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 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.