Basic income

youre so close the world is about to open for you

btw I obvs believe in the union wage premium, but you can't say that's all that determines wages, or that well paying jobs only exist because unions restrict supply, if you extend that to the whole economy prices would blow up. one reason those factories paid well is cause they were really productive in a way a cashier isnt

they paid well because they organized and demanded to be paid well, before that they were not paid well

the country is a lot richer than it was then yet a lot of people who used to be middle class are falling into poverty, walmart is the biggest employer in the world and the walton family is the richest you really think they cldnt pay their ppl a living wage, they cld instead they took the money themselves this is not hard to understand

costco which arguably has thinner margins even than walmart pays their employees many of whom are cashiers a living wage

http://i68.tinypic.com/98woix.jpg

Explain this graph to me using unions

yet the reaction is still to throw ones hands up in the air and say globalism as a handful of people accumulate unimaginable wealth, great

they paid well because they organized and demanded to be paid well, before that they were not paid well

When did software engineers get organized?

I feel like ur trying to mix five different debates in here some of which I don't disagree w you on

Explain this graph to me using unions

― flopson, Thursday, January 28, 2016 8:37 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

were we talking abt the united states u smug piece of shit

so good paying middle class jobs disappeared in all the other countries for, some other reasons?

I'm glad I'm getting you riled up though, sick of having this argument with mh and dr casino

its weird how the making the shittiest banal neoliberal arguments in the most possible condescending tones will rile people up

(though more problematic than leftbros will ever admit)

combined with terrible online tics

you might consider that yr arguments just suck and are bad and are presented in an awful well then explain this (offers no explanation of what youre talking about) manner

like saying software engineers make good money when home health aids do not does not actually support yr argument you know

oh god "neoliberal", gimme a fn break dog. The only policy I've argued in favour of itt is giving low income workers wage subsidies (I also happen to think a minimum wage at about 50% of median wage would complement that well) but because I'm not unions uber alles I'm neoliberal? Sweden and god damn Norway have the same pattern of losing middle class jobs that you're attributing to decline of unions in the USA. You prob need to explain that for your theory to be convincing

yet youre like "hmmm what abt software engineers... eh??" as if youre holding some gem of knowledge no one has yet stumbled upon

well i dont know too much about finland and norways economy do you? do you really think manufacturing jobs are the only unskilled labor that could possibly pay a middle class wage

cld possibly the same problems be affecting europe as us in that as they lose manufacturing jobs ppl are tending towards work where their labor is exploited, seems like it cld be true

many unions in construction for ex contributed to occupational segregation well into the 60s/70s, that's what the "problematic" was referring to, which is something leftbros who are all " it's all about class maaan" seldom admit. sorry for using an annoying online tic, Internet guru dad

leftbro

that "imo" is doing a lot of work lol. also that framing is kinda wrong. there are more very well paying jobs than ever (there was some census chart a couple weeks ago everyone was freaking out about showing that the share of workers in the middle class shrunk, but most of the shift was into jobs above middle class).

having no problem with a two tiered society as long as more boats are being raised than lowered is one of the core beliefs of neoliberalism

[the middle class is hollowed out] haha those idiots dont see its okay cause more ppl are rich now

xps -- Did I miss something? Are Sweden and Norway immune to having their manufacturing jobs threatened by the rise of cheap (non-union) offshore labor, the near-global lowering of tariffs, and the free (almost instantaneous) flow of capital across borders? Or immune to replacing jobs through the advent of robotic automation, used to offset that competition from cheap (non-union) offshore labor?

Factory jobs always paid shite before unionization. Now with globalization, unions in developed nations have far less bargaining power and most factory jobs pay shite again, except they are paying shite to Indonesians, Cambodians, Bangladeshis, or Mauritians. Again, did I miss something here?

well flopsons argument is that the new unskilled work people are doing instead of manufacturing cldnt possibly pay a living wage because of efficiency chart chart leftbro globalism

i think there are lots of reasons to think that minimum incomes are preferable to wage subsidies perhaps the foremost of which is that the idea that every person shld be given X amount of money, where X is enough to feed and shelter and care for oneself is clearer and more appealing to more ppl than w/e labor-efficient econbro fixes you might suggest.

also i think wage subsidies/minimums dont fit as easily into ~the future of work~

my pt was technology + globalization are more impt for the trend of 'no more middle class jobs' than unions. showed that same thing happened in a lot of countries that didn't experience decline in unionship. I don't think unions are bad (as I said pretty early on) I just don't think they are good at explaining this particular trend. Unions could even be part of the solution, like the SEIU is trying to organize service workers, still a long way to go but that's potentially an amazing thing. I personally think wage subsidy + moderate min wage is a good way to put money in poor workers pockets in the short run

also programs that target purly the poor are a non starer and if they somehow do become a reality will forever be in danger of being eliminated where programs that are for all last forever, and while the wealthy will effectively be paying in more than they take (tho there are exceptions upper middle class kid take a year off to go abroud and so forth, dad is out of work for a year etc) out its still the case that ppl like getting a check in the mail

my pt was technology + globalization are more impt for the trend of 'no more middle class jobs' than unions. showed that same thing happened in a lot of countries that didn't experience decline in unionship.

― flopson, Thursday, January 28, 2016 9:07 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you did not show that these countries did not experience a decline in union membership, also like "more than" how much more than, what piece of the pie, what wld the difference be if unions werent purposely decimated, what if fast food workers had been unionized in the 1970s, how do these neo liber just so stories match up to leftbro alternate history

if our government/society was at all interested in directing money towards unskilled workers you really think it cldnt have done so, average wealth in this country has gone nowhere but up, the money exists

having no problem with a two tiered society as long as more boats are being raised than lowered is one of the core beliefs of neoliberalism

you didn't ask my belief and I didn't say it. I believe in progressive taxes and redistribution, that as society gets richer and more unequal we should funnel the money back down. That's the opposite of trickle down or neoliberal. the country I live in had a similar increase in pre-tax inequality (among the 99% which is what we're talking about) but we offset it with transfers. USA should do that too

(there was some census chart a couple weeks ago everyone was freaking out about showing that the share of workers in the middle class shrunk, but most of the shift was into jobs above middle class).

this certainly seems like its cld be p easily read as mocking those who were freaking out at the hollowing out of the middle class no

is that but doing a lot of work

I don't think ubi would have the same popularity as social security. The people who pay into it would try to get it defunded

its not just social security literally every program that everyone has access to in the usa is untouchable medicare etc

also necessarily the tax burden wld primarily fall upon high earners, especially when you consider that the majority of the country either doesnt work or doesnt make much money and then a good chunk of people getting soaked wld be for it too youd have more than the consistency to ensure its survival

flopson dont you think that wage minimums and unionization are less effective in the face of globalization/automation? like how will those help protect app developers? uber drives? twitch streamers? with more 'work' being contract, freelance, semi-autonomous in nature isnt it better to just provide a baseline income to ppl?

dude you have totally used "that x is doing a lot of work" before gimme a break

i just thought it was a good avatar for yr overall bad passive aggressive condescending not bothering to explain what youre talking about tone

ok I apologize I actually care about making this argument convincingly and non-condescendingly so I appreciate your constructive abuse. shit just got heated plus I just got an iPad and the text box is fn tiny and every time I hit Post it gives me the you=too slow page 18 times

ok im sorry too

i still yr arguments are straight out of the encomiast tho

::screencaps this lame shit to eye-rolling rt::

online discourse is bad but its not my fault im going back to reading books

flopson dont you think that wage minimums and unionization are less effective in the face of globalization/automation? like how will those help protect app developers? uber drives? twitch streamers? with more 'work' being contract, freelance, semi-autonomous in nature isnt it better to just provide a baseline income to ppl?

so far work becoming freelance is a media narrative and not in the data (can't google but Larry mishel ran the numbers on this) and no one knows to what extent it will become more prevalent. there are pros and cons to it too, like working 9 to 5 is a drag it would be cool if future jobs were more choose your own hours (also we need to break down the 40 hour work week norm, it's fucked that every good job just presumes you wanna work full time) (also in the future more people will work from home or wherever they want, that's cool)

i still yr arguments are straight out of the encomiast tho

there are subtle but impt differences imo (economist is against taxing rich, thinks education can solve all problems) but idk, economists are the ppl whose job it is to study this stuff and I find most other people's attempts to think about it incoherent. you should read the paper that chart I pasted is from, "why are there still so many jobs" by David autor. It's a masterpiece imo

was he just looking at freelancers all categories of 'contingent workers' or w/e? my loose understanding was that temp/contract/part time employment was on the rise but i guess i could believe that isnt tru

i mean i do think from a human happiness pov having some dumb-ass regular job with dental that pays you enough to buy some cool stuff and feed yr kids that you go to for a bunch of years is probably pretty great overall but how much will firms need to employ ppl like that in the future seems like a good qn to me? i mean most corporate hr and marketing jobs are just welfare for the professional class, its not hard to imagine a future where firms no longer can/want to pay for those positions...

the being payed enough and your kids having dental part is good, I guess the qn is will the future jobs pay well and keep your kids teeth from falling out

I have always thought we should just replace all our teeth w/ fake teeth anyway, that way you never have to brush your teeth. I hope the ycombinator people are reading this.