Skip to main content

View Diary: Jobs are not the answer (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This concept isn't about throwing money at (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiseUpEconomics, Kevskos, native

    people "who simply don't feel like working".  It's a concept designed to deal with what is fast becoming a tectonic change in our societies due to automation and robotization.

    Old concepts aren't effective at combatting that.

    It's also about social justice, as there are plenty of people who do important, back-breaking work, yet don't get paid nearly enough for it to have a decent life.  Meanwhile, there are plenty of people out there who don't do diddly or don't work very hard and get millions flowing into their accounts.

    If we don't develop new concepts fast we are not going to be able to deal with what we are facing and will end up with just two classes at some point:

    those who own robots and are wealthy to rich

    and

    those who don't own robots and are poor.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:17:27 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The EITC is geared exactly at people (3+ / 0-)

      who work hard but make little money. Expanding that is something most liberals would be for. But this is not that. This "guaranteed income" would also flow to the lazy. There are indeed lazy people in society, and there are many more people who would be lazy if given the chance. The only way to support this policy IMO is if you believed that there is no such thing as a person who has a user mentality.

      •  EITC is good but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kevskos

        doesn't help folks who are unemployed. To your point about laziness, folk have free will and if the biggest problem with this is that some folks will be satisfied living on $12,000 a year, then the problem is theirs, not ours. I'm sure there will still be folks who blow everything and end up on the streets, or people who never make it off the streets to take advantage of this program--they will still be winos or addicts. That's not a problem that this can fix.

        "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon. Follow me @riseupeconomics

        by RiseUpEconomics on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:29:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I can't really agree with that. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RiseUpEconomics, Kevskos, native

        Most of the people with too little money that I see are not lazy, but just don't have a job or aren't making enough money with the job/jobs that they have or are disabled and not receiving enough money, or are retired and not getting enough money in form of retirement funds.  

        Furthermore, we now have arrived at levels of general societal wealth and general levels of technological advancement where we can afford to have a small percentage of the population being lazy, yet still have them covered by a safety net, etc., etc.

        This concept will actually profit the lazy people the least, as they usually already are getting some type of welfare.  If they want to be lazy and live at the edge of the poverty level, they can do that if it makes them happy, for all I care.

        The working class and the middle class, on the other hand, would feel a significant amount of relief and it would benefit a working and middle class driven economy.

        It would also allow many people who are killing themselves by working too much and earning too little to work less hours.

        The "full employment" model that has been the foundation of democratic, market-driven economies just isn't working anymore due to ever-increasing automation and robotization and this concept is the only one I have come across so far that has the potential of addressing that.  

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:37:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And what about employers who would just pay (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doc2

        less because their employees are getting a base salary from the gov?

        How would you prevent this from happening?

        Would all people get $12,000 a year regardless of how much they actually were paid. Would someone making $75,000 a year get this?

        BTW, there are plenty of people who would choose not to work if they received a payoff. Could they also get food stamps, child support and rent subsidies from the gov?

        Hmm, could be enticing for those who prefer not to work. Maybe you wouldn't want to live like that, but there are people who would. "Hell, I don't have to finish school and get a job." That might sound pretty good to a 16 year old who doesn't have a broader view of life.

        Like teens who get pregnant and don't really realize or accept the fact that their life is going to be really tough.

        It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

        by auapplemac on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 06:05:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Basic income would replace other things (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          native

          Like food stamps. It would also give workers more leverage in dealing with employers, so wages would go up, not down. Think of it as a national strike fund. To retain good workers, businesses will have to pay more and treat their employees better.

          "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon. Follow me @riseupeconomics

          by RiseUpEconomics on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 07:10:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think many of the people you might consider (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RiseUpEconomics

        to be lazy are not lazy at all, but are rather unmotivated to engage in tasks for which they are unsuited, and which do not interest them. Not everyone can be motivated for example, to serve at McDonald's, or to clean the house of a rich person for low wages.

        The fact that they might rather do nothing, than do these things, does not make them necessarily lazy. Nor would it indicate that they are "users", whatever that might mean.

        "A job" for a great many people is a more or less degrading, or meaningless experience, not an uplifting one. It is something they are forced to do from economic necessity, not something they choose to do. Freed from this necessity, I do not believe that the vast majority of people would choose to do nothing at all. That is not human nature, generally speaking.

    •  Amen! eom (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos

      "Imagine all the people, sharing all the world." --John Lennon. Follow me @riseupeconomics

      by RiseUpEconomics on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:25:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it is a very sound idea. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RiseUpEconomics

        Here's something I wrote about it just the other day, in a comment:

        Could we eliminate (3+ / 0-)

        the absolute necessity for people to work? Give everybody a computerized identity card, like an EBT card. Everybody gets enough credit per month to live on, free healthcare. All equally. Nobody would need a job. Want more money? Get a job.

        Eliminate Welfare, Food Stamps, etc. Big money saved on bureaucracy right there. Not to mention, crime would go way down. Save on court costs. Give the inner cities a break. Maybe even take some expensive prisons out of business.

        Could a system like that pay for itself?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site