Wages and Poverty

[Kfox]

What bandwagon?

Free money without having to work.

 

[Friend of Mara]

I think what you call poverty jobs, I call “starter jobs”. Most good jobs require some type of experience or they won’t hire you, but starter jobs (poverty jobs) usually don’t require experience, they will hire you and teach you to do the job. They are starter jobs because a person with no experience can get a starter job, get skills then take those skills to a higher paying job that requires experience, and you can get a job you never would have been able to get had it not been for the starter job

The problem with that is jobs don't simply move you up. It has worked like that in many industries before but not always. And currently there is very little. And that doesn't solve the initial query. Is it safe to say you chose option 3?

 

[Revoltingest]

Free money without having to work.

A "basic" income would allow survival.
Would you want to merely subsist on some low level?
I wouldn't.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Free money without having to work.

Why is it every study on it shows little to now loss of jobs? And the ones that did have job losses were usually mothers with a spouse and students?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

As the economy exists there are jobs that only pay poverty wages. Therefore poverty exists even within the working class. This seems a totally separate issue from disabled people, homeless/jobless people. I am so far only able to come up with three possible conclusions. Not answers but just conclusions about the current state of affairs.

So I like to sometimes, maybe oftentimes, watch youtube channels that interview Homeless people on the one hand, and on the other, ones feature very rich, smart people. I will go through and watch people on Joe Rogan or people on the Elon Musk level. Just as well, the homeless almost always have something that is at least interesting to say, about general life. I say this to illustrate the fact that absolutely no one has less free speech than the actual working poor, who struggle to stay housed, as they represent a sort of third tier.

You will not find a youtube channel that goes through and interviews people at the bottom 'working but housed' rung, though it be above those that are homeless, and below those who are rich. This is because they don't want to get canned, and they have no power to can others. Nor are they already canned. It would be interesting, and I wish there could be a channel that interviewed all of the working poor, so that we could get their take

 

[Kfox]

A "basic" income would allow survival.
Would you want to merely subsist on some low level?
I wouldn't.

I'm okay with welfare for those who need it, but not for those who don't.

 

[Kfox]

The problem with that is jobs don't simply move you up. It has worked like that in many industries before but not always.

What prevents you from moving up when you learn new and better skills?

And currently there is very little. And that doesn't solve the initial query. Is it safe to say you chose option 3?

I disagree with all of your options.

Why is it every study on it shows little to now loss of jobs? And the ones that did have job losses were usually mothers with a spouse and students?

I work and pay taxes which is used to support the poor (among other things) if I could live as I do without working, just have the same money given to me every week, I would quit working and quit paying taxes; which would be less money for the poor. Multiply that times 300 million; who is going to pay for the basic income?

 

[Friend of Mara]

What prevents you from moving up when you learn new and better skills?

I disagree with all of your options.

The question wasn't about a person has to be in poverty. But a specific sect of workers have to be by design. And your answer was yes.

Do all of these poverty jobs need to be filled? And the ones working there deserve to be in poverty while they work there?

Did I miss something?

I work and pay taxes which is used to support the poor (among other things) if I could live as I do without working, just have the same money given to me every week, I would quit working and quit paying taxes; which would be less money for the poor. Multiply that times 300 million; who is going to pay for the basic income?

UBI would be the same but if you worked a job you also get that money. It isn't a flat paycheck for everyone and you don't make any more money. If you were given 1k a month you would quit your job?

 

[Kfox]

The question wasn't about a person has to be in poverty. But a specific sect of workers have to be by design. And your answer was yes.

No; the question was what prevents someone from moving up to a better job once they’ve learned skills from their starter job.

Do all of these poverty jobs need to be filled? And the ones working there deserve to be in poverty while they work there?

Did I miss something?

How are you defining poverty? I used to work 2 minimum wage jobs just to pay rent and put food on my table. I took the bus or walked everywhere because I couldn’t afford a car, I bought used clothes because I couldn’t afford new. I could not afford a family so I didn't start one; I lived by myself. Was I in poverty?

UBI would be the same but if you worked a job you also get that money. It isn't a flat paycheck for everyone and you don't make any more money. If you were given 1k a month you would quit your job?

I don’t need 1K per month. Why not take my 1K per month and add it to someone who really needs it (welfare) so they will have 2k per month?

 

[Friend of Mara]

No; the question was what prevents someone from moving up to a better job once they’ve learned skills from their starter job.

As I am the OP of the thread I can say with strong degree of certainty that is exactly what I was asking.

How are you defining poverty? I used to work 2 minimum wage jobs just to pay rent and put food on my table. I took the bus or walked everywhere because I couldn’t afford a car, I bought used clothes because I couldn’t afford new. I could not afford a family so I didn't start one; I lived by myself. Was I in poverty?

I'm not going to obfuscate the discussion over semantics. If this is somehow important to your point spell it out and I can respond to that.

I don’t need 1K per month. Why not take my 1K per month and add it to someone who really needs it (welfare) so they will have 2k per month?

There is a longer answer. Shorter answer is that welfare and UBI are not the same thing and does not serve the same function. One of the most important factors is that everyone gets it equally. No one is above getting it and no one below isn't earning it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think what you call poverty jobs, I call “starter jobs”. Most good jobs require some type of experience or they won’t hire you, but starter jobs (poverty jobs) usually don’t require experience, they will hire you and teach you to do the job. They are starter jobs because a person with no experience can get a starter job, get skills then take those skills to a higher paying job that requires experience, and you can get a job you never would have been able to get had it not been for the starter job

That's most jobs. Literally, a bunch of our jobs you can train a monkey to do. The only difference between fast food and a factory is fast food is regarded as a "starter job" and pays less despite it being high stess, high risk, and involving oceans of rude customers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do all of these poverty jobs need to be filled? And the ones working there deserve to be in poverty while they work there?

Lots of "pink collar" jobs are like that. They do require skills, training, schooling, they are very necessary, but they pay very little. I myself was a white collar professional and still in poverty and felt awkward as hell applying for low income medical assistance when I told them what my profession was.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

That's most jobs. Literally, a bunch of our jobs you can train a monkey to do. The only difference between fast food and a factory is fast food is regarded as a "starter job" and pays less despite it being high stess, high risk, and involving oceans of rude customers.

I couldn't do fast food, because I don't think I could handle the customer thing. But my 40k factory job is potentially dangerous, go watch clips of forklift failures.

I guess it's nice not being watched as much as a fast food worker, though. I can take a break when I want up here on the storage balcony.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What prevents you from moving up when you learn new and better skills?

Disability severe enough to limit you to only certain types of work or certain duration of work that still disqualify you from social safeties like welfare.
Ditto other responsibilities like parents with limited childcare options, home caregivers, etc.

Inaccessible higher education including predatory for-profit trade schools (there was just a series of huge lawsuits about this a few years ago). They lobby for their certification becoming state standard then price gouge for inflated numbers on return income. This has largely killed a lot of on-site training and mentorship programs and puts career advancement behind a paywall.

Corporate cutting of middle management positions because it's cheaper to keep the majority of your workforce low pay. Creating stagnant 'low ceiling' jobs that never become anything more than entry pay.

Living outside major metros where accessibility is much more limited, job pools much smaller.

A prevalence of speculative and gig economy where only short term employment with low or no benefits means you're too busy trying to survive gig to gig to further a career of any kind. This is even leaking into multibillion dollar industries like tech and lab.

A toxic corporate environment which is heavily nepotistic. Or other types of toxic workforces which is driving labor shortages even long after government assistance ended.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm okay with welfare for those who need it, but not for those who don't.

A big advantage of the UBI is that there's no expensive
intrusive government bureaucracy to determine eligibility
for welfare, public housing, & the myriad of other social
programs that would be eliminated. Increased taxation
would be offset by taxpayers also getting UBI.

It's more libertarian than our current assistance programs
because it would allow more liberty for the poor, eg, more
choice where they live, less government surveillance.
One reason I'd never manage Section 8 housing is that
government requires managers to surveil tenants for
overnite guests & occupancy. Special software for such
reporting is available. My philosophy is: **** that!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Living outside major metros where accessibility is much more limited, job pools much smaller.

That was an issue in Indiana. With my degree I could have been an extremely overworked and underpaid case manager for child services, an underpaid case manager for a faith-based service that had a bad reputation around town, or an overworked and underpaid case manager at the evidence-based practice that harshly stigmatizes mental illness. Those were my choices. I'm not that good with kids. I don't want future employment jeopardized by a faith based practice. So I was at the evidence-based practice with a program coordinator who didn't know the clinical definition of antisocial and I had to argue with her on it so one of my autistic clients didn't get wrongly labeled as antisocial.

 

[Kooky]

I am interested in the responses of all different sides of the political spectrum. TBH I'm not sure where I am with this and have no real answers.

As the economy exists there are jobs that only pay poverty wages. Therefore poverty exists even within the working class. This seems a totally separate issue from disabled people, homeless/jobless people. I am so far only able to come up with three possible conclusions. Not answers but just conclusions about the current state of affairs.

1 These poverty jobs are jobs that are not worth doing and people should shift to only jobs that pay enough.

2 These poverty jobs are jobs worth doing or are necessary and therefore need to be paid enough to not live in poverty.

3 A portion of our working class is simply required to be in poverty.

Is there a hidden 4th option I missed?

The way I see it, employers will pay as little as they can get away with as long as they can still get people to do the job.

Without regulations (and even with regulations) we can expect that there will not only be certain sectors where there is an ongoing race to the bottom as far as wages concerned, but that companies will expend considerable capital - both economic and political - to either expand the portion of low wage jobs, or replace high paying jobs as much as they can over time.

 

[Kooky]

I think what you call poverty jobs, I call “starter jobs”. Most good jobs require some type of experience or they won’t hire you, but starter jobs (poverty jobs) usually don’t require experience, they will hire you and teach you to do the job. They are starter jobs because a person with no experience can get a starter job, get skills then take those skills to a higher paying job that requires experience, and you can get a job you never would have been able to get had it not been for the starter job

Note the modal verb in those clauses. Just because some of these people can, in theory, get a better job if the stars are right and everything aligns just so, does not mean that all of them - or indeed, more than a fraction of them - will ever get a better paying job at all.

The pool of well paying jobs is considerably smaller and considerably less open, and so by simple mathematic necessity, most of the people in poverty jobs are unlikely to rise to a job that pays above average rates.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

A big advantage of the UBI is that there's no expensive
intrusive government bureaucracy to determine eligibility
for welfare, public housing, & the myriad of other social
programs that would be eliminated. Increased taxation
would be offset by taxpayers also getting UBI.

It's more libertarian than our current assistance programs
because it would allow more liberty for the poor, eg, more
choice where they live, less government surveillance.
One reason I'd never manage Section 8 housing is that
government requires managers to surveil tenants for
overnite guests & occupancy. Special software for such
reporting is available. My philosophy is: **** that!

UBI would still need sizable beurocracy to evaluate and distribute. By evaluation I mean adjustments to UBI depending on local and national standards of living, which would mean UBI can't be one size fits all because cost of living isn't one size fits all. And distribution would include centers that operate to service varied communities (similar to unemployment offices, which also probably wouldn't go away because job services are still useful for community growth.)

It also wouldn't cure the need for welfare because cost of disability can't be covered by a one size fits all cut check either. (This is assuming we dont get Universal Healthcare before UBI.) And welfare is just a small part of state and federal social service, children and family services which is still a necessary form of government services.

Don't get me wrong, I like UBI, but I don't think it would remove many government programs.

I also don't think it's very libertarian, in the sense of the sort of libertarianism popular in the US especially with the wealthy with power and influence to make a libertarian political power. They're too busy being up Ayn Rand's skirt with objectivism philosophy which vilified the moral character of those in poverty and wouldn't support government aid of any kind on the basis of a 'every man is an island and responsible for his island.' (Seriously, **** Ayn Rand.) Maybe a more left libertarian philosophy which condemns class discrimination and laud social equalities. But it's not like UBI is more that than, say, social democrat (not lib dem.)

 

[esmith]

Moped.....that's a term for the girl everyone
wants to ride, but doesn't want to be seen on.

OK, rev.
My first moterized vehicle was a bycycle with a motor.
Can't remember the brand name, but it was an actual product sold on the market and not a Moped. Guess my memory is fading somewhat.
Didn't need a drivers license but could only ride it during daylight hours and to school and back.
I don't know if the daylight and school and back was the law.
But those restrictions came down from Dad, so I guess it was the law.
Didn't get caught but...I may have fudged a couple of times.