Why are reddit and 4chan actually talking politics and economics according to random WTDWTF users
-
Hehehe, yeah right. Let me waste my time creating an account on a site that doesn't work.
Why not? we all did.
-
But deleting the subreddit won't stop those users infecting the rest of the site
Althouse has a post up about this which includes this bit:
One of the best comments at that post — management announcing the new policy — is "What you just did:" http://i.imgur.com/ZQHN2gS.png
-
You're gonna have to explain how Ellen Pao is any worse than any other VC person out there.
Look for @loopback0's post somewhere around here (might be in the other one, since we're talking about this in multiple places). I can't say that other VC people aren't as awful as her, but she's pretty fuckin' awful.
-
-
I would worry far more about an adult being able to provide for themselves and their family than your kid being able to earn beer money.
Somehow you thing that's an argument for raising the minimum wage? You don't see value in entry level jobs for entry level labor? Or you just think that people should stay at that level for their entire lives? This comment was too terse to determine exactly what sort of stupid drove it.
But actually, I have worried about an adult being able to provide for himself and his family a lot. And so I worked hard in school and at my job and have tried to increase my value to employers. I've worked several near minimum wage jobs in my life, not all when I was a kid.
-
@FrostCat said:
"But Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law."
So they take the stance that a shitty, low-wage job is better than starving? Surprise, surprise, surprise...
Yes, but only if they get their cut of the low wage.
-
Poverty traps and market failure are both very real things.
Yes, this (poverty trap) is one reason why I'm against a statutory minimum wage.
-
@Polygeekery said:
Let's just put them where @flabdablet wants them and give everyone a salary for being alive.
I can see no reason at all why this proposal should merit instant dismissal with a sardonic smiley, given the context of a wealthy post-industrial economy.
Yes, that's the problem here.
-
Henry Ford understood this principle, and paid his employees accordingly.
My understanding is that he was getting killed by employee turnover and raised wages to deal with that. No doubt there were other reasons, and I can see why Ford would want to make everyone think he was doing it for the employees, but the bottom line is that employment exists to make profits for the owners, not the other way around.
-
@Polygeekery said:
You equate a person who has the valuable commodity of investment capital the same as you do a person sitting on their couch eating Cheetos and smoking copious amounts of pot while doing nothing to benefit society.
On the basis of what evidence do you imply that having the valuable commodity of investment capital is a barrier to sitting on a couch eating Cheetos and smoking copious amounts of pot?
But that's not all they're doing is the obvious point you worked so hard to miss here. They're also allowing their capital to be used by other people to do things.
-
So Madeupville now has fifty formerly homeless people who can now afford to rent homes, and that's a bad thing - from anybody's point of view - exactly why?
Until the rental market adjusts (as @Polygeekery said it would) and they are once again priced out. Of course, you've also ignored the hidden. Where did that money come from? You always act like this is some sort of free lunch.
-
There's - say - 150 people in the city. How many houses are there?
-
this (poverty trap) is one reason why I'm against a statutory minimum wage.
I agree that statutory minimum wages don't address the poverty trap issue hugely effectively. People who end up landing a job that pays the statutory minimum certainly end up better off than they would be with no mandated minimum in place, but the existence of a minimum wage also undoubtedly means that some businesses that would be potential employers without it cannot afford to do that.
Introducing a universal basic income would not only allow the minimum wage to be substantially reduced; it would also reduce the minimum revenue required for a small business to remain feasible. That's a double-ended reduction in the entry-level expense of hiring people, which would surely make getting a job easier than it is now.
-
allowing their capital to be used by other people to do things
is exactly what a taxation-derived UBI amounts to as well.
-
It's at least 3 hours until lunch time, and you're making me hungry with all this talk about free food.
-
Introducing a universal basic income
Look, here's the thing. Business owners love to go on about the free market being self-regulating. If you have a town where everyone is forced to buy at least two loaves of bread from the weekly Bread Market, what happens to the prices that last hour of the market? People have lost the ability not to buy, and the market is no longer free, causing price inflation.
So what's happening to the labor market?
Picture this: The government pays everyone a basic living wage. In exchange, and to help pay for that, they pull entirely out of regulating all markets. No more OSHA, no more antitrust laws, nothing. The labor market becomes truly free, because those consuming jobs have the right to not "buy", to sit at home and do nothing with their time if that's the best option. No longer will anyone be forced to work 80+ hours per week in order to buy food, though they have to work some amount if they want luxuries like cable TV or fancy clothes or gourmet ingredients. The baseline negotiation for a job offer stops being "Is it better than being homeless" and becomes "Do I benefit from spending my time in this fashion?". Workers stop being exploited, because they can quit at any time; businesses benefit from the lack of market regulations and government red tape that they've been complaining about the whole time.
So why don't the free-market diehards and the people-first bleeding hearts agree on this plan? Because most of the people demanding deregulation don't want a fair playing field, they want their ability to make money enshrined and enforced by law so they can keep on getting theirs at any cost. Because they're afraid that in a truly free market they wouldn't be super-rich. And the super-rich have pretty much all the power, so it'll never pass. They love to tell the middle class that the real reason it would never work is that people are fundamentally so lazy that no work would ever be done in a society where people didn't have to work.
-
Until the rental market adjusts (as @Polygeekery said it would) and they are once again priced out.
Again, I don't see why so many self-described free market advocates are so willing to believe that markets can only react to an increase in demand by raising prices. That will certainly be their initial response, but once it becomes apparent that there's now a substantial gap between what it costs to provide rental housing and the expected return on that investment, the market will react by providing more rental housing.
-
I agree with your analysis.
-
@boomzilla said:
Until the rental market adjusts (as @Polygeekery said it would) and they are once again priced out.
Again, I don't see why so many self-described free market advocates are so willing to believe that markets can only react to an increase in demand by raising prices. That will certainly be their initial response, but once it becomes apparent that there's now a substantial gap between what it costs to provide rental housing and the expected return on that investment, the market will react by providing more rental housing.
But this isn't a normal increase in demand, either. I agree, it's not the same as printing extra money, but it's still taking that money from somewhere else. Which will cause other prices to rise to be able to do this stuff. Which will make the UBI less valuable. Which will trigger a UBI increase, which...etc.
-
it's still taking that money from somewhere else. Which will cause other prices to rise to be able to do this stuff.
That depends entirely on whether the money redirected from elsewhere to the UBI is currently achieving higher economic efficiency than a UBI would, which is an entirely non-trivial question.
-
from a site with a record for honest reportage about on par with Tumblr's?
Someone who actually read might click through to the LA Times (unless you think they aren't honest reporters either) and read the exact same thing: "Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law."
-
So Madeupville now has fifty formerly homeless people who can now afford to rent homes, and that's a bad thing - from anybody's point of view - exactly why?
I have a book for you:
Because most of the people demanding deregulation don't want a fair playing field
Wherever you see the word "deregulation", you can insert the word "selective" in front of it and improve accuracy.
-
Look, here's the thing. Business owners love to go on about the free market being self-regulating.
Mostly, business owners are looking out for business owners (as they should). It's a big mistake to confuse them with free market purists or anything like that (though some might really believe that).
So why don't the free-market diehards and the people-first bleeding hearts agree on this plan?
I think free-market diehard is a reasonable category for me. I don't agree because I think your analysis is wrong. It's not a matter of bad faith here, I just strongly disagree with the results of such a plan.
-
-
@boomzilla said:
it's still taking that money from somewhere else. Which will cause other prices to rise to be able to do this stuff.
That depends entirely on whether the money redirected from elsewhere to the UBI is currently achieving higher economic efficiency than a UBI would, which is an entirely non-trivial question.
I agree that it's not trivial. But there are strong economic arguments that say the UBI will be less efficient, and your analyses always seem to do a lot of handwaving about the incentives it creates. Both for those who end up being paid and paying (on a net basis).
-
@boomzilla said:
I just strongly disagree
Why? What did I miss?
We've talked about UBI style schemes a lot around here (including in this topic). But here, I'll address something specific about what you said:
No longer will anyone be forced to work 80+ hours per week in order to buy food, though they have to work some amount if they want luxuries like cable TV or fancy clothes or gourmet ingredients.
All this stuff (food and luxuries) happens because people are productive. If you reduce the incentive for productivity, you'll get less of it. This will lower the standard of living over all in a vicious cycle. As a wise woman once said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
-
If you reduce the incentive for productivity, you'll get less of it.
Really, though? I question this assumption, because it basically boils down to "people are lazy and will do nothing unless forced". I think of it more as moving from a push-system to a pull-system: people are productive because they want to do something productive in order to fulfill their inner drive to create things, rather than being productive because they are forced to be.
Compare schooling: people who are forced to sit at a desk for 8 hours every day learn, but not well, and they forget most of it. People who want to learn something learn much better. People who are forced to work begrudgingly are not efficient, make many mistakes, and ultimately drain resources without contributing much back. People who choose the work they do are drawn to do it well based on human nature.
-
there are strong economic arguments that say the UBI will be less efficient
And there are pilot programs that suggest that it could work just fine.
All I'm saying, in this thread, is that a UBI is an idea worth taking seriously enough to consider on its merits, and that it does not deserve the reflexive contemptuous snort it tends to receive around these parts.
-
One of the best comments at that post — management announcing the new policy — is "What you just did:"
Which led me to aother analogy - http://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/39c58h/could_someone_sue_reddit_for_banning_and/cs2ch7d:
[...] it's like trying to destroy an ant nest with a leaf blower, you may have destroyed their home but now they're just all over the god damn place
-
Really, though? I question this assumption, because it basically boils down to "people are lazy and will do nothing unless forced". I think of it more as moving from a push-system to a pull-system: people are productive because they want to do something productive in order to fulfill their inner drive to create things, rather than being productive because they are forced to be.
Some people are to an extent. But their drive to create things might not be things that other people value. And a lot of people simply don't have that drive.
It's great that we are a wealthy enough civilization that we can have gigantic industries devoted to entertaining ourselves. But that's largely because we're so productive in all those other ways. And there are a lot of jobs that don't contribute towards expressing creative energy. Like the guys who are going to pick up my garbage today.
-
Like the guys who are going to pick up my garbage today.
Reasons someone might take a job picking up garbage with a UBI:
- They like nice clothes/gourmet food/ collectable card games, and want to earn money to buy these things, but don't much care what they do
- The garbage-collection company offers better benefits than cushier jobs that are easy to fill, and the person wants those perks
- They like the routine of garbage collection. It fits nicely into their desired work hours (early in the morning, leaving the day free for nonproductive pursuits)
Is it really so hard to imagine someone wanting to do a low-class job? It can't be; just yesterday I was being told that people choose to flip burgers their whole lives and try to start a family on that income and that makes them morally bankrupt. That if it became too expensive to fill these jobs, the companies would automate the tasks, destroying jobs and ruining the economy. Wouldn't that be better in the long run anyway? Our job market would adjust to the point where the jobs that people want to do are easily filled, the jobs that people don't want to do are incentivised, and the jobs that people can't stand to do are automated. We'd be more efficient overall, because we'd be spending what resources we have in the right areas.
What you want doesn't sound like a free market. It sounds like a market built on the backs of slave labor: force the lower-class folks to do all the dirty work, pretend that coercion is not part of the market, and claim to be "free".
-
Is it really so hard to imagine someone wanting to do a low-class job?
No, but for the reason that they want to live nicely. I'm saying you're reducing the incentives for that with something like UBI, and so reducing the incentive to take that sort of job.
It can't be; just yesterday I was being told that people choose to flip burgers their whole lives and try to start a family on that income and that makes them morally bankrupt.
Pretty sure you weren't told that. I guess if you're going to argue in this much obvious bad faith I'll stop.
-
It wasn't you who said that, I just didn't want to go hunting for the post. I think it was Xaade or Frostcat saying people should feel obligated to better themselves if they want to start a family and they currently flip burgers.
-
Yes, I know it wasn't me, and that's a better representation of what they said. Do you really equate that with "morally bankrupt?"
-
The only way I can make sense of your apparent objection to this scenario is that you appear to believe that such adjustment would necessarily appear as price inflation. Is that what you think? If so, what makes you assume that any such price rise is going to be the endpoint of market adjustment? If prices go up, that's because demand is exceeding supply; why would you assume that the market would not adjust to that by increasing supply until prices correct themselves?
You really don't know what the economic term "inflation" means do you?
-
I exaggerated, sure, but I see that kind of rhetoric a lot: poor people are poor because they lack the ethics/willpower/intelligence to not be poor. It pisses me right off because it's reductive, unproductive, and short-sighted.
-
And sometimes even true. That's not to say there aren't lower level causes of those causes. But it doesn't follow that the solution is to shovel money at them.
-
If you start from a place where the poor deserve to be poor because they're inferior beings, you arrive at no real solutions.
-
I see that kind of rhetoric a lot: poor people are poor because they lack the ethics/willpower/intelligence to not be poor. It pisses me right off because it's reductive, unproductive, and short-sighted.
It's the just world fallacy. I'm rich because I deserve it, you're poor because you deserve it.
Obviously there are plenty of cases of both, but also a lot of trust fund kids who've done nothing to earn the money they have, and hard working people who have had whatever bad luck leading to a poor paying/no job, and scraping by.
Right wing rhetoric tends to start from the assumption that the second case doesn't exist, and when pushed will admin that sure, there are a few people like that but most people get exactly what they deserve. The left is pretty much the opposite
-
Did anyone say they deserve to be poor?
-
Some of them are inferior in terms of being able to compete in the market. Some of that is simply them (especially people with disabilities), some is based on other causes. I think we should figure out ways to help them be successful.
I think statutory minimum wages hurt these people more than it helps. I think they need to be a partner in helping improve their lives. I think some of them CBA.
-
Right wing rhetoric tends to start from the assumption that the second case doesn't exist, and when pushed will admin that sure, there are a few people like that but most people get exactly what they deserve.
Does it? I think it mostly says "So what? Why are we talking about this?" It's not a problem that someone is rich. It's a problem that someone is poor. But that may be a function of my right wing projection.
-
It's not a problem that someone is rich. It's a problem that someone is poor
Yeah, but if you assume that the default reason someone is poor is because they haven't tried hard enough then you come to very different conclusions vs assuming that they're unlucky.
-
Did anyone say they deserve to be poor?
Isn't that implicit in the logic?
If they "bettered themselves" they would be rich. The only reason they haven't "bettered themselves" is because they're lazy. Therefore, they deserve to be poor, as motivation for them to "better themselves".
I think we should figure out ways to help them be successful.
Define success. A UBI would allow them the time, energy, and means to learn new skills. If they CBA, as you say, they won't succeed, they'll merely "get by". If they're willing but unable to improve their lives, suddenly, they'll be in a much better position to do so. Isn't that what you're advocating? Except in my hypothetical scenario, it's actually true more often, rather than being the currently unfounded assumption that all people have access to all things at all times.
-
Isn't that implicit in the logic?
If they "bettered themselves" they would be rich. The only reason they haven't "bettered themselves" is because they're lazy.
Maybe - but (unless I missed it) no-one here has said the only reason people are poor is laziness. It's a reason for sure, it's not the only reason.
-
It's the only reason several people are discussing, which gives the impression it's the most important reason.
What percentage of poor people are intentionally choosing not to work, not because they're discouraged and have failed to find a job, but because they simply CBA? Without that key information, we can't craft a reasonable solution.
-
You really don't know what the economic term "inflation" means do you?
Inflation is a tendency of prices generally to rise over time. It's currently maintained as a matter of policy by governments and central banks (the Australian Reserve bank, for example, sets its interest rates in such a way as to try to keep inflation running at between 2% and 3% per year).
Inflation benefits debtors at the expense of creditors, thereby acting as a hidden tax on savings held at interest and an incentive to keep money circulating rather than socking it unproductively away.
If a government (or, less typically, a central bank) allows inflation to rise to the point of creating a wage-price spiral, it can get out of control and become hyperinflation; this makes the value of the currency unstable to the point where it becomes generally useless. It's very difficult to run a business under those conditions, so hyperinflation causes widespread economic damage.
If the money supply is restricted enough to cause a downward wage-price spiral, you end up with out-of-control deflation, which also causes widespread economic damage. Since the Great Depression, it has been generally reckoned that deflation is harder to stop once it gets started than inflation is, which is why low but positive inflation rates are generally seen as a sound economic policy goal.
Did I miss anything vital?
-
Define success.
Able to support themselves.
A UBI would allow them the time, energy, and means to learn new skills.
Maybe. In theory stuff like food stamps does that too. I'm saying go fix the root problems, which you aren't ever going to do completely, but you can make things better.
I'm sure that some people will use the cushion of the UBI exactly as you hope. I strongly suspect it will have larger negative consequences that will far outweigh these benefits.
If they're willing but unable to improve their lives, suddenly, they'll be in a much better position to do so. Isn't that what you're advocating?
Can we find a more targeted way to do that? I don't kill ants by flooding my house with pesticide, but that would surely get the job done.
What percentage of poor people are intentionally choosing not to work, not because they're discouraged and have failed to find a job, but because they simply CBA?
My impression is that it's a much bigger problem in places like the UK, but I have no idea how accurate this is.
-
I think some of them CBA.
I think the percentage of people who genuinely CBA is low enough that funding them to stay out of the way of the rest of us in the job market would end up costing less than trying to weed them out of the welfare system, as well as doing less damage to those who get misclassified as undeserving through no fault of their own.
-
In theory stuff like food stamps does that too
Food stamps are mostly being used for temporary need (cite).
I'm saying go fix the root problems
I maintain the root problem is the inability to opt-out, which leads to exploitation of employees and leaves very little time or energy for self-improvement.
Amazon.com
