Wave of US labor unrest could see tens of thousands on strike within weeks(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Wave of US labor unrest could see tens of thousands on strike within weeks
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/us-labor-unrest-unions-strikes
99 comments
So basically: shut up because your fight for your right is inconvenient for me at the moment, right?
" such as safety conditions and work assignments are also important"
These are very important, probably more than anything else, if you actually work in these jobs. They make your life miserable.
These are very important, probably more than anything else, if you actually work in these jobs. They make your life miserable.
That would be basic supply and demand, but I think we are beyond that. Demand for the product (housing) has moved beyond basic consumers (people who want to live in them). Real estate is now a primary investment vehicle. So building more doesn't necessarily mean more houses for people to live in. Rather it will mean more investment opportunities for people seeking to move money into a "safe" asset. That is the cycle we need to break. Real estate needs to become a less stable investment vehicle. Then we can start lowering prices by building more houses.
Don't most investment homes rely on tenants to offset the maintenance and tax costs of owning the home? Construct enough to meet demand for places to live and the rental market should drop, which would hurt the home-as-investment model, which in turn should bring down home prices, right?
Not these days. In hot markets (Vancouver, SF etc) real estate tends to appreciate faster than rent. Having a tenant in a property, along with all the associated rights and obligations, makes a property more difficult to develop or sell. Once upon a time a rental unit with a good tenant was worth more than one without. These days you need to get the tenant out in order to refit and show the property to prospective buyers. Unless an owner plans to keep the property unimproved for many years, having a long-term tenant is just an inconvenience.
Yearly rent is generally going to be about 1/20th the total value of the property. So if the owner plans on doing anything to improve the value of the property by more than 5% in a given year, that improvement process is worth more than having a tenant. In a market like Vancouver, where rent-to-cost ratios are even lower, a tenant paying rent is almost irrelevant in the equation.
Yearly rent is generally going to be about 1/20th the total value of the property. So if the owner plans on doing anything to improve the value of the property by more than 5% in a given year, that improvement process is worth more than having a tenant. In a market like Vancouver, where rent-to-cost ratios are even lower, a tenant paying rent is almost irrelevant in the equation.
> along with all the associated rights and obligations
Government regulation (again) exacerbates this problem. In Seattle, landlords have to give 6 months notice for rent increases. They also are obliged to pay the tenant's relocation costs when the tenant leaves. They can't evict tenants who don't pay rent. Seattle will provide free lawyers to tenants who want to sue their landlords.
So, yeah, if the real estate market is rising fast enough, it's best to not rent it.
Government regulation (again) exacerbates this problem. In Seattle, landlords have to give 6 months notice for rent increases. They also are obliged to pay the tenant's relocation costs when the tenant leaves. They can't evict tenants who don't pay rent. Seattle will provide free lawyers to tenants who want to sue their landlords.
So, yeah, if the real estate market is rising fast enough, it's best to not rent it.
Right because in a "free market" tenants have no rights. Moving costs a minimum of 1 day of work, which is not available to many working people. As such, without laws to prevent it, landlords could arbitrarily raise rents whenever they felt like it.
> in a "free market" tenants have no rights.
Their rights are what is mutually agreed upon in the rental agreement.
> without laws to prevent it, landlords could arbitrarily raise rents whenever they felt like it.
Many rental contracts have clauses specifying when and how much the rent can change.
Landlords can demand whatever they want, but a tenant would have to agree to it. Tenants can also demand whatever they want, but the landlord would have to agree. That's supply & demand at work.
Their rights are what is mutually agreed upon in the rental agreement.
> without laws to prevent it, landlords could arbitrarily raise rents whenever they felt like it.
Many rental contracts have clauses specifying when and how much the rent can change.
Landlords can demand whatever they want, but a tenant would have to agree to it. Tenants can also demand whatever they want, but the landlord would have to agree. That's supply & demand at work.
contacts only work because we don't live in a few market. without regulation, a contract is just a piece of paper
Contracts are not regulations. But the government provides contract enforcement, which is an essential part of a free market.
The state needs to build a slew of affordable housing. I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Housing needs to be built for the purpose of housing people rather than the purpose of making profit.
The state building affordable and midrange housing does have precedent in Finland, where municipal employees build the majority of homes, leaving the upper mid-range and high end homes to be built by private developers.
They do tightly manage where each type of residence is built, from what I hear the goal is to avoid the creation of exclusively wealthy or poor neighborhoods as their existence damages society.
They do tightly manage where each type of residence is built, from what I hear the goal is to avoid the creation of exclusively wealthy or poor neighborhoods as their existence damages society.
> The state needs to build a slew of affordable housing.
These have never worked and are full of pervert effects. It's at best a band aid.
> I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem.
> I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Housing needs to be built for the purpose of housing people rather than the purpose of making profit.
That's a cool political slogan, however nobody will build a housing without a profit and nobody is entitled to other people's labor.
Making sure that houses are not left empty and sane zoning rules are more likely to result in viable changes. Absurdly low interest rates are also to blame.
These have never worked and are full of pervert effects. It's at best a band aid.
> I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem.
> I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem. Housing needs to be built for the purpose of housing people rather than the purpose of making profit.
That's a cool political slogan, however nobody will build a housing without a profit and nobody is entitled to other people's labor.
Making sure that houses are not left empty and sane zoning rules are more likely to result in viable changes. Absurdly low interest rates are also to blame.
You started by dismissing the proposed solution out of hand and then went on to attack a strawman.
You do end with a couple ideas of your own, but overall I find this comment more disingenuous than not.
You do end with a couple ideas of your own, but overall I find this comment more disingenuous than not.
I merely pointed obvious problems in your argument. Then your reply to my comment make accusations but has no substantive explanations at all, which also means it can be dismissed as such.
It wasn't my argument. I was explaining why I downvoted your comment, which I probably should have been more clear about.
The market has shown it's ill-equiped? I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
There are zoning codes everywhere, environmental review, city permits, etc, that the small amount of successful projects will of course be the minimal low hanging fruit. Literally all of this problem is "the state."
Let people build buildings on their own land. It will supply far more housing than any state backed affordable housing and will break the housing-as-investment pitfall by breaking the supply-constraint that causes people to treat it that way.
There are zoning codes everywhere, environmental review, city permits, etc, that the small amount of successful projects will of course be the minimal low hanging fruit. Literally all of this problem is "the state."
Let people build buildings on their own land. It will supply far more housing than any state backed affordable housing and will break the housing-as-investment pitfall by breaking the supply-constraint that causes people to treat it that way.
>> Let people build buildings on their own land.
All land is owned subject to the laws that govern its potential uses. Land that is open to more uses is more valuable than land that is not. Land that can be subdivided is worth more than land that cannot. Allowing people to build more houses on "their own land" is a wonderful gift to land owners. It increases the value of their property. But that exacerbates the problem. A trend towards greater freedom to develop real estate means it is, yet again, only a more attractive investment vehicle.
Rather than "let them build", perhaps we should consider "thou shalt build" or "thou shalt rent". Laws that demand certain real estate owners do X or Y could not only increase the number of rental units but also diminish the attractiveness of unoccupied or unused real estate as an investment vehicle.
All land is owned subject to the laws that govern its potential uses. Land that is open to more uses is more valuable than land that is not. Land that can be subdivided is worth more than land that cannot. Allowing people to build more houses on "their own land" is a wonderful gift to land owners. It increases the value of their property. But that exacerbates the problem. A trend towards greater freedom to develop real estate means it is, yet again, only a more attractive investment vehicle.
Rather than "let them build", perhaps we should consider "thou shalt build" or "thou shalt rent". Laws that demand certain real estate owners do X or Y could not only increase the number of rental units but also diminish the attractiveness of unoccupied or unused real estate as an investment vehicle.
Um, people building more houses means more supply which means lower prices. Nobody has yet managed to repeal the law of supply and demand.
The problem is that in high demand areas, it can be profitable for people to buy property purely as speculation without ever having people live there.
As I pointed out earlier, this problem is solved by adding building supply to balance out the supply-demand imbalance causing property to appreciate and be a source of speculation. No one will "invest" in real estate if adequate supply causes no price increases. Any ad-hoc state involved bandaids like rent-control, foreign ownership laws, etc. are unnecessary.
Land and Real Estate has other aspects of the demand aside from just "a roof over your head" though. Location and other factors play into it in a big way. For instance if you have a parcel of undeveloped land at a lakeshore, the supply isn't "all land available in the region", it's "All land along that lakeshore" which is a much smaller supply. And lakes are generally a desirable place to live, so the demand is likely high.
It doesn't really matter that there are exceptions where some areas are naturally more desirable because land isn't fungible. What matters is that there are available housing units approaching the limit of construction cost pricing so that people can have a place to live without being affected by luxuries like "wanting a lakefront home."
My point isn't that there aren't some exceptions it's that there are tons, maybe literally hundreds or thousands of factors into the supply/demand equation here.
what kind of internet is available in the area? How close are you to grocery stores? Is there a HOA that you have to pay dues to? What's the weather like? Is the home up to date or is the wiring and plumbing likely to need a lot of work? How big is the lot? How walkable is the neighbourhood? Is it near a smelly dump? What's the crime rate like? What are the schools in the area like, how close are they? How much access is there to transit?
It's not as simple as just "Build more housing" society also has to adequately service the people who want to live in that housing. If our lower income housing is all just bare minimum roof over your head and no access to anything then no one will want to live there, which also means that supply will not affect the demand on housing that has better access to amenities.
what kind of internet is available in the area? How close are you to grocery stores? Is there a HOA that you have to pay dues to? What's the weather like? Is the home up to date or is the wiring and plumbing likely to need a lot of work? How big is the lot? How walkable is the neighbourhood? Is it near a smelly dump? What's the crime rate like? What are the schools in the area like, how close are they? How much access is there to transit?
It's not as simple as just "Build more housing" society also has to adequately service the people who want to live in that housing. If our lower income housing is all just bare minimum roof over your head and no access to anything then no one will want to live there, which also means that supply will not affect the demand on housing that has better access to amenities.
Internet infrastructure, closeness to grocery stores, homes being up to date, walk-ability, close schools, access to transit, are all improved by building more dense housing.
We can also be quite certain that providing the bare minimum housing pulls in demand from those more luxurious options (wants) to the more economically practical option (needs), because the bare minimum option was never available. We'd be giving people more choices and at least some would take it.
Then if you have so many people that "demand" a certain standard of luxury housing, then they will have to compete and pay the premiums for the actual limited resources like lakefront property or great schools (living near other like-minded wealthier people). That's the realities of scarce resources, and is fine, since there's not much we can improve there. But the major gap is providing the bare minimum of housing which we are currently not doing.
We can also be quite certain that providing the bare minimum housing pulls in demand from those more luxurious options (wants) to the more economically practical option (needs), because the bare minimum option was never available. We'd be giving people more choices and at least some would take it.
Then if you have so many people that "demand" a certain standard of luxury housing, then they will have to compete and pay the premiums for the actual limited resources like lakefront property or great schools (living near other like-minded wealthier people). That's the realities of scarce resources, and is fine, since there's not much we can improve there. But the major gap is providing the bare minimum of housing which we are currently not doing.
If you want to diminish attractiveness of unused land, a land tax might help. Much better than the state trying to micromanage what gets done. Just set the right incentive structure.
It's a common fallacy to look at a heavily regulated market and blame "the market" in general. What makes it worse is supposed "free market" advocates that instead selectively deregulate in their favor. But the market can be corrected by selectively deregulating in favor of the disadvantaged too. It just doesnt happen very often due to the nature of the of the people in power.
> But the market can be corrected by selectively deregulating in favor of the disadvantaged too.
Only to the extent that existing regulation favors the advantaged more than the market naturally does, which tends to make that approach quite limited in potential.
Only to the extent that existing regulation favors the advantaged more than the market naturally does, which tends to make that approach quite limited in potential.
The market will always favour the advantaged. Correcting that out means getting rid of the market
"The market has shown it's ill-equiped? I don't know how you came to that conclusion."
Well, we could start with the fact that there are roughly 25 empty housing units in the U.S. for every homeless person.
Housing a very basic human need.
Well, we could start with the fact that there are roughly 25 empty housing units in the U.S. for every homeless person.
Housing a very basic human need.
The market is ill-equipped? Prior government interventions in housing are driving most of the price inflation and investment.
Every time they come up with a new way to help people buy houses they just further drive up the price.
Every time they come up with a new way to help people buy houses they just further drive up the price.
State housing has a place, but I think they really need to fix the demand side of investors. There should be significant deterant to holding residential property in large scale. While options are varied I think a progressive asset tax of total property owned. Something like 0.5% per million starting on the second million. Maybe some principle place of residence reduction. So most people can have a house even a second/third house without occuring holding tax but you stop people sitting on $10m+ in residential property, which is quite a low threshold really. And stop investors dropping billion plus amounts into the market. Then some rule about top marginal rate for obscured ownership like overseas owners and trusts etc to stop shenanigans there.
It comes down to that line about residential property has to be good for residents or good for investors, you can't have both.
It comes down to that line about residential property has to be good for residents or good for investors, you can't have both.
First home? 3% real estate transaction tax, or 1% if renovating up to high energy savings specs.
Any other home? 12% real estate transaction tax.
That's roughly how it works in the Flanders region of Belgium from 2022.
Any other home? 12% real estate transaction tax.
That's roughly how it works in the Flanders region of Belgium from 2022.
Many people want and/or need to rent. How would this not just drive up rent 9%
> I think the market has shown quite clearly it's ill-equipped to deal with the problem
Step 3: Downvote and run away
1. Step one: Prevent market from functioning through excessive regulation
2. Step two: Blame the market
Step 3: Downvote and run away
Better yet, the state needs to get out of the way of the private sector building things and let it create more supply. A friend of mine wanted to tear down and rebuild an old house he bought. Spent a year and a half trying to obtain all the permits and gave up. And that's a regular house on a plot of land that he already owns, the "easy" case. You can imagine what kind of insane bureaucratic hoops one would need to jump through to build anything that's "affordable" and therefore a little bit unconventional. My house tripled in value in 10 years. There's simply no way a glorified wooden box costs $2M. The "state" (and the restriction of supply) is the reason why.
> So building more doesn't necessarily mean more houses for people to live in.
Of course it does. I know that some people buy homes and let them sit vacant, but that's a transitory state. A home has no value if it is not being used. To realize its value, it must be sold to someone who will live in it.
Of course it does. I know that some people buy homes and let them sit vacant, but that's a transitory state. A home has no value if it is not being used. To realize its value, it must be sold to someone who will live in it.
Real estate can be a store of value. It needs to be sold to liquidate the money tied up in it, but that could be years in the future. Having it sit empty until then doesn't stop the investment from working.
Vacant real estate can be quite a drain on your money. Vacant houses, for example, attract squatters, thieves and vandals. They still cost property taxes, insurance, upkeep, and your time.
If you buy a $5m house in a place where the property prices double in 10 years (eg some parts of London), it can still be worthwhile no matter what else happens.
It's even more worthwhile to collect rent on it for 10 years. How much rent can you accrue in 10 years on a posh $5m house?
A price doubling in 10 years is only a 7% rate of return, which is below what the stock market in the US averages.
(Prices may double, but you've got inflation, taxes, insurance, vandalism, theft, maintenance expenses, and non-trivial amounts of your time in the meantime. None of this is free.)
A price doubling in 10 years is only a 7% rate of return, which is below what the stock market in the US averages.
(Prices may double, but you've got inflation, taxes, insurance, vandalism, theft, maintenance expenses, and non-trivial amounts of your time in the meantime. None of this is free.)
It has to be sold to somebody who while buy it*
They don't have to live in it either, just sell it to somebody else who will buy it
They don't have to live in it either, just sell it to somebody else who will buy it
> Real estate is now a primary investment vehicle. So building more doesn't necessarily mean more houses
It says right in the SEC filings that places that build enough housing are a threat to the investments of companies like Blackrock.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/22524829/wall-street-housin...
It's a good investment because we don't build enough homes.
It says right in the SEC filings that places that build enough housing are a threat to the investments of companies like Blackrock.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/22524829/wall-street-housin...
It's a good investment because we don't build enough homes.
Supply and demand took a back seat to hoarding assets to prop up investor value.
Taken literally the government is engaged in class warfare by forcing the public to engage in labor for private enterprise to prosper.
America is effectively a caste system, abstracting a persons value into a net worth, focused on gossip, and gaming semantics, very similarly to religious tribes.
Murder rates have come down generally speaking, over the centuries.
The cycle we need to break is letting millions starve and go homeless. We refuse to see it as equivalent to other human atrocities political capture by selfish, bitter men and women.
We need a pivot to new core values entirely. My preference would be along the lines of prioritizing biological/medical health of individuals and setting aside superfluous economic activity. But good luck passing laws favored by the public (polling has shown a majority support universal healthcare for years now).
Work stoppages will force austerity on aristocrats. History is pretty clear that’s what it takes to move the needle politically.
Gaming house prices is, to borrow Greers area/perimeter metaphor for programming, hacking the area of the established perimeter.
Futurists have been predicting collapse of nation states and a re-emergence of the city-state by 2050 for a while now. Often leaning on environmental concern and the lack of Federal exigency to tackle the problem. Perhaps they’re onto something.
Taken literally the government is engaged in class warfare by forcing the public to engage in labor for private enterprise to prosper.
America is effectively a caste system, abstracting a persons value into a net worth, focused on gossip, and gaming semantics, very similarly to religious tribes.
Murder rates have come down generally speaking, over the centuries.
The cycle we need to break is letting millions starve and go homeless. We refuse to see it as equivalent to other human atrocities political capture by selfish, bitter men and women.
We need a pivot to new core values entirely. My preference would be along the lines of prioritizing biological/medical health of individuals and setting aside superfluous economic activity. But good luck passing laws favored by the public (polling has shown a majority support universal healthcare for years now).
Work stoppages will force austerity on aristocrats. History is pretty clear that’s what it takes to move the needle politically.
Gaming house prices is, to borrow Greers area/perimeter metaphor for programming, hacking the area of the established perimeter.
Futurists have been predicting collapse of nation states and a re-emergence of the city-state by 2050 for a while now. Often leaning on environmental concern and the lack of Federal exigency to tackle the problem. Perhaps they’re onto something.
Housing is the big factor. When it went insane, people who were on the edge of being able to afford housing got forced out. That was a whole lot of people. And when you lose your dream, what's the point of trying anymore?
> When it went insane, people who were on the edge of being able to afford housing got forced out. That was a whole lot of people.
It's the same pool of buyers and the same pool of houses, so no one's really getting forced out. If they were all so close, prices would jump as soon as they start buying. It's only interesting if the increase brings a lot more investors to the market.
It's the same pool of buyers and the same pool of houses, so no one's really getting forced out. If they were all so close, prices would jump as soon as they start buying. It's only interesting if the increase brings a lot more investors to the market.
What? No, it's not. Forced out meaning forced out of the potential buying a house market, not forced out as in evicted. I know because my brother was one of them.
He's been saving for 6 years to finally buy a house on a 45k a year salary in what was a LCOL area, and now he's forced out. Living with our mom, and basically gave up.
The buyers are all the haves, and corporations. The have-nots got forced out.
I make enough, and can afford things. But I'm not blind to the problems of the everyman, and none of us should be. They outnumber us 4 or more to 1.
He's been saving for 6 years to finally buy a house on a 45k a year salary in what was a LCOL area, and now he's forced out. Living with our mom, and basically gave up.
The buyers are all the haves, and corporations. The have-nots got forced out.
I make enough, and can afford things. But I'm not blind to the problems of the everyman, and none of us should be. They outnumber us 4 or more to 1.
Thank zoning regulations and the entirety of the green crowd from the clinate activists to the animal rights groups. Nothing that hasn't been replaced is more expensive to produce now than in the past. Regulations motivated by classist priorities are the reason costs aren't able to be pushed back down.
> inflation / stagflation weren't the natural result of everyone trying to get ahead and increasing just their own wage.
Inflation / stagflation are the result of supply&demand forces just like everything else in an economy. Inflation happens when the supply of money increases faster than the value it represents.
Guess what has been happening with the supply of money when the government prints trillions of dollars to rain down on the economy. All that cash sloshing around just devalues the dollar, and hence prices rise.
Inflation / stagflation are the result of supply&demand forces just like everything else in an economy. Inflation happens when the supply of money increases faster than the value it represents.
Guess what has been happening with the supply of money when the government prints trillions of dollars to rain down on the economy. All that cash sloshing around just devalues the dollar, and hence prices rise.
A $2000 check is why everything costs 20% more forever?
I think it is possible that to be running so close to boundary conditions that a sudden shock to the system can catalyze outsize changes. Not necessarily $2k, but a confluence of factors, especially if they have knock on effects that compound.
Labor in the US has been losing ground for decades, I always wondered how long the situation was tenable.
Labor in the US has been losing ground for decades, I always wondered how long the situation was tenable.
How many checks and how much low interest debt, how many tax breaks and increased social care spending? All of it feeds in.
There's a lot more than that flooding in.
[deleted]
Good for them. I wish them all the best of luck.
There are some people trying to organize a general strike for October 15th. I just see mentions of it on social media, but I have yet to hear of any big unions getting involved.
You won't see the big, "respectable" unions get involved because under the Taft-Hartley Act general strikes are pretty much illegal.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120501041417/http://inthesetim...
The thing is, they can't arrest everybody without turning the USA into more of a prison than it already is and setting the stage for John Carpenter's ESCAPE FROM AMERICA.
October 15 is a good day for a strike, but in the USA every day is a good day for a strike.
https://octoberstrike.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20120501041417/http://inthesetim...
The thing is, they can't arrest everybody without turning the USA into more of a prison than it already is and setting the stage for John Carpenter's ESCAPE FROM AMERICA.
October 15 is a good day for a strike, but in the USA every day is a good day for a strike.
https://octoberstrike.com/
> https://octoberstrike.com/
Too bad they mixed political ideology in what would have been otherwise a unifying populist movement. Remember, most socialists are upper middle class and above.
> Our Goals:
Also:
Corporations can move, and re-invest their profits. Such high profit taxes are usually counter-productive. Loopholes will always exist. You can't stop them from leaving. There is a reason that most western countries US barely produces anything outside of IP and petrodollar.
Free Healthcare for all is a lie. Nothing is free. Positive rights lead to slavery or worker revolts and shortage. We are living this right now in Canada, nurses are tired of doing obligatory overtime. They're just quitting. Hospitals are closing, literally. The US health care system is inefficient due to litigation and regulations pushed by lobbying to maintain private monopolies.
High minimum wage will just accelerate automation and the disappearance of low-skills jobs.
Too bad they mixed political ideology in what would have been otherwise a unifying populist movement. Remember, most socialists are upper middle class and above.
> Our Goals:
25% corporate tax rate (No loopholes)
Free Healthcare for all
12 weeks paid paternity and maternity leave
$20 minimum wage
4 day work week
Stricter Environmental Regulations on Corporations (Bans on single use and micro plastics, and limited emissions)
Also:
Corporations can move, and re-invest their profits. Such high profit taxes are usually counter-productive. Loopholes will always exist. You can't stop them from leaving. There is a reason that most western countries US barely produces anything outside of IP and petrodollar.
Free Healthcare for all is a lie. Nothing is free. Positive rights lead to slavery or worker revolts and shortage. We are living this right now in Canada, nurses are tired of doing obligatory overtime. They're just quitting. Hospitals are closing, literally. The US health care system is inefficient due to litigation and regulations pushed by lobbying to maintain private monopolies.
High minimum wage will just accelerate automation and the disappearance of low-skills jobs.
> For some reasons every socialist I talk to actually think a 15-25 hours week of work is sufficient for society to function
A good chunk of that can be improved with full employment. Capitalism also leaves a significant amount of storehouses/factories/etc unused because they're not profitable to operate. We don't have a large enough labor-force to operate at full capacity right now (I think including unemployed), we'd need more immigration for that. Reducing busywork jobs like advertising that suck in more labor in a pointless arms race will free up people for productive labor. Another hope is that a society that has everyone cared for on a fairly even basis will have less crime and so reduce the need for guard labor.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TCU
> Corporations can move, and re-invest their profits.
We can take control of the actual physical plants and prevent them from escaping. Money isn't real, physical reality is.
> Free Healthcare for all is a lie.
Many countries have this, even poorer countries than the US. In any case, even libertarian think tanks found M4A would reduce the cost of healthcare by removing complexity from the administrative side at minimum. Pricing can be negotiated down via monopsony.
> High minimum wage will just accelerate automation and the disappearance of low-skills jobs.
Not if the workers control the economy. They will not want their jobs to disappear unless they are promised placement and training. If those are provided, you may see even higher levels of automation as there will be reduced resistance to it. Not many people care if a business process changes so long as it won't leave them on the street.
A good chunk of that can be improved with full employment. Capitalism also leaves a significant amount of storehouses/factories/etc unused because they're not profitable to operate. We don't have a large enough labor-force to operate at full capacity right now (I think including unemployed), we'd need more immigration for that. Reducing busywork jobs like advertising that suck in more labor in a pointless arms race will free up people for productive labor. Another hope is that a society that has everyone cared for on a fairly even basis will have less crime and so reduce the need for guard labor.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TCU
> Corporations can move, and re-invest their profits.
We can take control of the actual physical plants and prevent them from escaping. Money isn't real, physical reality is.
> Free Healthcare for all is a lie.
Many countries have this, even poorer countries than the US. In any case, even libertarian think tanks found M4A would reduce the cost of healthcare by removing complexity from the administrative side at minimum. Pricing can be negotiated down via monopsony.
> High minimum wage will just accelerate automation and the disappearance of low-skills jobs.
Not if the workers control the economy. They will not want their jobs to disappear unless they are promised placement and training. If those are provided, you may see even higher levels of automation as there will be reduced resistance to it. Not many people care if a business process changes so long as it won't leave them on the street.
> A good chunk of that can be improved with full employment. Capitalism also leaves a significant amount of storehouses/factories/etc unused because they're not profitable to operate.
You obviously do not have a lot of experience in manufacturing and technology. Factories can close for many valid reasons: inefficient process, lack of resources, lack of talents, consolidation with other factories, etc. These are all necessary for any kind of healthy systems.
> We don't have a large enough labor-force to operate at full capacity right now (I think including unemployed), we'd need more immigration for that.
Immigration is simply moving the problem to another country and is a major problem for developing countries where they people who can keep the lights on are leaving. Mass immigration also leads to lack of integration and social unrest.
> Reducing busywork jobs like advertising that suck in more labor in a pointless arms race will free up people for productive labor.
I'm not for useless marketing but it has a necessary function. Letting people know of potential better solutions is critical. A lot of problems are not known as problems that can be solved by those experiencing them. Also who gets to decide what is "pointless"? There are no good answer to this question, especially in a technological society. And even if marketing exists purely as a way to get an edge in market competition, removing competition itself always leads to complacency and corruption.
> We can take control of the actual physical plants and prevent them from escaping. Money isn't real, physical reality is.
Who is "we"? Most likely not you and me. And the idea that the plants and the workers will automatically keep working at "our" command is just pure fantasy. Organization is not tangible, yet you can't ignore them. Even if you remove the collective convention of money you will not eliminate the phenomenon of supply and demand and who gets to decide always lead to conflict, waste and corruption. And your phrasing of "prevent them from escaping" is very telling of what a dystopia that would be.
> Many countries have this, even poorer countries than the US
Yet Free Health care does not exist. Someone has to get paid, or be forced to stay to work by force, like is happening in Cuba.
> In any case, even libertarian think tanks found M4A would reduce the cost of healthcare by removing complexity from the administrative side at minimum.
If you think that a multi-trillion industry with very close relationships with those in the government would let that happen then you are very naive. The cost will be moved and renamed as the regulations, over-licensure and over-litigation will remain as the root cause of the problem. I live in a "free" health care system, it's more or less the same BS than in the States, but instead of worrying about money we worry about getting service in the first place after waiting hours or days or nothing at all.
> Pricing can be negotiated down via monopsony.
Keyword here is "can". I get it that you are unfamiliar with the horrors of the governmental procurement processes? Here's a hint: always taking the lowest bidder rarely leads to actual low prices.
> Not if the workers control the economy.
In reality only a handful of people can "control" a system. These people rarely tend to be actual workers or never have to work after they "control" others. This is a fantasy at best.
> They will not want their jobs to disappear unless they are promised placement and training. If those are provided, you may see even higher levels of automation as there will be reduced resistance to it.
Not everyone can "learn to code" or acquire new higher level skills. Not all automation leads to more jobs, and even if free market automation can make life dirt cheap and diminish required labor (which is kind of the case since a poor person probably has higher level of living than a king of a few centuries back).
You obviously do not have a lot of experience in manufacturing and technology. Factories can close for many valid reasons: inefficient process, lack of resources, lack of talents, consolidation with other factories, etc. These are all necessary for any kind of healthy systems.
> We don't have a large enough labor-force to operate at full capacity right now (I think including unemployed), we'd need more immigration for that.
Immigration is simply moving the problem to another country and is a major problem for developing countries where they people who can keep the lights on are leaving. Mass immigration also leads to lack of integration and social unrest.
> Reducing busywork jobs like advertising that suck in more labor in a pointless arms race will free up people for productive labor.
I'm not for useless marketing but it has a necessary function. Letting people know of potential better solutions is critical. A lot of problems are not known as problems that can be solved by those experiencing them. Also who gets to decide what is "pointless"? There are no good answer to this question, especially in a technological society. And even if marketing exists purely as a way to get an edge in market competition, removing competition itself always leads to complacency and corruption.
> We can take control of the actual physical plants and prevent them from escaping. Money isn't real, physical reality is.
Who is "we"? Most likely not you and me. And the idea that the plants and the workers will automatically keep working at "our" command is just pure fantasy. Organization is not tangible, yet you can't ignore them. Even if you remove the collective convention of money you will not eliminate the phenomenon of supply and demand and who gets to decide always lead to conflict, waste and corruption. And your phrasing of "prevent them from escaping" is very telling of what a dystopia that would be.
> Many countries have this, even poorer countries than the US
Yet Free Health care does not exist. Someone has to get paid, or be forced to stay to work by force, like is happening in Cuba.
> In any case, even libertarian think tanks found M4A would reduce the cost of healthcare by removing complexity from the administrative side at minimum.
If you think that a multi-trillion industry with very close relationships with those in the government would let that happen then you are very naive. The cost will be moved and renamed as the regulations, over-licensure and over-litigation will remain as the root cause of the problem. I live in a "free" health care system, it's more or less the same BS than in the States, but instead of worrying about money we worry about getting service in the first place after waiting hours or days or nothing at all.
> Pricing can be negotiated down via monopsony.
Keyword here is "can". I get it that you are unfamiliar with the horrors of the governmental procurement processes? Here's a hint: always taking the lowest bidder rarely leads to actual low prices.
> Not if the workers control the economy.
In reality only a handful of people can "control" a system. These people rarely tend to be actual workers or never have to work after they "control" others. This is a fantasy at best.
> They will not want their jobs to disappear unless they are promised placement and training. If those are provided, you may see even higher levels of automation as there will be reduced resistance to it.
Not everyone can "learn to code" or acquire new higher level skills. Not all automation leads to more jobs, and even if free market automation can make life dirt cheap and diminish required labor (which is kind of the case since a poor person probably has higher level of living than a king of a few centuries back).
[deleted]
> Factories can close for many valid reasons: inefficient process, lack of resources, lack of talents, consolidation with other factories, etc. These are all necessary for any kind of healthy systems.
That's not what the St. Louis FED is measuring. They are trying to build an index of maximum sustainable production. We are at about 76% which has declined from the 1970s level of ~90%.
> Immigration is simply moving the problem to another country and is a major problem for developing countries where they people who can keep the lights on are leaving.
I doubt that. Moving labor from a low productivity country to a high productivity one would mean overall more goods are produced. With international solidarity, both countries can be helped. Mass immigration can be somewhat disruptive, but most of that conflict is based on economic fears that they are taking jobs or using limited resources. If they aren't then there's little problem. There are other reasons people have problems with immigration, but I don't consider most of those valid.
> Who is "we"? Most likely not you and me.
Well, either the workers themselves spontaneously or a socialist government grabs it with force of arms. A socialist government is more inclined to help workers than a capitalist one, but even some capitalist ones have cooperative businesses. Countries have different experiences with real workplace democracy including places like Spain, Italy, and the US. Yugoslavia tried market socialism. The USSR had a central planning process, and China is more of a mix.
> Yet Free Health care does not exist.
Right the workers get paid. However, it is free at the point of service. This comes from taxes duh. I would like to see a citation on Cuba. My understanding is their doctors are trained for free and are expected to serve for a certain number of years in return. Here, we load students with debt, excluding the lower classes from the profession to a great degree.
> I live in a "free" health care system, it's more or less the same BS than in the States, but instead of worrying about money we worry about getting service in the first place after waiting hours or days or nothing at all.
In the US, health care is rationed based on ability to pay. This means if you can pay, you get (sometimes) quick service. If you can't pay, you suffer and die (or wind up in the ER where you have to be treated with a bandaid but then they come after you to try to ruin you financially). In a planned system, everyone gets triaged and more urgent problems are prioritized. It is possible to underresource a system, which will result in exaggerated wait times. Better resourcing improves service.
> If you think that a multi-trillion industry with very close relationships with those in the government would let that happen then you are very naive.
This is a just so story. It depends on what political group has power. In the US, majorities want this to happen, so if they were in power it would happen. In this country, we have minority rule so it doesn't.
> Pricing can be negotiated down via monopsony.
It basically depends on whether there is a real incentive to do so as to whether it will happen. The current system in the US will not, but recall that communists call for revolution. It's sad that even capitalist systems in other countries are willing to reduce prices. We are uniquely bad.
> Not everyone can "learn to code" or acquire new higher level skills.
Not every job needs to be automated. I only said that more automation is likely, not that all jobs would be automated. People want jobs that engage their faculties and give them some kind of purpose. No one wants to be a robot. Some will want to slack on easy jobs, but that will be for them to decide. We could offer incentives to workers if a certain sector needs efficiency improvements.
That's not what the St. Louis FED is measuring. They are trying to build an index of maximum sustainable production. We are at about 76% which has declined from the 1970s level of ~90%.
> Immigration is simply moving the problem to another country and is a major problem for developing countries where they people who can keep the lights on are leaving.
I doubt that. Moving labor from a low productivity country to a high productivity one would mean overall more goods are produced. With international solidarity, both countries can be helped. Mass immigration can be somewhat disruptive, but most of that conflict is based on economic fears that they are taking jobs or using limited resources. If they aren't then there's little problem. There are other reasons people have problems with immigration, but I don't consider most of those valid.
> Who is "we"? Most likely not you and me.
Well, either the workers themselves spontaneously or a socialist government grabs it with force of arms. A socialist government is more inclined to help workers than a capitalist one, but even some capitalist ones have cooperative businesses. Countries have different experiences with real workplace democracy including places like Spain, Italy, and the US. Yugoslavia tried market socialism. The USSR had a central planning process, and China is more of a mix.
> Yet Free Health care does not exist.
Right the workers get paid. However, it is free at the point of service. This comes from taxes duh. I would like to see a citation on Cuba. My understanding is their doctors are trained for free and are expected to serve for a certain number of years in return. Here, we load students with debt, excluding the lower classes from the profession to a great degree.
> I live in a "free" health care system, it's more or less the same BS than in the States, but instead of worrying about money we worry about getting service in the first place after waiting hours or days or nothing at all.
In the US, health care is rationed based on ability to pay. This means if you can pay, you get (sometimes) quick service. If you can't pay, you suffer and die (or wind up in the ER where you have to be treated with a bandaid but then they come after you to try to ruin you financially). In a planned system, everyone gets triaged and more urgent problems are prioritized. It is possible to underresource a system, which will result in exaggerated wait times. Better resourcing improves service.
> If you think that a multi-trillion industry with very close relationships with those in the government would let that happen then you are very naive.
This is a just so story. It depends on what political group has power. In the US, majorities want this to happen, so if they were in power it would happen. In this country, we have minority rule so it doesn't.
> Pricing can be negotiated down via monopsony.
It basically depends on whether there is a real incentive to do so as to whether it will happen. The current system in the US will not, but recall that communists call for revolution. It's sad that even capitalist systems in other countries are willing to reduce prices. We are uniquely bad.
> Not everyone can "learn to code" or acquire new higher level skills.
Not every job needs to be automated. I only said that more automation is likely, not that all jobs would be automated. People want jobs that engage their faculties and give them some kind of purpose. No one wants to be a robot. Some will want to slack on easy jobs, but that will be for them to decide. We could offer incentives to workers if a certain sector needs efficiency improvements.
> That's not what the St. Louis FED is measuring. They are trying to build an index of maximum sustainable production. We are at about 76% which has declined from the 1970s level of ~90%.
I guess you're talking about this graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLGMFDS
The problem is that you're only comparing the peaks of the graph at 1970 with the average of now. If you look at it you will find that the average has declined from 80% from the 70s to 75% in the last decade, not the 15% figure you're alluding to.
And even then to jump to the claim that it means that we can cut working hours based on that gap is just a giant leap of logic, and is not what the FED of St. Louis is claiming. Again I think it shows a basic lack of knowledge of industry and manufacturing. Just mindlessly producing stuff leads to waste, WIP and various other problems. This principle even applies to IT and software development.
Having a low stock rotation rate is bad. Having a too high occupancy rate is as bad as too low (85% is considered good).
At best this is a measure of efficiency of usage of land occupied by industrial plants and a very very short term predictor of recessions.
> I doubt that. Moving labor from a low productivity country to a high productivity one would mean overall more goods are produced. With international solidarity, both countries can be helped. Mass immigration can be somewhat disruptive, but most of that conflict is based on economic fears that they are taking jobs or using limited resources. If they aren't then there's little problem.
International solidarity doesn't really exist except for small scale charity. The reality is that game theory prevails when it comes to different group of people separated by continental distances. And by the way developed countries are already doing that. In Canada we frequently employ Mexicans and other workers from South America to pick our crops. This already happens in a capitalist society. Also not all labor is equal and that balance between high skills and low skills workers must be maintained even in a planned economy. All communist countries limit free movement of labor.
Lowering of wages and conditions by cheap labor is a real phenomenon that even populist socialists acknowledge.
> There are other reasons people have problems with immigration, but I don't consider most of those valid.
This is not really a compelling argument.
> Well, either the workers themselves spontaneously or a socialist government grabs it with force of arms. A socialist government is more inclined to help workers than a capitalist one, but even some capitalist ones have cooperative businesses. Countries have different experiences with real workplace democracy including places like Spain, Italy, and the US. Yugoslavia tried market socialism. The USSR had a central planning process, and China is more of a mix.
Contrary to Marxist theory predictions, workers never shared a spontaneous will or momentum just by virtue of their "oppressed state". Even less so at a country or global scale. In reality self-called Marxist revolutions never came from the workers. Nearly all leaders weren't workers, but educated. Some of the leaders knew poverty, most didn't. There's a good reason revolutionaries around the world consider be the only ones being "enlightened" enough to be only in charge and that they have to actively steer up inner conflicts among the population to gain a modicum of support.
Also all of these examples are counterexamples to your argument. China got better with liberalization and capitalism, and is now getting worse going reverse.
> Right the workers get paid. However, it is free at the point of service. This comes from taxes duh. I would like to see a citation on Cuba. My understanding is their doctors are trained for free and are expected to serve for a certain number of years in return. Here, we load students with debt, excluding the lower classes from the profession to a great degree.
Yes, and it costs a whole lot and service is not that great. In Canada our health system has been in "crisis" for 20 years now by the way. Citizens in Cuba are not allowed to leave, this is a well known fact, and doctors are the most watched over this for obvious reasons. And sorry but "expected to serve" is just plain slavery. Nobody can be forced to work in a free society. This is why the positive right of "free health care" lead to being forced to work down the line. In Canada right now nurses are forced to work 16 hours shifts, they can't really work in the private sector (there isn't) but leas they can quit without going to prison. And doctors can afford student loans, the real problem is that the US doesn't allow people to default on student debt, which is an entirely another issue.
> In the US, health care is rationed based on ability to pay. This means if you can pay, you get (sometimes) quick service. If you can't pay, you suffer and die (or wind up in the ER where you have to be treated with a bandaid but then they come after you to try to ruin you financially). In a planned system, everyone gets triaged and more urgent problems are prioritized. It is possible to underresource a system, which will result in exaggerated wait times. Better resourcing improves service.
That's not actually true. You will get treated in the US (hospitals can't refuse patients) and then fill up the cost to those who can pay. Yes they can bankrupt you but the real problem is the system being inefficient which finds its root cause in the government: over-regulation, over-litigation and political donations that aggravate these problems. And just thinking that we "should just put resources" to improve services is not a policy is simply a naive privileged customer-like view of the real world with no consideration for scarcity and the complexity of the circumstances.
> It basically depends on whether there is a real incentive to do so as to whether it will happen. The current system in the US will not, but recall that communists call for revolution. It's sad that even capitalist systems in other countries are willing to reduce prices. We are uniquely bad.
Please have a conversation from people of other under developed countries. The US and other Western government are way better even without their problems. Communist countries have to stop their citizens from reporting what is going on on the ground and setup Potemkim villages for a good reason.
I guess you're talking about this graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLGMFDS
The problem is that you're only comparing the peaks of the graph at 1970 with the average of now. If you look at it you will find that the average has declined from 80% from the 70s to 75% in the last decade, not the 15% figure you're alluding to.
And even then to jump to the claim that it means that we can cut working hours based on that gap is just a giant leap of logic, and is not what the FED of St. Louis is claiming. Again I think it shows a basic lack of knowledge of industry and manufacturing. Just mindlessly producing stuff leads to waste, WIP and various other problems. This principle even applies to IT and software development.
Having a low stock rotation rate is bad. Having a too high occupancy rate is as bad as too low (85% is considered good).
At best this is a measure of efficiency of usage of land occupied by industrial plants and a very very short term predictor of recessions.
> I doubt that. Moving labor from a low productivity country to a high productivity one would mean overall more goods are produced. With international solidarity, both countries can be helped. Mass immigration can be somewhat disruptive, but most of that conflict is based on economic fears that they are taking jobs or using limited resources. If they aren't then there's little problem.
International solidarity doesn't really exist except for small scale charity. The reality is that game theory prevails when it comes to different group of people separated by continental distances. And by the way developed countries are already doing that. In Canada we frequently employ Mexicans and other workers from South America to pick our crops. This already happens in a capitalist society. Also not all labor is equal and that balance between high skills and low skills workers must be maintained even in a planned economy. All communist countries limit free movement of labor.
Lowering of wages and conditions by cheap labor is a real phenomenon that even populist socialists acknowledge.
> There are other reasons people have problems with immigration, but I don't consider most of those valid.
This is not really a compelling argument.
> Well, either the workers themselves spontaneously or a socialist government grabs it with force of arms. A socialist government is more inclined to help workers than a capitalist one, but even some capitalist ones have cooperative businesses. Countries have different experiences with real workplace democracy including places like Spain, Italy, and the US. Yugoslavia tried market socialism. The USSR had a central planning process, and China is more of a mix.
Contrary to Marxist theory predictions, workers never shared a spontaneous will or momentum just by virtue of their "oppressed state". Even less so at a country or global scale. In reality self-called Marxist revolutions never came from the workers. Nearly all leaders weren't workers, but educated. Some of the leaders knew poverty, most didn't. There's a good reason revolutionaries around the world consider be the only ones being "enlightened" enough to be only in charge and that they have to actively steer up inner conflicts among the population to gain a modicum of support.
Also all of these examples are counterexamples to your argument. China got better with liberalization and capitalism, and is now getting worse going reverse.
> Right the workers get paid. However, it is free at the point of service. This comes from taxes duh. I would like to see a citation on Cuba. My understanding is their doctors are trained for free and are expected to serve for a certain number of years in return. Here, we load students with debt, excluding the lower classes from the profession to a great degree.
Yes, and it costs a whole lot and service is not that great. In Canada our health system has been in "crisis" for 20 years now by the way. Citizens in Cuba are not allowed to leave, this is a well known fact, and doctors are the most watched over this for obvious reasons. And sorry but "expected to serve" is just plain slavery. Nobody can be forced to work in a free society. This is why the positive right of "free health care" lead to being forced to work down the line. In Canada right now nurses are forced to work 16 hours shifts, they can't really work in the private sector (there isn't) but leas they can quit without going to prison. And doctors can afford student loans, the real problem is that the US doesn't allow people to default on student debt, which is an entirely another issue.
> In the US, health care is rationed based on ability to pay. This means if you can pay, you get (sometimes) quick service. If you can't pay, you suffer and die (or wind up in the ER where you have to be treated with a bandaid but then they come after you to try to ruin you financially). In a planned system, everyone gets triaged and more urgent problems are prioritized. It is possible to underresource a system, which will result in exaggerated wait times. Better resourcing improves service.
That's not actually true. You will get treated in the US (hospitals can't refuse patients) and then fill up the cost to those who can pay. Yes they can bankrupt you but the real problem is the system being inefficient which finds its root cause in the government: over-regulation, over-litigation and political donations that aggravate these problems. And just thinking that we "should just put resources" to improve services is not a policy is simply a naive privileged customer-like view of the real world with no consideration for scarcity and the complexity of the circumstances.
> It basically depends on whether there is a real incentive to do so as to whether it will happen. The current system in the US will not, but recall that communists call for revolution. It's sad that even capitalist systems in other countries are willing to reduce prices. We are uniquely bad.
Please have a conversation from people of other under developed countries. The US and other Western government are way better even without their problems. Communist countries have to stop their citizens from reporting what is going on on the ground and setup Potemkim villages for a good reason.
>High minimum wage will just accelerate automation and the disappearance of low-skills jobs.
Isn't that considered a good thing?
Isn't that considered a good thing?
At a high level 15 25 to hours a week is all that's necessary because the other 15 to 25 hours of work is mostly bull shit filler, and automation can help rest. wwe have ccomputers aand machines doing so much yet we keep working harder and harder, or atleast filling our time up with "work"
> Positive rights leads to slavery
Does the positive right for every child to receive 12 years of education result in slavery?
Does the positive right for every child to receive 12 years of education result in slavery?
This is kinda tangential and hella cynical, so feel free to ignore the following.
> Does the positive right for every child to receive 12 years of education result in slavery?
It isn't slavery. It's just imprisonment. At least, that's how it felt to me and it's how it feels to a lot of kids who haven't lost touch with their own true feelings in order to please the adults around them.
I don't think children actually get 12 years of education. They might spend twelve years going to school, but the actual academic education they get is probably something they could pick up with a year of concerted effort.
It's a grotesque waste of a child's time to keep them in school for so long just for such a limited academic program, but that seems to be the outer curriculum. The inner curriculum is about habits: obedience, punctuality, constructive obsession (aka "good work habits"). It's not the academics that matter in the real world, but the ability to do what you're told and con yourself into thinking that jumping through hoops is inherently worthwhile.
We call the kids who excel at this "college material", and allow them to do more of the same at their own eventual expense via student loans.
> Does the positive right for every child to receive 12 years of education result in slavery?
It isn't slavery. It's just imprisonment. At least, that's how it felt to me and it's how it feels to a lot of kids who haven't lost touch with their own true feelings in order to please the adults around them.
I don't think children actually get 12 years of education. They might spend twelve years going to school, but the actual academic education they get is probably something they could pick up with a year of concerted effort.
It's a grotesque waste of a child's time to keep them in school for so long just for such a limited academic program, but that seems to be the outer curriculum. The inner curriculum is about habits: obedience, punctuality, constructive obsession (aka "good work habits"). It's not the academics that matter in the real world, but the ability to do what you're told and con yourself into thinking that jumping through hoops is inherently worthwhile.
We call the kids who excel at this "college material", and allow them to do more of the same at their own eventual expense via student loans.
> It's just imprisonment
I think you misunderstood my comment. I was countering the claim that positive rights (such as the right to healthcare) cause slavery (for the doctor). In the context of TeeMassive's comment, he was implying that doctors would be forced to provide their labor to patients if the government declared a right to healthcare. My comment about how the right to childhood education does not cause slavery was referring to the teachers point of view, ie. that the teachers are not enslaved.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I was countering the claim that positive rights (such as the right to healthcare) cause slavery (for the doctor). In the context of TeeMassive's comment, he was implying that doctors would be forced to provide their labor to patients if the government declared a right to healthcare. My comment about how the right to childhood education does not cause slavery was referring to the teachers point of view, ie. that the teachers are not enslaved.
That's what I get for trolling right-wing trolls at zero-dark-thirty. Sorry.
> Remember, most socialists are upper middle class and above.
I don't buy this. I also think that the size of the middle class in the US is grossly overestimated. IMO, if you get a W2 because your income is based on wages or a salary, you're working class. Middle-class people own small businesses and have no boss besides their customers.
Yes, I get that this isn't the standard definition. I don't particularly care.
> For some reasons every socialist I talk to actually think a 15-25 hours week of work is sufficient for society to function...
This is partly based on predictions made by John Maynard Keynes, an economist of whom you might have heard.
https://www.openculture.com/2020/06/when-john-maynard-keynes...
He expected that labor-saving technology would advance to the point where human needs could easily be fulfilled. However, I suspect he rather badly underestimated the human capacity to mistake desires for needs and to create new desires where none previously existed.
Also, I don't think he saw neoliberalism coming in the 1970s, which badly eroded the power of workers to organize and claim their rightful share of the wealth their work made possible.
> ...I never really got a good explanation how productivity will increase to accommodate such a drastic drop in labor outside of theoretical predictions.
Is it really your acquaintances' job to explain this to you? The theory is all published in books, some of which are even in the public domain and should therefore be freely available.
> Corporations can move, and re-invest their profits.
Corporations are not sovereign. They exist at the pleasure of the governments that issue their papers of incorporation. The state of Delaware giveth, and it can taketh away just as easily (and it should rather more often than it does).
Being shielded from personal financial liability so that you can't lose more than you've invested in the business is a privilege, and one our governments give out as if it were candy. This is a policy choice, and one that can (and perhaps should) be changed.
Rich people, like governments, exist on sufferance. If they abuse their position in too egregious a fashion, the people will protest. If their protests go unheard, they will eventually remember they have the right of revolution.
> Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
It might be worthwhile to remember that the American revolution in 1776 was as much a revolt against the special privileges granted to the British East India Company as it was against lack of representation in Parliament and the alleged tyranny of King George III, and it was only after non-violent and legal remedies had been exhausted that revolution became a popular cause.
> Such high profit taxes are usually counter-productive.
You think 25% tax on profit is high? It has been 50% before, and businesspeople should be on their knees thanking Mammon that the tax is levied on profits instead of revenue — that they pay taxes on their net instead of their gross.
https://www.epi.org/publication/ib364-corporate-tax-rates-an...
> Positive rights lead to slavery or worker revolts and shortage.
I'm not convinced that positive rights lead to slavery. I know F. A. Hayek made this argument in The Road to Serfdom, but I'm not convinced this is the case. Nor am I convinced that worker revolts are a bad thing.
In fact, I think part of the problem is that we've gone without worker revolts for entirely too long, and that resentments and frustrations that could have been aired and resolved have instead gone unaired and unresolved, building up and festering to the point where their release threatens a crisis.
That's why I say every day is a good day for a strike. I honestly believe that defiance is what makes us human, and that the reason every toddler seems to count "no" among their first words is that the ability to say "no" is — more than our capacity for creating and using tools — the very quality that makes us human. It's the first step toward individuation and self-actualization.
> We are living this right now in Canada, nurses are tired of doing obligatory overtime.
And in the US, we have closed drive-thru fast food joints and dollar stores because of workers staging wildcat strikes. That's not because of "free healthcare" in Canada or excessively cushy unemployment benefits in the US. It's because not only are there not enough nurses to handle the load, but the available nurses aren't getting paid enough to deal with the downsides of their job — not least of which is the risk of getting COVID themselves because people won't vaccinate, won't wear masks, and there isn't always enough PPE to go around.
When people quit their jobs, they're saying "my life matters". Their life means more to them than your convenience, and why shouldn't it? They only get one life, just like you. Why shouldn't they value their own lives as highly as you value yours?
People say "nobody wants to work anymore", but I think the reality is that nobody ever wanted to work. I don't think anybody actually dreams of labor unless they're having a nightmare. We work out of necessity. That's why we expect to get paid for it and why most people react to talk of "intrinsic motivation" with suspicion if not (suppressed with varying degrees of success) hostility.
If it were fun we'd call it "play" and do it for the sheer joy of it.
> The US health care system is inefficient due to litigation and regulations pushed by lobbying to maintain private monopolies.
Not to mention a lack of price transparency and our dependence on employer-provided group health insurance. Health insurance should be for catastrophic events like cancer, not routine preventative care — which ought to be paid for out of taxes as an investment in the people and a public good.
We used to understand this, but years of right-wing propaganda financed by billionaires seems to have buried this knowledge.
> High minimum wage will just accelerate automation and the disappearance of low-skills jobs.
I don't see anything wrong with this. Any work that can be done by machines should be, because work sucks.
This is why I think we should be demanding universal basic income as a form of economic suffrage. It's the 21st century; I don't think there's any excuse for anybody to live in poverty.
I think Elon Musk not getting his own galaxy-class starship is a fair price to pay for no American to ever have to fear homelessness or hunger.
I don't buy this. I also think that the size of the middle class in the US is grossly overestimated. IMO, if you get a W2 because your income is based on wages or a salary, you're working class. Middle-class people own small businesses and have no boss besides their customers.
Yes, I get that this isn't the standard definition. I don't particularly care.
> For some reasons every socialist I talk to actually think a 15-25 hours week of work is sufficient for society to function...
This is partly based on predictions made by John Maynard Keynes, an economist of whom you might have heard.
https://www.openculture.com/2020/06/when-john-maynard-keynes...
He expected that labor-saving technology would advance to the point where human needs could easily be fulfilled. However, I suspect he rather badly underestimated the human capacity to mistake desires for needs and to create new desires where none previously existed.
Also, I don't think he saw neoliberalism coming in the 1970s, which badly eroded the power of workers to organize and claim their rightful share of the wealth their work made possible.
> ...I never really got a good explanation how productivity will increase to accommodate such a drastic drop in labor outside of theoretical predictions.
Is it really your acquaintances' job to explain this to you? The theory is all published in books, some of which are even in the public domain and should therefore be freely available.
> Corporations can move, and re-invest their profits.
Corporations are not sovereign. They exist at the pleasure of the governments that issue their papers of incorporation. The state of Delaware giveth, and it can taketh away just as easily (and it should rather more often than it does).
Being shielded from personal financial liability so that you can't lose more than you've invested in the business is a privilege, and one our governments give out as if it were candy. This is a policy choice, and one that can (and perhaps should) be changed.
Rich people, like governments, exist on sufferance. If they abuse their position in too egregious a fashion, the people will protest. If their protests go unheard, they will eventually remember they have the right of revolution.
> Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
It might be worthwhile to remember that the American revolution in 1776 was as much a revolt against the special privileges granted to the British East India Company as it was against lack of representation in Parliament and the alleged tyranny of King George III, and it was only after non-violent and legal remedies had been exhausted that revolution became a popular cause.
> Such high profit taxes are usually counter-productive.
You think 25% tax on profit is high? It has been 50% before, and businesspeople should be on their knees thanking Mammon that the tax is levied on profits instead of revenue — that they pay taxes on their net instead of their gross.
https://www.epi.org/publication/ib364-corporate-tax-rates-an...
> Positive rights lead to slavery or worker revolts and shortage.
I'm not convinced that positive rights lead to slavery. I know F. A. Hayek made this argument in The Road to Serfdom, but I'm not convinced this is the case. Nor am I convinced that worker revolts are a bad thing.
In fact, I think part of the problem is that we've gone without worker revolts for entirely too long, and that resentments and frustrations that could have been aired and resolved have instead gone unaired and unresolved, building up and festering to the point where their release threatens a crisis.
That's why I say every day is a good day for a strike. I honestly believe that defiance is what makes us human, and that the reason every toddler seems to count "no" among their first words is that the ability to say "no" is — more than our capacity for creating and using tools — the very quality that makes us human. It's the first step toward individuation and self-actualization.
> We are living this right now in Canada, nurses are tired of doing obligatory overtime.
And in the US, we have closed drive-thru fast food joints and dollar stores because of workers staging wildcat strikes. That's not because of "free healthcare" in Canada or excessively cushy unemployment benefits in the US. It's because not only are there not enough nurses to handle the load, but the available nurses aren't getting paid enough to deal with the downsides of their job — not least of which is the risk of getting COVID themselves because people won't vaccinate, won't wear masks, and there isn't always enough PPE to go around.
When people quit their jobs, they're saying "my life matters". Their life means more to them than your convenience, and why shouldn't it? They only get one life, just like you. Why shouldn't they value their own lives as highly as you value yours?
People say "nobody wants to work anymore", but I think the reality is that nobody ever wanted to work. I don't think anybody actually dreams of labor unless they're having a nightmare. We work out of necessity. That's why we expect to get paid for it and why most people react to talk of "intrinsic motivation" with suspicion if not (suppressed with varying degrees of success) hostility.
If it were fun we'd call it "play" and do it for the sheer joy of it.
> The US health care system is inefficient due to litigation and regulations pushed by lobbying to maintain private monopolies.
Not to mention a lack of price transparency and our dependence on employer-provided group health insurance. Health insurance should be for catastrophic events like cancer, not routine preventative care — which ought to be paid for out of taxes as an investment in the people and a public good.
We used to understand this, but years of right-wing propaganda financed by billionaires seems to have buried this knowledge.
> High minimum wage will just accelerate automation and the disappearance of low-skills jobs.
I don't see anything wrong with this. Any work that can be done by machines should be, because work sucks.
This is why I think we should be demanding universal basic income as a form of economic suffrage. It's the 21st century; I don't think there's any excuse for anybody to live in poverty.
I think Elon Musk not getting his own galaxy-class starship is a fair price to pay for no American to ever have to fear homelessness or hunger.
> High minimum wage will just accelerate automation and the disappearance of low-skills jobs.
Isn't this a net positive? Then we can reduce work hours, no?
Isn't this a net positive? Then we can reduce work hours, no?
> every socialist I talk to actually think a 15-25 hours week of work is sufficient for society to function
I'm a libertarian. But I'll point out that full time was 40 hours before women entered the workforce, doubling the amount of workers. Add in technological progress and the gains from offshoring, and 15 hours per week might even be too high.
From my perspective, all that surplus has gone to supporting the value of the dollar in the face of extreme monetary inflation (the dynamic that MMT proponents are trying to double down on), creating many make-work jobs centered around the new money fountains - eg Wall Street.
I'm a libertarian. But I'll point out that full time was 40 hours before women entered the workforce, doubling the amount of workers. Add in technological progress and the gains from offshoring, and 15 hours per week might even be too high.
From my perspective, all that surplus has gone to supporting the value of the dollar in the face of extreme monetary inflation (the dynamic that MMT proponents are trying to double down on), creating many make-work jobs centered around the new money fountains - eg Wall Street.
wouldn't be the first time there's been chatter online about a general strike. it won't happen because we aren't there, not even remotely. there is no class consciousness.
Here's hoping we're on the path though. <3 I feel so pessimistic sometimes and other times I feel like things are finally starting to go somewhere.
conspiracist(2)
There's something goofy with the labor market right now. The unemployment rate is low, but not Dec. 2019 low, and unlike 2019, there are labor shortages across the labor market driving up labor prices.
What's weird is how did we go from full employment, but not a shortage, to a higher unemployment rate and a labor shortage, even with somewhat depressed economic activity. Where did all these workers go? How are they making ends meet? Did people realize what they actually value and cut back both spending and work?
I ask all this because this is what allows labor unrest. Labor has a lot of leverage right now because there's a shortage.
What's weird is how did we go from full employment, but not a shortage, to a higher unemployment rate and a labor shortage, even with somewhat depressed economic activity. Where did all these workers go? How are they making ends meet? Did people realize what they actually value and cut back both spending and work?
I ask all this because this is what allows labor unrest. Labor has a lot of leverage right now because there's a shortage.
> Where did all these workers go? How are they making ends meet? Did people realize what they actually value and cut back both spending and work?
Yes. Prices are set at the margin, so even if 5% or 10% of people make a move, especially the lowest paid ones, and there is no slack because the system was running at capacity before, then it will have a knock on effect because prices for those 5% to 10% go up, and that causes others to make moves, and then so on and so forth until a new steady state is reached.
Prices at the low end were also dependent on a certain amount of immigrants, illegal or otherwise.
The US has been grinding down its lowest paid workers for many decades though. I actually saw the trend start reversing almost 10 years ago for the least paid laborers, and prices have been going up long before COVID. COVID just caused the changes to accelerate.
Yes. Prices are set at the margin, so even if 5% or 10% of people make a move, especially the lowest paid ones, and there is no slack because the system was running at capacity before, then it will have a knock on effect because prices for those 5% to 10% go up, and that causes others to make moves, and then so on and so forth until a new steady state is reached.
Prices at the low end were also dependent on a certain amount of immigrants, illegal or otherwise.
The US has been grinding down its lowest paid workers for many decades though. I actually saw the trend start reversing almost 10 years ago for the least paid laborers, and prices have been going up long before COVID. COVID just caused the changes to accelerate.
Bare necessities inflation in energy and food. If this is anything more than a post-covid19 curve spike, be prepared for significant social unrest where many live hand to mouth.
I would __much__ rather the market were satisfied with more houses, apartments, everything such that people could afford to live places and thus inflation / stagflation weren't the natural result of everyone trying to get ahead and increasing just their own wage.
All of the other aspects of the jobs, such as safety conditions and work assignments are also important; but the cost of living, healthcare, everything, is also an underlying factor.