Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it immoral when jobs are made obsolete by automation? If you're in a job that you know is going to become obsolete, it's foolish to sit around and wait for it to happen. Moving to a new job may require going back to school to learn new skills.
That is an unfair attack, taken out of context. In that other thread BUU was arguing that making arbitrary dress codes regardless of gender wasn’t just, as it did not take into account differences inherent due to gender. I don’t think we want to argue that dead point again, but it is worth pointing out that both of you were arguing slightly different viewpoints of justice and got mired in a semantic squabble about equality vs justice.
Similarly, do we really want to get into a dispute about the definition of morality here? Isn’t the larger point a discussion of what is good for our society and economy? Do we really want to have a huge disparity in wealth, and is it ultimately sustainable, particularly as wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in ever smaller chunks of the population?
Do we really think that capital, simply because it is represented by a dollar sign, is inherently worth more than labor and deserves to be treated favorably in comparison?
That is what is arbitrary about our current economic ‘morality’. We have chosen to favor accumulated wealth over peoples time, effort and knowledge. We could easily change our economic system to alter that balance, and reward labor a bit more. However, we have chosen not to do so, with the result that real earning power for most people has been declining since the 1980s.
I'm not attacking anyone. I disagree with bUU, which is fine. I don't like the ideas they have, I'm not saying anything negative about them as a person (and don't think anything negative about them).
Yes, I do want to get into a dispute on the definition of morality. The idea that morality is subjective, and is a dangerous basis to use when talking about things like this is the only reason I replied to this thread. This is almost more of a political thread than one about work/employment, IMO. Making political decisions based on morality (which can be biased, and is subjective) instead of a less emotional analysis of what is beneficial or harmful to society is dangerous.
I only brought up that other thread in that it's a very clear example of two people having two very different moral stances, which shows it to be subjective. Arguing for the 'moral' choice assumes the people you are talking to agree with your view of morality, which isn't an assumption we can make.
The accumulation of wealth isn't moral or immoral. Saying we should value people over money sounds great, but what does that mean? What policies are being proposed by that sentiment? I dislike feel-good sentiments that don't have tangible ideas for change along with them, given the hidden political agendas that are often pushed with the excuse that it's the 'moral choice'. For example, saying we shouldn't value wealth more than people sounds great. I agree with that, but what does that mean? What policy changes is that going to promote? That's the question that matters here. Does that make sense?
I'm not attacking anyone. I disagree with bUU, which is fine. I don't like the ideas they have, I'm not saying anything negative about them as a person (and don't think anything negative about them).
Yes, I do want to get into a dispute on the definition of morality. The idea that morality is subjective, and is a dangerous basis to use when talking about things like this is the only reason I replied to this thread. This is almost more of a political thread than one about work/employment, IMO. Making political decisions based on morality (which can be biased, and is subjective) instead of a less emotional analysis of what is good and bad is dangerous.
I only brought up that other thread in that it's a very clear example of two people having two very different moral stances, which shows it to be subjective. Arguing for the 'moral' choice assumes the people you are talking to agree with your view of morality, which isn't an assumption we can make.
The accumulation of wealth isn't moral or immoral. Saying we should value people over money sounds great, but what does that mean? What policies are being proposed by that sentiment? I dislike feel-good sentiments that don't have tangible ideas for change along with them, given the hidden political agendas that are often pushed with the excuse that it's the 'moral choice'. For example, saying we shouldn't value wealth more than people sounds great. I agree with that, but what does that mean? What policy changes is that going to promote? That's the question that matters here. Does that make sense?
Although there are objective systems of defining morality, I agree that no system is universally accepted. To be picky, that doesn’t mean that morality is not and cannot be objective, but given the lack of cultural agreement on a singular moral system the end result is largely subjective as you say.
You say that you want political decisions to be made based on a less emotional analysis of good and bad, however that is really just another way of describing morality, isn’t it?
As for policy changes, I can think of several that would restore balance to the labor:capital dynamic.
First, equalize tax rates so that the increase in capital and the product of labor is taxed equally. That may mean increasing capital gains while reducing income taxes. It may mean changing the tax brackets. It won’t be perfect, and I don’t have a comprehensive plan, but I view imbalanced tax policy as problematic for the country.
Implement some sort of profit sharing as a standard part of everyone’s compensation. That might mean reducing fixed wages to allow for a bit of a float in profit sharing, but this is currently seen in the sales world where people take a draw against future profits. This gives everybody skin in the game. I’m profitable years, everybody benefits. In down times, everybody tightens their belts. Not only does it provide incentive for workers to increase productivity, it includes a mechanism for employers to reduce costs other than via layoffs.
Universal, single payer, non-profit health care. This reduces the burden on companies that provide care for their employees, making them more competitive. It reduces risk for entrepreneurial people, lowering barriers to entry into the marketplace. It creates a level playing field. It allows employees to move more freely between employers. Based on per capital healthcare costs in other countries that use this system, our overall costs for healthcare will be reduced, benefitting everybody other than the healthcare insurance companies.
Eliminate the EITC and increase minimum wage. Under the current system, companies benefit by paying their low wage workers poverty wages, which is compensated for by tax credits, which are primarily paid for by higher paid employees through income taxes. That is a crazy form of corporate welfare.
Eliminate tax breaks that only benefit the rich, or institute tax breaks that only benefit the poor.
Universal, free access to education, which would include access to vocational training. There can be limits to this, such as limiting to 2 years of college or vocational train8ng, requirements to keep a certain gpa, whatever. The goal is to give all people access to skilled, living wage work.
Although there are objective systems of defining morality, I agree that no system is universally accepted. To be picky, that doesn’t mean that morality is not and cannot be objective, but given the lack of cultural agreement on a singular moral system the end result is largely subjective as you say.
You say that you want political decisions to be made based on a less emotional analysis of good and bad, however that is really just another way of describing morality, isn’t it?
As for policy changes, I can think of several that would restore balance to the labor:capital dynamic.
First, equalize tax rates so that the increase in capital and the product of labor is taxed equally. That may mean increasing capital gains while reducing income taxes. It may mean changing the tax brackets. It won’t be perfect, and I don’t have a comprehensive plan, but I view imbalanced tax policy as problematic for the country.
Implement some sort of profit sharing as a standard part of everyone’s compensation. That might mean reducing fixed wages to allow for a bit of a float in profit sharing, but this is currently seen in the sales world where people take a draw against future profits. This gives everybody skin in the game. I’m profitable years, everybody benefits. In down times, everybody tightens their belts. Not only does it provide incentive for workers to increase productivity, it includes a mechanism for employers to reduce costs other than via layoffs.
Universal, single payer, non-profit health care. This reduces the burden on companies that provide care for their employees, making them more competitive. It reduces risk for entrepreneurial people, lowering barriers to entry into the marketplace. It creates a level playing field. It allows employees to move more freely between employers. Based on per capital healthcare costs in other countries that use this system, our overall costs for healthcare will be reduced, benefitting everybody other than the healthcare insurance companies.
Eliminate the EITC and increase minimum wage. Under the current system, companies benefit by paying their low wage workers poverty wages, which is compensated for by tax credits, which are primarily paid for by higher paid employees through income taxes. That is a crazy form of corporate welfare.
Eliminate tax breaks that only benefit the rich, or institute tax breaks that only benefit the poor.
Universal, free access to education, which would include access to vocational training. There can be limits to this, such as limiting to 2 years of college or vocational train8ng, requirements to keep a certain gpa, whatever. The goal is to give all people access to skilled, living wage work.
Is that a decent start for the discussion?
That's a great start. That says something with substance, instead of simply a vague sense of "wealth is bad". I don't think many of those suggestions would actually be beneficial, but I love seeing actual suggestions.
We already have a progressive capital gains tax system, unless you're suggesting actually implementing some sort of capital gains on families making under $77k/year?
How would you force companies to profit-share? What would the enforcement of that look like? I've worked somewhere where everyone was a partial owner. It doesn't change much. They expect checks when times are good, and revolt when the checks go down when times are bad. The common sentiment when profits are down was "they are trying to get away with paying us less, I wouldn't be losing money right now if I was paid salary/hourly".
We need to do something about health care, single payer doesn't address the root problem in the US, which is cost of care, though. It's more complicated than "it worked in other countries, so it should work in the US" IMO healthcare needs to be a state issue, not federal. What works in one part of the country is not necessarily what would work in other places.
What tax breaks are you talking about that only benefit the rich?
We have universal access to education, through the end of high school, and the system's a mess. Spending more money isn't the solution. Let's fix our k-12 public education system before we spend more tax money on college/vocational training as well.
You used the infamous term 'living wage'. How do you define that? What income level is a 'living wage'? The goal isn't to provide for anyone, the goal is to give everyone equal opportunity to provide for themselves.
i dont think inequality is a real issue when talking about jobs...
once people hit a certain income level, it doesnt really make a difference how much other people make, it can be as unequal as anything else, it is only a status symbol. a used car vs super car, etc, it is a symbol of status and not indicator of inequality to me since both people can afford a car in the first place
the issue for me is that people dont know what skill level gets what pay. pay levels can increase or decrease by half across the country for the same job.
eliminate minimum wage and put in place wage bands for skill levels. yes it caps upward salaries for certain jobs, but it puts in place a bottom as well. the upward cap isnt an issue, want more? move up to next tier.
i see it like the GS system with the job series. if a job is a certain grade, then it is that pay anywhere in country, adjusted for COL. it isnt perfect, but it removes job uncertainty to a degree so people wont move and not know if they can afford to live there or not. in practice, i have no idea how they would implement this nationally/socially. college grads dont do their research on pay levels of certain degrees either. they see a "profession" makes $x, but dont consider what more it takes to make $x beyond an undergrad degree to get to that point
the ways companies hide income levels by not being open with it, playing title games where titles dont match responsibilities, etc... contribute to income disparities is what people dislike. the reason people dislike minimum wage is because it isnt tied to a skill level. increase it too much, and people making that amount feel jaded, and the ones who didnt make it but get higher pay lose incentive to gain skills to move up. why change jobs for more responsibility if they can get paid the same for less?
all the profit taxing ideas, doesnt change inequality... like minimum wage, it doesnt tie to skill level. if everyone gets the same amount, they arent any better off compared to before. they didnt go up on the social ladder
social security is as close to basic income as we got so far, and it didnt eliminate inequalty for seniors... it kept them from starving yes, but they arent better off on social securiy than they were the decades before getting it. a low wage person is going to be a low income retiree, getting social security doesnt make them better off.
How many jobs are supposed to support a middle class lifestyle? By definition, only a small percentage of jobs can support a middle class lifestyle, or else it wouldn't be called the "middle class".
This is America- if you want more money, work hard and go make it. Every time I've gone back to school and worked my butt off to crush the curve, I've come out making significantly more money than when I went in. I also crush it at work and get big raises and promotions. I choose to do that, and others can too.
what people call middle class lifestyle is the same that the rich lived 50 years ago...
how many middle class kids go on vacations abroad? how many families own multiple cars and live in a >1500 sqft house? how many of them eat out more than they eat at home?
the american middle class is disappearing because they overspent themselves... it has nothing to do with wage stagnation, flat wages would not decrease the middle class had they kept their spending levels flat as well
they didnt, they kept spending while they didnt grow incomes to support it. you cant out earn a bad spending habit, that is the tale of the middle class
More like 95%, realistically. I would define middle-class as being able to own a house, car, take 1-2 vacations per year, and save for retirement, without going into debt. How many people can do it nowadays?
Everyone... Depends on what house, car, vacation and retirement they prioritize
You have to wonder how much of this is due to underemployment with too many people constantly punching below their weight vs expectations. Degrees in "Gender studies" and "ethnic studies" aren't doing much to make someone a marketable employee, and meanwhile someone that is willing to learn a trade can certainly make far more than $12/hour which could be any variety of low-level retail/service jobs.
Because 26K in Santa Rosa CA- that to me says you're working retail or fast food...not a "real job". Meanwhile union painters, roofers, and drywallers are making over $40/hour in the Northern California region that includes Santa Rosa (at the journeyman level 2-4 year exp)
You got that 100% correct.
Plumbers and electricians (and car techs) make MUCH more than philosophers!
And LIVING BELOW YOUR MEANS is something a lot (if not most) people are clueless about these days.
Everyone... Depends on what house, car, vacation and retirement they prioritize
No everyone cant. The UK is more socialized than the US. Capitalism is set up for the majority to lose. Lately there has been a movement to do away with the middle class completely. Aside from that we are not going downhill. We are the way we were designed to be.
Americans are entitled to death and taxes. People in the UK are grandfathered in for housing, have university and pay for college, have socialized medicine that they don't have to buy separately, and they don't pay much more in taxes than we do for the privilege. Its more social minded than here.
I have many European friends that tell me they only leave Europe to try to get rich. If they fail at that task, they return home and to being middle class. In short, European citizenship enetiles them to tangible things and Amercian citizenship does not.
Aside from a right to death and taxes - we are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are not entitled to housing, free healthcare, or free higher education. We certainly are not promised a middle class lifestyle as a birthright.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
