Universal Basic Income

[oskar]

I realize that since we're defaulting to ad-hominem and every logical fallacy in the book on this forum it can be very confusing sometimes.

[wufwugy]

I'm not saying it's the greatest possible system, but I'd be surprised if it's worse than the current one.

That may be true. Lots of legit economists (like my fave Milton Friedman) have supported UBI in some sense at some point.


I do find myself, however, scratching my head at how it could help. Here's why: if somebody is not sufficiently mentally disabled, there are jobs he can do. This assumes low enough government intervention since things like the minimum wage make it so there are a lot of people who can't work. Anyways, what I'm getting at is along these lines: there are a lot of dishwashing jobs. Nobody likes doing them and nobody stays in those positions for long (except illegals, many of whom I used to wash dishes with). If you present yourself professionally along the lines that even 80 IQ people can easily figure out, you can get a dishwashing job. They're always open because people hate doing them because they stand there for 8 hours until 2 in the morning, AND people who do them who show a modicum of work ethic pretty quickly move up in the restaurant to a cooking position.

Let's say you're at the bottom but you're not disabled. You're homeless, you have zero income, you have no family and no friends, you wear rags and you stink. Can you get a job as a dishwasher? No and yes. Not like that you can't, but what you can do is go someplace and ask for help. Churches still do this, but they used to a lot more. Government has been crowding them out. Regardless, every lifestyle homeless person knows of places where they go where people relish at the opportunity to help them. If you're homeless and penniless and you need a shower and a shave and an outfit so you can put in some dishwashing applications, there are a lot of people who will help you do that. In fact, a lot of the people who already help with that stuff will likely already have contacts to get you working.

But most people at the bottom don't want to do that because the government provides them property to sleep on and live on, food to eat, amenities to entertain themselves with.

[CoccoBill]

That may be true. Lots of legit economists (like my fave Milton Friedman) have supported UBI in some sense at some point.


I do find myself, however, scratching my head at how it could help. Here's why:

I'm not sure how any of what you said after that was relevant. UBI should help, imo, in 2 major ways:

- Cutting down on bureaucracy. Running a system that interviews, monitors, processes, makes decisions etc for millions of people takes an obscene amount of work. If everyone just got a fixed sum every month, none of that would be needed.
- Incentivizing labor. Not familiar with the details of your system, but here up north a lot of people are much happier just collecting unemployment benefits, since if you can only get a shitty job, you won't be making much more than from the benefits, without working. Doing even part-time work will cut heavily into your received benefits, making finding a minimum wage job pointless. With a fixed income that's unaffected by your income and that covers some basic necessities but no luxuries, every bit of extra work would be extra in your pocket, as it should be.

These are the reasons we're trying this out: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...l-basic-income

[BananaStand]

I'm not sure how any of what you said after that was relevant. UBI should help, imo, in 2 major ways:

- Cutting down on bureaucracy. Running a system that interviews, monitors, processes, makes decisions etc for millions of people takes an obscene amount of work. If everyone just got a fixed sum every month, none of that would be needed.

I don't see any logical premise for this argument. How is creating a whole new entitlement program going to cut down on bureaucracy??

You can't give everyone the same fixed amount. Seniors, disabled people, unemployed people, people with children, all have different needs. They all have a different definition of what is "basic necessities". So now you need the government to interview, monitor, process, make decisions, etc for millions of people.

Sure, MAYBE, there would be some efficiency gains if this was all administrated by a single government agency. But you're also talking about adding hundreds of millions of people to the roster of benefit recipients.

- Incentivizing labor. Not familiar with the details of your system, but here up north a lot of people are much happier just collecting unemployment benefits, since if you can only get a shitty job, you won't be making much more than from the benefits, without working. Doing even part-time work will cut heavily into your received benefits, making finding a minimum wage job pointless. With a fixed income that's unaffected by your income and that covers some basic necessities but no luxuries, every bit of extra work would be extra in your pocket, as it should be.

But there's only a jillion other ways to incentivize labor. Also, it's hard not to point out the circular pitfall of your suggestion. Over time, markets will adjust prices for the effect of UBI. That means that "covering basic necessities" gets more expensive. Which means UBI needs to be increased. Which prompts the market to adjust prices. Which prompts UBI to be increased.....etc.

Furthermore, unemployed people here have to prove that they are looking for work. You can't get your check until you give the unemployment office a detailed account of your job-search efforts. They will check too. If you turn down a reasonable job offer, you can't get unemployment benefits.

Further-Furthermore, I'm not sure why that's even relevant as unemployment is not a government entitlement program. It's an insurance program paid for by employers via a pricing system where employers with the highest turnover pay the highest insurance rates.

[spoonitnow]

Furthermore, unemployed people here have to prove that they are looking for work. You can't get your check until you give the unemployment office a detailed account of your job-search efforts. They will check too. If you turn down a reasonable job offer, you can't get unemployment benefits.

For our foreign friends: I just want to point out that this is only for unemployment benefits, which is an insurance, not welfare. It's not true for welfare in many (most?) parts of the country.

Moreover, unemployment benefits stop after a set period of time (six months last I checked), and you have to have been employed previously for a minimum length of time to qualify. On top of that, it does not cover your full salary in virtually any cases.

[CoccoBill]

I don't see any logical premise for this argument. How is creating a whole new entitlement program going to cut down on bureaucracy??

It wouldn't be a whole new program in addition to the old ones, it would replace most if not all current ones. Which one takes more effort, processing the filings of millions of people, constantly adjusting brackets, monitoring people for abuse of the system, probably a whole bunch of other activities I can't right now think of, or, setting up an automated recurring payment? I would assume were talking about a difference of thousands of man-years of labor, with all the facilities, systems and overhead running the system of thousands of people entails.

You can't give everyone the same fixed amount. Seniors, disabled people, unemployed people, people with children, all have different needs. They all have a different definition of what is "basic necessities". So now you need the government to interview, monitor, process, make decisions, etc for millions of people.

Nope, the point is exactly that everyone gets the same amount. I suggest you read up on UBI. I'm sure there can/could be some exceptions, for example some criteria to receive higher payments, but that would defeat a lot of the purpose.

Sure, MAYBE, there would be some efficiency gains if this was all administrated by a single government agency. But you're also talking about adding hundreds of millions of people to the roster of benefit recipients.

Again, a recurring payment to all live citizens doesn't sound too complicated compared to any current form of social benefits.

But there's only a jillion other ways to incentivize labor. Also, it's hard not to point out the circular pitfall of your suggestion. Over time, markets will adjust prices for the effect of UBI. That means that "covering basic necessities" gets more expensive. Which means UBI needs to be increased. Which prompts the market to adjust prices. Which prompts UBI to be increased.....etc.

The question was how would UBI improve on status quo. What you describe is very much a part of status quo, not some new drawback of UBI.

Furthermore, unemployed people here have to prove that they are looking for work. You can't get your check until you give the unemployment office a detailed account of your job-search efforts. They will check too. If you turn down a reasonable job offer, you can't get unemployment benefits.

Further-Furthermore, I'm not sure why that's even relevant as unemployment is not a government entitlement program. It's an insurance program paid for by employers via a pricing system where employers with the highest turnover pay the highest insurance rates.

They have to prove they're looking for work here too. Sit down for a moment and think how much work is wasted generated nationwide to handle the data and make decisions based on it.

Unemployment benefits are government mandated and operated here, but the point is to also get rid of welfare, student benefits (yeah we have those too, as in government benefits for students) etc. A set amount is deducted from your salary for unemployment insurance and the government pools the money and pays out the benefits to those who get unemployed. You can have private unemployment insurance on top of that, and most people do.

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure how any of what you said after that was relevant.

I was examining the premise of UBI.

UBI should help, imo, in 2 major ways:

Those are the two main reasons why there is wide support, and they are very good points. There are issues, like how it needs to be low enough to incentivize work, that gives us reason to question the premise. This is because the lower it is the more it incentivizes work, yet the greater this effect, the less UBI is helping. Even if we were to decide to adopt UBI, we still have to do economic analysis to set the price. An unintended consequence of doing the economics is that even if UBI is better than current welfare setup, it might be worse than no welfare altogether.

[oskar]

That's a trade-off. Low crime, and low recidivism rates are due to a lack of income inequality. Crime is a side effect of income inequality. If your argument is that wealth redistribution will reduce crime, fine, you'll get no argument from me. But I would argue that redistribution destroys the incentive to innovate and take risks. It diminishes the returns for excellence, therefore diminishing the drive toward excellence. It's no coincidence that 40+ of the top 50 hospitals in the world are in America. Who the fuck wants to become a Doctor in Norway if it means essentially living the same lifestyle as an insurance agent? So I would ask you, is that a fair trade-off for having less street crime?

idk, ask the doctors in norway. They seem to be doing fine. There are lots of studies about monetary incentives and productivity. General conclusion: not that important past a certain point. I don't think I'm just speaking for myself when I say: I'd much rather work in my field for minimum wage than as a cashier for twice my wage.

Also, you're forgetting the main reason for the prison system. It's not punishment nor is it rehabilitation. It's a deterrent.

So how's that working out for you guys? And no I did not forget that, it is immaterial to the point I was making.

I actually live in a state that collects 0 income or sales tax. Schools are still open. Roads and bridges are functional.

That's great. That's how it should be imo.

[BananaStand]

idk, ask the doctors in norway. They seem to be doing fine.

A specialist in Norway makes $77K. In America, that same doctor makes $230K. If you got cancer tomorrow, to which country would you go for medical care?
https://journal.practicelink.com/vit...ion-worldwide/

There are lots of studies about monetary incentives and productivity. General conclusion: not that important past a certain point.

Bogus. These studies evaluate financial incentives for people working in their existing jobs. A better question would be to evaluate incentives that drive initial career decisions. In other words, why does a 22 year old want to go to medical school and be a doctor? What makes a person decide to be a lawyer, or accountant, or plumber?

According to my own non-scientific, but completely accurate and reliable study, a major driving force in career decision making is long-term financial security.

I don't think I'm just speaking for myself when I say: I'd much rather work in my field for minimum wage than as a cashier for twice my wage.

you are certainly not speaking for the majority.

So how's that working out for you guys?

Fine.

That's great. That's how it should be imo.

So why do we need UBI?

[OngBonga]

I agree with oskar in that the best solution is whatever makes most economical sense. The problem is, and I say this with experience, is that a large percentage of the unemployed, well it doesn't make economical sense to employ them, because they cost the employer more in wages than their value. These people should be given the bare minimum to survive. Giving them a phone or money for beers so they can "network" is just nonsense. The people on benefits of net economic benefit to a prospective employer, they already have phones, they're already capable of networking, they'll find a job sooner or later with the minimum of government assistance. Fuck's sake, even I got myself sorted out eventually. Was it smoking weed and chilling with my mates that got me a job? No, it was the incentive to get out of my shitty town and into the countryside.

[wufwugy]

The problem is, and I say this with experience, is that a large percentage of the unemployed, well it doesn't make economical sense to employ them, because they cost the employer more in wages than their value.

Excellent point.

The optimal way to develop wage-earning skills is through entry-level training and all the subsequent on-the-job training. So, we should want to be in a place where entry-level trainee employment is dirt cheap. This would mean low to no minimum wage, not overschooling, the lower the regulations the better, and lots of other stuff.

In my estimation, the best thing we could do is make it so the concept of internship is the standard for entry-level.

[BananaStand]

In my estimation, the best thing we could do is make it so the concept of internship is the standard for entry-level.

Ahem.....

are you familiar with something called "The Emancipation Proclamation"?

[wufwugy]

Ahem.....

are you familiar with something called "The Emancipation Proclamation"?

What's your point?

[BananaStand]

What's your point?

The law barely allows unpaid internships now. Most challenges to unpaid internships have been successful, either in court or through settlement.

Charlie Rose forked over a quarter million.

My point is that internships are very close to extinction, and that is likely irreversible at this point.

[oskar]

Well for one the three problems you listed would be gone by default. That's a semantic point, but a semantic point is a point nonetheless as spoon has taught me. The one major thing a negative tax type system improves is the perceived cost of getting work when you're on welfare. Let's say you get 50 schmeckles a month for nothing. You could get a 40h job that pays 70 schmeckles but you would be effectively working for 20 extra schmeckles. A negative tax system alleviates that.

fwiw this is waaaaaaaaaaaaay down my priorities list. I don't read up about this, I don't think about it, but this is the least retarded thread on this forum atm and I'm trying to figure out if it's worth checking in still.
More interesting than this whole thing is why you guys get so worked up about this. Even if it's unjust. You are not getting close to having any sort of influence on how this works. This is 100% out of your control, so there's no reason to be upset about it. This is like getting upset about the sun setting at night.

[BananaStand]

Well for one the three problems you listed would be gone by default.

How??

Food stamps are issued in an exclusive currency as a measure to prevent abuse. It prevents them from being spent on jewelry, video games, and drugs.

That will be "gone by default" if you issue benefits in the form of cash instead?? Wut??

How is this merely a semantic point?

[oskar]

How??

Food stamps are issued in an exclusive currency as a measure to prevent abuse. It prevents them from being spent on jewelry, video games, and drugs.

That will be "gone by default" if you issue benefits in the form of cash instead?? Wut??

How is this merely a semantic point?

I even said it was a semantic point. If you get the money no-strings-attatched, it's not fraud waste or abuse to do with it whatever you want. I told you I was making an intellectually dishonest statement for the lolz and you're still getting worked up over it. Check your blood pressure, man.

[BananaStand]

I even said it was a semantic point. If you get the money no-strings-attatched, it's not fraud waste or abuse to do with it whatever you want.

Well...if we're gonna be THAT semantic, I would take issue with your use of the word "gone". That word means something different than "Re-branded"

[BananaStand]

Even if it's unjust. You are not getting close to having any sort of influence on how this works. This is 100% out of your control, so there's no reason to be upset about it. This is like getting upset about the sun setting at night.

I highly recommend you move out of whatever progressive shithole that you live in now and get yourself some democracy.

[oskar]

I highly recommend you move out of whatever progressive shithole that you live in now and get yourself some democracy.

non-sequitur lol

[MadMojoMonkey]

More interesting than this whole thing is why you guys get so worked up about this. Even if it's unjust. You are not getting close to having any sort of influence on how this works. This is 100% out of your control, so there's no reason to be upset about it. This is like getting upset about the sun setting at night.

This captures my sentiments so well.

I think the answer is pretty simple. Most people can't tell the difference between who they are and what they believe, and are offended at the notion that they could be considered separately.

[BananaStand]

You're dead wrong when you say this is 100% out of our control. If you truly believe you're powerless to stop the advancing power of the nanny-state, then I truly feel sorry for any self-motivated person who is unfortunate enough to live in whatever progressive shithole you hail from.

Welfare has existed for decades, but it wasn't until the 1990s that people were required to work in order to receive any benefits. THat change came about through the democratic process, not by a bunch of people sitting around saying "we have no power over this, so let's just hope for the best".

If spoon were here he would say "COLONIZED" to you both.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That's not really the point, nanners. The point is that this is FTR, not a meeting of legislators.
Nothing that is posted on FTR is going to affect any politician or political movement or agenda.

If your goal is to enact change on any of these topics, you're in the wrong place.

[BananaStand]

That's not really the point, nanners. The point is that this is FTR, not a meeting of legislators.
Nothing that is posted on FTR is going to affect any politician or political movement or agenda.

If your goal is to enact change on any of these topics, you're in the wrong place.

It sounds like your issue is with the person who suggested we discuss Universal Basic Income in the first place. Either that or your issue is with yourself for choosing to read this thread.

This is like walking up to kids playing football in a park and saying "you guys should all give up and go home because this isn't the super bowl"

Maybe just keep walking and mind your own business then??

[MadMojoMonkey]

It sounds like your issue is with the person who suggested we discuss Universal Basic Income in the first place. Either that or your issue is with yourself for choosing to read this thread.

Reread what I wrote, but strip away the emotional detritus that you added and take it at face value, rather than assuming that I'm somehow making some greater statement than exactly what I wrote.

To wit:
I'm not suggesting that having the discussion is moot, I'm suggesting that the heated emotions are puerile.
There's literally nothing on the line, here. This is not where the decisions are made.

[BananaStand]

Moving away from this de-rail...

I'll repeat my on-topic question from more than a dozen posts ago...

What currently existing "problem" does UBI solve?

[wufwugy]

Politics is downwind from culture. If you wanna help your society, help yourself and those around you.

[wufwugy]

I know a guy who might actually be mentally retarded. He was definitely in special classes all through school. I was always nice to him in elementary school and he always remembered that and has always considered me a good friend and has always contacted me from time to time. I guess it shows that I'm not as nice as he thinks I am because I don't like him, but he's disabled enough that he can't even tell.

Anyways, I tell you that to tell you this, he has a wife and kids and works as the lowest guy in a concrete pouring crew. He likes it because he's an optimist who believes in being a good person and believes in working. If he can support a family by working, virtually anybody who is not severely disabled can too.

[OngBonga]

If he can support a family by working, virtually anybody who is not severely disabled can too.

Did he wear a hat?

[MadMojoMonkey]

How bad is the news?

It strikes me that all an employer has to do is actually document the cost to train the individual, and use that number to prove how much more than their worth the intern received.
If the intern could make $10/hr and the cost to train them is $12/hr, then all the employer needs to do is to show that the intern has been paid 20% above their wage for the training period.

I.e. if the intern wants to get paid $10/hr for their internship, then they need to pay the $12/hr cost for that training, just like any college student has to pay tuition to receive their career training.
Obv the net upshoot is that the intern has to pay $2/hr for their training, but in a perfectly above-board, capitalism friendly way.


Where does that fail?

[wufwugy]

How bad is the news?

It strikes me that all an employer has to do is actually document the cost to train the individual, and use that number to prove how much more than their worth the intern received.
If the intern could make $10/hr and the cost to train them is $12/hr, then all the employer needs to do is to show that the intern has been paid 20% above their wage for the training period.

I.e. if the intern wants to get paid $10/hr for their internship, then they need to pay the $12/hr cost for that training, just like any college student has to pay tuition to receive their career training.
Obv the net upshoot is that the intern has to pay $2/hr for their training, but in a perfectly above-board, capitalism friendly way.


Where does that fail?

It sounds like you're saying that some interns might be better off if they paid for the position. I like that thinking, and it could apply in some fields.


There are very big costs and risks associated to employers with new employees, particularly inexperienced positions. The less an employer has to pay them by law, the more hiring risk they can take. Most entry-level inexperienced potential workers get the most benefit simply by getting in the door -- where they can then learn and prove themselves.

So, I think I agree with what you said, if I'm reading it correctly.

[BananaStand]

Where does that fail?

Well, presumably, the more difficult/advanced a job is, the greater the training cost. So in that regard, heart surgeons and NASA engineers would gain the greatest benefit by working for free.

The main legal challenge to unpaid internship is that they supplant paying, taxpaying, jobs.

[wufwugy]

Well, presumably, the more difficult/advanced a job is, the greater the training cost. So in that regard, heart surgeons and NASA engineers would gain the greatest benefit by working for free.

They would?

Those are examples where the entry level would naturally be well paid.

The main legal challenge to unpaid internship is that they supplant paying, taxpaying, jobs.

Well, they don't, but yes the belief is that they do. Most voluntary markets are competitive enough, it may be that all are. In these markets, unpaid internships would not replace paying jobs.

[wufwugy]

Most voluntary markets are competitive enough, it may be that all are. In these markets, unpaid internships would not replace paying jobs.

Here's a way of looking at it.

You're job searching. You get turned down from an entry-level position you applied because your qualifications are close but not quite what the firm wants. Well, some of these qualifications the firm wants are because the firm has to pay a certain amount. If they could pay less, some of those qualifications would go away. And then you, or some others, would get interviews/jobs that literally would not have existed otherwise. Then, after a month or two of you proving yourself, your pay would raise to the level that the "higher qualifications" hiring was going to pay.

[spoonitnow]

Here's a way of looking at it.

You're job searching. You get turned down from an entry-level position you applied because your qualifications are close but not quite what the firm wants. Well, some of these qualifications the firm wants are because the firm has to pay a certain amount. If they could pay less, some of those qualifications would go away. And then you, or some others, would get interviews/jobs that literally would not have existed otherwise. Then, after a month or two of you proving yourself, your pay would raise to the level that the "higher qualifications" hiring was going to pay.

This is one of my favorite arguments against minimum wage because of how much it hurts people in the long run instead of just in the short run.

[BananaStand]

They would?

Those are examples where the entry level would naturally be well paid.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought MMM's point was that the intern is receiving $12/hour in training value and is working for free. heart surgery training costs a lot more than $12/hour. So, a volunteer heart surgeon is very well compensated. That seems silly to me.

Where MMM's logic fails is that he assumes a paid employee does not need to be trained. If training the employee costs $12/hour, then it costs $12/hour. If you also have to pay the employee $10, then the function of that job actually costs you $22.

The logic fails further when you realize that "training" is irrelevant. We're talking about unskilled labor, which means something that can be taught in less than 3 days. What internships provide is "experience", which is different, and cannot be quantified as a cost to the employer.

Well, they don't, but yes the belief is that they do. Most voluntary markets are competitive enough, it may be that all are. In these markets, unpaid internships would not replace paying jobs.

Internships are only legal if the employer gets "no immediate advantage" by employing the intern. That's some loose language that can equate any unpaid position to slavery. of course free labor is an advantage!!

I think what it specifically refers to is a competitive advantage. In other words, if Firm A can sell it's products cheaper than Firm B because Firm A employs unpaid interns, and Firm B pays it's employees, then the unpaid positions at Firm A are illegal.

the other successful challenge to unpaid internships is that they are unfair to poor people. In order to benefit from an unpaid internship, you have to be able to afford to work for free.

[wufwugy]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought MMM's point was that the intern is receiving $12/hour in training value and is working for free. heart surgery training costs a lot more than $12/hour. So, a volunteer heart surgeon is very well compensated. That seems silly to me.

Where MMM's logic fails is that he assumes a paid employee does not need to be trained. If training the employee costs $12/hour, then it costs $12/hour. If you also have to pay the employee $10, then the function of that job actually costs you $22.

We'll have to wait for him to clarify. I thought he envisioned a scenario where an employee could pay the employer for the position since the employee would be gaining more than the employer would. It's a neat idea and could maybe work in some very unique ways, but it wouldn't be widespread.

The logic fails further when you realize that "training" is irrelevant. We're talking about unskilled labor, which means something that can be taught in less than 3 days. What internships provide is "experience", which is different, and cannot be quantified as a cost to the employer.

No labor is truly unskilled. Knowing how to speak English is a very big labor skill, for example.

There are a lot more costs to employers of new employees than just the initial training. It takes a while to find the real cost and real benefit of the employee.

I think what it specifically refers to is a competitive advantage. In other words, if Firm A can sell it's products cheaper than Firm B because Firm A employs unpaid interns, and Firm B pays it's employees, then the unpaid positions at Firm A are illegal.

the other successful challenge to unpaid internships is that they are unfair to poor people. In order to benefit from an unpaid internship, you have to be able to afford to work for free.

I get that these have been successful legal challenges. They get the economics wrong.

People who can work for pay won't work for no pay. People who can't work for pay but still want to work tend to be poor and are those who benefit the most from being able to work briefly for no pay.

[wufwugy]

Even in a market where employers can pay whatever they want, most entry-level work would be paid. It's on certain margins in certain types of industries that could gravitate more towards very low entry-level pay.

[wufwugy]

There are many jobs that employers don't even list because they would have to pay too much for the job to be worth it, yet those are potential jobs that can benefit the employer and the employee greatly. Examples are small business administrative work. Oftentimes they have just one administrator who often could use help. To hire help, the owner has to pay $10/hr. But the help might not be worth that. The help might leave after a few months, might make too many mistakes, and ultimately might cost more than $10/hr. But at $4/hr, the job could be offered at low enough risk to the employer. And the person who gets the job gains valuable experience. Some go from that sort of pay to 50k+/yr within a couple years.

This process doesn't even get off the ground floor if the employer isn't allowed to offer a job at a low enough wage to make it worth his while. And then we're left with most entry-level listings not even being entry-level in the first place.

[BananaStand]

There are many jobs that employers don't even list because they would have to pay too much for the job to be worth it, yet those are potential jobs that can benefit the employer and the employee greatly. Examples are small business administrative work. Oftentimes they have just one administrator who often could use help. To hire help, the owner has to pay $10/hr. But the help might not be worth that. The help might leave after a few months, might make too many mistakes, and ultimately might cost more than $10/hr. But at $4/hr, the job could be offered at low enough risk to the employer. And the person who gets the job gains valuable experience. Some go from that sort of pay to 50k+/yr within a couple years.

This process doesn't even get off the ground floor if the employer isn't allowed to offer a job at a low enough wage to make it worth his while. And then we're left with most entry-level listings not even being entry-level in the first place.

What should happen here, is that the current administrator gets more efficient, through experience and innovation, to command an extra $4/hour.

Remember, businesses aren't in business to educate an entry-level workforce. In my scenario, the cost is the same but the firm also gains by acquiring more efficient processes in its operation. And if they can negotiate with the administrator and pay something less than $4/hour, then profits are enhanced.

[wufwugy]

What should happen here, is that the current administrator gets more efficient, through experience and innovation, to command an extra $4/hour.

That is true and happens to a degree, though it has limits. As scale increases, more help is needed. This is why one of my friends is one of five accountants at his firm instead of just one of one accountants at his firm.

Remember, businesses aren't in business to educate an entry-level workforce.

Why is that? I know of a lot of reasons why we have been gravitating away from that. Yet, the concept is still very valuable.

I believe things would operate much more productively if we moved back towards the norm that there should be more of a role in firm-designated training and apprenticeships. We already have a lot of this in indirect ways; an example is in how employers will often pay for employees to go to college. This tells us that firms do consider themselves playing the role of educating the workforce. It's just that the current standards for how to do it are not that efficient.

[BananaStand]

That is true and happens to a degree, though it has limits. As scale increases, more help is needed. This is why one of my friends is one of five accountants at his firm instead of just one of one accountants at his firm.

That's different.

In the administrator example, the admin is providing a service that the employer is willing to pay $10/hour for. If the "scale" of that job increases, meaning the volume of work, then the additional work is also worth $10 per hour. Paying someone $4 just because they are willing to, is an exploitation.

What interns do changes the "scope" of the administrators job. The Intern can assume tasks that do not require the administrator's skill, but are still the administrator's responsibility. The lower skill requirement is what justifies the lower, or non-existent, wage.

So going back to my original point. Innovation and efficiency on the part of the administrator eliminates the need for the intern. Either by eliminating those extraneous tasks, or by the administrator simply having more time to do them. Scale would not affect this. Scale would affect the need for more administrators.

[wufwugy]

That's different.

In the administrator example, the admin is providing a service that the employer is willing to pay $10/hour for. If the "scale" of that job increases, meaning the volume of work, then the additional work is also worth $10 per hour. Paying someone $4 just because they are willing to, is an exploitation.

What interns do changes the "scope" of the administrators job. The Intern can assume tasks that do not require the administrator's skill, but are still the administrator's responsibility. The lower skill requirement is what justifies the lower, or non-existent, wage.

So going back to my original point. Innovation and efficiency on the part of the administrator eliminates the need for the intern. Either by eliminating those extraneous tasks, or by the administrator simply having more time to do them. Scale would not affect this. Scale would affect the need for more administrators.

This is true and is what I am discussing. The risk and cost of hiring new administrators is such that as the price of their labor declines, the quantity demanded of their labor inclines. So, an employer can more efficiently bring in new administrators if he was legally able to set the price lower, and lower skilled applicants are able to get work they otherwise wouldn't if they are legally allowed to accept that lower price.

[forkitnow]

A universal basic income is a necessary first step in the march towards the end goal of full-on communism. When it happens, and it will happen, it will mark the point of no return for these capitalist bootlickers and their oppressive overlords.

Here's how it will unfold:

1. First, we will get an initial universal basic income at whatever low level.
2. Next, the politicians who win will be the ones who promise the biggest increases to the universal basic income.
3. Step 2 will continue to greater and greater levels until wealth is fully redistributed to the oppressed.

There is no other path, and there's absolutely nothing you capitalist apologists can do about it. The process is already too far along to be stopped by Drumpf or any of his cronies.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I didn't have a point, I had a question.

I proposed that simple bookkeeping is all that's needed to justify if a position in profitable for the company, and why not let a potential employee offer to make it profitable to the company to receive training?

I'm not suggesting that all training is equal, or will require equal resources from an employer.

I tend to think wuf is right that plenty of jobs would pay much less during training, but not actually need to charge the employee for the training, as the net benefit of having a semi-competent person on the staff is greater than the loss of equity by their trainer.

[wufwugy]

I didn't have a point, I had a question.

I proposed that simple bookkeeping is all that's needed to justify if a position in profitable for the company, and why not let a potential employee offer to make it profitable to the company to receive training?

I'm not suggesting that all training is equal, or will require equal resources from an employer.

I tend to think wuf is right that plenty of jobs would pay much less during training, but not actually need to charge the employee for the training, as the net benefit of having a semi-competent person on the staff is greater than the loss of equity by their trainer.

One thing I really like about the idea of a trainee paying an employer is that it would likely be super efficient at placing workers in the right jobs. If somebody is willing to pay a small amount to do a job in order to prove he is worth paying more, he is much more likely to be a great fit for that job than somebody who is not willing. As a potential wage increases, the cost to the applicant to misrepresent his skills and misallocate his resources decreases. This cost in part falls on the employer, since he has to wade through a lower efficiency system of applications.

[wufwugy]

The trainee getting very low wage or even paying a small fee idea really only applies to true entry-level work. It's not like that would be the norm for all work. It is unlikely a coincidence that most entry-level work listings aren't actually entry-level. When you have minimum wages, education subsidies, and the smorgasbord of "employee protections" (they're not protections), it's not a coincidence when employers have little choice but to not even hire for true entry-level, and instead have "entry-level" listings that have non-entry-level qualifications.

[OngBonga]

This commie guy could be spoon. Perfect grammar.

[OngBonga]

A big part of that is that they believe you cannot make a decision to no longer be oppressed.

Indeed, and the fact that I "did" proves that actually I wasn't oppressed in the first place.

The more oppressed you are, the bigger the victim you are and the better you are as a person, etc.

This victimhood is the main reason I took a sharp turn away from the left. Everyone's a fucking victim one way or another, the left's obsession with it is a shameless attempt to tap into people's insecurities and good nature.

Something like 15 years ago, when I first started getting into politics, the left was largely made of of nice, naive people who wanted to do things like travel, learn new languages, volunteer for the local homeless charity, that sort of stuff. But now it seems like they have become utterly consumed by hatred for anyone who doesn't fit into their naive view of "nice". Suddenly, calling someone a faggot made you a hater, like it's somehow worse than calling someone a cunt.

It's funny. Poker has helped me move away from the left, too. In my younger days, there was a naive part of me that thought the world could be fair for everyone. Then poker made me realise in the simplest way imaginable how that isn't possible. My gain is someone else's loss, and it's either because I'm better, or I got lucky. Suck a dick. Suddenly, all those times I felt shafted, all those times I felt "that's not fucking fair", I accepted it because life isn't fair and it never fucking will be. Make the most of what you've got and what you can get, fuck everyone else.

That's why I shifted to the right. Because I come to terms with the fact that "fuck everyone else" is an instinct that should be nurtured, not supressed. It's what drives humans, and it's what will continue to drive us into the very distant future. Accept it or be a victim, your choice.

[spoonitnow]

I've talked about this before in other threads, but I had a somewhat related point in my life when I stopped trying to force myself to believe that everyone was equal, and it helped me to stop being miserable.

[OngBonga]

I never really was miserable, not until recently anyway but that's another matter. I guess the fact I was always satisfied with my life means I never really was truly left wing, I mean these people are all about being unsatisfied.

The thing is, I've always resented the super rich. That feels pretty left wing. But why do I resent them? Because I'm not super rich. I'm not one of them. It's because I'm selfish, not because I'm a nice guy. It took me a long time to realise and accept this.

The left aren't so nice. They just want to appear nice so they can manipulate others from their moral high ground. But deep down they're just the same as the rest of us... humans driven by the "me first" instinct.

[BananaStand]

I used to have some lefty tendencies. I lived on campus during college. My first job was for a real stingy, selfish, "let them eat cake" type of rich ass hole. My family has voted Democrat forever. I just sort of bought into the ideology that says rich people are cold, uncaring, and selfish. I wouldn't say I had any kind of epiphany that changed that thinking. I just spent some time in the real world and got clued in.

Though I will say one of the things that really drove me to the right was all the Bush-Bashing that went on during the mid 2000's.

After 9/11, celebrities somehow got empowered to start commenting on world affairs. And it just became "cool" to shit on Bush. Maybe it happened before then, and I'm just not old enough to remember. But for me, that seems like the turning point where the media stopped having a liberal slant, and went full-blown leftist mouthpiece.

I listened to the incessant narrative of "Bush is a war-monger" and thought "what if I don't agree?".

[wufwugy]

I just spent some time in the real world and got clued in.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is perhaps the most significant difference between the left and the right (on the spectrum of the left being authoritarian/social justice vs. the right being libertarian/classical liberal/conservative).

Per usual, skin in the game.

[CoccoBill]

Per usual, skin in the game.

Do you mean that by having skin in the game people tend towards ideologies/policies that they perceive to benefit themselves?

[wufwugy]

Do you mean that by having skin in the game people tend towards ideologies/policies that they perceive to benefit themselves?

I hope we can discard the fiction that the left cares about people and the right cares about themselves. The opposite is closer to the truth.

[spoonitnow]

I hope we can discard the fiction that the left cares about people and the right cares about themselves. The opposite is closer to the truth.

Bingo.

I know. You taught me that.

You should really consider learning when to say "no homo."

[CoccoBill]

I hope we can discard the fiction that the left cares about people and the right cares about themselves. The opposite is closer to the truth.

What do you mean by it then? And how is the opposite more true? Leftist views here are most prominent among educated high income people in cities. Right-wing and centrist views are most prominent in rural areas among poorly educated working class. Is it different in the US?

[spoonitnow]

I guess I should be more specific about what I mean regarding being miserable. I would get very frustrated with people because they would act in ways that were obviously stupid to act while other people wouldn't, and when I stopped holding onto the idea that everyone was equal in my early 20s (maybe late teens?), all of that frustration stopped.

[OngBonga]

I see. I guess I'm lucky then because other peoples' failings have never really bothered me. Probably because I set such low standards for myself.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Obv. people are different.

Obv. people are prone to treating other people with a different sense of fairness on a case by case basis.

The difficulty with justice is that expecting people to remain impartial when it comes to deciding what is fair is a pipe dream.

The closest thing to fair (which is not fair, but closer than other experiments) is to demand that under the law, people are not different.

[wufwugy]

Ongie has upgraded from townie (bummer) to hillbilly.

[OngBonga]

Ongie has upgraded from townie (bummer) to hillbilly.

Bummer in this country is a homo, based on the fact "bum" is the family-friendly word for arse.

Hillbilly? Country folk here are probably the closest you'll get to hillbillies, but out here the farmers are intelligent and hard working, rather than sitting on a lawn chair chewing grass while talking about extreme weather.

[wufwugy]

Bummer in this country is a homo

I know. You taught me that.

Like I said, townies = bummers

[Savy]

Nah they are inbred weirdos too just very rich as they own so much land so can afford good education

[wufwugy]

no homo = secret homo

[spoonitnow]

What do you mean by it then? And how is the opposite more true? Leftist views here are most prominent among educated high income people in cities. Right-wing and centrist views are most prominent in rural areas among poorly educated working class. Is it different in the US?

What he means is that he hopes we can discard the fiction that the left cares about people and the right cares about themselves and that the opposite is closer to the truth.

What you just said about urban/rural areas, education level and income level are all irrelevant to his point, and a lot of people don't quite understand that.

[CoccoBill]

What he means is that he hopes we can discard the fiction that the left cares about people and the right cares about themselves and that the opposite is closer to the truth.

What you just said about urban/rural areas, education level and income level are all irrelevant to his point, and a lot of people don't quite understand that.

Well the only ones that have even mentioned that have been you two, and the meaning of "skin in the game" is still not any clearer to me. Some passer-by in this discussion might think it hit a nerve though with all this sudden defensiveness.

[BananaStand]

the meaning of "skin in the game" is still not any clearer to me.

MAGA Thread....post #1283

[CoccoBill]

MAGA Thread....post #1283

Thanks, read it. Have to say it made it less clear what wuf meant by his remark to banana's post, but oh well whatever.

BTW in the Taleb article those are definitely not 2 consecutive pages.

My bad.

No worries.

[wufwugy]

Thanks, read it. Have to say it made it less clear what wuf meant by his remark to banana's post, but oh well whatever.

BTW in the Taleb article those are definitely not 2 consecutive pages.

Sorry about those links. Here's the one I read (definitely two consecutive pages). Taleb posted an updated version, which I just skimmed, assuming it was more clear/better. But apparently it has that issue.

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/959903625945518080

[wufwugy]

Thanks, read it. Have to say it made it less clear what wuf meant by his remark to banana's post, but oh well whatever.

SITG is when you bear the rewards and consequences of your actions. When BananaStand said that he spent some time in the real world and got clued in, it is common story that people in the US frequently go through. For example, it is very common among people who have no SITG to think that people who work hard and make a lot of money are screwing people over, yet this view nearly vanishes when those same people develop SITG by working hard and making a lot of money. The transition is because they went from not bearing the ramifications of their ideas/actions to bearing them.

[spoonitnow]

Well the only ones that have even mentioned that have been you two, and the meaning of "skin in the game" is still not any clearer to me. Some passer-by in this discussion might think it hit a nerve though with all this sudden defensiveness.

My bad. I have too many tabs open and thought I was responding to someone else when I quoted your previous post and acted like a dick.

[wufwugy]

Altruism works as a description of what some behavior looks like. However, if we want to go deep, we see that altruism bases in self-interest.

[CoccoBill]

Altruism works as a description of what some behavior looks like. However, if we want to go deep, we see that altruism bases in self-interest.

I think the jury is still out on that but I tend to agree, pure altruism is at the very least quit rare. Still, I think self-interest masked as altruism is better than pure self-interest, it's at least co-operative and mutually beneficial.

[wufwugy]

Essentially what I said boils down to this: when evaluating SITG, it is necessary to identify which game.

If the game is the idea that the world would be better if taxes were 90% and that idea is held by somebody who doesn't pay taxes, he does not have skin in that game. He could, however, have SITG that emerges from that belief, like when he hangs out with his stupid friends and they talk about their stupid ideas; he might have skin in that game of talking about stupid ideas with his stupid friends.