Presidential jobs address, 9-8-2011

[Angua]

Ah, the age old, how do we tell if the people out of work and making less than minimum wage are disadvantaged, or just lazy.

[sourmìlk]

Ah, the age old, how do we tell if the people out of work and making less than minimum wage are disadvantaged, or just lazy.

Well I think choosing only to work half the year might be an indicator.

[Angua]

Yes, the choice between no work and half a year of work is a hard one.

The whole point of this sort of job sharing is that there isn't enough jobs for everyone - it's not that they are choosing to work less hours because they decided they want more vacation time (in most cases, I'm sure there are some people that would choose it).

[Whimsical Eloquence]

Who said that the stimulus package didn't work?

Hasn't Krugman argued that it was a failure? (He thought it should have been bigger, and a too-small stimulus wouldn't work and would make it more difficult to do a stimulus large enough to work.)

A failure by degree. The aim of anti-cyclical policies is to lessen the damage and initiate recovery, the first being priority over the latter.


Also, people have horrible misconceptions about what's wrong in the various PIIGS countries - rarely are Government Finances the debilitating factor to their economies. But yes, yay for Minimum Incomes! For once I'm with the Libertarians in finding the Minimum Wage not just poor economically but restrictive Rights wise.

[aleflamedyud]

Yes, the choice between no work and half a year of work is a hard one.

The whole point of this sort of job sharing is that there isn't enough jobs for everyone - it's not that they are choosing to work less hours because they decided they want more vacation time (in most cases, I'm sure there are some people that would choose it).

I'm also not actually opposed to letting people take half the year off if they're content with a minimal standard of living or have savings.

But for those objecting on the basis that basic income disincentivizes work: it only disincentivizes work that paid or was easily monetized in the first place. Examples nowadays of productive work that no longer fits that criterion:

Journalists
Teachers
Scientists (not engineers, research scientists)
Policemen
EMTs
Nurses
Social scientists
Authors
Artists
Non-syndicated performers
Environmental caretakers (such as ecologists, for example)
Chefs
Civil engineers
Open-source programmers
Volunteers of all kinds

And I'm sure there are lots more. Nowadays, just because someone contributes to society doesn't mean they get paid in proportion to their contribution, or even paid at all, even when we can easily verify that they really do contribute. That structural shift is one of the most major reasons for instituting a true basic income over and above welfare: we simply cannot expect that mere productivity will get anyone paid.

[Thesh]

Also, to reiterate, many companies are hiring professionals only on a contract basis. This means a lot of people in the IT industry have no choice but to work 3-6 month contracts and then be out of the job having to look for more work.

[aleflamedyud]

Also, to reiterate, many companies are hiring professionals only on a contract basis. This means a lot of people in the IT industry have no choice but to work 3-6 month contracts and then be out of the job having to look for more work.

And IT and programming are considered unusually healthy fields right now.

[netcrusher88]

For once I'm with the Libertarians in finding the Minimum Wage not just poor economically but restrictive Rights wise.

Ah, but guaranteed income without a minimum wage puts undue stress on the government because you can bet business would exploit that. No, a minimum wage is absolutely necessary, but a minimum wage alone - perhaps under the delusion that it is sufficient to ensure everyone is earning it (inconceivably ignorant in this day and age) - is... insufficient. But better than no protection.

[Whimsical Eloquence]

For once I'm with the Libertarians in finding the Minimum Wage not just poor economically but restrictive Rights wise.

Ah, but guaranteed income without a minimum wage puts undue stress on the government because you can bet business would exploit that. No, a minimum wage is absolutely necessary, but a minimum wage alone - perhaps under the delusion that it is sufficient to ensure everyone is earning it (inconceivably ignorant in this day and age) - is... insufficient. But better than no protection.

But the point of minimum wage isn't that we think their should be a minimum price on Labour but that people should be guaranteed a certain income/not have companies give them an untenable income. A minimum income would solve that problem and allow people to accept any level of work - as well as insuring that there would be little incentive to refuse Labour for fear of loosing benefits.

[netcrusher88]

From that standpoint alone, I don't disagree - but realistically, companies would exploit that by turning what are now minimum wage jobs into ridiculously low-paying jobs leaving government to pick up the slack.

Though I suppose there's an argument to be made that hiring 5 people at 1/hr has the same net impact on expenditure for guaranteed income as hiring 1 person at 5/hr. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, as hiring a bunch of people for literally next to nothing. But it is much more likely that, lacking a minimum wage and having guaranteed income, one person would be hired at next to nothing than two. You don't hire because you have piles of money sitting around (unless it provides direct benefit to you, like a small business owner hiring a manager so they can go dick around with their piles of money for a bit), you do it because you need to increase supply to meet demand.

Having government pick up the tab for private-sector labor just doesn't sit right with me. In a decent economy I think it may be reasonable to adopt policies which discourage hiring unskilled labor (beyond that which is required to meet demand - something the private sector seems to do regardless of policy, mind) because it's more in the interests of the [administrative domain] that individuals train, go to school, or seek out more lucrative skilled positions - this is the idea behind long-term unemployment insurance as well - than to subsidize dead-end jobs at companies rolling in the dough from their near-free labor.

[aleflamedyud]

At least part of the idea of a minimum income guarantee is supposed to be that if a company offers you too low a wage, you turn them down. It probably really does require a rather fine-tuned minimum income.

[stevey_frac]

Let me get this straight:

You want to ensure that people who contribute to society, but for whom the value of their contribution is deemed to be too small to live on, that they continue contributing their meagre value, and then I have to pay for the difference?

Fuck. That.

They can retrain into something for which their is demand, for which someone is willing to pay. If there isn't demand, that's a symptom of the global economy still in the crapper, and we can beef up welfare significantly, but don't put the truly productive members of society on the hook for anyone who feels like being lazy. Even if that is a small portion of society, that would still hurt. If 2% of the population said, fuck it, we can live off the nanny state now, we'd be totally hooped.

This would be horribly expensive, and would require major tax increases. It would also encourage people to do what they want to do, instead of what pays the bills and what adds value. This would cause a large productivity decrease across the global economy.

[CorruptUser]

Personally, I'd rather see income taxes replaced with gas/energy taxes. I worked with an accountant over the summer, and while I know that a small amount of personal experience is not good data to draw scientific conclusions on, I'd say about half of all income taxes are avoided. Whether by fraud or just a pure cash business, the result is that the honest people have to pay DOUBLE the tax because of the dishonest people. As the tax burden becomes more unbearable, it encourages even more people to avoid taxes.

The thing about fuel tax? Everyone has to pay it, based on how much they consume. Everyone. Cash businesses have to ship goods in and out too.

Let's say you make $100k a year. It doesn't directly affect your short-term lifestyle if you have to pay $50k* in income tax or $50k in increased prices/gas tax. However, that tax burden on you could be reduced as everyone who wasn't paying income taxes before now has to pay (can't really hide fuel/electricity from the government). Long-term, people will find ways to reduce their energy consumption, which while generally a good thing, means that taxes will still have to be levied from somewhere.



*Yes the tax rate is ~50%. The Federal Income Tax might only have a 35% max bracket, but there are other payroll taxes such as Medicaid, Medicare, SocSec, the SocSes matching that your employer has to pay (but really comes out of your paycheck), worker's comp, and a bunch of other payroll taxes. The way the current system is, since SocSec and worker's comp caps out, the system is partially progressive and regressive.

[sourmìlk]

At least part of the idea of a minimum income guarantee is supposed to be that if a company offers you too low a wage, you turn them down.

See, this is the bit I have a problem with. If you turn down a job that you could use to support yourself, I don't want to pay for it.

[Arancaytar]

“Instead of nibbling around the edges of a job-killing tax code, we need to throw it out. Eliminate income, business and payroll taxes altogether, and replace them with a FAIR tax (FairTax.org) that will result in millions of jobs.

2001: Reduce taxes on the rich, that will fix the economy.
2003: Maybe if we reduce taxes on the rich, that will fix the economy.
Now: I know how to fix the economy! We reduce taxes on the rich!

What's wrong with that? It worked both times...

...in whatever alternate reality these guys live in.

[CorruptUser]

The actual plan:

Republicans: Let's cut taxes and spend like drunken sailors to appease our base, knowing that when the Dems take over we can blame them.
Democrats: There is currently a mess, so we should keep the tax cuts and increase spending even further, and blame the Republicans.

[Thesh]

The actual plan:

Republicans: Let's cut taxes and spend like drunken sailors to appease our base, knowing that when the Dems take over we can blame them.
Democrats: Let's cut taxes and spend like drunken sailors to appease our base, knowing that when the GOP takes over we can blame them.

FTFY

[sourmìlk]

I think it's a bit more like this

Democrats: well, the American people elected officials that got us into this mess, so maybe we should keep giving them what they want. We don't want to upset anybody.

I.E. less malice and more frightened incompetence. Never attribute to malice etc.

[Princess Marzipan]

At least part of the idea of a minimum income guarantee is supposed to be that if a company offers you too low a wage, you turn them down.

See, this is the bit I have a problem with. If you turn down a job that you could use to support yourself, I don't want to pay for it.

Did you gloss over the phrase "too low a wage" in that sentence?

[sourmìlk]

At least part of the idea of a minimum income guarantee is supposed to be that if a company offers you too low a wage, you turn them down.

See, this is the bit I have a problem with. If you turn down a job that you could use to support yourself, I don't want to pay for it.

Did you gloss over the phrase "too low a wage" in that sentence?

...No? Even if the wage alone is too low to support yourself fully, you should take it if it's the only option so that the tax payer at least isn't paying completely for you, just partially.

[netcrusher88]

If 2% of the population said, fuck it, we can live off the nanny state now, we'd be totally hooped.

Ah yes, the oft-used rarely-demonstrated welfare queen.

We're not talking about median family income here, we're talking about living wage.

But you do have a point in there - in order to not fuck up incentives, you need a minimum wage higher than guaranteed minimum income. Or maybe you don't, because for most people not working sucks. It's fucking boring.

[Princess Marzipan]

...No? Even if the wage alone is too low to support yourself fully, you should take it if it's the only option so that the tax payer at least isn't paying completely for you, just partially.

Leaving employers with no motivation to pay a living wage.

Essentially, your solution is to suck it up and take whatever the corporate landscape decides it wants to dole out?

[sourmìlk]

...No? Even if the wage alone is too low to support yourself fully, you should take it if it's the only option so that the tax payer at least isn't paying completely for you, just partially.

Leaving employers with no motivation to pay a living wage.

Essentially, your solution is to suck it up and take whatever the corporate landscape decides it wants to dole out?

No, I also want to keep a minimum wage that is livable.

[CorruptUser]

Part of the 'living wage' problem is that the worker should be able to produce value/wealth greater than or equal to the wages said worker is being paid. Wouldn't it make more sense for society to say "this is how much people need, so society (taxes) should provide this bare minimum" rather than "this is how much people need, make businesses pay this much even if it would be at a loss, causing unemployment in the most vulnerable demographics"?

I'm not exactly a socialist, but socialism seems to make more sense than the minimum wage...

[Princess Marzipan]

And if we devoted resources to encouraging actual family planning instead of encouraging people to breed like rabbits, we could prioritize quality of life over production because we wouldn't have so many damn mouths to feed in the first place.

[sourmìlk]

Part of the 'living wage' problem is that the worker should be able to produce value/wealth greater than or equal to the wages said worker is being paid. Wouldn't it make more sense for society to say "this is how much people need, so society (taxes) should provide this bare minimum" rather than "this is how much people need, make businesses pay this much even if it would be at a loss, causing unemployment in the most vulnerable demographics"?

The problem though is that we don't want people to receive the minimum they need if they refuse to work for it. So the minimum wage is supposed to be a way of making sure that anybody who works has enough money. There are a few problems with that, namely that not everybody can work and that the minimum wage isn't really livable, but having society unconditionally supply the bare minimum just means that people can choose not to work, and I don't think that's an option tax payers should be supporting.

[Thesh]

And if we devoted resources to encouraging actual family planning instead of encouraging people to breed like rabbits, we could prioritize quality of life over production because we wouldn't have so many damn mouths to feed in the first place.

No, all we have to do is stop teaching sex education. Then people won't know what sex is and won't do it.

[sourmìlk]

And if we devoted resources to encouraging actual family planning instead of encouraging people to breed like rabbits, we could prioritize quality of life over production because we wouldn't have so many damn mouths to feed in the first place.

No, all we have to do is stop teaching sex education. Then people won't know what sex is and won't do it.

There's actually a certain amount of truth in this. Harlowe's deprivation experiments showed that, if Rhesus monkeys weren't taught what sex was, they didn't know.

[Princess Marzipan]

The problem though is that we don't want people to receive the minimum they need if they refuse to work for it.

Except the problem isn't refusal. It's that getting a job is *fucking hard.* If it weren't *fucking hard*, I bet a lot more people would be doing it. A job search for an unemployed person is, essentially, a long trail of failures leading up to a final success. Those constant failures have a real negative effect on the psyche, and lead to decreased motivation and depressive moods.

We've got 9% unemployment right now, but that doesn't actually factor in people who have been looking for work and not finding it for such a length of time that their unemployment insurance benefits have expired and they've just given up. Not because they're lazy, but because they've been trying for months or years and have nothing to show for it.

Getting a job: way fucking harder than having a job.

[sourmìlk]

The problem though is that we don't want people to receive the minimum they need if they refuse to work for it.

Except the problem isn't refusal. It's that getting a job is *fucking hard.* If it weren't *fucking hard*, I bet a lot more people would be doing it. A job search for an unemployed person is, essentially, a long trail of failures leading up to a final success. Those constant failures have a real negative effect on the psyche, and lead to decreased motivation and depressive moods.

We've got 9% unemployment right now, but that doesn't actually factor in people who have been looking for work and not finding it for such a length of time that their unemployment insurance benefits have expired and they've just given up. Not because they're lazy, but because they've been trying for months or years and have nothing to show for it.

Getting a job: way fucking harder than having a job.

I'm aware of this all and it doesn't contradict everything I said. The problem with our current system is that it doesn't support people enough who can't get a job. The problem with AlefLamedYud's system is that it supports people even if they refuse to get a job. We need something (if at all possible, which it may not be) that doesn't permit laziness, but doesn't punish misfortune.

[Kag]

We need something (if at all possible, which it may not be) that doesn't permit laziness, but doesn't punish misfortune.

That's super impossible.

[sourmìlk]

We need something (if at all possible, which it may not be) that doesn't permit laziness, but doesn't punish misfortune.

That's super impossible.

d'oh! Okay then. What's the closest we can get? Also, under the principle of "better ten guilty men go free" etc., I'm going to say that rewarding the lazy is just preferable to punishing the unfortunate.

[Whimsical Eloquence]

We need something (if at all possible, which it may not be) that doesn't permit laziness, but doesn't punish misfortune.

That's super impossible.

d'oh! Okay then. What's the closest we can get? Also, under the principle of "better ten guilty men go free" etc., I'm going to say that rewarding the lazy is just preferable to punishing the unfortunate.

Well, the system we were outlining we thought was pretty good. Misfortune isn't' a problem because you guarantee that will never drive people bellow a certain line. But then you raised the "laziness" point as if that were different from the current system or any other Welfare Program.

[sourmìlk]

Well, theoretically welfare doesn't need to have to reward the lazy. If, for example, we had a catalogue of everybody's intentions and work ethic at all times, then we could determine who needs money and who is just being lazy. I was kind of hoping there was a more realistic way to determine that kind of thing. AlefLamedYud's proposed system ignored that altogether, and it seems a poor welfare system where the potential problem of 'welfare monarchs' isn't at all addressed.

[aleflamedyud]

Well, theoretically welfare doesn't need to have to reward the lazy. If, for example, we had a catalogue of everybody's intentions and work ethic at all times, then we could determine who needs money and who is just being lazy. I was kind of hoping there was a more realistic way to determine that kind of thing. AlefLamedYud's proposed system ignored that altogether, and it seems a poor welfare system where the potential problem of 'welfare monarchs' isn't at all addressed.

I shall now attempt to address your objections while drunk.

I keep using the phrase "basic income/standard-of-living guarantee" because I do make some distinction between basic income and basic standard-of-living, and I actually favor the latter more than the former. I do favor social housing with social food supply (food stamps or socialized dining halls or whatever), socialized medicine, and socialized education. If it could be calculated to act as the equivalent to the aforementioned, I would also favor just cutting everyone a check. I don't favor cutting everyone a check that some people will spend on drugs and booze and then proceed to beg in the streets complaining of homelessness.

So I guess the optimum is really a hybrid system. If you choose them, you have socialized services that supply your basic human needs. If you choose privately-supplied basic human needs, the government just writes you a check for the equivalent. This ensures that everyone gets their basics supplied, should they want them, while still punishing those who actually exploit the system.

[KnightExemplar]

Well, theoretically welfare doesn't need to have to reward the lazy. If, for example, we had a catalogue of everybody's intentions and work ethic at all times, then we could determine who needs money and who is just being lazy. I was kind of hoping there was a more realistic way to determine that kind of thing. AlefLamedYud's proposed system ignored that altogether, and it seems a poor welfare system where the potential problem of 'welfare monarchs' isn't at all addressed.

You only get unemployment benefits if you actually were laid off because of a lack of work. If you quit / were fired for any other reason (poor behavior, quit on own accord, even disability), you don't get unemployment benefits. It encourages people to find a more permanent solution to their lack of a job, instead of taking up part-time work in a field they're not skilled in.

Sure, perhaps some of them are lazy. But those unemployment checks don't last forever (they last a lot longer today because of the national 9%+ unemployment rate, so unusually hard times calls for longer unemployment benefits). Either way, the unemployed, who are only going to receive unemployment checks for just a bit longer will be strongly encouraged (by lack of money) to go find a job.

Obviously, this system already exists, but I presume you want more things like this?

[netcrusher88]

If, for example, we had a catalogue of everybody's intentions and work ethic at all times, then we could determine who needs money and who is just being lazy.

Yes, yes... precogs are the answer to welfare's problems!

Even assuming you could hire functional psychics or empaths to work for DHHS (even if such a thing existed think of the privacy concerns), there are altogether too many variables of a person's situation to use their attitude towards looking for a shit job right now to determine whether they get to eat.

I mean, just so we're clear, this is all working with the maxim that we need to determine whether people deserve to not starve or freeze to death.

Ninja'd, so: unemployment insurance is a whole different animal. It does and should pay well above what would be set as the guaranteed minimum income, because it's meant to bridge gaps in employment in the course of a career. Welfare is, theoretically, a promise by society to itself that it won't let its people starve or have to sleep on the street for want of employment.

[Lucrece]

Let me get this straight:

You want to ensure that people who contribute to society, but for whom the value of their contribution is deemed to be too small to live on, that they continue contributing their meagre value, and then I have to pay for the difference?

Fuck. That.

They can retrain into something for which their is demand, for which someone is willing to pay. If there isn't demand, that's a symptom of the global economy still in the crapper, and we can beef up welfare significantly, but don't put the truly productive members of society on the hook for anyone who feels like being lazy. Even if that is a small portion of society, that would still hurt. If 2% of the population said, fuck it, we can live off the nanny state now, we'd be totally hooped.

This would be horribly expensive, and would require major tax increases. It would also encourage people to do what they want to do, instead of what pays the bills and what adds value. This would cause a large productivity decrease across the global economy.

You seriously think people doing things which they don't enjoy, let alone are not intrinsically good at, will be known to be productive?

Not to mention that re-training demands education costs. A bachelor's degree will set you back a good ~$20,000 assuming you go to an in-state community college. Specializing for on-demand jobs requires time spent training and that's time spent not earning enough to sustain yourself if you're already in such a dire situation where you figure you have to retrain.

[nitePhyyre]

I'm aware of this all and it doesn't contradict everything I said. The problem with our current system is that it doesn't support people enough who can't get a job. The problem with AlefLamedYud's system is that it supports people even if they refuse to get a job. We need something (if at all possible, which it may not be) that doesn't permit laziness, but doesn't punish misfortune.

How is that a problem with the proposed system? Let's face it most people don't want to do nothing all day long everyday. And for the ones that do? Remember, one bad apple can spoil the barrel.(first 12 min)* So if someone is willing to live in a sleep tube and eat gruel in order not to work, do you really want to force them to work in the first place? It could well be possible that productivity would be higher with those free-riders out of the 'main workforce'.

And what's wrong with laziness? Laziness is what society is made of. Someone one day said, 'hey if we grew a bunch of stuff in one place and put some sticks around that herd of animals, we could be lazy and not have to walk around all day long to get food.' Boom! Agriculture was invented and civilization was born. And you know how if you want to send a book to someone you can just send it in an email rather than take a bunch of years to copy it and then walk it over to him how many ever months that takes? That is laziness and it is awesome!

*the study

[sourmìlk]

So if someone is willing to live in a sleep tube and eat gruel in order not to work, do you really want to force them to work in the first place?

Yes, because I don't want to pay for them unless its necessary. If that person is, in fact, a 'bad apple' and his presence is detrimental to a group, then he can be fired and I don't have to pay for him any more.

And what's wrong with laziness?

Nothing so long as it isn't at the expense of the taxpayers