Breaking the ties between work and income

[ar81]

In 1790, 90% of Americans were farmers.
Today, less than 3% are farmers, thanks to technology, which raised productivity a lot.

If we think that technology allows spare time to people, like in a scifi tale, it should mean that today 87% of Americans should have free food because machines are doing all the job.

The scifi tale would involve detaching income from work, because machines are doing the work.

But it does not happen to be like that.
Poverty in US is about 13%, unemployment is 9.9% and underemployment is 20%. It tells me that Americans had better standards of living in 1790 than today. With 90% of farmers you could not have so much unemployment and poverty.

But it happens that if you try to implement the scifi tale, Americans would say it is socialist.

As technology starts to automate more and more, companies will become less and less manpower intensive. It also would mean less employment and lower wages.

If the scifi tale is going to be real, it seems that people should have the right to a minimum income, and income should be detached from work. As unemployment increases due to automation, this issue will have to surface in one way or another.

There is a powerful reason for that. People ARE the market. People are customers and without customer, companies can't survive. Current crisis is a crisis of customers. Since US customers can't afford to spend as they did, there is a strong need for customers. Detaching income and work would guarantee a minimum size for the domestic market.

Some people believe that money is what encourages work. Well that's not entirely true. You can see open source projects and freeware. All this work was not encouraged by money.

If someone is lazy, social rejection of such behavior should be more effective than using money to motivate.

What do you think?

[BitterFlower]

I think the US is in transition and the country needs to decide what our "market" will be. We outsourced our manufacturing (a big employer after the industrial revolution) to other countries. I thought in the 90s we would become a knowledge workforce with the tech boom, but the companies outsourced that. As you have stated, we don't farm anymore. We've outsourced that. We have created a country of consumers, but it's almost cannibalism in that we can only spend what we can afford--we saw the after effects of that with the credit market crash.

In traditional barter-trade societies of old, each place had something to offer. One country would offer grains for gold, or silk for incense, etc. The US on a large scale doesn't offer much except consumers--who are pretty broke right now. Extending social services is a short-sighted solution. I don't knock it, because without socialism you'd have the French Revolution all over again. However, it's not sustainable because you can only give out what's put in.

The most practical solution for a "U.S. Product" right now is clean energy technology, but the oil dinosaurs don't seem willing to let up control from their cold dead hands. Maybe the oil spill will speed up the death of the oil giants (or the planet ).

I have been perusing government grants and they are taking suggestions for solar energy for future possible grants. If anyone has any ideas, you should to go to grants.gov and search for "solar energy". If the government is willing to pay for clean energy technology, perhaps the clean energy movement can get some steam.

Additionally, we need to be more local with our purchases to keep money circulating with our communities. When people buy from mega corporations (ie Walmart), the money leaves the community and probably the country. Their "social responsibilities" programs are a joke compared to what is actually needed. Lately, I have seen more intra-community purchasing with co-ops and other local business initiatives.

We should not look for "work". My generation was fed that getting a "good job" at a corporation was the end-all goal. With all the layoffs and pay freezes, I still see people encouraging others to "take whatever you can get".
To satiate the capitalist-minded folks (and to tie back into my two points) I think that people should participate (work, I guess ) in a large-scale production of a sustainable "U.S." product offering (like clean energy) or create local businesses that serve their local community.

[tru]

We should not look for "work". My generation was fed that getting a "good job" at a corporation was the end-all goal. With all the layoffs and pay freezes, I still see people encouraging others to "take whatever you can get".
To satiate the capitalist-minded folks (and to tie back into my two points) I think that people should participate (work, I guess ) in a large-scale production of a sustainable "U.S." product offering (like clean energy) or create local businesses that serve their local community.[/QUOTE]

It is time for change and I can think of no better global plan than the development of clean energy solutions and renewable energy projects which are properly funded and backed by governments. Not just put in place as token gesture's. This would, at a stroke, create new industries, generate jobs in all sectors and could possibly turn things around a lot quicker than otherwise expected.

but as you say, powerful players are involved, until they stop stifling the growth of these new technologies it will be a case of, business as usual.

When people realise this, we may have an renewable energy revolution. Could be really exciting as well as financially rewarding.

[Lucidism]

Originally Posted by ar81

If we think that technology allows spare time to people, like in a scifi tale, it should mean that today 87% of Americans should have free food because machines are doing all the job.

Where does this 87% number come from?

Technically, 100% of Americans can have access to free food. Churches and shelters are more than happy to give food away for free if someone is hungry.

It tells me that Americans had better standards of living in 1790 than today. With 90% of farmers you could not have so much unemployment and poverty.

I don't judge "standards of living" by employment alone. A single American who makes under $15,000 a year may be considered in "poverty", but they actually can live a pretty darn good life.

As unemployment increases due to automation, this issue will have to surface in one way or another.

I think automation (machines, computers) has created more jobs than it has taken away. We have automated the mundane physical jobs. We have machines that fill cereal boxes for us. Should a human spend 40 hours a week filling up boxes of Frosted Flakes? This is better suited for an emotionless machine.

Our current time is an opportunity for those who use their mind more-so than those who use their body.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by BitterFlower

I think the US is in transition and the country needs to decide what our "market" will be. We outsourced our manufacturing (a big employer after the industrial revolution) to other countries. I thought in the 90s we would become a knowledge workforce with the tech boom, but the companies outsourced that. As you have stated, we don't farm anymore. We've outsourced that. We have created a country of consumers, but it's almost cannibalism in that we can only spend what we can afford--we saw the after effects of that with the credit market crash.

I will derail the thread for a moment to comment on what US did in recent years. US made a bet on producing money (financial) while others produced goods (outsourcing).

In the end the goal of business was to make money, so why to produce something to make money if financial brings higher profit by creating money in accounting books out of thin air? It seems the easy way to go.

But it creates these situations:

1.The money that is produced is used to supply consumers as debt, which means that as consumers see their jobs outsourced they need to use debt to pay debt, and therefore debt grows to unthinkable levels.

2.When money is produced without raising production, inflation pressures are produced. Prior to globalization, inflation could be exported, but globalization makes jobs to be exported with inflation. So it brings an ugly trade off for US: absorb inflation or lose jobs.

China has a culture with deflationary habits and it imported lots of inflation and also lots of jobs.

3.Producing financial "products" that produced money increased the demand for dollars, keeping dollar strong. People thought "what is good for Wall Street is good for Americans" until this crisis proved it wrong.

So as you say, US needs to rethink its model in a very radical way that may shock think tanks and also bankers and speculators. But what will be the model?

In a world that uses technology more and more, detaching work from income, and rethinking ownership on technology and copyright will make the difference between the end of capitalism (capitalism without customers, because everyone is poor) and a scifi world where machines do the work and people have spare time.

Originally Posted by Lucidism

Where does this 87% number come from?

Technically, 100% of Americans can have access to free food. Churches and shelters are more than happy to give food away for free if someone is hungry.


I don't judge "standards of living" by employment alone. A single American who makes under $15,000 a year may be considered in "poverty", but they actually can live a pretty darn good life.


I think automation (machines, computers) has created more jobs than it has taken away. We have automated the mundane physical jobs. We have machines that fill cereal boxes for us. Should a human spend 40 hours a week filling up boxes of Frosted Flakes? This is better suited for an emotionless machine.

Our current time is an opportunity for those who use their mind more-so than those who use their body.

90% farmers (in 1790) - 3% (today) = 87%

I do not mean charity free food. I mean, machines do the work with minimal participation of humans, and ALL citizens get free food.

You say technology created more jobs. Can you explain why is that US has more unemployment and underemployment today than in 1790? Why 1 billion people in the world are starved while 1/4 of US grain production is used to feed cars?

Unemployed have plenty of time but no money, and you see Americans with a job who are working 12/6 because the workload of the job cuts force such working hours.

If the system in US is so good, why does it have 13.2% poverty?

U.S. poverty rate hits 11-year high | Reuters

$15000 without debt is a good life. But since debt comes to play, and repay is required, it reduces the standard of living.

[ZephyrusX]

Technically, 100% of Americans can have access to free food. Churches and shelters are more than happy to give food away for free if someone is hungry.

In Canada, we have had a surge in the amount of people accessing food banks due to the recent recession. Due to the demand and relative lack of supply, many food banks are only able to provide help to a family once or twice a month. Some report simply not being able to meet demand (suggesting that they have to turn families away). Shelters also report turning people away due to lack of funding. In Canada (especially Ontario), layoffs and the unemployment rates are made worse by outsourcing more so than automation, which increases reliance upon food banks and shelters. I doubt very much that 100% of Americans have access to free food.

I don't judge "standards of living" by employment alone. A single American who makes under $15,000 a year may be considered in "poverty", but they actually can live a pretty darn good life.

They would live even better lives if the government implemented appropriate policies when major changes occur in the economy - namely if they provide the means of social mobility. If the West has transformed from a manufacturing economy to a information based economy, the government ought to implement policies so that individuals that once relied upon manufacturing jobs can also make the switch over. Poverty is correlated with a lot of risk factors, such as poor health, prostitution, HIV, crime etc. In the long run, I would argue that such policies would be beneficial for the State as well as the individual.

Our current time is an opportunity for those who use their mind more-so than those who use their body.

And the pertinent question would be this: Is everyone given the equal opportunity to engage in the information based economy? I don’t have a fatalistic and pessimistic view on technology. It can achieve wonderful things. However, technology per se is not the problem. It is the governments unwillingness to respond to major changes in the economy that is the problem. The Ontario governments in particular have not done an overly impressive job in transforming an economy that once was heavily dependent on car manufacturing into an information based economy.

[Lucidism]

Just a disclaimer: I don't intend to get into a long debate (I have other things I'd rather spend my time doing), so please excuse me if I just ignore future replies, but I will respond to some comments for now.

Originally Posted by ar81

You say technology created more jobs. Can you explain why is that US has more unemployment and underemployment today than in 1790?

That would be a very long discussion. We may also disagree with what the foundation of what unemployment and underemployment means.

If someone wants to go and live off their own farm like they did in the old days, they're free to do that. Many people do that. They can be "self-employed".

Unemployment is often a choice. People won't take a job they feel is "below" them, even if the jobs are available.

One of the biggest causes of unemployment is our population growth. People just don't die like they used to! People over 40 are taking jobs that used to not be available to them (because they were dead). Perhaps for every one person born, there isn't one job created. If this is the case, then over time, unemployment would go up and up.

Why 1 billion people in the world are starved while 1/4 of US grain production is used to feed cars?

Because our society is more interested in driving cars than feeding the 1 billion starving people?

$15000 without debt is a good life. But since debt comes to play, and repay is required, it reduces the standard of living.

If an individual takes on debt, it is often their fault. Not the government.

Yes - even if you get sick - it's your fault. There are inherent risks to life.

I think it unwise to depend on anyone else (including the government) for something we can secure for ourselves.

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I doubt very much that 100% of Americans have access to free food.

If a church or food bank is not available, ask a neighbor. Ask anyone. Food (without any exchange of money) is always available to those who really want it.

However, I would agree that not 100% of Americans are resourceful enough to get access to free food. But the food is available, which is my point. Just like books are always available, yet not everyone knows how to read.

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

And the pertinent question would be this: Is everyone given the equal opportunity to engage in the information based economy?

I'm against the whole entitlement mentality that people should be "given" things just for being alive, which includes opportunities. If someone wants an opportunity, go out and get it. Create it for yourself. If you can't adapt, you die. This is how nature has always worked.

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

They would live even better lives if the government implemented appropriate policies when major changes occur in the economy - namely if they provide the means of social mobility.

Possibly, but the government isn't the type that can always change quickly with the times and provide for all of the people in the country. Ultimately, personal success boils down to the individual level (which is where it belongs, in my opinion).

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Lucidism

If an individual takes on debt, it is often their fault. Not the government.

Credit creates a macroeconomical imbalance. If others are in debt, you will also pay the price.

Originally Posted by Lucidism

I'm against the whole entitlement mentality that people should be "given" things just for being alive, which includes opportunities. If someone wants an opportunity, go out and get it. Create it for yourself. If you can't adapt, you die. This is how nature has always worked.

If machines can do the work, there is no reason to make people to work. A good reason to give people some money: To protect the economy. Otherwise you will have chronical recession caused by technology.

Originally Posted by Lucidism

Yes - even if you get sick - it's your fault. There are inherent risks to life.

Sweden, Canada outrank U.S. on healthcare | Reuters
They pay less and they get better health.
In countries where they do not think like that, those risks are reduced.

[ZephyrusX]

If a church or food bank is not available, ask a neighbor. Ask anyone. Food (without any exchange of money) is always available to those who really want it.

So you are basically ignoring what I am saying? Here is the link to the report:
http://foodbankscanada.ca/documents/...t2009NOV16.pdf

I'm against the whole entitlement mentality that people should be "given" things just for being alive, which includes opportunities. If someone wants an opportunity, go out and get it. Create it for yourself. If you can't adapt, you die. This is how nature has always worked.

I don’t believe that there is such a thing as pure individualism. IT is a mere fantasy of a child who wants to solely credit him/her self for his/her relative privilege and power in society. Being born into a middle class family confers both inherited and State benefits that transcends pure individualism and individual ‘hard work’. Such benefits could include:

Family wealth that can pay for the expenses of higher education that cannot be covered by loans, which then translates into higher income jobs and benefits

The ability to afford health care and avoid health related risks that are detrimental economically, politically and socially (in the U.S anyway)

Government grants to conduct research and development

Government grants to study with another artist and to produce art

Tax breaks (and in some cases, out right ‘bail outs’) for small businesses and corporations to open up and continue running


There is nothing purely individual about the circumstances that you are born into and there is nothing purely individual about how you live your life. I hate to break it to you, but you do rely upon the State. If the State confers benefits to the middle class so that they can generate work that is productive for the greater good, why shouldn’t it also do so for those that once depended upon the manufacturing industry?

Even if you want to ignore the question of ethics, one can still make a convincing arguement that State policy could render the unemployed or underemployed more productive for the greater good. Having a higher educated population would be better conducive towards a information based economy. Having more high income jobs would generate more tax for the State. Having a healthier population would put less burden on the health care system. Having less unemployed people and less people on welfare would be more economically productive and less burdensome on the State. Etc. Some how, I don’t think letting entire populations of people ‘die off’ would be overly productive… it’s a great way to get people to retaliate with violence.

In Ontario, for example, the Liberal government generated a make work program by revamping the public transportation system. It was meant to employ the jobless, give them new skills, and reduce environmental pollution. Though to be honest, I never followed up with the story and I don't know how effective it has been. This is just one example to deal with a changing economy.

One of the biggest causes of unemployment is our population growth. People just don't die like they used to! People over 40 are taking jobs that used to not be available to them (because they were dead). Perhaps for every one person born, there isn't one job created. If this is the case, then over time, unemployment would go up and up.

I don’t quite follow your reasoning. If there were never any new jobs created, I could see how longer life expectancies could make a difference. Besides, the birth rate in Canada and the U.S has been miniscule for some time now. IN Canada, it isn’t even 2.1 (the rate at which the population would replace it self). If we control for immigration, that means that there are less workers to replace older workers who are retiring. This is a major issue of concern for policy makers since the Baby Boomers are near the age of retirement (though the issue is often overblown). Canada largely makes up for this via immigration policies. How is overpopulation a problem? If anything, I would suspect that corporations and public sectors will want to hire and train more employees in order to ensure that they have employees who are experienced and possess the leadership needed in order to take over from the Baby Boomers.

[Lucidism]

Originally Posted by ar81

Sweden, Canada outrank U.S. on healthcare | Reuters
They pay less and they get better health.

Yes, I know. And it's nice if our government takes care of our health care. I prefer it. I don't see how that applies to the statement you quoted.

Our standard of living has increased. A poor person today enjoys a better life than a poor person of 300 years ago.

[Lucidism]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

So you are basically ignoring what I am saying?

No. I said there is free food available to all Americans, as in food that you don't need to have money to legally acquire. It is available with the power of Asking.

You said that food banks don't have enough food for everyone. But how does that address what I said? I never said they did. Are you basically ignoring what I am saying?

I don’t believe that there is such a thing as pure individualism.

Me neither. My studies of sociology convinced me of that long ago.

But the idea that the government is largely responsible to help ensure people aren't left behind in the work place isn't something I particularly agree with. I think grandma is the one who is responsible for learning about computers and Microsoft Office if she wants to continue being a secretary. Seems silly to blame the government. But don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's a bad idea for the government to do something. I think that's a good idea. But grandma may be better off if she understands the concept of lifelong learning and adapting with with times. Better off than depending on an outside entity - especially one like the government, which all of history shows is not the most intelligent of entities.

I believe I am ultimately responsible for my success - no one else. People who blame the government for their problems seem very weak to me.

If there were never any new jobs created, I could see how longer life expectancies could make a difference.

Many new jobs are created every day, along with new people. Is the job increase keeping up with the population increase? Maybe... maybe not. If not, then there's a problem.

Thanks for the discussions.

[ZephyrusX]

Yes, I know. And it's nice if our government takes care of our health care. I prefer it. I don't see how that applies to the statement you quoted.

You said in a previous post: "I'm against the whole entitlement mentality that people should be "given" things just for being alive, which includes opportunities. If someone wants an opportunity, go out and get it. Create it for yourself. If you can't adapt, you die. This is how nature has always worked."

How can you say in one post that you are against entitlements and then in another post say that you prefer a government run health care system?

[Lucidism]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

How can you say in one post that you are against entitlements and then in another post say that you prefer a government run health care system?

I'm not against people who are given things. I'm not against giving people things.

I'm against people who think they should be given things, just because they are alive, or for no other special reason. We see this mentality a lot in society.

"I'm 16, so I should be given a car!"
"I have a college degree, so I should be given a good high paying job!"
"I'm alive, so the government should take care of me!"

Wouldn't it be fun if a baby lion proclaimed, "I'm alive, so zebras should just jump into my mouth when I'm hungry!"

I prefer being given things. Don't you? Being given stuff for free (or at a reduced cost) is nice! But there's a difference between being grateful for a gift and demanding a gift. I'm against the latter. I hope that clears up what I mean.

An issue I've noticed with online discussions is how people read into things. It can become hard to understand what the other person is actually saying - because we are processing their words in our minds, through our filter, as if we were saying it. Lots of misunderstandings. This is why I tend to avoid online debates, though as this thread has proven, I am sometimes unsuccessful!

[ZephyrusX]

Wouldn't it be fun if a baby lion proclaimed, "I'm alive, so zebras should just jump into my mouth when I'm hungry!"

I’m mainly confused by the fact that you are even bringing this up. I like the animal imagery though. You are against people who expect something from the State, but do not intend to give anything back or putting forth some effort of their own…? No body is arguing that individuals should just be given things for the hell of it. I am arguing that appropriate State policy can grant individuals certain opportunities that will confer benefits to the greater society in the long run. In this relationship, both sides are giving something back. I.E Not many middle class scientists can afford the expenditures of research and development on there own, so the State provides grants in the hopes of hitting upon some discovery that will be beneficial for all.

In Ontario, much of the unemployment is due to the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs. If you want to be really callous, you could correctly blame them for not ‘foreseeing’ this phenomenon and preparing ahead of time. But what is the point in having a bunch of unemployed people lingering around? Especially if you can use the State to lower that unemployment rate? As a form of deterrence? I have yet to see a study demonstrating that deterrence works.

Did you bring this up because you disagree with what I am basically saying? Or did you just bring it up for the hell of it? I often see your line of reasoning employed as an excuse as to why there should be no State benefits provided whatsoever. I think this is the reason why I don’t quite follow you.

[Lucidism]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I’m mainly confused by the fact that you are even bringing this up.

I think it started when I saw the word "given" in this statement earlier: "Is everyone given the equal opportunity to engage in the information based economy?"

That statement brought an image to my mind of people who concern themselves so much with what the government is giving them just for being a citizen. It brought to my mind the idea some have that the government should be responsible for solving all of our problems. These things are examples of what I'd call an "entitlement mentality", where people expect things without effort.

And the reason I probably don't like this mentality is because of my sister, who is a perfect example of someone who expects riches for doing nothing.

I've also known people who have babies they can't afford, simply because they know the state will help them afford it. That almost sounds like stealing, in my mind. It's the equivalent thought of "I know I can't afford this but I can make other people pay for it".

I am arguing that appropriate State policy can grant individuals certain opportunities that will confer benefits to the greater society in the long run.

I see. I definitely agree.

But what is the point in having a bunch of unemployed people lingering around?

Agreed. A bunch of unemployed people are not very useful.

I had to look back on this thread just now and see where I was going with it. I disagreed with the concept of "Americans had better standards of living in 1790 than today" and that was the main reason I replied. I believe the average American only lived to about 40 back then and had to work much harder to get by than we do nowadays. Indeed, we have more free time now than people who had to work the farm all day.

Much of everything else that was said I can more or less agree with or at least see the point. Some of the things I somewhat disagreed with may have been my misinterpretation, as I look back on it again. Like I said in my last post, it can be too easy to read into things sometimes, or get caught up on a single sentence!

I often see your line of reasoning employed as an excuse as to why there should be no State benefits provided whatsoever.

Oh, I don't think that. Heck, I voted for Obama.

But I do feel that optimally people shouldn't learn to depend on government benefits. The more we can look to ourselves to provide for ourselves, the better off we are for ourselves and for our societies. I'm sure most of us feel this way too.

I should sidestep out of this topic now, since I've said what I wanted to say and also said much more than I intended to say. Thanks for the conversation, ZephyrusX and ar81.

[Brutha]

The share of income that's required to be feed shrank a lot since 1790.
We know use part of our income to buy stuff like computers.

I am arguing that appropriate State policy can grant individuals certain opportunities that will confer benefits to the greater society in the long run.

It's a different position to say that it's from an utilitiarian perspective best when you help some people than to argue that those people have an inherent right to be helped.
There are actually people who are in favor of a right to laziness and to be provided by the state.
That's especially true for those European lefties who want to introduce a "basic income".

When Esther Duflo says: "People don't become used to handout, they become used to nets.", than she's driven by empirics.
Being driven by ideological arguments about rights and being entitled to free nets is a different argument.

To come back to the price of food. If it were free Americans might be even fatter than they are at the moment.

If someone is lazy, social rejection of such behavior should be more effective than using money to motivate.

So the stereotyp against lazy unemployed isn't strong enough in the US but should be increased?

Especially if you can use the State to lower that unemployment rate?

The question is whether you can do that in an effective fashion or whether the higher tax rates that are required for the state programs will destroy more jobs.

Some people believe that money is what encourages work. Well that's not entirely true. You can see open source projects and freeware. All this work was not encouraged by money.

Glaring logical fallacy.
Just because some work isn't encouraged by money doesn't mean that there isn't work that encouraged by money.

A lot of open source happens to be partly motivated by money.
Firefox is developed by a foundation that pays their programmers. They even had the money to run full page newspaper ads and those full page ads are probably part of the reason why Firefox succeeded over Opera.

Google payed the Mozilla foundations millions to for the inbuild google search because Google didn't want that people search with Microsoft's Explorers build in MSN search.

Wikipedia also has a yearly budjet of millions but most of it's contributors don't make money.
It doesn't make sense to be dogmatic about solving every problem with the same form of organisation.
Producing food probably happens to be something that a regulated market does well.