Jobs people don't want to do? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The solving of mankind’s problems and abolition of government via technological solutions alone.

Moderator: Kolzene

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14462186
Harmattan wrote:Even so it does not change the structure of the demand while the demand for unskilled manpower in logistics and production is heading towards zero. And zero times any stimulation multiplier is still zero.

It's like production and logistics already enjoy (will soon enjoy) infinite unskilled manpower. The things that are left contended for them are (will soon be) the scarcity of resources and energy, talents at the conception and executive stages, physical properties (land especially) and intellectual properties. There is no room for unskilled labor.

At best you would create a few more salesmen and little hands, but this will not amount to much. However you will increase the pressure over the jobs already in strong demand. In the same extent than an universal income though.

1) "As part of the job, the workers could be trained to get new skills which will help them get work experience."

2) If there are no activities left that amount to little more than repetitive, monotonous unskilled labor, it's probably for the best. This kind of labor won't be created just for the sake of it. It's a JG. It's not restricted to unskilled activities.

Sure, but since the part about the virtuous circle does not hold, JG just becomes your good old public action. In the end you're just increasing the number of public jobs by increasing taxes until no one is left unemployed against his will.

Why would we want to increase taxes? If the country in question issues its own sovereign currency and is not constrained by a gold standard, it doesn't really need taxation to fund spending. So the primary reason for taxation is basically the regulation of aggregate demand. (Other reasons for taxation include the mitigation of socioeconomic inequality, societal ills and so forth.)

And no, there's no forced labor. It's a JG. It's not some kind of labor camp scheme.

Actually both are pretty equivalent since most people under an universal income would choose to work.

Yeah, I bet every drug addict would just end her/his addiction by pure will power once a basic income is created.
Other problems: the problem of increased immigration, the potential problem of inflation, the pernicious effects of unemployment on your employability, the problem of reciprocity (there's already an incredible amount of outrage every time they found someone who abuses her/his unemployment benefits).

#14462226
emmitt wrote:1) "As part of the job, the workers could be trained to get new skills which will help them get work experience."

Of course they would.

Yet there are limits to what can be achieved: in my country education is free and grants you an income, and yet we have many unskilled workers. We can definitely do better, yet many people will not acquire the skills they would need. Most of the time you will only be able to transmit them a few months worth of a slow and easy training, and there is a limited demand for the activities they allowed.

In the end you will just shift the demand a little.

2) If there are no activities left that amount to little more than repetitive, monotonous unskilled labor, it's probably for the best.

Certainly. But we now find ourselves with a society with an unfixable demand asymmetry and structural unemployment.

Why would we want to increase taxes? If the country in question issues its own sovereign currency and is not constrained by a gold standard, it doesn't really need taxation to fund spending.

It does not matter: in the end you suck up some people's work to finance others, whether it's through taxes or inflation. Actually it's even worse than taxation because a strong inflation is a monster that creates vicious spirals that can quickly ruin a country.

And no, there's no forced labor. It's a JG. It's not some kind of labor camp scheme.

Of course. But if the alternative is to become a starving homeless it's not forced labor as we usually mean it but it's a labor forced upon you by survival needs, like today. Yeah, I know: you will have social welfare. But figure it out, it never prevented homeless people or starvation (although it can reduce them). Unless you grant everyone free house, free heating, free food, etc. Which is pretty much an universal income with tutelage.

Yeah, I bet every drug addict would just end her/his addiction by pure will power once a basic income is created.

On the contrary I think a drug addict has all of the chances to persist in his addiction once he becomes some homeless guy living with other addicts, because he has nothing to hang on and the barrier to his reintegration is so high (even if he managed to quit, how would he get away from his addicted friends, how would he be able to work without a home and a shower and leave the streets?)

Now grant them a shelter with cleaning bots, grant them decent food, grant them reasons to think that there is hope, let them travel away from their addicted friends and to meet their relatives, and open publicly funded drug distribution places where they will meet volunteers every day, people who will not cast judgment but will be ready to lend a hand, provide cures or answer questions whenever an addict considers quitting, and will offer contraption and specific healthcare.

Which one will work best?
Besides I said that most people would chose to work. Not all of them.

Other problems: the problem of increased immigration, the potential problem of inflation, the pernicious effects of unemployment on your employability, the problem of reciprocity (there's already an incredible amount of outrage every time they found someone who abuses her/his unemployment benefits).

The problem of immigration is no different than today. Actually my country (France) already has a limited universal income (500€ per month I think), immigrants cannot get it unless they have been here for long enough, and this form of immigration is pretty negligible.

Inflation is not a problem since this income would be funded through taxes. And JG has the exact same problem (worse if you do not use taxes but money printing).

Sure, unemployment hurts your employability but it will be pretty easy to recreate an experience with those many not-for-profit structures.

Reciprocity is a problem but it will also exist with JG since many people will not consider them as real work due to their autocratic or participatory nature. Anyway the problem is bound to exist in a world of asymmetric demand, hence why you must offer proper compensation for those whose talents and skills will be needed. And hence why elderly care and such must be dealt by the unskilled ones.
#14462242
Yet there are limits to what can be achieved: in my country education is free and grants you an income, and yet we have many unskilled workers. We can definitely do better, yet many people will not acquire the skills they would need. Most of the time you will only be able to transmit them a few months worth of a slow and easy training, and there is a limited demand for the activities they allowed.

In the end you will just shift the demand a little.


Free education doesn't mean it's equally easy for every individual to have access to the same resources. Socialization backgrounds and sociocultural expectations differ. That's why I said that voluntaryism isn't enough.

But we now find ourselves with a society with an unfixable demand asymmetry and structural unemployment.

We don't.

Bill Mitchell wrote:One of the things you can always bet on with surety is that the conservatives will always try to convince the public that a cyclical event is, in fact, a ‘structural’ event. This has two, linked purposes. First, they can downplay any hint that aggregate fiscal policy interventions, which work at the macroeconomic level are necessary no matter how bad the problem is. Second, they can then wheel out their favourite ‘structural’ remedies, all of which just happen to result in national income being distributed to profits or high income earners, less capacity for low-wage workers to enjoy real wage rises or reasonably share in national productivity growth, and lower government income support payments to the disadvantaged. A double-whammy strategy.


It does not matter: in the end you suck up some people's work to finance others, whether it's through taxes or inflation. Actually it's even worse than taxation because a strong inflation is a monster that creates vicious spirals that can quickly ruin a country.

No, the JG is, once again, supposed to create full employment and price stability. By just giving everyone money without creating jobs or anything, you'd run the risk of inflation. That's the important difference between the JG and the BI.

Of course. But if the alternative is to become a starving homeless it's not forced labor as we usually mean it but it's a labor forced upon you by survival needs, like today. Yeah, I know: you will have social welfare. But figure it out, it never prevented homeless people or starvation (although it can reduce them). Unless you grant everyone free house, free heating, free food, etc. Which is pretty much an universal income with tutelage.

On the contrary I think a drug addict has all of the chances to persist in his addiction once he becomes some homeless guy living with other addicts, because he has nothing to hang on and the barrier to his reintegration is so high (even if he managed to quit, how would he get away from his addicted friends, how would he be able to work without a home and a shower and leave the streets?)

Now grant them a shelter with cleaning bots, grant them decent food, grant them reasons to think that there is hope, let them travel away from their addicted friends and to meet their relatives, and open publicly funded drug distribution places where they will meet volunteers every day, people who will not cast judgment but will be ready to lend a hand, provide cures or answer questions whenever an addict considers quitting, and will offer contraption and specific healthcare.

Which one will work best?
Besides I said that most people would chose to work. Not all of them.

Eh? I'm not following. Why is it better to do away with all kinds of control and requirements? How is that supposed to improve the situation?


Actually my country (France) already has a limited universal income (500€ per month I think), immigrants cannot get it unless they have been here for long enough, and this form of immigration is pretty negligible.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't. It's probably just a minimum income. A minimum income is not a basic income. Not even a limited one. The reasoning behind it is completely different.

Besides, immigration's not a problem in France?

Inflation is not a problem since this income would be funded through taxes. And JG has the exact same problem (worse if you do not use taxes but money printing).

No, it doesn't. The BI gets rid of the condition to participate in the process that's supposed to generate the income for the BI policy. The JG does not.

Sure, unemployment hurts your employability but it will be pretty easy to recreate an experience with those many not-for-profit structures.

If there's no job, there's no work experience. The JG actually provides the job since this is precisely the reason why it would be created in the first place.

Proponents of the BI just hope there'll be jobs.

Reciprocity is a problem but it will also exist with JG since many people will not consider them as real work due to their autocratic or participatory nature.

No, it won't if it's participatory. I mean, what's the fucking point of creating a participatory JG (i.e. a JG that's based on direct democracy) if people never like what they're doing? What's the point of democratizing it if people's preferences and opinions don't actually influence the ultimate decision? Sounds completely nonsensical to me.

However, it could be a problem in an autocratic society. True. But that's probably the reason why nobody's seriously in favor of this variety of the JG.
#14462385
emmitt wrote:We don't.

Full employment ended in the 70's. After that the part-time employment and the number of people ignored by statistics because they are outside of the system constantly increased. We also saw the low-tier hourly wages decreasing or stagnating in many countries those last two decades.

There is nothing cyclical here. Forget the "employment rate", this is bullshit. Unemployment is a far bigger problem than what is shown.

And what's coming is far worse: we now reached levels of computational power that allow a whole new generation of automation.


No, the JG is, once again, supposed to create full employment and price stability. By just giving everyone money without creating jobs or anything, you'd run the risk of inflation. That's the important difference between the JG and the BI.

Those jobs will not happen because of a productivity increase but because of a public, non-profitable action funded through money printing. Of course it will generate inflation, a lot of them! There is no free cake.
In other words the productive elements will pay for jobs that no one would be ready to pay (or pay that much).

Eh? I'm not following. Why is it better to do away with all kinds of control and requirements? How is that supposed to improve the situation?

Because drug addicts and homeless people will not follow your nice little order, they will not fit your little boxes, they will not come and work every morning at the same hour and harmoniously cohabit with others. As today they will fall out of the system, die, turn to criminality and annoy everyone.

Unless you realize that in a society where most of production and distribution requires no manpower, it is better to simply unconditionally support them until *they* are ready for a change and asking for it. As long as they do not cause problems the best is simply to make sure that you keep contact with them and not just send them allocations.

It's probably just a minimum income. A minimum income is not a basic income. Not even a limited one. The reasoning behind it is completely different.

But the end result is about the same.

Besides, immigration's not a problem in France?

I was talking about the immigration driven by the minimal income, which is negligible.

That being said to answer your question immigration always causes problems but France's immigration rate per capita is one of the lowest in the West. Our two big problems nowadays are on one hand the European citizenship that prevents us to get rid of some European citizens and on the other hand the legacy of the past massive immigration in the 60's - 70's.

Proponents of the BI just hope there'll be jobs.

You just hope that an autocratic JG would provide jobs.
But apparently you do not consider the autocratic sort and simply prone additional public services (and I would be curious to know which ones you would create).
#14462411
Full employment ended in the 70's. After that the part-time employment and the number of people ignored by statistics because they are outside of the system constantly increased. We also saw the low-tier hourly wages decreasing or stagnating in many countries those last two decades.

Yeah, it was also the time when Keynesianism was replaced with what is pejoratively called neoliberalism (a better term would probably be neoclassical liberalism or something to that effect). Keynesianism only experienced a resurgence in the last couple of years.

Those jobs will not happen because of a productivity increase but because of a public, non-profitable action funded through money printing. Of course it will generate inflation, a lot of them!

The fact of the matter is that the JG can be designed to produce output that is desired. The BI policy will just hand out money for nothing. Nothing will (have to) be produced. No new jobs will (have to) be created. The various voluntary activities that are supposed to come into existence as a result of its introduction only exist in the minds of its proponents. It really just comes down to wishful thinking on the part of its proponents.

And I'll repeat it once again: The BI policy undermines the very foundation on which it is based by abolishing the condition to participate in the process that's needed to generate the income.

Because drug addicts and homeless people will not follow your nice little order, they will not fit your little boxes, they will not come and work every morning at the same hour and harmoniously cohabit with others. As today they will fall out of the system, die, turn to criminality and annoy everyone.

Unless you realize that in a society where most of production and distribution requires no manpower, it is better to simply unconditionally support them until *they* are ready for a change and asking for it. As long as they do not cause problems the best is simply to make sure that you keep contact with them and not just send them allocations.


Why would anyone want to prefer an unconditional BI if you could have a system with (very lax) work requirements that would at least try to reach people who'd otherwise fall through the cracks? Is it really better to just hand out cash to drug addicts and say:"Here's your money. Now fuck off!" You're basically just giving them the money to kill themselves without even trying to do anything about it.

Amazing. Truly amazing.

Even if the alternative to the BI policy didn't work perfectly, it would still be preferable to this. Everything would be better than that.

But the end result is about the same.

No. The minimum income introduces a bunch of conditions that need to be met. The BI doesn't. That's the obvious attraction of the BI policy. You're basically just throwing money at people without checking who it's for.

You just hope that an autocratic JG would provide jobs.
But apparently you do not consider the autocratic sort and simply prone additional public services (and I would be curious to know which ones you would create).

As I said before, the participatory version appears to be better suited since it makes use of democratic input which is absolutely vital here. The democratic nature is the reason why it's nonsensical to be more specific about potential jobs since telling people what to do kinda defeats and undermines the very purpose of having participatory institutions.
#14462420
emmitt wrote:Yeah, it was also the time when Keynesianism was replaced with what is pejoratively called neoliberalism (a better term would probably be neoclassical liberalism or something to that effect). Keynesianism only experienced a resurgence in the last couple of years.

So you're claiming that automation does not matter, that it's all the fault of neoliberalism, and that whatever robots we will make we will still magically need full employment of unskilled masses?

The fact of the matter is that the JG can be designed to produce output that is desired.

This is not a matter of desire, this is a matter of productivity. If your loans are not used to increase productivity, they will increase inflation.

Desirability is another matter: you're subsidizing things that are not desirable at their profitable price. They may be desirable, but not as much as they cost. Otherwise you would not need to subsidize them.

Why would anyone want to prefer an unconditional BI if you could have a system with (very lax) work requirements that would at least try to reach people who'd otherwise fall through the cracks?

Because the homeless is not able to take a shower and smells, because however your system is designed the people who would work there may not be nice with drug addicts and people with psychological problems, because the drug addicts will not be able to wake up, etc. Few of them would manage to comply with your exigences in my opinion. It's not that a few will fall through the cracks, it's rather that most will simply fall through the cracks and land in hell.

No. The minimum income introduces a bunch of conditions that need to be met. The BI doesn't. That's the obvious attraction of the BI policy. You're basically just throwing money at people without checking who it's for.

I know. But in practice the difference is slim.
#14462428
Harmattan wrote:So you're claiming that automation does not matter, that it's all the fault of neoliberalism, and that whatever robots we will make we will still magically need full employment of unskilled masses?

Automation has been and is of importance. But having full employment has been mainly a question of collective will up until now. The actual problems of technological progress will only truly arise in this century.

In light of this, it's clear that the JG is not a panacea. It'll have to be combined with other policies (like the abolition of the social division of labor). And it's unquestionably true that the importance of the JG will be comparably lower than in the past.

But it would've worked very well up until now. Especially in the 70s and 80s.

This is not a matter of desire, this is a matter of productivity. If your loans are not used to increase productivity, they will increase inflation.

Desirability is another matter: you're subsidizing things that are not desirable at their profitable price. They may be desirable, but not as much as they cost. Otherwise you would not need to subsidize them.

Think about what you're saying. You pretend like everything's a private good. If that were true, we wouldn't need the state and we could just go straight to anarcho-capitalism.

Because the homeless is not able to take a shower and smells, because however your system is designed the people who would work there may not be nice with drug addicts and people with psychological problems, because the drug addicts will not be able to wake up, etc. Few of them would manage to comply with your exigences in my opinion. It's not that a few will fall through the cracks, it's rather that most will simply fall through the cracks and land in hell.

Again: The traditional welfare state wouldn't be abolished. There'd still be work requirements and caseworkers. At the moment it's nigh impossible for certain individuals to get work experience since nobody's interested in hiring them. The JG is specifically designed to take care of them (among other things).

I know. But in practice the difference is slim.


Minimum income - the traditional welfare state takes care of you
basic income - "here's your money, now take care of yourself"

Trump and Russiagate

He only listed instances in which Trump might hav[…]

Damn, there's a lot of off-topic stuff in here. […]

Trump, Oh my god !

@blackjack21 Fascism is NOT friendly towards l[…]

https://twitter.com/redniangzijun/status/11379012[…]