I mean right now, I make 440 a week (if I don't work over time). With my current living arrangement I pay 400 for rent, gas and utilities put together (Yay, for having roommates and one of them working for the same company that I work for). My stable grocery bill for the month is around 100 dollars. I have to take medication for a health issue, that 10 dollars a month. I haven't been employed long enough to feel comfortable putting a dollar figure on the stuff that really isn't a monthly expense (doctor visits, hygiene products, some frivolous purchases). So halving current hours, would really suck for me, if wages weren't adjusted (I'd probably be able to barely get by). It would; however, destroy anyone making minimum wage, if they couldn't offset the lost hours or be completely useless. Hell, have people at my company that make 10.25 an hour, aren't wasteful with their money, and still have to work an additional part time job to support their families.
Pretty much, if one is concerned about how the future of automation will impact the labor market and make it harder to make a living with the current system. Then that is someone that better make sure participate in the political process, by at least voting for people that acknowledge this is going to be an issue that has to be addressed. They better not be geese that stay home because right now, the people that seem to have the ear of the most politicians don't think it is any issue. Many of those wealthy individuals are A-KO with letting the needy die in the streets because they believe that anyone on the dole, is a moocher.
Agreed. Just look at senior citizens in the US.
They're Exhibit A for why I hate my party's stance on taxing the rich: the rich are useless fucking idiots. It'd be one thing if we had a bunch of Fords or Carnegies, people who actually built or invented things, but if you shuffle magic numbers around? Screw those parasites.
Still, would taxing the rich produce enough dough for a guaranteed minimum income? It seems like we'd also have to ensure corps pay their taxes (we should do this anyway) and do some fiddling with trade. Our trade deficits are absolutely enormous.
These are one and the same
The difference is that an income tax on the rich stays on the rich, while (under current policy) a tax on corporations inevitably becomes a tax on their employees and customers.
Which then becomes a tax on the poor.
Tax capital gains. Tax financial instruments like derivatives. Tax stock transactions. Tax inheritances. These are the ways the wealthy get there and stay there at the expense of the rest of us.
Also ban payroll tax holidays and tax currency being moved overseas.
Well sure
Except corporations can respond to an increase in taxes by raising prices or reducing costs. Both of which end up being regressive taxes.
You can get some tax money there, for sure. But if you want a guaranteed basic income you need to look at things like the derivatives market, whose value exceeds that of all wealth in the world combined. You need to go big. You need sustainable revenue sources. The rich won't stop investing just because they earn 50 cents on the dollar rather than 15. They still make money.
Except this is a bullshit argument. Corporations are subject to anti-cartel and anti-monopoly law. If they have the finances to move money overseas and wait for a payroll tax holiday to repatriate it, then they have more then enough money to afford to take the hit in order to remain competitive.
So let them. If they want to collaborate to try and collectively push prices up to make a political point, I will laugh while imprisoning their board members.
That doesn't seem like a realistic expectation from an American POV
No collusion required. "We took an unanticipated tax expense this quarter so we're laying off x number of people/shelving plans to open a new factory/forgoing annual raises (but not for the C-suite of course)" is a likely outcome.
It won't happen all at once, and it won't be to make a political point. Companies will make less profit temporarily, they'll adjust their business models to make more profit again, and the board members aren't the ones who end up suffering for the policy in the long run. Especially if you're talking about the kind of tax with enough impact to fund even a portion of something like a basic income. That's going to have repercussions on the market out of sheer necessity.
Not that taxing wealthy individuals won't make some waves, but it's far more difficult for someone banking a few hundred thousand a year in capital gains to externalize his taxes than it is for Apple to figure out a way to offset theirs somewhere else.
Then ban the latter. It shouldn't be legal for companies to do things expressly to lower their taxes, unless it's "donate to the American Red Cross".
Sure it is. They're just being filled by people who are willing to work longer hours for lower pay. Or as PantsB put it:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Mandatory state funded lawyers for everybody!
Everyone goes to jail!
Real median wages (yearly and hourly) have actually gone up since the 90s, though they aren't as high as the all time high in the 70s.
I understand that doom and gloom is the name of the game, especially when it comes to anything capitalism related and anything that could potentially remove jobs from the market, but by a almost all metrics we are recovering (slowly) from a big slump, not trending ever downwards. Things actually are better, it's just that by virtue of the internet's ease of news access and ease of polarization, people think things are worse.
Gloom and doom is reasonably warranted (well, less gloom and doom than anger). The reason real median wages haven't increased since the 70s is because a very small cabal of ultra rich parasites have stolen almost a half century of human progress. US income inequality has only gotten worse since the 90's as well. And it's no accident, it is part of a campaign of deliberate malfeasance.
We absolutely should not accept the current state of affairs.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité.
If motivation were a truly neutral concept then a complete lack of motivation would also be neutral, which it isn't. If connections were neutral we wouldn't go mad in isolation.
I feel like you're misreading me though. I don't think people have to or should be forced to connect to people they don't want to connect with. What I'm saying is that in some sense people should be pushed to form connections and create obligations for their own benefit. In a post-scarcity leisure society it becomes increasingly easy to do things entirely at your own discretion, to never do anything that you don't want to at that moment. But people need to do things they don't want to at times, like cleaning their house or getting out of bed to go somewhere or help a friend.
The point about work is that for many people work provides this. That doesn't mean people should be forced to work or starve or anything, but a society that moves towards a basic income needs to account for the structures we've created with work. Work, doing things you maybe don't really want to do, has benefits and it is smart to provide structures to satisfy the need that is currently being met with paid work. And given that we already have those structures currently why not just keep paid work? A basic income would ensure that people don't need to work to live and so don't work jobs they don't enjoy or work more than they would like. Work that people do would be voluntary and done more for it's benefits.
The Doj isn't limited to one lawyer, I don't know where you picked that up.
The Doj goes for settlements because white collar crime is much more difficult than many other areas of criminal law.
The statutes are more complex, the evidence is more complex (many of the more complicated evidentiary rules show up in these cases) and you are dealing with sophisticated defendants and opposing counsel.
Limiting a defendant's right to use the legal representation of their choice is going to be considered a 6th amendment violation.
Not to mention if you piss off the ABA and association of trial lawyers you can kiss that money and knowledge goodbye.
So what's to be done, then? There isn't political will to match the corps lawyer-for-lawyer.
Continue to work towards developing the political will to do something. Vote for people like Warren or Sanders. Or barring candidates like them vote for ones who won't actively oppose policy that helps. Donate to causes that work to close the gap between the rich and the poor. Be active in your own community.
There's not really going to be any single thing one person does that stops it.
They need to come out in a big way so that the democrats can draw districts after the census.
Sadly, I expect Congress to accomplish literally nothing until then, because they view disfunction as a feature, not a bug , of government.
I totally agree... your post demonstrates the issue I have with Luddite threads. Unemployment and low wages are better understood as political, distributive problems, not inevitable effects of technological progress.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I also think it's a societal thing. We tend to look down at people who don't work.
When I wasn't working for a year, I couched my language in what I was doing with my time to avoid saying that I was out of work, even though it was by choice.
Do the super rich get depressed more than average?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
So let's say we've packed Congress full of Bernie Sanders clones. What then? What laws/law do we pass to help bring the corps and the financiers to heel? Or would the Bernie Sanders solution just be a bigger budget for the DOJ and some fellas with a backbone in the SEC?
Whatever legislation they want. Guaranteed income, higher taxes on the rich, stronger regulations, etc.
1) Void corporate income tax, replace it with a VAT: corporations just pass the cost of those taxes onto consumers, so it might as well be a form of sales tax which is based on the products they make or services they provide. This also removes all question of "corporate inversions" or any other such BS: you want to do business in the U.S., you're going to pay the U.S. VAT, in full. Tax breaks to encourage good behavior would target products in question (lower VAT for solar-power related goods and services, say).
2) All income (outside of personal gifts of $10k or less) shall be treated equal. No distinctions for earned interest, capital gains, etc. Then raise the scale for the tax bracket to get more from the 1%, .1%, and .01%.
3) Small fee on stock trades. This would annihilate microarbitrage and be like a giant, permanent cooling rod in the stock market making it vastly harder to overheat.
What to do with this money? Well, some things to spend it on are vastly better than others, but pretty much any avenue of having this money spent instead of horded will reduce inequality in the long run. Minimum income, boosts to the existing welfare system, more schoolteachers, free cars for everyone, helicopter money, whatever.
As the ignorant, right-leaning jingo, what exactly is VAT? I know it stands for "value-added tax" and I know Britain has it. That's about the extent of my knowledge.
It's a sales tax that goes in behind the scenes. One could argue that it's regressive, but corporate tax costs are passed on anyway, and the important thing of it is that it captures the value-added at the source, basically. While we rely upon taxing corporate income at the end of the fiscal year, which allows for offshoring of profits and all sorts of loopholes to apply, this gets the money right when the product is moved, and because it's "value added" rather than "sales" it hits at every stage of the process (bearing in mind that corporate income tax hits at every stage of the process as well) rather than just at the consumer end.