Page 32 of 42 FirstFirst ...
22
30
31
32
33
34
... LastLast
  1. #621
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenfoldor View Post
    IMO, the problem with UBI is not having to work and just getting a check for doing nothing, is too big of an incentive. Especially when the job one already has was low paying and generally terrible anyway. Once one decides to remove themselves from the workforce, that is a relatively big setback if they ever want to rejoin the workforce.
    The solution to that is obviously to pay more. You'll find a dude for every job on earth if the compensation is right. That will make "unskilled" work more expensive and quite possibly "skilled" work cheaper for companies. Decreasing income inequality. And there's nothing wrong with that. The person cleaning an office is working just as hard as the person behind the desk, but simply in another way.

  2. #622
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Plumbers aren't construction laborers, they're specialists who require pretty significant training and such. You can't just up and decide to be a plumber tomorrow; you could with construction laborer. You're not making six figures as a laborer. For the specialists, there's gonna be up-front costs for training and licensing and tools that act as pretty significant barriers to entry for many; the process takes about 5 years here in Ontario, and the costs can be into low five figures over that time. So there's your problem; if you've got the time and funds to invest in developing a career, do you pick plumbing? Or something else?

    Also, "over $100k" is just "comfortably middle class". We need to stop pretending it's a ton of money.
    Not sure where you’re getting your figures, but $100k salary is literally in the top 20 percent of income earners in the US last I checked.

  3. #623
    Legendary! unfilteredJW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Seagrove Beach, FL
    Posts
    6,527
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Not sure where you’re getting your figures, but $100k salary is literally in the top 20 percent of income earners in the US last I checked.
    You are so close to figuring this out.
    Blessed are the fornicates, may we bend down to be their whores. Blessed are the rich, may our labor deliver them more.
    Blessed are the envious; bless the slothful, the wrathful, the vain. Blessed are the gluttonous, may they feast us to famine and war.
    What of the pious, the pure of heart, the peaceful, the meek, the mourning, and the merciful? All doomed, all doomed

  4. #624
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Not sure where you’re getting your figures, but $100k salary is literally in the top 20 percent of income earners in the US last I checked.
    That so few people make enough money to qualify as "comfortably middle class" is a very bad sign for people living in the US. There are reasons why so many people in the US are so angry. High prices and low salaries make people cross.

  5. #625
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega10 View Post
    That so few people make enough money to qualify as "comfortably middle class" is a very bad sign for people living in the US. There are reasons why so many people in the US are so angry. High prices and low salaries make people cross.
    Seriously, it's like people don't realize that doctors and lawyers are the archetype for "upper middle class", and lawyers tend to make north of $150k on average in many states, and family doctors average comfortably north of $200k (and specialists much more than that).

    Six-figure incomes aren't that big a deal any more.

  6. #626
    Quote Originally Posted by Twdft View Post
    The solution to that is obviously to pay more. You'll find a dude for every job on earth if the compensation is right. That will make "unskilled" work more expensive and quite possibly "skilled" work cheaper for companies. Decreasing income inequality. And there's nothing wrong with that. The person cleaning an office is working just as hard as the person behind the desk, but simply in another way.
    I'm not at all on board with someone who has certifications, degrees, training, and experience getting similar pay to someone doing a job literally anyone can do with none of those things.

    Working hard is not what qualifies the amount of pay you get, it's where and how you're applying that hard work. And there are MANY jobs people with none of those things can even dream of doing, and the people that CAN should get compensated accordingly.

    The floor on pay should be much higher, so everyone can earn a livable wage regardless of what they're doing because I agree that working hard deserves enough compensation to live.

    But, there should be income inequality, that's not a bad thing. The levels we see now are what the problem is, not that there is income inequality at all.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Seriously, it's like people don't realize that doctors and lawyers are the archetype for "upper middle class", and lawyers tend to make north of $150k on average in many states, and family doctors average comfortably north of $200k (and specialists much more than that).

    Six-figure incomes aren't that big a deal any more.
    Whether it's middle class is not the issue.

    Single wage earners earning over $100k are in the top 20% of all earners in the country. Getting to that point is still a pretty big deal. It just doesn't make you as wealthy as it used to.

  7. #627
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    I'm not at all on board with someone who has certifications, degrees, training, and experience getting similar pay to someone doing a job literally anyone can do with none of those things.
    Decreasing inequality. Not actually similar pay for everyone.

  8. #628
    Quote Originally Posted by Twdft View Post
    Decreasing inequality. Not actually similar pay for everyone.
    I apparently misinterpreted what you wrote. My bad.

  9. #629
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    I'm not at all on board with someone who has certifications, degrees, training, and experience getting similar pay to someone doing a job literally anyone can do with none of those things.

    Working hard is not what qualifies the amount of pay you get, it's where and how you're applying that hard work. And there are MANY jobs people with none of those things can even dream of doing, and the people that CAN should get compensated accordingly.

    The floor on pay should be much higher, so everyone can earn a livable wage regardless of what they're doing because I agree that working hard deserves enough compensation to live.

    But, there should be income inequality, that's not a bad thing. The levels we see now are what the problem is, not that there is income inequality at all.

    .
    So wait if you do equal amount of work and where production/revenue generation is on the same level....that hard working unskilled laborer deserves to be paid way less then the so called "skilled" laborer just because more people can do it?
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  10. #630
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    So wait if you do equal amount of work and where production/revenue generation is on the same level....that hard working unskilled laborer deserves to be paid way less then the so called "skilled" laborer just because more people can do it?
    If you can provide an example where the production/revenue is on the same level, we might be able to discuss more specifics about your example.

    In general though, yes. A position that requires specialized training, certifications, experience and skill should get paid more than a position where none of those things are required. This means less people can do that job, and also means people had to spend a not insignificant amount of money and/or time to get those things.

    That's supply and demand, applied to labor rather than goods.

  11. #631
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    If you can provide an example where the production/revenue is on the same level, we might be able to discuss more specifics about your example.

    In general though, yes. A position that requires specialized training, certifications, experience and skill should get paid more than a position where none of those things are required. This means less people can do that job, and also means people had to spend a not insignificant amount of money and/or time to get those things.

    That's supply and demand, applied to labor rather than goods.
    Our warehouse workers generate the same or more revenue/production then our office manager. He has a degree too!! Its not a job you can walk right into. Once you factor in the cost of training him vs a standard warehouse position it might even come to a short term lower #.

    Our drivers too have a lower ROI/production then our warehouse workers.


    Meanwhile if supply and demand were applied, based on today's market the warehouse workers would be making 2x the amount of middle management. Its almost impossible to find workers right now in general labor. Last time we posted for a "skilled" position we had more applicants then we had time to look through them all, and most of them being qualified (if not over qualified).
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  12. #632
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    If you can provide an example where the production/revenue is on the same level, we might be able to discuss more specifics about your example.

    In general though, yes. A position that requires specialized training, certifications, experience and skill should get paid more than a position where none of those things are required. This means less people can do that job, and also means people had to spend a not insignificant amount of money and/or time to get those things.

    That's supply and demand, applied to labor rather than goods.
    Except that's not really supply and demand; you're talking about supply in a limited sense, but not talking about demand at all.

    Just as a for-instance; let's say there's 100 positions that need to be filled. 90 are unskilled, 10 are skilled. In the available job pool, you've got 90 applicants, 40 of whom have skill training, and 50 that don't.

    The 40 skilled applicants vying for 10 job positions means 30 won't get what they want; the employers can short-change those job offers because there's an over-supply of labor. This can crater the value of that training to near-zero levels, if not completely zero.

    And for the unskilled labor, you've got fewer people with appropriate training than there are positions; unless those skilled laborers are going to take the unskilled jobs, competition's gonna drive the value of that labor up, potentially outcompeting the value of the skilled labor itself (because if you're a fine woodworking craftsman specializing in custom furniture, say, you're probably not going to take a construction laborer job unless you're desperate; you'll keep looking.)

    This is, frankly, why things like fine arts degrees are often seen as lacking value; there's a hell of a lot of training there, but the jobs available for people with a master's degree in English Lit or Philosophy are minimal, so a lot of graduates end up, say, working at Starbucks as a barista; an unskilled position (don't @ me; you're trained on the job and don't need those skills on application, is what I'm saying)

  13. #633
    Quote Originally Posted by gondrin View Post
    UBI, as how the entire economy runs(from manufacturing to retail), couldn't work as too many gears would come to a grinding halt as we are a consumer economy and still need lots of people to make things. Robotics would have to advance a LOT more for that to be the case.

    The biggest problem with UBI, and I've stated this in previous threads, is that there is no way to afford it from a cost standpoint. Even if you remove Social Security(UBI would remove it outright along with the overhead of it), unemployment and the like, the taxes taken in wouldn't be ANYWHERE near what is needed for a UBI, even a basic one. Lets do some math shall we.
    The main issue with UBI is that you need to replace almost all entry level/ min-wage/ zero training jobs with automation/ self-service to reduce costs to the point that a UBI can maintain a level of lifestyle. Likewise, you need to reduce housing costs, which would mean shifting populations away from urban concentrations in limited areas. (Everyone can't live on the same little island/ valley, until you can increase capacity a lot more.)

    The problem with all these discussions is the arbitrary assignment of some dollar amount. $15 is meaningless, businesses in middle of nowhere can't afford it and NYC it's not enough to survive on. Assigning some amount as UBI is meaningless, it's only in whether that amount can afford someone a living space and supplies to survive on. Then you get into how well or how many people such a thing should supply. I've seen plenty of articles decrying that someone can't feed their family of 4 on their minimum wage job, but should it? How much should UBI reward having children once those children are not needed for future productivity?

    We're just not to the level of automation that will facilitate switching to a UBI, in my opinion, but I dont' set any policy anyway.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  14. #634
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    The main issue with UBI is that you need to replace almost all entry level/ min-wage/ zero training jobs with automation/ self-service to reduce costs to the point that a UBI can maintain a level of lifestyle.
    What? No, you don't. Literally no test of that kind of system has suggested this. What propaganda hole are you digging this out from?

    Likewise, you need to reduce housing costs, which would mean shifting populations away from urban concentrations in limited areas. (Everyone can't live on the same little island/ valley, until you can increase capacity a lot more.)
    Again, categorically false and without any basis in reality.

    I've seen plenty of articles decrying that someone can't feed their family of 4 on their minimum wage job, but should it? How much should UBI reward having children once those children are not needed for future productivity?
    "The only purpose of human reproduction is to produce new workers for the machine."

    Jesus Christ, dude.

  15. #635
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    Our warehouse workers generate the same or more revenue/production then our office manager. He has a degree too!! Its not a job you can walk right into. Once you factor in the cost of training him vs a standard warehouse position it might even come to a short term lower #.
    This is debatable, and is a much deeper discussion.

    There are a lot of things managers do that don't directly generate revenue, but most of the time, without them there would be less revenue generated in total. Managing the people as well as the site itself, is absolutely integral to running a successful business and is therefore just as, if not more, important than the folks laboring inside.

    This applies to many areas besides management, where the people don't directly affect the revenue, but have a profound impact on whether that revenue is made at all. I'd argue that every single "Quality" related position falls into this category. And they're exceedingly important for any business.

    Our drivers too have a lower ROI/production then our warehouse workers.
    Again, debatable. Without the drivers products wouldn't get delivered, and in my experience with some drivers, the demands required of them (as in what is asked of them in that position) are higher, more strenuous.

    Meanwhile if supply and demand were applied, based on today's market the warehouse workers would be making 2x the amount of middle management. Its almost impossible to find workers right now in general labor. Last time we posted for a "skilled" position we had more applicants then we had time to look through them all, and most of them being qualified (if not over qualified).
    Fair point about the supply and demand. Was more speaking to the position itself and not the number of people qualified to do it.

    ie You might only need 1 manager for a site, but you need 10+ people to fill other roles that require less training or qualifications.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Except that's not really supply and demand; you're talking about supply in a limited sense, but not talking about demand at all.
    Agreed. I oversimplified.

    Just as a for-instance; let's say there's 100 positions that need to be filled. 90 are unskilled, 10 are skilled. In the available job pool, you've got 90 applicants, 40 of whom have skill training, and 50 that don't.

    The 40 skilled applicants vying for 10 job positions means 30 won't get what they want; the employers can short-change those job offers because there's an over-supply of labor. This can crater the value of that training to near-zero levels, if not completely zero.
    Agreed. I wasn't taking in all of the complexities when I made the statement. As you've already touched on it's a much more complex situation.

    With that said, their training isn't worthless. It's just worthless in that particular situation/ position they're filling. They can still continue looking for a position that requires their more specialized training, whereas others who don't have that training can't even consider those jobs as an option.

    If someone takes a position lower than they're qualified or trained for, that's a decision they've made. Granted there are a LOT of situations where people are forced to make that decision, but that doesn't change that it was their decision.

    And for the unskilled labor, you've got fewer people with appropriate training than there are positions; unless those skilled laborers are going to take the unskilled jobs, competition's gonna drive the value of that labor up, potentially outcompeting the value of the skilled labor itself (because if you're a fine woodworking craftsman specializing in custom furniture, say, you're probably not going to take a construction laborer job unless you're desperate; you'll keep looking.)
    Agreed.

    This is, frankly, why things like fine arts degrees are often seen as lacking value; there's a hell of a lot of training there, but the jobs available for people with a master's degree in English Lit or Philosophy are minimal, so a lot of graduates end up, say, working at Starbucks as a barista; an unskilled position (don't @ me; you're trained on the job and don't need those skills on application, is what I'm saying)
    Yeah, but training in what? If the training you receive doesn't equip you to actually perform a task or apply what you know to a scenario that can provide value to a company, then that training IS lacking value. There are some degrees that ARE worth less than others because of this exact situation, where the things they learn and the kinds of skills they learn have ambiguous tangible benefit. Philosophy is one of these.

  16. #636
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    This is debatable, and is a much deeper discussion.

    There are a lot of things managers do that don't directly generate revenue, but most of the time, without them there would be less revenue generated in total. Managing the people as well as the site itself, is absolutely integral to running a successful business and is therefore just as, if not more, important than the folks laboring inside.

    This applies to many areas besides management, where the people don't directly affect the revenue, but have a profound impact on whether that revenue is made at all. I'd argue that every single "Quality" related position falls into this category. And they're exceedingly important for any business.


    Again, debatable. Without the drivers products wouldn't get delivered, and in my experience with some drivers, the demands required of them (as in what is asked of them in that position) are higher, more strenuous.

    .
    Without the warehouse workers drivers would have nothing to drive, thus they would have no job. It goes both ways. Does not change the ROI.
    Even if you include the non tangible benefits of a manager the ROI on the warehouse labor is substantially more than a manger.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  17. #637
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    Without the warehouse workers drivers would have nothing to drive, thus they would have no job. It goes both ways. Does not change the ROI.
    You're saying that you get higher ROI for warehouse labor than you do the drivers?

    You're absolutely certain? You've seen or performed your own cost-benefit analysis? Because a company having their own delivery drivers is a HUGE investment, considering the existence of pick-up and delivery services. A company wouldn't do this unless it was to their benefit.

    Also, most people can do warehouse labor. Not everyone can be a delivery driver, specifically, depending on the size of the vehicles they're driving, they at least need a commercial driver's license. Which not everybody has.

    Even if you include the non tangible benefits of a manager the ROI on the warehouse labor is substantially more than a manger.
    I honestly don't think this is true, not in most cases anyway. I'm not going to pretend there aren't some completely worthless managers out there, but successful companies don't get that way by making stupid decisions with their money and who they give it to.

    I know one thing that many people severely underestimate is the "decision making" responsibility. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it absolutely is. The decisions made by managers can make or break a company, and having the ability to make good decisions and the skills needed in order to know what a good or bad decision is given certain situations absolutely cannot be underestimated. It may not seem like "work," but a LOT goes into it.
    Last edited by Katchii; 2021-06-03 at 10:26 PM.

  18. #638
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    If you can provide an example where the production/revenue is on the same level, we might be able to discuss more specifics about your example.

    In general though, yes. A position that requires specialized training, certifications, experience and skill should get paid more than a position where none of those things are required. This means less people can do that job, and also means people had to spend a not insignificant amount of money and/or time to get those things.

    That's supply and demand, applied to labor rather than goods.
    Labor also happens to be people, so applying the same market forces you would to people as iron ingots is quite dehumanizing. Von mises and the Austrians are right when they say labor markets would clear if labor would accept any wage, any working conditions, move wherever they had to, and never unionize. As Thorstein Veblen points out this view is accurate in so far as one view labor as a commodity and only a commodity. This is of course very problematic
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  19. #639
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    What? No, you don't. Literally no test of that kind of system has suggested this. What propaganda hole are you digging this out from?
    For a UBI system to replace a welfare system, you have some basic requirements for the society to be able to function, rather than just printing more money as you keep raising UBI to keep up with the increasing costs. You can't just assign some arbitrary number and think it's going to work.

    Again, categorically false and without any basis in reality.
    So if you provide enough money for folks to afford $1000 a month in housing, does everyone just live on the streets in NYC, unable to afford housing, or do they instead have to move to cheaper areas to live in? Or do you adjust the UBI to localities, nullifying the Universal part? You can't just do UBI with payments, you need to control the expense side as well. Assuming you're going broad with it, of course.


    "The only purpose of human reproduction is to produce new workers for the machine."

    Jesus Christ, dude.
    You really have no capacity to discuss things that you don't already agree with, do you? At what point does the System have the authority or need to manage the population? Better to simply shove your head in the sand and hope for the best? If the topic is so anathema to you that you cannot see it worth discussing, why bother discussing it?
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  20. #640
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    For a UBI system to replace a welfare system, you have some basic requirements for the society to be able to function, rather than just printing more money as you keep raising UBI to keep up with the increasing costs. You can't just assign some arbitrary number and think it's going to work.
    You understand that taxes exist, right?

    You don't need to "print more money", at all. It's a weird claim and I have no idea where you got the impression that "printing money" would be required to make a UBI work, at least moreso than is already done to manage the money supply.

    Edit: I also just noticed the "increasing costs" bit; a UBI does not contribute to inflation, directly. No study of tests of such systems has indicated it would. Inflation occurs, yes, but inflation is managed, as an intentional factor of monetary policy; it disincentivizes hoarding cash, as it decays in value if you do so. Why would inflation change at all due to a UBI?

    So if you provide enough money for folks to afford $1000 a month in housing, does everyone just live on the streets in NYC, unable to afford a house, or do they instead have to move to cheaper areas to live in? Or do you adjust the UBI to localities, nullifying the Universal part? You can't just do UBI with payments, you need to control the expense side as well. Assuming you're going broad with it, of course.
    Are people somehow unable to afford living in NYC today?

    Why do you think they'll all have to be homeless if they're getting a UBI stipend in addition to wages?

    Do you think a UBI will abolish the concept of affordable housing, or something?

    You're skipping, like, 15 or 20 steps here. Show your work.

    You really have no capacity to discuss things that you don't already agree with, do you? At what point does the System have the authority or need to manage the population?
    I disagree that it should ever need that authority in the first place. And if population growth becomes a problem (it currently is not and there is no indication that it will become one, at current trend rates), incentive programs are likely more effective than restrictions, as China's found out.

    Better to simply shove your head in the sand and hope for the best? If the topic is so anathema to you that you cannot see it worth discussing, why bother discussing it?
    I'm perfectly willing to discuss it.

    I'm not willing to accept empty claims predicated on no evidence or reasoning as "discussion", however.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-06-04 at 03:00 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •