Skip to main content

View Diary: Future of Work, Unions? Let’s Talk. (167 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You don't have to spend money on your (10+ / 0-)

    kids for education, they would have a guaranteed income when they went to school.

    You think you would be pissed about that?
    I think that people who feel a sense of entitlement would be pissed. I wouldn't be. You assume that people generally would just sit around and do nothing and that there'd be this scourge of people who weren't working. Well, how many people aren't working now? It's a huge chunk of the population. They are obviously being supported somehow, so we clearly have the ability to do it.

    Plus, if I had a steady income and didn't need to work a job I'd be about a million times more likely to start a business. It would give me the time and resources I needed to do something I wanted to instead of something that someone else orders me to.

    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

    by AoT on Mon May 06, 2013 at 01:14:37 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  A sense of being entitled (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sitting Jack Flash, Sparhawk

      to money that  they earned?   Well yeah,  I think they should feel entitled to that,  at least as much as the nonworkers feel entitled to it.

      •  The money "they earned" is a bit broad (7+ / 0-)

        I mean, did they build the roads? They had to have customers. They had to deal with a lot of people in a society being respectful of their business and not trying to ruin it. Most people who are rich from a business hardly earned the money. Other people worked for them and made them that money. I know that currently we have a cult of ownership in the US, but that doesn't have to be the case.

        The fact of the matter is that "the money that they earned" is entirely dependent on the state and the population in general. Ignoring that means that everyone thinks they did everything themselves and they don't owe anyone anything. The most absurd part of it is that without taxes their money wouldn't be worth anything. It's only because of taxes that people need money.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Mon May 06, 2013 at 02:08:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, yes, the did.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk
          I mean, did they build the roads?
          Or at least they will be paying for them.

          What about the people with the guaranteed incomes and no jobs?  Did they build the roads?  Nope.  Did they pay for them?  Nope.  So what exactly is their entitlement to use them?

          I do not see how government provided roads, paid for by taxpayers and built by workers, translate into an obligation to pay a guaranteed income to non-taxpaying non-workers.

          They had to have customers.
          Well, if no guaranteed income then presumably people without incomes won't be big customers and not an issue.
          They had to deal with a lot of people in a society being respectful of their business and not trying to ruin it.
          This is beginning to sound like a protection racket.  We should pay people a guaranteed income because otherwise they will try to ruin businesses?
          Most people who are rich from a business hardly earned the money. Other people worked for them and made them that money.
          Who are workers and pay taxes and presumably would also be supporting non-workers on guaranteed incomes.  Mind explaining how the fact that I pay someone a salary to work means that he and I now have an obligation to give non-workers a guaranteed income?
          The most absurd part of it is that without taxes their money wouldn't be worth anything. It's only because of taxes that people need money.
          Because without taxes food, clothing, and shelter would be free?
          •  people built the roads a while ago (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kit RMP, sunny skies

            And who deserves what is a big question. Why is it that owning things means you are "earning" money. Owning doesn't require labor, just owning. You switch back and forth between saying that the business owner earned the money and equating earning with working. That's wrong. You're using a rhetorical bait and switch.

            In regards to money and the government, I didn't mean to imply that people wouldn't exchange or share things without the government, just that money itself arises from government taxation. Without taxation there is very little reason for most people to need money. Money is valuable in large part because it is the only thing that can be used to pay taxes.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Mon May 06, 2013 at 08:45:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good philosophical question (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sparhawk
              Why is it that owning things means you are "earning" money. Owning doesn't require labor, just owning.
              If I work at my job and save my money and then buy a fixerup home, fix it up (unsalaried work) and then rent it out are you suggesting the rental income is not earned?  After all, I had to work to fix up the home.  What about the portion of the rent I could have gotten without fixing up the place?  Is that earned?

              I think it is earned - you are being paid for foregone consumption (you bought a house, not a sports car) and sweat equity.

              If you're not a handyman and you work longer at your job and then buy a rental home in good condition is your rental income somehow unearned?  I think if the answer to the first question is no, then the answer to this one also has to be owned.

              I personally have chosen not to buy real estate - I buy stock.  Are my capital gains and dividend income somehow unearned?

              I also make angel investments.  I'm on my way now to a company I invested $5K in (I make VERY early stage investments) to help them in a pitch to some bigger angels who will hopefully invest about $100K in them.  I'm an advisor (in return for options), I will be joining their board (in return for options), and I have spent a lot of time helping them on their fund raising pitch and sales pitch, introducing potential partners and employees to them, and next month I'll be lending my thinning grey hair to their enterprise sales effort to give them some gravitas.  At this point, I think they have about a 10% chance of succeeding, but if they do my $5K investment will easily turn into $1MM or more and my options will easily be worth $5mm or more.  (One of the advantages of early stage investments is you get in at very low valuations so if they do pop you get a lot of money.  Of course, they usually don't pop.)  If I do get that much, is any of that somehow unearned?  Which parts of it?

              •  Are you suggesting that without taxes we would (0+ / 0-)

                go back to barter?

                In regards to money and the government, I didn't mean to imply that people wouldn't exchange or share things without the government, just that money itself arises from government taxation.
                Or is your idea that we would go back to uncoined gold and other precious metals?
                •  Neither, we'd use either sharing (0+ / 0-)

                  or credit arrangements as we have through most of history. I'd highly suggest checking out "Debt: The First 5000 Years" by David Graeber. It's a good overview of the subject that corrects a lot of common misconceptions that are pushed by the economic establishment despite the fact that there's zero support for them historically.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Tue May 07, 2013 at 10:26:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think any of that addresses the question (0+ / 0-)

                at the base of this. You may have earned the money that you bought something with, but that doesn't mean that you have to earn the money. Most of the wealthiest people don't. There's no difference between money earned and money obtained in other ways, it's all the same stuff. So even if you're making other money from money you've earned it still isn't earned in any real sense. I don't earn the interest on my bank account, if I had enough money to, I get interest based on a contract. I don't do anything for that interest except to have money, no matter how I got that money.

                If I work at my job and save my money and then buy a fixerup home, fix it up (unsalaried work) and then rent it out are you suggesting the rental income is not earned?  After all, I had to work to fix up the home.  What about the portion of the rent I could have gotten without fixing up the place?  Is that earned?
                No, the rental income isn't earned. You would get the same amount of money if you payed someone else to fix it up. Your use of the term sweat equity I think shows how that's the case. It's an investment. Investments aren't earning, they're something different. Not that they're necessarily bad, but they're different.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Tue May 07, 2013 at 10:39:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site