21–30 of 88 posts
To be clear, this article is advocating forcing people in poverty into gig economy jobs where there have been issues of low pay, terrible working conditions, and few if any employee protections. As a civilized country we should not demand that people give up their basic rights to earn a living.
- Uber for law enforcement - Uber for constitutional rights
Absolutely horrifying point of view. I get it, we don't like leeches. But forcing people to work or else not get benefits meant for the poorest (i.e. let them starve or go homeless)? Wow. It's work camps without fences. Driving around and/or delivering things to people that are better off then they are? How is that helping people build their own human capital? The only people that helps are the people consuming those…
Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn't exploitative and it actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it for themselves.
It's true that many people will choose free money + watching TV over doing things beneficial for others.
It's kind of funny how expecting welfare recipients to work is "exploitative" but expecting workers to involuntarily support welfare recipients is not. Could you explain that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typically, TANF benefits went to the elderly, disabled, or to new mothers. Do you really want to force them to work the gig economy? Also, don't forget that the "T" in TANF means _temporary_.
If only the authors of the article thought of that. Then they might have written this: Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people who are physically or mentally unable to complete gig economy jobs. The gig economy can often provide flexible work for those previously considered unable to work, but exemptions would still be available as needed. Why not read the article to see what it actually advocat…
At least that's how it's turned out in the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-die...
This is the worst idea not proposed in jest that I have ever read. Uber and the "gig economy" are the death throes of an economy that is suffocating itself with rotten ideas about globalism ("We can all be rich if we stop making things and have other people do it for us!") hatched by corporate economists... Suggesting that we should all do each others' laundry more is just a brutal exacerbation of the underlying prob…
We never stopped making things. We have farms and factories and they produce more than ever before. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/agriculture/2012/productiv... No one is suggesting we all do each other's laundry. Instead, the article is suggesting that people currently producing nothing will do laundry for peopl…
This is called a "job". If we could find a job for everyone, we wouldn't be talking about unemployment. Unemployment is when people are not able to find a job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We never stopped making things. We have farms and factories and they produce more than ever before. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/agriculture/2012/productiv... No one is suggesting we all do each other's laundry. Instead, the article is suggesting that people currently producing nothing will do laundry for peopl…
suggesting that people currently producing nothing will do laundry for people who actually are producing things This is called a "job". If we could find a job for everyone, we wouldn't be talking about unemployment. Unemployment is when people are not able to find a job.
It also proposes that if a person claims to be unemployed, but actually just refuses to take work, that their welfare payments should be stopped. But surely you aren't discussing those people, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's worked out pretty badly in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28Reilly%29_v_Secretary_of_... (the latter is particularly odious; having been told by a court that it owed people £130m in back-dated benefits, the government retroactively changed the law to avoid paying them. This is almost certainly a human rights violation but that litigatio…
Yeah, making people work for free at for-profit businesses is not a valid precondition for welfare. I didn't see that in this article though. There has to be a social safety net, but I think it's a valid goal to encourage welfare recipients to work if they are able. One thing we should definitely do is reform the "vertical cliff" of payments, where once you make above a certain threshold, you stop receiving all benef…
Not to mention that the flood of workers forced into this position will necessarily bid down the hourly rates.
Absolutely horrifying point of view. I get it, we don't like leeches. But forcing people to work or else not get benefits meant for the poorest (i.e. let them starve or go homeless)? Wow. It's work camps without fences. Driving around and/or delivering things to people that are better off then they are? How is that helping people build their own human capital? The only people that helps are the people consuming those…
They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. More concretely, working gigs demonstrates the ability to show up reliably for appointments and perform work as directed, thereby making a person less risky to hire. Why exploitative? Because if this option wasn't exploitative and it actually helped them beyond making sure they don't die, they'd have chosen it for thems…
Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them.
Value for humans works both ways...people value their own time (your watching TV example) it is true. But if they were sufficiently incentivised with added value, they would create value for others in order to improve the remainder of their own time. That's how it works. Enlightened self-interest, and all that.
> I assume that you also believe taking money from others involuntarily and giving it to non-workers is not "exploitative"?
Yes, I do because of the marginal utility of money. Taking $1000 from someone who has $10 mil. to feed a family a four for a month is not exploitative. The person with $10 mil. will not die or be in physical pain without that money. That money is worth less to them than it is to the family that very well might die, or at least be in pain, without it.
Telling someone on the brink of total poverty, where they very well might starve over the next month, that they must work or die is exploitation. Exploitation is not about taking money it is about extorting someone with the threat of pain or death. It is a sure way to destroy value in a transaction.
The alternative is to entice someone to create value for other humans through a value add transaction -- they end up with more value for themselves rather than bargaining to limit their loss through death or pain -- you know, why the rest of us that happen to be more wealthy choose to create value for others. The way to guarantee such a transaction is to make sure the person agreeing to that transaction is not making the decision to engage based on a physical threat.
I don't know why this concept is so foreign. It is the same reason protection rackets are illegal.