Democratic Socialist Demands Free Housing

[Ross Dolan]

You will need to explain how everyone having to work to take care of their own needs would "... negatively overwhelm the system."

I only indicated that that was how I saw it playing out. It was, and still is, my OPINION. I already did...and you have rejected it. That is your right...and you may be closer to the truth than I. We really do not know.

Your suggestion here seems to be if machines are used to maximize productivity that would result in higher unemployment.

I suspect it will.

I believe the same fears were expressed when we went from an agricultural society into an industrial one.

Yes, those fears were expressed. And in many ways...it has worked out that there are job losses as the machines get better. I had a relative who was a telephone operator. When we picked up our phone to make a call (providing it was not in use by another party with whom we had to share a line)...the operator (almost always a female) would say, "Number, please" and we would give the number to whom we were calling.

Don't have them anymore. I another relative who was part of a major corporate steno pool...ain't got them anymore either. We now have robots that build automobiles and put huge numbers of people out of work at jobs that used to pay ig bucks.

If you think there is no problem in this regard...okay. You may be correct...and lots of other jobs will open that billionaire corporate managers will gladly pay humans a living wage to do.

So...I guess best in your opinion to just not even consider it a problem for now.

Yes buggy whip makers were made obsolete but other work that didn't exist before became available.

As I said. No worries for now.

Refusing to allow machines to do the work is not a good long term goal as a country as other countries like china and India will press ahead with machines and provide opds and services for a lower price. We may have people at "jobs" but we won't be competitive. Competition is the fuel of a healthy economy.

Yeah, so what I suggested in my last post does not make great sense.

We can all relax.

 

[Yakuda]

I only indicated that that was how I saw it playing out. It was, and still is, my OPINION. I already did...and you have rejected it. That is your right...and you may be closer to the truth than I. We really do not know.


I suspect it will.



Yes, those fears were expressed. And in many ways...it has worked out that there are job losses as the machines get better. I had a relative who was a telephone operator. When we picked up our phone to make a call (providing it was not in use by another party with whom we had to share a line)...the operator (almost always a female) would say, "Number, please" and we would give the number to whom we were calling.

Don't have them anymore. I another relative who was part of a major corporate steno pool...ain't got them anymore either. We now have robots that build automobiles and put huge numbers of people out of work at jobs that used to pay ig bucks.

If you think there is no problem in this regard...okay. You may be correct...and lots of other jobs will open that billionaire corporate managers will gladly pay humans a living wage to do.

So...I guess best in your opinion to just not even consider it a problem for now.


As I said. No worries for now.

Yeah, so what I suggested in my last post does not make great sense.

We can all relax.

I agree that increasing productivity can result in people not only losing jobs but in whole industries being obliterated. I think how I see it differently is the work force isn't stagnant. Innovation can result in new industries and in turn new jobs.

I have some idea how education affects this and the evolving AI trend. Very briefly I think it will a long time if ever there AI takes over the job of an electrician let's say but people today don't want to do get kind of work. It's probably the same with a lot of trades. Plumbing a toilet. Almost everyone goes to college now and I think some people believe that kid of work is beneath them. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[Ross Dolan]

I agree that increasing productivity can result in people not only losing jobs but in whole industries being obliterated. I think how I see it differently is the work force isn't stagnant. Innovation can result in new industries and in turn new jobs.

I agree, in part, with the notion that new jobs will be created...and I know that there are jobs humans will almost always do better than a machine. I doubt any machine will ever be built that will deliver TLC the way an efficient nurse will deliver it. (Assuming the nurse is not Nurse Ratched...of whom there are plenty.) I doubt there will ever be a machine that will deliver a drink with the same panache and philosophical wit as a competent bartender. (As you may guess, I was once a bartender.) I know there will never be a machine built that can make a hand-made silk tie or suit.

BUT (obviously an important "but") I suspect most employers will go with machines that either exist now or can easily be built...and not pay humans the kinds of wages that are needed to indeed be "earning a living." In fact, in a capitalistic society such as we have now, it would be gross negligence on the part of a CEO or CFO to allow that to happen. No competent CEO or CFO will ever decide, "We can increase our profits substantially by eliminating as many human workers as possible...or we can do what is right for society and allow humans to do many jobs and pay them really decent wages to do it"...in favor of the latter rather than the former.
I may be wrong, Yakuda. (Be interested to hear your thoughts on this.)

I have some idea how education affects this and the evolving AI trend. Very briefly I think it will a long time if ever there AI takes over the job of an electrician let's say but people today don't want to do get kind of work. It's probably the same with a lot of trades. Plumbing a toilet. Almost everyone goes to college now and I think some people believe that kid of work is beneath them. What are your thoughts on that?

Electricians, plumbers and morticians will always be in need...and I suspect there will be more than enough people taking jobs in those lines if "If you don't work, you don't eat" becomes THE way to think. If that ethic does prevail, there will be people fighting to get jobs shoveling out cesspools. Nothing will be "beneath" anyone who truly needs food and shelter.

 

[Yakuda]

I agree, in part, with the notion that new jobs will be created...and I know that there are jobs humans will almost always do better than a machine. I doubt any machine will ever be built that will deliver TLC the way an efficient nurse will deliver it. (Assuming the nurse is not Nurse Ratched...of whom there are plenty.) I doubt there will ever be a machine that will deliver a drink with the same panache and philosophical wit as a competent bartender. (As you may guess, I was once a bartender.) I know there will never be a machine built that can make a hand-made silk tie or suit.

BUT (obviously an important "but") I suspect most employers will go with machines that either exist now or can easily be built...and not pay humans the kinds of wages that are needed to indeed be "earning a living." In fact, in a capitalistic society such as we have now, it would be gross negligence on the part of a CEO or CFO to allow that to happen. No competent CEO or CFO will ever decide, "We can increase our profits substantially by eliminating as many human workers as possible...or we can do what is right for society and allow humans to do many jobs and pay them really decent wages to do it"...in favor of the latter rather than the former.
I may be wrong, Yakuda. (Be interested to hear your thoughts on this.)


Electricians, plumbers and morticians will always be in need...and I suspect there will be more than enough people taking jobs in those lines if "If you don't work, you don't eat" becomes THE way to think. If that ethic does prevail, there will be people fighting to get jobs shoveling out cesspools. Nothing will be "beneath" anyone who truly needs food and shelter.

The cold hard reality and challenge of capitalism is to provide a high quality product or service for the lowest possible price. My problem with govt mandates like minimum wage, that in part seeks to provide a "living wage", is it artificially raises the cost of creating the product or providing the service. Making businesses pay a minimum amount to hire someone would be like the govt mandating a pizza shop pay a minimum amount for pizza sauce. That's an undue burden. Costs are passed on as no business owner will just eat the higher cost.

And that's the best motivator ever.

 

[Nordberg]

Congress gave the President authority to conduct short wars, or even start them under the War Powers Act.

Aside from that, as we know from LBJ's time in office, a President can blatantly lie to a friendly Congress and get a resolution for war passed (the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) after using the War Powers act.

Trump proved you do not have to bother with Congress. Once you start a war, if the politician does not back it, he is seen as not supportying the troops.
Grant said a politician who is against a law that is sure to come, does so at the risk of his job. He did not want to go to war with Mexico, but he led the army to save his career.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Trump proved you do not have to bother with Congress. Once you start a war, if the politician does not back it, he is seen as not supportying the troops.
Grant said a politician who is against a law that is sure to come, does so at the risk of his job. He did not want to go to war with Mexico, but he led the army to save his career.

I'll agree that once you start a war, you simply cannot turn it off or stop it. If Congress disagrees with Trump, their only way out is to take the political hit for another "Vietnam" and the political fallout that goes with that. Grant in the Mexican American war was a mere Lieutenant and had only graduated from West Point 3 years prior.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The cold hard reality and challenge of capitalism is to provide a high quality product or service for the lowest possible price. My problem with govt mandates like minimum wage, that in part seeks to provide a "living wage", is it artificially raises the cost of creating the product or providing the service. Making businesses pay a minimum amount to hire someone would be like the govt mandating a pizza shop pay a minimum amount for pizza sauce. That's an undue burden. Costs are passed on as no business owner will just eat the higher cost.

And that's the best motivator ever.

So...let me ask in a more direct way:

Considering all the mechanical help that industry has, are you saying that you are reasonably sure there will be enough jobs that pay enough for a person to "earn his/her living?"

You have been saying that everyone should earn their living...or no food...no shelter...no medicalcare. The question is valid, Yakuda. Are you saying or inferring that?

And let me go on record: I not only suppose that industry (industrialists) WILL NOT do that...but that we already are at a point where there are not enough of those jobs available especially for people with marginal skills.

 

[Yakuda]

So...let me ask in a more direct way:

Considering all the mechanical help that industry has, are you saying that you are reasonably sure there will be enough jobs that pay enough for a person to "earn his/her living?"

You have been saying that everyone should earn their living...or no food...no shelter...no medicalcare. The question is valid, Yakuda. Are you saying or inferring that?

And let me go on record: I not only suppose that industry (industrialists) WILL NOT do that...but that we already are at a point where there are not enough of those jobs available especially for people with marginal skills.

Let me answer directly I am reasonably sure there will be enough jobs for people to earn a living. However i think you're back to asking will they have "sufficient"? I may be wrong but if not my answer to THAT question is I dont know and I also dont know that its possible to guarantee that expect by govt dictate and i absolutely opposed to that.

I am saying it loud and clear. But forcing businesses to pay a certain salary based on a well intended idea of giving people "sufficient" has many pitfalls and i suggest it ultimately works against workers.

Yes technology is changing things but passing laws like a $15 minimum wage only compels businesses to find less expensive ways of producing their goods or services. People with marginal skills can gain skills. Again if someone is not internally motivated enough to make themselves more marketable why should it be more important to me?

 

[Ross Dolan]

Let me answer directly I am reasonably sure there will be enough jobs for people to earn a living.

So do I. Trump and his kids will ALWAYS be able to earn a living. I know several other people who will always be able to earn a living. But that obviously was not the question. YOU want every person in this country to "earn his/her living." I am questioning whether there will be sufficient jobs for everyone to work and "earn a living."

I suspect not, Yakuda, in fact, I am enough of a capitalist to see the problem with that being so.

Capitalism just about requires every entrepreneur to maximize his/her bottom line. True capitalism does not tolerate sacrificing profits for purposes like seeing that enough people are able to earn their livings...or paying anyone than the very least one can get away with.

However i think you're back to asking will they have "sufficient"? I may be wrong but if not my answer to THAT question is I dont know and I also dont know that its possible to guarantee that expect by govt dictate and i absolutely opposed to that.

I also do not know...and I suspect it cannot be done by governmental fiat. That is not what I am advocating for. I DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT TO INSURE THAT EVERYONE HAVE A JOB IN ORDER TO EARN A LIVING. In face, I am wondering why legislators in this country are not doing everything possible to find a way to allow all of us to work much less...and perhaps for some of us not to work at all.

I am saying it loud and clear. But forcing businesses to pay a certain salary based on a well intended idea of giving people "sufficient" has many pitfalls and i suggest it ultimately works against workers.

Yes technology is changing things but passing laws like a $15 minimum wage only compels businesses to find less expensive ways of producing their goods or services. People with marginal skills can gain skills. Again if someone is not internally motivated enough to make themselves more marketable why should it be more important to me?

I do not agree with this (at least not substantially), but let's let it be. I am heading in a different direction entirely. I doubt I will ever see it come to pass, but it is my opinion that it is inevitable.

Some here may see...future generations WILL see. I won't. I'm almost at the bottom of the downhill part of this trek.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Could you provide an example of Americans corrupting capitalism.

by going to a federal reserve fiat currency system and turning trade into totalitarianism.

 

[Yakuda]

So do I. Trump and his kids will ALWAYS be able to earn a living. I know several other people who will always be able to earn a living. But that obviously was not the question. YOU want every person in this country to "earn his/her living." I am questioning whether there will be sufficient jobs for everyone to work and "earn a living."

I suspect not, Yakuda, in fact, I am enough of a capitalist to see the problem with that being so.

Capitalism just about requires every entrepreneur to maximize his/her bottom line. True capitalism does not tolerate sacrificing profits for purposes like seeing that enough people are able to earn their livings...or paying anyone than the very least one can get away with.


I also do not know...and I suspect it cannot be done by governmental fiat. That is not what I am advocating for. I DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT TO INSURE THAT EVERYONE HAVE A JOB IN ORDER TO EARN A LIVING. In face, I am wondering why legislators in this country are not doing everything possible to find a way to allow all of us to work much less...and perhaps for some of us not to work at all.


I do not agree with this (at least not substantially), but let's let it be. I am heading in a different direction entirely. I doubt I will ever see it come to pass, but it is my opinion that it is inevitable.

Some here may see...future generations WILL see. I won't. I'm almost at the bottom of the downhill part of this trek.

Francis dont fall apart on me now. I NEVER use the phrase "earn his/her living". What I said was I want people to work to take care of themselves. I dont think people should be relying on the govt to take care of them.

Youre right the point of capitalism is profit. So what? Youre solution seems, in part to be, to force business owners to pay higher salaries. Fine. Business owners then have a choice to make, because whether you like it or not, they will maintain their profit. Good for them. They put in the most risk and should get the most out of their efforts. So their choices are shut down business; Go elsewhere to do business; Hire fewer people; or pass a l the costs onto the consumer.

And the other factor is not every worker is equal. they may be equal as far as being human but as employees people may be leagues apart. Why should a business owner to required to pay all employees the same if they are equally valuable as employees?

Government fiat is shit and only makes matters worse. I dont think its not the legislatures job to find ways to allow us all to work much less.

 

[Lionfish]

Sufficient for a decent life.


Probably the Congress...with input from the people.


Absent taxes...the person doing the production.

Why would you ask?




If "any" what? And...how much what?



What the fuck is "all this?"

Do you know how to write a coherent sentence. If so...why not trying to write one for a change.

Only to a moron. I have more than enough for myself right now. I suspect I would be one of the people who would decline to accept any sort of "universal income" sort of thing. (Except for health insurance, which is like an anvil around my neck right now.)

So...ask your questions in a coherent way and I will answer them.

That Depends frankie. You seem to be getting more ornery in your dotage.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Francis dont fall apart on me now.

My name is NOT Francis...and I am not falling apart.

I NEVER use the phrase "earn his/her living".

In your post #168 above: "Let me answer directly I am reasonably sure there will be enough jobs for people to earn a living."

What I said was I want people to work to take care of themselves. I dont think people should be relying on the govt to take care of them.

See above.

Youre right the point of capitalism is profit. So what? Youre solution seems, in part to be, to force business owners to pay higher salaries.

No way. I defy you to show any comment of mine that says that...or infers that, Yakuda. You won't find any, because I agree with you that it is not the function of government to force business owners to pay higher salaries.

But since the late 1930's the government has been establishing minimum wages for people who are employed...and I know of not ruling of the Supreme Court that says such laws are unconstitutional. Do you? Perhaps there are. If not, however, the government CAN do it.

Fine. Business owners then have a choice to make, because whether you like it or not, they will maintain their profit. Good for them. They put in the most risk and should get the most out of their efforts. So their choices are shut down business; Go elsewhere to do business; Hire fewer people; or pass a l the costs onto the consumer.

A possibility.

And the other factor is not every worker is equal. they may be equal as far as being human but as employees people may be leagues apart. Why should a business owner to required to pay all employees the same if they are equally valuable as employees?

Because the government has been doing it for 3/4 of a century...and there have been no rulings from the SCOTUS that says it is unconstitutional.

Government fiat is shit and only makes matters worse. I dont think its not the legislatures job to find ways to allow us all to work much less.

Your opinion...and you have a right to it. But we are a nation of laws...and the SCOTUS has not ruled against minimum wages.

 

[Yakuda]

My name is NOT Francis...and I am not falling apart.



In your post #168 above: "Let me answer directly I am reasonably sure there will be enough jobs for people to earn a living."




See above.



No way. I defy you to show any comment of mine that says that...or infers that, Yakuda. You won't find any, because I agree with you that it is not the function of government to force business owners to pay higher salaries.

But since the late 1930's the government has been establishing minimum wages for people who are employed...and I know of not ruling of the Supreme Court that says such laws are unconstitutional. Do you? Perhaps there are. If not, however, the government CAN do it.


A possibility.


Because the government has been doing it for 3/4 of a century...and there have been no rulings from the SCOTUS that says it is unconstitutional.

Your opinion...and you have a right to it. But we are a nation of laws...and the SCOTUS has not ruled against minimum wages.

Yes earn a living. I dont mean it the way you do.

Good Glad we agree. Then how do you see workers getting "sufficient" as you call it?

Its not a matter of whether minimum wage laws are constitutional or not its about what effect do they actually have and are they effective at achieving the problem they claim to try and correct.

There are shitty laws that are constitutional.

Do people have "sufficient" because the govt has been doing it for 3/4 of a century? Clearly not if we're talking about it. AGAIN laws being constitutional doesnt make them efficacious.

I dont think constitutionality is convincing argument

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yes earn a living. I dont mean it the way you do.

I mean it the way you do.

You have said that one must earn their living. If not...they don't eat.

Good Glad we agree. Then how do you see workers getting "sufficient" as you call it?

Various ways...too difficult to put into words here. And people a lot more qualified than I (or anyone else here) for deciding how best to do it...can come up with better ideas.

Its not a matter of whether minimum wage laws are constitutional or not its about what effect do they actually have and are they effective at achieving the problem they claim to try and correct.

I do not want government to correct the problem they claim they are trying to correct. I've made that clear by now. I want everyone to be working less, MUCH LESS, in order to have the necessities of life.

There are shitty laws that are constitutional.

Okay.

Do people have "sufficient" because the govt has been doing it for 3/4 of a century? Clearly not if we're talking about it. AGAIN laws being constitutional doesnt make them efficacious.

Read what I said above again.

I dont think constitutionality is convincing argument

Okay, but using it as a response to what you were asking does make it a convincing argument in my opinion.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Francis dont fall apart on me now. I NEVER use the phrase "earn his/her living". What I said was I want people to work to take care of themselves. I dont think people should be relying on the govt to take care of them.

Youre right the point of capitalism is profit. So what? Youre solution seems, in part to be, to force business owners to pay higher salaries. Fine. Business owners then have a choice to make, because whether you like it or not, they will maintain their profit. Good for them. They put in the most risk and should get the most out of their efforts. So their choices are shut down business; Go elsewhere to do business; Hire fewer people; or pass a l the costs onto the consumer.

And the other factor is not every worker is equal. they may be equal as far as being human but as employees people may be leagues apart. Why should a business owner to required to pay all employees the same if they are equally valuable as employees?

Government fiat is shit and only makes matters worse. I dont think its not the legislatures job to find ways to allow us all to work much less.

but banks should get bailouts, right fascist Fucko?

 

[Ichabod Stain]

neocon globalist fascist anti-humans love dog shit in all their orifices everyday.

 

[Steinbeck]

Capitalists that relied on lots of immigrant labor usually had to build housing to attract employees, most of whom wouldn't move somewhere to live under a tree in a pasture year round. It wasn't until later that streetcars and the like came along and allowed workers to live more than a couple of blocks from where they worked.

Even as late as WW II this was necessary. There was a Convair bomber plant in a town near here that had entire blocks of housing constructed for the national guard units guarding the plant and the railroad built to it, and along with it literally thousands of haydite and cinder block row houses for workers, an entire town, and they built it in less than a year.

 

[Steinbeck]

Particularly after spending $24 billion in the last five years on the homeless...

Audit finds California spent $24B on homelessness in 5 years, didn't consistently track outcomes

A state audit has found that California spent $24 billion to tackle homelessness over a five year period but didn't consistently track the outcomes or effectiveness of its programs.

www.cbsnews.com

That's roughly $141,000 per homeless person. You'd think they could have bought them a cheap car and put them in a half decent apartment for that kind of money...

Milton Freidman made that point a long time ago. He claimed it was a lot cheaper to just give them the money up front than fund a massive bureaucracy to oversee the problem.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Milton Freidman made that point a long time ago. He claimed it was a lot cheaper to just give them the money up front than fund a massive bureaucracy to oversee the problem.

UBI.

its necesary now with AI scheduled to lay off humanity.

or, quit laying everyone off with AI.