|
wateroverfire posted:That's a thing that you said, but not a thing that follows from what I said. So IDK, you explain the contradiction. The cost savings from locking factory doors and never sweeping out combustible scraps does not even come close to justifying the mortal risks to life and limb, yet workers agreed to it anyway in a free economy, despite your assertion that this could only happen if their choices were artificially constrained.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
This reminds me of Ambrose Bierce's definition of land: A part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society.... Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Historically, employers will happily conspire to constrain worker options and lower wages. Conspiracy between employers is actually pretty difficult. There are a lot of them, they don't all communicate, and they don't all have the same goals or working cultures. On small scales and for a limited time there can be collusion, like big Silicon Valley firms agreeing not to poach each others' employees, but that requires some very particular circumstances and even in that case there were a ton of other firms willing to hire those engineers who weren't part of the plot. Talmonis posted:Yes, people do lack agency when they don't start out with the means of either production, or the means to aquire an education or skill. Labor is all a lot of folks have, and business is what controls their fate. How would you define the population of people who have absolutely no ability to better their situation? This sounds like "people have no agency when I stipulate that they have no agency" but in reality who does that apply to, and why would they have to obey their employer's whim or starve? Business is not a monolithic group making decisions in lockstep. It's a whole bunch of individual employers and that allows even unskilled workers to scare up options if they feel like they need to (though they may seem like poor options to well-educated professionals or students).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:EC just expresses the idea that if a person's array of money-acquisition options includes A, B and C, but not X, when they would prefer X, they are constrained to choosing a money-making activity that is sub-optimal for them because if they choose nothing they get no money. It's not a thing libertarianism is concerned about and doesn't factor into a libertarian conception of coercion. Bullshit. If you can't choose X you are prevented from acting freely as you will. Have you looked at Mises or Hayeks definitions of coercion? Let's go with Hayek today: "Coercion occurs when one man's actions are made to serve another man's will, not for his own but for the other's purpose." Not being able to choose job X because you are constrained from doing by some one or something else? That's definitionally the Libertarian conception of coercion. It's the keeping of an individual from acting freely to do his own will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
"Agency" doesn't put food on the table.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Yeah and it's very hard have agency, to be free to, unless you are free from bullshit like starving.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Conspiracy between employers is actually pretty difficult. There are a lot of them, they don't all communicate, and they don't all have the same goals or working cultures. On small scales and for a limited time there can be collusion, like big Silicon Valley firms agreeing not to poach each others' employees, but that requires some very particular circumstances and even in that case there were a ton of other firms willing to hire those engineers who weren't part of the plot. They do communicate though. They are peers at the local rotary clubs, the country clubs, the chambers of commerce and other institutions designed to keep the working class on the down and out. They sit on one another's board of directors. Internationally they may not have the same working culture, but "Corporate America" is a beige colored monolith of passive agressive horror. Collusion is easy when your goal is simple, like making sure that you and your peers keep the laws, the means of production and education in your own hands. Union busting for example, is a joint effort of Capitalists everywhere. You mean like the homeless? They have no agency or ability to better their lot in life. Required means of increasing your situation are missing in their case. It is not 1940. You can not simply do odd jobs and make enough money for Clean* food, shelter, transportation and clothing. In a libertarian society, if you don't obey your employer, they likely will blacklist you. Particularly if you stood up for yourself or your fellow workers. History has shown this to happen. This sort of thing results in the poor and unskilled begrudingly accepting jobs where they are chained to their workspace, locked in, unsafe, etc. Nobody who had a choice would accept that. *All but the transportation must be clean to be healthy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/ Don't worry about it. Now that people know about this they will stop buying Apple products. Any minute now they'll stop. Just you wait and see. edit: Er, wait, it is like a dozen companies whom we can't really avoid using or buying poo poo from. Just give it time. It'll totally happen. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Known Communist Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations posted:We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines,upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and, one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution; and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
There's a reason that the right loathes and despises Warren Buffet and George Soros.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Bullshit. That definition irrevocably makes all paid labor coercion. Excellent! I agree. Any wage labor that a worker would not do unpaid out of self-interest is coercion. And Hayek would be like "yes, straight up, you are correct. Institute basic income to increase freedom of choice." Hayek is pretty much akin to Jesus and the Buddha in terms of the utter perversion of his beliefs by his claimed followers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Yeah, when I first read The Road to Serfdom I was really confused because I was expecting mises.org level poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Mises has a similiar one too, can't seem to find it right now, think it's in Human Action. But if by existing we necessarily coerce others (and we do) and if violence is justified as self defense against coercion then Libertarianism is a blanket justification for violence. I think that has borne out by it's usage in the US too, especially as justification against the civil right movement. See things like Asa Carter's "Liberty" radio show. Something similiar happens anytime there is a conscious (as opposed to a natural or naive) literalism insisting on an unbroken myth (unbroken meaning it claims to be literally true).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That definition irrevocably makes all paid labor coercion. Excellent! I agree. Any wage labor that a worker would not do unpaid out of self-interest is coercion. And Hayek would be like "yes, straight up, you are correct. Institute basic income to increase freedom of choice." Right it's coercion in the same sense basic government actions like collecting taxes are coercion. Whether we get really upset about it and try to stop is is the judgement call. For some forms of coercion we should do just that. But it's a poor judgment in my opinion to consider either one of these categories super special. I'm ok with some government coercion and some market coercion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Does "market coercion" benefit anyone other than the 1% though? Taxes at least get us stuff like roads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:Does "market coercion" benefit anyone other than the 1% though? Taxes at least get us stuff like roads. The production of goods and services that we all use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The production of goods and services that we all use. Universal basic income has not been shown to have any kind of deleterious effect on production or work ethic. Quite the opposite, in fact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Bullshit. What you're proposing is absurd. Turn it around: Suppose an employer - you - doesn't want to be coercive. I come to you and say "I want job X, give it to me". In order to be non-coercive do you have no choice but to give me job X? Does that seem in any way reasonable or sound like the sort of thing libertarians would have in mind when they mention coercion? Talmonis posted:They do communicate though. They are peers at the local rotary clubs, the country clubs, the chambers of commerce and other institutions designed to keep the working class on the down and out. They sit on one another's board of directors. Internationally they may not have the same working culture, but "Corporate America" is a beige colored monolith of passive agressive horror. Collusion is easy when your goal is simple, like making sure that you and your peers keep the laws, the means of production and education in your own hands. Union busting for example, is a joint effort of Capitalists everywhere. Have you ever been to a rotary club meeting? Chamber of commerce? Talmonis posted:You mean like the homeless? They have no agency or ability to better their lot in life. Required means of increasing your situation are missing in their case. Prester John here on this forum would probably disagree with you (while not disagreeing, as I don't, that homelessness is a pretty deep hole to climb out of). spoon0042 posted:Does "market coercion" benefit anyone other than the 1% though? Taxes at least get us stuff like roads. Sure it does. Labor markets aren't always weak and employees who are in demand can and do use it to bargain up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Universal basic income has not been shown to have any kind of deleterious effect on production or work ethic. Quite the opposite, in fact. Counterpoint: That is pure horse poo poo. Most studies showed a reduction in work effort and all of the studies I'm aware of were of specific, small scale, time-limited programs that everyone knew were going to end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Suppose an employer - you - doesn't want to be coercive. I come to you and say "I want job X, give it to me". In order to be non-coercive do you have no choice but to give me job X? No. You're an idiot. "It's illegal to hire children to work in the mines" does not mean "you are required to pay anyone who asks you whatever they want"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Counterpoint: That is pure horse poo poo. Most studies showed a reduction in work effort and all of the studies I'm aware of were of specific, small scale, time-limited programs that everyone knew were going to end. Such as this study in Namibia from 2008-2009? I know it didn't last forever so you'll probably reject it Namibia Basic Income Grant Study posted:Key findings include the following: Namibia Basic Income Grant Study posted:➢ The introduction of the Basic Income Grant has helped young women recipients to take charge of their economic affairs. Several cases document that young women have been freed from having to engage in transactional sex. If that's too many words: economic benefits and destruction of your theory that payouts create dependency and laziness all in one nice table! 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:What you're proposing is absurd. I'm not proposing it! I directly quoted Hayek! http://books.google.com/books?id=Uc...ose.%22&f=false and no less than Rothbard agrees with my characterization of Hayek's definition http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyeight.asp "for Hayek includes in the concept of “coercion” not only invasive physical violence, i.e., a compulsory action or exchange, but also certain forms of peaceful, voluntary refusal to make exchanges. Surely, the freedom to make an exchange necessarily implies the equivalent freedom not to make an exchange. Yet, Hayek dubs certain forms of peaceful refusal to make an exchange as “coercive,” thus lumping them together with compulsory exchanges. " I'm running out of time today, but Rothbard's definition of coercion is poo poo too, with it's own lovely repercussion btw.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Universal basic income has not been shown to have any kind of deleterious effect on production or work ethic. Quite the opposite, in fact. You seem to imply that market coercion depends on not having basic income. 1) we already have a world where most people make plenty of money and most people that don't have some form of safety net (in the developed world). But 2, market coercion would remain in the sense that the market will encourage people to do things it wants them to do (work hard, don't be a musician). This is of course a type of thing that will remain in any real life economic system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:But 2, market coercion would remain in the sense that the market will encourage people to do things it wants them to do (work hard, don't be a musician). True, but I am okay with the coercion that says "If you want fat stacks of cash, being a musician is a less likely way to do it than other careers", and not okay with the coercion that says "you can sell your body to fat crusty old men or you and your child can freeze under a bridge tonight"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Such as this study in Namibia from 2008-2009? I know it didn't last forever so you'll probably reject it You mean the study done in Namibia whose project team produced no data, even anonymized data, to support the miraculous development claims that independent observers said they saw no sign of when they went to the village? BrandorKP posted:I'm not proposing it! I directly quoted Hayek! If you're arguing about whether these are lovely ways to define coercion then I agree with you. =) VitalSigns posted:"It's illegal to hire children to work in the mines" Which is not what people mean by economic coercion and is not related to that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Which is not what people mean by economic coercion and is not related to that. It absolutely is related to economic coercion. No parent would willingly send their children literally to the mines. This is done by nessecity, as otherwise their children would just starve. Meanwhile, the owners of said mines are (were) getting rich at the expense of their children's very lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Economic Coercion needs a new name that doesn't include the word "Coercion". There's nothing wrong with our message, it just needs to be marketed better, it can't possibly be the message itself. asdf32 posted:You seem to imply that market coercion depends on not having basic income. 1) we already have a world where most people make plenty of money and most people that don't have some form of safety net (in the developed world). Hey I have a novel idea, the market isn't sentient, so lets stop pretending it had whims or desires or is some sort of God that can be appeased and will just treat us right if we worship properly. We won't step out of line by calling for help or enacting regulations again, promise Mammon. please don't hit us again Our worth is not determined by market value, idiot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You mean the study done in Namibia whose project team produced no data, even anonymized data, to support the miraculous development claims that independent observers said they saw no sign of when they went to the village? Ahahaha, did you just link to an essay that was followed with a disclaimer about how the author's critical review of the BIG pilot was so flawed that the publisher retracted it publicly? Your Own drat Source posted:In his attack on the BIG pilot, project Mr. Osterkamp refers to his own analysis, published in a NEPRU Quarterly Review in 2008. As pointed out by the BIG Coalition at the time, Mr Osterkamp’s analysis was methodologically flawed. Mr Osterkamp erred in using arithmetic averages for his poverty assessment, which led to his false conclusion that there were poor households in Namibia but not in Otjivero. NEPRU admitted to this serious methodological flaw in a press release of 5 December 2008 and withdrew the review containing Mr. Osterkamp’s analysis. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ahahaha, did you just link to an essay that was followed with a disclaimer about how the author's critical review of the BIG pilot was so flawed that the publisher retracted it publicly? Wateroverfire making a stupid mistake? Why I never.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Caros posted:Wateroverfire making a stupid mistake? Why I never. Oh my God, that essay quote:Sadly, media reports on Otijivero are not encouraging either. In May 2012, Windhoek’s German language newspaper, the Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote that, despite the income support, “no development of any kind is to be seen in Otjivero”. A line in a single newspaper made a qualitative statement with no data about the amount of development, pack it up LIEberals, the whole report was obviously lies. Be honest, wateroverfire, you didn't read that essay did you. You just googled "Namibia basic income grant" or somesuch and took the first result with a negative-sounding title didn't you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Wouldn't be the first time, dudes still disagrees with the CIA on why the CIA supported the Coup against Allende.
CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Hmm, so what do we have here, we have a non-peer reviewed study conducted by a group advocating minimum income done on a village in Namibia showing increased work effort versus a group of so peer-reviewed studies conducted in the US showing decreases in hours worked, wonder which one VitalSigns will cite? I'm pretty sure he saw at least one of the US studies since they're almost always linked with the Namibia study. Pretty ironic that he accuses wateroverfire of ignoring studies that contradict his priors after the minimum wage thread though.. Now before we get any further, let me add a disclaimer: A GMI is a great idea if you want a welfare net and especially as a replacement for the existing social safety nets which require people to not work in order to participate. It's also great because you can cut a lot of government waste and simplify things greatly. However, the kind of amounts that I'm sure VitalSigns is thinking about are completely feasible without significantly increased taxes - someone did a rough estimate for Finland and came up with roughly €400 per month if you tax all income above €400 at 47%. Back to a study that found an increase in effort for Namibians, for the sake of this let's take the results as given. This is why realizing that the study is only measuring local average treatment effects is important. Why did the coefficient in Namibia go the other way from the US? Well presumably if work effort increased in Namibia as a result of the cash transfer lack of money was an actual impediment to getting a job or working in Namibia. For instance: health problems preventing people from working, transport being too expensive, being unable to send kids to school and having to stay home, or whatever (sometimes these things are really surprising). So now the results for the US, which showed a decrease in effort (coefficient biased downwards because of the short term nature of the program). Maybe, just maybe, despite the scare story articles that get posted here every now and then, there aren't actually significant impediments to working in Western countries (including the US). Also, the treatment effects don't look at what happens in equilibrium or in the economy in general - the people funding the policy will see increasing tax rates and presumably dont have entirely inelastic labor supply... Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Our worth is not determined by market value, idiot. A point I constantly try to make myself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:increased work effort versus a group of so peer-reviewed studies conducted in the US showing decreases in hours worked You mean the studies that showed a decrease in hours worked only in cohort groups that really should not be working anyway like high school students and single moms? Because that would be a benefit to society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Basic income is too advanced a subject for you, GP. You're against child labor laws and basic workplace safety laws so if we're going to start anywhere it should be there. Tell us about the economic drag we suffer from sending kids to school rather than to the productive opportunities in the coal mines. The freep thread has been boring lately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:someone did a rough estimate for Finland and came up with roughly €400 per month if you tax all income above €400 at 47%. Hmm, so what do we have here, we have a non-peer reviewed study Something Awful Forums user Geriatric Pirate assures me happened, done by "someone".
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:existing social safety nets which require people to not work in order to participate. Which safety nets are these? (nobody else answer please)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That definition irrevocably makes all paid labor coercion. Excellent! I agree. Any wage labor that a worker would not do unpaid out of self-interest is coercion. And Hayek would be like "yes, straight up, you are correct. Institute basic income to increase freedom of choice." Milton Friedman supported that too, didn't he? How would they pay for basic incomes exactly?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I guess they might not, but why is it obvious that they wouldn't? Because a government that forms purely for one function is likely to be run by the people that coordinate said function i.e. the military, and militaries are known for being rather authoritarian?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Which safety nets are these? (nobody else answer please) Can I please answer. I know the answer!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 06:39
|
|