The indignity of no work • Hacker News Board

Re: The indignity of no work

#231

Post by wutbrodo » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 7:30 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #211

wutbrodo wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Warning: back of the envelope calculations ahead You're forgetting the fact that a basic income would obviate all means-based welfare programs, unemployment insurance, social security, etc; this means 2.3 TRILLION dollars (1.03T from means-based welfare programs and 1.3T from SS) in savings. Also, it would be enormously strange if we gave a full basic income to every infant, toddler, child and teen in the United Stat…

Social Security pays the retired 10s of Ks per year so they can live comfortably after paying into the system for their entire career. You think we should get rid of that in favor of a basic income of ~10k for everyone? That's going to suck pretty bad for the retired. You're certainly entitled to your opinion if you do think that but the vast vast vast majority of Americans are going to disagree with you.

Do you have a source for that? According to the social security administration, the average monthly payout is about 1100/mo.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

Even if social security was completely removed for a basic income of 10k (I'll clarify again that I'm not endorsing that figure as a blanket basic income), it would be a cut of a couple thousand a year, not a cut of more than 10k as you claim. Hell you could even keep all the net SS+basic income payouts the same and social security costs would drop to 1/5th of what they are now, saving over a trillion dollars.

Also, That was like, one third of one fourth of my post. The fact that your estimate was way way off (far from "simple math") is barely changed by excluding social security.

Re: The indignity of no work

#232

Post by dredmorbius » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 8:07 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #151

smsm42 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Company towns existed not because housing were unaffordable but because there were no infrastructure in the place where company needed it to be before they came there. In your own link it says the company rented out and old off the property once built, thus negating the claim ownership or renting this property was not possible.

because there were no infrastructure in the place Not necessarily. Farmworker housing is offered in areas where there are alternatives, but the needs of the worker population often don't match the needs of growers: periodic work, a mobile workforce, and a concentrated area in which work crews can be picked up and dropped off, as well as a generally below-market income for the tenant population. Similarly, modern work…

Correction: s/growers/landlords/

Which is to say: few rentals are interested in people, especially full families, who might be staying only a few weeks or months.

This does, of course, vary, but I'm aware of a few specific farmworker housing complexes which address just these needs.

Re: The indignity of no work

#233

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 8:11 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #206

smsm42 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money are used as a replacement of resources. By printing money out of thin air you make the same amount of money signify less amount of resources. This is very profitable to those who print money and very unprofitable for those who holds these money but need resources instead. So printing money is just a redistributive program that takes resources from savers. In severe form, from anybody having money, even for a sh…

> And these resources are not infinite, they are scarce. This is the crux right here. The government no longer providers you money as BI. It provides you with the right to housing (build up), the right to energy (one person can only use so many KwHs/day), the right to worldwide communications (I think we can all agree the price of moving bits is going to continue to fall), the right to food, and the right to transpor…

Yeah, in a fairy land where resources are non-scarce and are conjured by the government from nothing, it would work fairly well. I've been taught about this is the soviet school, where they explained me the communism is right around the corner and it would look exactly like that. In the real world, meanwhile, everything consumed has to be produced, and if you want power, cars, manufacturing and farming, somebody has to manufacture and farm it. So for you to get it for free means somebody has to produce it and then either gift it to you or you will take it away by force. Last time I checked giving away cars wasn't that popular (if I'm wrong please tell me where I can pick up my free Tesla) so I guess you'd have to take these cars by force. Why would then the manufacturers keep producing them is a mystery to me.

Re: The indignity of no work

#234

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 8:19 AM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #205

smsm42 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That won't work. If it worked, we woudn't need free housing, schooling etc right now - giving people money would be much easier. The problem is that money is fungible - if you give people money instead of free housing, they'd just by some crap on it and then will come back to you and complain they have nowhere to live, and you're back to square one. That's why there are so many non-monetary benefits - because you can…

"The problem is that money is fungible - if you give people money instead of free housing, they'd just by some crap on it and then will come back to you and complain they have nowhere to live, and you're back to square one." That's the fear that leads to all the specific help, but the experiments with unconditional cash show that is not what happens.

So far I've seen all the experiments conducted in remote places with extremely poor people having no experience with welfare state. What I'd like is to see something like that somewhere in Chicago. I.e. remove all fringe benefits, monetize them and convert to cash payments, and see how that goes. I suspect the result would be much different.

Re: The indignity of no work

#235

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 8:23 AM UTC

vl wrote: post #176

smsm42 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they provide housing and not pay workers to rent the same housing? Why part of the salary must be designated "housing allowance" instead of just calling it "salary" and let the worker decide to spend it on housing? Owning property outright might be hard to a lot of people, but there's an easy solution for it - renting. What you describe is functionally renting. The question is - why is it organized this partic…

I'm not sure why this is the case in this country, but right now in Germany some companies provide leases on the cars. It turns out it's a tax reduction and "support local industry" at the same time - if same amount of money is just paid as salary, combined taxes for company and employee are higher. And it also supports local economy since lease choices are for german cars only. And I heard that same leasing practice…

Tax reasons are the most common source of fringe benefits. As you mentioned, in Israel, a company car is a commonplace benefit among hitech workers, while in the US it is almost unheard of - because of the differences in how this benefit (and cars in general) are taxed. Though with recent change in Israel's tax code this became less popular, but some decade ago a company-provided car was an assumed part of the standard benefits package.

However, we have been talking about housing being provided by employer because there's no other means to get housing, so this is completely different case - here company cars are the function of government-introduced tax law, not of prices of the cars.

Re: The indignity of no work

#236

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 8:28 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #151

smsm42 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Company towns existed not because housing were unaffordable but because there were no infrastructure in the place where company needed it to be before they came there. In your own link it says the company rented out and old off the property once built, thus negating the claim ownership or renting this property was not possible.

because there were no infrastructure in the place Not necessarily. Farmworker housing is offered in areas where there are alternatives, but the needs of the worker population often don't match the needs of growers: periodic work, a mobile workforce, and a concentrated area in which work crews can be picked up and dropped off, as well as a generally below-market income for the tenant population. Similarly, modern work…

"It" that is happening now is not "it" we were discussing. Clearly, if you're catering to migrant population, homeownership is not a good solution for them. It's like saying hotels exist in New York because nobody can afford a house in New York. That's not the reason - the reason is that whoever needs to live in New York for two weeks won't buy a house there, unless he's a crazy billionaire. Worker housing exists, but it does not exist because otherwise workers couldn't find a place to live and thus making workers enslaved by the housing owners. It exists because it is a cost-effective solution for providing housing needs of the temporary workers, and it is natural for the employer that needs the workers to take care of their housing in the most efficient manner - thus reducing both their own costs and costs for the workers. It has very little to do with housing affordability and workers somehow being "serfs".

Re: The indignity of no work

#237

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 8:29 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #157

smsm42 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they provide housing and not pay workers to rent the same housing? Why part of the salary must be designated "housing allowance" instead of just calling it "salary" and let the worker decide to spend it on housing? Owning property outright might be hard to a lot of people, but there's an easy solution for it - renting. What you describe is functionally renting. The question is - why is it organized this partic…

Why do they do it? Because it allows the easier control of workers and a direct clawback of wages to the company, while being fairly quality-inelastic. To be honest, I have a hard time believing you're asking these questions in good faith. This is basic stuff.

Do you have some sources to back up these claims, specifically in Zambia?

Re: The indignity of no work

#238

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 8:32 AM UTC

VLM wrote: post #153

smsm42 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they provide housing and not pay workers to rent the same housing? Why part of the salary must be designated "housing allowance" instead of just calling it "salary" and let the worker decide to spend it on housing? Owning property outright might be hard to a lot of people, but there's an easy solution for it - renting. What you describe is functionally renting. The question is - why is it organized this partic…

Reduce labor mobility to reduce wages. There's usually a little classist attitude going on. Labor class 27 will only be allowed to live in labor 27 class apartments, etc. No selecting your own personal lifestyle balance allowed, after all we only hire perfect replaceable cogs so it won't be an issue anyway.

Allowed by whom? I.e. suppose I am labor 27 class employee, and I come to class 1 apartment and say "I will pay class 1 price, please rent it to me". Would I be rejected? What would be fueling this rejection? Who will be prohibiting me from selecting my own living arrangements? The parent post say housing allowance is common, who will be checking I spend my allowance on an apartment that matches my class and not instead rent a higher-class one?

Re: The indignity of no work

#239

Post by eli_gottlieb » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 9:10 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #200

allochthon wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your idea is an interesting one. It's a radical change, and I don't have a clear sense of the unintended consequences. This is entirely doable today, at a purely technical/administrative level. Perhaps. But from a political standpoint, it's utopian and most unlikely in the near term.

> Perhaps. But from a political standpoint, it's utopian and most unlikely in the near term. What's stopping us?

People excusing their lack of altruistic effort by calling any and all proposals for a better world "utopian" or "impossible".

Re: The indignity of no work

#240

Post by loup-vaillant » Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 9:18 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #233

toomuchtodo wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And these resources are not infinite, they are scarce. This is the crux right here. The government no longer providers you money as BI. It provides you with the right to housing (build up), the right to energy (one person can only use so many KwHs/day), the right to worldwide communications (I think we can all agree the price of moving bits is going to continue to fall), the right to food, and the right to transpor…

Yeah, in a fairy land where resources are non-scarce and are conjured by the government from nothing, it would work fairly well. I've been taught about this is the soviet school, where they explained me the communism is right around the corner and it would look exactly like that. In the real world, meanwhile, everything consumed has to be produced, and if you want power, cars, manufacturing and farming, somebody has…

You are working under a set of extremely strong assumptions, which happen to be true right now: (1) Humans have to do most menial tasks. (2) Most people will cling to all their possessions, never giving them away for free. (3) We don't have the resources to give everyone decent housing, transportation, energy, food, and communication.

(1) Automation is on its way, and will continue to eat jobs. It won't be possible to create as much jobs as technology is taking away. Take self driving cars for instance: soon there will be no bus driver, no truck driver, no taxi driver. Some of them will work in control centres and "supervise" 50 vehicles at once, but that still means many people who will need another job. People will have free time, whether they want it or not.

(2) This is a cultural problem. I guess much of it will go away once we solve (3)

(3) is less costly than it sounds. We just need to be rational about crop management (which is currently insane, thanks to globalization), the use of technology, urbanisation… It's a huge problem, but not an unsolvable one. We will need the political will to do it though, and that won't happen until western countries become democracies[1].

[1]: Current western countries are not run by the people. They are run by elected elites, which happen to represent the interests of the businesses —the only special interest that is not called such. Therefore, current western countries are not democracies. They're plutocracies. Now, I think this is most true in the US, and less true in some European countries.