I’m not going to disagree , exactly - but I’m wondering what incentive people have to be farmers and work to feed 128 people a year who apparently are neither going to be working for pay nor paying the farmers. Sure, we could go back to a society where 90% of people live on farms and grow their own food and sew their own clothes , etc - but that hasn’t really gotten rid of work, just money. And not even that entirely, because there is still going to be some type of trade.
It wasn’t offered as a “one size fits all solution”; so that’s on you. That’s where the offense comes from: you were ascribing a position to me that I do not have and did not make.
Well yes, that’s just the problem. Sorting this out isn’t going to be easy or simple, but it’s a serious conversation we need to be having.
But people simply ignoring the reality that what was the fundamental basis of all human economies for literally thousands of years (growing enough food to feed everyone) has fundamentally changed over the last 150 years or so, aren’t helping the discussion.
Flip the question around - do we really expect everyone else in society to be working 60+ hours a week for shit wages and no benefits, serving asshole customers while being treated like crap by asshole bosses, just so farmers don’t feel bad about themselves?
I was responding to this part of your quote:
There is no real reason that Jeff Bezos (or any other employer) needs to profit so well while keeping his employees at as close to subsistance wages as he thinks he can get away with, except for greed and knowing that he can get away with it.
This was clearly you making just this comparison, i.e. that Bezos et al should do something similar. So, that got me thinking about what that would entail because I was curious what the impact was on the company you mentioned verse what it would be if a similar thing was done wrt Amazon.
Anyway, you are going to take offense regardless, so it doesn’t really matter. I’ll step out of your thread and let you guys get back to it.
That isn’t at all what you did. You didn’t look at " if a similar thing was done wrt Amazon", you looked at “if the exact same thing was done wrt Amazon”. And the numbers you used were incorrect.
I don’t think we even have his answer (let alone an argument presented) to his own OP yet:
I haven’t given an answer because I don’t have one. The thread was created to ask the questions and see what people’s answers were so I could better inform myself and come to my own conclusion.
Am I to be denigrated for that? Are those questions less valid as a point of discussion somehow because I did not take a position? If they are, how is one supposed to gather information?
First, I disagree that everybody works under those conditions - sure, some people do but not nearly everyone. Second, there are ways to eliminate those issues without allowing people to live off the work of others - which is what I’m talking about. I’m not at all talking about the farmers feeling bad about themselves. I’m talking about why would I want to work on a farm that feeds 128 people , many of whom don’t do any productive work and who aren’t paying me when I could probably work less hard and just farm enough to feed my own family.
It seems to me that if everyone is going to be guaranteed the basics of survival, there are still going to be people forced to work. It won’t be everyone, but if some people are forced to farm so others can eat and those people aren’t being paid to work , I’m wondering how exactly that’s different from slavery.
Yes, now I see. I misunderstood your post somewhat. Pushing Amazon’s cost of labor to 50% is clearly too big a load for their business model. However, there is a big area between $150k/yr per person and $15/hr + benefits. Let’s also be honest, Amazon is not the lowest paying employer around as it is.
I think it’s borderline well-poisoning to have a thread titled “Should people be forced to work by the government” but then have a discussion about a policy that we basically all agree is not “being forced to work by the government”.
I choose not to provide financial support to almost everyone I know (I certainly could do so for some of them), but I’m not forcing them to work.
The necessary labor to provide food, shelter, etc. per person would not be diminished in the absence of government (it would probably increase, since lots of the stability of government provides labor-saving devices and more efficient division of labor and all that jazz), but the overall number of people laboring would of course decrease because the chaos would cause lots of death and destruction. But I don’t think that’s particularly relevant to my point.
Waitaminit. The limb I climbed out on is labeled “Bring back the 1349 Ordinance of Labourers and 1351 Statute of Labourers.”
Sure it’s cold and lonely and the limb is rotten, but I’m sure others will be joining me shortly.
TBF, said laws say nothing about burgers and may need a language refresh.
A big part of the reason why is that people have vastly different ideas of what constitutes the essentials of life. Is it just clean water, cheap but nutritious food, some basic shelter, and necessary medical care? What about foods that are more expensive (there’s an ongoing thread where some posters are suggesting beef as an essential food). What about transportation? Internet access? Child care?
The big one is that in such a society, what motivates anyone to do more than the bare minimum, if they are guaranteed to not receive anything more than the bare minimum in exchange no matter how much harder they work?
This.
Again, this discussion really deserves a lot more energy than I’m able to give it right now. But I will point out that some people here are arguing that having some sort of productive job is vitally necessary for people’s self-esteem, while others fear that most people would completely slack off their entire lives if given the opportunity.
I feel the truth is somewhere in the middle, and that most people would find some work that suits their temperament and benefits society, even if it weren’t strictly necessary for them to do so.
Of course, Gravity is a service industry, they are going to have much higher labor costs than Amazon, a retail industry.
That labor is only part of the cost of a good that they send to your house when you click some buttons.
It’s not useful really to compare labor costs in different industries. My labor cost is around 65%, that would obviously not be a sustainable labor cost in something like a grocery store.
Anyway, to the OP, which definition of “exploit” are you using? I am concerend that there may be some conflation of definition here.
According to Oxford, there are two primary definitions:
1.the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
and
- the action of making use of and benefiting from resources.
Now, I would completely agree that any form of employment falls under the second definition there. However, I don’t think that most employment falls under the first. There are certainly some jobs, some of which I’ve held, that do, but most really don’t.
I would ask, am I being exploitative? Half of my employees make more than I do, and about three fourths make more per hour than I do. But, I do make money off of their labor, much more than I’d make if I was here by myself. I tell them what to do, when to do it, and I evaluate their performance and pay according to how I feel about it. Sometimes, I even make them pick up poop in plastic bags.
I see no need for this to devolve into a personal discussion.
Looked at from that perspective, it does turn into the old school socialism of Marx vs. capitalism. I think there’s a middle ground. We have Marx = from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs; and Smith = to each according to what others will pay them for whatever they can provide, regardless of their needs.
My middle ground would be from each according to their abilities, to those with less marketable skills according to their needs, and to those with more marketable and essential skills according to their wants (which will be provided by others with said marketable skills).
The problem that we have in our society is that the 0.1% didn’t get their wealth (for the most part) by providing a rare and unique skill that benefits society, but rather by manipulating the market using capital they inherited.
I agree. I try to be a pragmatist rather than an ideologue; clearly it’s helpful to society to have some financial incentives encouraging people who have the ability to work harder or smarter than most folks to do so. I think that, broadly speaking, the US needs to move quite a ways in the direction of socialism and economic levelling, but certainly at some point the drawbacks of moving further in that direction will outweigh the benefits.
Fair enough, I’m just trying to get a benchmark on what you consider to be exploitative.
There absolutely are exploitative jobs out there, and there are those who have little choice but to work in them. I would be more inclined to work towards reforming those jobs, and giving people options other than having to work them, then getting rid of the idea of employers and employees altogether.
I do believe that needs are something that are finite and quantifiable. We already do live in a post scarcity civilization, if considering just basic needs. There is enough food, clothing, shelter, and basic medical care for everyone, if properly distributed. Capitalism is not the best vehicle for ensuring that everyone’s needs are met, however. It allows the wants of one to be prioritized over the needs of another, and wants are unlimited. There never can come a time when all the wants are fulfilled, and now we can see to meeting the needs of those whose needs are not met. We need to start with the needs, and then allow capitalism to divy up the rest of the resources to fulfill the unlimited wants.
I’m all for a UBI, one that keeps people living with dignity, and a small amount of comfort. No luxurious living though, you want luxuries, then you find a way to be productive enough to earn them.
Nitpick: I think such a situation is effectively covered by my interpretation of Sam’s use of “working” to mean “meeting your bills through your takings from paid employment and/or business profits”. Technically, your hypothetical self-sustaining subsistence farmer is “meeting his bills through business profits”: it’s just that all those bills and profits are essentially in kind rather than in money.
But my point was that plenty of people “living off public assistance” are in fact “doing something useful or productive”, such as caring for children or other family members.
Just because you’re not supporting yourself financially (whether through monetary earnings or self-sustaining labor outside the money economy) doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re not doing any useful or productive work for society. Or that the costs to society of supporting you financially will necessarily be greater than the costs of taking over the unpaid work you’re doing, or greater than the costs of dealing with the consequences of the destabilization resulting from your loss of support.
To take an example in plain English, if you’re an unemployed single parent caring for three young children and living on government benefits, you are not supporting yourself and it’s costing society something to support you. But it would not necessarily cost society less to take on the costs of caring for your kids if you were spending your time earning money to support yourself instead.
Nor would it necessarily cost society less to withdraw your benefits and then have to cope with the fallout from your and your kids’ indigence, homelessness, possible involvement in crime, and other predictable consequences of penury.
Well said. That’s what I was trying to say, you just said it better than I did.