A guaranteed income for every American

[Fugus]

Something's worth is based off what the market is willing to bare by definition.

I have heard that logic before, came from my Uncle who was insanely right wing.

His view was that a person worth was only as much as they could get paid. Regardless of how much the job brought in value to the company or the economy as a whole. As far as he was concerned, if you worked your butt off but only got paid 25 cents an hour then that was all you were worth and heaven help them if they went for welfare to cover the cost of living the job didn't cover.

As I mentioned, if you don't put in price controls, the "Worth" of those homes will magically increase across the nation to eat it. The sad thing about needed items and services, if you want to break it down, their actual worth is virtually infinite due to the fact they are needed.

- - - Updated - - -

Hardly. You are just wanting it to be true.

No man, he is telling the truth on it.

The general opinion among the conservative base I have seen is that the poor are lazy with the exception of themselves and the people they know.

[Kellhound]

I have heard that logic before, came from my Uncle who was insanely right wing.

His view was that a person worth was only as much as they could get paid. Regardless of how much the job brought in value to the company or the economy as a whole. As far as he was concerned, if you worked your butt off but only got paid 25 cents an hour then that was all you were worth and heaven help them if they went for welfare to cover the cost of living the job didn't cover.

As I mentioned, if you don't put in price controls, the "Worth" of those homes will magically increase across the nation to eat it. The sad thing about needed items and services, if you want to break it down, their actual worth is virtually infinite due to the fact they are needed.

That is what determines what something's monetary worth is, like it or not.

- - - Updated - - -

No man, he is telling the truth on it.

The general opinion among the conservative base I have seen is that the poor are lazy with the exception of themselves and the people they know.

Except it was directed at me personally, which does not hold true.

[Fugus]

That is what determines what something's monetary worth is, like it or not.

No, when it comes to employees, their worth is whatever they bring in or save to the company. That is what they are worth. Their pay should be a compromise between that and a living wage. Saying someone is only worth 50 cent an hour when they bring in $30 an hour to the company is honestly insanity.

As for the other part, haven't bothered checking your history to verify that or not, so not pushing it. Just was point out that the tired crap about poor people being lazy while working many of the harder and/or more stressful jobs seems to be a running gag among most conservatives I have met.

[Video Games]

I'm pretty against equality of outcome, but I'd probably end up with more money if this went through, soooooooo yayyyyyyyy?

[Kellhound]

No, when it comes to employees, their worth is whatever they bring in or save to the company. That is what they are worth. Their pay should be a compromise between that and a living wage. Saying someone is only worth 50 cent an hour when they bring in $30 an hour to the company is honestly insanity.

As for the other part, haven't bothered checking your history to verify that or not, so not pushing it. Just was point out that the tired crap about poor people being lazy while working many of the harder and/or more stressful jobs seems to be a running gag among most conservatives I have met.

They are worth what the merging point of what a company is willing to pay vs what an employee is willing to accept is, like anything else.

[Glorious Leader]

They are worth what the merging point of what a company is willing to pay vs what an employee is willing to accept is, like anything else.

Theirs a couple of problems with this view:

Its a tautolgy. If we assume that their worth is whatever their employers will give them then youre merely stating theyre worth what theyre worth. Well shit okay but what dynamics underlay that. Why is an employer able to determine what their worth is and how? What criteria is used? Is it purely meritocratic? Or do structures within the society influence that?

The second problem is a moral dimension. People are not bushles of wheat. Attempting to apply the same market forces to people is dehumanizing.

[Kellhound]

Theirs a couple of problems with this view:

Its a tautolgy. If we assume that their worth is whatever their employers will give them then youre merely stating theyre worth what theyre worth. Well shit okay but what dynamics underlay that. Why is an employer able to determine what their worth is and how? What criteria is used? Is it purely meritocratic? Or do structures within the society influence that?

The second problem is a moral dimension. People are not bushles of wheat. Attempting to apply the same market forces to people is dehumanizing.

I was quite clear that worth was a combination of what the employer is willing to pay vs what the employee is willing to accept, which is influenced by supply and demand. So yes, labor IS a commodity.

[Karrotlord]

I'm pretty against equality of outcome, but I'd probably end up with more money if this went through, soooooooo yayyyyyyyy?

Equality of outcome would be ensuring that everyone ends at the same amount, no exceptions. A UBI doesn't do that, it merely gives everyone a stable floor to start from. So it's more equal beginning than outcome.

[Fugus]

They are worth what the merging point of what a company is willing to pay vs what an employee is willing to accept is, like anything else.

That is where your differentiation between our views start.

You think their job is worth whatever they can get for it and that is that regardless of how much money the job brings in or saves a company.

I think their job is worth whatever the job is actually worth to the company in how much money it generates or saves them and their pay should be a compromise between that upper limit and a living wage.

The thing is, your view ignores the jobs actual value to a company entirely which is what the jobs worth should be based on. Saying that someone is only worth 50 cents an hour for a job that makes the company $50 an hour is insanity and you seem to have taken the view of drinking that kool aid, that isn't even kool aid at this point, you are drinking flavor-aid and forgot to put the sugar in it as well.

Your view on a jobs worth is heavily flawed and is party of the reason why your view on the rest is off I guess.

And while you view labor as a commodity, which it is, that does not lower the value of the job they are hired to do. It just effects the negotiating power of the worker which is why we need things like living minimum wages and unions and/or a UBI to give that labor leverage in a market where they otherwise have none. It is a market right now where 1 side is trying to negotiate while under duress and the other side has all the power.

[Kellhound]

That is where your differentiation between our views start.

You think their job is worth whatever they can get for it and that is that regardless of how much money the job brings in or saves a company.

I think their job is worth whatever the job is actually worth to the company in how much money it generates or saves them and their pay should be a compromise between that upper limit and a living wage.

The thing is, your view ignores the jobs actual value to a company entirely which is what the jobs worth should be based on. Saying that someone is only worth 50 cents an hour for a job that makes the company $50 an hour is insanity and you seem to have taken the view of drinking that kool aid, that isn't even kool aid at this point, you are drinking flavor-aid and forgot to put the sugar in it as well.

Your view on a jobs worth is heavily flawed and is party of the reason why your view on the rest is off I guess.

And while you view labor as a commodity, which it is, that does not lower the value of the job they are hired to do. It just effects the negotiating power of the worker which is why we need things like living minimum wages and unions and/or a UBI to give that labor leverage in a market where they otherwise have none. It is a market right now where 1 side is trying to negotiate while under duress and the other side has all the power.

And I take the view that your premise is heavily flawed as well. You do not take into account the realities of a business and the supply/demand of labor. The reality is when the supply of labor greatly exceeds its demand, the value of that labor is low, and non-cash government assistance is perfectly able to maintain the necessities of life.

[Fugus]

And I take the view that your premise is heavily flawed as well. You do not take into account the realities of a business and the supply/demand of labor. The reality is when the supply of labor greatly exceeds its demand, the value of that labor is low, and non-cash government assistance is perfectly able to maintain the necessities of life.

I take into account the whole supply/demand aspect of labor as well. I also notice the flaw of taking it in a vacuum and accept that labor has little to no negotiating power in the current system anymore and it takes either super strong unions or a UBI to remedy that problem.

And I also know that the absolute least any job is worth is the cost of providing for the person doing it. To do otherwise is to get the job done for less than the cost of providing for the labor doing it at which point you have the business going on welfare through their employees having the tax payer to subsidize that company through their payroll so they don't have to pay the full cost of their labor.

And I also know that the people will still be there and need to be taken care of even if they don't have work.

My view may be flawed in some aspects, but yours is even more flawed as you are trying to ignore that labor isn't the same as a hammer or a tool and they lack the negotiating power needed due to how things currently function.

I fullytake into account the realities of a business and the supply/demand nature of labor, I just don't ignore the rest of the equation like you have.

[Kellhound]

I take into account the whole supply/demand aspect of labor as well. I also notice the flaw of taking it in a vacuum and accept that labor has little to no negotiating power in the current system anymore and it takes either super strong unions or a UBI to remedy that problem.

And I also know that the absolute least any job is worth is the cost of providing for the person doing it. To do otherwise is to get the job done for less than the cost of providing for the labor doing it at which point you have the business going on welfare through their employees having the tax payer to subsidize that company through their payroll so they don't have to pay the full cost of their labor.

And I also know that the people will still be there and need to be taken care of even if they don't have work.

My view may be flawed in some aspects, but yours is even more flawed as you are trying to ignore that labor isn't the same as a hammer or a tool and they lack the negotiating power needed due to how things currently function.

I fullytake into account the realities of a business and the supply/demand nature of labor, I just don't ignore the rest of the equation like you have.

I dont ignore anything, you ignore the cost of doing business. Your premise of employees having little bargaining power is only at the low end where supply exceeds demands. I account for that via non cash government assistance. Also humans ARE just tools in business.

On a final note, no matter if it is government mandated living wage, UBI, non-cash government assistance, raising the income of the lowest end is always going to be subsidised by the population as a whole if there is any government interference with the labor market.

[Fugus]

I dont ignore anything, you ignore the cost of doing business. Your premise of employees having little bargaining power is only at the low end where supply exceeds demands. I account for that via non cash government assistance. Also humans ARE just tools in business.

On a final note, no matter if it is government mandated living wage, UBI, non-cash government assistance, raising the income of the lowest end is always going to be subsidised by the population as a whole if there is any government interference with the labor market.

Actually you did ignore stuff. I took in the cost of doing business, including stuff you are ignoring.

As of last year, a full third of all US workers made less than $15,000 per year, over half made less than $30,000 per year. A full 70% made less than $50,000 per year. My premise that the employees have little to no bargaining power is not only at the low end unless you consider over half the entire market to be just the low end.

And your accounting for that via non cash government assistance is you accounting for it by corporate handouts to subsidize their payroll so they can pay below what it costs for their labor.

If you really see humans as just tools, then you are having company buy tools and only paying half the cost of the tools or less while having the government pay the other half of the cost of their tools. And unlike hammers and kiosks, when theses tools break down from lack of funding people suffer, people die and the economy as well as the well being of the nation pays the price of that.

And your final note is off.Raising the income of the lowest end isn't being subsidized by the population as a whole. Keeping their pay low is subsidizing their employers off their labor and the population as a whole.

If there is no government interference in labor, the entire concept of labor as a commodity dies with it as then labor has zero bargaining power now. In the past the technology of the time made them a necessary evil in large numbers to the employers, that isn't the case to near the same level compared to the population. For labor to be a commodity that can bargain for itself, it requires either a super strong union to collectively bargain or a UBI for the worker to be able to walk away safely if the terms aren't desirable to them and a livable minimum wage for if those fail if they aren't strong enough.

Without that, you have a negotiation where one side has all the power and the other side is under duress with no power and is less of a negotiation and more pseudo slave labor where they either do what they are told or they die as all options are more of the same and not enough because the employers have no reason to do more.