|
it's not one of her best takes. my guess is that she'd been reading a lot of second wave 50-80's feminism and saw a Hot Take based on the writings of the women in question.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
there are a million different versions of 'ubi' so you'd need to be more specific, but in general it's just an attempt to ameliorate a level of misery without actually challenging the structure of the economy. this article makes an interesting argument that it's the new iteration of what social credit was last century. i agree with matt bruenig's take on the job guarantee, namely that it loving sucks and is trying to launder itself through the term 'full employment'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 05:42
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:What are people's opinions on the debate between full employment guarantees and UBI? my take is that you need some form of UBI (or welfare, which is practically in-kind UBI) for the people who cannot work... ... but a jobs guarantee program is better in terms of exerting control over the economy, being able to meaningfully chip away at income and wealth inequality, improving worker solidarity, and is more resistant to attacks on it as a "dole" basically, a jobs guarantee program is already what Keynesian pump-priming is (i.e. the government investing in infrastructure programs to generate jobs), except it's the government generating jobs directly rather than looking to the private sector to do it for them, which has a number of advantages if a jobs guarantee is insufficient, that's ultimately because Keynesianism is still capitalism
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 06:00
|
|
|
imo ubi without means to gut corporate influence is just corporate subsidy Not having to play ball to bullshit company politics is one thing on a personal autonomy level, but simultaneously funding key sectors unconditionally (i.e. with continuous albeit indirect govt. funding) wouldn't do anything but exacerbate corporate exploitations because the modus operandi has been and shall be to exploit existing workers as much as possible while employing and paying as little as they can. A lot of this rhetoric depends on how class consciousness would develop given economic estrangement from strictly job based earnings, but it's entirely theoretical at this point so I'm comfortable being a pessimist and guessing that it'd just exacerbate class divide because half-assed/deliberate sabotaged implementation because of liiiiiiiiibs
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 06:17
|
|
|
yeah my primary criticism of UBI is that it's "winning before winning": if you implement UBI regardless of everything else in the political economy its benefits are just going to be eaten away by rentier capitalism and if you actually had enough control over the economy that you can avoid all of the ways that UBI's utility is going to be undermined, you may well already have enough political power to reshape the economy in ways that would obviate UBI anyway
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 06:54
|
|
|
they won't implement it spontaneously without either having it all gamed out so they win even more or basically just not having any better ideas to stave off collapse
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 07:01
|
|
|
indigi posted:this seems like an utterly buffoonish comparison and idk why I’d bother reading the rest of the article if she thinks that’s a good jumping off point America has already witnessed the largest experiment in abolishing wage labour known to history — the Negro plantation slave. And he was utterly miserable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 07:21
|
|
|
job guarantee is literally work for the dole lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 07:22
|
|
|
I mean yeah it is but it makes all the difference in the world if you have a system where you need to have a job as a prerequisite for giving you the dole... and then you can't get a job just for the asking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 07:27
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:America has already witnessed the largest experiment in abolishing wage labour known to history — the Negro plantation slave. And he was utterly miserable. this post gets at least a thousand times better if you imagine the guy in your avatar saying it unironically, it's great
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 08:02
|
|
|
Work for the dole is designed to circumvent employment laws like minimum wage, healthcare, holidays etc. Job guarantee is supposed to treat everyone as workers rather than ”unemployed”. No means testing there either, anyone is supposed to be able to utilize it for any reason, no questions asked. I mean combining it with part-time jobs to get full time hours etc. Sure, JG can be implemented in an adversarial manner, and probably would be in practice because capitalism, but the same is equally true about UBI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 08:24
|
|
|
i'm not pro-ubi, and it's not like the choice is between it and a job guarantee. there are 2 obvious reasons why the jg is fail: 1: it creates a reserve army of labour in the most literal sense, making it far harder for non-jg workers to bargain for better wages and conditions, since they can easily be replaced by unemployed people who are forced to work if they want to receive unemployment benefits. this is where the feel-good conflation with 'full employment' is particularly cynical – that term refers to having extremely tight labour markets, where workers are (theoretically) able to get a better price for their labour. 2: the jobs would have to be make-work bullshit. the intent of a jg scheme is to provide a holding pen for workers to transition into 'proper' employment. that means the jobs couldn't (a) require job-specific skills or training, since all going well turnover would be so high; or (b) be vital to the functioning of society in any way, because otherwise there'd be issues if unemployment rates dropped. there seems to be a widespread delusion that jg would be used to build public works ~✨just like the new deal✨~ or whatever, while glossing over the fact that the new deal got a bunch of unskilled labourers killed!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 09:41
|
|
|
hey the people encased in concrete like han solo in the dam near me help boaters to this very day
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 09:57
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:What are people's opinions on the debate between full employment guarantees and UBI? without even bothering to read the article im go ahead and say that amber is right if you think about it for 2 seconds but that it's probably slightly hyperbolic for entertainment purposes
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 10:38
|
|
|
any ubi we get in this country or even a guaranteed employment program is going to be miserable poo poo where a social worker knocks on your door every week to see if you can work yet or mcdonalds getting your UBI canceled if you dont work 70 hours a week for them
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 10:39
|
|
|
I would say the benefit of a job guarantee is that basically people have a place to be and hopefully can actually be doing something useful with their time. The Soviet Union's employment system more or less worked on the concept, and while there were plenty of people guarding random hallways, it did provide a significant degree of social unity and stability. In addition, much of this work would still be useful even if it couldn't be supported by a traditional market economy, which would boost economic output beyond simply adding additional consumption. Also, I could inflation becoming a problem with a UBI that would likely affect people on the lower end of the scale. A lot of it is how flexible the jobs actually are, because there are plenty of people who would be fine being a librarian assistant or a government-supported artist even if it was reliant on the government funding them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 13:48
|
|
|
a job guarantee but its 6 hours a day 4 days a week and pays $60,000 a year
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 13:49
|
|
|
transitioning from a "reserve army of the unemployed" to a "reserve army of the employed" is precisely the point. the idea is that once the labor market gets tight, then wages increase, because firms have to increase wages in order to compete against each other in hiring from a limited pool of available labor but this doesn't happen in practice, because as the labor market approaches that point, the private sector will simply stop hiring people, and will even engage in cartel behavior to prevent the scenario that puts pressure on them to raise wages (because, obviously, raising wages is not actually something they want to do) what the jobs program does is that it's the one that absorbs all of this labor that the private sector will never willingly employ, so that the labor market does become tight, and that's what will put upward pressure on wages
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
Aren't we rapidly approaching a time where labor is becoming less and less needed due to automation? Wouldn't it just make sense to pay people not to do anything rather than create a ballooning Keynesian nightmare?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:transitioning from a "reserve army of the unemployed" to a "reserve army of the employed" is precisely the point. Speaking of this: does anyone have in-depth sources about the ways in which a jobs program vs. UBI would affect (either in theory or in specific historical circumstances) capital's reliance on a surplus army of labour?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Aren't we rapidly approaching a time where labor is becoming less and less needed due to automation? Wouldn't it just make sense to pay people not to do anything rather than create a ballooning Keynesian nightmare? Not necessarily? We don't need a lot of labor to do the things that the current capitalist order wants to do, but there's a lot of things that need doing that aren't currently being done. EDIT: also as uncop said you can always divide the labor needed across more people. DirtyRobot posted:Speaking of this: does anyone have in-depth sources about the ways in which a jobs program vs. UBI would affect (either in theory or in specific historical circumstances) capital's reliance on a surplus army of labour? My reference for this discussion has been Hyman Minsky's "Ending Poverty: Jobs, Not Welfare"
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Aren't we rapidly approaching a time where labor is becoming less and less needed due to automation? Wouldn't it just make sense to pay people not to do anything rather than create a ballooning Keynesian nightmare? IMO it never makes more sense to pay people not to do anything than to reduce the hours of everyone doing something. It’s not like people have to work 40 hours a week out of some kind of misguided pride. Not even according to Keynes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Aren't we rapidly approaching a time where labor is becoming less and less needed due to automation? Wouldn't it just make sense to pay people not to do anything rather than create a ballooning Keynesian nightmare? Not really. Productivity growth (in the standard macro sense) has slowed quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Knock it off with the "automation will remove the need for workers" bullshit. We're hella cheaper than your robots, and will remain so as long as the existing economic system remains or we die. I worked a Serbian minimum wage factory job making boots for your cops and troops (as an aside, I had a genuine loud laugh while being tasked to help out in the factory warehouse and looking up the suppliers etc. when I realized just how many infrastructural components of your basic military logistics are firmly in China's hands) and the conditions just kept getting worse and worse with time. There will not be less work, the work will just be paid less and less and be pushed further and further out. And you lot will get to pick one of two ways of confronting that future once the empire really starts to crack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:My reference for this discussion has been Hyman Minsky's "Ending Poverty: Jobs, Not Welfare" thanks
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Aren't we rapidly approaching a time where labor is becoming less and less needed due to automation? Wouldn't it just make sense to pay people not to do anything rather than create a ballooning Keynesian nightmare? This is basically the position that Frost's article was arguing against. Giving everyone full material comforts is not satisfactory for socialism, they need significant input into the system of production; that is, they must be allowed to do meaningful labor. The article misses because this is kind of an obscure theoretical argument, when most people who're arguing for (or against) UBI are just concerned with alleviating some existing misery. The mistake may have been not mentioning automation, which is a key point both in Yang's UBI proposal and in this theoretical position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
I personally like the idea of an UBI, because it represents a conceptual shift towards people receiving the means to meet their needs by default. As opposed people defaulting to starving to death and being required to actively applying for their basic needs which will be granted only if they meet specific requirements. While it will be in danger of being cut to uselessly low amounts just like minimum wages, unemployment benefits, pensions and all other aid programs it will be harder to exclude people from all benefits as a punishment for example for refusing to scab. Like most such short term programs it does enough good that I would vote in favour of them if asked but not enough that I would actively support it. I don't know anything about the currently discussed job guarantee program. It sounds like it basically means that unemployment benefits will be given to companies instead of the people and people lose their benefits if they refuse to scab.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 17:50
|
|
|
yeah I think the baseline of a job guarantee is that you'd be a federal employee, not as a public-private partnership where the feds help pay your salary or pay crackers barrel to have you stand there personally I'd choose a UBI right now because I'm so so tired of working lovely jobs and it's been seven years since I took time off, but I do understand that my power as a class would increase if the feds just started hiring people and wage pressure would skyrocket
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
This is kind of a strange request, but does anyone have any recommendations for readings that aren't leftist? I've spent the better part of the last year reading Marxist or Anarchist books and was wondering if there were any liberal or conservative works that would allow me to understand the other side. At least in a way that doesn't make me look like a dumbass when talking about their ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
i enjoyed The Man Who Was Thursday, but there must be better suggestions e: oh yeah, and Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis' recent encyclical
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
i read Beggars, Iconoclasts, & Civic Patriots: The Political Culture of the Dutch Revolt recent-ish-ly and while it isn't a book about ideology itself, it is a very good supplement to one, because it's about OG republicanism running face first into medieval reactionary forces and how that informed the united provinces' federal system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Aren't we rapidly approaching a time where labor is becoming less and less needed due to automation? Wouldn't it just make sense to pay people not to do anything rather than create a ballooning Keynesian nightmare? this is very situational and an analysis that ultimately does not seem to play ball with the social reality we are in, tbqf basically automation/"raw industrial power" gains have been made in stride but at some point in the 50s these developments have become more and more rare in implementation and poo poo went downhill in the 80s so you get Asian labor entering global market which is this, in short my dad posted:We're hella cheaper than your robots, and will remain so as long as the existing economic system remains or we die while we do have far more productive industrial machinery, we do have far more cheap and abundant labor than ever; the two are brought together especially for the production of newer goods (e.g. anything electronic) where you get some silly as gently caress situations like a couple of industrial blocks in Thailand being responsible for the production of most of the world's supply of hard disk devices. Automobiles, for another example, even with the robotic assembly line, still employ a lot of workers because making seriously good robotics requires lots of investment that ultimately do not provide a return as good as further financialization - another very problematic head of the hydra that is often not considered in the subject if we truly did rationalize our production in the ways that people in the early 20th century envisioned with the capacity we have right now, it would be a truly revolutionary scenario in regards to quality of life and ways of living that are at best speculative to consider. With our dumb as hell, incredibly loving idiotic bullshit system, we produce enough food to feed everyone in this earth without difficulty. gently caress, socialist rationalization of American agriculture alone would probably attend 3/4s of the world; some researchers back when I did Agricultural Economics said that doing the same to Brazil and Argentina and these two with what we have right now could feed the world too. It is loving insane the potential productive capability we do not employ because capital basically bottlenecks these developments because they are simply not profitable as other choices, loving lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:This is kind of a strange request, but does anyone have any recommendations for readings that aren't leftist? I've spent the better part of the last year reading Marxist or Anarchist books and was wondering if there were any liberal or conservative works that would allow me to understand the other side. At least in a way that doesn't make me look like a dumbass when talking about their ideology. first person that comes to mind for me is francis fukuyama: end of history and the last man. maybe origins of political order, and its follow up political order and political decay. a lot of my pmc/russiagater acquaintances have at least skimmed anne applebaum and basically worship her. i read her iron curtain book years ago, and tbh her writing is pretty engaging. 600 pages flew by and i developed an advanced case of russophobia effortlessly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
we're also all super simplifying what "automation" means in this context. it's not a magic bullet. firstly there's pretty strict limits on what can be automated - you generally need power, a degree of climate control, and at least one person keeping an eye on things. sure people are working on lowering the barrier on all three, but that still leaves a lot of jobs which can't be easily automated. Sexondly, unless we crack real AI, we can't automated social service jobs, we could set every ex-barista on the road to being a nurse, social worker, or therapist and still not have enough. And of course automation does make some jobs, even if you're just doing QA on the dildo production machine or whatever. the only lasting solution is full communism, anything short of it will just be inhaled by capital and turned against tje left. UBI or UBjobs are at best stopgap measures and would require political organizing well beyond what we can do rn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:This is kind of a strange request, but does anyone have any recommendations for readings that aren't leftist? I've spent the better part of the last year reading Marxist or Anarchist books and was wondering if there were any liberal or conservative works that would allow me to understand the other side. At least in a way that doesn't make me look like a dumbass when talking about their ideology. I've seen people recommend GK Chesterton if you want a convert tradcath perspective. He is a very good writer, no matter where you land on his views (but if you're Jewish I don't blame you for giving him a pass, he was fairly anti-semetic in public and hilariously so in private, allegedly). A lot of people also like Christopher Lasch, specifically The Culture of Narcissism who identifies with some currents in American conservatism, although he was a Marxist-aligned academic at some point. Irving Kristol, father of noted always-wrong conservative Bill Kristol, is the archetypal Trotskyist-to-Neoconservative, and his later writings should give you a good sense of the goals and attitudes of neoconservatism. There's Reinhold Niebuhr, who Obama identified as his favourite philosopher/theologian, and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who both can give you a good primer on Cold War liberalism that laid the groundwork for neoliberalism, especially the Third War Democrats. Schlesinger's The Vital Center was written in the 1940s and is talks about the new postwar liberal consensus. John Rawls is probably the best known American philosopher on liberalism that I can think of, so anything by him would probably give you some insight into that. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jan 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:This is kind of a strange request, but does anyone have any recommendations for readings that aren't leftist? I've spent the better part of the last year reading Marxist or Anarchist books and was wondering if there were any liberal or conservative works that would allow me to understand the other side. At least in a way that doesn't make me look like a dumbass when talking about their ideology. No joke, Harry Potter is probably the most accurate representation of liberalism that I've ever seen. it has everything:
The list goes on and on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
ToxicAcne posted:This is kind of a strange request, but does anyone have any recommendations for readings that aren't leftist? I've spent the better part of the last year reading Marxist or Anarchist books and was wondering if there were any liberal or conservative works that would allow me to understand the other side. At least in a way that doesn't make me look like a dumbass when talking about their ideology. hannah arendt's origins of totalitarianism is a keystone to understanding liberalism post WWII Cpt_Obvious posted:No joke, Harry Potter is probably the most accurate representation of liberalism that I've ever seen. it has everything: this is the stupidest poo poo i've read in a while, lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:No joke, Harry Potter is probably the most accurate representation of liberalism that I've ever seen. it has everything: ready another book dumbass
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 00:20
|
|
|
Fine, fine. Just read "Better Angels of our Nature" by Stephen Pinker. It's dogshit centrism in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
read All The Kremlin's Men if you want an incredibly dated look at what liberals thought of russia immediately before the 2016 election and i do mean immediately 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2021 00:39
|
|