|
We live in a society steeped in protestant work ethic. What's more likely to attract a majority of voters: 1) Guaranteed jobs for everyone 2) Universal basic income  In the Second Bill of Rights FDR proposed (among other things that would frighten today's liberals) that Americans should have: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; Today, some post-keynesian economists are pushing for the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee So why has the idea of UBI caught on with today's left (and libertarians) but not a job guarantee?
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
because ubi is easier
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Fansy posted:We live in a society steeped in protestant work ethic. What's more likely to attract a majority of voters: there wont be enough jobs when the robots take them
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
anime was right posted:there wont be enough jobs when the robots take them yeah but then when the robots enslave us every American will have the right to a guaranteed job in the electricity mines until we die of overwork.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
anime was right posted:there wont be enough jobs when the robots take them So we'll have robots making public art, taking care of disadvantaged kids, socializing with residents at nursing homes
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
because work sucks
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Fansy posted:We live in a society steeped in protestant work ethic. What's more likely to attract a majority of voters: because left-liberals don't want communism, they want to make themselves feel better by giving to charity
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
you can always drive an uber
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
because the people who determine what work is socially useful invariably determine that the most socially useful work is work which personally enriches themselves
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Because a guarantee job is far more unrealistic the a universal basic income. Plus the ubi won't get rid of jobs, it'll just mean people don't have to work to survive.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Why are there still people who think that ubi = no one works anymore? If anything, research shows that people work more when they have ubi.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
oliwan posted:Why are there still people who think that ubi = no one works anymore? If anything, research shows that people work more when they have ubi. yeah but they'd be able to demand better pay & working conditions without the threat of homelessness hanging over their heads
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Al! posted:because the people who determine what work is socially useful invariably determine that the most socially useful work is work which personally enriches themselves UBI is even more susceptible to corruption. Hayek and Milton Friedman supported it for a reason: it makes a great excuse to get rid of government services. They saw it as a the path to a fully privatized America.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
there's really two ways to do this: create a federal Bureau of Jobs or whatever that either employs people directly or coordinates with state + local bureaus to do whatever socially useful thing the government can imagine (or when they run out of such things they can just make poo poo up, as in the USSR) or come up with some insane neoliberal scheme for private industry to be able to fully employ the population through tax incentives and thousands of pages of crazy legislation - the Obamacare of jobs, basically the first is essentially UBI with an absolutely enormous layer of bureaucracy on top of it and the second would be the most massive corporate welfare project ever witnessed in the history of mankind. maybe the truth is in the middle
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Fansy posted:UBI is even more susceptible to corruption. please
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:there's really two ways to do this: How about a massive corporate welfare project with an absolutely enormous layer of bureaucracy? By which I mean attempting to fix our crumbling infrastructure
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Fansy posted:So we'll have robots making public art, taking care of disadvantaged kids, socializing with residents at nursing homes I feel this kind of thing quickly turns into people working in military production lines, and politicians needing reasons to keep the military production lines producing.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
1: Though I dont think fully automated luxury communism is possible I do think that the pace of automation is going knock down the numbers of employees in most economic sectors especially in these coming decades as we see a mad capitalist drive towards efficiency in a fully globalized world. Even without that I think that a decent of those jobs will be permanently lost until we stop being scared of the words "human enhancement" and think about maybe putting limits on AI research. 2: It's a universal benefit that should be easy to implement unless you tried to means test it or something and it's easy to understand to the average person. 3: It will probably help to keep household debt under control with a guaranteed steady income, especially if it could adjusted on the fly in response to a crisis. 4: It will make retraining and educating the population easier since you would need to work less or not at all to pursue higher or technical education. 5: Which is good because it's likely that some jobs are going to disappear and it's unfair and awful to tell people to just  when they spent a part of their life getting good at something.6: Finally it will take off some burden on child rearing and might help avert a possible population crash that could wreck entire economics.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
I feel youve somewhat missed the point of that flyer you posted.Al! posted:because the people who determine what work is socially useful invariably determine that the most socially useful work is work which personally enriches themselves Its this. Jobs don't correlate very well with providing for society under capitalism because society doesn't really have a lot of capital to pay out. I might prefer to be a preschool teacher in a low income neighborhood, but I also like to occasionally own things so I take employment as a data analyst doing drudge work that serves no real purpose except to enrich a corporation. With UBI my employment preferences might shift to doing societally useful work with the guarantee that I can still pay for everything. If I were unemployed completely, UBI would give me a basis of support to search for employment that matched my job skills, or perhaps seek education to enhance my skills without worrying about, you know, being homeless. If nothing else UBI would give me some leverage in negotiations with a potential employer, because I could decline to suck his dick in a back alley in exchange for not starving. Finally Karl Barks posted:because ubi is easier Just give everybody some money. Don't even means test if you want. It will mean nothing to the rich and everything to the poor because of marginal utility of money. The full text of a UBI law could theoretically read 'Every living human* residing in America gets $20,000 per year, indexed to inflation'. Trying to give everyone a job runs into issues about who is suited for what job, what if you don't live where the jobs are, etc etc etc. *gently caress furries.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:How about a massive corporate welfare project with an absolutely enormous layer of bureaucracy? set money = 0 and just give everyone some. scarcity is a lie
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
because the idea that everyone absolutely must work is outdated as gently caress. we don't need to make a shitton more soul-crushing, monotonous, redundant jobs in a world where automation is happening more and more. ubi is simpler, more realistic, and more likely to allow people to do something actually useful to society, rather than sweeping sidewalks endlessly or whatever other garbage would be in place in a job guarantee system.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
there's no reason to tie "work" to "money"
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
it would also let people just I dunno tinker maybe come up with some funky new things without setting up a patreon.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
work makes you honest and gives purpose to your life but productivity is not matched to income and our safety nets are easy to exploit if the government can't find something for you to do* you should at least be guaranteed proper shelter, nutrition and basic services it's common courtesy! *prison doesn't count
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
The fact Rome was able to figure out ubi is a good idea should be enough for Western societies to implement it, given how much they love riding their dick.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Because a guarantee job is far more unrealistic the a universal basic income.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
fact: this will never be implemented in the United States for the reason not a step mentioned: the business classes want their dicks sucked in said back alley; this will not change unless the us government develops a spine, and  , that's not happening!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
just to elaborate about the 'easier' thing, a gmi is basically one policy (although inevitably a complicated one) wheras a truly effective job guarantee would mean a whole bunch of new policies and systems, in other words an expansion of the state on the scale of the new deal or greater. and thats ignoring the bigger issue of who decides what has what value and why, but I think thats already been addressed as for it being potentially used by the libertarian minded to gut other systems of welfare, as you allude to with hayek and friedman, I don't think there's any way for any (liberal democratic) society to prevent that possibility. but its not really any different from the idea of vouchers for healthcare or whatever, conservatives will always propose these things and people, once they've gotten used to having entitlements, will rage at the idea of losing them. Olga Gurlukovich has issued a correction as of 00:04 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
of course, the notion that people will resist losing established entitlements is being challenged right now with the obamacare repeal, so we'll see what happens with that.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
THe other problem with guaranteed employment is that minorities will absolutely be given the shittiest jobs possible while still technically qualifying as employment. UBI theoretically sidesteps the issue by being, well, universal. Of course, I'm certain a racist implementation could be found through indexing to the wrong cost of living or something, but it would be harder to do and easier to correct.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
right, a big benefit of the simplicity of gmi, besides being 'easier' is that there are fewer avenues for exploitation, racist implementation etc.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
"Check out this negatively geared income tax" *rides unicycle backwards uphill*
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
blamegame posted:right, a big benefit of the simplicity of gmi, besides being 'easier' is that there are fewer avenues for exploitation, racist implementation etc. I think you mean ubi, which is "everyone gets x amount of money from the govt". Gmi is means tested and means tested programs will always find sneaky ways to exclude undesirables. Plus means tested programs tend to be unpopular among those who don't receive them so they're politically vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
gently caress this "Protestant work ethic" horseshit I am Catholic and I am going to spend my day lighting really tall candles and eating wafers and I WILL be compensated
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
because having the government provide jobs nobody needs to do things nobody wants would seriously suck balls for everyone involved including the government, OP
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Why do you have the lowtax avatar when you aren't lowtax?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:there's really two ways to do this: or just use the flawless method of job lottery glory to Arstotzka
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
conscription is basically a job guarantee for 18 year olds and that mostly involves peeling potatoes and getting hazed for a year or more in the countries where it is obligatory
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Fansy posted:So we'll have robots making public art, taking care of disadvantaged kids, socializing with residents at nursing homes no, we'll just have computers and machines (and some robots) multiplying and optimizing human labor more and more efficiently and we'll need fewer and fewer people employed also every field of art and entertainment is close to having an infinite amount of content from the viewpoint of the audience because so much of it is produced that one person can't realistically expect to experience all of it (or even most of it) so it doesn't matter if the robots figure out how to paint or sing because we have so many people trying to do that those fields are in effect already automated
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
SpaceGoku posted:no, we'll just have computers and machines (and some robots) multiplying and optimizing human labor more and more efficiently and we'll need fewer and fewer people employed i don't think you really get automation
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 02:18
|
|