Topic: Antiwork: It takes a lot of work to create no work. - page 2. (Read 348 times)

Well, no. I don't love money explicitly. I enjoy the comforts of life that money buys -- like food, water, shelter, heating, clothing, etc.


Let me take your statement and change it to another "law".

No, murder and homicide laws should be abolished. A serial killer should decide when a person should live or die. State sponsored murder has leader to international geopolitical issues which causes a struggle between demanding public and the politicians, which doesn't make sense because neither the public nor the politicians should decide who to legally murder. It should be 100% up to the individual serial kill.

Enabling state sanction murders leads to populism, military occupations, and promises of peace and security that never work.

What most serial killers do when they have to increase their quota of murders to keep up with state sanction murders? They have to get to work.

^^^ Of course the market decides. And if you need a higher wage, just cry. Because if you strike, we'll shut down and open up under a new name somewhere else. Or we'll simply hire some homeless people who are ready to work for what we want to pay.

The market decides, right?

the market can and does decide what a person with a certain skillset should be paid
the min wage barrier is just that.. a MINIMUM wage barrier. so that businesses cant be too abusive and pay people too little

a better solution is if the job application just wants someone with no skills, no talent and just someone who can turn up and do untalented work gets min wage. but any stipulation of qualification requirements or previous experience should be above min wage. getting higher based on how much requirements are needed,

the issue is not min wage being a barrier to 'market decisions' its the fact that the market wants to pay people min wage even while also requiring people of a certain standard above minimum

EG if college debt is meant to be paid off in 10 years. and a business needs someone with 2 years college. then that 2x$10k college qualification cost. would equate to $2k a year in income requirement to pay it off. and so the business should offer a job role requiring 2 year college at $2k a year higher salary above a job that doesnt require the college experience/qualification

its not rocket science

No, minimum wage should be abolished. The market should decide what a person with a certain set of skills should be paid. Minimum wage manipulations lead to an unnecessary struggle between a demanding public and politicians, which doesn't make sense since neither the public nor the politicians should decide on what an employer should pay his employee. It should be 100% up to the employer.
Increasing minimum wages leads to populism, buying votes with promises of higher wages that never work.
What most employers do when they have to increase minimum wages because the government said so? They let some people go and divide their wages between the rest.

The number is besides his argument (if I understand what he's saying). It's an argument for some sort of UBI with basic expenses covered (whatever the number is). You don't even have to go that far to argue against UBI.

If you're talking about the numbers though, look at this - https://www.thebalance.com/breakdown-of-average-monthly-household-expenses-4687519

Easily thousands of dollars a month person. So minimum wage would need to be possibly more than 15 dollars for a single person to pay for food, rent, electric, whatever there is. So you're no longer talking about a minimum wage increase, it's just a UBI under the guise of a minimum wage increase.

Minimum Wage is needed to be increased, but I don't see any necessary measurements needed to diminish the old system of 40 hrs a week, cause there are still works that doesn't need you to work 40 hrs a week. But if you want that work, you must work a lot bigger that 40 hrs to make it happened, and that is the reality.

You hate work, but you love money, and for you to have both, you need to compromise one way or another.

you still have not given an answer

governments have done budgets of necessities to live on

but here is the thing. what one person thinks is necessary another person thinks is not enough

so come on what is the monetary level of your 'necessity.
seeing as you want to define exact ratios of math and you want to be pin point specific.
please show your budget calculation of need
whats the shelter allowance
whats the food allowance
whats the utility /service charge allowance
whats the entertainment allowance
whats the hobby allowance
whats the clothing allowance
whats the disposable income allowance
whats the total

then when you account for the obvious inflation on goods/services caused by the basic increase. would your allotted amount STILL be enough?

I'm not sure how you determine which jobs should go first and which Americans should be given everything they need in life for free. Seems like you're talking about a UBI that will subsidize the cost of living for anyone that doesn't make enough -- but the question is why should anyone else pay for that?

If someone goes to college and earns more than someone with a primary education, why would it make sense to boost the pay of someone without diversified skills? Would it not incentive everyone to not putting in the extra work?

Work is all that is to life, if you don't work you won't find life easy and would just be a problem to society. Its the way it is, hating work simply means you finding other ways of surviving, you might consider it easy but, your still going to brain storm and that in itself is work.

The richest man in the world and other employers of labor works as hard as a common laborer on the streets. How?
You might not be involved in the physical handy jobs, but the stress you put yourself through to ensure the supervise the managers and contemplating on decisions that would help and expand the your organization is work as well. I tell you consumes much energy in going through papers and brain storming as you do while exercising too. So, you can't take work out of the picture ever, its always going to be there! You can hate an aspect but, don't hate work!

Don't work hard but, work smart!

Work is activity. Activity is life. Stop being active, and you die.

The problem isn't the work. The problem is when there is slavery or attempted slavery involved. Note that a person who volunteers himself into slavery, with full knowledge of what he is doing, isn't really a slave, even though his self-imposed slavery is stressful at times.

If anybody wants to outlaw voluntary slavery, he is taking away the rights of the person who wants to be enslaved. There are more people that want self-imposed slavery than one would think. In fact, it might be close to 99% of the free people in the Americas and Europe... as they willingly bow to their leaders' wishes.

You can already work less if you want to. I don't see a reason to mandate to work less. I think the society would be better off if people worked more and facetwitted less but hey, free country.

Activism is how change is made towards these sort of systems. Rather it be through unionization or through occupying varying levels of government, change can be made to improve from the status quo is the primary topic of the thread

oh stop crying
instead read it.
you quoted it so now i re quoted it so now take time to read it
there is no ratio's mentioned, there is no law or rule or mention that it says strictly and forcely linked 1:1
2x was the example.. not the rule

its a basic example where the context says increase the income=increase the expenditure.

seems YOU are the one implying its a hard rule of 1:1 just so that you can cry that its not a 1:1
your basically fighting your own implications.

anyway the point is and ill emphasise it in as basic ELI-5 as you can understand
increasing income  will = increase in expenditure.

anyway. back to the topic.
point is increasing income/reducing hours just causes prices and spending to go up. which can then cycle to needing to increase hows to reattain level of living standard or increase income..
repeat repeat repeat

Ah yes, make sure never to take this user's word seriously because they can't even remember it a few min later.

nope. never mentioned anything about wage freezes=inflation freezes. nor did i mention wage decreases=inflation decreases.

i think you over simplified what i said for YOU to imply it meant something else.
the actual examples context was about pushing the minimum income up.. pushes the expenditure up
it did not imply the opposite nor the stagnant nor that other expenditure pushes did not exist
the implication was not 1:1
i mentioned no ratios or strict rules
i did not imply the opposite was not true or true.. no implications were made at all

now go cry somewhere else if the content is too complex to understand

You tied wage to cost of living increases as a 1:1 ratio in your previous post.

Put it another way, in your original statement, if wages fell by 50%, would goods and services not fall by 50%? Or does your microeconomic theory only work in on direction?

i never said if wages stagnate inflation equally stagnates.. you said that

but the magical logic is the governments GDP has risen due to more money in circulation due to the mortgages creating money meaning while people are not using their income. and instead getting credit cards and mortgages to buy things.. companies see this as the hidden 'disposable' money increases. and so they increase their fee's/charges. even if true salary income has not increased..
..so yes if no salaries increased. the inflation still would increase as just explained..
..but if you then 2x salaries the inflation would also 2x ontop of the GDP based inflation from credit/debt currency flows
.. basically no escaping or outrunning the inflation game

the other complexes are that in play is that minimum wage is not the same as living wage.
and not the same as minimal social security benefits

the power that be actually do budget calculation.
for instance they look at the cheapest utility companies. and set that as the expenditure for social security benefits. they take the median 5 utility companies and average their charges and set that as the mini wage budget. they then take all the utility companies and average that for the living wage budget.

3 different budgets
survival budget (social security) productive budget(min wage) and the content/comfort budget(living wage)


same with food budget. they look at the cheapest ownbrand baked beans, bread, pasta. and work out the basic nutrition cost for social security budget.
they take the median 5 brand produce and set a budget for min wage. and then take al the brands and work out a budget for living wage.
what makes this complex. is to tweak the inflation to seem less apparent is that they subsidise big grocery retailers to offer certain produce extra low. just so that they dont have to tweak the national budgets of social security/minimum wage
yep its why you see certain food basics like own brand baked beans seem to be sold too cheap.
its why some utility companies charge $0.12/kw while they try to push one utility company to offer 0.05/kw for people on low income schemes
(yep if they know low income scheme people can access electric at 5c/kw(same as national average years ago) they dont have to increase social security budget to new national average of 12c/kw)

same goes for the as said grocery. it doesnt matter that the bread nd beans are tasteless. as long as grocery stores provide dirt cheap food thats been subsidised. the government then doesnt have to increase social security budgets

so not only is the game of removing cheap cars out of circulation. but also making the food 'essentials/basics' dirt cheap.
ud be surprised when you start to see which items are on governments 'basic basket' shopping list used for calculations. and then look at how unsurprisingly the markets for them specific items dont move the same way other produce does
.. in short it should be no surprise that own brand baked beans has not moved by 2% a year while everything else has moved by more than 2%.

good research reveals cheese was on the government 'basic basket' shopping list. which is why when importing proper cheddar cheese increased in cost. the government started supplying 'american cheese' cheap.
things like basic chicken (water injected to add weight) seems dirt cheap. all to keep the inflation hidden to not require increasing minimal budgets

So, I think min wage should be set where a household income on a single earner can provide a livable means. That means, the income should be able to cover food, water, electricity, shelter, internet, health insurance, transportation, a good education, and pretty much the other required necessities of modern society entirely with a tiny bit to spare to save.

For Americans, considering productivity vs wage growth, we could probably aim for around $20-25 USD / hr. $15 is a good start though -- easier to double than to triple.

Low skill work should be eliminated. That should be the goal. Once we start eliminating work en mass, we can start to consider programs such as guaranteed minimum income and such. However, I don't believe work will ever fully go away. I don't think people realize how difficult some jobs are to automate, but I fully embrace more automation.

According to wikipedia, 5% of America goes on less than $14,999 (min wage at 40 hours a week would be $14,500/yr).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_household_income

---


By your magical logic, if $10 min wage stays $10, then all goods and services also stay the same price?

Because that's not reality buddy -- considering the federal min wage hasn't gone up in a decade+ 

Macroeconomics is a rather complex topic to start with, once you start to pull in international geopolitical measures with fiat market manipulation it gets even more complex quickly.

if say a 'living wage' was $400 ($10x40hours) then you might think that having min wage at $15 means you only have to work ~26 hours to get the same $400.

problem is. working only 26 hours means you have more free time and more time to spend money

think about it working 8 hours a day means your home entertainment system, heating is not used for 8 hours
but working just 5hours 20 minutes means your electric will increase by ~3 hours or 12.5%

you will probably decide to want to go out and do stuff. new hobbies.
in the end you find your 'living' cost becomes $500 and suddenly your missing $100 which you have to fill by working another 10 hours.(2 hours a day)
so now you are back to working atleast 7hours 20minutes a day instead of 5hours 20minutes.
which is pretty much nearly the same work effort as working 8 hours previously.

...
if you could change the system where a 5hours a day or 3 day week could provide you with enough income to over all costs. all that will happen is companies notice that households have excess 'disposable income' and they increase their bill charges/fees.

its why bread in some countries is only $0.15 where all the calculations worked out that its all the country can afford to pay for bread on balance. yet its $2.50 in other countries where they work out they can afford to pay more

yep if 'living wage' was $10 and minimum wage went from $10 to say $20. all that will happen is price of goods and services will increase by 2x also.

once you start to see the game. you realise how much work is needed to change it.
even things like government subsidising the destruction of old cars.. yep if they can get rid of the old cheap cars people then have less cars to choose from and have to spend a lil extra to get their first cheap car
(good old supply vs demand))

So ofc US politicians are advocating for a 15 dollar minimum wage and it seems like it will be successful. Minimum wage in EU countries tends to vary. But a question - how do you determine what the minimum wage should be set at? You said you want it higher, what is reasonable? Do you not think low skilled jobs will just be eliminated once businesses realize it's cheaper just to automate?

The federal minimum wage in America is a bit over 7 bucks, but how many people in the US actually make that?