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: 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.