Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-08-2019, 12:53 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,247
Green New Deal: "Economic security for those unwilling to work"

The Green New Deal proposed by Ocasio-Cortez contains an interesting part: "Economic security for those unwilling to work."


There needs to be a strong social net for those who are unable to work or temporarily out of work, no doubt. But for those who are unwilling to work, this opens up a huge can of worms. Many workers in America - perhaps even the majority - do not enjoy their jobs and work their jobs only because they have to make financial ends meet. If we provide enough financial assistance that Americans who don't want to work, don't have to work another day in their lives, then many millions of people (especially, those who work in minimum-wage industries, such as janitors, fast food, cashiers etc) would retire on the spot. That would be catastrophic for the economy.

Perhaps one could argue that this is just another word for Universal Basic Income. But UBI would also be problematic if it is so generous that many people simply quit working altogether and leave a gaping hole in the workforce. (Unless Ocasio-Cortez is proposing massive automation that would let tens of millions of workers not have to work, but I don't think she is suggesting that at all.)
  #2  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:01 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,518
And this was about the least crazy thing in the green new deal, which I would have flunked if it had been handed in as a grade 8 social studies assignment. My favorite is the plan to replace all air travel with high speed rail.

And again, we have the marriage of climate change policy with the whole laundry list of intersectional stupidity like the UBI. Because apparently you can't have one without the other, and climate change isn't important enough on its own. So instead, let's alienate three quarters of the country by tying climate change mitigation to radical left-wing politics.

Someone in the Democratic party who actually cares about climate change should tell AOC to shut up before she makes the issue even more toxic to anyone who isn't already a fellow traveler.
  #3  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:18 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
And this was about the least crazy thing in the green new deal, which I would have flunked if it had been handed in as a grade 8 social studies assignment. My favorite is the plan to replace all air travel with high speed rail.
When you say 'replace,' what does the proposal actually say? And why is it so crazy?
  #4  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:22 PM
scr4 scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
When you say 'replace,' what does the proposal actually say? And why is it so crazy?
What it actually says is:

Quote:
(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
(iii) high-speed rail
  #5  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:08 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,359
Christ ...you guys are the reason Section 31 was created.
  #6  
Old 02-10-2019, 02:37 AM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
My favorite is the plan to replace all air travel with high speed rail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
What it actually says is:
Quote:
(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
(iii) high-speed rail
Sam Stone, could you clarify for me? It seems as though you're pretty badly misrepresenting what was in the bill. Was this because: 1) the bit you claimed was in the bill actually is in the bill, but in a different area (and if so, could you quote it); 2) you honestly thought the bit you claimed was in the bill was in the bill, you just didn't understand it; or 3) you deliberately misrepresented what was in the bill?

Is there another alternative explanation I'm missing?
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."

Last edited by Evil Economist; 02-10-2019 at 02:37 AM.
  #7  
Old 02-10-2019, 05:24 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Sam Stone, could you clarify for me? It seems as though you're pretty badly misrepresenting what was in the bill. Was this because: 1) the bit you claimed was in the bill actually is in the bill, but in a different area (and if so, could you quote it); 2) you honestly thought the bit you claimed was in the bill was in the bill, you just didn't understand it; or 3) you deliberately misrepresented what was in the bill?

Is there another alternative explanation I'm missing?
I can't speak for Sam Stone, but my favorite part about the bill is that we've apparently collectively forgotten (well, okay, some of us have forgotten) that over the past decade or two, there has been a consistent drive by those against action on climate change to intentionally misinform the public. To intentionally downplay the costs and consequences of climate change (when not outright denying that it's happening at all) while dismissing any attempt to mitigate or address the issue as impossibly expensive, laughable, socialism, et cetera. They have no compulsion to be honest, no interest in honest debate, and are absolutely willing to lie their asses off in defense of their financial interests.

And we're seeing that again here. The right-wing line on the Green New Deal is... I think it's fair to say mostly bullshit. There may be the odd real critique in there, but for the most part? Expect a ton of intentional misinformation and propaganda surrounding this - just like there was for every single other proposal we've ever seen having to do with climate change. Because this is how they work. Oil companies know what they're doing, and they're good at it. So if you can't personally validate any given negative take on this law (by, say, citing the actual text of the article), you should take it as a given that it's probably bullshit.

Just like this thread - the premise of this thread was based on an unpublished PR blurb that was retracted, had nothing to do with the actual proposed text, and which everyone from CNBC to Tucker Carlson picked up and fucking ran with as though it was the most important thing about this resolution. It's not. It's not even in the text, so it's probably not the most important thing here.

On a side note, while I was looking up articles about this, I came across this little piece of absolute fucking dog shit.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/202...g-private-jets
Top Democrats running for president in 2020 have jumped on and endorsed Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s radical Green New Deal that aims, among other things, to eliminate air travel.

But the elimination of air travel strikes particularly close to the homes of Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris – all of whom extensively used air travel, including private jets – throughout the years in office.
So we take the lie that the bill wants to eliminate air travel as a given, and then add an extra helping of noxious bullshit in the typical "You want to improve society? But you LIVE in society! Checkmate, socialist!" canard that for some reason people find convincing. And its just so fucking stupid.
Yet Harris herself is far from following what she preaches. Since 2015, her campaign has spent around $300,000 on air travel.

Harris’ FEC records also show that she spent less than $7,000 on trains, even though the Green New Deal proposes making trains the main means of transport “at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.”
If you cannot figure out what's wrong with the above two paragraphs, please, do us all a favor, don't vote. Or breed. I mean... Yikes. "Gosh, I can't imagine why a politician endorsing a bill to massively upgrade our rail system would have spent much more money on air travel than on our shitty, basically non-existent trains!" It boggles the mind, truly.

It's our job to, collectively, not fall for this shit. We have 12 years to do something about climate change before the more extreme effects become inescapable. The cost of climate change is calculated in the trillions. Is the Green New Deal perfect? Probably not. It's not binding legislation, either - rather, it's a resolution for things for the house to address with legislation, with many of the details to be ironed out. It is, however, the first thing even approaching a real attempt to grapple with the problem. It is the first attempt at legislation that even comes close to recognizing the scope of the problem. And if we don't deal with the problem... Well, fuck everyone younger than 40, I guess.
  #8  
Old 02-12-2019, 10:10 AM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
And this was about the least crazy thing in the green new deal, which I would have flunked if it had been handed in as a grade 8 social studies assignment. My favorite is the plan to replace all air travel with high speed rail.
First, you never did provide support for your claim that "the plan to replace all air travel with high speed rail", and you seem to have disappeared when you were called on it.

Second, I now see that you've plagiarized Donald Trump: “It sounds like a high school term paper that got a low mark.” I hope I never reach the point in my life when I think something Donald Trump said was so witty that I have take it for myself.
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."

Last edited by Evil Economist; 02-12-2019 at 10:11 AM.
  #9  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:05 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,265
This appears to be a manufactured outrage by the right wing, as the words "unwilling to work" do not appear in the legislation, but only in her press release; and the legislation is non-binding anyway.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...Deal-FINAL.pdf

Look, I'm not an AOC fan. I think she would be largely laughed at and disregarded if she were a poster on this message board. But if the topic is something like whether health care and affordable housing should be available to all Americans, or just those with jobs, I'm going to side with making that available to everyone. And I mean everyone.
  #10  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:24 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This appears to be a manufactured outrage by the right wing, as the words "unwilling to work" do not appear in the legislation, but only in her press release...
It seems odd to assume that the outrage isn't genuine just because the phrase appears in a press release. There's a lot of outrage at stuff said in Trump's press releases, but I don't think it's "manufactured", at least not all of it.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-08-2019 at 01:25 PM.
  #11  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:30 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It seems odd to assume that the outrage isn't genuine just because the phrase appears in a press release. There's a lot of outrage at stuff said in Trump's press releases, but I don't think it's "manufactured", at least not all of it.
Trump shoots off his mouth and sometimes something happens. "Hey, I got a stupid idea, let's withdraw from Syria!" and boom, it starts happening.

Here we are talking about someone shooting from the hip and the actual text of the resolution doesn't support what she said, PLUS the resolution doesn't do anything. If you ask me, it could well be that incompetence is partially to blame here: she may have thought her legislation said something that it didn't say.

But yes, manufactured outrage. Typical for many of those in Trump's corner when this woman is involved.
  #12  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:40 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Look, I'm not an AOC fan. I think she would be largely laughed at and disregarded if she were a poster on this message board. But if the topic is something like whether health care and affordable housing should be available to all Americans, or just those with jobs, I'm going to side with making that available to everyone. And I mean everyone.
And I'm not gonna laugh at her because she's almost singlehandedly turned climate change into a top-tier issue for the first time since Obama's cap-and-trade bill died in the Senate back in 2009.

I don't know if her plan is the ideal pony plan, but I think it's up to critics to come up with better plans. One point Atrios makes frequently is that we often don't get a choice between the plan on the table and some ideal plan that's in our heads; we usually get a choice between the plan on the table versus doing nothing.

In 2019, of course, whatever passes the House will run into a brick wall in the shape of a tortoise shell on the other side of the Capitol: there's no way Mitch will allow the Senate to take up climate change legislation, no matter how good it is. So the rubber's going to hit the road in January 2021, if ever. But in the meantime, it's time for those who are concerned about climate change to either improve this plan, or present alternatives, so we can be ready for that moment when it gets here.
  #13  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:09 PM
Kimera757 Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 415
The quote:

Quote:
Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing:
A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
Clean air and water and access to nature
Healthy food
High-quality health care
Safe, affordable, adequate housing
Economic environment free of monopolies
Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The Green New Deal proposed by Ocasio-Cortez contains an interesting part: "Economic security for those unwilling to work."

There needs to be a strong social net for those who are unable to work or temporarily out of work, no doubt. But for those who are unwilling to work, this opens up a huge can of worms.
I agree with this criticism. There are quite a few people apparently living with family and not working (and not paying rent). Some of them are unpaid caregivers, some are mentally or physically ill, but others are just leeches. They wouldn't qualify for welfare, but they are still tolerated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This appears to be a manufactured outrage by the right wing, as the words "unwilling to work" do not appear in the legislation, but only in her press release
Why would she put that in her press release? That's the thing people pay more attention to. This is political malpractice. Next time she needs to hire an editor.

Last edited by Kimera757; 02-08-2019 at 08:09 PM.
  #14  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:35 PM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757 View Post
Why would she put that in her press release? That's the thing people pay more attention to. This is political malpractice. Next time she needs to hire an editor.
Maybe it was not an accident? You may not be entirely in touch with the popularity of such a proposal. One potential cite: https://www.thenation.com/article/un...tical-reality/

You may notice the overwhelming support from African American voters and fair support from working-class whites.

A progressive and populist agenda may be exactly the thing Democrats are looking for in 2020. It will give college-educated whites and fiscal conservatives the willies (myself included in many cases), but it's possible Trump has burned his bridges with suburban college-educated whites to the point that this kind of platform can win nation-wide.

I could see this being a sort of trial-balloon by including it in the press release. Something that can easily be walked back or refuted by Harris, Booker, Warren et al (who have signed up for the GND resolution) but if it catches on could be picked up as well.
  #15  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:05 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 36,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The Green New Deal proposed by Ocasio-Cortez contains an interesting part: "Economic security for those unwilling to work."


There needs to be a strong social net for those who are unable to work or temporarily out of work, no doubt. But for those who are unwilling to work, this opens up a huge can of worms. Many workers in America - perhaps even the majority - do not enjoy their jobs and work their jobs only because they have to make financial ends meet. If we provide enough financial assistance that Americans who don't want to work, don't have to work another day in their lives, then many millions of people (especially, those who work in minimum-wage industries, such as janitors, fast food, cashiers etc) would retire on the spot. That would be catastrophic for the economy.

Perhaps one could argue that this is just another word for Universal Basic Income. But UBI would also be problematic if it is so generous that many people simply quit working altogether and leave a gaping hole in the workforce. (Unless Ocasio-Cortez is proposing massive automation that would let tens of millions of workers not have to work, but I don't think she is suggesting that at all.)
Then that disproves the notion that they're being paid what they're worth. They're being underpaid because the employers holds all the power.
  #16  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:12 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Then that disproves the notion that they're being paid what they're worth. They're being underpaid because the employers holds all the power.
Employees are not worth "as much as they would like to be paid" - if that were so, everyone would be paid 2-3x as much as they are now. They are paid as much as the employer is willing or able to pay.
  #17  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:19 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 36,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Employees are not worth "as much as they would like to be paid" - if that were so, everyone would be paid 2-3x as much as they are now. They are paid as much as the employer is willing or able to pay.
Why the quote marks? I didn't say that. They're not paid what they're worth.
I'll bet you wouldn't be too thrilled to clean the office bathroom yourself or wash your own dishes at a restaurant.

What the employer is willing to pay does not determine the employee's worth only the power the employer has over the employees.
  #18  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:39 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Why the quote marks? I didn't say that. They're not paid what they're worth.
I'll bet you wouldn't be too thrilled to clean the office bathroom yourself or wash your own dishes at a restaurant.

What the employer is willing to pay does not determine the employee's worth only the power the employer has over the employees.
That's not how that works at all.

In essence you're selling your labor to the company. Hence, they set the price they're willing to pay for your labor (i.e. the value of your labor), based on economics- how fungible of a commodity are you? How high is the demand for your skills and experience? How inflexible is the demand for that position to be filled relative to the other two factors? And so on...

If you're inexperienced and/or unskilled enough to be easily replaceable by someone just like you willing to work for less, then WHY would the employer pay more to hire you? That's how a market works- if there are multiple providers of the exact same good, then people will buy from the cheapest one because why would they spend more? But if they need a specific good, or at a specific time, or with specific features, then there are less of them, and they'll still try and get it cheaply, but the sellers will price it higher- that's why a master carpenter commands a much larger wage than some goober with a hammer and no experience with carpentry.

So if you're in this lower-end situation where your skills and experience don't manage to even recommend you better than minimum wage (which is a pretty pitifully low bar for skills and experience, I have to say), and someone comes along and offers you the option of working for minimum or doing your own thing without having to work, which are you going to pick?

And if you're an employer, you'll probably have to raise wages for the people willing to work, but in the long term, you'll probably look to automate where you can to save on labor costs.

And I agree that the idea that UBI/negative income tax/whatever is going to suddenly liberate people to become artists, thinkers and authors is absurd. Plenty of middle class and above people have the ability to explore this when they're younger- how many actually end up as artists? Not many, probably because real artistic talent is scarce. What this scheme might do is convince a lot of people to be "artists" in the sense of they spend time doing artistic stuff without any skill.

Look at it this way... growing up in school, how many kids had artistic talent? Academic talent? Athletic talent? A small percentage in each category. The vast majority of students were not athletically, artistically or academically remarkable in any way, positive OR negative. The vast majority of the population is there- UBI isn't going to change that. At best what you'd see is a relatively small number of skilled people emerging who never had the time or the wherewithal to do it before. But most people are going to do the same crap they already do in their off time- watch TV, fiddle with their phones, etc...
  #19  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:45 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 36,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
That's not how that works at all.

In essence you're selling your labor to the company. Hence, they set the price they're willing to pay for your labor (i.e. the value of your labor), based on economics- how fungible of a commodity are you? How high is the demand for your skills and experience? How inflexible is the demand for that position to be filled relative to the other two factors? And so on...

If you're inexperienced and/or unskilled enough to be easily replaceable by someone just like you willing to work for less, then WHY would the employer pay more to hire you? That's how a market works- if there are multiple providers of the exact same good, then people will buy from the cheapest one because why would they spend more? But if they need a specific good, or at a specific time, or with specific features, then there are less of them, and they'll still try and get it cheaply, but the sellers will price it higher- that's why a master carpenter commands a much larger wage than some goober with a hammer and no experience with carpentry.

So if you're in this lower-end situation where your skills and experience don't manage to even recommend you better than minimum wage (which is a pretty pitifully low bar for skills and experience, I have to say), and someone comes along and offers you the option of working for minimum or doing your own thing without having to work, which are you going to pick?

And if you're an employer, you'll probably have to raise wages for the people willing to work, but in the long term, you'll probably look to automate where you can to save on labor costs.

And I agree that the idea that UBI/negative income tax/whatever is going to suddenly liberate people to become artists, thinkers and authors is absurd. Plenty of middle class and above people have the ability to explore this when they're younger- how many actually end up as artists? Not many, probably because real artistic talent is scarce. What this scheme might do is convince a lot of people to be "artists" in the sense of they spend time doing artistic stuff without any skill.

Look at it this way... growing up in school, how many kids had artistic talent? Academic talent? Athletic talent? A small percentage in each category. The vast majority of students were not athletically, artistically or academically remarkable in any way, positive OR negative. The vast majority of the population is there- UBI isn't going to change that. At best what you'd see is a relatively small number of skilled people emerging who never had the time or the wherewithal to do it before. But most people are going to do the same crap they already do in their off time- watch TV, fiddle with their phones, etc...
Since that applies to all skills, that takes the argument that success is based on hard work and blows it out of the water.
If someone is born with average or below average skills, why should that condemn them to a life of poverty and abuse?
  #20  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:49 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
And if you're an employer, you'll probably have to raise wages for the people willing to work, but in the long term, you'll probably look to automate where you can to save on labor costs
This is happening already regardless of anything happening in politics. Automation especially with ever improving AI will render most menial jobs unavailable to humans eventually. Fast food cashier? Yeah your job is going away. Warehouse worker? Many of those jobs will soon be done by robots.

So the question is what do we do about the entire class of people that will one day not be employable because there will be no jobs that they can do? Soylent Green?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #21  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:57 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Employees are not worth "as much as they would like to be paid" - if that were so, everyone would be paid 2-3x as much as they are now. They are paid as much as the employer is willing or able to pay.
Then again, if employers can not convince anyone to do a particular job for what the employers consider a "fair" wage the employers just might have to raise wages sufficiently to attract workers willing to do that job.
  #22  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:38 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Then again, if employers can not convince anyone to do a particular job for what the employers consider a "fair" wage the employers just might have to raise wages sufficiently to attract workers willing to do that job.
Sheesh... there's not a lot of convincing going on.

This does feel very Groundhog Day-ish... I keep having to repeat myself- that's not how it works. Wages are predominantly set as part of a labor market- labor is a "good" just like anything else, and like anything else, it's sale price is set by the person selling it. If that good is not worth the price, then nobody buys, so the seller has to drop their price.

In the case of low-wage workers, they don't have skills and experience worth paying more for, and they're easily replaceable. Hence the low pay- "if you won't do the job for the pay I'm willing to pay, there are a dozen other people waiting who will."

That's not the company being dicks; developing skills and experience (and hard work is definitely a skill) is the main way you differentiate yourself in the job market. Luck plays a large role as well, but as far as things you can control, that's how you raise the perceived value of your labor. That's why education is important- it's a way to differentiate yourself. So are things like summer jobs, internships, etc... And stuff like criminal records also differentiate you, except negatively.

I don't doubt that some sort of UBI would increase wages for the remaining lowest wage workers- employers would have to raise wages just to compete with the option of being a sloth. But that's only at the extreme low end; almost nobody making 50k is going to turn around and say "F**k this 50k job, I want to go sit on my ass for 20k." But it's entirely likely that someone making 24k might say that. In the long run though, that's going to drive automation even harder until we reach a point when everything that can be economically automated will be. Whether or not that point is a post-scarcity economy remains to be seen. It may just end up as a situation with widespread impoverished unemployment for most people, and a small "working" class that actually does jobs that can't be automated.
  #23  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:48 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Sheesh... there's not a lot of convincing going on.

This does feel very Groundhog Day-ish... I keep having to repeat myself- that's not how it works. Wages are predominantly set as part of a labor market- labor is a "good" just like anything else, and like anything else, it's sale price is set by the person selling it. If that good is not worth the price, then nobody buys, so the seller has to drop their price.

In the case of low-wage workers, they don't have skills and experience worth paying more for, and they're easily replaceable. Hence the low pay- "if you won't do the job for the pay I'm willing to pay, there are a dozen other people waiting who will."

That's not the company being dicks; developing skills and experience (and hard work is definitely a skill) is the main way you differentiate yourself in the job market. Luck plays a large role as well, but as far as things you can control, that's how you raise the perceived value of your labor. That's why education is important- it's a way to differentiate yourself. So are things like summer jobs, internships, etc... And stuff like criminal records also differentiate you, except negatively.

I don't doubt that some sort of UBI would increase wages for the remaining lowest wage workers- employers would have to raise wages just to compete with the option of being a sloth. But that's only at the extreme low end; almost nobody making 50k is going to turn around and say "F**k this 50k job, I want to go sit on my ass for 20k." But it's entirely likely that someone making 24k might say that. In the long run though, that's going to drive automation even harder until we reach a point when everything that can be economically automated will be. Whether or not that point is a post-scarcity economy remains to be seen. It may just end up as a situation with widespread impoverished unemployment for most people, and a small "working" class that actually does jobs that can't be automated.
The utility curve of money means that if you gave people a UBI, they would demand to be paid even more for the same work. $30K per year when you're making zero looks a lot different than an additional $30K when you're already getting a $25K UBI. If I absolutely need a job, and I can get one at Tim Horton's for $25K per year and nothing else, well, I'll take that job. But if I'm already getting $25K without working at all, doubling it to 50K at the expense of having to work every day is going to look a lot different.

And if you are going to means-test the UBI in any way, rather than sending a check every month to Jeff Bezos, there will come a point where the marginal taxation of income in your new job makes it even less appealing. If every dollar I earn over, say, $100K gets clawed back out of my UBI 1:1, guess what? I'll never make more than $100K. And if you only claw it back at 50%, that's essentially a 50% marginal tax on income over $100K, on top of whatever other income taxes I might have to pay.

Then you have the problem that at first, a lot of people might be seduced by the money to just lay around. Then later they might get restless and want to work, but they'll find that their layoff from the job market makes them unemployable. Then they'll be stuck with UBI with no prospects for better.
  #24  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:53 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Sheesh... there's not a lot of convincing going on.

This does feel very Groundhog Day-ish... I keep having to repeat myself- that's not how it works. Wages are predominantly set as part of a labor market- labor is a "good" just like anything else, and like anything else, it's sale price is set by the person selling it. If that good is not worth the price, then nobody buys, so the seller has to drop their price.

In the case of low-wage workers, they don't have skills and experience worth paying more for, and they're easily replaceable. Hence the low pay- "if you won't do the job for the pay I'm willing to pay, there are a dozen other people waiting who will."
You say that because you have lived all your life in a world where the available labor pool is larger than the demand for labor. If that flipped around it would be a very different world.

After the Black Death swept through Europe wages rose because there was a chronic labor shortage for quite some time afterward - more labor was needed than was available. Of course, with technology labor shortages can also drive technology and automation.

In a world where people don't HAVE to work then getting people to actually DO work that is needed might require an increase in wages for those jobs that still require humans as opposed to robots.
  #25  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:49 AM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
That's not the company being dicks; developing skills and experience (and hard work is definitely a skill) is the main way you differentiate yourself in the job market. Luck plays a large role as well, but as far as things you can control, that's how you raise the perceived value of your labor. That's why education is important- it's a way to differentiate yourself. So are things like summer jobs, internships, etc... And stuff like criminal records also differentiate you, except negatively.
Being currently in the middle of a job search myself, I can kind of see both sides. No, we shouldn't have some sort of global welfare system for people to sit on their ass smoking pot all day watching Netflix.

OTOH, do we want a system that is so mercenary that you can be let go at a moment's notice for any reason whatsoever and then find it nearly impossible to land a similar job for any number of reasons beyond your control? Or maybe simply because there is always at least one person who is a better "fit"?

Yes, your brilliant Ivy League grads with perfect grades in the right degrees and the right internships will probably always find a job. And there will always be some segment of the population content to do nothing if they could. But I'd like to see some solution for the vast population in the middle who want to work, but maybe don't want to be treated like disposable cogs, easily replaced when their perceived value to the organization slips.
  #26  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:26 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Then that disproves the notion that they're being paid what they're worth. They're being underpaid because the employers holds all the power.
Wrong. If anything minimum wage workers are overpaid.

Concerning the OP, that green platforms thing was a bit nutty. I thought the cow fart detail was humorous.
  #27  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:05 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 36,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Wrong. If anything minimum wage workers are overpaid.

Concerning the OP, that green platforms thing was a bit nutty. I thought the cow fart detail was humorous.
Care to explain? Do you really think the average MW worker is such a worthless piece of shit that they should be paid even less?
  #28  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:00 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Care to explain? Do you really think the average MW worker is such a worthless piece of shit that they should be paid even less?
What do I think? I think in a so-called market economy price should be set by supply and demand and not counterproductive government fiat. There is no intrinsic dollar value to goods or services and that includes labor.

Last edited by octopus; 02-08-2019 at 05:00 PM.
  #29  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:46 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I thought the cow fart detail was humorous.
Oh, you mean you have a sense of humor? For some reason, I thought you were a Republican.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-08-2019 at 06:46 PM.
  #30  
Old 02-15-2019, 06:06 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Wrong. If anything minimum wage workers are overpaid.

Concerning the OP, that green platforms thing was a bit nutty. I thought the cow fart detail was humorous.
If minimum wage workers are overpaid, then why the fuck does McDonalds pay them? As a charity?

As right-wingers are fond of pointing out, we could raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour. We wouldn't see McDonalds suddenly paying their burger-flippers $100 an hour, what would happen is that all the burger flippers would lose their jobs.

So what would happen if the minimum wage were $2 an hour, and we raised the rate to the socialistic sum of $7.25? You think the burger flippers who used to make $2 an hour would suddenly get a raise? No, they'd be fired, because a business model that depended on $2/hr wages couldn't survive at $7.25/hr.

If a business chooses to pay some guy $7.25 an hour, then who the fuck are you to say that the magic of the marketplace is wrong, and that guy is only worth $5/hr? If he were only worth $5/hr, then McDonalds would have fired his ass.
  #31  
Old 02-15-2019, 06:39 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
If minimum wage workers are overpaid, then why the fuck does McDonalds pay them? As a charity?

As right-wingers are fond of pointing out, we could raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour. We wouldn't see McDonalds suddenly paying their burger-flippers $100 an hour, what would happen is that all the burger flippers would lose their jobs.

So what would happen if the minimum wage were $2 an hour, and we raised the rate to the socialistic sum of $7.25? You think the burger flippers who used to make $2 an hour would suddenly get a raise? No, they'd be fired, because a business model that depended on $2/hr wages couldn't survive at $7.25/hr.

If a business chooses to pay some guy $7.25 an hour, then who the fuck are you to say that the magic of the marketplace is wrong, and that guy is only worth 50c/hr? If he were only worth $5/hr, then McDonalds would have fired his ass.
What actually happens is that jobs that are worth >0 but less than $7.25 simply don't get done. Or, the workers that make minimum wage above their productivity level have their benefits cut, or are forced to multi-task or work harder, whatever.

The real minimum wage is $0. The natural minimum wage is the wage that anyone is willing to work for at all. In a rich country, no one works for 50 cents per hour. If the minimum wage were set at that, no one would do it and the real minimum would still be much higher.

To the extent that minimum wage increases actually affect real-world wages, the evidence is that some people who were working under the old minimum get raises, at the expense of others who are laid off. The other effect of high minimum wages is to shrink certain industries (restaurants, fast food, etc), reduce service (bigger lines at grocery stores) and accelerate investment into labor reducing automation. McDonald's, for example, has responded to the increasing costs of their labor force by accelerating the rollout of automated ordering kiosks.

Another bad thing about minimum wages, which applies to any attempt to fix prices, is that it destroys information. If the minimum wage is $15/hr, you lose all the information about the demand for jobs that could pay $10/hr. Without a market-set, fluctuating wage system, you induce inefficiency by masking the value available in jobs that would pay somewhat less.

It would be much better to eliminate minimum wages entirely. You still won't see people working for 50c/hr, because I don't think anyone WILL work for 50c/hr.

Question: What's the prevailing wage for migrant workers? Illegal labor is not subject to minimum wages, or any other regulations for that matter. So do the migrants who get picked up at Wal-Mart for day labor work for 50c/hr? If they are paid more, that should tell you that other forces than minimum wage laws are at play in setting salaries.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 02-15-2019 at 06:42 PM.
  #32  
Old 02-16-2019, 03:38 AM
Heffalump and Roo Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
To the extent that minimum wage increases actually affect real-world wages, the evidence is that some people who were working under the old minimum get raises, at the expense of others who are laid off. The other effect of high minimum wages is to shrink certain industries (restaurants, fast food, etc), reduce service (bigger lines at grocery stores) and accelerate investment into labor reducing automation. McDonald's, for example, has responded to the increasing costs of their labor force by accelerating the rollout of automated ordering kiosks.
Could I get a cite for this?

This is not what happened when Seattle went to $15/hr minimum wage. In Seattle, increasing the minimum wage increased employment, increased the number of hours worked and had "near zero" impact on restaurant employment. One reason given for the increases, which might be non-intuitive, is that people used their increased wages to put back into those industries.

Quote:
When Seattle started down the road to the $15 minimum wage, the city hired a University of Washington team of economists to analyze the wage’s effects on the city. In the years since, the Seattle Minimum Wage Study Team’s findings have been largely positive. In 2016, they found that wages in Seattle are up, low-wage employment increased in the city, and the number of hours worked increased. They reported earlier this year that the wage increase had “near zero” impact on restaurant employment. And this week, in their final study for the city, the Seattle Minimum Wage Study Team released a report proving prices at restaurants and grocery stores haven’t increased because of the minimum wage.
International Policy Digest

To be fair, studies in other places showed different things, and studies in Seattle have contradicted this one. But people questioned some of the assumptions in that study that contradicted this one. I think the studies need to be closely looked at for their assumptions, duration and methodology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Another bad thing about minimum wages, which applies to any attempt to fix prices, is that it destroys information. If the minimum wage is $15/hr, you lose all the information about the demand for jobs that could pay $10/hr. Without a market-set, fluctuating wage system, you induce inefficiency by masking the value available in jobs that would pay somewhat less.
What's the benefit in maintaining this information that tells you how many workers could be paid less?

At some level, the workers who are paid less will be relying on government assistance to get by because there are not enough hours in the day to string together enough $5/hr jobs to survive. Knowing how many of these people exist doesn't give much useful information that I can see.

Last edited by Heffalump and Roo; 02-16-2019 at 03:41 AM. Reason: added possible reason for increase in employment
  #33  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:06 PM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,671
One point of clarification from the linked article:
Quote:
The actual resolution that outlines the Green New Deal does not include the "unwilling to work" part
It was only the outline that legislators (including AOC) provided that includes that language.
  #34  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:11 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,518
So... UBI is unemployment insurance? If you are going to test for a willingness to work, then that's what it becomes. And if you aren't, then it does cover people who are unwilling to work.
  #35  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:56 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But for those who are unwilling to work, this opens up a huge can of worms.
You're not wrong, it's a huge can of worms. What do you do with someone who's unwilling to work? We're already picking up a lot of costs associated with their choices, from emergency medical care to extra policing to homeless shelters and food pantries.

The "problem" is that as a society we're generally unwilling to let this class of person just die on the streets. I mean, I think that's a good thing, but that also means we're going to have to address the problem one way or another, and there's no indication that the way we're currently addressing it is any good.
  #36  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:09 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,314
There are very, very few people who are unwilling to do any work at all. What you actually get is people who don't want the work that pays them enough to live on. If we had universal basic income, then you'd see a lot more people following their dreams and becoming artists, philosophers, or other sorts of unprofitable workers.
  #37  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:22 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
There are very, very few people who are unwilling to do any work at all. What you actually get is people who don't want the work that pays them enough to live on.
There are lots of people who will not do some jobs unless you pay them very well.

There are lots of people who, when offered free money or a 'rewarding' job that pays the same, will choose the free miney every time - Unless you think there are sanitation workers out there who would just love to get on their trucks and pick up garbage all day for free if they didn't have to worry about an income.

Finally, there are lots of people who talk a good game about wanting to do a lot of things, but need to have a fire lit under their ass before they'll actually get out of their chair and do it. Go look at the number of people who manage to find jobs just as their unemployment insurance is running out.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 02-08-2019 at 02:24 PM.
  #38  
Old 02-11-2019, 03:29 PM
Brayne Ded Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
There are very, very few people who are unwilling to do any work at all. What you actually get is people who don't want the work that pays them enough to live on. If we had universal basic income, then you'd see a lot more people following their dreams and becoming artists, philosophers, or other sorts of unprofitable workers.
Well, maybe. The next post after Chronos neatly states one obvious point of view: welfare recipients. However, look at the latest issue of New Scientist, which has an article about a UBI experiment in Finland. Possibly a flawed experiment, but the results are interesting.

And was the "unwilling to work"part tagged on, and is not in the original proposal? Could it be fake news?
  #39  
Old 02-11-2019, 03:34 PM
Brayne Ded Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 293
I have seen the future...

... and I have my doubts about it. What do we do with a growing number of unemployed who will probably never get any sort of real job? Automation has taken over a lot of manufacturing jobs, admin will be next because it is so routine and formulaic that a computer can do it, and doesn't goof off or fall sick. Seriously, while it may sound the stuff of a sci-fi fantasy, what do we do when the labor force is relatively tiny? Of course, we still need people to deal with people, unless jobs such as nursing and entertainment also get digitized.
  #40  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:19 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,518
Chronos, not everyone is a frustrated artist with an MFA working in an unsatisfying job. The vast majority of of people, if given a free income, will spend their time watching TV, surfing the net, drinking, smoking pot, or otherwise just chilling.

I grew up in a welfare neighborhood, and I never saw anyone on welfare following their dreams to be an artist. I DID see a lot of people sitting around on sofas smoking, drinking, and watching TV.

The idea that we will become a nation of artists and thinkers is ridiculous.
  #41  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:37 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Chronos, not everyone is a frustrated artist with an MFA working in an unsatisfying job. The vast majority of of people, if given a free income, will spend their time watching TV, surfing the net, drinking, smoking pot, or otherwise just chilling.

I grew up in a welfare neighborhood, and I never saw anyone on welfare following their dreams to be an artist. I DID see a lot of people sitting around on sofas smoking, drinking, and watching TV.

The idea that we will become a nation of artists and thinkers is ridiculous.
You have such a terrible opinion of humanity.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #42  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:52 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
You have such a terrible opinion of humanity.
No, I don't. I have a realistic view of humanity, which is that people respond to incentives. If you want people to work, you need to pay them to work.

A lot of people on this board come from privileged backgrounds, where 'fulfilling work' means creative white collar work. And because they are relatively high achievers, they assume other people are like them.

I grew up in a family of blue collar laborers. I was the only kid in my whole extended family to go to college. To people like that, work isn't 'empowering', it's what you have to do to survive. It's hard, dirty work that is no fun at all. But it's necessary work, and it's honorable. Those people have no dreams of being writers or artists - they have dreams of having a boat and fishing instead of working, or just being able to watch TV and drink a few beers.
  #43  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:58 PM
Royal Nonesutch Royal Nonesutch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
You have such a terrible opinion of humanity.
Absolutely right, which is why the well-known stereotype of the typical Trust Fund kid getting up at 4am every day to wash the feet of homeless invalids before picking up trash in the local park just won't go away.
  #44  
Old 02-09-2019, 04:53 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
You have such a terrible opinion of humanity.
And a serious non-understanding of what poverty does to a person, their outlook, their ability to conceive of a future (let alone plan for one) and a whole host of other related issues.
  #45  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:02 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Chronos, not everyone is a frustrated artist with an MFA working in an unsatisfying job. The vast majority of of people, if given a free income, will spend their time watching TV, surfing the net, drinking, smoking pot, or otherwise just chilling.

I grew up in a welfare neighborhood, and I never saw anyone on welfare following their dreams to be an artist. I DID see a lot of people sitting around on sofas smoking, drinking, and watching TV.

The idea that we will become a nation of artists and thinkers is ridiculous.
I grew up in a similar neighborhood and you are 100% correct. I think everyone who has such lofty ideas of humanity ought to live a few years in a very economically depressed area and see for themselves the reality of human nature.
  #46  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:49 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The vast majority of of people, if given a free income, will spend their time watching TV, surfing the net, drinking, smoking pot, or otherwise just chilling.
Would your mom and dad have done that? Would you? If so, well, maybe you're onto something. If not, why would you ever assume you have any idea what other people would do in the same situation?
  #47  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:57 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Would your mom and dad have done that? Would you? If so, well, maybe you're onto something. If not, why would you ever assume you have any idea what other people would do in the same situation?
If you must know, my father left us when I was two, and spent his life mostly sitting on a barstool. He lived in a room in the Elk's club. My mother worked her ass off, because that's how she was raised. But we were one of very few families in the neighborhood who were not on welfare. Most of my friends had mothers on welfare, and they mostly sat around and smoked and talked with each other all day, if they weren't parked in front of a TV watching their 'stories'.

And I knew plenty of young men who didn't work, or who only worked sporadically when they absolutely needed the money, then would blow off work for partying. Those are the ones I really worry about, because it was hard to live that way so most eventually figured out that they needed a career of some sort and straightened out. If they had had a UBI, that might not have happened.
  #48  
Old 02-09-2019, 04:43 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If you must know, my father left us when I was two, and spent his life mostly sitting on a barstool. He lived in a room in the Elk's club. My mother worked her ass off, because that's how she was raised. But we were one of very few families in the neighborhood who were not on welfare. Most of my friends had mothers on welfare, and they mostly sat around and smoked and talked with each other all day, if they weren't parked in front of a TV watching their 'stories'.

And I knew plenty of young men who didn't work, or who only worked sporadically when they absolutely needed the money, then would blow off work for partying. Those are the ones I really worry about, because it was hard to live that way so most eventually figured out that they needed a career of some sort and straightened out. If they had had a UBI, that might not have happened.
This is purely anecdotal evidence. Now, in my hometown, I did not see this. I saw that most people were raised to work their asses off too, including my mom, and my Dad, who literally never called in sick a day of his life. Also anecdotal evidence.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-09-2019 at 04:44 PM.
  #49  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:58 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Chronos, not everyone is a frustrated artist with an MFA working in an unsatisfying job. The vast majority of of people, if given a free income, will spend their time watching TV, surfing the net, drinking, smoking pot, or otherwise just chilling.
Doesn't that depend on how much income it is?

For $25,000 a year, no thanks. I'll continue doing my job.

For $250,000 a year, sure, I'll quit my job.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #50  
Old 02-11-2019, 12:09 PM
BeenJammin's Avatar
BeenJammin BeenJammin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Doesn't that depend on how much income it is.
No. It depends on how the individual perceives their lot in life. There are tiny, tiny minorities at the extreme on both ends of the spectrum, with the fabulously rich on one end and pockets of agrarian subsistence on the other. Both can be happy in their own way, with enough income to do what they want - even if that is merely surviving, because that is what they know, and all they know.

But now, we have this huge working class population left over from the post-industrial techno boom that "knows better." They also know they are basically shut out of any sort of upward mobility, without alot of that "luck" factor involved. Wadda ya gonna do?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017