Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article
-
The problem is, especially with American ethics, useless jobs are seen as WAY better than GBI. American ethics prefers "fair" treatment. "You work, you get paid. "
European ethics prefers overall well being. "Whatever is best for everyone."
American ethics sound great, because we grew up here. Fair sounds nice. It is nice. But it means we are all willing to lose a few dollars to keep someone else for getting a hundred dollars we don't feel that he deserves. It's not logical, it's spiteful in the end. But that's why useless jobs are SO popular in the US.
Not that they dont' exist in Europe, I've seen them a lot. But the US seems passionate about keeping them while Europe seems to want to fight them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Instead of a cleaner, who likely literally makes dirty things clean. Think of a trench digger who digs unneeded trenches that are just filled in again. Working "with their hands" to no end, just digging to dig.
Would your dad have been equally happy doing that if the pay was the same as sitting home with his kids?
I have never seen people out that dig trenches just to fill them up again. Where does that happen? Useless positions in big corporations or government, sure those are there like the person in the article highlights. Where are people employed en masse to just occupy their time? You mention pharmacists earlier. Sure maybe they could automate most of what a pharmacist does, but there are drug cocktails that do take a pharmacist to actually make. Also before automation was available we needed humans to do it so we might eventually see pharmacists phased out but it does take time for things to adjust. So you can't say people are just employed as pharmacists to occupy their time.
-
GBI isn't a bad thing, but in the world today you have to look at the politics of it and wonder what would happen if some large percentage of the workforce up and stop working.
Would GBI continue every 4 or 8 years in the US with the way politicians are? How would it be supported and paid for? Who would pay for it? Would you tax the GBI income from the very same people you're saying "don't work, we don't need you"?
-
@penguinwrangler said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Instead of a cleaner, who likely literally makes dirty things clean. Think of a trench digger who digs unneeded trenches that are just filled in again. Working "with their hands" to no end, just digging to dig.
Would your dad have been equally happy doing that if the pay was the same as sitting home with his kids?
I have never seen people out that dig trenches just to fill them up again. Where does that happen?
In white collar paperwork all of the time. That's why blue collar jobs aren't good examples, because it would be SO obvious what they were doing, that we wouldn't do it.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Non-IT News Thread:
. Sure maybe they could automate most of what a pharmacist does, but there are drug cocktails that do take a pharmacist to actually make.
There are machines that do all of that today. They are just outlawed in order to create jobs. All of that stuff happens automatically, if allowed.
And it isn't just the pharmacists, but all the pharma techs that go with them. Most pharmacies have an entire ecosystem of jobs that all depend on a fake foundation. They made sense in the past, but not today.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@penguinwrangler said in Non-IT News Thread:
. Sure maybe they could automate most of what a pharmacist does, but there are drug cocktails that do take a pharmacist to actually make.
There are machines that do all of that today. They are just outlawed in order to create jobs. All of that stuff happens automatically, if allowed.
And it isn't just the pharmacists, but all the pharma techs that go with them. Most pharmacies have an entire ecosystem of jobs that all depend on a fake foundation. They made sense in the past, but not today.
@scottalanmiller's talking about that scene in Back to the Future when hes playing the arcade game and the kids go "you have to use your hands? PFFFF"
-
@penguinwrangler said in Non-IT News Thread:
Also before automation was available we needed humans to do it so we might eventually see pharmacists phased out but it does take time for things to adjust. So you can't say people are just employed as pharmacists to occupy their time.
Yes, but "phased out" would have been long ago. It's been a long time since the field was only to occupy peoples' time.
Many fields have lobbies to keep jobs in place through government intervention because it makes money for the people involved. It's more complex than ONLY being a hidden form of deceptive welfare. It's also straight up corruption, through lobbyists. But the lobbyists aren't dissuaded to heavily, since it also creates a way to reduce the welfare roles. The government benefits, too.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Would GBI continue every 4 or 8 years in the US with the way politicians are? How would it be supported and paid for? Who would pay for it? Would you tax the GBI income from the very same people you're saying "don't work, we don't need you"?
You probably don't tax people at all, that's not an efficient system. You'd tax corporations or products. You definitely don't tax incomes, that's insane. That would, literally, just create more work for no gain. The opposite of the goal.
-
And GBI isn't about taking away jobs. It's about allowing people to stay home.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Would GBI continue every 4 or 8 years in the US with the way politicians are? How would it be supported and paid for? Who would pay for it? Would you tax the GBI income from the very same people you're saying "don't work, we don't need you"?
You probably don't tax people at all, that's not an efficient system. You'd tax corporations or products. You definitely don't tax incomes, that's insane. That would, literally, just create more work for no gain. The opposite of the goal.
Talk to NYS about taxation then. . . they literally tax income at every opportunity. . . Oh you have a job, 30%, oh you're unemployed 30% of your unemployment check. . .
-
It would phase itself pretty naturally, I think. Loads of government workers would have to do it immediately, with zero negative effects, only positive ones. As the government stopped wasting money and hundreds of thousands of workers got to stay home. That would produce a natural reduction in needs for mass transit, gas station workers, lunch restaurants, etc. All those jobs that basically just support those government bloat jobs would reduce, pretty rapidly.
Those that crave productive work will move to other positions, displacing other people that want to stay home on GBI.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Would GBI continue every 4 or 8 years in the US with the way politicians are? How would it be supported and paid for? Who would pay for it? Would you tax the GBI income from the very same people you're saying "don't work, we don't need you"?
You probably don't tax people at all, that's not an efficient system. You'd tax corporations or products. You definitely don't tax incomes, that's insane. That would, literally, just create more work for no gain. The opposite of the goal.
Talk to NYS about taxation then. . . they literally tax income at every opportunity. . . Oh you have a job, 30%, oh you're unemployed 30% of your unemployment check. . .
Right, because NY is big on the bloat. The more you tax, the more you can skim. The more you have to hire useless jobs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Would GBI continue every 4 or 8 years in the US with the way politicians are? How would it be supported and paid for? Who would pay for it? Would you tax the GBI income from the very same people you're saying "don't work, we don't need you"?
You probably don't tax people at all, that's not an efficient system. You'd tax corporations or products. You definitely don't tax incomes, that's insane. That would, literally, just create more work for no gain. The opposite of the goal.
Talk to NYS about taxation then. . . they literally tax income at every opportunity. . . Oh you have a job, 30%, oh you're unemployed 30% of your unemployment check. . .
Right, because NY is big on the bloat. The more you tax, the more you can skim. The more you have to hire useless jobs.
They literally tax the thing, you're paying for through having a job. It's double taxation. It's a ripoff and should be completely illegal, yet somehow. . .
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@penguinwrangler said in Non-IT News Thread:
Also before automation was available we needed humans to do it so we might eventually see pharmacists phased out but it does take time for things to adjust. So you can't say people are just employed as pharmacists to occupy their time.
Yes, but "phased out" would have been long ago. It's been a long time since the field was only to occupy peoples' time.
Many fields have lobbies to keep jobs in place through government intervention because it makes money for the people involved. It's more complex than ONLY being a hidden form of deceptive welfare. It's also straight up corruption, through lobbyists. But the lobbyists aren't dissuaded to heavily, since it also creates a way to reduce the welfare roles. The government benefits, too.
Okay, so there is a lobbyist group on behalf of pharmacists created to protect pharmacists and slow down automation of their field and keep their jobs. That is typical human behavior to preserve their jobs and fields from automation and not some big conspiracy just to employ people in useless jobs.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@penguinwrangler said in Non-IT News Thread:
Also before automation was available we needed humans to do it so we might eventually see pharmacists phased out but it does take time for things to adjust. So you can't say people are just employed as pharmacists to occupy their time.
Yes, but "phased out" would have been long ago. It's been a long time since the field was only to occupy peoples' time.
Many fields have lobbies to keep jobs in place through government intervention because it makes money for the people involved. It's more complex than ONLY being a hidden form of deceptive welfare. It's also straight up corruption, through lobbyists. But the lobbyists aren't dissuaded to heavily, since it also creates a way to reduce the welfare roles. The government benefits, too.
Okay, so there is a lobbyist group on behalf of pharmacists created to protect pharmacists and slow down automation of their field and keep their jobs. That is typical human behavior to preserve their jobs and fields from automation and not some big conspiracy just to employ people in useless jobs.
I actually disagree with you, there are lobbyist to protect the entire field, not just the pill-pusher behind the counter. If all prescriptions were run through a massive database every conceivable drug interaction would be reported immediately to the doctor prescribing the medication.
Instead the doctor just prescribes away, and hopes the pharmacists notices if there are going to be bad reactions.
-
The pharma world, lives on sales people. Pushing medicine to trial or live sales. It's scary what side effects "safe" medications actually have that you'll never see a commercial notice for.
-
Locking to split.
-
Here we are, moved the GBI discussion out here.
-
The bottle filler, is literally the last stop for the bus. Eliminating the need for a pharmacist, would also eliminate the need for Prescription reviewers and many other "filler" jobs in between.
It's not just "let's get rid of that job" it's "let's get rid of half or more of the industry as there is a ton of wasted effort here".
-
@dustinb3403 said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
The bottle filler, is literally the last stop for the bus. Eliminating the need for a pharmacist, would also eliminate the need for Prescription reviewers and many other "filler" jobs in between.
It's not just "let's get rid of that job" it's "let's get rid of half or more of the industry as there is a ton of wasted effort here".
Right, exactly. It is an ecosystem of jobs. Each step costs money, and adds risk.
