View Single Post
  #173  
Old 07-28-2019, 01:26 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
I mentioned several different part-timers besides teenagers. You know there is data on this? About 1 in 5 workers is a part time worker? Contrary to your opinion, the part time labor force is pretty big. Do you know that we have a whole government agency that does nothing but complete labor statistics? If you canít get into statists, you might check out bus.gov and take a look at some actual data.

Yes. You said this beforehand and I explained to you that not everybody who is working needs or is willing to commit to a job that provides a living wage
Bus.gov appears to be about bus driving. Bls.gov may be what you were actually after.

From that site, and specifically from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Quote:
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 4.3 million in June. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)
Of course there are people who prefer part time work; and of course some of those people don't need more money (others are simply flat out unable to take full time jobs because they have obligations for unpaid work; and of course some are physically unable to.) But 4.3 million (a number which is not currently going down) who want full time work but can't get it is not a trivial number of people. And, as I keep saying, the problem is also people who are working full time but still aren't paid enough to live on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Big whoop. Itís not going to. You are just going to some businesses suffer, others close, and a bunch of workers who need the job getting fired.í

forcing all jobs to pay a certain amount tends to make jobs below that threshold of value disappear, removing the marginal utility that those jobs and paychecks and services provide to the economy.
Raising low wages also puts more money into the hands of people who will spend most of it, thereby increasing the amount of goods and services that businesses can sell.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Maybe you could do that. I donít have that kind of cash laying around.
.
The society as a whole, obviously. As you perfectly well know that I meant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Oh my fucking God, what a disaster!!! You mean they bought a house for 60k a long time ago and now itís Worth millions? Those poor bastards!.
Fifty years of inflation and probably a whole lot of work put into the place over those years aside, that probably looks like a good argument to some.

Of course, as most people can only get at that money if they pack up their lives and move, it's only a good argument to those for whom the word "home" means the same thing as "amount of money for which one could purchase alternative shelter". I've come to realize over the years that there are a lot of such people; and that it's probably not possible to fully explain to them why to a lot of other people that's the equivalent of saying 'why would it matter if you'd never be able to see your spouse again? There's probably somebody else who'd move in with you'. I ask those who don't understand it, however (though with little hope in some cases that this will get through) to recognize that there are quite a lot of humans to whom those statements are pretty much equivalent; and to whom it's the claim that unwillingly trading their home for money is a fair exchange which is nonsense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Quantitatively, that is exactly what I said, only pessimistically phrasesd.
.
You said that a lack of incentives means that people are satisfied. I said that it can mean that they're extremely dissatisfied. I don't see how we said the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
So, you want the government to compete with private industry? You are aware that these types of industries already exist, yes?
You're aware that fossil fuel subsidies already exist, yes? I gave you a cite.

And you're aware that private industries demand subsidies from various levels of government all the time?

Why do you think that existing private alternative-energy industries don't want to get some of the benefits?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
What if good locations for solar and wind arenít near where the miners are?
I wasn't suggesting putting the installations there; or, at any rate, not most of them, though I'm sure some would fit the particular locations. I was suggesting putting manufacturing facilities for the components there. You are aware that such components are currently shipped around world wide?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
No. I gave that to you as an example to show how flawed that kind of thinking was. Virtually all the shit you buy and everything you do causes harm..
Arguably true.

And some choices of what you buy and what you do cause a lot more harm than others. You said (post #129) that people are responsible for the results of their choices, and for being aware of the likely results. But you appear to agree with that for only a very limited subset of such choices.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
The OP addresses the issue of collective responsibility.

Collective responsibility, for those of us who live in the United States, is defined by the preamble to our Constitution. The Constitution establishes that we strive for the following social norms:

Support the federation of states
Maintain domestic tranquility
Participate in the common defence
Promote our general welfare
Provide for the future

So, in that context, a definition of personal responsibility would be:

Participate in the political process
Conduct oneself in a manner that is not disruptive to others
Volunteer for military service when necessary
Support policies that enhance the national population, not just an individual or group
Act in the context of history and the future not just the present

This implies that one is productive, has an income and pays taxes.
The second half of your last line doesn't follow.

It's entirely possible to be productive and useful to society but wind up with either no income at all, or not enough income to pay income tax.