Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unnecessariat

morecrows.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 256 posts

Re: Unnecessariat

#211

Post by devishard »

tomlock wrote: post #208
devishard wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you still think that population size is relevant to the point, the contrast is still lost on you.

Imagine 10% of your community dies a year. Now imagine 0.1% does. Do these differing percentages make any difference to your sense of urgency and willingness to fight the problems causing those deaths? No? Well ok then.

Imagine a percentage of your community dies a year. Now imagine a percentage of people die who aren't part of your community at all. Does the differing membership in your community make any difference to your sense of urgency and willingness to fight the problems causing those deaths?

I'm not saying the percentages aren't relevant to the larger discussion, but the membership in a community point is also relevant, and doesn't require the percentages to be a valid point that stands on its own.

Re: Unnecessariat

#212

Post by devishard »

millstone wrote: post #27
hyperpape wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At 15000, you are making https://aspe.hhs.gov/computations-2015-annual-update-hhs-pov... ), and are eligible for medicaid, or large subsidies in other states. The details really matter here, and my sense (though I'm very open to correction) is that the people who the ACA is most burdensome for are high enough income that they qualify for smaller subsidies, but still can't afford healthcare.

Right, and if that person lives in a state that did not participate in the Medicaid expansion, they are exempt from the uninsured penalty.

That's true, but a lot of people (I'd bet it's most in very poor areas) don't know that, and the IRS doesn't send you corrections if you pay tax you didn't need to pay.

Re: Unnecessariat

#213

Post by dragonwriter »

School-Cotton wrote: post #122
aston wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who elected those filibuster-threatening senators? Were the senators acting of their own accord, or on behalf of their constituents' desires?

Does it really matter? Senators representing around 10% of the population are enough for a filibuster.

Exactly: its unsurprising that people give up on solving problems through "representative democracy" when the system of government they have, whatever it claims to be on the tin, is poorly representative and functionally very far from democratic.

Re: Unnecessariat

#214

Post by collyw »

mindcrime wrote: post #170
peterwoo wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft is when I take property which I have no right to take possession of. It doesn't matter if guns or force are involved, or fraud, or sneakiness, etc. If taxation is theft, then it is theft even if it's unenforced and involves no threats of force. Why is taxation theft?

Why is taxation theft? Because you're taking something you have no right to take possession of. And you're right, "theft" is a broader category of actions, but I don't consider that distinction relevant here. Eg, the State doesn't (yet, AFAIK) sneak into you home and take your property without your knowledge, in the name of taxation. Although they DO do some other pretty sneaky things, like civil asset forfeiture, bu…

Try living somewhere that has no / very little taxes, you will notice a complete lack of infrastructure. You want to live in a "developed" country where you have water, police, roads, schools.....

Re: Unnecessariat

#215

Post by tomjen3 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #125
labster wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should. And replace it with universal basic income. Also: GP makes an excellent point, which I should have thought of myself.

Replacing minimum wage with UBI shifts employment subsidies to the same firms which are now pressing their workers to apply for welfare benefits whilst pocketing massive profits, including the wealthiest family in the US, the Waltons, of WalMart. Another model is UBI and government as employer of last resort (or a equivalent strong labour movement). If there is an employer who can absorb all applicants at a minimum w…

Is it better to employ a worker at 80% of a surviving wage, or on a wage only high enough to survive of if you are healthy and without children, or not to hire that person at all?

Also I think you can survive on minimum wage, but surviving just means not dying. A surviving wage would only have to be high enough to afford the worker a 9 squarefoot of decently heated dry room to sleep in, two sets of adequate but not nice or new clothing, a winter coat and sufficient caloric intake not to starve, as well as access to a place to urinate/deficate and, probably, the occasional shower. I don't think that is that costly, actually, but it is possible to survive at this level.

So personally I think we should aim a little bit higher than survival. I am not concerned with the differences between the poor and the rich - no person was ever fed because his neighbor is also poor, but with how the poorest are living.

Re: Unnecessariat

#216

Post by tomjen3 »

Animats wrote: post #15

From the article: "We aren’t precarious, we’re unnecessary. The money has gone to the top. The wages have gone to the top. The recovery has gone to the top. And what’s worst of all, everybody who matters seems basically pretty okay with that. " That's it right there. We just don't need that many people to do all the stuff. Some of that is imports, but not all, or even most, of it. Get behind the $15 minimum wage. The…

I need somebody to clean my bath and to cook me dinner. I currently have to do these myself because the country I live in it is too expensive to hire somebody to do that.

Re: Unnecessariat

#217

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Disclaimer: Very half-baked idea follows.

The problem seems to be rooted in automation replacing jobs faster than it creates new ones. The solution, then, may be to limit automation so that we have close to full employment.

The best (economically) way to limit automation is to tax it. You set the level of the tax, and basic economics does the rest. The jobs that are more economically done by humans (after the tax on automation) get done by humans. If there are still too many people unemployed, raise the tax. If the job market gets tight, lower it.

What could go wrong? Plenty:

The tax might not cover all forms of automation.

The tax might be set at levels that are politically determined, rather than for the effect on employment.

Raising and lowering this tax could react in unfortunate ways with the business cycle.

Foreign countries using automation could eat our lunch. We could to some degree handle that with tariffs, but they might respond with tariffs of their own and kill our exports.

I'm sure there are more possible problems that I haven't thought of. Never the less, in theory, this might be a decent solution.

Re: Unnecessariat

#218

Post by [deleted] »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #79
clock_tower wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very good points. My instinctive rejoinder to "the age of the corporation" is to ask how many bayonets the corporation has, but the answer is increasingly "not zero." This also causes me to notice something else: what if neo-fascism and its Asian counterparts are becoming popular precisely as a way to coerce corporations -- because nothing less than that can bring them under control? This sounds very plausible, and i…

That's a really good point. Perhaps the Achilles heel of mass democracy is that it is easily manipulated in a capitalist economy where our interactions with the world can be exclusively private. Think about it: we can spend our lives at home, work, and the grocery store. Except they deliver. And so do restaurants. And so does Amazon, so that's everything. Can't deliver love but you can download and swipe, good luck.…

[deleted]

Re: Unnecessariat

#219

Post by david927 »

deepsun wrote: post #40
CodeMage wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there's no followup discussion. The fact that software engineering is "destroying jobs" is the wrong problem to focus on, but any discussion that approaches the right problem -- capitalism -- is practically taboo in United States.

I believe the right problem is progress, not capitalism. I'm an emigrant from a non-capitalistic country, by the way.

You're right that the problem is that progress, with each step, benefits fewer people.

Why capitalism is cited is that it exacerbates the problem. If you look at Switzerland or Sweden, you don't have the same issues that you're having in the US. There are protections. Health care is provided, universities are free.

Re: Unnecessariat

#220

Post by david927 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #216
Animats wrote: post #15

From the article: "We aren’t precarious, we’re unnecessary. The money has gone to the top. The wages have gone to the top. The recovery has gone to the top. And what’s worst of all, everybody who matters seems basically pretty okay with that. " That's it right there. We just don't need that many people to do all the stuff. Some of that is imports, but not all, or even most, of it. Get behind the $15 minimum wage. The…

I need somebody to clean my bath and to cook me dinner. I currently have to do these myself because the country I live in it is too expensive to hire somebody to do that.

So that's the answer? Return to feudalism and slavery? We only have jobs for the top x%, the rest can clean their toilets.
Post reply on HN