An experimental program in Austria that creates work for the unemployed(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
An experimental program in Austria that creates work for the unemployed
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/what-happens-when-jobs-are-guaranteed
193 comments
I agree with your sentiment, but your anger re: housing is misdirected. Developers do not short the housing supply. Like most businesses they make more in volume than they do in margin and would happily build more units at any price range if it was legal.
In the US and UK (and probably many other countries) the government has a default stance of allowing no or nearly no development without excruciatingly painful, expensive, and slow bargaining with city hall. The primary job of a developer is to get permission to build something.
The government is killing supply, not the developers.
In the US and UK (and probably many other countries) the government has a default stance of allowing no or nearly no development without excruciatingly painful, expensive, and slow bargaining with city hall. The primary job of a developer is to get permission to build something.
The government is killing supply, not the developers.
I understand your willingness to attribute wrong behavior to the correct culprit.
But, how does it come, that these procedures to get building permits have been slowed down/bureaucratized to the point that it almost seems intentional?
Also, the anger is not about them intentionally shortening supply - it’s about them intentionally asking and taking the higher prices. Nobody forces them to take more than e.g. a 10% shortage signal markup, but we force people on the other side to wipe the floor with their dignity.
But, how does it come, that these procedures to get building permits have been slowed down/bureaucratized to the point that it almost seems intentional?
Also, the anger is not about them intentionally shortening supply - it’s about them intentionally asking and taking the higher prices. Nobody forces them to take more than e.g. a 10% shortage signal markup, but we force people on the other side to wipe the floor with their dignity.
In many of the places that are the hardest to build in, like California, they are intentional. Those regulations were out there to slow down development as much as possible. The motivation behind doing so varied some; sometimes it was hippie’s concern about the environment, sometimes it was homeowners seeking to protect the character of their neighborhood, and sometimes it was the latter masquerading as the former. All of it was intentional.
No clue, but I will tell you as a property developer myself I would love to build more, faster. Everyone I know in the business would love to build more as well.
Time from project to building permit here in Lisbon can stretch to two years and vast tracts of land close to infrastructure are considered unbuildable by the municipality for no good reason. Also consider that developers need the government to work with them on roads, subways, sewers and others to be able to build.
In large parts of urbanised Asia where building more housing is encouraged this problem does not exist.
Time from project to building permit here in Lisbon can stretch to two years and vast tracts of land close to infrastructure are considered unbuildable by the municipality for no good reason. Also consider that developers need the government to work with them on roads, subways, sewers and others to be able to build.
In large parts of urbanised Asia where building more housing is encouraged this problem does not exist.
> how does it come, that these procedures to get building permits have been slowed down/bureaucratized to the point that it almost seems intentional?
It is absolutely intentional.
Those who already have serious realty want its value to go up. They don't want any new development nearby which would compete with their realty, or otherwise lower its market value due to becoming less exclusive.
Completely incidentally, these same owners are well-off people who are ready to spend a lot of time and effort talking to the city hall, sponsoring election campaigns, etc.
It is absolutely intentional.
Those who already have serious realty want its value to go up. They don't want any new development nearby which would compete with their realty, or otherwise lower its market value due to becoming less exclusive.
Completely incidentally, these same owners are well-off people who are ready to spend a lot of time and effort talking to the city hall, sponsoring election campaigns, etc.
I've heard it argued that this is inaccurate in most cases; if you relaxed the regulations, the value of the properties would actually go up because you could sell to developers to build multi-family housing (townhouses or apartments) on land currently used for single-family homes.
I'd also add that the financial angle is in my view sometimes overstated; a lot of people just like their neighbourhood as it is and wish it would stay exactly like that forever. And that's perfectly understandable, if unfair on all the people who didn't win the historical lottery and end up with a single-family house in a nice street in (say) Berkeley.
I'd also add that the financial angle is in my view sometimes overstated; a lot of people just like their neighbourhood as it is and wish it would stay exactly like that forever. And that's perfectly understandable, if unfair on all the people who didn't win the historical lottery and end up with a single-family house in a nice street in (say) Berkeley.
>But, how does it come, that these procedures to get building permits have been slowed down/bureaucratized to the point that it almost seems intentional?
NIMBY. Whomever owns the land/house right now wants it to go up in value which happens more if there is a lack of supply.
>Also, the anger is not about them intentionally shortening supply - it’s about them intentionally asking and taking the higher prices. Nobody forces them to take more than e.g. a 10% shortage signal markup, but we force people on the other side to wipe the floor with their dignity.
So in a free market if they sell for cost+10% then the first person they sell to will either rent it, airbnb it or sell it for market rates. The only difference is that now someone won a bit of a lottery versus the developer getting it. Of course they had to pay market rate for the land they built on so it's likely they're already selling at cost+N%.
NIMBY. Whomever owns the land/house right now wants it to go up in value which happens more if there is a lack of supply.
>Also, the anger is not about them intentionally shortening supply - it’s about them intentionally asking and taking the higher prices. Nobody forces them to take more than e.g. a 10% shortage signal markup, but we force people on the other side to wipe the floor with their dignity.
So in a free market if they sell for cost+10% then the first person they sell to will either rent it, airbnb it or sell it for market rates. The only difference is that now someone won a bit of a lottery versus the developer getting it. Of course they had to pay market rate for the land they built on so it's likely they're already selling at cost+N%.
I’ve been waiting for 8 months in Spain for my building license and it’s been a constant back and forth of bullshit paperwork
There's also many companies buying up as much real estate as possible for rent-seeking which inflates home ownership costs substantially (especially in my area).
There are algos creating artificial cartels by buying apartments and raising prices.
Landowners versus wage slaves. Nothing changed in politics over 25 centuries.
I really don't understand the rant.
It's all supply and demand. If we need more housing, people need to move to places where housing is more available. There are plenty of small rural towns that have excess, cheaply priced housing. (In the Bay area, not so much.)
It's all supply and demand. If we need more housing, people need to move to places where housing is more available. There are plenty of small rural towns that have excess, cheaply priced housing. (In the Bay area, not so much.)
> if somebody asks an overinflated way-over productivity wage for cleaning toilets because of a supply shortage, this is considered being unethical and "unwilling to do the dirty work, while receiving benefits", but asking a way way overinflated price for housing because of a supply shortage is considered good and healthy for the market and drives investment without shaming the investors for receiving undue housing benefits?
The clear difference is who bears the cost of demanding an artificially high price. If you're asking an overinflated wage as a ploy to stay on unemployment, or to keep a low-effort make-work job, who bears the cost of that decision? Not the worker! By shunning gainful employment, he chooses to remain on the dole, for his own benefit and to the detriment of his neighbors--who are paying his bills. He also short-changes society, which could benefit from his employment through taxes paid, and by virtue of his doing work that's actually in demand. So it's unethical for this person to take money out of his neighbors' pockets (many of whom do dirty work) because he's too good to do his fair share.
The person who chooses to try to sell their house for a high price doesn't gain anything by setting too-high a price--quite the opposite! Every month they don't sell the property, they're paying the mortgage and insurance. So it's not unethical to set an artificially high price, since the seller is the one who pays in the end. If someone actually buys the house, then I'm not sure that you could say that the price was artificially high--the buying of the house indicates that the price was right.
> Why do we yell at people artificially shortening toilet cleaner supply, while at the same time not yelling at developers for artificially shortening housing supply?
I'm not really sure what you mean here.
> Looks like it is not about an economic argument after all. Seems like it’s again a pattern of abusing less privileged, weaker, less defensible people.
This sort of self-righteous hysteria has no place on HN. Fiscal conservatives are not ghouls who abhor the poor and seek to harm them. The fact that you don't know or don't understand the economic argument doesn't mean there is no economic argument--it means you are uninformed. If you're actually interested in an introduction to the economic arguments underpinning fiscal conservatism, try reading "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
> Shaming them for what they naturally and humanly want - and which is the same what the privileged naturally want: To be able to say no, when they want to say no.
They're being shamed for the extraordinarily selfish expectation that society should pay 30K/year to save them from doing a yucky job. How many taxpayers does it take to fund this guy's make-work job? Based on a quick google search, you'd probably have to take every penny of tax revenue raised from 3-4 middle-class families. That's 4 families that forewent 30% of their income--and for what? So that one dude can save face? This is an egregious waste of resources and a giant middle-finger to the working class people who fund the Austrian welfare state.
> How did we start to listen to the voice of the psychopaths which want to divide us?
I find this to be hysterical in every sense of the word.
The clear difference is who bears the cost of demanding an artificially high price. If you're asking an overinflated wage as a ploy to stay on unemployment, or to keep a low-effort make-work job, who bears the cost of that decision? Not the worker! By shunning gainful employment, he chooses to remain on the dole, for his own benefit and to the detriment of his neighbors--who are paying his bills. He also short-changes society, which could benefit from his employment through taxes paid, and by virtue of his doing work that's actually in demand. So it's unethical for this person to take money out of his neighbors' pockets (many of whom do dirty work) because he's too good to do his fair share.
The person who chooses to try to sell their house for a high price doesn't gain anything by setting too-high a price--quite the opposite! Every month they don't sell the property, they're paying the mortgage and insurance. So it's not unethical to set an artificially high price, since the seller is the one who pays in the end. If someone actually buys the house, then I'm not sure that you could say that the price was artificially high--the buying of the house indicates that the price was right.
> Why do we yell at people artificially shortening toilet cleaner supply, while at the same time not yelling at developers for artificially shortening housing supply?
I'm not really sure what you mean here.
> Looks like it is not about an economic argument after all. Seems like it’s again a pattern of abusing less privileged, weaker, less defensible people.
This sort of self-righteous hysteria has no place on HN. Fiscal conservatives are not ghouls who abhor the poor and seek to harm them. The fact that you don't know or don't understand the economic argument doesn't mean there is no economic argument--it means you are uninformed. If you're actually interested in an introduction to the economic arguments underpinning fiscal conservatism, try reading "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
> Shaming them for what they naturally and humanly want - and which is the same what the privileged naturally want: To be able to say no, when they want to say no.
They're being shamed for the extraordinarily selfish expectation that society should pay 30K/year to save them from doing a yucky job. How many taxpayers does it take to fund this guy's make-work job? Based on a quick google search, you'd probably have to take every penny of tax revenue raised from 3-4 middle-class families. That's 4 families that forewent 30% of their income--and for what? So that one dude can save face? This is an egregious waste of resources and a giant middle-finger to the working class people who fund the Austrian welfare state.
> How did we start to listen to the voice of the psychopaths which want to divide us?
I find this to be hysterical in every sense of the word.
The person who's getting the welfare typically paid taxes too. Having good public services like an unemployment benefit - essentially a form of state-provided insurance - is in the interest of almost everyone, and especially those working class families you are so concerned with.
I think you're missing some context. When the parent comment said:
> if somebody asks an overinflated way-over productivity wage for cleaning toilets because of a supply shortage, this is considered being unethical and "unwilling to do the dirty work, while receiving benefits"...
they were alluding to a particular passage in the article:
> One program participant in his thirties told me that, while on unemployment benefits, he’d been offered a job cleaning toilets at a gas station; he’d decided that he didn’t want “that sort of job,” and had instead found work in the carpentry workshop.
So, I wasn't arguing against unemployment benefits in general. You're right, we pay unemployment benefits, and when we're out of work, we shouldn't feel bad for taking them, so long as we're using them in good faith--as temporary support, intended to tide us over until we can find gainful employment. The guy in the article was not using these services in good faith--he turned down honest work in order to keep his make-work gig (funded by taxpayers).
> if somebody asks an overinflated way-over productivity wage for cleaning toilets because of a supply shortage, this is considered being unethical and "unwilling to do the dirty work, while receiving benefits"...
they were alluding to a particular passage in the article:
> One program participant in his thirties told me that, while on unemployment benefits, he’d been offered a job cleaning toilets at a gas station; he’d decided that he didn’t want “that sort of job,” and had instead found work in the carpentry workshop.
So, I wasn't arguing against unemployment benefits in general. You're right, we pay unemployment benefits, and when we're out of work, we shouldn't feel bad for taking them, so long as we're using them in good faith--as temporary support, intended to tide us over until we can find gainful employment. The guy in the article was not using these services in good faith--he turned down honest work in order to keep his make-work gig (funded by taxpayers).
These two paragraphs in particular stuck out to me:
> Critics of labor-market programs such as the Job Guarantee argue that they enable precisely this sort of choice—they make it easier to decline work that one doesn’t like. One program participant in his thirties told me that, while on unemployment benefits, he’d been offered a job cleaning toilets at a gas station; he’d decided that he didn’t want “that sort of job,” and had instead found work in the carpentry workshop. If everyone were guaranteed a reasonably pleasant job, suited to their interests and needs and paying a living wage, who would do the grungy, difficult work? Austrian employers, like those in America, are currently having difficulty hiring people to take hard, poorly paid jobs; many of the workers in Austria who wash dishes or clean hotel rooms are immigrants from Eastern Europe, and during the pandemic many of them went home, some for good. Jörg Flecker, a sociologist at the University of Vienna who is evaluating the program in Gramatneusiedl, told me that pressure from employers could prevent its expansion across Austria. “Employers say, ‘There are so many unemployed. We have to have a tougher regime for them because we have jobs to fill.’ ”
>
> Lukas Lehner and Maximilian Kasy, economists at Oxford who are evaluating data from Gramatneusiedl, argue that competition with the private sector is a good thing. “I think, from an economic perspective, that argument doesn’t make much sense,” Kasy said, of the dirty-jobs view. “If they’re shit jobs, try to pay them as well as possible. Try to change the working conditions as much as possible until you reach the point that somebody wants to do them, or automate them if you can. And then, if nobody wants to do them, maybe we shouldn’t do them.” Kasy thinks that an important function of initiatives like job guarantees—and of universal basic incomes—is to improve the bargaining positions of people who want to change their lives. “Whether it’s abuse from an employment relationship, a bureaucrat in the welfare state, or a romantic relationship, the question is, What’s your outside option?” he said. “Having the safety of the basic income or a guaranteed job improves your outside option. If your boss is abusive, or doesn’t respect your hours, or is harassing you or whatever, you have the option to say no.”
> Critics of labor-market programs such as the Job Guarantee argue that they enable precisely this sort of choice—they make it easier to decline work that one doesn’t like. One program participant in his thirties told me that, while on unemployment benefits, he’d been offered a job cleaning toilets at a gas station; he’d decided that he didn’t want “that sort of job,” and had instead found work in the carpentry workshop. If everyone were guaranteed a reasonably pleasant job, suited to their interests and needs and paying a living wage, who would do the grungy, difficult work? Austrian employers, like those in America, are currently having difficulty hiring people to take hard, poorly paid jobs; many of the workers in Austria who wash dishes or clean hotel rooms are immigrants from Eastern Europe, and during the pandemic many of them went home, some for good. Jörg Flecker, a sociologist at the University of Vienna who is evaluating the program in Gramatneusiedl, told me that pressure from employers could prevent its expansion across Austria. “Employers say, ‘There are so many unemployed. We have to have a tougher regime for them because we have jobs to fill.’ ”
>
> Lukas Lehner and Maximilian Kasy, economists at Oxford who are evaluating data from Gramatneusiedl, argue that competition with the private sector is a good thing. “I think, from an economic perspective, that argument doesn’t make much sense,” Kasy said, of the dirty-jobs view. “If they’re shit jobs, try to pay them as well as possible. Try to change the working conditions as much as possible until you reach the point that somebody wants to do them, or automate them if you can. And then, if nobody wants to do them, maybe we shouldn’t do them.” Kasy thinks that an important function of initiatives like job guarantees—and of universal basic incomes—is to improve the bargaining positions of people who want to change their lives. “Whether it’s abuse from an employment relationship, a bureaucrat in the welfare state, or a romantic relationship, the question is, What’s your outside option?” he said. “Having the safety of the basic income or a guaranteed job improves your outside option. If your boss is abusive, or doesn’t respect your hours, or is harassing you or whatever, you have the option to say no.”
> Austrian employers, like those in America, are currently having difficulty hiring people to take hard, poorly paid jobs
Sounds like a signal from the market that they are not paying enough. One might argue about how social welfare programs and / or importing cheap labor distort the labor market; but it doesn’t change the fact that jobs are the dregs of the labor market.
Sounds like a signal from the market that they are not paying enough. One might argue about how social welfare programs and / or importing cheap labor distort the labor market; but it doesn’t change the fact that jobs are the dregs of the labor market.
It is that signal, but are we ready to pay everyone more, even for low-skill jobs? How much more is everyone willing to pay for groceries? How much more for health care?
For most people here, that won't matter, because paying 50% more for groceries would barely be noticeable, and neither would 50% more for health care be. But for society at large, that would kill many lifestyles.
For most people here, that won't matter, because paying 50% more for groceries would barely be noticeable, and neither would 50% more for health care be. But for society at large, that would kill many lifestyles.
Exactly, wealth is being concentrated at the top to such extremes that there is no more excess money in the lower/middle classes to tap. So somehow or other the increase in wages will have to come from the wealthy, whether through intentional redistribution, market forces, or peasant uprisings. Likely some combination of all three.
Eventually it just becomes a physics problem. If $100 exist in the world, and one guy has $99, and you need to fund something that takes $2, you have to get $1 out of the rich guy somehow.
Eventually it just becomes a physics problem. If $100 exist in the world, and one guy has $99, and you need to fund something that takes $2, you have to get $1 out of the rich guy somehow.
Or devalue the dollar to the extent that $1 becomes $2. In which case, the person who holds $99 doesn't hold $99 as "raw cash"(nominal asset), but holds $99 worth of real assets. With this inflation or devaluation, his $99 will become $198 + delta. This delta comes as rent extraction from the ordinary people.
Your comment assumes that like energy, money cannot be created or destroyed. Which is false. Anyone can create new money by talking a loan from the bank.
However this point also helps your argument: When you borrow you pay interest to someone richer. In a sense a combination of whoever you sent the money to, and the bank.
However this point also helps your argument: When you borrow you pay interest to someone richer. In a sense a combination of whoever you sent the money to, and the bank.
Can poor people take out a loan and create new money?
They don't, and in times where there's most need for that, banks squeeze their wallet close even tighter.
My understanding is any loan from a bank creates new money. However not sure about the types of loans that poor people use such as payday loans and pay-in-4 services. Maybe that us too since an investor may use bank borrowed money to fund them?
While many large corporations declare record profits, I doubt that the person cleaning the toilets is really a major issue.
It's not only about the person cleaning the toilets, companies often have more than one employee that's paid too little.
Look at nurses for example: you need plenty of them in hospitals and nursing homes, they are (in my opinion) severely underpaid. Raise their wages by 50%. You can make an educated guess how that will influence the price of healthcare or living in a nursing home.
Look at nurses for example: you need plenty of them in hospitals and nursing homes, they are (in my opinion) severely underpaid. Raise their wages by 50%. You can make an educated guess how that will influence the price of healthcare or living in a nursing home.
>You can make an educated guess how that will influence the price of healthcare or living in a nursing home.
Based on the $49 charge for 5ml of sugar water to calm our newborn baby down so a nurse could draw his blood, probably not much.
(The nurse failed to draw his blood. After four or five failed attempts over several hours they eventually asked a nurse from the NICU to come over, who got it first try.)
Based on the $49 charge for 5ml of sugar water to calm our newborn baby down so a nurse could draw his blood, probably not much.
(The nurse failed to draw his blood. After four or five failed attempts over several hours they eventually asked a nurse from the NICU to come over, who got it first try.)
The nurse is probably receiving very little of these $49. It's probably an inflated price charged by the hospital that is usually negotiated down to something reasonable by the health insurance provider. Similar to the discussion I had with my product manager recently: she can't expect that consultant to work according to the 100$ per hour that his company charges, because he is likely receiving a lot less.
> The nurse is probably receiving very little of these $49
Yes, that was the point. That the price of healthcare isn't based on the wages of the nurse.
Yes, that was the point. That the price of healthcare isn't based on the wages of the nurse.
But that's the point, no? If you double the consultant's salary, you won't have to pay double because most of it is just pure margin.
That assumes that the employer is willing to lose part of their margin and doesn't charge it back to their customers. Maybe not on the current contract, but future ones.
Nurses are highly skilled and highly paid workers, they do however have nursing aides for the grunt work.
In some places they may be highly paid. In many, they are not. I know this because of close family who have worked as managers of multiple hospitals and hospice that have extremely uneven pay scales even in a single region. You might even assert that the people with less pay have more/sufficient staffing on hand but you would be wrong. The amount of WTF/hospital in the US never ceases to surprise me.
That may be the case in the US, but not in Germany and Austria. Nurses are paid pretty bad, and, surprise surprise, they're having problems finding people to choose that career.
Yeah there's this huge demand, for which they blame blame the nurses "ungrateful snobs" or get upset that immigrants are hired "taking away our jobs" or...
I'm actually curious in what parts of world anyone would genuinely consider nurses to be "highly paid". The hourly rates for some types of nursing work can be quite decent, but still markedly less than what virtually anyone in IT with similar levels of experience would expect to receive. And it's often sufficiently physically draining that it's not feasible for most to work 40-50 hours a week.
Depends on the nurses qualifications and specialty.
Licensed vocational nurse don’t earn a huge amount.
Registered nurses (4 year degree+) make ok to good money.
Advanced practice nurses make good money overall. But they have post- graduate degrees and still don’t earn what a good senior developer does.
Licensed vocational nurse don’t earn a huge amount.
Registered nurses (4 year degree+) make ok to good money.
Advanced practice nurses make good money overall. But they have post- graduate degrees and still don’t earn what a good senior developer does.
> But for society at large, that would kill many lifestyles.
So change those unsustainable lifestyles then
So change those unsustainable lifestyles then
Yes, if you can't painlessly absorb a 50% increase in most peoples' second biggest expense after housing, it's all your fault and you're just being a spoiled child. /s
The word "lifestyle" means more than beer, nice cars, and smoked-salmon-avocado-toast on vacation. It includes peoples' capability to invest in their future. I'm sure you can cite many examples of fools and their money being soon parted, but there are plenty of people doing everything right who are being screwed by inflation as well.
The word "lifestyle" means more than beer, nice cars, and smoked-salmon-avocado-toast on vacation. It includes peoples' capability to invest in their future. I'm sure you can cite many examples of fools and their money being soon parted, but there are plenty of people doing everything right who are being screwed by inflation as well.
In this hypothetical, the people that can't just absorb it are in the group getting paid more.
And if the prices are increasing 50%, then the low end pay increases must be a lot higher than 50%.
And if the prices are increasing 50%, then the low end pay increases must be a lot higher than 50%.
Maybe that’s the point though - maybe we should kill some lifestyles because they aren’t sustainable at scale.
'The market has spoken, but suddenly we'd rather not listen.'
Your argument rests on an unspoken (and perhaps unrealized) premise that profits cannot be allowed to shrink; all costs must be passed to someone else.
Your argument rests on an unspoken (and perhaps unrealized) premise that profits cannot be allowed to shrink; all costs must be passed to someone else.
Totally, but it's a society-wide conspiracy. You could try a policy proposal asking people to pay 22% instead of 18% of their income for health insurance, and 4% instead of 3% for long-term care insurance, but I doubt that you'll be very successful.
I thought society was supposed to have learned its lesson during the pandemic, that the "low-end" jobs are often the most critical. But it seems that John Q Public has the memory of a goddamned fruit fly.
So what do "we" do to make these jobs more tolerable, perhaps better-rewarded ? Nothing, apparently, because "we" wants the cheapest possibly everything.
If jobs that are tangibly important are still treating workers badly, simply because formal qualifications don't exist or are in oversupply, and then economic pressures push people into these crappy jobs despite poor pay & working conditions, then that's a sign that our oh-so-holy "market" is fundamentally dysfunctional, treating human beings like barely sentient Roombas-with-mops. Rant concludes here.
So what do "we" do to make these jobs more tolerable, perhaps better-rewarded ? Nothing, apparently, because "we" wants the cheapest possibly everything.
If jobs that are tangibly important are still treating workers badly, simply because formal qualifications don't exist or are in oversupply, and then economic pressures push people into these crappy jobs despite poor pay & working conditions, then that's a sign that our oh-so-holy "market" is fundamentally dysfunctional, treating human beings like barely sentient Roombas-with-mops. Rant concludes here.
What does distort mean?
Penicillin distorts the growth of bacteria.
This will sound like a crazy commie rant to some people, but the trick that the powerful have played on is all is to think there's some natural market condition that is had for us to influence.
Penicillin distorts the growth of bacteria.
This will sound like a crazy commie rant to some people, but the trick that the powerful have played on is all is to think there's some natural market condition that is had for us to influence.
Thats not the trick. The trick was and is underplaying the market power these guys have in specific labor segments because market power in labor can be a lot more localized than one would expect in certain situations and stuff like minimum wages give a tacit signal for what all the big employers in, for example, fast food should pay coordinating them like how a cartel would but without the illegal coordination meetings.
Social welfare programs distort in the sense that it turns people who could be contributing to the economy into drags on the economy by becoming unemployed welfare recipients.
This matters because it leads to a generally lower quality of life.
Importation of cheap foreign labor distorts in the sense of reducing the wages of low-skilled native residents.
This matters because it leads to a generally lower quality of life.
Importation of cheap foreign labor distorts in the sense of reducing the wages of low-skilled native residents.
Whatever doesn't suit our cartels agenda is considered as a distortion.
In general, there’s a scratch for every itch. There’s no dishonor in cleaning toilets, but if you’re aspiring to be a carpenter, it’s not an optimal choice.
The manipulative behavior around hours and time off traps people in jobs and makes them “dirty jobs”.
I have a high fulutin’ tech gig, but I worked on farms and in retail in high school and college. The laws don’t protect workers, and the people who were working in those jobs for a living were beaten down and exploited because the employers could.
The manipulative behavior around hours and time off traps people in jobs and makes them “dirty jobs”.
I have a high fulutin’ tech gig, but I worked on farms and in retail in high school and college. The laws don’t protect workers, and the people who were working in those jobs for a living were beaten down and exploited because the employers could.
>> If everyone were guaranteed a reasonably pleasant job, suited to their interests and needs and paying a living wage, who would do the grungy, difficult work? Austrian employers, like those in America, are currently having difficulty hiring people to take hard, poorly paid jobs; ma....
That the answer. Pay people more to do the jobs nobody wants!
That the answer. Pay people more to do the jobs nobody wants!
[deleted]
Or pay people less to do the pleasant jobs.
Or if not pleasant, then at least the jobs that people are intrinsically motivated to do.
This is how America treats its teachers. Teachers want to do the job, so skimp on their pay and call it a budgetary victory.
Other countries will choose to value teachers, and pay them well, and generate more competition for positions, and reach a higher general level of qualifications & abilities.
This is how America treats its teachers. Teachers want to do the job, so skimp on their pay and call it a budgetary victory.
Other countries will choose to value teachers, and pay them well, and generate more competition for positions, and reach a higher general level of qualifications & abilities.
Don't we already? That was the reason work lots of people enjoy doing, like game development, paid peanuts and/or worked through so many people.
This is the classic answer to the classic question about anarchy:
"who will do the unpleasant, demeaning work?"
"We only think it's unpleasant because we make it unpleasant. We can have clean, well lit factories. We just have to prioritize making that work more pleasant."
"who will do the unpleasant, demeaning work?"
"We only think it's unpleasant because we make it unpleasant. We can have clean, well lit factories. We just have to prioritize making that work more pleasant."
Also perhaps the least dignified work should be the highest paid? Unfortunately America has a sort of wealth cult going on that we dignify (and deify) those who are already wealthy.
The unfortunate reality is because these jobs are plentiful and easy to do (NOT saying they aren’t demanding, just that they don’t require advanced training) it incentivizes a race to the bottom in terms of wages - but we should do better as a society in guaranteeing high working standards and wages through regulation instead.
Given the jobs are plentiful, isn't that an incentive to raise the wages? If you actually want somebody at your horrible job, you have to incentivize them to do yours and not somebody else's
If there was an alternative in the form of a guaranteed not-terrible job at minimum wage, wouldn’t that necessarily raise wages (or maybe working conditions) for currently terrible jobs?
Giving people a real choice seems easier than regulating every possible kind of job.
Giving people a real choice seems easier than regulating every possible kind of job.
Why even bother with a guaranteed not terrible job? Seems simpler to go with universal basic income than wasting resources on uneconomic jobs.
There is a problem right with the motion of "uneconomic". If fixing basic infrastructure or growing food is unprofitable, but building sportscars or yachts is not... that seems to indicate a problem with the economic system of allocation of resources.
If society thinks there are too many sports cars or yachts, then it can increase marginal wealth/income/property/sales taxes. And if society thinks there is insufficient food or infrastructure, then it can pay people to make food and build infrastructure. Either way, if both are competing for the same supply of labor, only the highest bidder will get it.
There are too many sports cars and yachts. We don’t need a single one of them. There are half a million homeless people in the US. The only reason taxes aren’t being raised on those and other luxury goods is because politics isn’t controlled by an algorithm but by a system whose outputs feed back into its inputs: the wealthy are made wealthier through political decisions.
Society can think whatever it wants, as long as it's only a small elite (truly) calling the shots and the will of the majority is ignored.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
Especially https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
Especially https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge...
Plentiful and easy to do means nothing in the face of sufficiently low supply of workers. If there isn't a low supply of workers, then why is there a quote given about people turning down work?
Or, precisely, through programs like this. What Marx called the "reserve army of labour" ensures that these jobs will remain poorly paid.
How do we make cleaning septic tanks more enjoyable?
By making it it well and entertaining.
There are entire YouTube channels dedicated to it. Septic sucking is a function of capital costs not labor costs.
There are entire YouTube channels dedicated to it. Septic sucking is a function of capital costs not labor costs.
Why's there a need to? If it's highly unpleasant and there's a shortage of people willing to do it then surely it's a perfect opportunity for the development of self-cleaning tanks...
As it is most of the truly unpleasant jobs of previous centuries don't exist anymore - if someone had found a way to make gong farming pleasant (look it up!) then flushing toilets and town sewerage systems might never have been invented...
By paying enough
Pay more. Design the tank and the equipment so it's not a dirty job. All doable if you are willing to spend some money.
By paying a lot more.
Cheaper to hire a felon or immigrant. I'm not saying I agree with this arrangement.
Which is why nobody should be in such a weak position. It's exploitation pure and simple.
I don't disagree that it's exploitation, but I think you obscure a very complex problem with "nobody should be in such a weak position".
I'm not sure any economic or legal arrangement could do away with weak positions like that entirely.
I'm not sure any economic or legal arrangement could do away with weak positions like that entirely.
UBI would go a long way towards pulling the very poor up out of the cycle of "I'll take whichever bad choice is least bad right now because I'm desperate."
We don't have that cycle in Germany at all. Yet we don't see any of the promises of UBI materializing.
Germany doesn't have Minijobs? They're pretty much what this article is describing.
Germany doesn't have
> the cycle of "I'll take whichever bad choice is least bad right now because I'm desperate."
Welfare covers the basics and provides for a modest life, no desperation included.
> the cycle of "I'll take whichever bad choice is least bad right now because I'm desperate."
Welfare covers the basics and provides for a modest life, no desperation included.
If welfare provides for a modest life, why are the Tafeln [1] overrun to the point of denying membership applications because of shortages?
[1] Die Tafeln are a group of privately-run food banks in Germany: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafel_(Organisation) (no English Wikipedia article unfortunately)
[1] Die Tafeln are a group of privately-run food banks in Germany: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafel_(Organisation) (no English Wikipedia article unfortunately)
It provides no incentives to step out of it though. As soon as you start working again, the basics and the modest lifestyle is not covered anymore.
Re a very complex problem with "nobody should be in such a weak position".
It is only complex if avoiding questions about the value of human dignity, and the inability of laissez faire capitalism to deliver that, need to be avoided.
It is only complex if avoiding questions about the value of human dignity, and the inability of laissez faire capitalism to deliver that, need to be avoided.
This is the crux of the issue. Most everything else herein is chin music.
Also avoiding realities of human nature.
I think libertarian socialism does exactly that but in this case what's being argued for is JG (and UBI) which would help empower many, so we shouldn't be arguing against those things (not saying you are.)
Around here, the septic tank cleaners tend to be owner-operators. They own their tank truck and cleaning business, and they make decent money.
Robots and or increased pay.
> who would do the grungy, difficult work? Austrian employers, like those in America, are currently having difficulty hiring people to take hard, poorly paid jobs
> “If they’re shit jobs, try to pay them as well as possible. Try to change the working conditions as much as possible until you reach the point that somebody wants to do them, or automate them if you can. And then, if nobody wants to do them, maybe we shouldn’t do them.”
Seriously, if you can't find people to do those jobs then you're simply not paying them enough. This whole idea of intentionally disadvantaging people in order to force them to do what you want them to do is some comic book super villain thinking.
> “If they’re shit jobs, try to pay them as well as possible. Try to change the working conditions as much as possible until you reach the point that somebody wants to do them, or automate them if you can. And then, if nobody wants to do them, maybe we shouldn’t do them.”
Seriously, if you can't find people to do those jobs then you're simply not paying them enough. This whole idea of intentionally disadvantaging people in order to force them to do what you want them to do is some comic book super villain thinking.
The criticism has some merit if the carpentry job was subsidized by the government whilst the toilet cleaning was not. Why should the latter be less deserving of a subsidy than the former? Ultimately, established social programs such as the EITC are intended to address this in a comprehensive, neutral way.
I think this would cause a fundamental shift in our society.
Who would want to work minimum wage server jobs when offered the same salary for something more rewarding?
Who wants to do gruelling, poorly paid labouring on a construction site, if the alternative is training to be a craftsman for the same wage?
Those jobs would either need to be paid much more attractively (pushing up the cost of restaurant food and construction, in these examples), or - as quoted above - eliminated entirely.
I would be really interested to see how this would play out at scale.
Who would want to work minimum wage server jobs when offered the same salary for something more rewarding?
Who wants to do gruelling, poorly paid labouring on a construction site, if the alternative is training to be a craftsman for the same wage?
Those jobs would either need to be paid much more attractively (pushing up the cost of restaurant food and construction, in these examples), or - as quoted above - eliminated entirely.
I would be really interested to see how this would play out at scale.
Restaurant food and construction are in the non-tradables sector, so we can just look at places where these jobs pay more by virtue of location - such as expensive city cores, particularly outside the U.S. Looks like they still have restaurants and construction and they're priced roughly the same as anywhere else, so paying low-skilled labor so much more can't be affecting them all that much.
> where these jobs pay more by virtue of location - such as expensive city cores
The way this works is that the workers are commuting in from poorer neighborhoods on the outskirts, since they cannot afford to live in the rich communities that they serve because of the low salaries.
The way this works is that the workers are commuting in from poorer neighborhoods on the outskirts, since they cannot afford to live in the rich communities that they serve because of the low salaries.
> who would do the grungy, difficult work
Robots.
Robots.
Nah, too expensive as long as there are poor and desperate people that can be abused.
Just a little standardization of things like bathrooms, kitchens would enable robots, leave aside automated bathrooms, kitchens themselves.
At that point Robots will do all the work.
Job guarantees make more sense to me than UBI; the government only has to pay for those who aren't employed elsewhere while it still sets a floor for the entire economy about how bad a job can be, squeezing out jobs that are worse than the JG jobs. But I'm still collecting facts and quite open to being wrong. On my list to read: 'The case for a job guarantee', Tcherneva.
[0] 'http://pavlina-tcherneva.net/the-case-for-a-job-guarantee/'
[0] 'http://pavlina-tcherneva.net/the-case-for-a-job-guarantee/'
It seems like a no-brainer to me for Social Security to include Guaranteed Employment of a full-time federal minimum-wage income position.
Just add a debit card to the social security card citizens receive. They can use the debit card to withdraw up to a full-time minimum-wage amt of money per month. If they take the income, it's assumed they did some kind of proportional work. I don't think there's even any need to police it.
Simply characterizing it as employment and establishing the expectation that consumers of the program perform work for their country/community commensurate for what they withdraw is miles better than UBI in my opinion. Most people are honest, and frankly a lot of the people I know would work more hours than full-time, it'd just be volunteer-like work helping people and cleaning up around the neighborhood, and probably creating a lot of public art. Positive things to facilitate, and largely not things for-profit businesses would pay for.
It's also nice to couple it to the already established federal minimum-wage, which already has an (admittedly lacking) process for adjusting to keep up with inflation. We should ensure the minimum-wage reflects a minimum livable wage by modern standards, and guaranteed employment would always provide a worst-case income of a minimum livable wage.
I don't think we're lacking of good options for these style solutions. We're just lacking support in the general public for such a socialist-looking program. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and all that.
Just add a debit card to the social security card citizens receive. They can use the debit card to withdraw up to a full-time minimum-wage amt of money per month. If they take the income, it's assumed they did some kind of proportional work. I don't think there's even any need to police it.
Simply characterizing it as employment and establishing the expectation that consumers of the program perform work for their country/community commensurate for what they withdraw is miles better than UBI in my opinion. Most people are honest, and frankly a lot of the people I know would work more hours than full-time, it'd just be volunteer-like work helping people and cleaning up around the neighborhood, and probably creating a lot of public art. Positive things to facilitate, and largely not things for-profit businesses would pay for.
It's also nice to couple it to the already established federal minimum-wage, which already has an (admittedly lacking) process for adjusting to keep up with inflation. We should ensure the minimum-wage reflects a minimum livable wage by modern standards, and guaranteed employment would always provide a worst-case income of a minimum livable wage.
I don't think we're lacking of good options for these style solutions. We're just lacking support in the general public for such a socialist-looking program. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and all that.
What you are suggesting would not be guaranteed employment, it would be UBI wrapped in a lie. Ignoring problems with the system (i.e., fraud) would not address any of the reasons why there is not already UBI in the United States. Your idea is crazy beyond the Overton window.
Full employment never works. Famous example is the soviets. Neither can UBI be penciled into an actual economy. UBI would bankrupt the nation, so would a large scale job guarantee program as described.
I am never surprised. When asked to put a dollar value on a program the overeducated go on bleeting about higher order non-sense. It's hard to take any of these academic exercises seriously. Especially when they spawn from fields as fraudulent as economics and social science.
I am never surprised. When asked to put a dollar value on a program the overeducated go on bleeting about higher order non-sense. It's hard to take any of these academic exercises seriously. Especially when they spawn from fields as fraudulent as economics and social science.
If full employment is a pipe dream, why are we routinely treating unemployment as a personal failure?
Please stay where you are. Officers have been dispatched to your location to assist you.
In all seriousness it’s because employers hold nearly all of the bargaining power and mindshare. The recent focus on central banks raising interest rates to decrease economic activity with inflation as a primary target and restraining wage growth as a secondary target shows that decreasing workers’ average bargaining position is official government policy. In the US they sugarcoat it by saying they’re trying to control inflation and only have unemployment go up marginally. In New Zealand they’re more explicit and say tens of thousands of people need to become unemployed to stabilize inflation.
In all seriousness it’s because employers hold nearly all of the bargaining power and mindshare. The recent focus on central banks raising interest rates to decrease economic activity with inflation as a primary target and restraining wage growth as a secondary target shows that decreasing workers’ average bargaining position is official government policy. In the US they sugarcoat it by saying they’re trying to control inflation and only have unemployment go up marginally. In New Zealand they’re more explicit and say tens of thousands of people need to become unemployed to stabilize inflation.
We don't, but we do consider prolonged unemployment as a personal failure.
Having Short-term unemployment is fine and a sign of a working economy where people move between companies. Long-term unemployment is something else entirely: it's a sign of people quitting the labor market and deciding not to contribute to society.
People here love Marx, yet they keep forgetting what he had to say on that issue: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Long-term unemployment means you're not giving according to your ability (and thus shouldn't receive according to your needs).
Having Short-term unemployment is fine and a sign of a working economy where people move between companies. Long-term unemployment is something else entirely: it's a sign of people quitting the labor market and deciding not to contribute to society.
People here love Marx, yet they keep forgetting what he had to say on that issue: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Long-term unemployment means you're not giving according to your ability (and thus shouldn't receive according to your needs).
> Long-term unemployment means you're not giving according to your ability (and thus shouldn't receive according to your needs).
Or there are literally not enough jobs because of failed economic policy. We have this situation in Germany right now. There are about 2 million job openings, and official statistics report about 2 million unemployed. That makes it sound like it's only a matching problem (i.e. if we just enticed the unemployed to retrain or relocate, everything would sort itself out). But the statistics are "optimized" to look nicer than they actually are: Unemployed over the age of 58 are just taken out entirely, as is everyone currently undergoing retraining. (It's a meme in Germany that the unemployment office will send people to Microsoft Word courses for the 10th time because being in the course means they don't show up in the statistic.)
And then there's also the issue of people working part-time who actually want a full-time job. When you add all that up, we have around 4 million unused FTEs in Germany competing for 2 million open positions. That cannot possibly add up. If the politicians were serious about getting everyone into a job (which they sure say a lot into microphones), economic policy would need to be changed to incentivize job creation a whole lot more (e.g. by cutting down on NIMBYism in the construction and renewable energy sectors).
Or there are literally not enough jobs because of failed economic policy. We have this situation in Germany right now. There are about 2 million job openings, and official statistics report about 2 million unemployed. That makes it sound like it's only a matching problem (i.e. if we just enticed the unemployed to retrain or relocate, everything would sort itself out). But the statistics are "optimized" to look nicer than they actually are: Unemployed over the age of 58 are just taken out entirely, as is everyone currently undergoing retraining. (It's a meme in Germany that the unemployment office will send people to Microsoft Word courses for the 10th time because being in the course means they don't show up in the statistic.)
And then there's also the issue of people working part-time who actually want a full-time job. When you add all that up, we have around 4 million unused FTEs in Germany competing for 2 million open positions. That cannot possibly add up. If the politicians were serious about getting everyone into a job (which they sure say a lot into microphones), economic policy would need to be changed to incentivize job creation a whole lot more (e.g. by cutting down on NIMBYism in the construction and renewable energy sectors).
> UBI would bankrupt the nation, so would a large scale job guarantee program as described.
> When asked to put a dollar value on a program the overeducated go on bleeting about higher order non-sense.
Being overeducated, I'll take a shot: 6 million US unemployed x $15/hour x 2000 hours/year x 2 to cover benefits, SSI, Medicare, etc works out to 360 Billion. Which is about 1/4 of the defense department budget. A lot of money but not disproportionate to what we spend on other things.
Being overeducated, I'll take a shot: 6 million US unemployed x $15/hour x 2000 hours/year x 2 to cover benefits, SSI, Medicare, etc works out to 360 Billion. Which is about 1/4 of the defense department budget. A lot of money but not disproportionate to what we spend on other things.
Just an aside here, that if that UBI was in exchange for ten or twelve hours a week of mostly-unskilled work from the unemployed on whatever the city or town decides is valuable, it might make a very visible improvement to community life.
1/4 of the defense budget used to protect the entire world. If we didn't have to do that, I'd agree.
I'm gonna take a long shot and say your education did not cover that part of world history.
I'm gonna take a long shot and say your education did not cover that part of world history.
You appear to think I meant to take 1/4 of the defense budget. That was only to illustrate the magnitude. You could cherry-pick your favorite US budgetary item instead and spare history.
I think there's room for distinguishing between full employment and job guarantees: providing a job for anyone who wants one doesn't have to be the same as requiring everyone to work.
It seems like this sort of thing will make more sense in rural areas with a low cost of living, like where they tried this?
If so that's fine. Programs don't need to be universal to work well.
If so that's fine. Programs don't need to be universal to work well.
> Programs don't need to be universal to work well.
Love this attitude! So often on HN we see responses like "It doesnt work in <this one case>, because <nuance>" ... To which it seems so obvious like "then dont do it in that case?"
Love this attitude! So often on HN we see responses like "It doesnt work in <this one case>, because <nuance>" ... To which it seems so obvious like "then dont do it in that case?"
Is there a name for this response template? It would be helpful to be able to reference by name rather than prototype when it comes up again.
The way I see it is competition. The government in a particular place sees that wages and conditions are poor so they offer guaranteed jobs with better wages and conditions - now companies have to compete for their workers. And if that sounds like a tax payer burden, consider that low wage workers tend to be net tax beneficiaries their whole lives, it probably saves the state money long term. You just get to exchange higher priced goods and services for lower tax (or more tax services).
One idea I've toyed with is that unemployment is actually a societal refusal to help eachother. Yes we all need sustenance, but consider something like this
If I'm laid off I can choose to still program. If I don't my time might simply be wasted (eg on videogames, netflix, or even job applications). But I can also choose to continue to program. Maybe by helping local businesses, contributing to FOSS etc. While I understand the near impossibility of it all, but we actually could continue to have lots of good things so long as folks refuse to stop working even if told they're no longer employed.
Obviously this fails the moment some unit in the chain refuses to participate, but I think in small ways it can actually blunt the pain felt in recessions/depressions by creating small communes of collusion amongst your social circle. You collude together to ensure that eachother gets what they need, at least amongst the valuable skills in the circle.
If I'm laid off I can choose to still program. If I don't my time might simply be wasted (eg on videogames, netflix, or even job applications). But I can also choose to continue to program. Maybe by helping local businesses, contributing to FOSS etc. While I understand the near impossibility of it all, but we actually could continue to have lots of good things so long as folks refuse to stop working even if told they're no longer employed.
Obviously this fails the moment some unit in the chain refuses to participate, but I think in small ways it can actually blunt the pain felt in recessions/depressions by creating small communes of collusion amongst your social circle. You collude together to ensure that eachother gets what they need, at least amongst the valuable skills in the circle.
How do they pay for food, housing, and healthcare in this model?
A family member who is retired performs volunteer work (adjacent industry to what they did while employed) because their Social Security comfortably covers all of their expenses (and Medicare covers their healthcare). Without these age tested basic income and benefits (and me providing no cost housing), this would not be an option. They would be toiling in a bullshit job.
A family member who is retired performs volunteer work (adjacent industry to what they did while employed) because their Social Security comfortably covers all of their expenses (and Medicare covers their healthcare). Without these age tested basic income and benefits (and me providing no cost housing), this would not be an option. They would be toiling in a bullshit job.
It's meant as a stop gap not to ride out a temporary situation like a recession or depression, not a permanent perfect solution.
But for example, if someone gets foreclosed on, up to some limit they can still reside with the pool, but perhaps now they're doing labor work for everyone, or they're being a child caretaker, or cooking etc.. ideally they have some trade skills to contribute.
I agree that the global economy and contemporary life has become sufficiently complex that it would not just be a non-change, but my point is kind like why do we have so many homeless families being kicked out, only for the house to sit empty (often rapidly depreciating for lack of maintenance) etc, sometimes its about seeing that if you contribute to the decline, your own decline becomes inevitable.
But for example, if someone gets foreclosed on, up to some limit they can still reside with the pool, but perhaps now they're doing labor work for everyone, or they're being a child caretaker, or cooking etc.. ideally they have some trade skills to contribute.
I agree that the global economy and contemporary life has become sufficiently complex that it would not just be a non-change, but my point is kind like why do we have so many homeless families being kicked out, only for the house to sit empty (often rapidly depreciating for lack of maintenance) etc, sometimes its about seeing that if you contribute to the decline, your own decline becomes inevitable.
Sadly there is no evidence for any of what your are saying. I would think all super powerful people in history have contributed to someone's define without their own becoming inevitable.
It sounds like how you wish he world to be, not how it is.
It sounds like how you wish he world to be, not how it is.
[deleted]
> creating small communes of collusion amongst your social circle. You collude together to ensure that eachother gets what they need, at least amongst the valuable skills in the circle
Exactly. What are a bunch of unemployed, skilled people with unmet needs to do? Sit on their hands and be content to get their UBI? No, you help yourself, and try to be part of a community that does the same. People can build, fix, teach, heal, transport, cultivate, we just need resources to do that, with a little help we can do most of it on our own. Probably we will benefit from smart materials, better batteries, robots and AIs that can help us be self reliant faster. It will be easier for the state to have a self reliant population. But some things will still need to remain, like chip factories, large industries and training the AI models.
Exactly. What are a bunch of unemployed, skilled people with unmet needs to do? Sit on their hands and be content to get their UBI? No, you help yourself, and try to be part of a community that does the same. People can build, fix, teach, heal, transport, cultivate, we just need resources to do that, with a little help we can do most of it on our own. Probably we will benefit from smart materials, better batteries, robots and AIs that can help us be self reliant faster. It will be easier for the state to have a self reliant population. But some things will still need to remain, like chip factories, large industries and training the AI models.
If a person is laid off from a job as a programmer, then they might consider that programming is actually a waste of their time.
Furthermore, by contributing to FOSS or volunteering your programming skills you are devaluing other programmers' careers.
Furthermore, by contributing to FOSS or volunteering your programming skills you are devaluing other programmers' careers.
One difficulty is that many societies are very individualistic. People are isolated. It's not enough to say that your skills are valuable in the abstract. There needs to be work that's obviously worth doing, and this requires either demonstrated demand or a leap of faith.
This is fairly unlikely for someone who is depressed. Enthusiasm is very important and often in short supply.
Also, entitled customers will repel volunteer labor. Being paid is in part compensation for putting up with annoying strangers.
This is fairly unlikely for someone who is depressed. Enthusiasm is very important and often in short supply.
Also, entitled customers will repel volunteer labor. Being paid is in part compensation for putting up with annoying strangers.
> a leap of faith.
This is absolutely the case. It takes "second" (or more like 100th) order thinking to recognize that you're part of an ecosystem that will be less well if you stop contributing just because you're not being paid. The faith part is that you will continue to have your needs (not necessarily wants) met through reciprocity -- which is a basic human psychological trait, so not the worst gamble.
This is absolutely the case. It takes "second" (or more like 100th) order thinking to recognize that you're part of an ecosystem that will be less well if you stop contributing just because you're not being paid. The faith part is that you will continue to have your needs (not necessarily wants) met through reciprocity -- which is a basic human psychological trait, so not the worst gamble.
> If I don't my time might simply be wasted (eg on videogames, netflix, or even job applications).
So how many hours per week do you believe we should be allowed to waste whilst still being a valid member of society?
So how many hours per week do you believe we should be allowed to waste whilst still being a valid member of society?
People would do that if they could afford to... They need to be able to survive though. So it's rather our refusal to help them than their "refusal" to do anything...
> Work is a source of structure, esteem, and motivation, and its disappearance can lead to depression, anxiety, addiction, and interpersonal turmoil.
So true
So true
That’s why, as we strive towards the morally necessary system of universal unemployment (with robots doing all the work) we will need for the robots to create jobs for those who want them (and to convince the job holders of the importance of these ”jobs“).
I mean this in all seriousness and am only sorry that I’m unkikely to live long enough to enjoy this paradise. Of course I’m one of those who loves to work.
I mean this in all seriousness and am only sorry that I’m unkikely to live long enough to enjoy this paradise. Of course I’m one of those who loves to work.
Pretty sure the only way a robot is going to convince me that obvious makework is important is to do a lobotomy. Which I'd kind of prefer not to have.
Maybe people should get over the idea that work should be their source of worth. Which I suspect they will manage to do within a generation or so.
Maybe people should get over the idea that work should be their source of worth. Which I suspect they will manage to do within a generation or so.
> Pretty sure the only way a robot is going to convince me that obvious makework is important is to do a lobotomy. Which I'd kind of prefer not to have.
Clearly they need to make it non-obvious make work in order to give those who want it adequate satisfaction. To you it will look like productive work but really it will simply be a game. In many small ways we are there already.
> Maybe people should get over the idea that work should be their source of worth.
I hope universal unemployment leads to a flourishing in poetry etc from people who delight themselves and (some of) their friends sharing and collaborating on all sorts of fun projects. They don't even have to be very good.
Life worked out pretty well before we outsourced our creativity to "professionals". Even the word "profession" has been hijacked by the industrial revolution.
Clearly they need to make it non-obvious make work in order to give those who want it adequate satisfaction. To you it will look like productive work but really it will simply be a game. In many small ways we are there already.
> Maybe people should get over the idea that work should be their source of worth.
I hope universal unemployment leads to a flourishing in poetry etc from people who delight themselves and (some of) their friends sharing and collaborating on all sorts of fun projects. They don't even have to be very good.
Life worked out pretty well before we outsourced our creativity to "professionals". Even the word "profession" has been hijacked by the industrial revolution.
> Clearly they need to make it non-obvious make work in order to give those who want it adequate satisfaction.
There are limits to how much you can fool people, no matter how smart you are.
There are limits to how much you can fool people, no matter how smart you are.
Classic example: Astronauts go into space, mainly to study sending astronauts into space.
Meanwhile robots do all the serious piloting, imaging, exploration, and other research.
Meanwhile robots do all the serious piloting, imaging, exploration, and other research.
I also love work. It's such a great way to meet and work with other people. Crucial for mental health.
I don't think retired people are overloaded with depression, anxiety, addiction, and interpersonal turmoil.
The fact that the lack of work / ability to sustain yourself leads to those things: those states of mind reflect the literal existential insecurity you must deal with.
Because having a really shitty job that is just slightly less insecure kinda leads to the same thing.
The fact that the lack of work / ability to sustain yourself leads to those things: those states of mind reflect the literal existential insecurity you must deal with.
Because having a really shitty job that is just slightly less insecure kinda leads to the same thing.
Totally agree a shitty job is unhealthy.
I think these programs are very positive. One thing that worries me today is the reductive way we talk about work often. On the one hand there's the "just give them cash, let the market figure it out" aspect that just reduces work to a commodity, on the other there's the 'all work is terrible' mentality. Oddly enough both have a sort of similar disregard for work in a way.
There's really a lack of discussion about the meaning-giving and social aspect of work and how to actively design work in communities. I wonder whether the parallel decline of both traditional labor and religious groups had a strong impact on the perception of work because those were the two main camps resisting that reductive mentality.
There's really a lack of discussion about the meaning-giving and social aspect of work and how to actively design work in communities. I wonder whether the parallel decline of both traditional labor and religious groups had a strong impact on the perception of work because those were the two main camps resisting that reductive mentality.
If you don't want work to be treated as a commodity, then you need to stop coupling it tightly to how you make your living (the problem being that we're not yet quite technologically ready to do that...).
If work is so "meaning-giving and social", then people will presumably do it even if they don't have to do it to eat, and even if the boss isn't breathing down their necks.
If work is so "meaning-giving and social", then people will presumably do it even if they don't have to do it to eat, and even if the boss isn't breathing down their necks.
I sort of disagree with that. Work can provide meaning if its entirely voluntary, but for many people the fact that it's necessary, sustaining and vital is part of what makes work meaningful. An important aspect of the value of work is that if you didn't do your work, there's real consequences to that. Otherwise very quickly you go from work to something that is more like a game or a hobby in nature. And while games and hobbies are great, they don't really fulfill the same need. On the boss part I agree of course, but that's an orthogonal issue.
So, the problem with that is that, if we ever did get to the point where work was not technologically necessary, I don't think I would want to be told "work or starve" in order to provide you with a feeling that your work was meaningful. I don't have a lot of truck with that concept of "meaning".
I guess you can get past commodification in the narrow sense with enough market and social restructuring, but I can't see how you can get what you're asking for here without forcing everybody else to work for no good reason other than to support your preference.
Not an immediate problem, of course...
I guess you can get past commodification in the narrow sense with enough market and social restructuring, but I can't see how you can get what you're asking for here without forcing everybody else to work for no good reason other than to support your preference.
Not an immediate problem, of course...
“Austrian employers, like those in America, are currently having difficulty hiring people to take hard, poorly paid jobs”
Maybe make those jobs less poorly paid ?
Maybe make those jobs less poorly paid ?
That's just another way of saying that those jobs should disappear, as usually people aren't willing to pay a lot for those jobs as they don't get that much perceived value from them.
You can look at high skilled workforces like in Sweden, where there just aren't a lot of the entry level jobs you see in the U.S. So there aren't so many people working in landscaping or providing personal services, and people do more things for themselves. It's unusual to hire house cleaners, nannies, etc. If you are painting your house, you are going to have a hard time hiring people to help you, or hiring someone to come by and wash your windows. If there is a factory that requires lots of low skilled work, it doesn't open in Sweden -- only the highly automated factories open there.
So that's fine, it's a high-wage, high skilled economy in which all workers are expected to be productive -- and Swedish workers are highly productive. People are expected to have strong skill levels and a high educational level, so they can provide a lot of value and get paid well (here, we are ignoring the issue of taxes, because it's still a high wage earned by the workers even if they only get half of it after tax).
Which is great, until you admit a large number of immigrants without skills. Now, you can't absorb them into your labor force. Or until you realize you have a lot of structural unemployment and it takes much longer for laid off workers to re-enter the labor force. In the U.S., we absorb migrants easily and have much lower rates of long term unemployment - but then people complain about migrants doing low skilled jobs and some workers being taken advantage of since they don't earn high salaries.
Bottom line, there are trade offs, and while you can't please everyone, you can at least make them aware of the trade offs. All I can think of is that it's good to have both places like Sweden that tend to require high skills and places that have low skill/low pay jobs mixed in with the high pay/high skill jobs, so that low skilled workers can still find employment. The whole world can't work like Sweden, but it's also good that places like Sweden exist.
You can look at high skilled workforces like in Sweden, where there just aren't a lot of the entry level jobs you see in the U.S. So there aren't so many people working in landscaping or providing personal services, and people do more things for themselves. It's unusual to hire house cleaners, nannies, etc. If you are painting your house, you are going to have a hard time hiring people to help you, or hiring someone to come by and wash your windows. If there is a factory that requires lots of low skilled work, it doesn't open in Sweden -- only the highly automated factories open there.
So that's fine, it's a high-wage, high skilled economy in which all workers are expected to be productive -- and Swedish workers are highly productive. People are expected to have strong skill levels and a high educational level, so they can provide a lot of value and get paid well (here, we are ignoring the issue of taxes, because it's still a high wage earned by the workers even if they only get half of it after tax).
Which is great, until you admit a large number of immigrants without skills. Now, you can't absorb them into your labor force. Or until you realize you have a lot of structural unemployment and it takes much longer for laid off workers to re-enter the labor force. In the U.S., we absorb migrants easily and have much lower rates of long term unemployment - but then people complain about migrants doing low skilled jobs and some workers being taken advantage of since they don't earn high salaries.
Bottom line, there are trade offs, and while you can't please everyone, you can at least make them aware of the trade offs. All I can think of is that it's good to have both places like Sweden that tend to require high skills and places that have low skill/low pay jobs mixed in with the high pay/high skill jobs, so that low skilled workers can still find employment. The whole world can't work like Sweden, but it's also good that places like Sweden exist.
In communist Poland (probably whole Warsaw Pact), not only were they guaranteed, there was an obligation to work. You could go to jail if you avoided work.
This created a somehow funny effect, were many just did the absolute minimum on the job.
This created a somehow funny effect, were many just did the absolute minimum on the job.
My grandma used to tell me about this situation. Specifically, how infuriating it was to work with people that would do the absolute minimum and be rewarded like people making an effort.
And there's also some kind of a real psychological incentive for some, like myself, to be basically unable to do "absolute minimum" when I come to do the job and engage myself, because that would drive me crazy.
That is the human condition and also prevalent in capitalist economies.
Yes that was true for Hungary too. From
the 50s up until to 1989 it was a crime to be unemployed.
In Belarus, you have to pay an extra tax if you're unemployed. A coworker of mine was struggling with that, because she was having trouble proving she was working in the US, they were trying to tax her parents.
Corrupt hellhole, that country.
Corrupt hellhole, that country.
>many just did the absolute minimum on the job.
Just like here then.
Just like here then.
>This created a somehow funny effect, were many just did the absolute minimum on the job.
Isn't this where the old joke about Communism came from? "You pretend to work, and we pretend to pay you"?
Isn't this where the old joke about Communism came from? "You pretend to work, and we pretend to pay you"?
Karl Marx said unemployment was a foundational necessity of capitalism (although not the feudalism that preceded capitalism), so I don't see this program lasting long ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour ).
No need to bother Marx, plenty of economists will tell you that the market needs unemployment or "bad things will happen".
I think unemployment simply can't be solved in a capitalist society, as it would expose a major contradiction of liberist economies.
We tell people they have to work or they're parasites and don't deserve to have their basic needs covered, but at the same time we need a mass of them to be out of work, in order to be able to exploit the rest.
So much of our lifestyle is built on exploitation of the working class, be it local or foreign.
I think unemployment simply can't be solved in a capitalist society, as it would expose a major contradiction of liberist economies.
We tell people they have to work or they're parasites and don't deserve to have their basic needs covered, but at the same time we need a mass of them to be out of work, in order to be able to exploit the rest.
So much of our lifestyle is built on exploitation of the working class, be it local or foreign.
All financed by the east eu countries Austria is extracting revenue from. Perhaps a reverse of fortunes might be in order?
Same east EU countries that are net beneficiaries of EU funding that Austria is net contributor to? https://www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-...
Yes, same east eu countries that gave up duty fees and sold their industries to countries such as austria, so that people can then cite tired stats. A bit like austria having built a lot of castles with money stolen from its former empire subjects and then pointing out that said subjects are poor and dont own castles.
Could you link to anything that explains what you're talking about?
Here is one example:
https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/eastern-europes-bigg...
Then there’s banking, oil, and other resources. And of course the audacity to veto countries schengen membership unless more control over these is granted. Hiding behind made up excuses.
Then there’s banking, oil, and other resources. And of course the audacity to veto countries schengen membership unless more control over these is granted. Hiding behind made up excuses.
dukeofdoom(1)
History has shown full employment does not work. The most famous example being communist countries such as the USSR. They achieved full employment, except that it was mostly useless labor. Sure, you have a job. But your job is to count buckets of nails by hand all day. When you're done with that you go back to the beginning and count them again. You'll get paid a pittance for your trouble. However, I would not call this "valuable work". Or, work that the article supposes would provide someone some meaning.
> So far, a hundred and twelve people have used the Job Guarantee, as the program is known, to find work; at least fifty more are expected to do so before 2024, when the program is scheduled to end. Participants complete an eight-week training course, then receive a job offer; they’re free to decline it without losing their unemployment benefits, but so far everyone who’s been offered a job has chosen to work.
This is insane on principle when scaled up to a society. You can get trained, be offered a job (under the assumption of livable pay), and then can refuse it and stay on the government tit? NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. This will never work. It's the BS machinations of an overeducated academic trying to prove a point. If you accept tax payer funded job training you should be obligated to take the first job, in that field, that pays you the minimum liveable wage. Otherwise it's anarchy.
> Sven Hergovich, the regional director of the Public Employment Service of Lower Austria, essentially agrees with this analysis. He thinks that rising demands for productivity and efficiency mean that, now and in the future, not everyone will be able to find a job without support. “There are not sufficient jobs available for all of the long-term unemployed,” he told me. “In fact, we have only two options. Either we finance long-term unemployment, or we create a job guarantee.”
Some people are useless. This is not any different than any other time in history. There are people who, if it wasn't for menial work, would actually be fundamentally useless by the definition of the term. The internet calls these people NEETS. They are generally burdens on society and IMO we should just let nature run it's course. They will either starve or skill up. Either way, society wins.
> So far, a hundred and twelve people have used the Job Guarantee, as the program is known, to find work; at least fifty more are expected to do so before 2024, when the program is scheduled to end. Participants complete an eight-week training course, then receive a job offer; they’re free to decline it without losing their unemployment benefits, but so far everyone who’s been offered a job has chosen to work.
This is insane on principle when scaled up to a society. You can get trained, be offered a job (under the assumption of livable pay), and then can refuse it and stay on the government tit? NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. This will never work. It's the BS machinations of an overeducated academic trying to prove a point. If you accept tax payer funded job training you should be obligated to take the first job, in that field, that pays you the minimum liveable wage. Otherwise it's anarchy.
> Sven Hergovich, the regional director of the Public Employment Service of Lower Austria, essentially agrees with this analysis. He thinks that rising demands for productivity and efficiency mean that, now and in the future, not everyone will be able to find a job without support. “There are not sufficient jobs available for all of the long-term unemployed,” he told me. “In fact, we have only two options. Either we finance long-term unemployment, or we create a job guarantee.”
Some people are useless. This is not any different than any other time in history. There are people who, if it wasn't for menial work, would actually be fundamentally useless by the definition of the term. The internet calls these people NEETS. They are generally burdens on society and IMO we should just let nature run it's course. They will either starve or skill up. Either way, society wins.
> Otherwise it's anarchy.
Omigod! Not ANARCHY!
> just let nature run it's course. They will either starve or skill up.
You sound nice.
I actually agree with you about universal employment being a crock. Just do a UBI already. Not only will that work better, but it will have entertainment value when your head explodes.
Omigod! Not ANARCHY!
> just let nature run it's course. They will either starve or skill up.
You sound nice.
I actually agree with you about universal employment being a crock. Just do a UBI already. Not only will that work better, but it will have entertainment value when your head explodes.
> They achieved full employment, except that it was mostly useless labor. Sure, you have a job. But your job is to count buckets of nails by hand all day.
Who said that this is the only option? Why do people often believe the communists were doing the most optimal job possible when having full employment? That is nuts to assume.
Who said that this is the only option? Why do people often believe the communists were doing the most optimal job possible when having full employment? That is nuts to assume.
jen20(1)
In Soviet Union, they were.
Among other things, universal employment shown to do the same as no employment: a lot of people binge drinking and not caring to do anything useful with their life. Work ethic problems surfaced in a bad way.
Among other things, universal employment shown to do the same as no employment: a lot of people binge drinking and not caring to do anything useful with their life. Work ethic problems surfaced in a bad way.
Drinking got so bad in the US that the government have to set a prohibition on it. Before prohibition, was the US in no employment or universal employment?
I don't think there's a strong relationship to this, and the Soviet alcoholism came from something else -- maybe losing many family members or having been shipped far away from everyone you know by a totalitarian government.
Or, the soviets never had a prohibition to change up what people drink
I don't think there's a strong relationship to this, and the Soviet alcoholism came from something else -- maybe losing many family members or having been shipped far away from everyone you know by a totalitarian government.
Or, the soviets never had a prohibition to change up what people drink
Almost none of working age Soviet people of early 80s had personal experience of losing a family member or being shipped away, yet they drank like sailors permanently stuck in a port.
This is mostly due to the blandness of life, and partly due to almost absent survival-related risk and stress. Your income and housing is guaranteed, even if often crappy and small. Why bother?
This is mostly due to the blandness of life, and partly due to almost absent survival-related risk and stress. Your income and housing is guaranteed, even if often crappy and small. Why bother?
I've met people in their 20s in the 2010s who are still traumatized by the actions of the Soviet government.
The trauma is passed down over time, but the alcoholism even more so. Alcoholic parents are gonna have a lot of alcohol around the house available for teens to party and drink with, to develop a habit and dependence
The trauma is passed down over time, but the alcoholism even more so. Alcoholic parents are gonna have a lot of alcohol around the house available for teens to party and drink with, to develop a habit and dependence
Does not explain the reversion of trend and significant decrease in alcoholism exposure in post-soviet Russia.
The soviets also had the problem that they were an autocracy who had little regard for the conditions of their people.
They were also huge. Community level programs like this can be much more functionally democratic and uplifting.
They were also huge. Community level programs like this can be much more functionally democratic and uplifting.
> The soviets also had the problem that they were an autocracy who had little regard for the conditions of their people.
This is just false.
In the USSR life expectancy went from 30 years in 1925 to 69 years in 1990[0]. On the other hand, in the US it started declining in 2015 without having recovered yet[1].
In the USSR, "In 1926, the literacy rate was 56.6 percent of the population. By 1937, according to census data, the literacy rate was 86% for men and 65% for women, making a total literacy rate of 75%"[2].
The USSR was also the first country in the world to legalize abortion, and it championed gender equality. In the meantime the US is going in the direction of banning abortion once again.
I have yo ask you, what you do mean by "conditions of the people"?
- [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041395/life-expectancy-...
- [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-...
- [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Soviet_Union
This is just false.
In the USSR life expectancy went from 30 years in 1925 to 69 years in 1990[0]. On the other hand, in the US it started declining in 2015 without having recovered yet[1].
In the USSR, "In 1926, the literacy rate was 56.6 percent of the population. By 1937, according to census data, the literacy rate was 86% for men and 65% for women, making a total literacy rate of 75%"[2].
The USSR was also the first country in the world to legalize abortion, and it championed gender equality. In the meantime the US is going in the direction of banning abortion once again.
I have yo ask you, what you do mean by "conditions of the people"?
- [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041395/life-expectancy-...
- [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-...
- [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Soviet_Union
> In the USSR life expectancy went from 30 years in 1925 to 69 years in 1990[0]. On the other hand, in the US it started declining in 2015 without having recovered yet[1].
What a nonsensical comparison. Lol.
> I have yo ask you, what you do mean by "conditions of the people"?
Probably talking about the fact that the situation got so bad Gorbachev initiated such major reforms that the USSR collapsed. No biggie. Lol.
What a nonsensical comparison. Lol.
> I have yo ask you, what you do mean by "conditions of the people"?
Probably talking about the fact that the situation got so bad Gorbachev initiated such major reforms that the USSR collapsed. No biggie. Lol.
> Probably talking about the fact that the situation got so bad Gorbachev initiated such major reforms that the USSR collapsed. No biggie. Lol.
Not really answering my question here, just making some pointless humor.
Curious how all primary metrics for the population fell after the USSR got dissolved by Gorbachev. It's not a mistery that 70% of Russians approve Stalin anyway, guess they're still brainwashed after so many years, right?
Not really answering my question here, just making some pointless humor.
Curious how all primary metrics for the population fell after the USSR got dissolved by Gorbachev. It's not a mistery that 70% of Russians approve Stalin anyway, guess they're still brainwashed after so many years, right?
You're talking to a russian. Your bullshit doesnt work on me.
Male life expectancy was steadily decreasing in Russia (RSFSR) from 1965 to 1985.
Maybe USA is on the same track.
Maybe USA is on the same track.
Late Soviet communities mostly ran themselves within the existing law/power frameworks. Soviet society indeed had comparatively little regard for the conditions of people, but it is more of a cultural problem, and not an unique one.
[deleted]
It doesn't seem to have changed post 1991 either.
if somebody asks an overinflated way-over productivity wage for cleaning toilets because of a supply shortage, this is considered being unethical and "unwilling to do the dirty work, while receiving benefits",
but asking a way way overinflated price for housing because of a supply shortage is considered good and healthy for the market and drives investment without shaming the investors for receiving undue housing benefits?
Why do we yell at people artificially shortening toilet cleaner supply, while at the same time not yelling at developers for artificially shortening housing supply?
Don't people need to live AND shit?
Looks like it is not about an economic argument after all. Seems like it’s again a pattern of abusing less privileged, weaker, less defensible people. Shaming them for what they naturally and humanly want - and which is the same what the privileged naturally want: To be able to say no, when they want to say no.
Where do these schemes of maliciously founded shame on false grounds come from? How did we start to listen to the voice of the psychopaths which want to divide us?