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

California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#81

Post by krapp »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #73
krapp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would "we" do anything? Why do opponents of UBI and welfare assume that people being able to misuse the money somehow constitutes an argument against those programs? Why is this theoretical mother of 4 "blowing all the cash" under UBI, but not blowing her food stamps or benefits? Irresponsible people can be irresponsible under any circumstance, but I don't see anyone arguing against capitalism because poor people…

>I don't see anyone arguing against capitalism because poor people could spend their paychecks on junk food, booze and lottery tickets. This is a horrible example to use when all three are either a topic of debate to be banned, or have been banned in the past.

Fine... substitute those vices with whatever you think irresponsible poor people will blow their UBI benefit on, the argument remains the same.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#82

Post by neilwilson »

throwaway_law wrote: post #76
neilwilson wrote: post #8

The way to reshape labour laws is to offer an alternative job defining the socially minimum acceptable job in a local area. Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. That is also has the advantage of being a geographically targeted federal automatic stabiliser that operates far more effectively than interest rate targeting via bank lending…

>No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. We have seen how no labor laws combined with competition works, we get: 80 hour work weeks with no over time, no benefits, dangerous work conditions, and even exploitative child labor. There is legitimate use of contractors in lieu of employees, but UBER and gig economy as a whole are very hiring what are clearly employees, under the law, as contractors…

Ok. Explain how you can have 80 hour weeks with no overtime when the statutory alternative job in the local area is 35 hours a week, $25 per hour, 9-5 steady work about half a mile away from their house with full health care, pension and sickness cover.

How does the 80 hour week person get any labour?

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#83

Post by neilwilson »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #13
neilwilson wrote: post #8

The way to reshape labour laws is to offer an alternative job defining the socially minimum acceptable job in a local area. Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. That is also has the advantage of being a geographically targeted federal automatic stabiliser that operates far more effectively than interest rate targeting via bank lending…

No what you really need is federal binding minimum standards for Annual leave (4 weeks ) and Sick pay and minimum wage. Repeal all the right to work laws and massively reduce the ability of employers to use non compeats (us CA as a model here I think)

And if the statutory alternative job has 5 weeks annual leave, $25 per hour minimum, is 9-5 35 hours per week, with full medical, pension and sickness cover with he job within walking distance (or a short bus ride) of your house?

Why regulate when you can compete rubbish jobs out of the system?

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#84

Post by tomschlick »

mrfusion wrote: post #75
tomschlick wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still haven't been able to get a straight answer out of pro-UBI people on what you do when a mother of 4, who was previously receiving food/housing assistance for her children blows all the cash. Do we tell them tough? Or do we slowly institute more and more programs to only end up where we are again? Keep in mind that Yang is proposing UBI that would replace all other social / welfare programs.

I feel like this is a bit of a straw man argument. We already have laws and safeguards for irresponsible parents.

The CPS system already can't keep up with the amount of cases they have. I don't think adding more will help.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#85

Post by neilwilson »

mrfusion wrote: post #54
neilwilson wrote: post #8

The way to reshape labour laws is to offer an alternative job defining the socially minimum acceptable job in a local area. Business then has to compete with that to attract labour. No other labour law required. Simple competition sorts it out. That is also has the advantage of being a geographically targeted federal automatic stabiliser that operates far more effectively than interest rate targeting via bank lending…

Or just do a UBI instead of giving people busy work.

If I work 40 hours a week producing the stuff that you and I need to live, while you spend 40 hours on your Xbox, why wouldn't I just stop work on Wednesday and take the rest of the week off and not bother producing anything for you?

If you are adding nothing real to the common pool by using up some of your finite hours on this planet for the public good, then you can hardly expect the rest of the public to use up the finite hours of their life to produce anything for you. No amount of financial trickery hides the fact that it is a transfer from those that produce to those that don't for nothing of actual real value in return.

The UBI is a magicians trick that fools nobody once the mechanism by which the trick is pulled is revealed.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#86

Post by js8 »

zaroth wrote: post #49
js8 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstood my argument. I am not defending a particular system (and almost certainly not communism). I am pointing out that same arguments used to defend the privileges of capitalists were used to defend feudal privileges. The feudal lords also competed with each other. The freedom of mobility is not relevant if your only choice is just another feudal lord.

> But the arguments used to justify the power of capital owners over the operations (and profit distribution) in the company are in principle the same as those used to defend feudal lordship. It's a neat metaphor in a storybook sort of way, which is why it seems like you are making a political point and not a economic argument. > The freedom of mobility is not relevant if your only choice is just another feudal lord.…

"which is why it seems like you are making a political point and not a economic argument"

I am making an argument that the principal justification for power of these individuals is the same. It's neither strictly political nor strictly economic argument.

"There are ~30 million small businesses in the US, anyone can start one, and many people do. Anyone cannot decide to become a feudal lord; it is a position taken through force and violence and maintained at the tip of a spear."

Actually, you can decide to become a lord, it happens in mafias and gangs around the world till today. The lords in feudalism (unless it was inherited) rose from chieftains of tribes gaining more and more influence (often by using of violence) over more and more people.

Just like starting a business, becoming a chieftain and lord is very risky. In fact riskier, because the stakes are higher, but also the rewards.

Also, while there are small businesses in capitalism, yes, the core of it in practice are large businesses. And just like the lords, the owners of the large businesses are those who can either outsmart the other small owners, or just win the game of taking the risk. The issue I am talking about - winner (founder) takes all - is much more questionable in larger companies.

The fact that there is no direct violence in economic competition between companies doesn't invalidate the comparison I am making.

"I think capitalism was the "wisened up" part after the prior attempts which don't allow an entrepreneur to take a new idea, bring it into the world, and own the result for themselves."

I interpret the history the other way around. The capitalism only happened after people wisened up and figured that the republic is better than monarchy, in the political sphere. This restricted the use of violence in competition for power, and allowed the companies (and their owners) to rise in the economic competition.

But the question why should somebody keep unlimited and indefinite control over something (be it company or state) just by virtue of organizing people around creation of that something still stands.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#87

Post by throwaway_law »

tomschlick wrote: post #67
mrfusion wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just do a UBI instead of giving people busy work.

I still haven't been able to get a straight answer out of pro-UBI people on what you do when a mother of 4, who was previously receiving food/housing assistance for her children blows all the cash. Do we tell them tough? Or do we slowly institute more and more programs to only end up where we are again? Keep in mind that Yang is proposing UBI that would replace all other social / welfare programs.

Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers...as if providing a single mother of 4 with a basic income is in her own worst interest and will lead to irresponsible spending.

Let me ask you: what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing assistance, and her 1,2 or 3 jobs isn't enough to cover rent or put food on the table? What do you do now when a SNAP recipient sells their food card and spends the cash? My general experience is anti-UBI proponents don't even know about these issues, and if they do they both don't give a shit and have no more answers than a pro-UBI person.

At the end of the day the current model is failing, I for one would much rather see all the tax breaks offered to the rich be rolled back, including estate taxes and capital gains...because as of now all that was premised on "trickle down economics" or maybe better phrased as poor people can eat the crumbs of the rich, and so far the crumbs haven't made their way down and to date that what the poor have been told..."tough".

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#88

Post by tomschlick »

mrfusion wrote: post #78
tomschlick wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing personal responsibility would be great; but I don't see that ever happening in this political climate. I foresee that situation playing out and then we will have legislators grandstanding that not doing something is "taking food out of children's mouths" or something similar. Over time that will lead to more and more programs being reinstated as no legislator will want to be seen not helping children/women/et…

It’s a common sentiment to want to control how poor people spend their money. But studies have shown that cash is often best and we can maximize welfare by letting people choose how to spend their money. Here’s some introductory reading. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...

While I don't disagree that it can lead to better systems. Most of those "studies" were very small in their test group and wouldn't scale to work for the entire US.

There is also the problem that when everyone has an extra $1k in their pocket each month the price of almost everything will rise to consume it.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#89

Post by krapp »

tomschlick wrote: post #74
krapp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would "we" do anything? Why do opponents of UBI and welfare assume that people being able to misuse the money somehow constitutes an argument against those programs? Why is this theoretical mother of 4 "blowing all the cash" under UBI, but not blowing her food stamps or benefits? Irresponsible people can be irresponsible under any circumstance, but I don't see anyone arguing against capitalism because poor people…

Forcing personal responsibility would be great; but I don't see that ever happening in this political climate. I foresee that situation playing out and then we will have legislators grandstanding that not doing something is "taking food out of children's mouths" or something similar. Over time that will lead to more and more programs being reinstated as no legislator will want to be seen not helping children/women/et…

>Generally when people ask for a handout from society, society wants to make sure that handout is being used for the things they said it would be used for.

Welfare isn't people asking for a handout from society, it's a government program paid for with tax dollars.

Society can complain about having to pay taxes into welfare programs (and often does) but it no more has the right to complain about what recipients do with the money than employers do about their employees.

Also, this becomes a problem in the case of UBI when everyone is getting the handout.

>If you want a blank check that's fine, but you have to be willing to let people starve as a consequence to their actions, with 0 exceptions (from the government) to make it work.

People already starve as a consequence to their actions, sometimes because the restrictions imposed on welfare programs by society make it infeasible for people in need to actually participate in those programs, other times because of bad decisions.

So yeah, I would prefer a blank check, no strings attached, and no moralizing from the crowd that thinks poverty is sin and moral weakness, and that the poor need to be taught a hard lesson before being granted the privilege of a meal.

Re: California bill will drive a national debate over how to reshape labor laws

#90

Post by tomschlick »

throwaway_law wrote: post #87
tomschlick wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still haven't been able to get a straight answer out of pro-UBI people on what you do when a mother of 4, who was previously receiving food/housing assistance for her children blows all the cash. Do we tell them tough? Or do we slowly institute more and more programs to only end up where we are again? Keep in mind that Yang is proposing UBI that would replace all other social / welfare programs.

Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers...as if providing a single mother of 4 with a basic income is in her own worst interest and will lead to irresponsible spending. Let me ask you: what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing assistance, and her 1,2 or 3 jobs isn't enough to cover rent or p…

> Its funny how the anti-UBI people always couch their arguments against UBI as in the best interest of irresponsible poor single mothers

That's done because those same cases will be used by legislators to justify reinstating these programs after UBI kills them. When they need to drum up public support they always tug at the heartstrings.

> what do you do now when a mother of 4 doesn't qualify for SNAP or housing assistance

First, I highly doubt a mother of 4 wouldn't qualify for any of those things (net income would be $3,188/mo with 5 members).

Second, you seem to think removing SNAP, housing credits, and others and replacing it with $1k/mo would work. I'd argue most of those benefits are worth way more in many cases.

In Yang's proposal he would give people the option to choose, which I don't think be adopted very well except for those of us who are already doing just fine and would take the extra money to save/invest.

> I for one would much rather see all the tax breaks offered to the rich be rolled back, including estate taxes and capital gains.

The top 10% already pays 70.6% of US taxes and the top 1% pays 39% alone. In comparison the bottom 50% pay around 2.8%. What is the magical number that is enough? And when does it become not worth it anymore for those people to reinvest?

IMO, the government should never be taking more then 50% of someone's income.

Post reply on HN