Your suggestions for a system of fair pay

[gorski]

@Alex

You shouldn't individualise it, I think!

The irrationality of the market is well documented.

Also, not only the professional judgement of the market - passed onto the "unsuccessful candidates" - but also the moral dimension of such a failure is yet another characteristic of the market we should be worried about. The "good for nothing" candidates might actually be very talented, willing, motivated, full of energy, knowledge and even experience but the market at some point doesn't need them any more and then...?!?

Moreover, the market is not exactly interested in fundamental research and long-term development etc. The state comes in with such grand investment and principles of long-term planning and strategic thinking, concerning the whole, i.e. the general interest versus particular interests [the market being just one of them].

I think it's more than that! Solidarity principle has to be thrown into the mix, too. Without it one has riots, social upheaval etc. Also, the loss of common Humanity.

The means tested system of welfare has its problems, btw.

So, must be carefully assessed and properly informed, these decisions...

 

[Santino]

Are you really saying that people would just lie around for years (with others around them telling them how good they are finding it working) and it simply wouldn't occur to them that they could go and get a job instead? Would you be one of those people? If not, why do you think others would be?

I acknowledge it as a strong possibility, and am not willing to dismiss it based on pyschological guesswork, which is mostly what is at work here.

When I was a temp I spent several periods doing no work at all. I could have easily joined more agencies, rung up every day to see what work was available, but I didn't, because I was comfortably off at my parents' house and had no particular need for money. Eventually I was offered a temp position within walking distance of my house, and that became a permanent job some time later. So, basically, yes, I am aware of how easy it is to just drift.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I acknowledge it as a strong possibility, and am not willing to dismiss based on pyschological guesswork, which is mostly what is at work here.

When I was a temp I spent several periods doing no work at all. I could have easily joined more agencies, rung up every day to see what work was available, but I didn't, because I was comfortably off at my parents' house and had no particular need for money. Eventually I was offered a temp position within walking distance of my house, and that became a permanent job some time later. So, basically, yes, I am aware of how easy it is to just drift.

Do you object to others drifting in the way you did as they sort themselves out, or do you reserve your moral indignation for people who don't have parents to support them.

 

[Santino]

You shouldn't individualise it, I think!

The irrationality of the market is well documented.

Also, not only the professional judgement of the market - passed onto the "unsuccessful candidates" - but also the moral dimension of such a failure is yet another characteristic of the market we should be worried about. The "good for nothing" candidates might actually be very talented, willing, motivated, full of energy, knowledge and even experience but the market at some point doesn't need them any more and then...?!?

Moreover, the market is not exactly interested in fundamental research and long-term development etc. The state comes in with such grand investment and principles of long-term planning and strategic thinking, concerning the whole, i.e. the general interest versus particular interests [the market being just one of them].

I think it's more than that! Solidarity principle has to be thrown into the mix, too. Without it one has riots, social upheaval etc. Also, the loss of common Humanity.

The means tested system of welfare has its problems, btw.

So, must be carefully assessed and properly informed, these decisions...

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The only specific issue I am contending here is that the state shouldn't, in principle, support indefinitely those that are unwilling to contribute.

 

[Santino]

Do you object to others drifting in the way you did as they sort themselves out, or do you reserve your moral indignation for people who don't have parents to support them.

No. If you had read my posts properly and weren't just out to score points, you would have read that I am in favour of a system massively more socialist than the current one, but one that, IN PRINCIPLE, does not support INDEFINITELY, those that are unwilling to contribute to society.

I would like to see the arguments why a large, industrialised society should support people unwilling to contribute to society.

 

[baldrick]

You seem very stuck on this point Alex B.

Who says they don't contribute?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No. If you had read my posts properly and weren't just out to score points, you would have read that I am in favour of a system massively more socialist than the current one, but one that, IN PRINCIPLE, does not support INDEFINITELY, those that are unwilling to contribute to society.

I would like to see the arguments why a large, industrialised society should support people unwilling to contribute to society.

I have presented those arguments -

to force employers to provide decent working conditions

to allow people the option of pursuing alternative lifestyles if they are prepared to live on less money

to save the fortune currently spent hounding the unemployed (and it is a fortune - well under half the money spent on benefits actually goes to the claimant)

I would also contend that it would reduce crime.

 

[Santino]

You seem very stuck on this point Alex B.

What on earth does that mean? I have made a point and been challenged (and misunderstood) on it, and I have responded.

Who says they don't contribute?

Who are we talking about? I am arguing about the principles that a (very robust and generous) welfare system should be based on. One of those principles should be, in my opinion, that someone who genuinely is just not wiling to work (leaving aside those who are, for example, clinically depressed) should not be given a free ride forever.

Trying to cast me as some kind of top hat wearing capitalist boss who wants to force people to dig holes in the road for their dole is fucking ridiculous. This is like a parody of sixth form politics debates.

 

[Santino]

I have presented those arguments -

to force employers to provide decent working conditions

to allow people the option of pursuing alternative lifestyles if they are prepared to live on less money

to save the fortune currently spent hounding the unemployed (and it is a fortune - well under half the money spent on benefits actually goes to the claimant)

I would also contend that it would reduce crime.

So, on utilitarian grounds that it is more efficient and has side benefits. Is that a fair thing to say about your position?

 

[gorski]

No. If you had read my posts properly and weren't just out to score points, you would have read that I am in favour of a system massively more socialist than the current one, but one that, IN PRINCIPLE, does not support INDEFINITELY, those that are unwilling to contribute to society.

I would like to see the arguments why a large, industrialised society should support people unwilling to contribute to society.

Who judges if someone is NOT WILLING to contribute?

Say, they try to bully or even force you to "contribute" by working in Tesco's at night, filling up shelves, because "that's the only job available for you" and you're an engineer or an artist, a philosopher, a lawyer etc.? You refuse, as this will negatively impact on your job prospects, from taking your time and energy away from searching for a proper, suitable job for yourself or keeping up with the developments in your profession and hence you'd regress or your CV would be ridiculous to a prospective employer or... whatever...

This is very emotive, I would say, from you. You also seem to personalise it. "If one would come to your door and..." It's a very poor way to think of complex problems, I think...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So, on utilitarian grounds that it is more efficient and has side benefits. Is that a fair thing to say about your position?

That is not what point 2 is saying, no. It is a happy mixture of utilitarian and humanitarian grounds.

 

[gorski]

May I remind you that Utilitarianism is a very poor "philosophy", which fails all the criteria of a civilised society! Hence an appendix of our History!

For one thing, there are no grounds for Human Rights in it.

So, no wonder you advocate what you advocate.

 

[baldrick]

What on earth does that mean? I have made a point and been challenged (and misunderstood) on it, and I have responded.

Who are we talking about? I am arguing about the principles that a (very robust and generous) welfare system should be based on. One of those principles should be, in my opinion, that someone who genuinely is just not wiling to work (leaving aside those who are, for example, clinically depressed) should not be given a free ride forever.

Trying to cast me as some kind of top hat wearing capitalist boss who wants to force people to dig holes in the road for their dole is fucking ridiculous. This is like a parody of sixth form politics debates.

i think we're coming at this from different points of view.

I don't think characterising this system as 'welfare' is particularly accurate or helpful. I think it encourages the recipients to think of themselves as passive, poor, etc all the things that a decent society would try to avoid. It would be a wage - for everyone. Singling people out because they don't 'work' for this 'welfare' - i couldn't disagree more, frankly.

There's no need to get abusive. Nobody said anything about painting you as a 'top hat wearing capitalist boss'.

 

[Santino]

Who judges if someone is NOT WILLING to contribute?

Say, they try to bully or even force you to "contribute" by working in Tesco's at night, filling up shelves, because "that's the only job available for you" and you're an engineer or an artist, a philosopher, a lawyer etc.? You refuse, as this will negatively impact on your job prospects, from taking your time and energy away from searching for a proper, suitable job for yourself or keeping up with the developments in your profession and hence you'd regress or your CV would be ridiculous to a prospective employer or... whatever...

This is very emotive, I would say, from you. You also seem topersonalise it. "If one would come to your door and..." It's a very poor way to think of complex problems, I think...

The point about the 'coming to my door' bit is this: I take is as more or less self-evident that, if I were living alone on a desert island, there would be no moral duty for me to feed and clothe someone who turned up and just sat around the beach all day, living an alternative lifestyle. (Obviously, if they were sick or injured, that is a different matter.) So, for me the issue is what is it about a large industrial society that changes the situation so that my taxes - which are an abstraction of the real work that I do - should, in part, go to support someone who wanted to sit around living an alternative lifestyle. I'm not saying that there CANNOT be arguments (and, as I am fed up pointing out, but must do so to avoid being called some kind of welfare-to-work Nazi, if there were pragmatic arguments for doing it because it would have other benefits, I would accept those arguments) but I would like to hear them.

As for the other crap about Tesco, where on earth did you get that nonsense?

 

[Santino]

There's no need to get abusive. Nobody said anything about painting you as a 'top hat wearing capitalist boss'.

I am getting rather odd insinuations about my motivations though.

 

[gorski]

You are individualising/personalising it, then. And that is very poor thinking with such complex ideas in a very complex society.

Tesco's? Well, someone is to judge who is and who isn't contributing. Those norms, then, have consequences.

You didn't get the consequence of your "principle"?

 

[Santino]

You are individualising/personalising it, then. And that is very poor thinking with such complex ideas in a very complex society.

Tesco's? Well, someone is to judge who is and who isn't contributing. Those norms, then, have consequences.

You didn't get the consequence of your "principle"?

I honestly don't know what you're getting at. Statements with a question mark after them and a smiley are not conducive to the conveyance of abstract political arguments, I'm afraid.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

For once, I think I do know what gorski is getting at – the consequence of your principle is a less free, less happy world. Moral indignation at the idea of scroungers means that we cannot move on to a happier society, and also plays right into the hands of those who would wish to exploit the least fortunate.

 

[gorski]

In any society there's plenty of people who can't work. From the heavily disabled, to ill, weak and onwards...

Then, there's those who won't work and that's fair enough in some cases. Someone has to bring the kids etc.

There's very few of those who won't work but could.

And then, there's those that market doesn't want. Moreover, there's those that cannot find a job. Willing & capable but nothing out there.

No society has full employment. It's neither feasible nor possible, nor wish-able, as it were.

It's falling for those right wing arguments that I find most peculiar, though... Morally or ideologically gullible or just mean? Dunno... Aren't you working? Don't you have anything better to do?

[Hey, don't look at me, I'm a full time student... ]

 

[DotCommunist]

Those things can be automatised, roboticised etc. Put the army engineers to it and see...

Your bro is a DotRottenCapitalist, then?

Yeah he is. I do try to make him see his own cuntishness but he's blinded by the lucre

 

[Santino]

For once, I think I do know what gorski is getting at – the consequence of your principle is a less free, less happy world. Moral indignation at the idea of scroungers means that we cannot move on to a happier society, and also plays right into the hands of those who would wish to exploit the least fortunate.

This is not a question of moral indignation. I'm adopting a rational position based on the fact that a society does not support those that it has no reason or duty to support. I am perfectly happy that it supports people for a substantial period while looking for work. If it turns out that there is no one who is not willing to work, then hurrah. And if identifying the 'workshy', if they exist, is too expensive to make it worthwhile, then fine.

I have repeatedly said that we should not support those who do not contribute IN PRINCIPLE, because I realise that IN PRACTICE it might not be worth pursuing. This is not some moral crusade, it just seems to me something that needs to be positively justified, and not at all self-evident.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The problem with your thought experiment of a village is that we are not talking about a village. In a village, everyone will know each other. In a large society of millions of people, judgements as to who deserves a wage to live on and who doesn't will be made by strangers.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

12 year old stitching Nike shoes in Special Economic Zones for pence a 12 hour shift?

Your arguement is invalid

It's not a good thing, no doubt. But I wonder how the kid and his family would feel about starving instead, if the Special Zone wasn't there?

 

[DotCommunist]

It's not a good thing, no doubt. But I wonder how the kid and his family would feel about starving instead, if the Special Zone wasn't there?

So they were starving before the coming of the SEZ? Or is subsistnce farming somehow inferior to subsistence factory wages?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No minimum wage? Grim.

Did I say that?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I would pay everyone a basic living wage .

Where's the money coming from?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There are plenty of people willing to filthy jobs in our present society, for shit wages.

The point is though, that if the govt already guaranteed you the basic wage, why would you do the shit job? I've cleaned public bathrooms before. If I could choose between getting a cheque for cleaning bathrooms, and just getting the cheque, I'd opt to just get the cheque.

 

[Santino]

In a large society of millions of people, judgements as to who deserves a wage to live on and who doesn't will be made by strangers.

This is an interesting point. I think though that it is still a utilitarian argument.

On the other hand, in a large society we rely on strangers all the time. I certainly wouldn't want legal disputes handled by friends of the people involved - that's tribalism. Same for child protection, health inspection, tax collection...

 

[gorski]

Utilitarianism is shit!

 

[Santino]

Utilitarianism is shit!

I'm afraid you are conflating Utilitarianism with utilitarian.