The problem with a "solution" like this is same as the problem that the minium wage presents: it is insufficient to live on, and less than the value of social services benefits. If you want to magically improve the plight of the poor, make cheap housing available in urban areas without a qualification process (ie. Section 8, public housing)
Wall Street tried that, by destroying the real estate market.
Mechanical Turk Stations for the Urban Poor
151–160 of 160 posts
Re: Mechanical Turk Stations for the Urban Poor
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds eerily like the current Republican platform. Abuse of the welfare system has been explored in the past and found to be a tiny minority of all people receiving it. Let's not punish those people who use the system correctly on account of those that don't, hm?
Abuse of the welfare system has been explored in the past and found to be a tiny minority of all people receiving it. Depends on what you mean by "abuse". Most poor people don't work and don't even look for work, preferring to collect free money. That's not "abuse" in the sense that welfare rules allow people to do this, but it is behavior we should try to prevent. Ultimately I favor eliminating welfare and replacing…
Citation badly needed.
Re: Mechanical Turk Stations for the Urban Poor
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Abuse of the welfare system has been explored in the past and found to be a tiny minority of all people receiving it. Depends on what you mean by "abuse". Most poor people don't work and don't even look for work, preferring to collect free money. That's not "abuse" in the sense that welfare rules allow people to do this, but it is behavior we should try to prevent. Ultimately I favor eliminating welfare and replacing…
>Most poor people don't work and don't even look for work, Citation badly needed.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2009.pdf
I exclude children from the numbers here:
http://crazybear.posterous.com/why-the-poor-dont-work
Net result, 36% of poor adults work or look for work at least 26 weeks/year, and 25% of poor adults work full time or look for full time work.
Re: Mechanical Turk Stations for the Urban Poor
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Minimum wage laws destroy jobs and reduce overall welfare; they should be repealed rather than extended to novel business arrangements. This is in fact their purpose. Minimum wage laws destroy low-paying jobs by making them illegal, preventing the least competitive members of our society from having the hours and days of their lives "mined" by an employer for negligible compensation. That having these laws "reduces w…
Minimum wage laws destroy low-paying jobs by making them illegal, preventing the least competitive members of our society from having the hours and days of their lives "mined" by an employer for negligible compensation. Except this is simply not true. Germany, where workers enjoy generous terms and privileges even for Western Europe, has no minimum wage, and its labour unions vocally oppose introducing one. Countries…
To measure the effectiveness of the policies that lead to German job creation, we need to count every worker who is receiving a wage in the German national currency against the workers who wanted to, and legally could have received wages in that currency.
When we look at the whole picture, the situation is ugly and getting worse. Headline unemployment averaged across the European single currency area is now 10.4% and rising rapidly. [0]
Germany is a manufacturing powerhouse, and its exports are currently red hot. Any breakup of EMU would brutally reprice those goods. I would expect this to lead to significant German unemployment.
[0] "Eurozone unemployment hits new record" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16808672 - 31 January 2012
Re: Mechanical Turk Stations for the Urban Poor
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Minimum wage laws destroy low-paying jobs by making them illegal, preventing the least competitive members of our society from having the hours and days of their lives "mined" by an employer for negligible compensation. Except this is simply not true. Germany, where workers enjoy generous terms and privileges even for Western Europe, has no minimum wage, and its labour unions vocally oppose introducing one. Countries…
Declaring the German labor market to be a success while counting only German unemployment is misleading, something like saying US fiscal and labor policy is a blowout success because of yet another year of record low unemployment in North Dakota. To measure the effectiveness of the policies that lead to German job creation, we need to count every worker who is receiving a wage in the German national currency against…
There's the rub: how many unemployed Greeks have the skills to work in a German factory?
Re: Mechanical Turk Stations for the Urban Poor
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
Define "exploitation", please. Words are important here.
Exploitation: taking advantage of the other's misery to further your own goals. If there were no people who are so poor as to need what meager pay the future mechanical-turk farmers are willing to give, those farmers wouldn't close down their services - they would either settle for less profit, or find another long term solution. This option exists only because of some people's hardships, and it's more profitable for…
Patients with horrible, painful, fatal diseases are certainly miserable. Pharmaceutical companies are certainly looking to further their own goals through the development and sale of life saving drugs.
Re: Mechanical Turk Stations for the Urban Poor
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Most poor people don't work and don't even look for work, Citation badly needed.
I'm sure I sound like a broken record for posting this yet again, but here you go: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2009.pdf I exclude children from the numbers here: http://crazybear.posterous.com/why-the-poor-dont-work Net result, 36% of poor adults work or look for work at least 26 weeks/year, and 25% of poor adults work full time or look for full time work.
All this data says is exactly what the last line of your last post does. There is no "preference" stated here. The reasons why are not explored (and would probably be out of the scope of this paper anyways).
Keep in mind, our unemployment rate right now is absurdly high right now. I somehow doubt that's because people "prefer" to remain poor.
Re: Mechanical Turk Stations for the Urban Poor
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Define "exploitation", please. Words are important here.
Exploitation: taking advantage of the other's misery to further your own goals. If there were no people who are so poor as to need what meager pay the future mechanical-turk farmers are willing to give, those farmers wouldn't close down their services - they would either settle for less profit, or find another long term solution. This option exists only because of some people's hardships, and it's more profitable for…
However, the have-nots (who are willing to work) can probably find several occupations, from different employers. They will have some range of choice concerning the salaries, the conditions and so on. Maybe not a large choice, but some choice. And one thing is clear: the less minimum wage there is, the more choice of occupations there will be, since there will be more employers generating occupations where profit can be made, since you lower the costs of labor at first.
Those occupations would not exist if it is easier or more profitable for people to stay on welfare.
And as it has been demonstrated in so many cases/countries, the longer one stays on welfare, the most likely one is not going to look for a job, welfare is actually a promoter of misery in the long term, especially for those who are at the very bottom, since they get no real incentive of getting out of it.
In a sense, politicians are guilty of exploitation as well, based on your definition. They take advantage of some voters' misery to promise them continuous welfare for which they are not responsible to pay for, and they further their own goals by getting rich in the process.
But, to come back on "exploitation" again. You are considering that is is a zero-sum game, basically. One, the exploiter, is gaining something while the exploited is losing. But economics almost never work that way. Both employer and employee have something to gain out of it. Both profit from the situation. The Employer makes money, can extend his business and ends up needing more people in his payroll. The Employee makes enough money to survive, has an occupation and has a social activity within society - they build relationship/reputation and somehow experience. They may not be making much monetary profit, but they are still gaining something out of it.
Please do not forget that all people who lived before us had to go through misery before reaching nowadays' living standards. If you come back a hundred years ago, then you may well consider that everyone then was being "exploited", but that is not how they would see themselves at the time.
Re: Mechanical Turk Stations for the Urban Poor
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure I sound like a broken record for posting this yet again, but here you go: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2009.pdf I exclude children from the numbers here: http://crazybear.posterous.com/why-the-poor-dont-work Net result, 36% of poor adults work or look for work at least 26 weeks/year, and 25% of poor adults work full time or look for full time work.
If you had stuck with that raw data I wouldn't have taken any issue with what you said. It's that "preferred" that stuck in my craw. All this data says is exactly what the last line of your last post does. There is no "preference" stated here. The reasons why are not explored (and would probably be out of the scope of this paper anyways). Keep in mind, our unemployment rate right now is absurdly high right now. I som…
Without compelling evidence otherwise, I tend to subscribe to the theory of revealed preferences - our actions reveal what we really want.
But you are logically correct, there are some possibilities, e.g., the poor would prefer to have a job but irrationally don't look for one.
I somehow doubt that's because people "prefer" to remain poor.
You are looking at the wrong choice set. The choice set is not [ poor, middle class]. The choice set is [ (poor, leisure), (middle class, hard work) ]. The theory I'm pushing is that for some people, utility(leisure)-utility(hard work) > utility(middle class) - utility(poor). See my blog post for more details.
Also, this is not caused by the current recession. The numbers have been similar since 1996 (the year of the earliest report I can find with a quick google search).
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp96.htm
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2002.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2006.pdf
(Tweak URLs to get data for intermediate years.)
Re: Mechanical Turk Stations for the Urban Poor
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you had stuck with that raw data I wouldn't have taken any issue with what you said. It's that "preferred" that stuck in my craw. All this data says is exactly what the last line of your last post does. There is no "preference" stated here. The reasons why are not explored (and would probably be out of the scope of this paper anyways). Keep in mind, our unemployment rate right now is absurdly high right now. I som…
There is no "preference" stated here. Without compelling evidence otherwise, I tend to subscribe to the theory of revealed preferences - our actions reveal what we really want. But you are logically correct, there are some possibilities, e.g., the poor would prefer to have a job but irrationally don't look for one. I somehow doubt that's because people "prefer" to remain poor. You are looking at the wrong choice set.…
It doesn't make sense to assume that people who are not working are doing so just out of a desire to avoid work.
>But you are logically correct, there are some possibilities, e.g., the poor would prefer to have a job but irrationally don't look for one.
Or there are no jobs within distance that pay the bills (i.e. what's the point of flipping burgers for minimum wage - it won't pay the rent and feed the kids). In which case it stops being an argument of utility and one of common sense - it makes none to work at a job which would be a pointless treadmill in which you stand a zero chance of ever getting back on your feet.
What bothers me is that you're assuming preference from raw data. This is a problem when the data does not support (or even attempt to) support any such conclusion - does it take into account local conditions?
If not, then any such analysis (including yours) is baseless.