|
Typical Pubbie posted:Work has value, otherwise people wouldn't pay for it. The problem is the absence of any bargaining power at the low end of the wage scale, combined with the work just not being very valuable to begin with. We already have a workable solution: Expand the EITC. Work doesn't really have any inherent value. And people only pay for work because they are required or forced to, because things like slavery, indentured, and other forced labor activities aren't quite as easy to explicitly get away with. Sometimes. But you are right there is a tremendous power unbalances in play but collective bargaining isn't a catch-all solution. Also, "OMG ENTITLEMENTS" Those nasty, nasty think-their-people poors. How dare they. Government only exists to solve the problems and concerns of the upper class and rich, not ~yoooou~ things. Eww.
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:How is that optimal? An adult who is capable of supporting themselves gets more value out of a free $20k check than a disabled person who can't work and has to spend a shitload of time and money on essentials as a result. Giving people who can support themselves money when they don't need it is not optimal (assuming normal economic conditions). It is a misallocation of resources. If you must you should be giving the disabled person $40k and the able bodied person your gratitude. It is not simply a case of disabled/abled. There is a huge range of economic behavior that happens as one's income increases. Living paycheck to paycheck is a fundamentally different experience than having a modest cushion and some disposable income which is different than building up strong investment and retirement egg with greater quality of life and luxury and so on. Shifting wealth down the ladder to the point where money is no longer a concern is the long, strive-to-achieve ideal. Not just scraping by day to day and stop. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:The problem isn't "does mincome help people? y/n." The problem is "does mincome allocate resources based on need efficiently and without discouraging labor?" It discourages highly exploitative, nasty-but-desperate labor. Which is a good thing. No one should be forced into laboring far beyond the cost of their time and health and dignity just to barely scrape by with little to no hope of climbing out of the hole. quote:OK but if you shift money down the ladder enough eventually you reach a point where people have to work to make money to support the social programs that shift the money. The more income inequality and wealth inequality are reduced the more the burden is shifted downwards. That's why you need to keep people working because eventually they really will be supporting themselves rather than just soaking the greedy capitalists (who are greedy and need to be soaked). In our case, at least in the US, there are existing metrics that help to ferret out this point like the difference between the mean and the median wages, and the various analysis of the wealth gaps. Its not an intractable problem. We generate a great deal of wealth in excess of our labor and productivity but a ungodly percentage is consolidated by a tiny fraction of the populace. There are lots of ways to help bring this back into balance, but I would say the vast majority of them involve properly taxing and then shifting that wealth to benefit the lower classes. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:We don't actually know if it does this and the conditions which exist to make work unbearable will remain largely in place with a mincome, all else being equal. Actually we do have quite a bit of data on this. Entire textbooks full. You can basically work out things like the labor-hours vs productivity curve and see how driving up working hours per day/week, living wages, or the effect of monetary carrot/sticks act. The takeaway is that it is extremely unlikely and short-lived for there to be -too- much wealth flowing top-to-bottom. Individuals working 2.5 jobs in excess of 60-80 hours a week and living check-to-check with little not no savings and likely rolling debt are well below that threshold. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Again, I make 18k a year before tax. I live in a state where minimum wage is mine dollars an hour. You are already generating income in excess of what you need to function and continue providing labor. If anything you need to be paid less to motivate you to work harder. You have not yet reached your maximum efficiency.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 07:30
|
|