Democracy

[Fading Fast]

Since we're clearly doing politics here, I'm going to throw in a few points:

• RE scotrace's comments on the seeming "targeting" of the poor. There is no worse offender than the gov't itself and its abusive lottery business that (1) makes better paying private lotteries illegal (creates a gov't monopoly - the only monopoly some seem to like) and, then, (2) targets the poor neighborhoods in its advertising. Effectively, gov't run lotteries are a brutally regressive tax on the poor that takes money away from their insufficient-to-start budgets for food, shelter and healthcare. Here's a good piece on it (it is a paid site - sorry - but if you have access, it's worth the read): https://www.wsj.com/articles/powerbull-the-lottery-loves-poverty-1503868287?tesla=y

• I respectfully disagree with some of the above posts on this issue: I don't think the working poor or poor our "invisible" to our society any more than I believe we don't discuss racism. While the later gets more attention, both are, IMHO, not ignored, but what really creates the rub is that we (society) haven't agreed on a direction forward. I want to emphasize my point here - I am not arguing for the left's or right's solution / direction for poverty or race issues, but just highlighting that these are not buried issues (hidden form view / not discussed / not debated). It is our lack of political consensus that creates frustration and the, IMHO, misrepresentation that the issues are swept away - they aren't, there's just no political agreement that garners enough votes or social agreement that creates a cultural consensus.

 

[BlueTrain]

Don't you think it might make sense for the government to have policies that favor people over machines? Or are we actually thinking in terms of a "surplus population?" Or worse, describing some as people whose lives are not worth living? Or people who should not be allowed to reproduce, like "normal" people? None of these ideas are new; they are older than we are. But, given the current mindset of many, I'd say that a guaranteed minimum income at any point in the future is, to use an old expression, a pipe dream. Remember when someone proposed paying housewives?

At any rate, where would the money come from? As Will Rogers said, "it's gonna come from them that's got it." Which is why it won't happen. Them that's got it spent the last fifty years getting most of it and they're hanging on to it.

 

[Paisley]

There's also the issue of occupational licensing. Some states require licensing for African hair braiding, horse massage, flower arranging, interior decorating, giving tours, teeth whitening (using whitening kits from a drug store), and other things whose licensing was put in place by rent seekers & their friends in government.

I agree with the point about certain fines. A few times, the city of Indianapolis made the bizarre decision to try to clean up certain parts of the city by towing "derelict" cars and cars whose owners had too many fines. (You have two weeks to pay a traffic fine--but it takes about two weeks to receive a notice from the city. Then you get late fees.) In an upper class neighborhood, this might help keep up standards. In a poor neighborhood, it just adds expenses in terms of fines, late fees, and towing fees for people, and surely some residents lose their jobs because they miss work, because their car was taken away. It would be better to focus on illegal dumping, street lighting, catching burglars, and taking over abandoned houses. To the city's credit, they are working on those things.

But I also see poor people in my area doing things to their detriment. Buying lotto tickets (my sister would blow $50 at a time on them), having pets when they can barely make ends meet (particularly pit bulls, which either make your homeowner's insurance go up, or make it hard to find a rental), getting job stopper tattoos, starting a family before they can afford one, leaving valuables out where they're likely to be stolen (this happens constantly in my area).

 

[BlueTrain]

I expect that some of your comments about occupational licenses, unfair though they may be, originated the way you say they did. Others, however, are a little different.

I'm referring here to the growing professionalization of many jobs or job titles. Once upon a time you didn't need a college degree to be a teacher. Today, you almost need a master's, that is, once you have your teaching certificate. Likewise with a few other professional fields. But in sports and recreation, it starts to become ridiculous. How'd you like to be a certified hang gliding instructor? Who invented that? The first hang glider enthusiast, of course. The evolving trend seem to be that you have to be certified and licensed to do anything. You're a twelve year old girl? Well, forget babysitting until you get that certification.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Or are we actually thinking in terms of a "surplus population?" Or worse, describing some as people whose lives are not worth living? Or people who should not be allowed to reproduce, like "normal" people?

There were just such teachings in the 1910s and 1920s in the Eugenics movement, and some pretty influential people taught them -- from Margaret Sanger to Alexis Carrell. And then that kind of thinking caught on in a certain Central European nation-state, and people realized they weren't as smart as they thought they were.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Certain types of licensing are or were for safety reasons. At one time motion picture projectionists were required to be licensed in all states -- this was due to the fact that the film base in use up until the early 1950s was dangerously flammable, and could ignite catastrophically in the hands of an inept or poorly-trained operator. Radio technicians were required to be licensed due to the danger of inexperienced operators causing interference with emergency transmissions. Barbers had to be -- and still have to be -- licensed due to the risk of maneuvering around a customer's head and neck with razor-sharp implements.

As far as hang gliding instructors go, I sure wouldn't want to take hang-gliding lessons from some goof who didn't know what he was talking about.

 

[Paisley]

Don't you think it might make sense for the government to have policies that favor people over machines? Or are we actually thinking in terms of a "surplus population?" Or worse, describing some as people whose lives are not worth living? Or people who should not be allowed to reproduce, like "normal" people? None of these ideas are new; they are older than we are. But, given the current mindset of many, I'd say that a guaranteed minimum income at any point in the future is, to use an old expression, a pipe dream. Remember when someone proposed paying housewives?

At any rate, where would the money come from? As Will Rogers said, "it's gonna come from them that's got it." Which is why it won't happen. Them that's got it spent the last fifty years getting most of it and they're hanging on to it.

Machines don't just come into being--people (presumably working for a wage, or looking to get a profitable patent) design them, manufacture them, sell or rent them, repair them, and run them. Remember how computers and machines were supposed to give us so much leisure time, but really didn't?

 

[Fading Fast]

There were just such teachings in the 1910s and 1920s in the Eugenics movement, and some pretty influential people taught them -- from Margaret Sanger to Alexis Carrell. And then that kind of thinking caught on in a certain Central European nation-state, and people realized they weren't as smart as they thought they were.

The hairs went up on the back of my neck on that one too. I've read a lot of the robots-are-taking-our-jobs articles and the first several jobs I've had have all but been eliminated by computer software / electronic networks - so I'm not insensitive to it as I've been a "victim" of it (and sat unemployed for many scary months in '95/'96 and again in '04 as many others with my skills were in the same boat). That said, the same argument was made against farm equipment 150+ years ago and every other invention since that it would eliminate work. It does and we always seem to create new work and, overall, living standards increase. I get it - as I've lived it - some people's never get back to the level they had before a machine took their job and, sometimes, it seems the new jobs are all bad - fair points, but history argues, eventually, labor saving devices help society overall.

Certain types of licensing are or were for safety reasons. At one time motion picture projectionists were required to be licensed in all states -- this was due to the fact that the film base in use up until the early 1950s was dangerously flammable, and could ignite catastrophically in the hands of an inept or poorly-trained operator. Radio technicians were required to be licensed due to the danger of inexperienced operators causing interference with emergency transmissions. Barbers had to be -- and still have to be -- licensed due to the risk of maneuvering around a customer's head and neck with razor-sharp implements.

As far as hang gliding instructors go, I sure wouldn't want to take hang-gliding lessons from some goof who didn't know what he was talking about.

I think this one is a balance not an absolute. Yes, there needs to be strict licensing for, oh say, doctors and, basic, licensing for barbers, but many of the rules, regs, licensing requirements today are intentional or de facto barriers to entry to "protect" those already in the field or with the wherewithal to obtain the extra training etc. When the gov't does not properly balanced these competing concerns and creates too many barriers (usually at the request of the strong - established larger businesses or unions, for example) they can be used to keep poor people from starting entry level businesses and / or starting in reasonably low-skilled fields that don't organically need much capital to begin.

 

[Paisley]

I expect that some of your comments about occupational licenses, unfair though they may be, originated the way you say they did. Others, however, are a little different.

I'm referring here to the growing professionalization of many jobs or job titles. Once upon a time you didn't need a college degree to be a teacher. Today, you almost need a master's, that is, once you have your teaching certificate. Likewise with a few other professional fields. But in sports and recreation, it starts to become ridiculous. How'd you like to be a certified hang gliding instructor? Who invented that? The first hang glider enthusiast, of course. The evolving trend seem to be that you have to be certified and licensed to do anything. You're a twelve year old girl? Well, forget babysitting until you get that certification.

Some of the things I mentioned are no different. In the horse massage case, the state demanded a veterinary license (i.e., you had to be a veterinarian to massage a horse). Hair braiding required a cosmetology license, requiring hundred of hours of training at a cosmetology school, even though braiding doesn't involve chemicals or sharp instruments--and they don't even teach it at cosmetology schools. Steve Cooksey of North Carolina was threatened with jail because he was a nutritional coach but not a trained and licensed nutritionist (which he never claimed to be). In other words, things people can either teach themselves or learn on the job are, more and more, required by their state to be licensed, requiring college courses and a fee to the state.

 

[Fading Fast]

Some of the things I mentioned are no different. In the horse massage case, the state demanded a veterinary license (i.e., you had to be a veterinarian to massage a horse). Hair braiding required a cosmetology license, requiring hundred of hours of training at a cosmetology school, even though braiding doesn't involve chemicals or sharp instruments--and they don't even teach it at cosmetology schools. Steve Cooksey of North Carolina was threatened with jail because he was a nutritional coach but not a trained and licensed nutritionist (which he never claimed to be). In other words, things people can either teach themselves or learn on the job are, more and more, required by their state to be licensed, requiring college courses and a fee to the state.

Examples of the wrong balance being struck and, my guess, powerful interests at work trying to limit supply of their labor. Some have argued that unions fight for higher minimum wage laws not out of the goodness of their hearts (as union workers are almost never paid minimum wage) but to increase the cost of competing labor (minimum wage workers) so that the extra cost of hiring union workers is reduced.

 

[Paisley]

I once heard a stand-up comic from Detroit say that UAW stands for "you ain't workin.'"

 

[BlueTrain]

That's part of what I had in mind but I also agree with the idea that part of the licensing concept is to protect those in a particular field. Mind you, this isn't new. It goes back to medieval craftsmen's guilds. It isn't evil. Likewise, unions aren't evil either. They exist for a purpose, which is for the benefit of union members.

While robots are here to stay, we don't need to worry that much until the robots start making other robots and buying them. In the meantime, what we have are industries with increasing capital requirements and requirements for more highly skilled employees. From what I read, we have a problem with the latter in this country.

 

[Paisley]

There's no lack of skilled workers; college STEM programs turn out two to three times as many graduates as the market can absorb. The problem is that employers don't want to train (and STEM degree programs don't train for specific jobs). Many companies only want to poach each others' employees for short-term contract work.

 

[BlueTrain]

I believe there needs to be better cooperation between the government (any and all government), unions and potential employers. But we've never had anything like that before, so it isn't likely we'll have it anytime soon. Perhaps part of the problem is that it's a big country and employers are far more mobile than workers, especially those with no jobs. It's like they are reluctant to leave the place where they were born and grew up and I can understand that, but the work won't come to them.

On the other hand, systems that create a supply of well-trained and stable employees in other countries may not work as well as we are led to believe. But there are other issues, not the least of which is the incredibly high pay upper management received.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That's part of what I had in mind but I also agree with the idea that part of the licensing concept is to protect those in a particular field. Mind you, this isn't new. It goes back to medieval craftsmen's guilds. It isn't evil. Likewise, unions aren't evil either. They exist for a purpose, which is for the benefit of union members.

Well, that and preventing ruthless exploitation of workers. My own union gives freelance writers the ability to fight back collectively against "You'll get paid when I get around to paying you and not until" bullsh*t, and I am very proud to be a dues-paying member of it. My experience in the working world has always been that the bosses will screw you to the full extent of your ability to be screwed, and the only thing that will hold them back is collective pushback. This is more true than ever now, in these days of utterly unscrupulous "gig economy" "entrepreneurs."

 

[BlueTrain]

Yeah, that's pretty much been my own experience, too, no matter how chummy they try to be.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yeah, that's pretty much been my own experience, too, no matter how chummy they try to be.

And in a system which presupposes that all workers will and must be paid less than the real value created by their labor power, how can it be anything else? Exploitation isn't anamolous in such a system, it's a necessary component.

It's interesting to me that so many of those who reject the idea of collective action on the part of labor have no problem whatever with collective action on the part of capital.

 

[Fading Fast]

And in a system which presupposes that all workers will and must be paid less than the real value created by their labor power, how can it be anything else? Exploitation isn't anamolous in such a system, it's a necessary component.

It's interesting to me that so many of those who reject the idea of collective action on the part of labor have no problem whatever with collective action on the part of capital.

That is one view. Another is that capital investment (acquired only via savings - sacrifice of current consumption) is risk - driven by entrepreneurial effort and insight - and if there is no risk-adjusted return to that capital (higher for the greater risk - which is why start ups fail more but offer higher adjusted returns than franchises), then they'll be no jobs, no businesses to strike against or growth in the economy for labor to fight over. For example, some would argue that the growth China experienced since the late '70s only came about when the gov't allowed for private property and individual ownership of the means of production which lead to the only meaningful economic growth Communist China ever experienced without brute force and suppression of everyone's rights (and created jobs for labor to actually fight over getting paid for doing). Looking at the business after it is up and running (the greatest risk has been taken, the benefit of the owner's insight, effort and talents already being realized) and assigning a value to labor at that point ignores the capital and risk that started and sustains it all. Nothing in this model denies labor adds value, but to look at, say, Apple, and divide its profit by its employees to back into a "real value" of labor is an argument, but one that, IMHO, ignores the capital, risk, construct and incentives that creates and sustains those jobs. Nothing, IMHO, in this model refutes unions, but unions, like businesses, are gov't regulated constructs that can tilt the field one way or another (and often does depending on whose pocket is getting lined).

 

[Fading Fast]

Oh, and to your last point, I've often wondered why those who argue against businesses taking collective action (which I'm basically against with some caveats) have no problems with unions organizing across industry - hence, creating the same collective actions they call venal when businesses do it. If labor can organize to bargain across an industry, then why shouldn't business organize to negotiate with that same union. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm pretty much against both.

 

[Fading Fast]

Last thought. I'm out of this part of the conversation as, IMHO, it is way too political for this site and should be shut down. I'm as guilty as the next for participating. My apologies - I just get carried away when I see arguments I want to counter.