Libertarianism

[MrJonno]

Well, since I pay a lot of taxes, I care. If some asshole is physically and mentally able to get a job and can get a job, then he should get that job rather than be paid State money. I don't really care if he chooses not to get the job, but if he does affirmatively decide not to take the job, preferring to stay home and watch t.v. on the taxpayer dime, then the dole should be cut off.

Thats a moral argument its just not a pragmatic one, I am quite prepared to pay anyone a very basic amount money for life even if they never even try to get a days work.
Do I resent it, yes of course but the alternative isnt we cut of their dole and they suddenly get a job , its they starve or come around and mug me.

It's a sad fact of life in most Western countries millions of people are just surplus to requirement as a civilization we need to accept this. Maybe in the past they would have travelled to new lands voluntary or just deported but thats not an option anymore

[Coito ergo sum]

Someone packing potato crisps for a living is engaged in a far less stressful pursuit than a doctor or the President. It's not the control that is the stressor or destressor -- it's the responsibility. When you have a job that comes with high demands on your intellect, requires you to actually produce and achieve, that is what causes stress. Packing crisps and emptying bins is mindless work which if you fuck up will do zero damage to anyone. All you do is show up and go home. Any monkey can do those jobs. Packing crisps pays not much because anyone can do it. Picking up garbage or bins pays a bit more because of the higher physical demand -- not "because of" the higher physical demand but because of the smaller supply of workers available to fill the job.

Don't think you appreciate how stressful mindless work is, responsibilty is more than countered by control. You do get jobs where you are expected to have responsibility but have little control and these really are appalling jobs Doctors are somewhere in the middle as in the end of the day they will always fail their patients when they die. Have you ever done such a mind numbing job as working in factory line (working in a shop is generally a few steps above factory work as you can actually interact with the customer , you have at least some control).

If I have the choice between working where I am for the minimum wage or working in a factory I would stay where I am any day of the week

I do, as I have done that sort of work in my life. Stress in a job comes from not being able to leave it at work, having lives and livelihoods in your hands, etc. Nobody is full control of their environment. The chip-packer, however, doesn't need to be "in control" because all he's doing is putting chips in boxes.

I have, indeed, worked on a mind numbing factory line, putting small devices into a mounting bracket, one...after the other...after the other all day long.... I've also done data entry and other repetitive work. There was no stress in those jobs because you don't have to think, and if you screw up it's no big deal. The only thing you can do wrong is "not work" or "goof off." That's not stress.

Sure, I would stay where I am any day of the week too, even though I have far more stress than a factory assembly line worker, because I make more money. However, if I were to be asked to do this same job for the same wage as I would make packing those small devices into the mounting brackets, I'd do that job, because I'd be done in 8 hours, get paid for overtime, have no responsibility and still make the same money.

You really can't be serious in this argument. It's unfathomable. A guy putting crisps in boxes has a more stressful job or more difficult job than doctors, lawyers and Presidents? The fact that you even make the argument is astounding. Who has the most demanding job? A professional video game player?

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, since I pay a lot of taxes, I care. If some asshole is physically and mentally able to get a job and can get a job, then he should get that job rather than be paid State money. I don't really care if he chooses not to get the job, but if he does affirmatively decide not to take the job, preferring to stay home and watch t.v. on the taxpayer dime, then the dole should be cut off.

Thats a moral argument its just not a pragmatic one, I am quite prepared to pay anyone a very basic amount money for life even if they never even try to get a days work.
Do I resent it, yes of course but the alternative isnt we cut of their dole and they suddenly get a job , its they starve or come around and mug me.

It's a sad fact of life in most Western countries millions of people are just surplus to requirement as a civilization we need to accept this. Maybe in the past they would have travelled to new lands voluntary or just deported but thats not an option anymore

It's not a moral argument, as I don't assess right and wrongness of anyone's behavior. For all I care, he can stay home and wank all day. It's not my business. It is my business, as a taxpayer, that he gets some of the money I and others who pay taxes have earned and been forced to shell out for him. That's not moral. That's just the desire not to foot the bill for someone else's choices.

Poverty does not cause crime. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they're more likely to become a mugger. People who are employed, actually, commit more crime than the unemployed. And, they're not going to starve in the US or the UK because there is plenty of food everywhere. If they are able-bodied and able-minded, they'll go get some money, lawfully mostly, to buy food.

They don't need to be a surplus requirement, at least not the able-bodied and able-minded.

[MrJonno]

You really can't be serious in this argument. It's unfathomable. A guy putting crisps in boxes has a more stressful job or more difficult job than doctors, lawyers and Presidents? The fact that you even make the argument is astounding. Who has the most demanding job? A professional video game player?

Difficult and stressful are different things but the science is overwhelming. I'm currently doing a Life Science degree part time as well as doing a full time job and we studied this paper, as much as anything is fact in science its true. We arent talking some wishy washy marxist sociology study here. I wasnt aware of the studies until I started my degree I probably would have assumed the opposite like you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_ ... itehall_II



I do find it interesting you would rather do a monotonous job at a low wage instead of a skilled one, I'm sure psychologists would have some fun on both of us working out why. My theory is when you have a really dull job your mind starts wandering and gets into some sort of loop maybe you can just switch yours off . I absolutely cannot bare to sit on a beach and never do so on holiday

[Gerald McGrew]

Once again, fortunately (for some of us) this is a question where the data can shine some light on the situation.

In the US, productivity of workers has risen steadily since WWII. During most of that time wages rose at roughly the same rate. However, starting in the mid-1970's and really taking off in the early 1980's, while productivity continued to increase, wages stagnated.



So that begs the question: Where did the money from all that increased productivity go? The answer is clear...to the wealthy.



Thus we see the results of supply-side, "trickle down" economics. Most of the population works harder while more and more of the fruits of their labor is gobbled up by the wealthy.

[Coito ergo sum]

I do find it interesting you would rather do a monotonous job at a low wage instead of a skilled one, I'm sure psychologists would have some fun on both of us working out why. My theory is when you have a really dull job your mind starts wandering and gets into some sort of loop maybe you can just switch yours off . I absolutely cannot bare to sit on a beach and never do so on holiday

No no -- all else being equal, I would rather do a skilled one. What I'd rather not do is take risk, all else being equal, and bring the work home, all else being equal.

I can't sit on a beach, either. I do have to be doing something. But, if the pay is all the same, I'll do some artistic stuff, play some sports, work out more, etc.

When you actually are responsible for a business, you have to be there. That's why managers of restaurants and owners of businesses and whatnot work 16 hours a day. They bear the risk. Their neck is on the line. The crisp-packer guy doesn't do that.

The study you cite refers to morbidity and life expectancy. Correlating that with the stress of a job is unwarranted. For people engaged in the low-end, mindless jobs, there are invariably other factors in their lives that impact health and wellness, as I am sure you are well aware.

And, sure, stress and demands are two different things, which leads me to clarify that I wasn't only referring to jobs being more stressful, but I meant to refer to the difficulty of the job as well -- and the risk presented to a person. A business owner tends to have a high-risk, high reward/loss dynamic. A crisp packer has a tiny risk, nearly guaranteed reward dynamic. Different things.

[MrJonno]

It's not a moral argument, as I don't assess right and wrongness of anyone's behavior. For all I care, he can stay home and wank all day. It's not my business. It is my business, as a taxpayer, that he gets some of the money I and others who pay taxes have earned and been forced to shell out for him. That's not moral. That's just the desire not to foot the bill for someone else's choices.

Poverty does not cause crime. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they're more likely to become a mugger. People who are employed, actually, commit more crime than the unemployed. And, they're not going to starve in the US or the UK because there is plenty of food everywhere. If they are able-bodied and able-minded, they'll go get some money, lawfully mostly, to buy food.

They don't need to be a surplus requirement, at least not the able-bodied and able-minded

Povery is a cause of crime, its not the only cause but its silly to say its not one of them. As for the unemployed committing less crimes I find that very hard to believe as committing crimes is a great way of becoming long term unemployed.

People don't starve because we have welfare state, they do die in the US of course from lack of medical care. People are surplus to requirement jobs are becoming more and more skilled every day. You think some zombie underclass member is going to be able to cope with a modern shop till. You think they have the language and people skills to be a waiter/ waitress (most in the UK these days are students or graduates).

What happened in the past is that there were lots of manual un or semi skilled jobs, the fact that people couldnt go a full sentence without swearing or were semi literate didnt matter. These days are long gone

[MrJonno]

The study you cite refers to morbidity and life expectancy. Correlating that with the stress of a job is unwarranted. For people engaged in the low-end, mindless jobs, there are invariably other factors in their lives that impact health and wellness, as I am sure you are well aware.

Diet,smoking,exercise etc were all allowed for, the studies have been repeat in other countries/occupations with the same results

[Seth]

Once again, fortunately (for some of us) this is a question where the data can shine some light on the situation.

In the US, productivity of workers has risen steadily since WWII. During most of that time wages rose at roughly the same rate. However, starting in the mid-1970's and really taking off in the early 1980's, while productivity continued to increase, wages stagnated.



So that begs the question: Where did the money from all that increased productivity go? The answer is clear...to the wealthy.



Thus we see the results of supply-side, "trickle down" economics. Most of the population works harder while more and more of the fruits of their labor is gobbled up by the wealthy.

I'm sorry, what? The graphs all show that every segment of society, including the poorest, have bettered their economic condition in the last 30 years. What you're complaining about is that some people make much more than others. Big deal. Those people are the ones who create and operate the companies that everyone else works for. That's the "trickle down" part of economics. Somebody at the top of the economic food chain risks a lot of their own capital and time to build a company that hires and employs the common laborer, who benefits by having work to do and a paycheck at the end of the month.

You can be jealous and envious of the amount of money that someone else makes, but what YOU make is a product of your own limitations, and ONLY your own limitations. Nothing in our economy, no law, no practice, no custom, prevents ANYONE with a good idea and the willingness to work hard from joining those in the top 10 percent of income earners. Nothing. There are no class limitations, no oppressive apartheid laws, no legalized racial or sexual discrimination, and no means-tested obstacles to anyone being a financial success in the United States.

It's all about whether the individual has it within him to succeed. Bill Gates is the quintessential example of a guy who never finished college, worked out of his garage, and is now one of the richest men in the world because he had a good idea and the moxie to take it to success. But in that venture, Gates, and every other wealthy entrepreneur who invests their time and capital trying to make a new idea a success, take enormous risks by investing their time and their capital. If they fail, as many do, they lose everything.

Most people are unwilling to take that kind of risk even if they do have a better mousetrap, which most of them don't. So, they go to work for someone else, rise to their level of incompetence, and take home a regular guaranteed paycheck for their day's labor. They don't risk much of anything, so their rewards are commensurately smaller, but they always get paid exactly what they are worth, because they accept the employment contract at a specified pay grade and in doing so they are setting the market price for their skill set.

So, they have absolutely nothing whatever to complain about. They set the market price for their labor, and they get paid that amount by the employer. A fair deal all the way around.

[Seth]

Certainly from my personal experience the more I've earned the less stressful my job has become (I've being paid for my skills more than the amount of work I do)

So what? What ever gave you the silly idea that you are entitled to a stress-free life? Suck it up, buttercup because life isn't fair.

[Seth]

I see these people every day, now the right wants to force them to work or starve. I'm just a bit more caring and realisitic

If they can work, and there is something for them to do, shouldn't they work for the money they're given?

and yet a few posts later you ask:

actually expending time doing something. Inheriting wealth isn't work. And shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician isn't work.

What is the purpose of the distinction between work and not work? Why do you draw that line, and why is it important?

This is one of the wierd things about libertarianism and even much capitalism. The work ETHIC, and the idea that people SHOULD work if they're consuming wealth is so vital when it comes to the poor, but mysteriously disappears when it comes to the rich.

Nonsense. The idea is that people should work to pay their own way and not leech off of the labor of others. Poor people should work because by and large they are non-taxpaying dependent class leeches who suck from the public teat, which is to say they are taking the labor and capital that belongs to others and they are not working for it!

Libertarian philosophy doesn't care if you work or don't work, it merely cares that if you choose not to work, you don't support yourself by seizing the labor and wealth of others by using the blunt instrument of the Mace of State as your thuggish minion. Rich people who don't work don't have to work because they are not taking the property of others without their consent or permission, they are spending their own wealth.

It's not about a "work ethic" at all, it's about being responsible and accountable for your own expenses and actions and not imposing those costs and burdens on others who are not willing to voluntarily contribute to your support. That's it.

You are, as usual, grossly mischaracterizing Libertarian philosophy in yet another strawman jousting session that has nothing whatever to do with actual Libertarianism.

[Seth]

I've worked in factories, worked as a dustbin man and both jobs were far more stressful than my current job in IT. I'm not being paid to work hard (I work reasonable hard but not as much as when I did those earlier jobs) I'm being paid because I have useful skills ,that after all is capitalism. I work in the private sector (main customer like many is public bodies).

The studies on stress/life expectancy are not public/private sector or even job area specific they all say the same the more you earn the less stressed you are. The big determining factor is control. a doctor, a human resources manager, a doctor, someone who owns their business . even the US President have more influence on their environment than someone packing potato crisps for a living (I still have nightmares over that and its over 20 years ago).

Who cares about your stress levels? Your stress levels are the product of your own personal limitations. Society has no obligation whatsoever to deal you a stress-free life.

You want to control something, then get off your ass and become something.

[Gerald McGrew]

And this just has to be incredibly stressful....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/dic ... OML0LaqJcE

Former House majority leader Dick Armey says he took an $8 million consulting deal in return for leaving the conservative organization FreedomWorks because the group was “dishonest” and because he “couldn’t leave with empty pockets.”

The arrangement, he says, will allow him to “never have to work again forever.”

… Under the terms of the deal, Armey will receive $400,000 a year until he is 92 – a total of $8 million – to be a consultant for Stephenson…

“I can’t stay here (FreedomWorks), I can’t work with people like this, and I can’t afford to leave with empty pockets,” Armey said.

He said his choice was to put in “10 years of hard labor” to win control of FreedomWorks when Stephenson said to him, “‘Instead of hard labor, how about you never have to work again forever?’ How many people are going to have trouble of making that choice at the age of 72?”

Keep in mind, Armey is already receiving a pension for his time in Congress.

[pErvinalia]

I would say about 1% of the population or so, another % or so is people with recognsied illnesses/health problems rest of unemployment is partly the economy, partly a lack of skills and yes some peoeple being lazy.

Despite what a lot of people on the right say, living of welfare is not pleasasnt. The only people who have a decent standard of living are working in the black market

Not too many people oppose welfare for that 2% of the population, even on "the right." The problem is when almost half the population is on some form of dole.

In the US, many poor people on welfare have a decent standard of living, for the most part. But, here in the US, poor people live in bigger houses than the average person in the UK. The poor people have cars, widescreen televisions, 200 channels, full cupboards of food, and they get their hair and nails done.

AND they drive Ferraris too!

[pErvinalia]

Putting aside the fact that I just specifically mentioned I'm not really a socialist (i.e. i'm still a capitalist of sorts), and that you have no idea what a socialist is....

Where you say "the proposition that the individual owes to the collective more by way of labor than is required to compensate the collective for his individual use of the resources and benefits of society."... this is just a feeling, not an objective assessment. Your feeling is that an individual is paying over more than they use/benefit, whereas I and others say that rich people are benefiting way more than they contribute. I suppose we could all go and hunt down a thousand figures to back up our own feelings on this, but I doubt either of us would be able to do a rigorous analysis in any reasonable timeframe. To me it seems a no-brainer that a healthy, stable and lawful society is the enabler of wealth creation in the first place, and things like inheritance and power games (i.e. not real work) are the reasons for much wealth accumulation at the top. You obviously disagree. Not sure we can get past this impasse.

Really? Benefiting more than they contribute? You'll indeed have to do the math to prove this, given the fact that in the US the top 10 percent of taxpayers pay about 70 percent of the taxes paid (figures from National Taxpayer's Union for 2009)

Not to mention providing gainful employment to the bottom 50 percent, who pay less than 3 percent of the taxes.

That's not maths. That's an assumption that 70% of taxes is more than they benefit. As I said, I assume different. And, in fact, so do those wealthy, or else they would leave the country.

You still haven't justified why Person A should be compelled to labor on behalf of Person B. Person A has a responsibility to labor on behalf of himself and perhaps those he has taken financial and social responsibility for in order to pay his fair share of the costs of providing a healthy, stable and lawful society. But again, what is your rational justification for causing Person A to pay more than Person B for the direct benefit of Person B. And why is Person B not required to labor on his own behalf to pay for his fair share of the costs of providing him with a healthy, stable and lawful society?

Well, person B generally IS required to labour on his his own behalf if he is physically able to. I don't know of anywhere where you can get unlimited dole money without searching for work and taking work skills programs, and indeed being forceably enrolled in a work for the dole programme like is happening in neoliberal economies everywhere now. There will always be a small percentage of people who can't work, either through physical disability or effective mental disability from an abusive upbringing, and the odd lazy person. There's no need to punish other honest people who are going through hard times. As we keep mentioning to you, that is the cost of living in a stable and civilised society. It's an understanding that not everyone can be happily employed and mentally and physically healthy at all times throughout their lives.

You seem to believe that Person A, simply because he's better at laboring and is compensated at a higher rate, somehow owes MORE than his fair share of the costs of government.

No. As explained, we happen to disagree what "fair share" means. Your assessment is just as arbitrary as my assessment. Although, evidence clearly shows that as wealth inequality grows, so does social dysfunction.

The other point of disagreement is that Person A necessarily is "better at laboring" just because he is richer. They might be in some cases, but that isn't a given.

What is your rational argument that supports this claim? Why is the better, more efficient, more effective laborer who creates more wealth per unit of work obliged to pay a larger share of the costs of government than Person B, who is less industrious and less valuable as a worker?

I don't accept your premises.