America's Overwork Obsession - 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 ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15167683
Pants-of-dog wrote:So are you also supporting a system where all children get tested for various mental illnesses and learning disorders, as well as additional funding for schools to help these kids?


Yes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In general, I would assume that this additional funding would help alleviate economic concerns for overworked parents.


You mean because they would be offered services more geared towards their children's needs? Yes, they would.

But social policy should not be simply about alleviating needs. It can also be used to encourage investment in our children and behavior that is generally good for society. And, indeed, seeing them as a form of investment, not merely charity, helps people to be willing to fund them too.
#15167699
Pants-of-dog wrote:I would too, but I would also not deprive people of money if the kid inexplicably did not do well at school.


Well, here's where I disagree with you. For instance, if your kid misses school many times without justification, the school can actually file a police complaint for truancy and the DA may criminally prosecute you for it depending on the jurisdiction, others will just fine the parents. Kamala Harris, in fact, came up with this idea of criminalizing truancy as the AG in California.

Why wouldn't we encourage parents to make an effort so their kids perform satisfactorily at school? All in all, it's a mild punishment compared to the one that often comes with truancy, and it's fair that society also compensates parents whose children perform (at least) satisfactorily at school (there could be extra payments if they do well, but that's another topic as we would then need to define "well").

Same thing applies to vaccines. If some parents are anti-vaxxers, their children are often barred from attending (in fact, in some jurisdiction from even being physically present) in public school grounds. So, why wouldn't society also "punish" them by refusing to give them the same sort of help that it gives to parents who do vaccinate their children?
#15167714
wat0n wrote:Well, here's where I disagree with you. For instance, if your kid misses school many times without justification, the school can actually file a police complaint for truancy and the DA may criminally prosecute you for it depending on the jurisdiction, others will just fine the parents. Kamala Harris, in fact, came up with this idea of criminalizing truancy as the AG in California.


I doubt that DAs in general, or Ms. Harris in particular, have any special understanding when it comes to helping poor people with lots of kids and little support.

It does not seem productive to force the hypothetical single mom to work more jobs and spend more time away from her family at the time when one of her kids heeds her guidance kore than usual.

Why wouldn't we encourage parents to make an effort so their kids perform satisfactorily at school? All in all, it's a mild punishment compared to the one that often comes with truancy, and it's fair that society also compensates parents whose children perform (at least) satisfactorily at school (there could be extra payments if they do well, but that's another topic as we would then need to define "well").


I do not think taking away someone’s financial stability to be a mild punishment. Most of us spend decades trying to achieve that.

Same thing applies to vaccines. If some parents are anti-vaxxers, their children are often barred from attending (in fact, in some jurisdiction from even being physically present) in public school grounds. So, why wouldn't society also "punish" them by refusing to give them the same sort of help that it gives to parents who do vaccinate their children?


Because refusing to vaccinate your child has clear health risks for the children and the whole community, while those few lazy teenagers that skip school for no good reason are merely annoying.

A universal basic income is supposed to be for everyone, and should not be limited to those we feel deserve it on some moral level.
#15167716
Pants-of-dog wrote:Because refusing to vaccinate your child has clear health risks for the children and the whole community, while those few lazy teenagers that skip school for no good reason are merely annoying.


Really? So skipping school, particularly to the point where it ends in dropping out of it, is not a big loss for society at large as well? Having kids fail school even when it was avoidable isn't a big loss for society? Are you sure you want to make this sort of claim?

Pants-of-dog wrote:A universal basic income is supposed to be for everyone, and should not be limited to those we feel deserve it on some moral level.


It's not based on simple morality though. School attendance and vaccination are compulsory because society at large believes it's necessary to make it so. Society bans things like murder, and sends people to jail for it even, for the same reason - not getting as many social benefits is a rather mild punishment in comparison.

If anything, the idea that everyone should get a basic income regardless of their behavior is in fact based pretty much entirely in morality. For what it's worth, it's wholly based on ius naturalist notions.

Also, why wouldn't parents be compensated for doing things that we believe are necessary for the collective good regardless of their personal beliefs on these matters?

But if you want that, fine, give them a basic income regardless, and see just how many taxpayers are willing to pay for programs giving money, with no strings attached, to (for example) murderers or child rapists. But do give parents who fulfill some basic conditions such as those I mentioned above, a higher one. I bet plenty of families will still go for it.
#15167720
wat0n wrote:Really? So skipping school, particularly to the point where it ends in dropping out of it, is not a big loss for society at large as well? Having kids fail school even when it was avoidable isn't a big loss for society? Are you sure you want to make this sort of claim?


I am not clear what argument you think I am making.

You seem to incorrectly think I am saying all kids should be allowed to skip school all the time.

Why do you think truancy is such a big deal?

It's not based on simple morality though. School attendance and vaccination are compulsory because society at large believes it's necessary to make it so. Society bans things like murder, and sends people to jail for it even, for the same reason - not getting as many social benefits is a rather mild punishment in comparison.


So you are arguing that taking away someone’s living for truancy is perfectly fine, since it is not as bad as jail.

If anything, the idea that everyone should get a basic income regardless of their behavior is in fact based pretty much entirely in morality. For what it's worth, it's wholly based on ius naturalist notions.


I doubt it.

Also, why wouldn't parents be compensated for doing things that we believe are necessary for the collective good regardless of their personal beliefs on these matters?


If you want to give parents extra money as a reward for making their kids attend school, that is fine.

But if you want that, fine, give them a basic income regardless, and see just how many taxpayers are willing to pay for programs giving money, with no strings attached, to (for example) murderers or child rapists. But do give parents who fulfill some basic conditions such as those I mentioned above, a higher one. I bet plenty of families will still go for it.


I am not trying to win a popularity contest.
#15167721
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not clear what argument you think I am making.

You seem to incorrectly think I am saying all kids should be allowed to skip school all the time.

Why do you think truancy is such a big deal?


Because missing school, say, a single day a week can affect the learning process.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you are arguing that taking away someone’s living for truancy is perfectly fine, since it is not as bad as jail.


No one's forbidding the person from looking for more jobs. But if the person wants government money, I don't see why wouldn't society set up standards.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt it.


Of course it is. You are expanding the realm of natural rights by adding a natural right to a positive income.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to give parents extra money as a reward for making their kids attend school, that is fine.


It's not simply a reward, it's a compensation. Having children, and raising them, also has costs for the parents.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not trying to win a popularity contest.


Indeed, I don't like ad-populum arguments either but the proposal may lose legitimacy and thus stop being feasible in the long run. Shouldn't this be taken into account?

As for its merits, there are better alternative uses for government resources than large universal, no strings attached transfers.
#15167726
wat0n wrote:Because missing school, say, a single day a week can affect the learning process.


So punishing the family by taking away money or throwing the mom in jail will magically make them miss school less?

Sorry, but that literally made me laugh out loud.

No one's forbidding the person from looking for more jobs. But if the person wants government money, I don't see why wouldn't society set up standards.


Because not everyone shares your moral standards and it is wrong to impose arbitrary moral standards on people. What if the moral standard is that everyone except a certain religious minority gets the UBI?

Of course it is. You are expanding the realm of natural rights by adding a natural right to a positive income.


No. I do not think natural rights exist.

It's not simply a reward, it's a compensation. Having children, and raising them, also has costs for the parents.


And you want to take away compensation if they do not live to your moral standards. Got it.

Indeed, I don't like ad-populum arguments either but the proposal may lose legitimacy and thus stop being feasible in the long run. Shouldn't this be taken into account?

As for its merits, there are better alternative uses for government resources than large universal, no strings attached transfers.


It would be easy to get a lot of people behind a dumber project by claiming it has more merit. Like spending billions on a wall for keeping Mexicans out.
#15167730
Pants-of-dog wrote:So punishing the family by taking away money or throwing the mom in jail will magically make them miss school less?

Sorry, but that literally made me laugh out loud.


It would seem even the mere threat of punishment may be enough:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-9395-8

Of course, a larger scale study would be great, but it's not a crazy notion.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because not everyone shares your moral standards and it is wrong to impose arbitrary moral standards on people. What if the moral standard is that everyone except a certain religious minority gets the UBI?


Pants-of-dog wrote:And you want to take away compensation if they do not live to your moral standards. Got it.


It's not my moral standard even if I see no ethical objections, though. Society at large already establishes an obligation to attend school through legislation, it already rewards students (not parents) for attending school by opening up opportunities for better jobs in the future, it already punishes vaccination refusals through legislation and it of course punishes criminal behavior as well, but only the perpetrator.

Why wouldn't it also directly compensate/reward parents who work to fulfill or provide the conditions for their children to fulfill all of these conditions, at least while they are minors?

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. I do not think natural rights exist.


I see that claim more as a wishlist than an actual enforceable right. Naturalism and positivism are complements, not substitutes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It would be easy to get a lot of people behind a dumber project by claiming it has more merit. Like spending billions on a wall for keeping Mexicans out.


Sure, but even that is something that needs to be defended.
#15167732
Under pressure from the American government, the system of a “5-day workweek” was adopted by Japan in the 1990s because the Americans bitterly complained that the Japanese worked too much in the 1980s, when Japan was economically dominant. Since the 1990s, Japanese companies' productivity remains lower than the OECD average as a result of the five days working week. The Japanese government further imposed a series of measures on Japanese companies to improve working conditions aside from the five days working week, making Japanese workers lazier than ever. Around that time, American workers suddenly became workaholic and there was a reversal of work culture. Until the 1980s, American workers were typically portrayed as lazy, according to the Baltimore Sun (January 26, 1992).

Image

Every day, 10 hours a day, David Wile hoists hundreds of boxes of alternators and windshield wipers onto the assembly line at General Motors Corp.'s Astro and Safari van plant.

Last week, if the 48-year-old autoworker sat down for a minute, one of his pals down the line shouted at him: "Hey, lazy American worker! Get up!"

Mr. Wile and his friends at the Broening Highway plant were joking about comments by Yoshio Sakurauchi, speaker of Japan's lower house of parliament, who last week blamed the U.S. trade deficit on American workers who "won't work hard."

Mr. Sakurauchi has stirred up a firestorm of outrage among workers like Mr. Wile, who considered the statement "a terrible slap in the face."

But behind last week's anger lingered a bit of soul-searching. In factories and offices last week, people wondered: Was Mr. Sakurauchi right? Are American products losing market share because the American work force is getting lazy?

The answer, it turns out, is, "Not exactly." Americans work plenty hard, according to a variety of international comparisons.

But there is disturbing evidence the United States may be suffering in the international marketplace because domestic workers and managers aren't working smart enough.

"There is a grain of truth to what this guy [Mr. Sakurauchi] said," conceded Martin Bailey, a University of Maryland economist who specializes in productivity research.
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 18 Apr 2021 22:51, edited 2 times in total.
#15167735
ThirdTerm wrote:Under pressure from the American government, the system of a “5-day workweek” was adopted by Japan in the 1990s because the Americans bitterly complained that the Japanese worked too much in the 1980s, when Japan was economically dominant. Since the 1990s, Japanese companies' productivity remains lower than the OECD average as a result of the five days working week. Around that time, American workers became workaholic and there was a reversal of work culture.

Image


Wait what? How would working more increase output per hour worked?
#15167736
wat0n wrote:It would seem even the mere threat of punishment may be enough:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-9395-8

Of course, a larger scale study would be great, but it's not a crazy notion.


To cut this short, I am simply going to ignore this until you quote the relevant text.

It's not my moral standard even if I see no ethical objections, though. Society at large already establishes an obligation to attend school through legislation, it already rewards students (not parents) for attending school by opening up opportunities for better jobs in the future, it already punishes vaccination refusals through legislation and it of course punishes criminal behavior as well, but only the perpetrator.

Why wouldn't it also directly compensate/reward parents who work to fulfill or provide the conditions for their children to fulfill all of these conditions, at least while they are minors?


Again, you can reward people with additional money.

But imposing financial punishments for not following an arbitrary moral standard is irrational.

I see that claim more as a wishlist than an actual enforceable right. Naturalism and positivism are complements, not substitutes.

Sure, but even that is something that needs to be defended.


Not if you can get enough people to agree with it, apparently.
#15167740
Pants-of-dog wrote:To cut this short, I am simply going to ignore this until you quote the relevant text.


You can read it yourself.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you can reward people with additional money.

But imposing financial punishments for not following an arbitrary moral standard is irrational.


Yet resources are limited, the resources appropriated for rewards are resources not handed out for some universal scheme. Rewarding someone for doing what they are supposed to do anyway doesn't seem like an arbitrary moral standard.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Not if you can get enough people to agree with it, apparently.


Sure, it's why democracy is imperfect.
#15167756
Rancid wrote:ANDREW YANG 2024

AoC as his running mate, or Tulsi Gabbard



You slogan man!

You are taking the whole month of June off? Don't overwork. :lol: :D
#15167761
Tainari88 wrote:You are taking the whole month of June off? Don't overwork. :lol: :D


Yes, I'm taking a sabbatical from work. We get 4 weeks of sabbatical after every 4 years of work at the company. This is a semi-common thing in the tech industry. Another semi-common thing is unlimited vacation (within reason) where people will occasionally take a full month off every few years. I'm telling you, if you are educated, and have a good job. America is fucking awesome. I also get 5 weeks of vacation a year. So basically I get 9 weeks off this year. Paid. This is where the free labor market prevails. Mainly because tech talent supply is relatively lower than in other sectors. However, it simply doesn't work for lower skilled menial labor (lots of supply), which is why we really need to figure out how to take care of them too. UBI and universal healthcare is a solid start in my book.
#15167873
wat0n wrote:You can read it yourself.

Yet resources are limited, the resources appropriated for rewards are resources not handed out for some universal scheme. Rewarding someone for doing what they are supposed to do anyway doesn't seem like an arbitrary moral standard.

Sure, it's why democracy is imperfect.


It seems like an arbitrary moral standard to me, since you are arbitrarily deciding what they should be doing anyway.

That is one of the nice things about having a universal scheme: my side cannot take it away if someone is being racist, your side cannot take it away if we do not force our kids to go to school. People have financial stability, and having no strings attached means that the government cannot use this as leverage to force people to support a specific agenda.
#15167875
Pants-of-dog wrote:It seems like an arbitrary moral standard to me, since you are arbitrarily deciding what they should be doing anyway.


Not really. The objectives are in line with what the prevailing laws of the land are, the conditional transfers are simply adding a new way to make sure people fulfill those already existing obligations.

Pants-of-dog wrote:That is one of the nice things about having a universal scheme: my side cannot take it away if someone is being racist, your side cannot take it away if we do not force our kids to go to school. People have financial stability, and having no strings attached means that the government cannot use this as leverage to force people to support a specific agenda.


Or it can be used as a way to build a political clientele, by telling voters the "other" parties will try to do away with it.
#15167876
Just recently, they 3d printed a bunch of houses for homeless people here in Austin. Lookup 3d printed houses if you haven't seen one before; it's pretty cool.

Anyway, this community does have rules that make the housing conditional. No drugs, no alcohol, everyone is expected to contribute to keeping the place clean and kept up, etc. etc. When they selected who will get to move there, they picked out homeless people that were clearly willing to try and get themselves off their feet. The type of people that just need the stability of a home so that they can get their other shit in order.

Aside from that, there were many homeless folks that refused the offer to be given a home.
#15167877
In a normal economy, increased productivity results in increased wages.

Then the CEOs decided they want to hog a much larger share...

An interesting stat, from the late 60s to the crash in 2008, the number of hours worked, by family, increased by over 2.5 times. A lot of that was simply to keep income from decreasing.

If Americans were paid what they deserve, there would be less overwork.

If you think that Cheney vote is bad then just wa[…]

If Stalin - Hitler´s Devils' Alliance held, Could[…]

It is. And the reason for this is American stub[…]

Well you're telling me how you wish it to be, how[…]