|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Unpaid Work For The Unemployed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Second, you didn't reply at all to my point that sometimes the extra work doesn't produce an income enough to justify the cost of the labor, which has a minimum cost because of unpreventable things like the cost of hiring, and also because of things like minimum wage. I didn't respond because it made no sense. If we have minimum wage then we have minimum wage, and it's against the law to hire someone for free, because $0.00 an hour is well below the minimum wage. If we don't have minimum wage, then there's nothing to stop the business from hiring the guy for $2.00 an hour or whatever.
If the work generates an additional income for the company of $3.00/hour, do you think they will hire someone for $7.50/hour to do it? If it only generates $3.00 an hour they don't need someone to do it. And, look. I still don't understand the justification that looks at a situation where a business can't make money hiring a guy at 7.50 to do 3.00 of work, and responds by making the worker take a 100% loss. Doesn't it make a lot more sense to force the business to take a 60% loss? The business doesn't have kids at home and a grandma who might be eating cat food tonight.
Not overtasked in the sense of literally incapable of doing further work; overtasked in the sense of already doing more work than they're getting paid foryou know, like everyone who works for a wage does. Non-responsive to point, so let me repeat - having a bunch of overworked workers provides more justification for paying somebody, because now you can take some tasks off of everybody else and have one employee do $10.00 an hour's worth of work for $7.50 instead of $3.00.
I've read nothing about urgency. They "hired" hundreds for the Queen's stupid Jubilee. Didn't pay them a cent. If they needed so many, if the need was so urgent, then clearly they needed it badly enough to pay - except that they didn't. They just stole people's labor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If we have minimum wage then we have minimum wage, and it's against the law to hire someone for free, because $0.00 an hour is well below the minimum wage. Which I don't advocate.
If we don't have minimum wage, then there's nothing to stop the business from hiring the guy for $2.00 an hour or whatever. Which is currently not possible. So I ask again: Did you read anything I wrote? Anything at all? Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Rahvin writes:
The current talks by the govt. are about making it compulsory.
Is this unpaid labor voluntary or compulsory? Rahvin writes:
Give or take a little, yes. Is the social safety net sufficient to guarantee a minimally acceptable standard of living for the unemployed?You get a roof over your head and food on your table. How 'acceptable' this is, is open to discussion. CRYSTALS!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Jon writes:
What makes you think that reading your posts allows us to figure out what you are trying to say? Did you read anything I wrote? Anything at all? You LOL'ed at my previous 'No' response, but you clearly missed the point.CRYSTALS!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Which is currently not possible. Well, it'd be possible where there's no minimum wage, like in industries where tips take the place of wages. But, again - if we have the minimum wage, there's no way to have the "unemployed" do "unpaid work" for businesses because businesses can't hire someone at a zero wage. If we don't have the minimum wage, then there's no reason - except cheapness - for a business to pay a zero wage if they're getting valuable work out of the employee.
Did you read anything I wrote? Did you? When are you going to realize that the reason we're disagreeing with your arguments isn't because we haven't read them, but that we have read them and discovered that you're wrong? If there are fixed costs to bringing an employee on board to do work, then those costs are present - by definition - no matter what the wage is. Paying a zero wage doesn't eliminate those fixed costs; or, if you think it does, you've yet to explain how. Again, given a business that wants to increase its profits by having work done and a lot of people who want to exchange their labor for money, there's no problem here that can only be solved by "unpaid work for the unemployed" nonsense. The solution to that problem is paid work for the unemployed, who, by virtue of getting hired, stop being unemployed. It's a win-win. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What makes you think that reading your posts allows us to figure out what you are trying to say? Because I was pretty clear in Message 16 about exactly what I thought. Nowhere did I argue for stealing labor, yet that has been crash's focus in all his replies to me so far.
You LOL'ed at my previous 'No' response, but you clearly missed the point. When someone thinks that doing work doesn't cost more money than not doing work, the only reasonable response is to laugh at them.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The scheme is mandatory in the sense that if you don't comply with it welfare benefits are stopped for a period of three months. Link
As for whether job seekers allowance (that is what it is called here) provides a livable amount to live on - I would personally say not. But others would disagree. As I understand it such benefits are lower in the UK than other comparable countries:
Unemployment benefits as % of previous earnings 2007: UK 12.1 Germany 23.7 Netherlands 33.9 Sweden 32.4 USA 13.6 OECD average 24.7 UK unemployment benefits, compared to previous earnings, are the lowest by far, and only half of the OECD average. Link In absolute terms the amounts are 56.25 per week for those under 25 and 71 per week for those over 25. I hope that goes some way to answering your questions. AbE - The average weekly wage in the UK is approx 450 er week apparently (if that adds any context) Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Jon writes:
As I said: you completely missed the point - as usual. When someone thinks that doing work doesn't cost more money than not doing work, the only reasonable response is to laugh at them. And talking of laughing at people:If doing work costs more money than not doing work then how do businesses ever make a profit? Jon writes:
That would be a first. Because I was pretty clear...CRYSTALS!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But, again - if we have the minimum wage, there's no way to have the "unemployed" do "unpaid work" for businesses because businesses can't hire someone at a zero wage. But we do have a minimum wage, and that means a lot of people willing to work for $5.50/hr are unemployed.
If we don't have the minimum wage, then there's no reason - except cheapness - for a business to pay a zero wage if they're getting valuable work out of the employee. Of course there is. The business, for example, may be providing something of value to the unpaid worker, such as job training experience, chances to network with potential job references, etc. You'll notice that that's what I said in Message 16:
quote: Did you read that, Crash? Did you notice me saying that employees should be compensated for their work?
If there are fixed costs to bringing an employee on board to do work, then those costs are present - by definition - no matter what the wage is. I think that is exactly what I said; I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with repeating it.
The solution to that problem is paid work for the unemployed, who, by virtue of getting hired, stop being unemployed. It's a win-win. Precisely. Except we live in a society where it is against the law to contract work from someone for less than a certain wage, even when the work you want them to do does not justify that minimum wage. This has the unfortunate side-effect of keeping certain people out of doing work they could otherwise be doing. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If doing work costs more money than not doing work then how do businesses ever make a profit? Isn't it obvious? Some work generates income greater than the costs of doing that work, other work doesn't; were there enough of the former type of work available, there wouldn't be unemployed people.
Jon writes:
That would be a first. Because I was pretty clear... You and Crash merely enjoy misreading people. If you read my words for what they are instead of what you think they are, then you'd have no problem understanding my most simple points. But you're a troll. I've no more to say to you. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Straggler writes:
You are also exempt from certain charges e.g. Poll Tax. In absolute terms the amounts are 56.25 per week for those under 25 and 71 per week for those over 25.And rent (up to a certain level) is paid for. (I am not arguing that the amount is generous, merely trying to help Rahvin have a more complete understanding.)CRYSTALS!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
If you look at your table it appears that there are two outliers, the UK and the US.
One argument made here is that paying folk not to work discourages folk from working and so will end up with no one willing to work to create the base to pay those not working. Yet Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands are among the most productive and most industrialized nations today. So is anyone asking them how they seem to be able to do what is claimed to be impossible in the US and UK?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Jon writes:
Not from what you post. Isn't it obvious? Let us look, shall we?Jon writes: Some work generates income greater than the costs of doing that work...Jon writes:
So, by your own logic, you should laugh at yourself.
When someone thinks that doing work doesn't cost more money than not doing work, the only reasonable response is to laugh at them. Jon writes:
Well, let's try that...
If you read my words for what they are instead of what you think they are, then you'd have no problem understanding my most simple points. Jon writes: Doing work costs more money.Jon writes:
Posting contradictory statements will never make your position clear. Some work generates income greater than the costs of doing that work, other work doesn't;CRYSTALS!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But we do have a minimum wage, and that means a lot of people willing to work for $5.50/hr are unemployed. And so the solution is to pay them $0.00 an hour? Please help me understand that.
Did you notice me saying that employees should be compensated for their work? Yes, that's the part I don't understand. The way we compensate employees for their work is with their pay. But you propose "unpaid work for the unemployed." It's right up there in the title of the thread. So I don't understand how it compensates anyone to not compensate them.
I think that is exactly what I said; I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with repeating it. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm trying to get you to clarify your position, since it still appears to be incomprehensible nonsense. Since I joined this thread, I've asked you the same question perhaps four times now, and it's the question I'm still trying to get you to answer: What problem exists that is solved by making people work for free? The fixed costs of employment don't disappear at a $0.00 an hour wage - you've just explicitly agreed that they do not - so how does a $0.00 an hour wage solve the problem that some labor doesn't justify the fixed cost of employment? It's a simple question. Is there some reason you've been ignoring it?
Except we live in a society where it is against the law to contract work from someone for less than a certain wage, even when the work you want them to do does not justify that minimum wage. So hire them to do work that does. Again, I'm not seeing the problem solved by hiring people at a $0.00 wage. I'm not even seeing the problem solved by ignoring the minimum wage - if you can't justify bringing an employee on for $7.50 an hour to do $5.50 worth of work, then transfer $2 worth of work, or more, from one of your existing above-minimum wage employees to the new hire, and pay him $7.50 an hour. Then lower the wage of the employee whose work you alleviated. There may be a minimum wage but the only granularity in wages is that people like wages rounded to the nearest nickel. Look, I can't buy a 4 ounce Coke, for any price, even though sometimes I'm only 4 ounces thirsty. Coca-Cola doesn't make any money selling Coke in shot-glass-sized containers. But the solution to this problem is for me to buy a 12 ounce Coke and just get extra-refreshed. It's not to force Coca-Cola to give me their products for free. The problem of the fixed overhead costs of distributing Coca-Cola to consumers not being justified by the profit at such a small volume isn't solved by a zero price, it's exacerbated by it. Same with this "unpaid employment" nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
So we're not just talking about "unpaid work for the unemployed," like volunteering.
We're talking about taking the absolute most desperate class of citizens, and compelling them to work, without pay, under threat of homelessness and starvation. That is slavery, plain and simple. The notion that these workers are somehow "compensated" through "gaining work experience" is an obvious post-hoc rationalization. This is nothing more than a work-around for minimum wage laws and a boon for the corporations that "hire" these individuals. The state pays the unemployment benefits, not the corporations, and the state-provided benefits seem to amount to below minimum wage; if the state were to hire these people at minimum wage to do the same jobs in lieu of unemployment benefits, the workers would make more money, yes? In the US, unemployment benefits eventually expire. Is that also true in the UK? Because if you also allow the clock to keep ticking on the benefits while your slaves work for free, that's even worse exploitation, as they'll wind up homeless and starving even with compliance. That's the sort of thing that leads to violent uprisings. When the poor are starving, they'll eat the rich, and all that.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024