Obamacare and Jobs

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

You can find some background discussion at Talk Politics. Essentially, there was a report that some people may work less because they would not be bound to their jobs for health insurance, leaving more people free to pursue other ends. The Republicans declared that this is an example of Obamacare costing Americans jobs. Others see it as a benefit - more freedom for workers.

ETA: Ross Douthat has a good column on the issues.

Comments

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I don't think socialism is the opposite of capitalism. I would say communism is, the outright denial of private property. I see socialism as a way to steer between those two extremes. Indeed, we necessarily live in one variant of socialism or another, as we have never really seen a purely capitalist or purely communist state, and such a thing probably cannot exist.

Better to have a system that rewards work

That's the key to this discussion, I think. We want to see work better rewarded, and this development with the ACA seems to do that, by giving more workers greater liberty to plan and pursue their ends.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't think socialism is the opposite of capitalism. I would say communism is, the outright denial of private property. I see socialism as a way to steer between those two extremes.

You see a lot more sunlight between the two than most, I suspect. That you see socialism as the middle ground is really the stranger portion of the two, the sort of "mixed economy" we see in the US is surely more representative of the middle, no?

That's the key to this discussion, I think. We want to see work better rewarded, and this development with the ACA seems to do that, by giving more workers greater liberty to plan and pursue their ends.

The ACA is actually doing the opposite, as this CBO estimate demonstrates. It's creating less work, and less reward (except for the handful of people who are now somehow to be rewarded for not working or working less).

The United States does not lack in entrepreneurial spirit. It's argued by some that the European safety net that we're slowly trying to emulate doesn't result in more entrepreneurship there (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-06/will-obamacare-inspire-small-business-ownership-.html). The ACA isn't about greater liberty to pursue any ends, it's never been a problem to begin with here.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

What you call a mixed economy is what I call a variant of socialism.

As for the basic issue of rewarding work, I'd like to address your idea that a worker's return out not to be predicated on productivity but value. I think I can see why you want to say that. In recent years, we have seen worker productivity climb while their return declines. You say 'value' is the key, but the owners get more when workers produce more, right? This is one way that we see the so-called 1% increase their wealth while the rest stagnate or fall.

The ACA seems to be taking a step toward decoupling health care from employment. It does not address fully the concerns we have been having over the economy and distributive justice, but this would seem to put a little on the workers' side of the scale.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What you call a mixed economy is what I call a variant of socialism.

That's fine. You might get pushback on that from some who mock the right for calling things like libraries and fire departments socialism, though.

I'd like to address your idea that a worker's return out not to be predicated on productivity but value. I think I can see why you want to say that. In recent years, we have seen worker productivity climb while their return declines

No, sorry. This is where I'll cut you off on this. We have seen productivity increases, yes, but not due to workers. Productivity increases per worker exist largely due to technological advances. This piece is an example of it (http://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network-partner-zone-o2/1). Computers, office phone networks, machination, etc, all contribute to productivity increases even as it makes a worker less productive on a whole. Much of what I do, for example, is automated in a lot of various ways that didn't exist a generation ago. Am I to get credit for that productivity? I hope not.

You say 'value' is the key, but the owners get more when workers produce more, right? This is one way that we see the so-called 1% increase their wealth while the rest stagnate or fall.

Owners get more when the companies they own produce more, specifically. The 1% increase their wealth because a lot of what they provide cannot be automated. When we figure out a way to put leadership and direction into a computer and push it that way, we may see a difference in how these things are quantified. We might actually see that sooner rather than later.

The ACA seems to be taking a step toward decoupling health care from employment.

This is basically the opposite of its intention or its activity. The only reason we say this now is because the employer mandate is delayed. Everything seems to indicate, at this point, that it is strengthening that bond, not weakening it.

It does not address fully the concerns we have been having over the economy and distributive justice, but this would seem to put a little on the workers' side of the scale.

I fail to see how making workers more dependent somehow helps them.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

When we figure out a way to put leadership and direction into a computer and push it that way, we may see a difference in how these things are quantified. We might actually see that sooner rather than later.

Presumably, ownership will keep its place and continue to take the money. I suppose you mean that it is conceivable that CEOs and much of the executive class might feel some of the marginalization that workers have been feeling, in the same way that there is some concern that professionals, such as lawyers, are beginning to feel the threat. This would seem to suggest that instead of talking about the 1%, we'll be taking about the 0.00001 percent.

I fail to see how making workers more dependent somehow helps them.

We're just missing each other here. I thought Republicans were upset that more workers may voluntarily work less, and I assume that these workers would be working less precisely because they are not as thoroughly dependent on their bosses. Previously, aside from wages and salaries, a worker was more bound to a job because that job was also the key to his health insurance, but this now seems to be less the case, and hence the controversy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I suppose you mean that it is conceivable that CEOs and much of the executive class might feel some of the marginalization that workers have been feeling, in the same way that there is some concern that professionals, such as lawyers, are beginning to feel the threat.

Sure, although I wouldn't call it "marginalization." I'd call it a harsh dose of reality, maybe. The simple fact is that the "common worker," as it were, has always been expendable. Those who advocate for workers have hoodwinked many into confusing that expendability with a) productivity gains with no gain in wages and b) ignoring the role of technology in the role of productivity gains.

Work has become less interchangeable and more individual over time, and yet the left dreams of an era where you stood on an assembly line and did the same thing for eight hours, and thus "needed"/wanted/desired the sort of protections in place to negate that "cog in the machine" reality. Instead of innovative ideas for the modern era, we still hear chirping about unionization and decoupling wages from value. It's not reflective of the world we live in.

I thought Republicans were upset that more workers may voluntarily work less, and I assume that these workers would be working less precisely because they are not as thoroughly dependent on their bosses.

Putting aside those who initially misunderstood the CBO report, Republicans are upset that there is going to be voluntary work loss. The reason this is bad for the economy (as well as bad for the taxpayer and the common worker) is because the government is effectively substituting wage earning for government dependency. People can "afford" health care on less work now because the rest of us are subsidizing it.

Previously, aside from wages and salaries, a worker was more bound to a job because that job was also the key to his health insurance, but this now seems to be less the case, and hence the controversy.

This, however, was never true. The individual market existed before the ACA. Portability was a thing before the ACA. The worker is no more or less bound to their job now as they were before except in those cases where the taxpayer is helping fund those people to leave/limit their work. The exact opposite of what we should be looking for.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Sure, although I wouldn't call it "marginalization." I'd call it a harsh dose of reality, maybe.

But does 'reality' really have to go in that direction? You seem to be pointing to a world where that 0.00001 are the only real people, having true freedom, with prosperity and choices, while the rest of us (including yourself, I suppose) are reduced for being quite value-less, having only our labor and efforts to trade with those very few people who own everything - making us the worst slaves there has ever been.

Perhaps this is where our economic theories and policies over the past few centuries have led us, but I don't know if we are bound to go the rest of that dark path. Cannot we reach a better understanding of value? And ownership?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But does 'reality' really have to go in that direction?

You can't really change it. At the end of the day, those who have more specialized skills will be more valued in a work environment. Those who are interchangeable parts are less likely to have labor value. Trying to tweak the economy in order to pretend that doesn't exist lacks a solid, positive track record historically. People are individuals, value is not objective. This shouldn't be controversial.

You seem to be pointing to a world where that 0.00001 are the only real people, having true freedom, with prosperity and choices, while the rest of us (including yourself, I suppose) are reduced for being quite value-less, having only our labor and efforts to trade with those very few people who own everything - making us the worst slaves there has ever been.

I don't agree at all. Right now, the assumption from your ideological point of view (even if it's not specifically your point of view) is that value is intrinsic, that there is some sort of random point we can hit that people's value doesn't fall below (or rise above), and that people like Steve Jobs or the Walton Family are somehow not responsible for the successes of their company and that the person who puts things on a shelf or scans them off a conveyor belt is the true value of those companies as opposed to their existence only being in place because robots can't do it efficiently yet.

No matter how high you push the minimum wage, you cannot make a job that's only worth $5/hr somehow valued at twice that. Even if you confiscate half of the next Steve Jobs's wealth, you're not diminishing his actual value in the real world and you're very likely keeping another person like him from truly reaching the pinnacle of what he's capable of. And yes, many people aren't motivated by money or even success - those people will be fine regardless of where the economic structure ends up. The question needs to be asked for the rest of us - for the teenager who cannot sell their labor at less than the arbitrary wage floor, for the middle class person who will lose their health care when the employer mandate kicks in next year because it costs too much, for the entrepreneur who you think you're helping by giving her other people's money to purchase health insurance while regulating her into oblivion with the other hand.

The dirty little secret to these plans is that, in order to combat the perceived oligarchical structure, the only people who can truly survive these situations are the same people that we'd consider oligarchs. They can cut more jobs, raise more prices, trim more benefits, purchase more robots. Tell McDonald's that they need to give the person who punches their order in $15/hr? They'll just purchase a computer for $20k that will allow the customer to do it themselves and it starts paying for itself within 9 months. Congratulations?

Perhaps this is where our economic theories and policies over the past few centuries have led us, but I don't know if we are bound to go the rest of that dark path. Cannot we reach a better understanding of value? And ownership?

I'd argue that we have reached a better understanding of value and ownership. Those continuing to push this artificially high wage, pro-union, anti-owner mindset simply haven't realized it yet. Instead of trying to raise everyone up, the mentality continues to be to bring the top down. It's never worked before, so what would make this attempt any different?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

So many silly things being said here by you. The top doesn't need any help from you, Smithers.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I don't know if it's silly as much as dark and harsh, and he is probably better describing the future, I'm afraid. My words are probably more than a little silly, not being much more of an economist than I am a scientist.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It's silly when productivity has been increasing while real wages remain stagnant. Claims about "artificially high wages" when the reality is wealth inequity at levels never seen before.

Somehow, Australia can sell Big Macs for $.48 cents more while having double our minimum wage. Factor that with the reality that the wealthy don't put money back into the economy the way that working people do, and it's obvious that Jeff is no economist either.

Hand-waving for the 1% is tiresome. The real job creators in America are small business owners, not the maggots living easy on inheritances or ridiculously low tax rates on investment income.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's silly when productivity has been increasing while real wages remain stagnant

What is it about productivity gains being governed by technological progress that should require wages by the work displaced by said technological progress to rise in tandem?

If wages are stagnant, but those common goods we all need and use are decreasing in price, what does that tell us about purchasing power beyond what is measured by the government?

Somehow, Australia can sell Big Macs for $.48 cents more while having double our minimum wage.

Australia also has a tiered wage based on age. A teenager who wants work experience is not paid the same for the same job as an adult would be.

Factor that with the reality that the wealthy don't put money back into the economy the way that working people do, and it's obvious that Jeff is no economist either.

Sure, and I never claimed to be an economist. You do not need to be an economist, however, to note that simply putting money into the economy alone is not necessarily the only positive result. An economics blog I read posed this question (http://cafehayek.com/2014/02/a-follow-up-macroeconomic-rorschach-test.html) that I'd love your feedback on with this in mind. And the author is an economist.

Hand-waving for the 1% is tiresome. The real job creators in America are small business owners, not the maggots living easy on inheritances or ridiculously low tax rates on investment income.

Okay, so what are you willing to do to ensure that small business owners get what they need to create those jobs. Are you going to continue taxing them uncompetitively, or let them use the money to expand their business? Are you going to call for more regulations that will benefit the larger firms who can afford it, or work to lessen the impact of compliance on smaller firms that don't have the flexibility to adjust to rules that weren't designed for them to begin with?

These are all questions that should be answered before acting. I don't even see evidence that these questions rise up in the discussions.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Which inoculation scenario is better? I would think the second one. But I suppose the question was which is better for the economy, and I am guessing the answer is the first scenario, which entails creating a heavy work-intensive industry.

If it is the first scenario, maybe that gets at some of our disagreement over whether the nature of our economy is 'sane'.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

And the author is an economist.

You post a link to an economist at "Cafe Hayek" and believe this to be a moderate response?

Dude. Delusional.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

productivity gains being governed by technological progress

Where does this claim originate? I can say from my last 15 years in various businesses, that technological progress has been a virtual non-factor in the workplace. From CNC lathes to workstations, the old shit is used forever.

The common goods we need and use have been steadily increasing in price. You realize this, yes?

Australia has tiered minimum wage, here we have people like you arguing we should eliminate any minimum wage. I don't even want to bring up the rich guy who suggested that "mental retards" could be paid $2 an hour.

Most of the regulations on small businesses are city and state issues. However, federal regulation could and should be examined to see where it's not needed. Small businesses are exempt from many regulations on all levels. Taxing them uncompetitively compared to what or who?

As far as actions go, there are any number of things like farm subsidies that can be addressed but for some reason, won't.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What parts are silly? And why are they silly? I'm happy to hear about what I've missed.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

" Tell McDonald's that they need to give the person who punches their order in $15/hr? They'll just purchase a computer for $20k that will allow the customer to do it themselves and it starts paying for itself within 9 months"

Are you fucking kidding me. You've got to be fucking kidding me.

if this was an option they would have done it already!

I repeat:

If McDonalds could replace their workers with cheaper machines *IT WOULD ALREADY HAVE HAPPENED*

If at $15/hour, it takes 9 months for the machine to pay for itself, currently it would only take 18 months for the machines to pay for themselves. Raising the minimum wage, AS HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS, does not destroy employment. It has a very, very minor impact on it.

You make up so much shit it's horrifying.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

At some point it becomes the return on investment. At $7/hr, the investment return isn't high enough to do it. Double that cost, and suddenly the economics are different. They're already doing it in Europe (http://news.cnet.com/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-screen-cashiers/8301-17938_105-20063732-1.html).

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Yes, I addressed your point before you made it, but you attempted to make it anyway, because you are a fucking broken record and once you've said your shtick you've got nothing left, but to repeat yourself.

I addressed that argument already, so if you want to be taken seriously, you need to listen to what the other person says.


You're using the same argument against the MW that has been used since the MW came into existence
It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now, and the same tired arguments will remain bullshit in the future.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I addressed that argument already, so if you want to be taken seriously, you need to listen to what the other person says.

You didn't. You claimed they'd do it right now if they could. I'm telling you that the economics change when the wage rises. You also said they would do it already, and in Europe, they already are.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Yup, I addressed your argument and your response is: "No you didn't"

Well guess what Jeff, this isn't a fucking monty python sketch and I will not engage in an "argument" where it's simple contradiction.

I addressed the concept of raising the wages and machine replacement. If you are unable to see how I addressed those issues, you need to return to school and gain some reading comprehension.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

there is some sort of random point we can hit that people's value doesn't fall below

There's a term for when there are no lower bounds on how people are valued, psychopathy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's a fairly bizarre statement.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Howso?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Shows a misunderstanding of a lot of different issues.

Besides that, arguably there is no lower end that someone can lower someone else. You could enslave someone, or you could enslave someone and require them to pay you as well, for example.

Far too simplistic a response for what's a serious inquiry and comment. You, especially, I sincerely would have liked to have heard from on it in a meaningful way.