Wages and Poverty

[Revoltingest]

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.)

I disagree. With everyone eligible, bureaucracy
would be reduced. Issues of different levels of
UBI I'll leave for another day.

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.)

I sense an excessive focused on Ayn Rand, whom I don't
even mention. (Note that she despised libertarians.)
I sometimes get the impression that you want only to bicker
with me...never seek common ground. Ayn Rand is irrelevant.

What's more libertarian about my approach is that it
enables more freedom of choice than existing programs.
(You ignored the problems of Section 8 housing I cited.)

I'm not saying that all other programs would be eliminated.
Disabled people are a good example of a class needing
not just a UBI, but also other accommodations & assistance.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Motorized bicycles lack the shame of a moped.
They're cool, eg, the Whizzer (you could see the engine).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

In Indiana at least there is a nasty mentality that one must not complain much much because there is someone who will do the job without complaining and do it for less. Basically that one should be grateful for the table scraps one receives, and count it as a blessing because others have it worse.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I disagree. With everyone eligible,
bureaucracy would be reduced.
Issues of level of UBI we'll leave
for another day.

Eligibility isn't the only issue that needs beurocracy. Those other issues aren't ignorable, imo. Universal Healthcare also ignores eligibility but I don't think anyone would argue it won't necessitate increases government service.

Some people are overly negatively focused
on Ayn Rand, whom I don't even mention.
(Note that she despised libertarians.)
If you could recognize her irrelevance,
it would be useful.

Rand didn't despise libertarianism, she despised the then-popular libertarian ideology which was mutualist and anti-capitalist. Objectivism more or less founded right libertarian pro capitalists and ancaps. Which makes up most of the 'free market' libertarians of the US.
It's true they're irrelevant in that they don't have much power (the most libertarian possible candidate they have is Yang who is still very much a lib democrat) ((also I mean irrelevant to modern US political climate, not irrelevant at large. So is my bit, since I'm further left than anything the dems have to offer.))

What's more libertarian about my approach is that it
enables more freedom of choice than existing programs.
(You ignored the problems of Section 8 housing I cited.)

Only if it compensated for the myriad of housing rates in different areas and/or controlled the market against inflation. You can do that with rental protection oversights or adjusted tax payouts, both of which libertarians hate.

I'm not saying that all other programs would be eliminated.
Disabled people are a good example of a class needing
not just a UBI, but also other accommodations.

I agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Eligibility isn't the only issue that needs beurocracy. Those other issues aren't ignorable, imo. Universal Healthcare also ignores eligibility but I don't think anyone would argue it won't necessitate increases government service.

Rand didn't despise libertarianism, she despised the then-popular libertarian ideology which was mutualist and anti-capitalist. Objectivism more or less founded right libertarian pro capitalists and ancaps. Which makes up most of the 'free market' libertarians of the US.
It's true they're irrelevant in that they don't have much power (the most libertarian possible candidate they have is Yang who is still very much a lib democrat) ((also I mean irrelevant to modern US political climate, not irrelevant at large. So is my bit, since I'm further left than anything the dems have to offer.))

Only if it compensated for the myriad of housing rates in different areas and/or controlled the market against inflation. You can do that with rental protection oversights or adjusted tax payouts, both of which libertarians hate.

I agree.

I've nothing to add.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

In Indiana at least there is a nasty mentality that one must not complain much much because there is someone who will do the job without complaining and do it for less. Basically that one should be grateful for the table scraps one receives, and count it as a blessing because others have it worse.

I think this problem has hit national crisis at this point. Conservatives are telling laborers complaining of hostile/abusive service industry conditions that they won't change so they better just get used to it because they won't be given government handouts. But people still refuse to go back to those conditions because they weren't paying enough to make ends meet anyway. The result has been increased generational housing and formation of new unions and existing unions striking.

 

[Kfox]

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

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.

The reason I asked how you are defining poverty, is because I don’t know exactly what you mean. If poverty is (for example) half the average wage, then unless there isn’t much of a variance in wages, there will always be poverty because someone will always work half what the average is. However if it is wages where workers can’t afford to live on, well; half the average wage might still be enough for the average person to live on depending on what the average wage is. So I don’t know how to answer your question unless you are more specific concerning what you mean by poverty

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.

Why on earth would be give billionaires extra money? That’s my problem with UBI, I dislike the idea of throwing money at people who don’t need it. That’s why I don’t like UBI

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think this problem has hit national crisis at this point. Conservatives are telling laborers complaining of hostile/abusive service industry conditions that they won't change so they better just get used to it because they won't be given government handouts. But people still refuse to go back to those conditions because they weren't paying enough to make ends meet anyway. The result has been increased generational housing and formation of new unions and existing unions striking.

I haven't done much with the regular work force here in California, so here I don't know how it is here. I stay busy doing rideshare and make decent money with it, so it's what I do so I don't have to deal with everything I hate about regular jobs until I get my Master's.

 

[Kfox]

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.

Another difference between fast food vs a factory job, is the factory makes a product people are willing to pay more money for, so the factory can pay it's employees a lot more money than the fast food restaurant that makes products that don't sell for as much

 

[Kfox]

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.

There are always going to be exceptions to the rules. But most people who learn better skills can take those skills somewhere else for better pay.

 

[Kfox]

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!

My biggest problem with UBI is the vast majority of the money goes to people who don't need it! I can't think of a worse example of waste than UBI

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There are always going to be exceptions to the rules. But most people who learn better skills can take those skills somewhere else for better pay.

There's enough exception that we're in a labor crisis. Maybe we shouldn't pretend that the exceptions are an ignorable minority?

 

[Kfox]

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.

I disagree. I would say 90% of the people in good paying jobs have at some point in their lives worked a low paying job during their lifetime.

 

[Kfox]

There's enough exception that we're in a labor crisis. Maybe we shouldn't pretend that the exceptions are an ignorable minority?

The reason we are in a labor shortage is because there are a lot of good paying jobs out there that they can't find people to work! It isn't just the low paying jobs that are struggling to find workers, there are good paying jobs struggling with this as well. Jobs are paying higher wages now than they have for a long time; if there was ever a time to negotiate a higher wage, it would be now.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I disagree. I would say 90% of the people in good paying jobs have at some point in their lives worked a low paying job during their lifetime.

But it isn't true that 90% of people in low paying jobs will have access to higher paying jobs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Another difference between fast food vs a factory job, is the factory makes a product people are willing to pay more money for, so the factory can pay it's employees a lot more money than the fast food restaurant that makes products that don't sell for as much

That doesn't make much sense.
Lots of factories produce things that people won't pay much for. Think about cheap stuff at Dollar General or Dollar Tree. Lots of factory made things are cheaper than many fast food items. Not all factories are also related to mega corporations. McDonalds could easily afford to pay more than many of the local and very small factories scattered around Indiana. And while one Ford GT may sell for many thousands, lots of individual fast food stores do many thousands in sales a day. Ford doesn't sells very few GTs in a year compared to how many Whoppers that Burger King will sell in a year.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I disagree. I would say 90% of the people in good paying jobs have at some point in their lives worked a low paying job during their lifetime.

That's not even addressing his point, which is there aren't enough high paying jobs for all the qualified candidates.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The reason we are in a labor shortage is because there are a lot of good paying jobs out there that they can't find people to work! It isn't just the low paying jobs that are struggling to find workers, there are good paying jobs struggling with this as well.

I live near Intel headquarters and they are struggling because they haven't eliminated the educational and experience requirements for high paying jobs. So most candidates who need work won't be eligible without considerable financial and time they don't have. (This happened to my brother.) This is also after they cut hundreds of jobs to try and keep laborers at the minimum to get things done. Effectively doubling the workload of existing laborers.

The vast majority of jobs vacant in the US are low pay or low benefit non-union service jobs. Ones people have been complaining are explotive and not keeping up with inflation for decades now.

 

[Friend of Mara]

The reason I asked how you are defining poverty, is because I don’t know exactly what you mean. If poverty is (for example) half the average wage, then unless there isn’t much of a variance in wages, there will always be poverty because someone will always work half what the average is. However if it is wages where workers can’t afford to live on, well; half the average wage might still be enough for the average person to live on depending on what the average wage is. So I don’t know how to answer your question unless you are more specific concerning what you mean by poverty

I will define it now as anyone living on an income that creates undue burden on their lives.

Why on earth would be give billionaires extra money? That’s my problem with UBI, I dislike the idea of throwing money at people who don’t need it. That’s why I don’t like UBI

Why not? They deserve it just as much as the homeless man if it is in a UBI setting. It is not welfare. It is not intended to be welfare. It is not "help" given to those in need. It is a baseline given to everyone equally.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Only if it compensated for the myriad of housing rates in different areas and/or controlled the market against inflation. You can do that with rental protection oversights or adjusted tax payouts, both of which libertarians hate.

Sorry to interject but a point I'd like to make on the housing market. It won't get better unless we outlaw commercial corporate housing markets. Proper limitations on how many properties someone can own commercially. I don't think we could outlaw renting as it is right now and how much landlords would be able to profit before they would be considered a corporation is probably a big discussion to have.

But at the very least if you rent you should be renting from a person. Not a faceless corporation with thousands of homes.