Libertarianism

[Seth]

I said "inheritance and power games" are not real work. Fighting for cystic fibrosis sufferers is not a "power game".

Fuzzy thinking there, rEv. Of course it is, it's a power game to garner money to fight cystic fibrosis and benefit those who have it. Every single person or group that petitions government for redress of grievances (or just for largess from the public treasury) is a "special interest group" because each of them has a special interest in getting government to benefit them or their cause to a greater degree than some other group or cause.

You might, for example, contribute money to a PAC or corporation (oooh the EVIL) which advocates for higher taxes, or less pollution, or greater wealth equality. All you're doing is hiring someone else to speak for you in the halls of government because you cannot do so yourself, directly. What's wrong with that?

Regarding your second part about inheritance - well, it depends on how much it was taxed in his life. You have to look at the overall tax burden to compare different distributions of taxation. Anyway, regarding why he possibly shouldn't be able to transfer it unencumbered - because the money might be better spent being reinvested in society. Paris Hilton might miss out on a couple of hundred mil, but she won't have to trip over so many poor beggars on her journey between her front doorstep and her limo.

Why must we look at the "overall tax burden?" If the plumber, or Paris Hilton, pays the required taxes each year on the money they have or earn, that's all they are required to do. When they die, all that capital has been fully taxed when earned. Why should it be taxed again?

You're just expressing class-based envy and jealousy here. You demean Paris Hilton because she has lots of money and you don't, and so you want more of her money. That's the sum total of your philosophy, and that of Marx as well. That makes you a Marxist, plain and simple.

Someone else is better at generating wealth than you are, and someone else has more wealth than you do, so you feel entitled to tell them how much wealth they may retain while you redistribute the rest for your personal economic benefit.

That's the philosophy of the thief.

[Coito ergo sum]

Forbes say 6% of Americans are on it, couldnt find the figures for the UK but apparently 20% of the population earn less than the minimum wage + £1 /$1.50

Regardless the minimum wage should be sufficient to ensure that if a person works 40 hours on it they can afford to rent a single room that isn't a health hazard within commuting distance, pay the utility bills, pay for transport to get to work, pay for sufficient food to survive on and least some form of entertainment ( a basic tv).

If that isn't possible (which it isnt without tax subsidies) then is the employer reallly running a profitable free market business?

Yes, because, again, not all jobs are meant to support a person or a family. And, economics doesn't work the way you suggest. Whether it's worth it for a store owner to hire some kid to break up boxes out back and take the trash out, or do it himself, depends on the cost per hour of that employee. If he can hire the kid for $7.50 an hour, then no big deal. If he has to pay him $20 an hour, then fuck that noise. It's not dependent on the expenses of the kid doing the menial task.

Similarly, a product costs what it costs to produce, right? That includes fixed and variable costs. So, before the business person can make a dime of profit, he has to know the "cost of goods sold." So, the cost of goods sold might be, say, $10 in fixed and $10 in variable costs, totally $20 right now. The company may look to make a margin of, say 20% , and so, he wants to sell it for $24 each. So, let's say that the minimum wage is raised to something you would think would support a family reasonably, and that goes from say $7.50 an hour to $20 an hour, and now the variable costs go up to $30 each unit. So, the product now costs $40 to make, and to make a profit he has to price it at something over $40.

There is no telling that demand for his product can bear that cost. It might, but it might not. Double the price of anything, and you will -- you WILL - reduce demand almost all the time. Very few products have such a strong price inelasticity that demand will be the same whether the price goes up or not. Price going up almost always pushes demand down. If it's a product people can do without, then you put him out of business.

That's the problem with this nonsense that every job must be a breadwinner job. When families have two earners going, sometimes one person just wants a cake job that earns some extra money but you can leave the job at work and not get much stress out of the deal. Bagging groceries at the supermarket is one of those things.

[Gerald McGrew]

CES,

The first paragraph in your post reflects the divide in thinking between liberals and conservatives fairly well. You focus on the business owner and his bottom line, whereas others focus on the person doing the work.

Perhaps we should have a program of job-labeling, where some jobs are labeled "Meant to support a person or family" and others are labeled "Not meant to support anyone".

[MrJonno]

Yes, because, again, not all jobs are meant to support a person or a family. And, economics doesn't work the way you suggest. Whether it's worth it for a store owner to hire some kid to break up boxes out back and take the trash out, or do it himself, depends on the cost per hour of that employee. If he can hire the kid for $7.50 an hour, then no big deal. If he has to pay him $20 an hour, then fuck that noise. It's not dependent on the expenses of the kid doing the menial task.

All full time jobs for adults are meant to support at least one individual, the UK does have age related minimum wage, its a lot less for 16 year old who shouldnt expect to be able to rent a room (and won't get any help of the tax payer unless they have a baby or exceptional circumstances) compared to someone who is 21 who will. There is also a 1st year apprentice rate where you are meant to provided relavent training by law

Does society benefit from any business that can only only make a profit but getting the state to top up the wages of its staff. Not sure how you would describe that system but its not free market economics (or socialism)

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, because, again, not all jobs are meant to support a person or a family. And, economics doesn't work the way you suggest. Whether it's worth it for a store owner to hire some kid to break up boxes out back and take the trash out, or do it himself, depends on the cost per hour of that employee. If he can hire the kid for $7.50 an hour, then no big deal. If he has to pay him $20 an hour, then fuck that noise. It's not dependent on the expenses of the kid doing the menial task.

All full time jobs for adults are meant to support at least one individual,

Not correct. Some people are full time volunteers, yet they're doing a job.

the UK does have age related minimum wage, its a lot less for 16 year old who shouldnt expect to be able to rent a room (and won't get any help of the tax payer unless they have a baby or exceptional circumstances) compared to someone who is 21 who will. There is also a 1st year apprentice rate where you are meant to provided relavent training by law

Does society benefit from any business that can only only make a profit but getting the state to top up the wages of its staff. Not sure how you would describe that system but its not free market economics (or socialism)

Not paying breadwinner wages to every employee doesn't mean the state has to "top up" the wages. People who need breadwinner money should go do breadwinner jobs. Paying people wages that aren't worth the job they're doing doesn't benefit society either, as it incentivizes slacking. Why bother getting a job that is stressful and difficult, when you can make breadwinner money 9-6, with an hour for lunch?

[Seth]

CES,

The first paragraph in your post reflects the divide in thinking between liberals and conservatives fairly well. You focus on the business owner and his bottom line, whereas others focus on the person doing the work.

That's because the important consideration is the business owner's bottom line. Commerce is not a charity service that exists to make sure that workers can make ends meet, it's a business that depends on profit for its continued existence. If the business owner is burdened with paying a "living wage" to everyone he employs, soon he will not be paying any wage to anyone and everyone he formerly employed will be out of work.

Perhaps we should have a program of job-labeling, where some jobs are labeled "Meant to support a person or family" and others are labeled "Not meant to support anyone".

I think that's already pretty clearly stated in the terms of the labor contract each employee agrees to when they take a job. It's not up to the business owner to determine what a "living wage" is for each employee, it's up to the employee to determine how much money he needs or wants to make each paycheck and then it's his obligation to acquire the job skills and experience that justify that compensation level to the employer.

Entry-level workers aren't worth much to the employer because of all the time it takes to train and supervise them to the point that they are competent, profit-making employees. When you impose a minimum wage on employers employing entry-level workers, you are dissuading the employer from hiring new, unskilled workers and thereby giving them an opportunity to learn the skills needed to be productive to the employer and you are encouraging employers to only hire experienced workers which inevitably results in new, entry-level workers being left without employment, as can be seen in the nearly 50 percent unemployment rate among teenage black males in urban areas. Nobody wants to hire them because they are more trouble than they are worth to train, and employers have reams of highly-qualified, and indeed OVER-qualified out-of-work adults to choose from when hiring for their burger chain. That's why you are now seeing really old folks working at the drive-up window at Wendy's.

Only if employers are allowed to pay entry-level unskilled workers what they are worth to him while they are in training and are learning good job skills, rather than what some bleeding-heart liberal nitwit thinks he ought to be paying them will you see entry-level workers given an opportunity to learn the necessary job skills and habits that will allow them to move UP the ladder of success and out of the entry-level cadre.

[Seth]

Yes, because, again, not all jobs are meant to support a person or a family. And, economics doesn't work the way you suggest. Whether it's worth it for a store owner to hire some kid to break up boxes out back and take the trash out, or do it himself, depends on the cost per hour of that employee. If he can hire the kid for $7.50 an hour, then no big deal. If he has to pay him $20 an hour, then fuck that noise. It's not dependent on the expenses of the kid doing the menial task.

All full time jobs for adults are meant to support at least one individual,

Horseshit. All full-time jobs for adults are meant to generate a profit for the business owner and absolutely nothing else.

Whether an individual can support himself on the wages from a particular job depends on the skill set required for that particular job.

No employer owes a man who sweeps out his warehouse more than it would cost him to hire someone else who wants whatever compensation is offered more.

Employees are just another cost of doing business that has to be controlled, and workers market their skills just like any other commodity on earth: the more the commodity is worth in the marketplace, the more money the owner of the commodity makes by selling it.

If your labor worth is minimal because you have no skills and a poor work ethic and because of this you don't offer much value to the employer, why on earth should the employer pay you more than you're actually worth to him? He's not your mother, he owes you nothing, certainly not a "living wage," and he has his own profit margin to consider when investing in hiring an employee.

Does society benefit from any business that can only only make a profit but getting the state to top up the wages of its staff. Not sure how you would describe that system but its not free market economics (or socialism)

Depends on the business and the future anticipated value of the worker to the community. The world is full of ditch-diggers, trash picker-uppers and burger-flippers and therefore that skill set is worth but little. But electricians and plumbers? Not so much. Therefore it may be worth it for the community to subsidize an apprentice electrician's apprenticeship so that he can finish that training and become a much more valuable member of the community. The same thing applies to doctors. If your community is short on doctors, then the political leadership may propose expending tax money on subsidizing a medical education for promising local young people in return for a contract to serve the community upon graduation.

It's all about supply and demand. If the demand for a trade skill is high in a community, the community may decide to subsidize the training of workers for that trade in order to allow local employers to generate greater wealth within the community into the future.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES,

The first paragraph in your post reflects the divide in thinking between liberals and conservatives fairly well. You focus on the business owner and his bottom line, whereas others focus on the person doing the work.

The business owner generally does more work than any one employee, by far. If you don't know that, you've never run a business.

However, I don't focus on the business owner at all. I merely pointed out that there are forces beyond "what does a person need to live a passable life" that effect the price of goods and services sold.

Moreover, both business owners and employees are people. I don't focus on either of them. I merely don't knee-jerk prefer one over the other. This is not a liberal/conservative divide, as I am a liberal, not a conservative, on the vast majority of issues. The divide at issue here is the divide between those who know what is entailed in trying to run business and those who don't. You are among the latter.

Perhaps we should have a program of job-labeling, where some jobs are labeled "Meant to support a person or family" and others are labeled "Not meant to support anyone".

This is also a divide. You seem to be among whatever group it is that thinks that everything needs to be regulated by some government bureau. Look at your reaction there, even in jest, was that we need a "program" of job labeling. Why? People are incapable, apparently in your mind, to know what jobs pay X and what jobs pay Y? We need a job labeling program for them to do that? I mean, I think people are stupid generally, but your suggestion reveals that you hold them at level of near retardation one and all.

A job like jockeying the register at the McDonalds is for KIDS. Get that? It's not a job for an adult, unless the adult has a learning disability. In that case, public assistance should be available no matter what, because the person is handicapped. But, for a non-disabled adult, if a person is saying "would you like fries with that?" as part of their job, then they don't need a higher minimum wage, they need a kick in the ass. I don't want my Big Mac to cost $8. So, I'm glad the person jockeying the register doesn't get paid much more than minimum wage. As a person gains experience at the restaurant, though, they get raises, and promotions, and eventually can manage a store and make real money. But, until they have something more than " here's you're change" to offer, there is no need to make McDonald's hire folks to do nonsense work the wage of a qualified bookkeeper, paralegal, or plummer. Those three have skills. The cash register jockey doesn't.

[MrJonno]

Not paying breadwinner wages to every employee doesn't mean the state has to "top up" the wages. People who need breadwinner money should go do breadwinner jobs. Paying people wages that aren't worth the job they're doing doesn't benefit society either, as it incentivizes slacking. Why bother getting a job that is stressful and difficult, when you can make breadwinner money 9-6, with an hour for lunch?

Don't know what utopia you live in but people generally get whatever work they can?, and in decent societies we don't let anyone starve especially those who are working. How does it work in more expensive parts of the US, do people in New York get paid minimum wage , does the state top it up?

Generally low paid jobs are a hell of a lot more stressful than higher paid ones. There is a big, which has been repeated scientific paper on the British civil service, even after allowing for different life styles the higher up people are in it the longer they live and the less illness they have. They don't work longer hours and its generally accepted that their jobs are less stressful as they have more control over their environment.

http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/1/46.long


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)

[Beatsong]

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.

I'm not at all convinced by claims about how important it is to have everybody working. You say "if there is something for them to do", but the fact is that most market economy countries simply don't have enough jobs to go around now. Partly that's because of technology. Partly it's because of people like Mrs Thatcher, in her wisdom, effectively disbanding the entire sector of our economy that used to pay the wages of manual workers, and turning us into a service economy that outsources that sector to the developing world.

But really, when you think about, who cares? We have an unprecedentedly high standard of living in long-term historical terms. The onward march of society, industry and technology has meant that we can secure a decent living for the majority of households that are based around useful work, even while we pay at least a subsistance rate to those that aren't. There are good reasons why we should continue to do that last part, including basic humanity not wanting to see people starve; allowing children to overcome poverty they're born into via decent education etc; and jonno's more pragmatic point about the dangers of an underclass who can either be fed by society, or be likely to reject it altogether.

A lot of people suffer moral panic at just accepting that a certain section of society don't work, but this is purely emotional not rational. When people are really intellectually or emotionally useless for the modern world the way jonno describes - or even sometimes when there aren't enough jobs available that they could do effectively in a technocratic and service economy - it will in many cases just not be worth the cost of training them, finding them work, paying them an actual full-time living wage plus sick pay, pension contributions etc, to have them produce very little.

The wage part is the key. What people seem to forget is that we don't pay unemployed people on benefits anywhere near what we consider even the barest minimum living wage. And that's fine because we don't consider that they deserve such a wage. Most people accept that for an economy to realistically function, anyone willing to work within that economy needs to earn enough to pay for food, clothing, a home, transport to work, the necessities of life etc, plus enough to live with some degree of dignity, pleasure, participation in society and to find a way to economic self improvement if they're willing. We may disagree about how to achieve that aim, but the aim itself is pretty much universal. Axiomatic even.

But we don't pay people on benefits enough to do that (at least in this country). We pay them enough to just stay alive. So when considering the value of getting them into work, you need to consider the differential between the benefit rate and a proper living wage (including training costs, employment costs etc.), and then consider whether what you would get out of them would justify paying that differential. In many cases it probably wouldn't. I hasten to add that this is an economic argument not a humanitarian one. People look at the dole bill and think "OMG, what terrible waste!" But it may be, in reality, that it's actually the least wasteful way to realistically run a capitalist society. Forcing useless people to work just to calm your moral panic might actually be much more wasteful.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not paying breadwinner wages to every employee doesn't mean the state has to "top up" the wages. People who need breadwinner money should go do breadwinner jobs. Paying people wages that aren't worth the job they're doing doesn't benefit society either, as it incentivizes slacking. Why bother getting a job that is stressful and difficult, when you can make breadwinner money 9-6, with an hour for lunch?

Don't know what utopia you live in but people generally get whatever work they can?, and in decent societies we don't let anyone starve especially those who are working. How does it work in more expensive parts of the US, do people in New York get paid minimum wage , does the state top it up?

No utopia, just the US. Hardly anyone works for minimum wage here, because normally, if you don't get a raise after 6 months months you're not doing your job, and people working for minimum wage as an adult (or as something other than work on the side while going to college) are pretty rare.

Nobody is starving here. As you can see, most Americans are fat. The "poor" (the 1% of dirt poor aside) here live pretty well, certainly better than in Europe. Our poor have bigger houses, plenty of food, cars, widescreen t.v.'s, cable television, and discretionary spending money.

Generally low paid jobs are a hell of a lot more stressful than higher paid ones.

That's about the silliest thing I've ever heard. The business owner doesn't get to leave the job at the office, it's his life. The stress is monumental, the investment generally high, and the risk generally high. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers -- those jobs are far more stressful than low paid cash register jockey jobs. What world do you live in?

There is a big, which has been repeated scientific paper on the British civil service, even after allowing for different life styles the higher up people are in it the longer they live and the less illness they have. They don't work longer hours and its generally accepted that their jobs are less stressful as they have more control over their environment.

http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/1/46.long


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)

Higher paid jobs in the US come with, generally speaking, more risk, more responsibility and more demands. People don't pay people good money to not work. I can't speak to government work - maybe in that sphere the higher up you go, the less you do. In the private sector, that aint the case.

[MrJonno]

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).

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Not at all. The work ethic is vital to the rich and the poor. I was asking rEv to explain the distinction he was making -- to try to get at why he thinks I shouldn't be allowed to save up money and give it to my daughter.

The latter, really, is a function of property right and not a function of work or income. The former point was that if a person can go and earn money on their own, why should they be on the dole? How the hell do you get from that that I don't think the rich should have a work ethic?

I'm not at all convinced by claims about how important it is to have everybody working.

I don't care if they work or not. I don't think it is important. What I said was -- if they can work, and if there is work for them to do (for pay), then why would we give them State money? Don't you agree that people ought to support themselves if they can? If not, why not?

You say "if there is something for them to do", but the fact is that most market economy countries simply don't have enough jobs to go around now. Partly that's because of technology. Partly it's because of people like Mrs Thatcher, in her wisdom, effectively disbanding the entire sector of our economy that used to pay the wages of manual workers, and turning us into a service economy that outsources that sector to the developing world.

Take it up with your government. Here in the US lots of our manufacturing base is disappearing too. Forces larger than any one person or part are at play, though.

But really, when you think about, who cares? We have an unprecedentedly high standard of living in long-term historical terms.

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.

The onward march of society, industry and technology has meant that we can secure a decent living for the majority of households that are based around useful work, even while we pay at least a subsistance rate to those that aren't. There are good reasons why we should continue to do that last part, including basic humanity not wanting to see people starve; allowing children to overcome poverty they're born into via decent education etc; and jonno's more pragmatic point about the dangers of an underclass who can either be fed by society, or be likely to reject it altogether.

We ought to create a climate where more able minded and bodied people have options to earn their own living. If they do that, we can take care of the truly needy -- those that aren't able-bodied and aren't able minded, and those who fall on temporary hard times. Having 40% of the population taking some form of dole money is absurd.

A lot of people suffer moral panic at just accepting that a certain section of society don't work, but this is purely emotional not rational.

Again, I don't care if they don't work. I care about people who choose not to work getting paid to stay home.

When people are really intellectually or emotionally useless for the modern world the way jonno describes -

He said that was 1 or 2% of the population. That is a small fraction of the "poor" and the jobless. I have no problem taking care of that 1 or 2%, because there it can't be said that they are choosing not to take care of themselves.

or even sometimes when there aren't enough jobs available that they could do effectively in a technocratic and service economy - it will in many cases just not be worth the cost of training them, finding them work, paying them an actual full-time living wage plus sick pay, pension contributions etc, to have them produce very little.

Why is everything in the passive here? Do you guys live in some Orwellian or "Brazil-ian" dystopian world where you fill out forms in triplicate and the government job-finding bureau finds you work? Here, people find their own work. The stuff that is offered through unemployment bureaus is generally a last resort kind of thing. The cost of training is born by the employer -- they train their employees. Any "training" offered by unemployment bureaus here in the US involves like "basic MS Word" and such, and maybe "How to write a resume." The State department of unemployment can't train people to do jack shit.

The idea of a vibrant private sector is that the environment is fostered to allow private businesses to offer goods and services, and that those businesses require employees to do the work. They hire employees to get stuff done and run the enterprise. People who need jobs see opportunities and go get them.

That's why it's important for the government to be pro business and not make vows and take steps to destroy successful industries. Like in the US, we need to examine where the US is successful on the world stage and figure a way to foster an environment where those industries thrive --- medicine and medical devices, pharmaceuticals, oil, gas, coal, steel, entertainment, law, tax/accounting -- we should be trying to expand these industries. The bigger the industries, the more jobs available.

The wage part is the key. What people seem to forget is that we don't pay unemployed people on benefits anywhere near what we consider even the barest minimum living wage. And that's fine because we don't consider that they deserve such a wage. Most people accept that for an economy to realistically function, anyone willing to work within that economy needs to earn enough to pay for food, clothing, a home, transport to work, the necessities of life etc, plus enough to live with some degree of dignity, pleasure, participation in society and to find a way to economic self improvement if they're willing. We may disagree about how to achieve that aim, but the aim itself is pretty much universal. Axiomatic even.

I would put it -- the greatest good for the greatest number. Compared to any other system tried so far, free market capitalism (not necessarily laissez-faire, but free market capitalism) has been the greatest engine for a high standard of living for the most people ever tried. It is obvious. There is no non-free market captialist society that has even come close. That doesn't mean anarcho-capitalism. It means free market capitalism, which allows for reasonable regulation and a limited role for government.

But we don't pay people on benefits enough to do that (at least in this country). We pay them enough to just stay alive.

Well, think through what happens if you set up a system to pay people not only a living wage, but a wage sufficient to cover all current expenses, have nice vacations and spending money for the week, and put money into retirement, and paid medical and all that,and they can do that without having a job. Why get a job? Fuck it, right? Stay home and do what you enjoy -- take up hobbies. Write. Read. Play golf. Whatever. Who the hell would do anything that requires risk or stress? Who would build a business - who would start a restaurant requiring her to be up at dawn, work all day, then toil on through the night planning, doing books and all that?

So when considering the value of getting them into work, you need to consider the differential between the benefit rate and a proper living wage (including training costs, employment costs etc.), and then consider whether what you would get out of them would justify paying that differential.

They don't work for you and me, or the State, if they're in the private sector job market. The only one that makes that analysis is the employer hiring the person to a job the employer thinks he or she needs done.

In many cases it probably wouldn't. I hasten to add that this is an economic argument not a humanitarian one. People look at the dole bill and think "OMG, what terrible waste!" But it may be, in reality, that it's actually the least wasteful way to realistically run a capitalist society. Forcing useless people to work just to calm your moral panic might actually be much more wasteful.

That is only if you conflate the money and capital of the private economy with government money and capital, as if what a private business spends or does is somehow a cog in the wheel of the Every Employer, the State. Odd that so many people view it that way. Tax money is not the same money as ABC Corp's money. If ABC Corp needs an employee and wants to hire that person it is no business of yours, mine or the State that they do so. By your logic, corporations should fill out requisitions for employees to a State agency which will then analyze the stated need and determine if it is justifiable in light of overall government policy and the needs of society.

[Coito ergo sum]

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).

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.

See, that's another thing that folks critical of capitalism fail to see. They often confuse it with a meritocracy. Capitalism is not a meritocracy and does not promise that only the best will rise to the top. What it does promise is that jobs that fewer people can do will tend to be higher paid. More risky jobs that fewer people want to do will also tend to be higher paid. Jobs that require more investment of time and money to achieve will generally be higher paid (because fewer people are available to do them). It's just supply and demand.

[MrJonno]

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