The alleged 'Labor Shortage', how real is it?

[Endus]

You do understand the difference between supporting the few who cannot work vs supporting those who chose not to? I am sorry I was not clearer in the beginning, so here: Human history shows that those who can work have had to work, there are few freeloaders allowed.

It's a distinction without meaning, and even if we allow for it, your position still categorically fails across all of human history.

You have zero basis for any of this. The entire body of human history and human anthropology flatly rejects your hypothesis, producing contradicting examples in basically any population, given the two small caveats that said society must last more than a single generation (so we can exclude, say, the Nazi Reich as a culturally distinct "thing"), and that we need to actually have enough evidence about a given society to comfortably make any claim either way.

You have no evidence you can present, because your claim is simply false on its face.

You'd have us believe that everyone too old to labor in the fields was customarily put to death, historically? That artists were killed on sight unless they were actively working for a client? That students of all kinds were not tolerated? That children worked from birth? That no one was given any chance to heal for illness or injury?

Your position is absolutely fucking ludicrous. You're pushing a sociopathic view of the human condition that does not reflect reality. It only reflects your inability to grasp basic human compassion and empathy.

[Kellhound]

The thing you also forgot to mention in this is that while yes, most of those had to contribute, everyone also lived in community housing, everyone shared in a kill/grown crops(all food was community property) and the like even if they didn't help with it. You contributed to the community, not for yourself. Also, the older you got, the less "hunting/gathering" you were expected to do. You became a storyteller or gave advice on various things in life. The only thing people owned, at least in prehistory, were trophies from kills. Everything else, and I do mean everything else, was shared between everyone in the community. I apologize for the derail.

I am well aware of that.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of Roman civilization was full of freeloaders, slavery was their 'UBI' / automated economy. Just have the slaves do all the work and give the profits to the Romans, although that is a bit of an exaggeration, because probably like our own automated economy in the future only a few upper classes will reap the benefits.

Patricians yes to a point, plebeians, no for the most part. At one point 1/3 of the Roman population were slaves.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah but your version of history still supposes that barter economies are things that actually exist and that American imperialism is a good thing, so... we don't really care?

Human history shows that public assistance and charity are consistent features across the human experience, so trying to apply your silly little mid-century American lens to its entirety continues to be laughably wrong, sweetheart.

Barter absolutely still exists.

Public assistance and charity are not incompatible with the expectation of one to work when one is able.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a distinction without meaning, and even if we allow for it, your position still categorically fails across all of human history.

You have zero basis for any of this. The entire body of human history and human anthropology flatly rejects your hypothesis, producing contradicting examples in basically any population, given the two small caveats that said society must last more than a single generation (so we can exclude, say, the Nazi Reich as a culturally distinct "thing"), and that we need to actually have enough evidence about a given society to comfortably make any claim either way.

You have no evidence you can present, because your claim is simply false on its face.

You'd have us believe that everyone too old to labor in the fields was customarily put to death, historically? That artists were killed on sight unless they were actively working for a client? That students of all kinds were not tolerated? That children worked from birth? That no one was given any chance to heal for illness or injury?

Your position is absolutely fucking ludicrous. You're pushing a sociopathic view of the human condition that does not reflect reality. It only reflects your inability to grasp basic human compassion and empathy.

I know this will come as a shock to you, but "work" does not just mean "manual labor".....

[Endus]

I know this will come as a shock to you, but "work" does not just mean "manual labor".....

You keep making useless equivocations like this.

None of the categories I listed qualify as "work" in any functional sense. If you're using that term to describe "any effort exerted", then congrats, you've defined "healing from illness" as work, playing with your children as work, making art that never sells as work, and so on. A functionally useless label where any human activity is "work", and thus all humans "work" and there cannot be any freeloaders.

Stop trying to shift goalposts. You just render your prior arguments even more ridiculous.

And to repeat a point; you can't cite even a single example. Not one example of any society that fits the bill you describe, at any point in human history. Surely, if you were correct, that'd be easy, right?

[Kellhound]

You keep making useless equivocations like this.

None of the categories I listed qualify as "work" in any functional sense. If you're using that term to describe "any effort exerted", then congrats, you've defined "healing from illness" as work, playing with your children as work, making art that never sells as work, and so on. A functionally useless label where any human activity is "work", and thus all humans "work" and there cannot be any freeloaders.

Stop trying to shift goalposts. You just render your prior arguments even more ridiculous.

And to repeat a point; you can't cite even a single example. Not one example of any society that fits the bill you describe, at any point in human history. Surely, if you were correct, that'd be easy, right?

Last time I checked, American society had very little to offer in assistance to healthy people with no dependents who chose not to work, and only marginally more to those who cannot find work but want to.

[Endus]

Last time I checked, American society had very little to offer in assistance to healthy people with no dependents who chose not to work, and only marginally more to those who cannot find work but want to.

Disability benefits exist. Children can't be made to work. People are allowed to retire.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about and can't even cite a single example to back you up.

[Kellhound]

Disability benefits exist. Children can't be made to work. People are allowed to retire.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about and can't even cite a single example to back you up.

You really cannot read...

[Endus]

You really cannot read...

I'm just not letting you move goalposts any more.

If you can't stick to your original position, you're just admitting you were wrong the whole time, implicitly.

Edit: In case you need a reminder;

You want food/shelter/water/etc., you work. Pretty much true for all of human existence.

[Kellhound]

I'm just not letting you move goalposts any more.

If you can't stick to your original position, you're just admitting you were wrong the whole time, implicitly.

Edit: In case you need a reminder;

Yeah, I forgot that the common sense idea that those who cannot work would be an obvious exception would not be understood.

[Endus]

Yeah, I forgot that the common sense idea that those who cannot work would be an obvious exception would not be understood.

All the groups I listed can be made to work.

And, to remind you, your original argument was, and I quote; "You want food/shelter/water/etc., you work. Pretty much true for all of human existence."

You're pushing nonsense propaganda. You can't even cite a single example that supports your case, with all of human history and prehistory to pick from. Not one. And yet, you're too stubborn to just admit you're wrong. You just move goalposts when challenged, and pretend those new goalposts don't disprove your entire position.

[SirBeef]

The argument has not been defeated. The only exceptions that have been put forth are those who do not work because they cannot.

- - - Updated - - -



You do understand the difference between supporting the few who cannot work vs supporting those who chose not to? I am sorry I was not clearer in the beginning, so here: Human history shows that those who can work have had to work, there are few freeloaders allowed.

No, you were espousing falsehoods about hunter/gatherer societies, were shown how wrong you were, then changed your argument to be about freeloaders being present. Which no one made a claim against.

Of course there have been freeloaders but study after study proves you wrong. People would rather work for their money than get it for free in general. Specifically in this case recently with the COVID-19 relief UE benefits.

- - - Updated - - -

All the groups I listed can be made to work.

And, to remind you, your original argument was, and I quote; "You want food/shelter/water/etc., you work. Pretty much true for all of human existence."

You're pushing nonsense propaganda. You can't even cite a single example that supports your case, with all of human history and prehistory to pick from. Not one. And yet, you're too stubborn to just admit you're wrong. You just move goalposts when challenged, and pretend those new goalposts don't disprove your entire position.

A liar's gotta lie to keep the original lie going.

[Bodakane]

Yeah, I forgot that the common sense idea that those who cannot work would be an obvious exception would not be understood.

That used to be exactly what happened here in the US. Children worked. Elderly worked. The sick worked. That is byproduct of a capitalist system.

Every one of those changes, from stopping child labor to social security so the elderly didn't have to work to getting people access to healthcare so they don't have to work sick/infirm..was met with the EXACT bootstrap pulling propaganda you're spewing now. The same people, the same bullshit.

So no, you don't get play incredulous that no one thinks your argument accounts for those things, because your argument is the same argument made against those things.

- - - Updated - - -

Also all this crap about not helping those that need it because some abuse it....only ever seems too apply to the poor and minorities, because you never see conservatives against tax cuts even though most large corporations abuse those.

[Theodarzna]

I really suggest you study anthropology. Freeloaders are not common in history.

I know you like to think the masses are owed a living without having to contribute, but that isn't how society works.

This is itself rather ahistorical. The entire idea of "Deserving and Undeserving Poor" was only invented after the rise of Calvinism, so we can put an exact date on the when the very notion of a "Freeloader" came around.

Even the most oppressed Medieval peasant was for example entitled to months worth of time off, multiple feast days paid for by their landlord, debt cancellations were regular occurrences, and compensation for work was entirely different and on some level more humane than the idea of wage per hour was. They worked on the task system. They were paid by the task; and often were not paid except by the vagaries of nature, I.E. all the hard work in the world didn't matter nature might just elect to kick you in the dick and visit a plague or famine upon you anyway.

[Felya]

Even the most oppressed Medieval peasant was for example entitled to months worth of time off, multiple feast days paid for by their landlord, debt cancellations were regular occurrences, and compensation for work was entirely different and on some level more humane than the idea of wage per hour was. They worked on the task system. They were paid by the task; and often were not paid except by the vagaries of nature, I.E. all the hard work in the world didn't matter nature might just elect to kick you in the dick and visit a plague or famine upon you anyway.

In what way was feudalism superior to a minimum wage?

[Shadowferal]

"Debt cancellations?" Hell no. Those were reasons for indentured servitude to last a lifetime.

[Theodarzna]

"Debt cancellations?" Hell no. Those were reasons for indentured servitude to last a lifetime.

They did happen, that is the over all point. The idea that there has always been this work culture akin to modern "Protestant Work Ethic" style ideology did not exist in the past. The idea of deserving and undeserving poor is a modern invention.

[Mihalik]

In what way was feudalism superior to a minimum wage?

Feudalism itself as an economic system wasn't superior to wage based capitalism. But certain elements of it were in a way more humane than laissez-faire capitalism.

Feudal systems were inherently more communal and there wasn't an infinite increased productivity creep.

The modern minimum wage worker is several folds more productive than his counterpart 20 or 40 years ago, yet he is in effective terms earning less.

It doesn't matter how productive a modern worker is, he will be milked for everything withing his shift and get jack shit in return.

A medieval laborer got paid to do a certain task, if he was efficient and got it done in a couple of hours, the rest of his labor day... Was his to do with it whatever he wanted.

In sheer amount of hours worked we only ever had a brief period in history when we were all worse off. The early industrial age. That period lasted about 70 or 80 years. (Talking about paid work here, not chattel slavery).

[Endus]

Feudalism itself as an economic system wasn't superior to wage based capitalism. But certain elements of it were in a way more humane than laissez-faire capitalism.

Feudal systems were inherently more communal and there wasn't an infinite increased productivity creep.

The modern minimum wage worker is several folds more productive than his counterpart 20 or 40 years ago, yet he is in effective terms earning less.

It doesn't matter how productive a modern worker is, he will be milked for everything withing his shift and get jack shit in return.

A medieval laborer got paid to do a certain task, if he was efficient and got it done in a couple of hours, the rest of his labor day... Was his to do with it whatever he wanted.

In sheer amount of hours worked we only ever had a brief period in history when we were all worse off. The early industrial age. That period lasted about 70 or 80 years. (Talking about paid work here, not chattel slavery).

More generically, in principle at least, the nature of feudalism was that the lord who ran a given fiefdom was a servant of his serfs as much as their ruler; he was responsible for their protection and their welfare, and could be held responsible for dereliction of such duties. They owed a certain amount to the lord in taxes, often paid by working the lord's fields one day a week in rotation with others; the lord garnering the harvest for their own use.

But there was a clear duty of care, there. Where there isn't, in a capitalist system; the only reasons a company cares about its employees, systemically, is either legal pressure from the government, or a need to keep staff happy enough to continue working, in fields where workers are in high demand. Outside of that? A corporation can and will work people to death for as little pay as they can get away with. That's capitalism.

While there were, obviously, abusers of the feudal system, the principle was one of mutual support and division of labor, not​ exploitation.

[kamuimac]

Feudalism itself as an economic system wasn't superior to wage based capitalism. But certain elements of it were in a way more humane than laissez-faire capitalism.

Feudal systems were inherently more communal and there wasn't an infinite increased productivity creep.

The modern minimum wage worker is several folds more productive than his counterpart 20 or 40 years ago, yet he is in effective terms earning less.

It doesn't matter how productive a modern worker is, he will be milked for everything withing his shift and get jack shit in return.

A medieval laborer got paid to do a certain task, if he was efficient and got it done in a couple of hours, the rest of his labor day... Was his to do with it whatever he wanted.

In sheer amount of hours worked we only ever had a brief period in history when we were all worse off. The early industrial age. That period lasted about 70 or 80 years. (Talking about paid work here, not chattel slavery).

what he is "effectively doing" is spending a lot of money he earns on stuff that he doesnt need. he also is much more greedy then people 40 years ago

they need to have everythign and need to have it right now. regardless of how poor they are .

look how many people for example instead of saving money and then buying stuff take 15 loans/credits - because they have to have it now and " rates are 0% " for electronics/furniture etc etc anyway - back in the day nobody lived like that. now people have 0 control on how much they spend - thats why they have no money for investments and making their lives better - but they do have newest model of iphone and overpirced designer clothes in closet.

also middle ages ? really ? when majority of people could be simply killed with no repercussions by anyone who was higher in social standing then they are and if you were poor you effectively had 0 human rights

its the same as people gloryfying 19th century because they have that romatic notion that they would be ofc part of "urban inteligence" - when in fact what they would likely would be would be either dead by age of 10 or strugging to have anyting to eat as manufacture labour force or peasants .

[Dontrike]

what he is "effectively doing" is spending a lot of money he earns on stuff that he doesnt need. he also is much more greedy then people 40 years ago

they need to have everythign and need to have it right now. regardless of how poor they are .

look how many people for example instead of saving money and then buying stuff take 15 loans/credits - because they have to have it now and " rates are 0% " for electronics/furniture etc etc anyway - back in the day nobody lived like that. now people have 0 control on how much they spend - thats why they have no money for investments and making their lives better - but they do have newest model of iphone and overpirced designer clothes in closet.

While money sense is rarer than it used to be, I can agree that much, do you really think that's the sole reason why money issues exist? We can see that people are technically making less than those decades ago and many things that are quite important (cars, school, insurance, etc) cost far more. Honestly, your argument is nearing the "stop eating avocado toast" and "just try not being poor" side of things.

[Mihalik]

what he is "effectively doing" is spending a lot of money he earns on stuff that he doesnt need. he also is much more greedy then people 40 years ago
.

Gonna stop you right here champ.

That's complete horseshit.

And it has always been horseshit.

https://www.business2community.com/t...s-02220370/amp

Boomers always outspent subsequent generations and continue doing so. Their spending also goes primarily into retail while millenials and Gen Z still put the bulk of their spending into education.

Quit the horseshit and the poor blaming.

The spending habits of people 40 years ago was as greedy or outright greedier than today, difference is generations from 40years ago made sure everyone coming after them will be poorer.

They also replaced things like living wages with credit cards. Affordable education with student loans.

So you can take your moralizing and shove it where the sun don't shine.