SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Portentous changes to the work economies of India and the USA due to job automation by machines and robots continue to make headlines. Varieties of hardware and software automation are seeing implementation burgeon in both countries, as companies seek efficiency by replacing humans with machines. Wage erosion in areas previously unaffected by automation - including varieties of programming - is getting commoner while new, albeit highly specialized, engineering jobs are created. Both articles encourage educational changes mindful of these realities, though how colleges either side of the world can adapt to the blistering pace of automation is unclear.
The latest tranche of job automation news comes hot on the heels of Davos' prediction that machine automation will result in a net loss globally of over 5 million jobs prior to 2020.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:43PM
So you now agree that there is no legitimate purpose in a workfare program designed to force people to get a job. Excellent!
No, that is a not true. For example, you depend on plenty of jobs to exist in order for your words to appear on my screen or for you to continue to exist at all. Just because most jobs may not have relevance to you doesn't mean the collective jobs do not.
Meanwhile paying someone to not work has negative value for me. It's not just inhumane to the person as I see it or destroying the value of that person economically (after all, work experience is a thing of considerable value), but it creates parasitic behavior where someone takes without offering something in exchange.
Nor should we expect it to be in the future unless we take some step to make it happen. Yet your proposal counts on that vacuum that you acknowledge doesn't exist. What is your proposal to deflate real estate to 3rd world levels?
Just cut out policies that are designed to prop up real estate prices. Faster circulation of real estate too. If real estate comes up due to bankruptcy and such, put it on the market quickly.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday February 15 2016, @06:56PM
No, that is a not true. For example, you depend on plenty of jobs to exist in order for your words to appear on my screen or for you to continue to exist at all. Just because most jobs may not have relevance to you doesn't mean the collective jobs do not.
So then I guess you'd like to retract your previous statement:
Jobs are just like buying stuff at the store. To ask what "we" need is to completely miss the point, namely, that jobs are a transaction between the people involved. They are the ones who decide whether they need the jobs in question not "we" who are not involved. That's why I think it is an ill-posed question.
We can't both compel employment and leave it up to the individual to decide.
Meanwhile paying someone to not work has negative value for me.
Nobody here has suggested doing that.
Just cut out policies that are designed to prop up real estate prices
Since those policies and actions come from the banks and other investors holding fallow property, do you prefer direct coercion or indirect, perhaps in the form of an added tax on fallow property?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 15 2016, @09:21PM
No, that is a not true. For example, you depend on plenty of jobs to exist in order for your words to appear on my screen or for you to continue to exist at all. Just because most jobs may not have relevance to you doesn't mean the collective jobs do not.
So then I guess you'd like to retract your previous statement:
Jobs are just like buying stuff at the store. To ask what "we" need is to completely miss the point, namely, that jobs are a transaction between the people involved. They are the ones who decide whether they need the jobs in question not "we" who are not involved. That's why I think it is an ill-posed question.
We can't both compel employment and leave it up to the individual to decide.
Of course I don't wish to retract this. There has to be a contradiction first.
There are several things to note here that I think completely resolve this illusion of paradox. First, it's not in my interests to just give my money to people without consequence. If people don't work, but I'm not paying them, then that's fine with me. If they do want my money, then I want my strings attached. Related to that is the obvious point that basic income goes further, if everyone who's getting it works in addition. Basic income has the obvious moral hazard that if we provide it then we create a class of people who don't contribute at all to society. That's not who I want in my society.
Second, even if one compels a person to participate in a market, they need not compel people to a particular choice. That's been done with health insurance in the US which as a result disproves your last assertion. I don't like it for a variety of reasons, but it did happen. A second way that they could have encouraged health insurance consumption is by providing incentives to get health insurance rather than forcing people to pay fines, if they don't get health insurance. That incidentally was the Republican approach way back when. I would have less resistance to such an approach because at least, it would be constitutional and not shove these costs onto people who don't wish to participate.
Moving on, basic income with a work requirement is just like that latter approach. If your living situation is such that you forgo the basic income, then you are not penalized by my scheme for doing so. You don't have to pay fines or whatever (though obviously you would still be paying taxes on any non-wage income you receive).
Finally, let us recall your original post which kicked this subthread off:
That depends, do we actually need the labor?
This is the odious belief that what "we" don't explicitly need shouldn't be done.
Just cut out policies that are designed to prop up real estate prices
Since those policies and actions come from the banks and other investors holding fallow property, do you prefer direct coercion or indirect, perhaps in the form of an added tax on fallow property?
Holding unproductive property is its own reward. The problem here is that most such property is not clearly owned by anyone, has acquired huge liens against the property that no one is willing to pay, and often has other costly obstacles to acquiring ownership. My view is that this mess is one of the reasons we have eminent domain though I believe most such cases are allowed to fester by local government because it would massively hurt the property taxes they currently collect.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday February 15 2016, @09:40PM
This is the odious belief that what "we" don't explicitly need shouldn't be done.
Well, it seems you're unwilling to pay for it and nobody is willing to pay enough to make it worth someone's time to do it, so what's so odious about leaving it undone?
You still haven't explained how you plan to get the cost of food, clothing, and shelter down to 3rd world levels so workers can afford to work for 3rd world wages.
Nor what you would do about those properties with huge liens on them. I am wondering how a local government would be bringing in huge property taxes on a property where the owner is not clearly owned, where does the bill go and why does it get paid?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:18PM
Well, it seems you're unwilling to pay for it and nobody is willing to pay enough to make it worth someone's time to do it, so what's so odious about leaving it undone?
Walmart was.
You still haven't explained how you plan to get the cost of food, clothing, and shelter down to 3rd world levels so workers can afford to work for 3rd world wages.
Declining wages of course. No matter how hard the various governments of the US try to prop up the price of things, eventually it'll collapse.
Nor what you would do about those properties with huge liens on them. I am wondering how a local government would be bringing in huge property taxes on a property where the owner is not clearly owned, where does the bill go and why does it get paid?
Eminent domain as I already stated. The government in question (which would likely be a local or state government) would pay the "fair value" money to a public holding corp to settle the liens against the property and pay off any owners that might exist and auction off the property.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 16 2016, @05:17PM
So, with no clear owner, where are those big property tax payments coming from that you claim is the reason they don't just take the property? And what of the many more properties that remain unoccupied or only partially occupied because of owners and landlords who refuse to accept that it's just not worth what they demand? That's where the high prices are coming from.
I think you'll find that a lot of the problem amounts to having to many distributors in the chain as well. Not to mention commodities traders who literally add nothing but cost. I have no idea how you will give them the boot.
It seems like you'll need a lot of thumbs on a lot of scales just to achieve a lot less than the Basic Income.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:22PM
So, with no clear owner, where are those big property tax payments coming from that you claim is the reason they don't just take the property?
From the property that does have clear ownership and does pay its taxes.
And what of the many more properties that remain unoccupied or only partially occupied because of owners and landlords who refuse to accept that it's just not worth what they demand?
Owning unproductive real estate is it's own reward.
I think you'll find that a lot of the problem amounts to having to many distributors in the chain as well. Not to mention commodities traders who literally add nothing but cost. I have no idea how you will give them the boot.
What relevant problem do distributors and commodities traders matter for again?
It seems like you'll need a lot of thumbs on a lot of scales just to achieve a lot less than the Basic Income.
Basic income is supposed to achieve something?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:43PM
From the property that does have clear ownership and does pay its taxes.
So what's your theory again? Why wouldn't they grab the abandoned property (with it's lack of collected taxes) and sell it off to someone who will pay them even more of those taxes they like so much? You seem to have veered into the weeds here.
Owning unproductive real estate is it's own reward.
This hasn't abated the condition in the slightest.
What relevant problem do distributors and commodities traders matter for again?
They jack up prices and foil your desire to drag the cost of living down to 3rd world levels. By the time the traders and distributors get their teeth in it, that $2 item from China is selling for $20 on the shelf. I'm not saying that none of them add any value, but too many add too little for what it costs.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:12PM
From the property that does have clear ownership and does pay its taxes.
So what's your theory again? Why wouldn't they grab the abandoned property (with it's lack of collected taxes) and sell it off to someone who will pay them even more of those taxes they like so much? You seem to have veered into the weeds here.
For example, I read that 16% [businessinsider.com] of Balitmore's property is abandoned. Sure, it's going to be lower quality due to lack of maintenance and whatnot, but that's still going to depress the sales price of the 84% of the property that does pay its taxes. And Baltimore's property tax revenue is proportional to the sales price of its property. Hence, there is a strong incentive to keep that property off the market in order to keep property tax revenue up.
Owning unproductive real estate is it's own reward.
This hasn't abated the condition in the slightest.
I don't see a reason to be concerned. Such things can't go on forever.
What relevant problem do distributors and commodities traders matter for again?
They jack up prices and foil your desire to drag the cost of living down to 3rd world levels. By the time the traders and distributors get their teeth in it, that $2 item from China is selling for $20 on the shelf. I'm not saying that none of them add any value, but too many add too little for what it costs.
So no relevant problem.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:31PM
So no relevant problem.
Only if your offered "solution" wasn't sincere and you really do expect people to make 3rd world wages with a 1st world cost of living.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 17 2016, @06:56AM
Only if your offered "solution" wasn't sincere and you really do expect people to make 3rd world wages with a 1st world cost of living.
I obviously don't agree. And let's face it, distributors and commodities traders aren't inflating Chinese goods by a factor of ten because that is a chain of highly competitive markets from the source manufacturer all the way to the retailer selling it to the end customer.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:10AM
It is awfully close to a factor of 10. Check out some Chinese websites and do the math. Look at the "knock-offs" that are actually the same product produced on the same line after hours.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:58PM
Well, it seems you're unwilling to pay for it and nobody is willing to pay enough to make it worth someone's time to do it, so what's so odious about leaving it undone?
To underline my point about Walmart, they have over two million employees, including almost a million and a half in the US. That's a lot of people who think Walmart is paying enough to make it worth their time.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 16 2016, @04:41PM
And what of those who are unemployed? Did you lose your place? You seem to have dropped a talking points card somewhere. If, instead of basic income, you insist on a workfare program where there are no jobs, you are either insisting that they work for less than the minimum wage and so subsidizing the cheapskates or it's just your arms length way of commanding them to curl up and die.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:35PM
And what of those who are unemployed?
This is the first I've heard of your concern for the unemployed.
If, instead of basic income, you insist on a workfare program where there are no jobs, you are either insisting that they work for less than the minimum wage and so subsidizing the cheapskates or it's just your arms length way of commanding them to curl up and die.
Have them work of course. Jobs aren't that hard to come by. I'd take your concern more seriously, if you hadn't spent the last half a dozen posts insisting that we don't "need" people working. To aid in the process of encourage businesses to employ people, I would also do away completely with minimum wage. You don't need a minimum wage when you have a sufficiently ample basic income.
As I noted before, vast swathes of the world are figuring out how to gainfully employ a lot more poor people than the US or the EU has. Perhaps, rather than continuing to be idiots about this, we should find a way to work their success into our developed world situations? I'll steer this discussion back to my question.
What behavior is it you consider desirable?
Employing poor people. What do you think of employing poor people?
Do you think it is wrong to employ poor people?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:35PM
I think it is harmful to attach strings to the Basic income. It presses people into ungainful employment for the benefit of others.
Instead, just offer the basic income with no strings. But yes, we can then eliminate the minimum wage. Employers will then just need to offer a market wage in order to attract workers. At that point, *IF* the cost of living can be deflated to 3rd world levels, wages will naturally fall with the market while maintaining the standard of living.
For someone who claims to hate government regulation, you sure are eager to regulate the basic income!
Considering that this whole thread was in regards to the unemployed, I find it odd that you didn't realize I had concern for the unemployed. In particular, making sure they aren't pressed into ungainful employment just to satisfy someone's horror that somebody might get a free breadcrumb even if preventing it exceeds the value of the breadcrumbs. We tried workfare as you propose in Victorian Times in England. It had quite a few problems.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:54PM
I think it is harmful to attach strings to the Basic income. It presses people into ungainful employment for the benefit of others.
What makes employment for the benefit of others, "ungainful"? To me, that is the opposite.
For someone who claims to hate government regulation, you sure are eager to regulate the basic income!
Feel free to set up your own private basic income. I won't insist on regulating that no matter what policies you put on it. But if it's based on public funds, then it gets the regulation.
Considering that this whole thread was in regards to the unemployed, I find it odd that you didn't realize I had concern for the unemployed.
I still don't realize that. The number one way we can help the unemployed is to make them gainfully employed - even when there is a basic income on the table. But that means changing a huge swath of social policy which severely harms the employer and drives up the cost of employment. Instead, I keep reading from you on how we don't need employed people. What is the point of enlarging a pool of people with serious problems?
In particular, making sure they aren't pressed into ungainful employment just to satisfy someone's horror that somebody might get a free breadcrumb even if preventing it exceeds the value of the breadcrumbs. We tried workfare as you propose in Victorian Times in England. It had quite a few problems.
Nonsense. Workfare doesn't have these abuses. You're not thrown into a jail just because you can't pay your debts. You aren't enslaved. You aren't shipped off to a distant colony. It is a frivolous comparison.
And meanwhile there is considerable value in removing dependency on basic income which is a thing that a job can provide. Further, I believe that giving people money so that they can rot for their entire lives is a nasty thing to do to someone and to your society.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 16 2016, @10:52PM
What makes employment for the benefit of others, "ungainful"? To me, that is the opposite.
Employment is ungainful if it costs you more to show up than you get paid. A condition that will only happen if you attach an employment string to the basic income.
But if it's based on public funds, then it gets the regulation.
Yep, you luves you some regulations!
The number one way to help the unemployed is to make sure they have what they need to live with or without employment. Next is to make it so they can work as formally or informally as they care to at gainful employment (or gainful odd jobs or just doing things that need doing as community service) without running afoul of government strings or paperwork. Or, if they like, they can make a go of their own business, something that would not be possible under your scheme.
Workfare doesn't have these abuses.
You have confused debtor's prison with workhouses (which certainly did have problems). Why wouldn't it have those problems? You want to leave people with a work or starve situation and remove the minimum wage. That situation is ripe for abusive "employers" to exploit. All courtesy of Khallow's market interfering regulations.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 17 2016, @06:53AM
Employment is ungainful if it costs you more to show up than you get paid. A condition that will only happen if you attach an employment string to the basic income.
Clearly, you haven't thought about this. You would, of course, also add in the basic income to this. And what of charity work? Is that ungainful employment?
The number one way to help the unemployed is to make sure they have what they need to live with or without employment.
And what if I disagree? You have a reason for your assertion?
Workfare doesn't have these abuses.
You have confused debtor's prison with workhouses (which certainly did have problems). Why wouldn't it have those problems? You want to leave people with a work or starve situation and remove the minimum wage. That situation is ripe for abusive "employers" to exploit. All courtesy of Khallow's market interfering regulations.
The obvious rebuttal is work for someone else. You couldn't do that with a workhouse.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:28AM
Clearly, you haven't thought about this.
The work itself remains ungainful. It's a net loss to all but the cheap employer. Are you sure you want to subsidize a wealthy employer that won't pay enough to even cover the cost of going to work? Charity work is volunteering. It's generally not considered employment at all. Will yoiu call it employment? How much do you plan on spending to certify charities as legitimate? What checks and balances do you plan to avoid paying people to work for White Power United?
Wouldn't you rather shut down Social Security, Welfare, food stamps, and SSI? Why are you so anxious to create yet another redundant serpentine bureaucracy full of excessive paperwork and crazy rules?
You obviously haven't thought it through. Are you ready to subsidize a dive titty bar? Tell a young lady under color of law shake your titties or starve? It is employment and may be all that's on offer. Especially if cheap employers know that even if they offer a penny a year some poor sap will have to do it.
And what if I disagree? You have a reason for your assertion?
I note you haven't offered any justification. I offered that it leaves a door open for entrepreneurship, volunteering, and odd jobs.
You have only offered a bunch of assertions that are contradicted by decades of empirical evidence.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:36AM
The work itself remains ungainful. It's a net loss to all but the cheap employer. Are you sure you want to subsidize a wealthy employer that won't pay enough to even cover the cost of going to work?
I'm not sold on basic income in the first place. But sure, I consider cheap employers a better subsidy choice than poor people who don't work.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:59AM
So you're fine with tits or die?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 17 2016, @08:43AM
So you're fine with tits or die?
I've explained my position.