Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The End of Work, and therefore of "less government" memes
#1
We've been discussing this topic on other threads, but it deserves its own, in light of this column on the PBS Newshour website:

Column: Why we need to say goodbye to work

[Image: James-Livingston-80x80.png]
James Livingston
FOLLOW BY James Livingston  January 3, 2017 at 4:44 PM EST
[Image: GettyImages-100377996-1024x768.jpg]

Work means everything to us. But our beliefs around work are no longer plausible. In fact, they’ve become ridiculous, because there’s not enough work to go around, and what there is of it won’t pay the bills, writes James Livingston. Photo by Thomas Barwick/Getty Images

The following is the first of two adapted excerpts from historian James Livingston’s new book, “No More Work: Why Full Employment is a Bad Idea.”


Work means everything to us. For centuries — since, say, 1650 — we’ve believed that it builds character (punctuality, initiative, honesty, self-discipline and so forth). We’ve also believed that the market in labor, where we go to find work, has been relatively efficient in allocating opportunities and incomes. And we’ve believed that even if it sucks, the job gives meaning, purpose and structure to our everyday lives — at any rate, we’re pretty sure that it gets us out of bed, pays the bills, makes us feel responsible and keeps us away from daytime TV.

These beliefs are no longer plausible. In fact, they’ve become ridiculous, because there’s not enough work to go around, and what there is of it won’t pay the bills — unless, of course, you’ve landed a job as a drug dealer or a Wall Street banker, becoming a gangster either way.

What, exactly, is the point of earning a paycheck that isn’t a living wage, except to prove that you have a work ethic?
These days everybody from left to right — from Dean Baker to conservative Arthur C. Brooks — addresses this breakdown of the labor market by advocating full employment, as if having a job is self-evidently a good thing, no matter how dangerous, demanding or demeaning it is. But “full employment” is not the way to restore our faith in hard work, or in playing by the rules or whatever. (Note that the official unemployment rate is already below 6 percent, which is pretty close to what economists used to call full employment.) Crappy jobs for everyone won’t solve any social problem we now face.

And don’t tell me that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour solves the problem. No one can doubt the moral significance of the movement. But at this rate of pay, even at 40 hours a week — an unlikely amount in fast-food franchises — you’re still at that official poverty line. What, exactly, is the point of earning a paycheck that isn’t a living wage, except to prove that you have a work ethic?

READ MORE: Should We Fear ‘the End of Work’?

But isn’t our present dilemma just a passing phase of the business cycle? What about the job market of the future? Haven’t the doomsayers, those damn Malthusians, always been proved wrong by rising productivity, new fields of enterprise, new economic opportunities? Well, yeah — until now, these times. The measurable trends of the past half century and the plausible projections for the next half century, are just too empirically grounded to dismiss as dismal science or ideological hokum. They look like the data on climate change — you can deny them if you like, but you’ll sound like a moron when you do.

Oxford economists who study employment trends tell us that fully two-thirds of existing jobs, including those involving “non-routine cognitive tasks” — you know, like thinking — are at risk of death by computerization within 20 years. They’re elaborating on conclusions reached by two MIT economists in a book from 2012 called “Race against the Machine.” Meanwhile, the Silicon Valley types who give TED talks have started speaking of “surplus humans” as a result of the same process — cybernated production. “Rise of the Robots,” the title of a new book that cites these very sources, is social science, not science fiction.

You might even say it’s a spiritual impasse, because it makes us ask what social scaffolding other than work will permit the construction of character — or whether character itself is something we must aspire to.

So ours is a moral crisis as well as an economic catastrophe. You might even say it’s a spiritual impasse, because it makes us ask what social scaffolding other than work will permit the construction of character — or whether character itself is something we must aspire to. But that is why it’s also an intellectual opportunity: It forces us to imagine a world in which the job no longer builds our character, determines our incomes or dominates our daily lives.

In short, it lets us say, “Enough already; f*** work.”

Certainly this crisis makes us ask what comes after work? What would you do without your job as the external discipline that organizes your waking life — as the social imperative that gets you up and on your way to the factory, the office, the store, the warehouse, the restaurant, wherever you work and, no matter how much you hate it, keeps you coming back? What would you do if you didn’t have to work to receive an income?

READ MORE: Column: Working parents have two jobs — and both are important to the economy

And what would society and civilization be like if we didn’t have to earn a living — if leisure was not our choice but our lot? Would we hang out at the local Starbucks, laptops open? Or volunteer to teach children in less-developed countries, like Mississippi? Or smoke weed and watch reality TV all day?

We already have some provisional answers, because so many of us are on the dole, more or less. The fastest-growing component of household income since 1959 has been “transfer payments” from government. By the turn of the 21st century, 20 percent of all household income came from this source — from what is otherwise known as welfare or “entitlements.” Without this income supplement, half of the adults with full-time jobs would live below the poverty line, and most working Americans would be eligible for food stamps.

But are these transfer payments and entitlements affordable, in either economic or moral terms? By continuing and enlarging them, do we subsidize sloth, or do we enrich a debate on the rudiments of the good life?

Transfer payments or “entitlements,” not to mention Wall Street bonuses — talk about getting something for nothing — have taught us how to detach the receipt of income from the production of goods, but now, in plain view of the end of work, the lesson needs rethinking. No matter how you calculate the federal budget, we can afford to be our brother’s keeper. The real question is not whether, but how we choose to be.

I know what you’re thinking — we can’t afford this! But, yeah, we can, very easily. We raise the arbitrary lid on the Social Security contribution, which now stands at $113,700, and we raise taxes on corporate income, reversing the Reagan Revolution. And of course we don’t cut the top marginal tax rate on the rich. Eventually, if not under the incoming president and Congress, we increase it. These steps would solve a fake fiscal problem and create an economic surplus where we now can measure a moral deficit.

READ MORE: More part-time workers suffer instability, long hours to make ends meet

Now you may say, along with every economist from Dean Baker to Greg Mankiw, left to right, that raising taxes on corporate income is a disincentive to investment and thus job creation. Or that it will drive corporations overseas, where taxes are lower.

In the next installment, I will explain why raising taxes on corporate income can’t have these effects.

From “No More Work: Why Full Employment is a Bad Idea.” Copyright © 2016 by James Livingston. Used by permission of the University of North Carolina Press.  www.uncpress.unc.edu
[Image: James-Livingston-80x80.png]
James Livingston
James Livingston is a professor of history at Rutgers University. “No More Work” is his sixth book. He has written on Shakespeare, Disney, Poe and Heidegger, among other topics. He teaches history at Rutgers University and edits an online magazine, POLITICS/LETTERS. He has two more books in the works, one a memoir, the other a global history of pragmatism.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#2
Man vs. Machine: Will Human Workers Become Obsolete?





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb2cI_gJUok

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense...d-of-work/
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#3
This is just the kind of candidate we need! "LESS WORK, AND MORE PLAY!!" It's getting close to the time to implement this policy!

https://youtu.be/QrjwM9dNLRQ?t=1m40s
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#4
Wasn't aware until this article that Mississippi was a COUNTRY, I was under the impression it was a state. And it damn sure isn't underdeveloped or underprivileged. come live or visit it before continuing to trash my home.
Reply
#5
Liberals and radicals have been calling for employee ownership and stock ownership for some time. Your suggestion is related to that. There still is the question of less work overall, though. But that's the right direction, I think Smile
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#6
(01-03-2017, 09:00 PM)Danilynn Wrote: Wasn't aware until this article that Mississippi was a COUNTRY, I was under the impression it was a state. And it damn sure isn't underdeveloped or underprivileged. come live or visit it before continuing to trash my home.

Reflexively taking offense and defending "home" is one of the traits of fascism. Like "resentment of national humiliation." Your president....



"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#7
(01-03-2017, 09:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Liberals and radicals have been calling for employee ownership and stock ownership for some time. Your suggestion is related to that. There still is the question of less work overall, though. But that's the right direction, I think Smile

Yes, ESOP/ and I think we need general stock ownership is needed, because , it's coming.


"You've been made redundant : coming to a job near you!"



---Value Added Cool
Reply
#8
(01-03-2017, 07:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We've been discussing this topic on other threads, but it deserves its own, in light of this column on the PBS Newshour website:

Column: Why we need to say goodbye to work

[Image: James-Livingston-80x80.png]
James Livingston

And don’t tell me that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour solves the problem. No one can doubt the moral significance of the movement. But at this rate of pay, even at 40 hours a week — an unlikely amount in fast-food franchises — you’re still at that official poverty line. What, exactly, is the point of earning a paycheck that isn’t a living wage, except to prove that you have a work ethic?

Let's see:  $15/hour x 40 hours/week x 50 weeks/year = $30,000/year.  Federal poverty level for a single individual, 2016:  $11,880.  You could earn $10/hour and work 25 hours/week and still be above poverty level.

All this column proves is that PBS writers can't do simple arithmetic.
Reply
#9
We will need to tax robot-based production heavily to support a guaranteed income. Robots take jobs and generate income for owners. But the common man loses his job, and with his job his income and perhaps his identity. Perhaps -- because many people have no idea of what to do if they had the same income but twenty fewer hours of work a week.

There is only some much demand for handicrafts. But maybe we will attain some paradise in which people get to spend their time creating, performing, and crafting. Many of us will do it for self-expression.

We are approaching the end of the era in which manufacturing more stuff makes people happier. How many TVs do you really need? How many refrigerators? How many sofas?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#10
(01-03-2017, 11:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We will need to tax robot-based production heavily to support a guaranteed income. Robots take jobs and generate income for owners. But the common man loses his job, and with his job his income and perhaps his identity. Perhaps -- because many people have no idea of what to do if they had the same income but twenty fewer hours of work a week.

So - a shift to sales taxes instead of income taxes then?
Reply
#11
(01-03-2017, 11:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-03-2017, 11:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We will need to tax robot-based production heavily to support a guaranteed income. Robots take jobs and generate income for owners. But the common man loses his job, and with his job his income and perhaps his identity. Perhaps -- because many people have no idea of what to do if they had the same income but twenty fewer hours of work a week.

So - a shift to sales taxes instead of income taxes then?

Sales taxes are regressive, and they are tolerated to the extent that they do obvious services (like schools, medical care, roads, law enforcement).  Because most people get little tangible benefit from federal government (like the huge military expenditures for defending American corporate interests abroad, the feds must rely heavily upon income taxes.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#12
(01-04-2017, 12:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-03-2017, 11:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-03-2017, 11:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We will need to tax robot-based production heavily to support a guaranteed income. Robots take jobs and generate income for owners. But the common man loses his job, and with his job his income and perhaps his identity. Perhaps -- because many people have no idea of what to do if they had the same income but twenty fewer hours of work a week.

So - a shift to sales taxes instead of income taxes then?

Sales taxes are regressive, and they are tolerated to the extent that they do obvious services (like schools, medical care, roads, law enforcement).  Because most people get little tangible benefit from federal government (like the huge military expenditures for defending American corporate interests abroad, the feds must rely heavily upon income taxes.

If you want to tax the robots, though, income taxes won't do it, since robots have no income.
Reply
#13
(01-04-2017, 12:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-03-2017, 11:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-03-2017, 11:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We will need to tax robot-based production heavily to support a guaranteed income. Robots take jobs and generate income for owners. But the common man loses his job, and with his job his income and perhaps his identity. Perhaps -- because many people have no idea of what to do if they had the same income but twenty fewer hours of work a week.

So - a shift to sales taxes instead of income taxes then?

Sales taxes are regressive, and they are tolerated to the extent that they do obvious services (like schools, medical care, roads, law enforcement).  Because most people get little tangible benefit from federal government (like the huge military expenditures for defending American corporate interests abroad, the feds must rely heavily upon income taxes.

If you want to tax the robots, though, income taxes won't do it, since robots have no income.

The owners typically extract the income. To tax consumption is shakier. Taxing the conspicuous consumption of elites is far trickier than  taxing income.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#14
(01-04-2017, 12:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-03-2017, 11:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-03-2017, 11:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We will need to tax robot-based production heavily to support a guaranteed income. Robots take jobs and generate income for owners. But the common man loses his job, and with his job his income and perhaps his identity. Perhaps -- because many people have no idea of what to do if they had the same income but twenty fewer hours of work a week.

So - a shift to sales taxes instead of income taxes then?

Sales taxes are regressive, and they are tolerated to the extent that they do obvious services (like schools, medical care, roads, law enforcement).  Because most people get little tangible benefit from federal government (like the huge military expenditures for defending American corporate interests abroad, the feds must rely heavily upon income taxes.

If you want to tax the robots, though, income taxes won't do it, since robots have no income.

The owners typically extract the income. To tax consumption is shakier. Taxing the conspicuous consumption of elites is far trickier than  taxing income.

Taxing the income of the elites is virtually impossible, though.  Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.
Reply
#15
(01-04-2017, 12:57 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-03-2017, 11:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: So - a shift to sales taxes instead of income taxes then?

Sales taxes are regressive, and they are tolerated to the extent that they do obvious services (like schools, medical care, roads, law enforcement).  Because most people get little tangible benefit from federal government (like the huge military expenditures for defending American corporate interests abroad, the feds must rely heavily upon income taxes.

If you want to tax the robots, though, income taxes won't do it, since robots have no income.

The owners typically extract the income. To tax consumption is shakier. Taxing the conspicuous consumption of elites is far trickier than  taxing income.

Taxing the income of the elites is virtually impossible, though.  Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.

He's a buy-and-hold investor slow to cash out on his gains. The Feds tax people when they take gains. A billionaire living a middle-class existence (thus no gold toilets) isn't cashing out much. Berkshire-Hathaway stock has extremely low payouts of dividends.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#16
(01-04-2017, 02:29 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:57 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Sales taxes are regressive, and they are tolerated to the extent that they do obvious services (like schools, medical care, roads, law enforcement).  Because most people get little tangible benefit from federal government (like the huge military expenditures for defending American corporate interests abroad, the feds must rely heavily upon income taxes.

If you want to tax the robots, though, income taxes won't do it, since robots have no income.

The owners typically extract the income. To tax consumption is shakier. Taxing the conspicuous consumption of elites is far trickier than  taxing income.

Taxing the income of the elites is virtually impossible, though.  Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.

He's a buy-and-hold investor slow to cash out on his gains. The Feds tax people when they take gains. A billionaire living a middle-class existence (thus no gold toilets) isn't cashing out much. Berkshire-Hathaway stock has extremely low payouts of dividends.

Actually, the feds do not tax billionaires when they take gains.  Buffett will die eventually and he'll have set up a system of trusts so his gains still won't be taxed.

And frankly, we'd all be better off if billionaires spent more of their loot rather than hoarding it like misers.
Reply
#17
His choice. As with Howard Hughes... were I a medical researcher I would love to work the foundation that he set up.

I wonder what exciting things Warren Buffett has awaiting us when his life is over. His kids aren't getting much.

If there is a university it will be much better regarded than "Trump University".
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#18
(01-04-2017, 12:57 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-03-2017, 11:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: So - a shift to sales taxes instead of income taxes then?

Sales taxes are regressive, and they are tolerated to the extent that they do obvious services (like schools, medical care, roads, law enforcement).  Because most people get little tangible benefit from federal government (like the huge military expenditures for defending American corporate interests abroad, the feds must rely heavily upon income taxes.

If you want to tax the robots, though, income taxes won't do it, since robots have no income.

The owners typically extract the income. To tax consumption is shakier. Taxing the conspicuous consumption of elites is far trickier than  taxing income.

Taxing the income of the elites is virtually impossible, though.  Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.

That's a strange statement lol

Of course it's possible, but not with Republicans in power.

Quote:If you want to tax the robots, though, income taxes won't do it, since robots have no income.

Tax the robots! I like it! Hey, robots are taking over, and getting all the good jobs; they should pay their fair share!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#19
Take This Job and Shove It!



"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#20
(01-04-2017, 04:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:57 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(01-04-2017, 12:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Sales taxes are regressive, and they are tolerated to the extent that they do obvious services (like schools, medical care, roads, law enforcement).  Because most people get little tangible benefit from federal government (like the huge military expenditures for defending American corporate interests abroad, the feds must rely heavily upon income taxes.

If you want to tax the robots, though, income taxes won't do it, since robots have no income.

The owners typically extract the income. To tax consumption is shakier. Taxing the conspicuous consumption of elites is far trickier than  taxing income.

Taxing the income of the elites is virtually impossible, though.  Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.

That's a strange statement lol

Of course it's possible, but not with Republicans in power.

It's the Democrats that protect Buffett and Soros, and the investment billionaires in general.

The Democrats had filibuster proof power for a while, and they certainly didn't do anything about that then.

Quote:
Quote:If you want to tax the robots, though, income taxes won't do it, since robots have no income.

Tax the robots! I like it! Hey, robots are taking over, and getting all the good jobs; they should pay their fair share!

That's why I suggested sales tax on what they produce.  If people have other ideas, I'm interested.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Here is an example of how government creates problems. Galen 24 8,654 05-24-2017, 03:13 AM
Last Post: Galen

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)