America's Overwork Obsession - Page 3 - 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.
#15167882
Ah, so you want to include the increase in participation as well? I guess that's fair. But... What do you make of that?

I mean, is it really a bad thing if one reason for the decrease in the intensity of work (hours worked per worker) is an increase in the extensive margin (higher labor participation)?
#15167887
wat0n wrote: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.


No, it is arbitrary.

If it were not, you would show how it was rational.

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.


And this is not so good that we should take away people’s financial stability and their ability to avoid being exploited.
#15167888
Capitalism is brutal. I think it's important to have a happy balance personally as all work without much time to relax can harm your health. So people understand that yes, it's important to work hard, but it's also important to have free leisure time too as well as good healthcare. We are humans at the end of the day. You work too much and eventually your body will break down and that can have serious mental and health consequences. What good does it do you to work so hard that you damage your medical and mental health or literally work yourself to death? It's kind of like the old Bible verse that says "For what good does it do you to gain the whole world but lose your soul?"
#15167891
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it is arbitrary.

If it were not, you would show how it was rational.


Well, if you think vaccinating children, sending them to schools, doing everything possible to they pass their courses and making them stay out of crime is somehow arbitrary then I guess you'd have no problems with abolishing all the laws that force you to vaccinate your children or deny you services for refusing to do so, abolishing compulsory education and stopping the enforcement of criminal law.

:)

Pants-of-dog wrote:And this is not so good that we should take away people’s financial stability and their ability to avoid being exploited.


Actually, it is because parties can then just begin to promise to increase it further to get votes.
#15167893
wat0n wrote:Well, if you think vaccinating children, sending them to schools, doing everything possible to they pass their courses and making them stay out of crime is somehow arbitrary then I guess you'd have no problems with abolishing all the laws that force you to vaccinate your children or deny you services for refusing, abolish compulsory education and stop enforcing criminal law.

:)


Is this an argument?

Because it seems like you are merely saying that I would be a hypocrite if I did not agree. That is not an argument.

Actually, it is because parties can then just begin to promise to increase it further to get votes.


This is a different argument altogether.
#15167895
Pants-of-dog wrote:Is this an argument?

Because it seems like you are merely saying that I would be a hypocrite if I did not agree. That is not an argument.


If you think it's irrational to design a welfare system geared towards fulfilling goals such as getting kids vaccinated, sending them to and succeeding in schools and having them comply with the law, then why would you support laws that force people to do just that?

Why is it irrational to use the carrot instead of just the stick, even more so since the stick alone seems to be insufficient? Why is it irrational to compensate or reward parents for taking on the private costs of taking care of their children like the law effectively forces them to?

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is a different argument altogether.


Indeed, it's a different sort of concern. But since you seem to believe there are no development goals public policy should be concerned about, then it's worth considering as well.
#15167899
wat0n wrote:If you think it's irrational to design a welfare system geared towards fulfilling goals such as getting kids vaccinated, sending them to and succeeding in schools and having them comply with the law, then why would you support laws that force people to do just that?

Why is it irrational to use the carrot instead of just the stick, even more so since the stick alone seems to be insufficient? Why is it irrational to compensate or reward parents for taking on the private costs of taking care of their children like the law effectively forces them to?


You are still not explaining why a UBI should be tied to truancy.

Indeed, it's a different sort of concern. But since you seem to believe there are no development goals public policy should be concerned about, then it's worth considering as well.


If you are discussing this because of your incorrect ideas about me, I will ignore this. If you have an actual argument, please present it.
#15167904
Pants-of-dog wrote:Society wants to avoid a lot of things.

To pick this one out of so many for no reason is arbitrary.


Indeed, society wants to avoid a lot of things which is why social policy should be coherent with those goals. I don't see how UBI helps with that as much or even more than a conditional transfer scheme. It doesn't.

Now, if you believe people have a natural right to an income or financial stability, that'd be a different matter. But you said you don't believe in natural rights at all.
#15167910
wat0n wrote:Indeed, society wants to avoid a lot of things which is why social policy should be coherent with those goals. I don't see how UBI helps with that as much or even more than a conditional transfer scheme. It doesn't.


I do not see why it should be used as a stick to enforce these goals.

Now, if you believe people have a natural right to an income or financial stability, that'd be a different matter. But you said you don't believe in natural rights at all.


People will benefit from having financial stability without the risk of being exploited.

This is true regardless of where we imagine rights come from.
#15167913
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not see why it should be used as a stick to enforce these goals.


Because those whose behavior is being pro-social should be compensated for it. You know, so people in general will see a point on vaccinating their children even if they don't like vaccines, for instance.

Pants-of-dog wrote:People will benefit from having financial stability without the risk of being exploited.

This is true regardless of where we imagine rights come from.


It doesn't if it comes at the expense of fulfilling other goals society as a whole is concerned about.
#15167916
wat0n wrote:Because those whose behavior is being pro-social should be compensated for it. You know, so people in general will see a point on vaccinating their children even if they don't like vaccines, for instance.


Again, if you want to reward people by giving them additional money for jumping through arbitrary moral hoops, that is fine.

It doesn't if it comes at the expense of fulfilling other goals society as a whole is concerned about.


This sentence makes no sense.
#15167928
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

Assume that I do not, or that I have misunderstood every time I have read the definition, because of the poor reading comprehension you ascribe to me,


Every cent devoted for an UBI, is a cent that is not being devoted to fulfilling some other goals. So why wouldn't we want to be efficient about how social policy is designed?
#15167930
wat0n wrote:Every cent devoted for an UBI, is a cent that is not being devoted to fulfilling some other goals. So why wouldn't we want to be efficient about how social policy is designed?


You would then need to show that punishing people for truancy by taking away their livelihood is “efficient”.

Please do so.
#15167931
Pants-of-dog wrote:You would then need to show that punishing people for truancy by taking away their livelihood is “efficient”.

Please do so.


It seems the mere threat is enough to get truants to stop their behavior.

WHAT disenfranchised blacks ? There ARE no disenf[…]

As of the date of this post at least , neither Tan[…]

Yes, the USA put Hussein into power. Do you hav[…]

Deadly Fungi

Deadly Fungi Are the Newest Emerging Microbe Thre[…]