HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

I highly recommend viewing this short Louis Rossman video on the real reason why employees are not returning to work. This is from a small business owner in expensive NYC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52HpzZ4HT4g

TL;DR - employers left the employees first. The first time economic uncertainty hit their business, they dropped as many people as possible. This led employees to reconsider their relationships to their employers and work, especially realizing they couldn't rely on a steady paycheck.

⬐ theshadowknows

It’s so crazy to me that people wonder about this. Maybe it’s people who’ve never had a normal job. But most jobs suck. Most jobs are demeaning and poorly compensated. Most jobs can and will fire you for no good reason and most jobs provide little to no protection. Most jobs will fire you for being late a couple of times. And most jobs come with no respect or prestige at all..what’s wild to me is that people don’t seem to understand that. I guess they never unloaded trucks in 100 degree weather for 8 dollars an hour or mopped up gas station toilets at 5 am for 12 dollars an hour.

⬐ anovikov

But people will return to work once free stuff is over. And it is over now. In a month or so there will be a glut of workers again once people realise that their rent is due and free money is no longer hitting their accounts.

⬐ taurath

Time will tell. Certainly those paying starvation wages are hoping that is so.

⬐ anovikov

But what will be the alternative? Will these people run to the woods or what?

⬐ varelse

This presents a fantastic opportunity for these gigs to explore market efficiency, much to the chagrin of the people who wish to keep paying them subpoverty wages. If our overlords can't protect us from a deadly pandemic then what good are they?

⬐ oliv__

Oh, so you mean to say that life is hard?

⬐ crazydoggers

> Most jobs can and will fire you for no good reason and most jobs provide little to no protection. Most jobs will fire you for being late a couple of times.

Well at least in the US we have unemployment benefits when you’re fired without cause. But yes, being late a few times is cause to be fired, and rightly so.

I think perhaps the real issue is that people’s perceptions have changed, and I don’t think for the better.

If you’re an unskilled laborer, then for the moment, your value to society is doing unskilled jobs.

Now a whole host of reasons cause people to be unskilled. From their current socioeconomic status, to mental health reasons etc, to just honest poor life choices, like not valuing education.

But there’s no free lunch in society, and ultimately that’s the current disconnect. Those that can only get unskilled jobs have now gotten benefits extended and are enjoying not doing “demeaning jobs”. And yet how do they enjoy that? Without society safety nets people would then need to do the demeaning jobs of supplying their own food and water. Hunting or foraging for food in 100 degree weather for 0 dollars, dealing with injuries on their own.

So these same people complaining are also willing to take for granted the strawberries and meat at the grocery that another person worked hard for to provide. They take for granted the shelter that was built and maintained over there head, but they don’t see that they should provide equal work back to society for that enjoyment.

Now there’s obviously a lot of real issues with labor fairness, minimum wage needs to be increased across the board, companies need to be held accountable for pushing a gig economy that strips employees of benefits etc. But the progress in labor fairness in the US, 8 hour work days, minimum wage, workplace safety, has been fought for in literal blood.

Now we have a generation of people who take all that for granted, and that’s a problem.

Edit: I also add this. These same people who say others haven’t worked such jobs, have not themselves lived in a society that is truly difficult. Many people have lived through or had family live through conditions that would make these people cry. Ask a migrant. Ask people who have had to flee countries and could barely subsist.

Those people are the ones thankful to have a “demeaning job” because in reality, difficult does not mean demeaning.

It’s entitlement, very pure and simple. And it won’t serve this generation well.

Prove me wrong with reasoned responses and discussion rather than downvotes.

⬐ pessimizer

If you think that society can function without those jobs being done, then there actually isn't an issue and there isn't a shortage, there's actually a surplus. If you don't think that society can function with a pure workforce of managers, bureaucrats, and specialists, then you believe that no matter the individual merits and judgments you make of people's inherent worth, a large proportion of them will actually have to build, move, or operate physical objects.

These are the people who you're saying are asking for a free lunch. The people who do things, rather than comment on them. If everyone reached the baseline of worthiness that you've set up, you'd just have more educated strawberry pickers (or import more slaves.)

> But the progress in labor fairness in the US, 8 hour work days, minimum wage, workplace safety, has been fought for in literal blood.

The blood of the people you're talking shit about. Not your blood, not your classes' blood. The you 100 years ago was making this same fucking speech about how spoiled workers were for wanting any of that, and that in your day you had actual slaves who understood the value of work.

This is really a slimy take. If we paid people based on their effort rather than our leverage, there wouldn't be a problem. Free lunches are being eaten, but not by the people who quit washing dishes and waiting tables i.e. making and serving your lunch.

⬐ crazydoggers

You don’t actually know what you’re talking about since, yes, they were my “class”… indeed my relatives.

Society can’t function without these jobs. It’s precisely why the jobs are important, why they aren’t demeaning; why people should take pride and be given respect for doing them.

Complaining that working jobs in the sun, or cleaning toilet is beneath you is what I have a problem with, and is what these people are saying.

I think we’re on the same side. There are people who think being a janitor is beneath them and they would never do it… unless of course they were paid a CEOs wages for it.

And that not hyperbole, that’s the hyper distorted reality I think some people are living in.

If you think everyone should be compensated the same, then I don’t think there’s common ground.

If you think there needs to be an increase in minimum wage. Better working conditions, then I couldn’t agree more.

But those things aren’t accomplished by complaining life is unfair. That unskilled jobs pay less than being a software developer. They’re accomplished by working hard, getting out what you put in, and organizing, voting and working for change.

Progressivism is a constant struggle. It doesn’t come for free and that’s life.

⬐ jerry1979

> But the progress in labor fairness in the US, 8 hour work days, minimum wage, workplace safety, has been fought for in literal blood.

What changes would you make to improve the labor system today? Or, have people in the past already made all the good changes?

> But there’s no free lunch in society

Out of curiosity, what about things like wikipedia or other copy-left works?

⬐ crazydoggers

I think the gig economy is a serious issue in need of federal regulation. Companies are managing to convince people that they should trade benefits that have been won through labor disputes over the decades for “flexibility” whatever that means. When you break the veil you see they are just skirting labor laws.

Another issue is that unions have lost their strength and have been vilified. Although they are not perfect, they are a critical part of forcing companies to maintain positive work standards. This is where people need to stop complaining about their plight, and stand up for themselves. The laws and systems are in place to support it. People just need to motivation. We’ve just seen this occur when workers voted against unionization at Amazon against their own interests (also demonstrates that claims of massive worker unhappiness just don’t ring true)

As for copy-left, wikipedia etc. Those were donations made from people’s hard work, so again nothing comes free. Such donations should be treasured as such, not taken for granted. I and many others donate significant sums to Wikipedia and the like to promote their existence.

⬐ jerry1979

Totally agree on the gig economy and union ideas you have. The recent Amazon vote and other similar votes against unionization that I have noticed in my area have really hurt my outlook on labor in the US.

Regarding copy-left, whenever I make contributions to the commons, I do so in order that others may have a zero-marginal-cost lunch, so to speak.

⬐ crazydoggers

Edit: I also add this. These same people who say others haven’t worked such jobs, have not themselves lived in a society that is truly difficult. Many people have lived through or had family live through conditions that would make these people cry. Ask a migrant. Ask people who have had to flee countries and could barely subsist.

Those people are the ones thankful to have a “demeaning job” because in reality, difficult does not mean demeaning.

It’s entitlement, very pure and simple. And it won’t serve this generation well.

⬐ danShumway

So, two things:

> It’s entitlement, very pure and simple.

There's no such thing as entitlement in a Capitalist market, it doesn't exist.

Value is what the market is willing to pay. If you can't hire people for minimum wage, and you can't get enough workers, then (in Capitalist terms) by definition you are undervaluing workers.

Of course standards rise over time; workers both have more expectations of what they'll be offered as the market becomes more efficient, and social structures outside of the market make it easier for them to be more demanding. But that's the same thing that's true of everything on the market, you can't claim that people are "entitled" because Open Source software makes it hard to charge $1000 for your web framework. If the government builds a free park, you can't claim that consumers are entitled because they stop paying you to go into your private park. Capitalism always exists inside the broader context of social/public resources, and in that context you adjust to the prices that the market demands or you go someplace else.

Part of the confusion here is that the word "value" means different things inside of a market than it does as a non-market, abstract term. It is valid to talk about the non-market, "objective" value that workers provide to a company, but once we start talking about prices inside the market, we have to keep in mind that the market definition of value is different. When we're specifically talking about Capitalism, value is what the market is willing to pay, and the market is not entitled just because it demands more than employers are currently willing (or even able) to offer.

It bothers me a lot when people apply one-directional morality to Capitalist systems. There's always this underlying idea that society needs to be grateful for businesses for giving us stuff, but that businesses don't own anyone anything. The reality is that after a free transaction, nobody should be feeling grateful to anyone. Workers do not owe anybody anything, it's up to businesses to build attractive enough jobs to get them to sign on, and workers do not owe businesses any gratitude or loyalty beyond what the contract states.

If that's disturbing to business owners, I don't know to say; that how Capitalism works, you form contracts. You bought into this system. And certainly, the idea that businesses are allowed to optimize purely for profitability and should be expected to be amoral machines, but that workers still have some moral obligation to know their place and be grateful for what they've been given -- that idea is antithetical to what Capitalism is.

----

Secondly:

> But there’s no free lunch in society, and ultimately that’s the current disconnect.

Multiple people have different views of this, I'm not going to act like mine is universal. But I personally believe that an involuntary market can not truly be called a free market. Coercing someone into buying something doesn't result in a completely free, willing contract.

So when I look at the labor market and I see people complaining that workers have unemployment benefits, what I hear them saying is that they don't think a free market for jobs will actually work, and what I hear them saying that they think people have to be compelled into working under the threat of poverty and violence in order to keep the current system from collapsing.

And that's a view someone can have, that's fine; but then it's really hard to turn around and say that the market is necessarily compensating people fairly, because if the only reason someone is taking a contract is because they're scared of what will happen if they don't, then that contract is being made under duress.

My take on the current labor market is that if workers don't feel like they have the ability to quit jobs, and people are calling them entitled just for quitting abusive jobs, and if employers feel that slashing public safety nets is the only way that they'll get workers to take those jobs... I don't know, to me that doesn't sound much like a free market, it sounds like a coercive structure. And maybe it's OK to have a coercive structure, maybe that's just how the labor market has to work. But if that's the case we should at least acknowledge that it's coercive and treat it that way.

----

> Prove me wrong with reasoned responses and discussion rather than downvotes.

The thing is, in a certain sense you're not wrong. Moving people's perception of what is "normal" will make them accept more abusive conditions without complaint, this is a commonly understood fact.

But it doesn't add a lot to the conversation, because it doesn't tell us whether it's reasonable to try and lower people's standards. It also feels vaguely anti-Capitalist in the sense that whole point of Capitalism is that over time people's standards should rise and that specialization should increase. Ideally, markets become more competitive over time, not less.

So you're right in the sense that, yeah, if we slashed minimum wage and social safety nets, people would have to take worse jobs with lower pay. If we brought back debtors prison and workhouses, that would probably lower their standards even more.

But if you're advocating that a free market can't exist unless people's baseline experience is so crappy that bad jobs seem good in comparison, then you shouldn't be surprised your view is unpopular.

----

Also, generally I don't want to get into the "censorship" stuff, but since we're talking about free markets, downvotes on HN aren't censorship, they're the free market of commenters/readers in the comment section signaling they disagree with something or that they don't think it adds value to the conversation. The marketplace of ideas does not have an obligation to accommodate or prop up every idea. It's fine for the market to just say someone's wrong without providing additional context, in the same way that it's fine for someone to leave a one star review on a product without providing a justification why they did so.

⬐ crazydoggers

But the current labor issues didn’t start until after the pandemic, and until the massive government spending to ease the issue of business closures and people losing jobs.

It’s not a fair market when people are avoiding those jobs because they can get paid for not working.

Once the government spending stops, things will change quickly.

And in fact we actually have had the opposite, people willing to give up benefits for worse jobs, gig economy jobs that provide no stability nor benefits. The reason is because there’s not actually a labor shortage at all.

So you might say that the pandemic reset people’s value assessment on the job market. That may be a good thing. But until government payouts stop we won’t see the actual market in a clear light.

For instance here our dog daycare can’t hire enough employees. What’s been happening is people apply, in order to show applications, and then don’t follow up because they’re still able to receive extended unemployment benefits. So at the moment there is gaming of the system.

And you are correct. Downvotes are not censorship. But they are a toxic method to communicate outrage and add little to positive discussions. As has been outlined both from other articles here, as well as recent coverage from the Wall Street Journal, social media companies are well aware these tactics result in increased outrage and mental health issues, but they choose to ignore them because it adds to their bottoms lines.

> what I hear them saying that they think people have to be compelled into working under the threat of poverty and violence in order to keep the current system from collapsing.

But this is ultimately the system of nature. If you don’t provide for yourself you starve. If you don’t provide for your shelter you freeze. If you don’t provide for your safety you are a victim of violence. Society has distributed those tasks, yes, and we can debate that distribution. But you can’t claim that you just shouldn’t have to work to prevent those things. If you assume you have free access to those things, they are being supplied by someone else. So why should they be free for that person and not the provider?

Could we supply those things free for everyone? I and everyone else would love that utopia. But it’s not where the world is at the moment, even if it’s a worthy goal. We need to keep moving forward as a species. Parasitic behavior is a real issue in any area of life, and in nature things balance out via Nash equilibrium.

⬐ odessacubbage

>gig economy jobs that provide no stability nor benefits.

part of this probably has to do with the fact that many benefits like pto and workman's comp are so heavily gated by bureaucrats that rather than fighting to squeeze blood from the stone, many people simply find they are more rewarded by a flexible schedule and cold hard cash.'

as a point of comparison, i can earn upwards of 90 dollars a day doing 'in home dog-sitting' which basically amounts to playing videogames and sleeping at some rich person's house. i get to choose the dogs & clients i work with, i get to choose when i want to work. i never get yelled at for taking dogs on walks that are 'too long' or threatened for using my vacation time to go to a funeral.

⬐ danShumway

> It’s not a fair market

Well, "fair" is whatever the market is willing to pay and whatever the environment is that it finds itself inside. And the market doesn't get to shape the entire world outside of the market to suite it.

The market exists inside of a society. Sometimes society meets needs that the market would otherwise provide. In those cases it's just kind of tough luck, if you don't like it go find another market. Is it "fair" that Open Source has made certain segments of software impossible to monetize using traditional means? I don't know, but it's reality. Is it "fair" that we as a society are unwilling to let people starve, and that gives them a sense of confidence about selecting jobs? Well, it's reality.

People voluntarily decide to form communities and societies. When businesses enter those communities and enter those societies, they consent to play by the democratic rules of those societies. If society decides that it wants a minimum wage or unemployment benefits, businesses are free to move elsewhere. In fact, they're much more free to move elsewhere than their workers. The average American citizen can not afford to move to another country, that takes money.

So I disagree quite strongly with the notion that giving those people who don't have the funds or ability to move more agency over whether they want to work is some kind of restriction of the market. Amazon could pull out of the US if it really needed to, Bezos is living here by choice. Most of its workers couldn't, most of its workers don't have the ability to consent to the system they find themselves in.

> So why should the be free for that person and not the provider?

Because businesses consented to living in a democratic society with rules, including social safety nets and standards based on whether the society at large is willing to let its citizens live in poverty.

In a lot of ways, the ultimate system of nature for humans is collectivism and government, there has never been a human society that hasn't eventually ended up setting up some system of standards for how far we're willing to let people fall and how much poverty we're willing to subject people to, and that collectivism and shared standard of living is no small part of why we are the dominant creatures on the planet. I disagree that it is "natural" for people who are out of work to starve to death, I think it's very natural for human beings to set up formal structures that prevent that from happening, it's one of the really big things that we do as a species.

----

I also want to point out that it's very selective to argue that "fairness" in nature means people having no leverage over whether or not to participate in a market. Even more than that, it's also very... questionable... to correlate "natural" with "fair." Even in a situation where a business didn't the create the problem, even in a situation where a business isn't holding a gun to your head and forcing you to work with threats of violence, a coerced contract is still coerced, and appealing to the natural state of that coercion doesn't really make it better.

If I find you bleeding to death and sell you a single bandage for a million dollars, you can argue that it's not my fault you're in that position. But that doesn't mean the sale isn't happening under duress, it doesn't mean it's suddenly a free transaction. Duress and coercion does not need to be actively created by the party that benefits from it.

⬐ crazydoggers

Well I think we’re getting down into philosophical political divides here which have been argued for ages, and probably can’t be solved on an Internet forum.

I’ll just say this about the video that started all of this. At the moment there is a clear perception issue from some in the society on job fairness. Everyone is entitled to their perceptions, but all I’m claiming is that it is inaccurate, and those perceptions are doing them a disservice. I honestly believe it’s clouded by lack of insight.

I think if you met some of the people I have who can tell you six ways to Sunday how to game the welfare system, collect unemployment, sell drugs on the side etc, you might feel different about that “free market” ideal which doesn’t really exists. Instead look to nature for the truth where you have exploiters in most species around every corner. So we must always be vigilant.

> the ultimate system of nature for humans is collectivism and government

The ultimate system of nature is an evolutionarily stable strategy that involves things like pacifists, parasites, violent struggle, etc. Society attempt to regulate those things and protect from the worst of it, but it can’t make it disappear by itself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strate...

The United States wasn’t founded with the idea of keeping people out of poverty. Indeed it’s primary concern was the protection of private property from the government taking that property without representation. See John Lockes philosophy equating theft to war etc, etc.

Welfare is required to lift parts of the society out of destitution who really truly need it. It’s not meant to provide for perfectly capable people to receive free passes from the rest of society. And that’s part of the problem at the moment causing an illusion in the job market.

As to your point if someone tried to sell me a bandage for a million dollars while I was under duress, I and the rest of the community would remember that person and treat them accordingly. We live in a society, and there are consequences to actions. Both exploitation and parasitism. Those consequences don’t always hold people accountable like they should, and that’s where we get into trouble.

⬐ danShumway

> you might feel different about that “free market” ideal which doesn’t really exists. Instead look to nature for the truth where you have exploiters in most species around every corner. So we must always be vigilant.

It's fine to have that opinion, I just don't think people should pretend that it's in alignment with the ideals of a completely free market society. Where I lose patience is if someone doesn't have the guts to say that coercion is a major part of our current economy.

If the belief is that we can't entice people to work unless they're scared of poverty, that's just a very different argument than saying that the current systems of coercion are actually voluntary and free.

> I and the rest of the community would remember that person and treat them accordingly. We live in a society, and there are consequences to actions. Both exploitation and parasitism.

Sure, just as long as we both understand that some of those consequences are also sometimes expressed through people voting for policy changes.

⬐ crazydoggers

I guess I don’t see the coercion. To me I come from a background where grandparents either plowed the fields or died. Where famines caused starvation of relatives and friends. So coercion doesn’t make sense to me. To me it’s nature, and I do my part for society how I can.

One of my favorite quotes is from Star Trek:

“As with all living things, each according to his gift”.

It’s a play on the Marxist adage “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.

It leaves off the second part since what an individuals needs are and what should be supplied to everyone is a quagmire of a problem, given that humans can be selfish and unfair (hence why socialist countries tend to corruption just like the rest). And I fully agree that voting for policy change is a must. So is demonstrating, organizing, etc etc. I just think goals should be clear, and a willingness to understand ones own role, rather than only point fingers.

BTW, I’ve upvoted your comments even if I disagree with them, since they’re insightful and constructive. More of this is needed, and less moral outrage, so thanks.

⬐ danShumway

I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe that coercive force is only real if it's consciously applied by another person. But I don't think that distinction makes sense or that it really matters to most people. Freedom is closely tied to agency. If you don't have agency to decide whether or not you're going to work, then that's what involuntarily labor is, you're working because you have no choice.

In your grandparent's situation, they worked the fields because nature took away their freedom, they didn't have a choice about whether or not to work the fields (unless you count dying as a choice, but most people don't). There may not have ever been a person coming and holding a gun to their head and telling them to plow the field, but at the end of the day their situation was the same.

To someone being forced into an abusive job, it doesn't really matter to them why they're being forced into that job. If someone is blackmailing them or threatening them to do that job, then they don't really have a free choice. If a government has socialized the entire economy and is forcing them to work that job under threats of imprisonment, that's not really a free choice either. And in the same way, if the economy gives them no mechanism to move away or improve their life, and if they have no choice except to keep working or to starve, then they are still being forced to work. Their choice is still exactly the same as it would be under any other coercive system.

Natural systems can be coercive, there doesn't need to be a human deliberately forcing the system to work that way. It's about whether or not someone can realistically make a choice.

To me, it is very strange to describe a situation where a worker has no real leverage to choose to do something different, and to describe that person as being free -- regardless of the scenario that has put them into that position. This gets back to a previous criticism, which is that "nature" is very often neither fair nor free. If there is any major praise of collectivism, it's that humans decided to build systems that were more fair and more free than nature would be on its own.

⬐ crazydoggers

Okay, we’ll I agree with your assessment. But it’s turtles all the way down…

Ultimately every human, and every creature on earth is coerced to work for survival. Thats the only way I can interpret your definition of coercion.

It’s okay to say you want a society where people can feel free to escape that. But that utopia which we haven’t yet reached needs to be earned.

I don’t, and I don’t think anyone has a solution or answer for how to get there.

But as of today, if you want to be free not to work, the only way to do it is to take from someone else who has been coerced by nature to survive and provide.

In the mean time, our society has at least allowed us to provide, each according to our gifts so we don’t all have to be farmers or hunters.

Bettering working and labor conditions should be the goal of all of us in society. Unfortunately it’s not. But as I’ve said in other threads, that’s something that has been and will continue to be fought for.

No philosophy can free any human from that.

⬐ josephcsible

> If the belief is that we can't entice people to work unless they're scared of poverty

Hasn't the last year or so taught us that, unfortunately, that is the only motivator to work that's actually effective enough?

⬐ danShumway

Which is, again, a belief you can have. Just don't call it a free market, call it what it is: a forced/captive market.

If you really believe that poverty is the only motivator, then fine. Just own it, don't argue that motivating people through threats of poverty somehow makes them more free.

⬐ josephcsible

How does that make it not a free market? You're not getting tossed in a gulag for refusing to work.

⬐ danShumway

Your belief is that if people aren't scared of poverty they won't work. Literally you are saying if they're not forced to work by the threat of poverty, they won't. And of course being forced to work isn't voluntary.

Now we don't have debtors prison, so nobody is actively going to take them and throw them into a gulag, but I already talked quite a bit about why that distinction doesn't matter above, so not sure what to say other than go back and reread previous comments if it's something you're confused about.

⬐ maxsilver

>It’s not a fair market when people are avoiding those jobs because they can get paid for not working

This is not a real thing, this is a fake assertion you have invented in your mind. No one is getting paid to "not work". And no, workers who have lost their job, collecting their unemployment they earned during past labour, never counts as getting "paid to not work".

>Once the government spending stops, things will change quickly.

In most places, the paltry, tiny financial aid for workers ended months ago, and nothing has changed at all.

> For instance here our dog daycare can’t hire enough employees

They should consider paying wages. If they paid money for labor, they'd get labour. It's really that simple.

What most "employers" actually want is nearly slave labour, volunteers, like they had pre pandemic. Employers swear up and down that no one wants to work, and then you find out they pay just $15/hr or some other insultingly low slave-like wage (a wage so low that no human could feasibly live alone off of it, much less advance in any way in their life).

A single adult with no debt, and no dependents, in Michigan, "making" $15/hr doesn't even take home enough money to rent a modest 1-bed apartment in the city, much less eat or do anything else with their life. At this wage, the adult is literally poorer every day they show up to work, they are literally donating their labour to a for-profit company. And most people are not "perfect ideal adults", they have children, or student loans, or elderly parents, or a tricky medical condition, or any other totally-normal totally-reasonable life complication that they need money to help cover, so they can show up to do good work for you.

I don't know your local market, but I guarantee if your dog daycare was in Michigan and it started paying $25/hr, they'd fill those positions in just a few days. Their employee "shortage" is a fake problem they have intentionally created for themselves, not some sort of indicator of people's willingness to work.

---

Everyone wants to work right now. No one is hiring at a liveable wage. Most reasonable people are not going to get out of bed and go to work all day, just to end the day poorer then they started. That would be insane. But that insanity is what every company seems to demand of labour these days.

⬐ crazydoggers

Texas literally stopped extended unemployment last week. That means it’s going to end soon.

I talked to the owners. The applicants aren’t even asking what the pay rate is or negotiating it. They just don’t want to be out in 100 degree Texas weather picking up dog poop and are holding out while their paychecks still come in.

So real world data, real world talking to people, rather than just conjecturing on the internet.

⬐ oliv__

Their employee "shortage" is a fake problem they have intentionally created for themselves

This is absurd. What fantasy world do you live in

⬐ dang

You've been repeatedly breaking the site guidelines quite badly. In fact, you've been doing it so often that I think we need to ban this account until we get some indication that you want to use the site as intended.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

⬐ specialist

> At this wage, the adult is literally poorer every day they show up to work, they are literally donating their labour to a for-profit company.

Yes and:

With gig work like Uber and DoorDash, the labor is also providing capital (car, phone, etc) with the hope of making it back in tips.

The equivalent of usury, sharecropping, and pyramid scheme, all in one.

⬐ cousin_it

If you want free bread and Bob isn't giving it to you, that doesn't mean he's coercing you; you'd have the same problem even if he had never existed. On the other hand, if you pass laws saying Bob must give you free bread, that's coercive. Basically your comment swaps around the meanings of coercive and non-coercive.

A social safety net is great, but it's better to argue for it honestly.

⬐ oliv__

Could not agree more.

⬐ crazydoggers

And by the current response to comments here, the unemployed are spending time on social media rather than doing menial work (again taking for granted the work done by others to lay fiber, maintain critical infrastructure, build their phones in factories that allow them to downvote.)

The disconnect from true reality is striking.

⬐ mindslight

You need to direct the moralizing where it belongs - this decoupling of value from labor has been happening for decades, led by the managerial class and the economic priesthood.

I'd much rather develop software than scrub toilets, and yet the former is highly compensated while the latter is not. This is highly convenient if you're a software developer or (other) vectoralist, but is ultimately unsustainable for having a distributed economy. People deciding to not show up to do physical tasks for peanuts (while being told to ignore the pandemic) is the correction from the decades long trend of their work being devalued.

Although really I think this whole "labor shortage" thing is overblown. What really happened is a reorganization. Most jobs of last resort laid everyone off, and those people found new uses for their time - taking care of their own children, working for better-paying delivery companies, gig work where they didn't have to come into contact with screaming randos, etc. Now the jobs of last resort feel entitled to magically conjure "their" workers back, and are finding that they've gone elsewhere.

⬐ crazydoggers

Im not the one moralizing. In fact I’m doing the opposite.

Scrubbing toilets pays less because fewer people can write software. Any human being can scrub a toilet. That’s what unskilled labor means.

I have done menial jobs and taken pride in every one. The vast majority of your “managerial class” have done the same.

The difference is they never stopped applying themselves and worked tooth and nail to get where they are.

The idea of some huge protected aristocracy in the US is a convenient myth. It makes up less than 1%. The rest of us work and worked our asses off.

So please stop covering laziness with moralizing. The rest of us are working and tired of the entitlement from the parasites.

Edit:

One only needs to look at your words. “Puppet masters”, “preisthood”, “debt based economy”, etc.

None of it jibes with reality. I suggest perhaps examining what psychologist would call your external locus of control, it won’t serve you well in life. Taking a class in economics and reading up on labor history on the US would also be helpful.

⬐ gaze

it's not that much harder to write software than it is to clean a toilet -- and it's WAY harder being a roofer than writing software. There is little to no coupling between skill, difficulty, and pay.

⬐ mbrodersen

You cluelessness is jaw dropping. It takes 10 years of professional work for somebody to get reasonably good at writing software. And most software developers are still not that good after 10 years. There is a reason why companies in a fee market economy are willing to pay high salaries for software developers.

⬐ crazydoggers

That is patently absurd… you literally just said it’s as easy to clean a toilet as write software. Is it as easy as doing particle physics? How about brain surgery? Is there a line? If they’re all so easy, what is keeping all these would be software engineers and brain surgeons from getting better jobs? Some sort of conspiracy??

This is the distorted reality I’m talking about.

⬐ odessacubbage

having done both, i've gotta say being a knowledge worker who gets to freelance in my pjs is way easier than doing manual labor out in the snow for 9 hours a day or doing roofing jobs under the hot sun. to be sure i had to learn way more stuff to do what i do now but there is no comparison when it comes to the actual day-to-day labor.

⬐ mbrodersen

If that is true then why are companies willing to pay a reasonably good software developer a $100k salary instead of just hiring a cheaper roofer instead? It kinda should be really obvious but in case it isn’t: a roofer can’t do the job.

⬐ gaze

Spoken like someone who has never done hard labor

⬐ mbrodersen

You don’t get it. Working hard is not what a software company pays for. What they pay for is knowledge. The knowledge to solve difficult software development problems. The best software developers don’t work hard. They have the skills to automate most of the work.

⬐ crazydoggers

Spoken like someone with no knowledge of the other person, who’s arguments are based primarily on ad hominem, and who seems to be wed to a socialist workers agenda where every person should be compensated equally for any work.

I have done many types of jobs, including physical labor. I’m way more tired, and usually much more stressed out, after doing what you call “easy” jobs. Often the hard labor makes you feel healthier.

⬐ mbrodersen

Why are you avoiding answering my question? No company wants to pay employees more than they need to. So why are they paying software developers a lot more than roofers? And why aren’t all roofers applying for “easy” well paid software development jobs? Why aren’t you grabbing one of those “easy” well paid jobs?

⬐ gaze

Yes.

⬐ crazydoggers

Your definition only includes physical difficulties (although many developers can tell you that development jobs are horrible for your health, and roofing in the sun actually might be better for your health)

But difficult or hard doesn’t mean physically tiring. It is not easier to make complex decisions, nor to dedicate years of training in order to even begin doing a job.

Some trades require more training. Things like electrical work or plumbing. In those trades people apprentice and as their experience grows so does their pay, often rivaling or exceeding that of software developers… why? Because it take years of dedication.

The reductionism that hard only means physically taxing makes little sense. It leads to the idea that only physical laborers should be paid well, which doesn’t make any economic sense.

Does that mean a factory worker that stand around all day pushing a button should get paid next to nothing? Many of those are physically easy (some even provide chairs) but boring as hell. (And before someone says that factory jobs are all hellish, I have talked to people who have done jobs sorting coffee lids, or monitoring automated work lines. And those people’s first hand experience will tell you it’s often just mind numbingly boring, and not at all difficult)

Ultimately compensation isn’t made against someone’s arbitrary sense of difficulty. Instead it’s made against how many people are willing and able to do the job. And that’s the current distorted reality. Some people are thinking due to pandemic related consequences that there are fewer people willing and able to do the job.

⬐ mindslight

> So please stop covering laziness with moralizing. The rest of us are working and tired of the entitlement from the parasites.

What is your second sentence here, apart from pure moralizing?

> Scrubbing toilets pays less because fewer people can write software

Sure, this is the obvious dogma so I didn't repeat it. But it only applies within certain assumptions - namely that unskilled labor can be arbitraged across borders, and that the people who aren't capable of writing software still need to bid against those who can to make a comparable amount of income to pay as rent. As I said, the contextless narrative is quite convenient if you're not subject to the pointy end of the market mechanism. But when we're critiquing the system, we need to examine its assumptions.

> The idea of some huge protected aristocracy in the US is a convenient myth

I never said there was one. By my analysis, our oppression is quite democratic - hence the lower-middle class goal of buying into real estate / stonks / etc and thereby becoming beneficiaries of the problem. While this is a common path to success under the current system, that doesn't mean that it is possible for everyone to actually take it.

In a debt-based economy, economic positioning is intrinsically zero-sum - by succeeding in moving up the ladder, others must be stuck below you. And the economic priesthood has driven us more and more into debt because it puts the economy under centralized direction. I'd wager this is the true source of your discontent, yet rather than looking at the puppetmasters pulling the abstract strings that define the large-scale trends, you're doing the easy thing of blaming those closest to your position.

Since we're responding in edits:

> One only needs to look at your words. “Puppet masters”, “preisthood”, “debt based economy”, etc. None of it jibes with reality.

Puppet masters is hyperbolic, but priesthood is simply a call back to an older term for the same role - setting and promulgating societal policy while pretending to be neutral. And "debt based economy" is straightforwardly factual - add up your monthly budget and look at the proportion that goes to your actual survival (food, utilities, maintenance, depreciation), versus how much goes to servicing debt streams (mortgage and property taxes). We're a debt based society - the poorest members don't have small positive balances but rather negative balances, and are thus forced to work to pay their economic rent "or else".

> I suggest perhaps examining what psychologist would call your external locus of control, it won’t serve you well in life

When describing how the system works, what else would I use besides an external locus of control? I obviously don't control the economy!

I'm on the financial treadmill the same as everyone else, and take my own actions based on what I can change (internal locus of control). But touting those actions as if they're a solution rather than mere mitigations is falling into the trap of assuming the system can only be this way.

Economically, I'm in the libertarian-Austrian camp rather than progressive-MMT/UBI. It's my experience that when people say to "study economics", they really just mean stop questioning the assumptions of the Keynesian/post-Bretton-Woods regime of overwhelming monetary inflation.

⬐ anonfornoreason

Thanks for a well reasoned response. I too am always blown away at the comments here when it comes to labor. I think the reality is that most people making these comments didn’t have to build themselves up to where they are, and they have sympathy toward people having to do “demeaning work”, having never done it themselves. I’ve scrubbed bathrooms, loaded trucks, pumped gas, and served people and enjoyed every single one despite them being low skill, entry level jobs.

Did I expect a job that anyone else could do to compete for me with a high salary? No way. I wanted a higher salary so I hustled on the side and got a degree in a field that paid more. Some of the people I worked with did the same, some didn’t. That’s the way it goes. I think the people complaining mostly feel guilty about straight to college and a high paying job tract. Think of it as the jobs equivalent of white guilt.

⬐ odessacubbage

ime these jobs largely are not demeaning in of themselves, they end up that way because of the conditions and management that optimizes by taking advantage of a workforce that they consider expendable and cost-cutting usually comes at the expense of dignity. getting an expletive-filled call from your boss threatening to fire you if you don't come in during previously scheduled time off [because they just fired the person who was supposed to take that shift] is the kind of experience that quickly turns an okay job into a miserable one.

⬐ crazydoggers

I definitely think it’s interesting that those arguing these things tend not to be the ones who have worked those jobs, instead avoiding them. I think that tells you something right there.

It feels like an era of moral outrage outweighing common sense. And I think social media bears a very large responsibility. Facebook, Twitter etc is creating a generation involved in spending too much time online becoming angry and not enough time actually going outside and changing the world.

⬐ mindslight

I don't have a problem with jobs doing crappy things (obviously, they have to get done). As far as manual labor goes, I tend to do things myself rather than hiring someone. What I do have a problem with (and what people mean when they say "crappy jobs") is the terrible compensation and lack of worker power.

The people doing these jobs generally don't complain (they know their situation sucks), and when they do are ignored (everyone else knows their situation sucks). So what stands out in your mind is when someone who seems to have no vested interest in crappy jobs complains about crappy jobs.

People who haven't been forced into living hand to mouth have not internalized the rules of the system as hard. We're therefore more able to envision changing the system's workings, rather than having fully resigned ourselves to living within its rules in spite of its problems.

You worked some crappy jobs, and then succeeded out of them. So you believe you have found a template of success. But the problem is that while it worked for you, it cannot scale to work for everybody. And not because most people are too dumb/lazy/whatever to get ahead, but rather because the system ranks everyone against each other, and then only allows for a few winners - economic position in a debt-based economy is zero sum.

Meanwhile, I fully recognize that in order to have my position as being relatively economically comfortable, there are other people out there who cannot be. So rather than "guilt", which implies some sort of irrational emotional state, it is actually continuing to have concern for the people stuck below me in the system that I am forced to help maintain.

⬐ anonfornoreason

Thanks, I really enjoyed reading your response. I think there are huge wins to be had in compensation and work environment, without painting all low skilled jobs as demeaning, or without saying the equivalent of "they should make more money because scrubbing toilets sucks". I could be wrong, but I think there are a bunch of snap opinions that come from the guilt borne by caring, but privileged people. I think there's also a large disconnect between the "puritanical" work ethic opinion holders, and the "free us from the tyranny of work" opinion holders. I love work, I always have. This even manifests into a weird love of digging literal holes in the ground with a shovel, something about the effort expended to see a job done really gives me a feeling of accomplishment, so it's no surprise that it resonates with me.

⬐ bogota

I really don’t get this attitude. Are people just too full of themselves today to do menial work? I have a good job now but from before high school to after college I worked jobs in places were the customers were rude and treated you like shit along with your coworkers and managers. As far as I know you still need money to live do people think it’s now the responsibility of the government to take care of them if they have to work a job that sucks? I really can’t wrap my head around it it’s just not how i was raised. This just smells like entitlement at the same level people accuse “the rich” of having.

⬐ ubercow13

People trying to better for themselves is not them being entitiled. There is nothing noble about working hard for bad pay and in bad conditions just for the sake of being a hard worker.

If people are choosing other options instead of going back to their shit jobs, and the system isn't providing good enough opportunities for enough people that's a failing of the system, not of those people for lacking a strong Protestant work ethic and not rolling over and letting themselves be exploited.

Anyway the video is about these people choosing to work for themselves or being otherwise entrepreneurial, not being entitled and lazy like you are implying.

⬐ crazydoggers

So who does the hard jobs? Who slaughters the cows. Who picks the vegetables in 100 degrees.

It sure is damn noble. Someone has to do it, or we all have to. And I give those people amazing props for doing those things.

Many of us have either done those jobs and taken pride, or have family who have in order to better the lives of those children. Saying that work is not noble is demeaning to those who worked for your current standard of living.

⬐ MrStonedOne

Nobody until those employers start paying enough and stop making the job harder for the sake of policies that only serve the employers interests.

can't get workers to work hard 8 hours a day doing hard labor, maybe add more breaks than the minimum you are legally required to? Or maybe stop suspending the workers next two shifts because they were 5 minutes late from traffic 1 too many times? Maybe consider that threatening to fire workers if they don't work late or overtime isn't productive? Maybe stop paying minimum wage which hasn't risen with inflation or rent prices and increase your prices out to compensate or consider that if baseline worker wages have risen slower than inflation, but management's wages has risen faster than inflation, you've had to do so off the back of your workers ability to have spending money outside of barely living.

⬐ crazydoggers

Great goals! Now start motivating people around you to ask for those things, vote on those issues, unionize their workplaces. Work half as hard as the generations that came before did to enshrine our current labor laws. Don’t just complain on YouTube videos. If the video had a coherent call to action and clear headed vision that’s one thing. But in reality a lot of it is clouded by misunderstandings of the job market and the world around them.

⬐ pg_1234

Right now there is a more effective strategy - just - do - nothing - wait out the exploitative employers until they come begging, and then dictate terms ... just as they used to.

⬐ crazydoggers

I suggest read some history to get a sense of why that makes no sense.

And this is the entitlement I speak of. The world is not going to come begging you for anything. If you don’t stand to for yourself. Make the best of each situation, then the world isn’t going to owe or provide you anything. You reap what you sow.

⬐ crazydoggers

Why do you think they will come begging you for anything. What power do you hold in the situation, given that their is not actually a labor shortage.

⬐ Buttons840

> And I give those people amazing props for doing those things.

Maybe giving them amazing money in addition to props would solve the problem.

⬐ ubercow13

>Saying that work is not noble is demeaning to those who worked for your current standard of living.

The video is about people choosing better opportunities for themselves. If there aren't people to do those hard jobs, then those jobs need to compete with the opportunities these people are choosing instead, for example through higher pay. Saying these people should choose worse work, for the benefit of others (eg. business owners), by appealing to some nebulous concept of nobility is exploitative.

⬐ touisteur

Maybe it's time we change attitudes towards menial jobs, then. No more accepting bad customer or managerial behaviour would be a start. Customer isn't always right, and even then they don't have to be encouraged being shitty to service workers by... Letting them pay the lowest price possible.

Maybe now shop owners will have better incentives to discipline their customers or give humane working conditions. Or you know, barring that, better pay.

About fucking time service workers had some bargaining power back.

⬐ indymike

> Maybe it's time we change attitudes towards menial jobs, then.

A menial job is not menial. It is just a job. Labels like "menial" and "low skill" aren't fair to anyone and are there to sell people on taking less pay.

> About fucking time service workers had some bargaining power back.

This is really the truth. It is about time.

⬐ touisteur

I agree and should at least have put quotes in there.

I've made a personal mission of trying to rehumanize every damn job, saying hello, how are you, stopping sometimes to talk about kids or the shitty people leaving shit in the kids playground, or just asking how's the family going. Not only did I make friends with the bus drivers, the street cleaner, the store cashier, the security people everywhere, but now I feel better the pulses of my communities, and have a far less difficult time talking to new people and giving or asking for help. I know those people and they know me. During the pandemic, I just sometimes asked news about family or kids and the amazon drivers here were crushed, their families sick and dying all around. One of them stopped and just cried there. Yes as one other commentor said, it's a job, man up, do it. But also, when there's a crying father there telling me he's been yelled at the whole week, he's been late for deliveries for days, and getting his pay docked, fuck ALLL that. Come on, have a water, a coffee if you can stomach it, late for late... And talk. Learned some of my neighbors needed a talking to. No one deserves to be treated like that. I... didn't see people were so shitty to each other, especially what one lady called 'the help'.

Even the people I'm never gonna see again, it costs me almost nothing to say hi, hope your day's OK, thanks, and it brings sometimes the simple joy of talking for 2 minutes and feeling all fucking human. Some make it hard (uber eats kids...) but still, hi, everything OK? How's your family? I can't do much, but tipping and talking, yes.

And don't let me started on making your salary almost only from tips. You're really wondering why you can't find 'help'?

⬐ ggggtez

I think it requires superhuman levels of mental gymnastics to defend accusations against billionaires being parasites, while putting down the working class for not putting up with having people yell in their faces...

Honestly it's such a leap of logic that likely no one understands what exactly the thrust of your comment is trying to get at.

I'd like to look at the more charitable part of the argument: "back in my day, we worked shitty jobs and we liked it, because we needed money". Ok, sure. But the economy was different in the past.

Many people need to work 2 jobs to maintain the same standard of living. At the same time, the prestige and respect of such jobs have declined. There are less paths to retirement. This is a logical response to a system that is overworking people, without long-term prospects.

⬐ endymi0n

The Boomer generation needed just 306 hours of minimum wage work to pay for four years of public college. Millennials need 4,459. Calling that out doesn't sound like entitlement to me.

⬐ bogota

Sure call it out but not working is what im talking about. Life is always unfair. I started working in 2009 I am familiar with shit jobs that pay nothing.

⬐ ggggtez

Honestly, if you are trying to so a "back in my day" to 10 years ago... I think you should take a moment and reexamine some of the fundamental facts that you are basing your worldview on. You're likely relying on flawed anecdotal evidence to decide how things used to be.

It's possible your personal journey is effected by your experiences. 2009 was a financial crisis, when I'm sure many people were desperate for money. Others delayed entering the workforce by taking on college debt. It's not a sign of a healthy economy, but the strategic decisions of millions of people...

And in 2009 there was no pandemic. You weren't risking actual life and limb to work a 9-5. In 2009 most people didn't have smartphones. There was no real option to make money online.

And let's be clear: just because people aren't working for a corporation in a 9-5 doesn't imply they aren't working. Today you can make money online easier (Only Fans comes to mind). The people who become internet models can make more money quitting their jobs and devoting their effort to content creation. And honestly, a pornstar has more prestige and better hours than McDonald's, too...

⬐ aaron-santos

It sounds like your saying "life is unfair so we have no obligation to try." I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's difficult. Maybe you meant something else.

⬐ LocalH

It's entitlement to refuse to be treated like garbage? I feel like it's rather entitlement on the part of those who are treating workers like garbage. Employers expect employees to "go above and beyond" but I see that as a two way street. I will "go above and beyond" for a company that does likewise with me. I will do no more than the basic job functions if the job demands more than its rightful place in my life, or if they attempt to abuse me.

⬐ bogota

Being treated like garbage and a job inherently being shitty aren’t the same thing. People seem to confuse that.

All this is doing is driving automation at a faster pace and the people who once did the jobs will now have something new to complain about when they have no job available at all in 10 years

⬐ MrStonedOne

The majority of the jobs that can't hire people are customer facing jobs where the job is to be treated like garbage by customers

⬐ oliv__

Fine, so find another job that suits your snowflake requirements

⬐ taurath

What do you think people are doing? Aren’t the business owners the snowflakes here, demanding their right to pay people peanuts for labor and earn them profits?

⬐ oliv__

They're not "demanding" anything. They're offering jobs for wages which you deem too low.

⬐ LocalH

"Snowflake requirements" for saying that I put into a job the effort that they're willing to put into me, and no more? That's not a "snowflake requirement", that's the bare minimum of decency. What right does a job have to exploit the power differential to force you to be dependent on them in unhealthy ways?

⬐ oliv__

Well when you don't have any money left to buy your groceries, sooner or later you'll find out who's dependent on who

⬐ bitcuration

Everybody's interest is different, some care about job security, others are greedy want much more. It depends on personal needs, conditions, life stage and capability. You cannot attribute to a single reason universally when explaining this.

However in a tough time like this, it's disadvantageous to a society where everybody just look after themselves. I bet you in Japan this type of problem and question are less wondered, as people are treated by and treat the employer as home/family, took a personal interest instead of merely a means to make living, although at least in the past not sure it's still the case nowadays.

True, what's feasible in Japan may not be suitable to a multi-culture society like US, or many other countries. But human motivation and value system are more or less the same across the globe.

For example, some companies make employee their partners, gives stock options no matter how small percentage it is, a real bounding exercise must be financial based.

Relying on enchanting employee to work relentlessly while in truth they're just pawn ready to be dispensed at any moment, how many cycles does any employer seriously think such trick will last before any employee with even below average IO would figure it out? It's not sustainable.

⬐ hirako2000

They aren't more or less the same around the globe. It is a very western, and relatively recent social structures we believe to be true everywhere. What is the same global, for the most part is the capitalist model adopted because of it's success and power over other models. You get a pay for your labour that is negotiated with your employer who keeps a company afloat and pays dividends.

The social aspect is vastly different in many countries where the shareholder and employer, or at least the manager treat its employees nearly like family. Yes you get a pay cheque and profit is the ultimate goal, but the bond between workers is so strong it influences business decisions. Some will hire a less competent candidate simply because he is close to the worker community, it provides trusts and reinforces the "family" structure. Japan is mentioned, but it applies similarly to most countries in Asia, and to some degree other continents as well. It is often not spoken of or display, or accounted for explicitly. Humans develop and break those bonds as things go along.

⬐ donkeybeer

Thats a rather rosy way to present nepotism.

⬐ hirako2000

Nepotism is the human norm. The construct of enterprise entities supposedly treating everyone for their competence alone does change human nature. I don't approve of it since we live in system with a job market and it is nearly impossible for many to not yet hire by an entity as it stands. But the point is that's how things are, human relations triumph for the most part. And where it doesn't, some other human characteristic and abilities to win emerge. Selfishnes, secrecy, hypocrisy, brain washing to name a few.

⬐ nikanj

I’m yet to hear an UBI proponent explain to me how those jobs would get done. The naive go-to answer is ”automation”, but on HN people generally understand how hard automating unskilled labor is

⬐ indymike

I'm not a UBI proponent, nor am I a fan of exploiting people. There is a truth: some business cannot exist profitably if you have to pay market wages for labor. Reason: we've had a glut in workers for decades. Now the glut is over, and workers are scarce. We're finding out the value of an employee isn't some index number like minimum wage, or "local prevailing wage over the last 18 months", it is what it costs to hire someone today. That number goes up and up. Bottom line: exploitative employers are going to have to change how they do business.

⬐ nsonha

Instead of UBI the gov can subsidise salary for those businesses.

⬐ imtringued

It's called negative income tax.

⬐ ben_w

Subsidised salaries do not create new workers, they (create an incentive to) move workers from non-subsidised jobs. It is effectively the non-subsidised workers whose taxes pay for the subsidies.

That kind of thing is best kept for where markets don’t accurately price externalities, not ”$foo businesses can’t find staff at a price they are happy with”.

⬐ rdtwo

Nursing and teaching would be a good place for subsidized wages

⬐ ben_w

I don’t know what things are like where you are, but in the U.K. both of those are[0] public sector jobs. That makes them[0] 100% “subsidised”, though I can’t help but feel there’s a better word for it in this case.

[0] mostly

⬐ nsonha

wow, I don't even believe 100% of the tax dollars spent on education would be justified, but I'll still prefer such a system.

⬐ ThePadawan

I feel like right now, society has just over-committed to wasteful use of resources.

There is a gas station attendant working at 4am because they only cost $8/h and the company makes enough revenue during that hour that that is worth it.

If they need to start paying $15h/h and have to close from 1am to 5am, some people might not be able to get cigarettes from the gas station, or buy gas without a credit card.

Or maybe, out of 5 gas stations, 1 will remain open and now have 5 times as many customers during those hours, so it's worth it to stay open again.

But right now, 4 out of 5 gas stations are open simply because they can be, no matter how useful they are.

⬐ giantrobot

That worker's hourly wage is a small fraction of the cost of just running the gas station at that hour of day. It costs money to run the lights, the refrigerators, and the gas pumps. The owner of the property doesn't charge less rent when the gas station is closed. Property taxes are still due.

If the labor cost of the graveyard shift doubled the total cost of operations for that shift would increase only marginally. That gas station is only going to shut down for that shift if there's a significant change in costs. A small increase is completely covered by a single late night or early morning fill-up.

⬐ indymike

> There is a gas station attendant working at 4am because they only cost $8/h and the company makes enough revenue during that hour that that is worth it.

Usually, because fewer people are willing to work late nights, pay is usually higher for the night shift. This is often called a "shift differential".

> But right now, 4 out of 5 gas stations are open simply because they can be, no matter how useful they are.

If there was no economic advantage to being open, the store would be closed.

⬐ josephcsible

> If they need to start paying $15h/h and have to close from 1am to 5am, some people might not be able to get cigarettes from the gas station, or buy gas without a credit card.

You mean they might not be able to buy gas at all. Gas stations will shut off their pumps when they close, so you can't even do self-service credit-card purchases.

⬐ jjav

> Gas stations will shut off their pumps when they close, so you can't even do self-service credit-card purchases.

Some do, some don't.

Many gas stations around here (CA) keep the pumps working for self-pay when they are closed.

Also I remember driving on US50 through Nevada late after midnight running out of gas and stopped at a completely dark gas station. Fortunately the pumps worked!

⬐ ThePadawan

Huh, that must vary by country. Here in Switzerland, more than half of all gas stations are completely unmanned at all times [0].

[0] https://www.avenergy.ch/images/pdf/TAB-16_2016_final_D_korri...

⬐ iso1210

US gas stations are weird, at least last time I was driving there more frequently (about 5-10 years ago). In my country (UK), some have shops you can go into, but most of the time I for one fill up at an automated pump at the supermarket, put card in, type pin number, fill up the tank, leave. There's no need for anyone to be on site (some do have a store, some are completely unmanned).

In the US/Canada when I've filled up, at some places you turn up and someone does it for you, which is a right pain and breaks your train of thought as you have to engage in conversation with someone. Others you do it yourself, but you turn up and find the pump isn't open -- you have to go into the shop and pay in advance, which is just weird - I don't know how much I want to put it, I just want to top it up and then pay the amount on my credit card.

I believe laws vary by state or even smaller regions.

⬐ axiolite

> some people might not be able to get cigarettes from the gas station, or buy gas without a credit card.

Switching to credit card kiosks won't help. It's usually illegal to have a gas station operating without an attendant. Something to do with that whole danger of blowing up and killing lots of people thing.

> maybe, out of 5 gas stations, 1 will remain open and now have 5 times as many customers

Except it costs some money to open and close the store, costs some money to have alarms & surveillance while the store is closed, costs the store in damages, and more than that, costs customers who will prefer the store that will always be open, even during normal hours. It may not all be as wasteful as you think.

And what happens when the store that can justify staying open happens to be the one that doesn't provide diesel, propane, milk, or similar? It can be very detrimental to the city.

⬐ Supermancho

> It's usually illegal to have a gas station operating without an attendant.

Not in most of the US States I've visited. There are all-night gas stations across the nation that are unmanned.

> Except it costs some money to open and close the store, costs some money to have alarms & surveillance while the store is closed

I think you misunderstand. He's proposing that the competition of the 2-4 gas station clusters at most highway offramps/some intersections are over-competing. The permanent closing of some is a net good for the economy.

Multi-trillion dollar companies will eventually note how they are taking increased losses/less profit when faced with the current economics (wage floors, limited spending power of the middle class, etc).

Is this true? Probably not because the owners are largely franchisees who will not simply sacrifice their entire livelihood because profits are down. It's not like the owner of a Mobil station can set their own gas prices (near total control of these locations is baked into the franchise agreement, like with many large brands). The multi-billionaire brands aren't sweating a dime off their own fees when some location can't survive and closes down.

⬐ marcusverus

This is a bizarre argument. The $15/h wage in your example put four people out of work (How many end up on the dole? How much new taxation will be required to support them?) and potentially squashed other economic activity by closing the shops.

You're arguing for the destruction of economic activity in the name of reducing the 'wasteful use of resources', which is just silly. You're just making it harder for these folks to support themselves, while burdening others with the need to support them.

⬐ Ekaros

I dunno, sounds like employing one person that is almost 4 times as productive for less than half a cost would be overall good move.

Specially when the 4 couldn't properly pay their living costs. Issue really is that we can't find different work for the 3 anymore...

⬐ marcusverus

> I dunno, sounds like employing one person that is almost 4 times as productive for less than half a cost would be overall good move.

Why assume that the worker is four times as productive? Even if the same number of transactions occur because everyone goes to the one open shop, we've still destroyed 64K of GDP by canning four employees.

> Specially when the 4 couldn't properly pay their living costs.

The 4 people working for $8/hour were contributing 64K per year to paying their living costs. By destroying their jobs have you made them better able to properly pay their living costs? Of course not, you've merely transferred the cost of supporting them to some other poor schmuck.

Reducing economic activity and raising taxes is not a recipe for increased prosperity.

⬐ hirako2000

Good point. it doesn't imply though that the 4am worker would be left doing nothing. He could well be providing another service less wastful, day time, for 8 dollars per hour or more, or less. Unless or course those who want to buy stuff at the gas station at any hour of the night would not trade that convenience for any other service they aren't getting yet.

⬐ iso1210

Perhaps they should be paying more for the convenience then

⬐ ThePadawan

Right?

I'm writing this from Switzerland, which has this weird relationship of being quite like the US, but also quite unlike the US.

In this case, opening hours of everything are strictly regulated. Only some shops in (or next to) train stations and airports are allowed to remain open on Sundays and holidays, on a case-by-case basis.

But because there's also legislation requiring large hourly salary multipliers for employees working on those days, their products can also be expensive as balls.

(Seeing as these are also the shops tourists see most often, this is where the "$4 for a can of coke???" encounters originate)

⬐ indymike

> Good point. it doesn't imply though that the 4am worker would be left doing nothing.

This assumes the worker isn't doing something valuable during the day. I worked some night shifts to pay for college.

> day time, for 8 dollars per hour or more,

I got paid more for the night shift than the workers on the day shift. Fewer people wanted to be awake at 3:30AM. Even fewer wanted to work.

⬐ iso1210

> This assumes the worker isn't doing something valuable during the day. I worked some night shifts to pay for college.

Well yes, people need to sleep. You can sleep during the day, or at night, but you still need to sleep at some point.

If a student is burning their energy working overnight, they aren't getting the most out of college, that's a waste of resources in a given system.

⬐ indymike

> If a student is burning their energy working overnight, they aren't getting the most out of college, that's a waste of resources in a given system.

Being debt free after leaving college was worth the lost sleep.

⬐ iso1210

You're looking at it from an individual perspective rather than treating mankind as a system to optimise. It would be better as a whole for you to have completed the course either faster or better, and progress onto more productive things.

Reality of course is that you can't optimize a global society of 7 billion individual thinking people with different abilities, wants, hopes, needs, indeed you can't even come up with a measure of what you are trying to optimize, but in my view mankind should have eliminating non-producive work as a goal.

I've just filled in forms to register at the local GP surgery. I had to fill them in on paper, putting name and address multiple times on different forms, this will all be transcribed by one of the receptionists into a computer.

This is waste. My health care system is fairly good with eliminating waste (compared with say the US system), but it's something that should be optimised -- it would have been more efficient for both me and the data entry person if I could have just typed in the data into an online form (complete with autofill), rather than this archaic method from the 1980s.

Having inefficient systems is bad. On the London Underground 20 years ago you had to queue up at a ticket office or machine to buy a ticket. Now you just walk through the barrier with your phone. 100 years ago you would tell someone behind a counter what you wanted and wait around while he went and got it, 50 years ago you walked through the shop and did that yourself, and now with some stores you scan simply pick up what you want and walk out without even paying. The total work done reduces each time, and that's a net win for the species.

Reducing tedious unfulfilling work should be the goal, and a higher minimum wage incentivises that.

⬐ indymike

> You're looking at it from an individual perspective rather than treating mankind as a system to optimise.

I only have my life that I can optimize. The rest of humanity is above my paygrade.

⬐ iso1210

Fortunately as society we organise into units which allow us to become more than the sum of our parts through laws and taxes and infrastructure, and in my view societies goal should be reduce tedious unfulfilling work.

⬐ ThePadawan

Funny aside: I 100% agree with you on the GP thing, but I find it hilarious how you hope to even move away from paper entry.

Here in Switzerland, it still seems to be a 50/50 if you get to fill out a form, or simply hand the receptionist your insurance card which has your national insurance ID on a Magstripe. Usually, all they ask then is "Is your address at Example St still current?"

⬐ structural

It's not at all a bizarre argument in a labor shortage. Exactly what you should expect to happen is that low-value economic activity gets replaced by higher-value economic activity!

⬐ mupuff1234

I think a lot of people wouldn't mind doing such types of jobs if they only need to do 2-3 shifts a week, in fact, I think a lot of people would enjoy it.

I think it's mostly the mix of overworked + low benefits + knowing that you have to do it otherwise you'll have nothing is the deal breaker - not so much the job itself.

⬐ ericmcer

Yeh this is true, I have done some shit jobs, (grocery, retail, door to door sales) and the 5 days a week with only a few days off a year was what really ground you down. Doing a mindless service job 2 days a week and getting UBI would actually be awesome.

⬐ tdfx

Just want to echo that I believe this to be true, as well. Jobs involving menial, unskilled labor can be almost therapeutic if you're only required to do it 2-3 times a week. I did night jobs while I was working full time as a developer and I would actually look forward to the work. Whereas the other employees who did it 5-6 days a week acted like it was torture.

⬐ bathMarm0t

Don't underestimate the context in which you worked e.g. showing up to the job having your ace-in-the-hole: the Knowledge (capitol K-Knowing in your bones) that you could do better socio-fiscally speaking. A lot of who we are and how we represent ourselves to society is bound up in work for some damnable reason. Feeling trapped in employment (and therefore trapped in your self-worth) is a major vector for anxiety/negative feedback loops.

⬐ logosmonkey

And it's often a random 5 days, maybe 6. You never know. It's hard to overstate how burdensome that is.

⬐ None

None

⬐ pdimitar

You barely looked then.

A lot of people, myself included, would still work if they receive UBI. We'd just work less, plus it would be liberating and healthy for the mind to know that you can quit anytime without your survival being at stake.

Nobody is claiming that the entire humanity will stop working under an UBI system.

⬐ michaelt

> A lot of people, myself included, would still work

Is your current job cleaning gas station toilets at 5am?

Because if not, you haven't responded to the posts you're replying to.

⬐ pdimitar

No. I have no problem cleaning mine however, or volunteering to clean up parks. Your point?

⬐ nsonha

Their point is the people currently working and sustains working such a terrible job will simply stop working, if they can secure the same income. The rest of the time maybe they learn to code (which they can fail), or not and they'll just fuck around.

People will definite do something for sure. It's just I'm not sure why something has to be some sort of job or anything beneficial to society. There are a lot of people whose jobs are damaging to society actually.

⬐ pdimitar

Oh, absolutely, I'm not contesting anything that you've said.

It's just that I'm fairly sure there will always be people willing to clean toilets for little extra money, especially if they're not abused and kept hostage of a minimum (but lifesaving for them) pay. And those conditions should be impossible in an UBI system.

⬐ 6510

It's just a job. You go there, do the work then go home again. The misconception is like: Who would want to sit behind a desk all day? Who would want to fill their head with their work and grind puzzles all day the year round even after work and in bed? Endless unproductive meetings? Fight tech debt and deadlines with the wrong tools as if one hand tied behind your back? Never a real vacation? All that for money? What good is it if you don't have time for your own thoughts?

One just gets used to it and it isn't a big deal.

⬐ pdimitar

Sure but at least to me personally, one of the goals of UBI is to eliminate the "it's just a job" mindset. People should do what feels fulfilling to them without being slaves of the wage.

But for now we can only speculate. I'm still super curious how will the whole thing turn out though!

⬐ 6510

I share this curiosity. My gut says many positive and many negative things but those are mere speculation. The most negative one is that we have very little choice moving on to a different system. This is one of the few ideas that everyone understands (be it from different perspectives)

⬐ hirako2000

I think you are missing the point: those who do certain jobs only do it to get fed and have shelter. There is no way to make them do it if they had the choice not to do it. The extra money? It wouldn't make enough a difference to climb the ladder, they would try their chance doing something else.

That's assuming UBI would actually cover the basics. If that's half the needs to sustain their life I agree they would do that cleaning job, which is getting back to the original situation: job filled only because of lack of choice.

⬐ pdimitar

We're talking past each other.

I'm not saying it's going to be the same group of people who will re-pick cleaning jobs.

There's plenty of people out there who need the occasional physical thankless labor (myself included). As long as it's no more than 3-4h shift IMO there will be people who will do it.

In my eyes the key element is having the choice of not doing it. UBI might give us that or it might be a half-arsed measure that only does things on paper. We have no way of knowing that right now though.

⬐ hirako2000

I can see that scenario yes. I like that aspect of UBI, provide choice to take on those laborious unfulfilling jobs. Looking forward to see a country implementing it, we could the all quit speculating about the outcomes.

⬐ yazaddaruvala

I’m a software engineer and fortunately don’t need to clean bathrooms to feed myself. But to your GP’s point I would for $1 MM per bathroom.

While I’m using hyperbole, what it shows is that, there is some non-exploitative wage for cleaning bathrooms and while it might be “too high” for the current business that need clean bathrooms, supply and demand “should” figure out the rest.

⬐ josephcsible

> supply and demand “should” figure out the rest

The problem is that the market is being distorted. It used to be that Alice would pay Bob $2000 per month to clean all of the bathrooms in her office. Now, Bob quit his job to live off of $2000 per month of UBI, and Alice's taxes got raised by $2000 per month to help pay for everyone's UBI.

⬐ 6510

It used to be that Alice owned Bob, she purchased him fairly at auction. His duty was to clean all of the bathrooms in the house. Now, if Bob is released he will get a similar job for $2000 per month and someone like Alice's has to pay that $2000.

Surely this isn't fair for Alice?

⬐ josephcsible

Abolishing slavery corrected a distortion and made the market more free. Unemployment bonuses and UBI are new distortions that make the market less free.

⬐ hirako2000

And she didn't own Bob, she paid Bob and not a previous owner.

Information disimetry is what Alice benefited from, she has better skills, knowledge, or connections, or all of these. Bob has less and cleans other people's bathrooms instead of getting his cleaned while he can grow his wealth undisturbed by chores. The disymetry then keeps growing.

I doubt the solution is to provide money as if it grew on trees to those who are below average in term of status and profit abilities in society. It would likely drag most people further down and keep a few at the top who will find ways to fund the mandiants somehow.

⬐ hirako2000

The issue is markets are not unregulated, and actors are not all made equals. You wouldn't clean bathrooms for 5 bucks an hour, but others will. And it isn't because they have more affinities with detergents and less distaste for scrubbing dirt.

⬐ kwhitefoot

Employers would finally realize that cleaners provide an important and valuable service and would have to compensate them accordingly. Adam Smith's invisible hand would adjust incomes accordingly.

⬐ varelse

Why they will get done when they are priced sufficiently above doing nothing silly.

And that in turn will spur development of automation instead of Bezos like corner cutting across our entire society.

Now if those low wage to minimum wage gigs came with solid health insurance and a social safety net I might have a colder heart here but honestly I'm glad they're finally figuring out just how rigged the game has been against them all along.

To be fair, by worshiping the affluent and hoping that one day they will be among them when they almost certainly will never be, they played their part in enabling the system that holds them down, but it seems we're moving to the next chapter here at last.

⬐ eliaspro

That's IMHO one of the fundamental ideas behind a UBI: have market forces work this out by disarming the currently skewed employer/employee power relation through a UBI where no one would be forced to take on the most-demeaning jobs just to survive.

Right now a lot of the costs of such jobs are simply externalized to exploited employees - a UBI would cause the wages in those to rise to more fair levels.

⬐ bryanlarsen

Status and hierarchy are a great motivator for humans. UBI will feed and house you, but if you want a car or the latest iPhone, you'll need a job.

And playing the mating game is a lot easier if you have the appropriate status symbols, fancy clothes, et cetera.

⬐ josephcsible

Those motivators aren't the ones that disappeared in the last 18 months, though.

⬐ Jensson

Society seems to work just fine even when those people aren't working though. Are those jobs really that important if you don't notice when they aren't done? If they were super important you'd see wages go up until they get done.

⬐ josephcsible

> if you don't notice when they aren't done

But I have experienced effects of the labor shortage firsthand, e.g., getting somewhere only to see a "closed today due to lack of staffing" sign on the door.

⬐ ziml77

For decades people have fought hard against automation or against certain industries shutting down (e.g. coal miners fighting against renewable energy pushes). People are afraid not just about losing their current job but also of the total number of available jobs falling. UBI is a potential solution to this issue. People won't fight those kinds of changes if they know they'll still be able to survive perfectly well.

⬐ dantheman

UBI can't work - the math doesn't work. The pandemic trillions weren't paid for, and that's not enough for UBI.

⬐ s17n

Shitty jobs will have to get better, probably. This may mean that areas of the economy that depended on cheap mistreated labor shrink (eg the price of berries will go up), but that would be a good thing, morally.

⬐ dragonwriter

> I’m yet to hear an UBI proponent explain to me how those jobs would get done

The people that need them done would offer sufficient pay to induce people to do them [0]. If the need isn’t sufficient to offer enough to do that in the presence of a sustainable (non-hyperinflationary) UBI, then the job doesn't need done and the fact that it is happening now is just a demonstration of the exploitative nature of the current economy (which includes features like time limits and behavior testing that mean that not everyone means-qualified gets means-tested support.)

[0] which UBI makes easier, at the same maximum benefit level, than traditional means-tested welfare, by not cutting benefits rapidly with outside income.

⬐ dagw

Immigration. Make UBI only for citizens (and possibly permanent residents), and you'll have a large workforce who don't qualify for UBI and will have to take those jobs. Add a possible path to citizenship and you'll have people lining up at border to do all those jobs.

For the record, not a UBI proponent, nor do I think this is a good solution. It is however most likely solution, and how countries like Qatar have solved the problem.

⬐ Aunche

This is a great way to make your citizens entitled and lazy.

⬐ bullfightonmars

That sounds like the worst of both worlds! A codified two tier underclass. With one part in an unemplyed malaise, angry at having no purpose, and blind to the benefits they recieve. The other part an exploited class with no rights or benefits.

⬐ kube-system

That situation you describe is already the status quo today in the US, just replace “UBI” with “SSN”.

⬐ rmah

Just as an FYI, all permanent residents in the USA can get a SSN. You don't need to be a citizen.

⬐ kube-system

I understand, however there is a significant population of people without one.

⬐ nobodyandproud

It would only work, if the penalty for employing the illegal-to-hire were severe enough.

As others have pointed out already, this is already true today: We use undocumented-workers, recent immigrants who don’t know better, and prison labor.

Recently, prison labor use has been on the rise.

⬐ dagw

Recently, prison labor use has been on the rise.

Maybe losing UBI for N months could be a new standard punishment for certain crimes or a condition for parole. We'll let you out of prison early for good behavior, but no UBI for 2 years, forcing you to take those jobs no one else wants.

⬐ nobodyandproud

That’s interesting. For anyone with enough resources, though, it would be a slap on the wrist.

For example, I feel that certain high financial crimes are better served by percentage of net-worth, rather than exact dollar-figures.

Otherwise it’s a fixed cost of doing business.

⬐ Glyptodon

Pay more, design to minimize them, etc. If society can't function because nobody will work for $5/hr to clean up after people trashing public restrooms, or to get heat stroke doing who know what in 100F+ heat, society should change.

⬐ Jochim

You'd have to start treating them like people.

⬐ Ekaros

UBI would be on level where you get your room, clothes, basic healthcare and food. Want to get new fancy Samsung instead of basic model. Better go to clean bathrooms for a few days or weeks.

⬐ josephcsible

The problem is too many people are happy to stay with the basics forever if it means they never have to work again.

⬐ imtringued

That would imply that most people work more than they want to.

If they are truly happy with the basics, then they would be happy with working 16 hours a week on two days. The truth is that the earning opportunity that allows this, forces them to live in an expensive location that then burdens them with another 24 hours of pointless busy work.

⬐ soared

This is the core disagreement of ubi v. Anti-ubi people. Also a common disagreement right now over unemployment, covid payments, disability payments, etc.

⬐ DoreenMichele

I don't think either group is a monolith. As one data point, I am anti UBI for a completely different reason.

⬐ josephcsible

Out of curiosity, what's your reason?

⬐ DoreenMichele

Stated as a single reason: I don't think it works.

⬐ josephcsible

I was pro-UBI until last year. The labor shortage we're in now is what changed my position on it.

⬐ fragmede

Why is that a problem? As long as they're on the basics, and I have the same option to not work as well, it's harder to be jealous of them. If the 'basics' TV is 32", and with my working I've got a 85" TV that dwarfs theirs (if my self-worth is wrapped up in the size of my TV, that is). If I don't want an 85" TV, I can similarly not-work.

If I work hard and then win the lottery playing $2 tickets (so it already doesn't matter how hard I work), I can already not-work for the rest of my life. So the question isn't if this is possible, it's how many people can be supported at a 'basics' level with current technology.

⬐ josephcsible

> Why is that a problem?

Because there's a bunch of jobs important to society that won't get done. To be clear, it's okay that some people decide not to work. The problem is that currently, too many people are deciding not to work. If we eventually automate a bunch of low-skill jobs away, then I'd agree that it wouldn't be a problem anymore.

⬐ Jensson

Currently there are no important jobs that aren't done. Labor shortage might have reduced some opening hours, or reduced your choice of restaurants to go to, or increased some prices, but it hasn't actually harmed society in any significant way. If that is the cost of UBI then it is worth it.

Fact is we have already automated away most trivial work, the remaining low skill labor is mostly there for the convenience of those with money. Society wont collapse if they aren't done.

⬐ josephcsible

If all the labor shortage did were increase prices, then it wouldn't significantly harm society. The problem is that for a lot of things, even though (for example) I'd be willing to pay a higher price, not enough other customers would be, so sales drop to the point that the business can't cover its fixed costs and shuts down.

Also, I think "reduced your choice of restaurants to go to" really undersells how bad that is. It's a bunch of small business owners losing everything they've ever worked for.

⬐ DocTomoe

They would get done by paying them better. And at some point, automation would be cheaper than labour.

That being said: Unloading trucks is a solved problem that can be automated with sufficient containerization.

⬐ ianhawes

> That being said: Unloading trucks is a solved problem that can be automated with sufficient containerization.

Go read https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedexers and let me know how solved that problem is.

⬐ api

The most likely outcome is that they would be outsourced to people who don’t know anything other than menial labor.

There are better ways such as variable work weeks and gig/day labor for easily acquired menial labor (on top of UBI), but that may be a bigger shift in culture than UBI.

⬐ aaomidi

Here's a non UBI/anarchist/no state explanation:

If something needs to be done and no one does it, then

1. Does it ACTUALLY need to be done? 2. The society starts just start splitting the work and doing it together.

This is strength of mini-governance. You're doing it because you care about the community and EVERYONE is responsible for it. Not a class system.

⬐ nsonha

People's jobs aren't just sources of income, it can be their dignity. I don't have an answer to how to create non bullshit jobs since those are rarer these days, but highly repetitive jobs don't sound like they can give you dignity or meaning in your work.

⬐ anonfornoreason

I loaded trucks earlier in life for a few years and loved it. Shit pay, hard work, good camaraderie, very satisfying end result. Would I want to do it for a career? No way. Did I learn a ton about the pleasures of hard work and a good team? Absolutely. I’d actually directly attribute that job and a couple others as the foundation for what it took to build a business of my own.

So many of the comments in this thread are so absolutely horrifying to me. Bunch of spoiled people thinking there isn’t a space for entry level jobs, like they’ve never held one themselves.

That being said, would I have jumped on the unemployment train back then if it got bumped up due to a pandemic? Definitely. Do I think people should advocate for living wages? Absolutely. Twenty years ago when I had my last entry level job, cost of living was half what it is now, but pay has only gone up by 50%. There are real issues, but they aren’t due to jobs being “demeaning”, they are with wages not keeping up with inflation.

⬐ lordlic

I've held one myself, and what I think is "absolutely horrifying" is your moralistic justifications for worker exploitation as being simply bestowing "the pleasures of hard work" and "the foundation for what it took to build a business of your own."

Your hustle-culture narrative is appallingly toxic and your entire argument amounts to learning to love being treated like garbage so that you don't feel bad when you do it to others once you're the one on top.

⬐ anonfornoreason

Definitely was not treated like garbage. Obviously not all entry level jobs treat people well (or even fancy jobs, ever read a comment thread on being a software dev for Amazon?), but just because jobs are low pay does not mean they are exploited.

Seriously, do you expect six weeks of paid vacation and 30 bucks an hour for running a till at an ice cream shop? I can see maybe 18 an hour at an ice cream shop, but even at that price I’d be shocked if you don’t lose business due to a cone costing 5 bucks instead of 4.

Maybe this conversation would be helped by understanding what you define “exploited” and “treated like garbage” to be, and some examples of how that is happening. I feel we must be talking past eachother, because it’s hard to understand how there’s a valid argument for non skilled labor to command a high salary.

Again for reference I believe that wages haven’t kept up with inflation and that a minimum wage of around 18 or so an hour would be appropriate given the cost of living increases we’ve seen in the last 12 months.

⬐ ScaleneTriangle

Better pay, better working conditions.

⬐ bombcar

Simple - make UBI not available to immigrants and immigrants will do all the shitwork.

⬐ FooBarBizBazz

This is basically how the Gulf States work.

⬐ bombcar

This could refer to the Persian Gulf or the Gulf States of America, sadly.

⬐ FooBarBizBazz

I see what you mean about an "illegal" or work-visa underclass, but I'm not seeing the UBI. To be born Kuwaiti confers many privileges unavailable to those merely born Texan!

⬐ profile53

I dislike reading this, but it's unfortunately true and something you already see everywhere in the world when immigrants can't access basic social services and are easier for people to exploit.

⬐ heavyset_go

You want more money than UBI offers? You get a job on top of it.

⬐ throw123123123

They would get done - at a higher price. The more aid you give to the lowest end workers, the more you need to pay them to do that work at all.

⬐ maxerickson

Most unskilled labor was mechanized 100 years ago.

⬐ baby

Automation and raising wages.

⬐ MisterBastahrd

iPhones, vacation money, nicer clothes, money to go out and do things, etc.

When everything is locked down, what's the point of looking nice in fancy clothes that nobody can see you wear?

⬐ lordlic

If the jobs really need to get done, then the working conditions and wages offered will improve until someone's incentivized to do them. Usually people's objection to this is "but this will raise the prices of consumer goods!" And the answer is yes, yes it will. Better-off people used to cheap goods/services will no longer be able to fuel their consumption on the backs of people getting paid very little for work under dehumanizing conditions, and will end up with a net loss. Lower-class workers will see their incomes increase much more on a proportional basis and end up with a net benefit.

On a more meta note, this is an incredibly common and obvious answer to your question, and I wonder if it's even asked in good faith. If you've "yet to hear an UBI proponent explain" this to you then you really don't understand it at all.

⬐ jbboehr

> Lower-class workers will see their incomes increase much more on a proportional basis and end up with a net benefit.

Except their goods are going to cost more too now. Unless you're going to start proposing price controls.

I can't really see UBI doing anything except inflating itself away.

⬐ randomname93857

I remember seeing interview on TV with a McDonalds worker in Switzerland. She said, They are paid about 35 Euro/hour. and they are happy to work at McDonalds ! One of comments from the reporter was that higher salaries increase the price of BigMac by some cents( I remember that it was about 50cents) due to higher salary comparing to cost of BigMac in US. I wonder, Could this be a way to fix the lack of employees? /s

⬐ dilyevsky

If you ever gone to mcdonalds in switzerland you’d know that minimum bill is like $50 (that was still basically at least 50% cheaper than the next inexpensive place I found in Zurich) so I’m not sure that statement about the price is correct.

⬐ gruez

1. Switzerland is a lot more wealthy than the US

2. The wage of the burger flipper at mcdonalds might not contribute much to the overall price of a big mac, but the wage of the burger flipper plus the wage that was factored into the cost of the ingredients might.

⬐ CydeWeys

Fwiw, when I was there four years ago the meal prices were in the $13-15 range, so quite a bit more than I was used to. But if that makes for a more equitable society, good.

⬐ dilyevsky

Where? I still remember that $60 that google gave me for food was barely enough for one meal in zurich ~10 years ago

⬐ CydeWeys

That would've been in Geneva, with prices similar to Zurich. There's no way you couldn't feed one person on $60.

⬐ Jensson

Then swiss mcdonalds massively lowered their prices since, you ate at a special mcdonalds or you eat huge meals consisting of many burgers. Or you remember wrong. Last time I ate there a big mac didn't cost more than $7. It is expensive, but not that expensive.

⬐ breadbreadbread

If the cost of labor goes up, increasing the consumer cost of goods (inflation) is only one way of offsetting that labor cost. That cost can also be offset by A) Reducing shareholder profits B) reducing management profits C) government subsidies D) reducing capacity.

Companies in America are incredibly top-heavy, and a more stable economy could emerge if those resources at the top are distributed down to the worker. If implemented properly, UBI could push companies to share more of those profits with their workers without affecting the buyer.

Additionally capital generates more social value when it circulates (when its being spent) vs when it is stagnant (when it sits in a bank). Even if things are more expensive, more people having access to things allows local economies to grow

⬐ lordlic

Their goods will cost more, but they'll also have more income, both from employers paying more for labor and from the direct payments from UBI.

And even if the benefits are entirely "inflated away" in aggregate (which is extremely dubious given that UBI produces real economic value in terms of stability), that's just the aggregate effect. To take an extreme example, if the Fed prints 1,000,000 exadollars and distributes them equally, then yeah it's pure inflation, but it also massively redistributes wealth to the point where everyone is practically identical. Hopefully that example demonstrates that the effect isn't zero even if it's just "inflating itself away."

Finally, I object to treating this question in pure economic terms. We shouldn't be overly concerned with optimizing aggregate economic outcomes for society. Those at the top end can more than afford to give up some wealth, and those at the bottom are struggling to a heartbreaking degree. The utility function of holding wealth is not linear and if you're interested in increasing everyone's well-being then that's a fact you have to address.

⬐ jhncls

How will printing money lead to redistributing wealth? The wealthy will still have their properties, their stocks, their personal connections, their education, ... . When the water level rises, all boats will rise together.

⬐ Boxxed

Because the proportions change. OP used exadollars in his/her example to show that giving money equally to everyone evens things out.

⬐ babesh

Governments don’t generally do it that way. Usually they just seize assets.

That is because if you print exadollars then either the assets rise in value in proportion or beyond a certain point, implode, making the country as a whole poorer. That is because companies can no longer make money. Suppliers demand more anticipating further inflation. You then need to pass it on but may not be able to pass it on fast enough. Cycle builds upon itself.

Pretty soon, your currency is completely devalued and there is a robust underground economy. You run into shortages for essentials and have to introduce price controls. The poor get poorer. The rich get poorer. Good job.

Lebanon. Venezuela.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/money-credit-debt-ray-dalio

⬐ josephcsible

> Better-off people used to cheap goods/services will no longer be able to fuel their consumption on the backs of people getting paid very little for work under dehumanizing conditions, and will end up with a net loss. Lower-class workers will see their incomes increase much more on a proportional basis and end up with a net benefit.

This is totally backwards. Better-off people have more disposable income and are less sensitive to price increases than lower-class workers are. For example, suppose your favorite restaurant raises its prices from $10 to $15 per meal. If you're a tech worker, you probably won't care and will continue eating there as often as ever. If you're an unskilled worker, there's a good chance you'll never go there anymore.

⬐ Glyptodon

If you're an unskilled worker, you probably didn't go there to begin with and so long as you're net ahead when going to Food City it seems like a net positive.

I don't know if you've ever worked with people in low socioeconomic strata, but I've been a camp counselor with some kids who's socioeconomics were such that eating off the dollar menu at McDonalds on their birthday was a big deal. I don't think Chipotle being more expansive is a material concern so long as actual purchasing power goes up.

I tend to think the minimum wage should be regarded as a moral concern - if you can't make enough to live decently then the line between effective indentured servitude and freedom is eroded, and this is dangerous in a society premised on the general welfare being such that each citizen has enough leisure time to be educated and vote.

⬐ josephcsible

Okay, a slight change to my example: what if instead of a meal at a restaurant, it was the price of broccoli at grocery stores that went up 50%?

⬐ Glyptodon

I don't think broccoli would matter unless it were already the cheapest vegetable with no substitute good and common to the cuisine of specific person.

But if you're trying to generalize the idea that increasing minimum wage would lead to an inflation death spiral because labor is too high a percentage of cost of staple goods... I'm not sure I buy it, though agriculture is definitely one of the industries most impacted by low cost labor (I don't know what they pay the folks crossing the border at 3 AM to pick lettuce in Yuma in 100+ degree heat, but it's not a lot). But my general sense is that the labor to harvest isn't most of the component cost of lettuce, there's transport, refrigeration, irrigation, pesticides, etc., so you can probably assume doubling minimum wage doesn't do anything like double the price of lettuce. If you believe that the labor to pick lettuce is 50% of the cost of lettuce, your worst case for a 2x wage increase is a 1.5x gain in the price of lettuce, which means the low end of the economy is getting net purchasing power growth, but more realistically, I can't imagine that picking lettuce is 50% of the cost, meaning low-end labor wage increases can't have near that much impact on prices.

My assumption is that the issue with higher labor costs is foreign competition at lower cost with lower standards causing a competitive issue and net less business more than it's an "wages increasing the price and causing an inflation issue." (IE the general "US must have 3rd world wages because otherwise it can't compete with the 3rd world" idea.)

But in my view so long as the increase in minimum wage creates an increase in overall purchasing power greater than any follow-on cost of inflation, it's probably net positive, and should be more efficient because the more normalized wages and living conditions are circa median income, the greater benefit to economies of scale and services and such for that group. Having too many poor and too many distinct socioeconomic bands is bad for the market because it means that the next model-T type product will be more likely to fail. So dealing with the issue caused by competing with lower-wage producers outside our boarders should be addressed separately. (For example, subsidizing US labor's wages by how deficient the living standards of competing labor is, or some other, smarter, plan, someone smarter than me comes up with.)

⬐ jniedrauer

The food supply chain is already mostly automated. Food is not cheap because of the service economy. It's cheap because it only requires work from a very small percent of the population to feed everyone else.

⬐ CydeWeys

Yup. And some foods are unbelievably automated. There are GPS-guided, self-driving combine harvesters that will harvest an entire field of grain with essentially zero input of labor. Higher labor costs might somewhat increase the cost of some of the more labor-intensive crops, but your basic staples will still be cheap. If anything it's the cost of truck drivers that might have the biggest effect.

⬐ lordlic

That just doesn't add up. Even without progressive taxation, if you give everyone a flat increase in income then lower-income people come out ahead relative to where they were before wrt the average. It's directly a wealth transfer from classes paying more taxes per capita to those paying less taxes per capita. There's no hand-wavy economic argument about how, actually, lower-income people would be worse off if we gave them money.

⬐ josephcsible

I'm not saying giving money to lower-income people hurts them. I'm saying the price increases will hurt them more than the money they get will help them.

⬐ lordlic

In other words, you're saying that it hurts them...

⬐ CydeWeys

Logically speaking, this doesn't make any sense.

⬐ dragonwriter

> I'm not saying giving money to lower-income people hurts them. I'm saying the price increases will hurt them more than the money they get will help them.

For that to be true, the price increase of goods purchased by the poor induced by the additional income would have to be a greater multiple than the additional income of the poor; this doesn't make any kind of sense.

⬐ aazaa

tldw: They realize that job security is an illusion.

Aside from the problem that zero evidence is presented that "employees aren't returning to work in America," the idea that they're freelancing instead is just outlandish. It's the kind of thing you might expect a successful but out-of-touch entrepreneur to spout.

Paycheck-to-paycheck living, which has been amply documented, means you have no agency. You work or you begin your journey down the social ladder. Often you do both. Assuming employees aren't returning to work, there can only be two reasons:

1. there are no jobs, despite what employers might be saying; or

2. government transfers (extended unemployment, etc.) have been keeping them afloat.

Extended unemployment (extra $300/week) ended in all 50 states around Labor Day.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2021/09/05/unemplo...

That leaves just (1). It's a doozy, because if jobs have really disappeared and government transfers are really done, then we are about to witness what happens when millions of people suddenly don't just lose their jobs, but their ability to pay for basic needs.

⬐ hh3k0

Third possibility: Full-time work allowed employees to scrape by but provided them little more than that. They neither have a home to call their own nor do they have any possessions worth mentioning. Health care coverage is often absymal on top of that. Why work full-time for that? You can have all that living a homeless/drifter lifestyle, working odd jobs here and there.

⬐ lph

Sure, job security for many has collapsed in a way that makes traditional jobs less appealing. That's a good insight. But "everybody wants to follow their dreams and go into business for themselves!" is sort of an LOL Hacker News caricature. Low-wage workers already knew they had no job security. They didn't need a pandemic and recession to show them that.

What I want to know is why aren't wages going up? Isn't that the textbook free market thing that should happen when the entire economy is having trouble hiring?

⬐ mst

I remember reading about cases where a minimum wage increase in a particular area actually benefited employers because they've had less turnover as a result so saved on training and ramp-up costs - but (effectively) none of them could convince themselves to do that spontaneously.

I keep wondering if a similar thing is happening here.

⬐ Beached

in my area I have seen low wage jobs like McDonald's and stocking shelves advertised at 12$ before the pandemic, I now see them publicly advertising starting at 14/15 and even 18$ for the super market.

from the outside looking in. it does appear to have gone up a little in those jobs, but it doesn't appear to have gone up in any other job (like mine)

⬐ axiolite

> What I want to know is why aren't wages going up?

Who says they aren't? Every business around here has a banner about hiring, usually listing a $1,000 bonus, and hourly wages are shown at least 20% higher than they were pre-pandemic.

Amazon is pretty desperate to hire, with $3,000 bonuses, and talk of nation-wide $18/hr minimums.

https://www.reuters.com/business/amazon-hire-125000-workers-...

It seems that still isn't quite enough. But perhaps with the end of summer vacation, that picture may soon change.

⬐ nine_zeros

These reasons are valid even in the tech industry - especially for engineers.

I can see engineers making $400k/yr quitting as if it is nothing. They just can't see themselves being treated like a cog in the wheel, reporting to incompetent management.

From my conversations, these engineers just tired of reporting to managers who are not technically as skilled as them but have large boss egos. They don't want to be treated as subservient slaves with a paycheck. They especially don't want to report to paper pusher managers who only do performance reviews and suck all the visibility onto themselves - when the real output producers are the engineers.

To boot, these engineers have the financial means to just quit their previous bosses. Why spend your one life reporting to an incompetent management?

⬐ surfingdino

It is a huge problem in our industry. I have had people quit because of or be fired on a whim of a boneheaded slavedriver who couldn't explain what an API is if their own life depended on it. The banking industry if probably the worst for overblown egos of non-technical managers (who are proud of being non-technical) and their incompetence.

⬐ 2OEH8eoCRo0

I've stopped following Louis Rossmann. I care deeply about right to repair but these videos or all the other silly NY-bashing videos detract from the right to repair message.

⬐ breput

He has addressed this recently.

YouTube incentivises 10 to 20 minute videos and also there are more people interested in a shorter general interest video vs. a two hour long MacBook repair video. How many people who watch his videos aren't already 100% in favor of Right To Repair?

⬐ 2OEH8eoCRo0

That's what I guessed but it really doesn't really matter to me. I totally understand his reasoning but I remain unsubscribed. I hope he is successful in life, business, and his right to repair fight but the shallow 20 min anecdotal rant about NYC isn't for me.

⬐ MrStonedOne

This seems kinda silly to me.

The channel is named Louis Rossmann, not "Right to repair with Louis Rossmann" I don't know why the channel has to be only about right to repair, nor do i understand how these videos can distract from the right to repair message.

⬐ 2OEH8eoCRo0

How's all the NY/De Blasio negativity detract from the positive right to repair message? It made me, someone not from NY, unsubscribe.

It doesn't only have to be about right to repair.

⬐ aaomidi

> It made me, someone not from NY, unsubscribe.

If you're not going to support right to repair because you unsubscribed from a youtube channel then you didn't care about right to repair to begin with.

⬐ russelldjimmy

They said they cared deeply about right to repair. Can you show where they contradicted this?

⬐ drewcoo

Thank goodness it's only one reason. I was worried that if the workers of the US suddenly developed agency and started thinking for themselves, there could be many varied motivations.

⬐ trutannus

Fallacy of the Single Cause has become a popular ope-ed trope lately.

⬐ rickspencer3

I enjoy Louis Rossmann and all, and I've learned a lot about computers from his videos.

But this video is purely one lay person's opinion. I'd go as far to say "speculation."

⬐ SV_BubbleTime

One of the core arguments seems to be that ”you don’t need to go finding people to hire if you never let them go”.

The only people my company lost are the people who were making more on unemployment than at their job. Most were making $18/hr working, and $24/hr with the extended benefits. We allowed them to leave if it made more sense for them, as a favor to them, hoping they would return, some have.

All the other positions that we’re struggling to fill, are new positions. We need a sysadmin in Detroit and I can get one, not even close.

So… no, I don’t subscribe to this argument. We didn’t let a single person go, and are in the same boat as everyone else.

Covid was a great thing for the megacorps and I think we should consider if that was all coincidence or not.

Local resturants let people go, fast food places didn’t, neither can get enough people. My local Thai place can’t pay the $20/hr and signing bonus to match the McDonalads two blocks down. This is a particular blight on small business. Maybe if we could pay a level1 IT tech $95k/yr we might get one, but big Nope on that.

⬐ guenthert

> We allowed them to leave

Unemployment benefits are only paid after lay-off. Those who quit their job or a fired for misconduct won't get a cent.

⬐ SV_BubbleTime

Yes. We agreed to lay them off it if made more sense for them financially or for their health.

⬐ Ansil849

The claims in this video are absurd. It suggests that there are no stable jobs, which is patently false. If you want the promise of a steady job, however, you need to pick a field which will always be in demand. Off the top of my head: corrections, sanitation, healthcare, and the legal system.

⬐ abdel_nasser

Why is this on hackernews? Where were the youtube videos on HN duing occupy wallstreet? Are we really going to be a place to watch videogamedunkey videos and internet talking head videos?

⬐ ShamelessC

Ignoring your seeming disinterest in all of YouTube (fair enough), the creator of the video might be relevant to the Hacker News audience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Rossmann

I personally enjoyed the video. I guess there are a lot of business owners on HN? The message seemed fairly simple. People got fired and it was the last straw after dealing with their employer's bullshit pre-pandemic.

The lie sold by most office jobs in my experience is that if you're here for awhile; they will take care of you even when times are tough. If you're going to make it 100% about money; pay them more/don't fire them. Otherwise they can quit and not come back. That's the deal.

⬐ cyberpsybin

Wait till they unlink the health insurance and employment. It's another thing that corporations use to keep their wage slaves around. That will hit like a nuke on the job market.

⬐ gruez

>Wait till they unlink the health insurance and employment[...]That will hit like a nuke on the job market.

Considering that's already the case in most other developed countries, have we seen that sort of effect there?

⬐ bobsmooth

I've never had a person tell me they stayed at a job because of healthcare.

⬐ Ekaros

I have wondered why hasn't that been pushed through? To me it seems it would fix multiple issues. Like employers not wanting to employ people full-time because of benefits. Removing the benefit trap could be very effective.

⬐ m_ke

Because we live in the united corporations of America.

⬐ effingwewt

Goddammit, this is a perfectly succinct description and that enrages me so hard.

What ever happened to the American Dream? Corporations happened.

⬐ dustingetz

“dream”

⬐ BooneJS

But how many people saw how pointless working 9-5 was when they’re making low pay that barely covers daycare? They changed their spending habits and one parent stayed home with the kids.

⬐ AshamedCaptain

Youtube videos instead of articles at HN, youtube videos at wikipedia instead of actual references, etc.

⬐ uselesscynicism

What is this video? A random person wandering around and speculating?

This is Reddit content.

⬐ mdorazio

Personally, I don't buy this argument. Economics doesn't care about your feelings or your dreams. If you need money to pay your bills and the only way to get that money is to work a shit job, you will work the shit job.

Three things changed during the pandemic: 1) the government paid a huge amount of money to people to not work for a long time, 2) people got used to living much more cheaply than they had before due everything being closed, and 3) the immigration and trade market shifted significantly. So suddenly you have a large number of people who, at least temporarily, have options that they didn't have before and who probably aren't competing with the same size labor pool that they did before.

The whole narrative that Americans are suddenly waking up and realizing that they should all be entrepreneurs and follow their dreams is at best a feel-good second-order effect. It's a nice story, but the only reason new business starts are so high right now is because there were so many business closures last year. I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but I just haven't seen the data or economic theory to support this video's position.

⬐ junon

> the government paid a huge amount of money to people to not work for a long time

They did? I remember three teeny tiny payments. Certainly not enough to live on for a long time.

⬐ listless

I have at least 3 friends who were working retail jobs who were on unemployment for over a year. 1 has gone back to work. 2 still milk it. They just figured out how to live VERY modestly. It’s mostly trailers and video games.

⬐ kingTug

Trailers and video games sounds preferable to any type of "customer is always right" retail job. Retail jobs are abusive and cause depression. They are not viable careers. I too would live on the poverty line before returning to that life.

⬐ listless

I agree, but on the flip side, these guys aren’t doing anything to better themselves. They can’t hold down relationships and they wouldn’t be able to support a family anyway.

I don’t think this is the kind of behavior we want to incentivize. But you are right - we have GOT to bring some jobs back that pay a decent wage.

⬐ unpolloloco

Easy solution: pay more. Easy to get people to go back if they get paid well enough! At some point, the employer will find enough people to go back to work - and that point is what (economically) the job is worth. A lot of people realized their number is higher than they thought because their alternative was not as bad as they thought.

⬐ fragmede

It's still a dead end job though. Even if it pays $100k/yr, if that's all it'll ever be, it's just not worth if the alternative is something with an actual career path.

⬐ gruez

Considering the median wage in the US is around 35k, a 100k "dead end" job sounds pretty good.

⬐ CydeWeys

It also doesn't remotely sound "dead end" to me at all. That leaves you set for life; you're better off than most people. And if your partner also works ...!!

⬐ yibg

Spoken like a true tech elite. Most of the country would kill to get a “100k a year dead end job”.

⬐ giantrobot

If retail paid well, even if it was still a dead end unto itself, would allow people to save money. They would have options. Retail is a dead end job and barely pays above poverty level. They usually don't get any healthcare coverage either. Unless a retail worker is lucky or lives like a monk it's hard to make enough money to ever get ahead. One bad illness or injury can ruin them financially.

Retail could be a starting point for someone. It doesn't have to be a career. But with low wages and no benefits it's usually just enough to keep someone barely living.

⬐ CydeWeys

Any job making $100k/yr isn't "dead end". You don't need a career path because you've already reached the end of it. You can live quite comfortably almost anywhere in the US at that salary and thus need no further advancement. If $100k counts as "dead end" by your definition, then your definition is useless. What number would you put as the threshold if not $100k, or even something below it?

⬐ maxerickson

For several months last year there was a $600 a week federal unemployment supplement, and there has been $300 a week since the beginning of this year (it expired a couple weeks ago).

Netting out $400 a week (state+federal) isn't a huge amount of money of course.

Several other rules were also changed, but there are still limits on the number of weeks people can collect unemployment.

What I've seen here and there is that the states that ended benefits earlier did see a small bump in employment (but not a particularly meaningful one).

⬐ theflork

Massively, they did, yes. By both injecting money directly and taking away the burden of repayments. And this unemployment boost that expired is just one small piece of equation:

1 - unemployment boost 2 - stimulus payments 3 - extending unemployment to workers who would normally be ineligible (contractors etc) 4 - eviction moratorium 5 - mortgage forbearance programs 6 - student loans forbearance 7 - locally available , utilities payments pauses 8 - ppp grants

⬐ spoonjim

The stimulus checks were a very small part of the overall program.

⬐ dragonwriter

Those are the general stimulus payments, the upthread comment is referring to the temporary boost in unemployment to on-average full-replacement level instead of around 2/3, along with the temporary removal of job search requirements.

⬐ throwawayboise

Well you could also stop paying rent and not get evicted, so there's that.

⬐ wrycoder

There were many people making the equivalent of $50K per year, between federal and state payments. That was more than many of them made when working.

These are all expiring now, we'll see what happens next.

⬐ ctrlp

Did you go on unemployment benefits?

⬐ junon

Ah okay, that's the difference. No I didn't.

⬐ xvedejas

This is an important question. The pandemic response added both extensions to unemployment and additional payout beyond the typical maximum ($300/week extra, if I remember correctly). If you were laid off any time over the last 18 months, you would be making well over minimum wage by doing nothing. That's a pretty big incentive for plenty of people.

⬐ guenthert

If you received maximum benefits and the extra $300, then you got more than you would have earned on minimum wage. You'll receive however maximum benefit only if you earned fairly well before. So I don't see anyone getting more benefits than they could plausibly earn, if the jobs they held before were still available to them. Last year, for a time, $600 were paid in addition to unemployment benefit, which changed that equation.

⬐ giantrobot

> That's a pretty big incentive for plenty of people.

If $300 a week (before taxes) is a "big incentive" for people, they were being criminally underpaid before they lost their job.

⬐ bink

But if that were the case I'd expect to see the employment numbers dramatically shift in states that removed their unemployment assistance earlier than others, which I don't think we've seen any evidence of yet.

⬐ xvedejas

Has it been quite a month yet? If there is an effect I'd guess we won't even see it in the statistics yet, and that's without accounting for the fact that it takes time to find and start a job even in a favorable market.

⬐ downWidOutaFite

So far the evidence is that job growth is worse in those states.

https://www.reuters.com/business/amid-covid-surge-states-tha...

⬐ 2OEH8eoCRo0

Where have you been? Unemployment + direct payments

⬐ kristjansson

The stimulus payments were just that - extra money to stimulate economic activity - not assistance to those directly impacted. There was an order of magnitude or so more money (per recipient) available through the unemployment supplement programs, and a huge amount (meditated by employers) available through the PPP program.

⬐ Frost1x

>2) people got used to living much more cheaply than they had before due everything being closed

Not just more cheaply,the lockdowns forced many to become more self-sufficient and in many cases, they either needed or wanted to do some services they typically paid for. For example, if there's a type of food you were craving you'd normally just order, you probably tried to cook it. In many cases people learned it's not that hard, they too could do it, and it was portion of the cost. That's just eating out. People probably also tried all sorts of stuff like basic car maintenance, simple housework, etc. because they not only had incentives to save money, they also lacked access to services and had free time to give things a try themselves.

⬐ taurath

From talking to people, most people have realized how disposable they are to their employer, and the mythology around the dignity of work is broken - nurses, grocery workers, anyone in a restaurant, all considered “essential” got a little cheer on from society for a month, then turned to their management who told them to pound rocks if they think they deserve to not live in poverty for sacrificing their health and well being.

People are trying different stuff because everyone got a big jolt and woke up to what they were actually doing. Time having to be spent at home, with whomever they happened to be living with, and all external entertainment and distractions having gone away, lots of people saw how fundamentally unhappy their lives were, and want to do something about it.

⬐ Ericson2314

Fuck entrepreneurship. A tighter labor market, as you say, will be much better to spur more investment into automation — and thus us — than whatever wantrepreneurship trend the video is trying to hype up.

⬐ ctrlp

Agree and would emphasize these options are temporary. The sustainability of this labor program is dubious. People are going to wake up to a very different labor market when these benefits end.

⬐ maxerickson

What do you mean?

The US labor force is on track to be constrained for decades. If we don't massively expand immigration or figure out how to have more babies, that's where we will be.

⬐ ctrlp

I mean there is this UBI experiment is going to have a crushing impact on small business who can't afford to compete against the government and their preferred business partners for labor. This will produce a cascade of unemployed competing with each other for crappy jobs in the service sector. Meanwhile, the border is wide open and people are most definitely coming. Are they high-skill laborers? Hardly. They'll also compete for the low-skill agriculture, construction, and service sector jobs. The net-net will be that the Precariat will be driven to penury and servitude. Don't worry, they'll be masked so the rest of us don't have to see the anguish on their faces.

⬐ droidist2

At the same time we're automating away millions of jobs, so maybe we shouldn't be so quick to take measures to flood the labor market.

⬐ marcosdumay

Well, economies are severely path-dependent. It will be different from today, but it will also be different from the pre-pandemic.

⬐ MrStonedOne

the benefits have already ended. Places still can't get workers.

⬐ 2OEH8eoCRo0

Give it time.

⬐ MrStonedOne

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-20/employers...

⬐ MrStonedOne

https://twitter.com/DanPriceSeattle/status/14436282057352233...

⬐ breadbreadbread

Economics actually does care about your feelings and dreams. Its the study of how people spend money. People's individual values effects their spending habits, what they are willing to work for, and what businesses they start. Its literally a social science.

That said I also dont really agree with this video. I think it enforces a bootstraps-like view on how people should adapt.

Frankly I think we need a more empathetic economic system that rewards but does not demand entrepreneurship, and that values worker autonomy above all else.

⬐ gscott

4) Returning illegal immigrants has hurt the number of people available to work 5) People who used to be able to work multiple jobs work fewer jobs maybe due to higher pay or unavailability of the other jobs they had before, 6) a lot of people died who also worked.

⬐ HPsquared

Economics is fundamentally about peoples' feelings: their subjective valuation of various things, and the resulting decisions made in allocation of scarce resources to the most "preferred" ends. It begins and ends with value judgements.

⬐ jiocrag

Don’t forget almost perpetual swelling of normally uncorrelated assets across almost every class. More wealth in assets = less need to work for a segment of the population.

⬐ ffggvv

yeah, i’m sure it applies to a few thousand peoples but not the millions of jobless people. not everyone even has a dream they are passionate about following in the first place. for the most part people just want a stable job and to be able to enjoy their life outside work. there aren’t millions of new entrepreneurs out of nowhere. it’s a romantic idea

⬐ addicted

And real life does not care about economic models.

⬐ pempem

While I agree with your three points I simply do not understand why this narrative rarely, if ever, seems to take into account the fact that:

children cannot yet be vaccinated rules are based on a local level and changing all the time women are making a decision between work and managing their home and their children

a 2 income home is very common but also often enabled by external help, even if its babysitters or after school programs or kids hanging out at the park

⬐ MrStonedOne

> Economics doesn't care about your feelings or your dreams.

This is an example of business thinking gone wrong.

Economics prescribes behaviors to humans using logical and historical arguments, and tries work out how this scales up.

You can't use it to pretend humanity doesn't exist.

> If you need money to pay your bills and the only way to get that money is to work a shit job, you will work the shit job.

I think you'll find the rising homeless problem in every major city in america proves this wrong.

Sometimes you just get anxious and depressed until you fall into an addiction fueled rut and you end up homeless and clueless.

⬐ femiagbabiaka

yep, and funny enough, both your reply and OPs comment show the limits of economics as any sort of explanatory science for the behaviors of people at scale. It’s at some level basically reading tea leaves.

⬐ oliv__

I think you'll find the rising homeless problem in every major city in america proves this wrong.

How many millions of subsidies are being payed to handle these homeless people?

LA alone dedicated a BILLION dollars to help fix this. Yet here we are.

⬐ mbrodersen

How many houses were built for those BILLION dollars to house homeless? My guess is zero.

⬐ jasonwatkinspdx

And ironically enough the economics world has known that this naive perspective of microeconomic market rationality trumps all human behavior hasn't been true for quite some time. It's not like Kahneman and Tversky won the Nobel as some sort of fluke. It's a deflection by people who don't want to look at and address the problems of what's actually going on. And if you look at who makes these arguments, it's overwhelmingly one demographic category. Conclude what you want from that imo.

⬐ mgh2

Yes, having a job is hard and employers are not always the best, but working and being productive is more better than leeching in the long run - even hurting the believer unknowingly.

The above is good entrepreneurship propaganda though.

⬐ coffeefirst

We can also ask people why. When we do, we consistently hear a few things:

1. Reliable childcare still isn't a thing.

2. A lot of restaurant and retail workers had a full year to find something else to do. Many did. And why go back to working for tips if you found a junior marketing position that you can do remotely home and has a career path?

3. They moved! If you're a service job in an expensive city, many of the people you hoped to rehire relocated last summer and aren't necessarily itching to come back.

And that doesn't even cover the fact that a lot of the managers complaining about this really don't appear to be trying very hard. They don't want to pay market rate, or train anyone on the job, or offer a modicum of respect. Instead, they just call their would-be candidates lazy.

Calling people lazy is a great way to convince them to avoid you at all cost.

⬐ subpixel

I’ve been quite surprised by the attitude of local employers who are utterly contemptuous of workers not knocking down the door for what are essentially dead end jobs.

I’ve even remarked on occasion that hey, if you had a lousy job working for someone who took you for granted and something happened that changed that you might not rush back either.

⬐ oliv__

This only works when the Government acts as your daddy

⬐ heavyset_go

> 2. A lot of restaurant and retail workers had a full year to find something else to do. Many did. And why go back to working for tips if you found a junior marketing position that you can do remotely home and has a career path?

To this end, I have several friends who worked in the food industry pre-pandemic who have spent the last almost 2 years studying, finishing school and finding jobs in the tech sector.

Some are now working as software engineers after waiting tables two years ago. They aren't going back to working for tips any time soon.

⬐ edrxty

This brings up a good point. Most (all?) people get complacent to some degree or another. When you have a big event come along and disrupt, in particular, low paying jobs, suddenly the inertia of complacency is gone and people start looking for options. I think that's a large part of what we've seen here. That combined with the societal realization of how shitty service jobs are lead to a perfect storm of migration away from such jobs.

⬐ seanmcdirmid

> 3. They moved! If you're a service job in an expensive city, many of the people you hoped to rehire relocated last summer and aren't necessarily itching to come back.

From my experience, that point increases in resort towns where hospitality is mostly the only game in town and not so much in the expensive big cities with lots of other kinds of jobs. The expensive big cities are back to their outsized growth mode they were at before the pandemic, the resort towns are really hurting.

⬐ tlogan

Both you and parent’s comments are correct.

1) child care (schools and crap). Especially schools.

2) unemployment insurance

3) move out from expensive cities (where restaurants are)

4) immigrantions is stopped / shifted

5) people found different jobs

6) people living more frugal

7) people starting their own business

8) retiring

I personally saw each of the above. One’s political affiliation will ranks them differently…

⬐ OrvalWintermute

> 1. Reliable childcare still isn't a thing.

I think lack of reliable & economical childcare drives a series of tradeoffs that are in many cases strange to think about.

A - I have good / economical childcare, or supportive spouse, and I can do a demanding professional job

B - I have good childcare but it is too expensive. Considering the cost and tax burder of two workers, best I quit and let my husband/wife/partner/etc work only, and I stay home with the kids

C - I have neither good, nor economical childcare, or cannot afford it. I'm trapped into a bad situation. I don't have a spouse. Welfare/WIC/foodstamps/Section 8 is better than starving. I'll take that.

D - I have neither good, nor economical childcare, or cannot afford it. I'm trapped into a bad situation. I don't have a spouse. Jobs in my local area offer me nothing over Welfare/WIC/foodstamps/Section 8, so I will stay with that.

C & D both provide a strong argument for UBI. Although I am against communism, I do think that if we are going to do transfer payments, UBI is the least evil / most righteous approach, but I am concerned about the potential inflationary effects.

⬐ plaidfuji

Exactly this. I think there’s an option B.2 though, where you accept that childcare is more expensive than your job pays, but in the long run it’s worth it for you to keep working because you expect significant career growth in a few years and don’t want to interrupt that, I.e you’re in grad school / residency / other.

⬐ oliv__

They don't want to pay market rate, or train anyone on the job, or offer a modicum of respect

1. The market rate has been artificially increased through free government money.

2. Your employer doesn't owe you respect, they owe you a paycheck once your job is completed. Similarly you don't owe them respect, you owe them a job completed

⬐ politician

I suppose that if you’re willing to only negotiate for cash then your second point makes sense. However, oftentimes, people negotiate along more dimensions than raw day pay —- health benefits, vacation, work environment, title, etc.

⬐ ianhawes

Your first point (childcare) is probably one of the more understated points. When families have 2 children under 5, the cost of childcare for both children encroaches the income of one parent alone. Many find it more convenient just to stay home with their kids for 3-4 years than work just so their kids have childcare.

I don't know that there is much the government can do. Childcare facilities actually run on thin margins and turnover is high. State regulations are often aggressive towards child to caretaker ratios.

I would also suggest a 4th point:

4. People that were on the verge of retirement (within 5-10 years) that were either laid off and never re-entered the workforce or opted for early retirement.

Age discrimination probably sets in with folks 50 and over that want to either change careers or re-engage with their career path after time off due to the pandemic. Plus with the stock market seeing record gains, their retirement plans are probably looking very enticing.

⬐ jseliger

I don't know that there is much the government can do

Real estate is much of the cost keeping childcare high, particularly in big cities, which is to say left-leaning cities, and some movement is afoot to address this problem: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/19/opinion/supply-side-progr....

If cost of housing for the workers themselves is high, they'll also be forced to demand higher wages to compensate: https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-e...

⬐ jeromegv

I think a lot of people are now classifying NIMBY people as conservative, after all, they are advocating for the status quo and increase value of their personal property.

⬐ MichaelBurge

I don't think people care about property values. Otherwise they'd petition to have their house rezoned as high-density commercial/industrial, since properties with good zoning sell for a lot more.

⬐ CydeWeys

> I don't know that there is much the government can do.

One super obvious thing the government could do, that many other governments do successfully, is to simply run child cares. First grade used to be the first year of schooling then kindergarten was introduced, and now pre-K is common in a lot of places. Just keep going down a few more years, and boom, child care problem solved. This would solve a lot of the disincentives to having children, so you would think the people complaining about the low birth rate in the US would be in favor of it, and yet ..

⬐ teslabox

While it's a good to think about childcare, something more constructive needs to be done about growing up in the modern world than extending the caging of modern children.

John Taylor Gatto (iirc) advised keeping kids out of school as long as possible, as nothing important is learned in the first few grades that wouldn't be learned anyways, or couldn't be learned more efficiently later. http://johntaylorgatto.com/

If the government were to extend school-as-childcare, it could be done in a way that restores the ability of children to learn from the real world. I don't know what 4, 5, 6 and 7 year olds should be learning, but imho Pre-K, K, 1st and 2nd grade "classrooms" are stifling.

Gatto's essay, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, is all over the interwebs.

What did Native Americans teach their 4 year olds?

⬐ michaelbrave

I think Japan does well with schooling small children, they mostly focus on teaching manners, how to clean up after yourselves, how to play well with each other, that kind of thing. It may be worthy of emulation.

⬐ zbrozek

Looking back at my own school experience, I don't think I learned anything of value in the formal lessons of school until third grade. But being around other kids and maturing together was quite-worthwhile. I probably could have done that hanging out with the neighborhood kids playing on the street.

⬐ CuriouslyC

The experience of being around other children can frequently be pretty awful for a lot of kids. There are a lot of asshole children out there who belong in a zoo rather than a school. Socialization is good, but forced socialization under a poorly run authoritarian regime, not so much.

⬐ sologoub

Pandemic of course messed with much of the social infra the world over, BUT no real social option for child care in a developed country is a very USA problem. Good family leave policy (1 year+) and wide availability of kindergarten-type facilities (no it’s not a “grade” in childcare, it’s a type of a facility) with universal guarantee of availability are the norm elsewhere and do wonders to enable parents to work.

When caring for a newborn for more than a few weeks means one becomes unemployed, no wonder families decide to not play that game until kids are a bit older. Otherwise, you look for a job just to risk needing a leave that can result in loss of this job if the kid gets sufficiently sick.

⬐ refurb

And when childcare facilities close due to Covid?

⬐ specialist

Adapt.

Restructure child care to account for pandemic. Smaller group sizes, no intra-mingling, contact tracing, nordic style outdoor classes, etc.

Ya, it costs more. Whatever. Investing in childcare is LONG overdue.

⬐ rossdavidh

Interesting second order affect:

lack of childcare -> smaller available labor pool -> disproportionate difficulty hiring in childcare (because it doesn't pay well) -> continued lack of childcare

We could actually be looking at a bistable system, in which (because childcare jobs are towards the bottom end of the pay spectrum) you don't get available childcare unless you have surplus labor, and until you have available childcare you will have a labor shortage.

The solution would be the pay more for childcare, but that money has to come from somewhere, and a lot of people who require it cannot pay a lot more. A conundrum...

⬐ yardie

You could almost say that reliable childcare is necessary infrastructure as bridges and highways are. Almost.

⬐ TheSocialAndrew

We could always invite in more au-pairs using the J1 visa. Many au pairs end up taking up college here and switch to an F1 visa. This system is tested and works well.

⬐ Beldin

Somehow I don't think it's jobs that pay enough to afford an au pair that have trouble recruiting.

⬐ fragmede

If only there were some sort of system, by which the richest people would give money to some sort of a shared pool, and the money in that pool could be given out to pay of childcare. It's pretty out there, I know!

⬐ washadjeffmad

Heck, or they could just fund the DoD budget exclusively from the top marginal tax rate because that's who's profiting off war anyway.

⬐ rossdavidh

Yeah, crazy talk...

⬐ nightski

You could start by providing child care for free. Just pay a few thousand a month out of your salary and you can cover a few children!

I'm sure there are plenty of parents in the neighborhood willing to take this offer.

⬐ gajjanag

There is one aspect that helps with this in certain cultures, namely grandparents. Grandparents are usually thrilled to spend time with young grandchildren.

This is an age old mechanism that mostly alleviates two problems simultaneously - old age care, and the two working parents situation.

The other option (which also works nearly as well) is what other commentators mentioned - European style subsidized childcare/old age support.

The USA shuns the first culturally (I get strange looks from people when I say I am happy working and living with my parents), and shuns the second culturally as well as politically. Some awareness/willingness to learn from history/other cultures would fix that, but I am not holding my breath.

⬐ Chyzwar

Grandparents only work if your parents retired or your grandparents are alive and functional. Current generations millennials and Z have grandparents dead(shorter average lifespan, waiting with having children) and working parents(economic situation, better healthcare). Not only that, but you also need to live close by. We are migrating way more than before, there are whole cities in Europe and US left with retirees. You also need to have a larger house to host grandparents. Millennials have a worse economic situation than boomers.

Current life of young people look like:

  — Get expensive degree
  — Move to expensive city for jobs
  — Hard to find partner
  — Cannot afford to start family, postpone children
  — Have children without family support 
  — Get into high level of debt

There two things happening

  — People have less or no children. This lead to increased taxation and increasing retirement age in many countries. It often causes social unrest when governments try uncontrolled external immigration to fill the gaps. 
  — People try to live frugal lives, reduce spending and try to save for retirement individually. This disturbs housing market and stall country economy and destroy luxury brands.

⬐ patentatt

Also your parents have to not suck. My ‘greatest generation’ grandmother took care of me a lot when I was a kid, and my children’s two boomer grandmothers really can’t be bothered. Yet another anti-boomer trope, but so real in my life.

⬐ jasonwatkinspdx

I don't have kids, but my parents treat my brother's kids like plague rats to be avoided. It's very sad because the kids love them but the ship sailed on changing who my parents are now a long time ago.

I wish more people that pull out the moralizing "everyone should just" would understand that just maybe the rest of us don't have a life that looks like theirs, and not for reasons under our control.

⬐ cecilpl2

> I don't know that there is much the government can do.

Universal subsidized childcare like most developed countries?

⬐ PraetorianGourd

It’s not a matter of access for many. The universal subsidized childcare of primary education was closed for over a year, and subsequently private childcare couldn’t keep up with demand. Combined with the fact that existing childcare providers couldn’t necessarily expand their sizes due to distancing needs and labor shortages

⬐ hellbannedguy

I wonder about Universal Childcare, and it's not that it's not needed.

I wonder who's going to provide it.

Being male, I don't know if I would even venture into the area. I couldn't imagine being interrogated by parents, and the whole vetting process. And yes--it might make more sence for a woman to open up a child care facility? The list of government regulation must get onerious too?

Where are we going to find all these babysitters?

Second--the money will come on the form of a federal tax credit. Why do I feel that money will end up going to other things a young family needs?

At this point, I'd rather see a Basic Income that goes to all low income Americans. They could use the money for anything.

⬐ CydeWeys

You could make similar arguments about any government job that requires lots of manpower (schools, the military, sanitation, whatever), and yet they do find the workers. That's not a problem. Your average government job is a lot better than your average fast food/retail job in terms of pay/benefits/job stability, so they'll definitely find the employees.

⬐ gizmo686

Tax credits are not the only mechanism for government funding.

We already have a very successful model of government provided childcare: the public school system.

⬐ heavyset_go

> At this point, I'd rather see a Basic Income that goes to all low income Americans. They could use the money for anything.

If you apply this logic to other government subsidized programs, where we remove the subsidies and give people some cash, you'll quickly run into problems.

Look at how much money it costs to simply buy health coverage on the individual market for a family with one kid with no subsidies. It's $16k - $24k in yearly premiums, with $6k - $12k yearly deductibles, and $17k+ yearly out of pocket maximums. Almost all of the proposed UBI amounts would go towards just the premiums alone, without even getting into deductibles, out of pocket maximums, copays or out of network care.

The situation many families would face would be a choice between being able to see a doctor, receiving adequate and safe childcare, paying rent, etc.

⬐ Clubber

Childcare lobby doesn't pay enough for that. All joking aside, I wonder if some people had one of those near-death experiences during the pandemic and realized wasting the only life you have slaving away at some dump for chump change wasn't a great path to be on.

⬐ specialist

Something like that.

⬐ tibiahurried

> the cost of childcare for both children encroaches the income of one parent alone

That's the case in the US. In countries where family welfare policies exist and where governments incentive and support families: that's hardly the case. Childcare is pretty much free or does not cost as nearly as much as in the US.

I think the US may be an advanced country for many aspects, but it is just ridiculously behind when it comes to healthcare and families.

⬐ bentlegen

Subsidized childcare. That’s it, that’s the secret. Societies that value their workforce use tax dollars to fund childcare.

⬐ CydeWeys

Or better yet, government-run healthcare. Subsidies have the unfortunate problem of being swallowed whole by rentseekers (see: college loans vs college tuition costs).

⬐ EricE

>(see: college loans vs college tuition costs)

College is easily five to ten times more expensive then when I went in the 90's - and the vast majority of that increase is from government guaranteed student loans. No risk on the part of the schools, so they jack tuition up with a bunch of amenities because they are getting paid, no matter what. Handing out $100K+ to people with little guarantee of getting it back? Where else can that happen but within our insane student loan system?!?

Articles like this is what brought it home to me: https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/tricked-college-campuses-wa...

Give me a break! I think that schools should be on the hook for at least half a loan if someone can't get a job and earn enough that will let them pay the loan back within a fixed time - say six years. That would tamp down a lot of this utterly unrealistic spending for degrees that have little chance of ever returning any meaningful value for what is paid out.

⬐ andrekandre

  > I don't know that there is much the government can do. Childcare facilities actually run on thin margins and turnover is high. State regulations are often aggressive towards child to caretaker ratios.

ive heard the 3.5T infrastructure bill will have alot of provisions for childcare, i wonder how much that will help the situation?

⬐ twobitshifter

For childcare, it is not just cost-cutting, but that parents discovered that they preferred spending time with their children to wallowing in Outlook all day.

⬐ axiolite

> When families have 2 children under 5, the cost of childcare for both children encroaches the income of one parent alone.

Except: 1) That was true BEFORE the pandemic, yet there was no labor shortage. 2) Salaries have gone up due to the (temporary) labor shortage, so it should be easier for more parents to justify childcare costs.

So I don't see that it has anything to do with the current situation.

⬐ sathackr

Childcare costs have gone up also. As have most other cost of living metrics. That's what inflation is.

Full time child care in Brooklyn, NY was $2000/mo for 1 child when I inquired earlier this year.

⬐ washadjeffmad

Reinforcing your 4th point, I was shocked by how many old mules who had big plans to pack it in until they were 75 suddenly called it quits after a year off with their families.

They weren't all the highest earners, but relinquishing their spots in the org chart freed up a lot for the frustrated younger people who put in 10-20 years but could never meaningfully move up, either by responsibility or compensation.

I remember the same thing happening in 2008 in the private sector then in 2010 in public but with the opposite effect. So many people that had put everything in the stock market and housing suddenly saw themselves pushing off retirement for another decade. A neighbor offered for me to take over the last 20% of a mortgage on a home because he'd sold his primary residence and had retired to Florida right before the crash, and I still don't know why I turned him down. It would have been a 800% return today, which is just stupid.

⬐ mensetmanusman

All you have to do is require companies to offer child care facilities when building real estate. Having a parent just a few minutes away makes working and parenting more possible with young children.

⬐ tcmart14

The child care point has been my wife's and I's position for the past three years. She pretty much did not work a job because it would have cost more to put two in day care than she would have brought in.

⬐ sudosysgen

Childcare can definitely be made much more efficient. Here in Quebec we have 7$/day and 8.5$/day childcare, the total budget is 2.5 billion dollars for an 8.6 million people population.

⬐ refurb

I’ve heard getting spots can be exceedingly difficult.

Funded, but not really funded so readily accessible.

⬐ sudosysgen

Getting spots in a CPE can be very difficult. Getting spots in a family daycare that's not fully regulated is really not that difficult, unless you live in a really underserved area. Where I live, there are ads for spots in family daycare, and these aren't that uncommon. It's not what's best but it's better than having to quit your job.

It could definitely use an extra 30% of funding, but there is also a severe lack of trained staff for high quality childcare because people just don't want to deal with that.

⬐ hirako2000

The dogmatism of putting all women to work for the last 50 years. Here we are, women have gotten their "equal" pay (rightly so) and are nearly all employees or freelancers. After a long battle, so of course childcare like everything else needs paid. Most social workers are women. What's the way out, migrants from poorer countries? Just pushing the problem for later.

We are waking up to the fact this model cannot work for the overall population. It has been promoted by those who would greatly benefit from having everyone at work, and echoed by those who would somewhat benefit, and echoed more times all the way down to those who had everything to loose.

The problem of childcare cost is unsolvable with women at work, it's as simple as that. At best the average working woman will pay the same as she earns to afford full time child care. But if tax is taken into account, then it won't cover it. Or we squeeze more staff per child.

I think it will take some more time for most of us to come around to the reality of a model doomed to fail.

⬐ NikolaNovak

FWIW, I think your argument would earn a lot more consideration if you used a gender neutral term like "partner/spouse/parent" rather than "women", because it distracts from what I charitably assume is the seed of your point.

Certainly, my wife and I have ~semi-annual conversations on whether our lifestyle still makes sense (2 parents working, 2 kids under 5 in daycare:). There's definitely room to discuss that on societal level too. But there's no immediate assumption that my wife would necessarily be the one to quit work and spend extra time with kids - we're both engaged parents, both have our strengths and weaknesses, and once breastfeeding stage was complete both equally capable of parenting; and at the same time have both been career oriented and hold very successful positions.

in short:

"Are we as society on average supporting the model of two parents working" - a reasonable even crucial discussion to have.

"Should women be working" - hopefully settled a long time ago and anybody still questioning this will seem regressive at least, misogynistic more likely :-/

⬐ inside65

Not picking on you but this scenario is so common I find it borderline humorous as it is so outrageously ridiculous. Both parents working all day and the kids getting a mediocre upbringing under the care of strangers - now that's freedom! Thank goodness for democracy and equality helping us improve our society. Where would we be if only 1 parent worked and the other took care of the kids.

⬐ kiklion

> Both parents working all day and the kids getting a mediocre upbringing under the care of strangers

The only problem here is the ‘mediocre’ upbringing. My daughter is in a daycare where she is learning Spanish words/phrases in addition to English.

My daughter will be 2 in December and the daycare has her recognizing most letters, numbers, colors and shapes through dedicated practice. She uses tongs and spoons to practice picking up items and separating them by color or by number ‘grab 4 purple fuzz balls!’

These are teaching programs I would never have thought of at her age. I’d just point to fingers and toes and count to 10 or sing the ABC’s.

My daycare printed out paper with every letter and asks her to grab the letters of her name. Or she has an image with lower case letters on it and she asks my daughter to match the upper case letters out of a pile.

Long story short, raising kids newborn to 5 is a specialized skill just like teaching 5 to whatever, and society can benefit from having better educators for our children than what random adults turn out to be.

⬐ hirako2000

Giving birth can also be specialised. The argument doesn't address any of the concerns, it only points out that for those who can afford quality care, that care is superior to the natural caring of the parents. If only people could start looking at societal issues due to a system that is flawed rather than cherry pick personal beneficial situations that satisfies them to justify the broken system.

⬐ inside65

How much does that daycare cost and what area do you live?

⬐ twobitshifter

This is great for your family, but in the end just an anecdote. Babies can and have been raised by strangers successfully, and many would have had a more fulfilling upbringing with their own British nanny, but in most cases daycares are not being run to the highest standards.

It would be great if we could come up with a socially supported system that raised the standard of child-care, so that every child gets the same treatment as your daughter.

⬐ hirako2000

We would be back to the dark ages where women were chained to their husband's tyrany.

⬐ NikolaNovak

That too is a relevant discussion, but probably better off without sarcasm and with a little bit more intellectual honesty.

If I had to pick one point - it's that absolutely, yes, freedom is great, options are great. We HAVE the social and legal freedom to choose what lifestyle and combination makes the most sense for our family. And we weigh all the pros and cons and think of short and long term benefits and then have that discussion again few months later to see if anything has changed. We are lucky, blessed and privileged, on many different levels. So I don't feel picked on; I only wish more people here and around the world had the freedom, support and opportunities my wife and I have.

(as others have pointed out, daycare is not necessarily a bad thing. It's staffed by certified professionals who specialize in teaching kids - whereas let's be honest I'm just making it up as a parent. It's also great opportunity to socialize and make friends outside of their family. We don't see daycare as a downside - we see it as opportunity for our kids to get diverse experience between family and friends. As I said discussions revolve around all the many factors and options but certainly does not start from "daycare is bad" stance)

⬐ hirako2000

One could make the same argument that a professional cleaning service is better than our own ability to make things shine. The question is not only economical, but the economy is a call back to reality. A growing portion of the population cant provide decent care to their children.

⬐ CydeWeys

> It's also great opportunity to socialize and make friends outside of their family.

For what it's worth, everything I remember from daycare/preschool through elementary school was that it was a blast. Being home with just one parent instead of being/playing with other kids all day would've been way worse. Look at villages in developing nations: the young kids there run in packs, with free rein of everything, and are having an absolutely great time.

⬐ hirako2000

Point taken. My other comment hopefully clarifies the rather provocative choice of terms.

I think the debate hasn't been settled though. It wasn't so long ago that women were, for the most part, prioritising being a successful housewives rather than their careers. Surely they had little to no choice since society expected just that from them. I wouldn't argue that the pressure wasn't forcing their hands, but was a model where the roles were gender defined. The good thing with clearly defined roles for something as challenging as being a parent is that one can work towards developing the required abilities to become an adult well equipped when family comes around.

I do see your point though. Your parental situation is not a rarety any longer, a gender based role assignment can't de facto be most adequate.

I don't have a desire to regress. It does seem to me we have regressed though. We created created society of kids at day care then schools, and are only starting to see the contradictions that come with that.

⬐ iso1210

Two parents work 5 days a week because family houses cost so much they're unaffordable unless you have two parents working.

If the norm was instead working 2/3 days a week for less pay, there would be less money to spend on houses, so prices would come down (because the money that's charged is what can be afforded)

But part time jobs are nowhere near as common as full time jobs - especially for professionals.

Having parents looking after kids is a far better solution than outsourcing parenting to an external company, but it's far less profitable, and reduces things like GDP and stock markets, which is bad.

⬐ hirako2000

You summarised the issue quite well.

We could have both parents work part-time, and make everyone happy. But we want the GDP to go up, not down, throw more people and hours into the system, at the expense of children (our future they say) well-being.

⬐ RHSeeger

> Having parents looking after kids is a far better solution than outsourcing parenting to an external company

I don't necessarily agree with this. If the people/company that is looking after the children can do a good job, then it's far more efficient to have multiple children per person (company) vs 1-2 per person (parent). Plus (some of) the people that work for the company generally have an education that supports good developmental growth for the children under their care.

⬐ jimmygrapes

Although we have sort of solved the issue of "which parent" through the uses of baby formula, refrigerated breast milk, and other workarounds, there is still something to be said for direct breastfeeding, which is generally done by the mother (or a wet nurse, but that's another, older workaround). It's not misogynistic to recognize biologically beneficial relationships between small children and their mothers.

⬐ mistrial9

your dialog with your wife is one way to live, of many

IIR from the Pew Research Foundation on Family in the United States, less than fifty percent of all children in the US have two married parents, across all demographics and education levels, minus the one-percent highest income bracket.

lots of people in the city here with children, almost entirely the women.. the men are out of the picture for lots of reasons.. a non-zero percentage of young children have not met their biological father. The dental hygenist told me a month ago she has five kids of various ages and their father "lost his green card" and is gone.. she was cheerful and matter-of-fact. A plain spoken man in his fifties told me he has five children with three women and he never married any of them. This is not "terrible" it is true in his own words, he complains about the women and changes the subject.

⬐ wrycoder

And we are destroying our society by normalizing this behavior.

⬐ katbyte

Normalizing what behaviour exactly?

⬐ wrycoder

Er, it's detailed in the comment to which I responded.

⬐ mistrial9

the joke is on the USA - "normal" is quite different in most of the world. Your reaction to unmarried mothers is warrented, yet, plural marriage and restrictions by the State on marriage, are "normal" by sheer numbers, not the USA ways.

colleagues - different can mean really different. Even sophisticated people don't see it .. reality speaks in its own ways

⬐ hirako2000

But at least we aren't "regressing" to how societies always worked, having the expectation that a woman would prioritise the care of children over a "career".

Thanks for pointing out the separation rates. It would be misogynistic to dare considering a correlation between women not prioritising being a housewives over a career and men getting less interested in sticking around.

⬐ EliRivers

What's the difference between a career and a "career"? Genuinely can't tell, from your various scattered comments, what your actual complaint is or what you're advicating.

There's one somewhere else here where you call educating boys and girls to get jobs a dogma; are you advocating for some kind of low-work or even jobless society? Or it is that you object to people being educated to get jobs; that education should be for something else and getting jobs should be unrelated?

Rather than just complaining, why not state just exactly what it is that you're suggesting?

⬐ RHSeeger

> But at least we aren't "regressing" to how societies always worked, having the expectation that a woman would prioritise the care of children over a "career".

No, but where there are 2 parents involved in the child's birth (most cases), we _should_ have the expectation that both of those parents contribute to raising the child, barring edge cases.

⬐ wrycoder

And over the history of humans, they contribute in very different ways. It's a contemporary fantasy to claim they don't and to think this is progressive.

⬐ hirako2000

Progressive forces don't have the agenda they outline. Just repeat the same lie many times and it becomes truth.

⬐ omosubi

Most women (and men for that matter) work shit jobs as clerks or similar and not the sort of professional level jobs you're probably thinking of. I highly doubt they find these fulfilling in any way and would rather stay at home with their children if given the option. Polls support this. https://fortune.com/2016/10/05/working-moms-stay-home/

⬐ TheOtherHobbes

Many countries have state-run or state-subsidised childcare.

Universal or managed childcare - like health care - is one of those things that is a massive drag on the economy if it isn't provided.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/childcare-a...

⬐ xyzzyz

Most of the countries with state run daycare have even lower fertility than US has. I don’t think there is a single country with all of: government childcare, high female labor market participation, and above replacement fertility. If anything, the correlation is opposite: the more subsidized the childcare is, the fewer children are born.

⬐ riffraff

While I agree with your point in general, the Faroe islands might qualify.

I do not know why, but they have a 2.4 fertility rate, could be related to an influx of women from poor countries (which in turn might not participate in the workforce, confirming what you state).

⬐ xyzzyz

If you asked me, I’d say that the most probable cause is that people in Faroe Islands have less opportunity to get Education and build a Career, which makes childbearing more attractive in relative terms, as opportunity cost is lower. For the same reason, policies that in the west make it easier to have Education and Career, like subsidized daycare, end up depressing the fertility even further, contrary to expectations.

⬐ mcv

The big thing that went wrong when women went to work, is that it didn't really help households in any way. What should have happened is that either households doubled their income, or each earner would work only 3 days a week at most. Instead, thanks to decades of stagnating wages and rising housing costs, households wouldn't have any more money to spend, but have a lot less time.

What should have been a great deal turned into a terrible deal. Unequal pay meant that initially, men didn't want to work any less when their wives started working, rising housing costs and child care ate up pretty much all the extra income, and stagnating wages meant that even as the pay gap closed, households still weren't getting ahead. We're overworked and underpaid, and employers just got more productivity for the same money as before.

We should go to a 24 hour working week.

⬐ edmundsauto

I think you could have preserved the good points if you had removed what I perceive as sexism. Instead of saying the problem is having put women to work, the issue is that costs (due to larger houses, desire for luxuries, and generally keeping up with the Joneses) have increased. They have also increased because incomes have increased, and the ways in which to spend your money have also increased.

It has nothing to do with genders - it has to do with the carrying cost of a household nowadays is tied to dual incomes (+ housing and health care costs have eaten up a lot of surplus income)

⬐ throwawayboise

It does have to do with sex. There are of course exceptions, but women are naturally more equipped and inclined to be nurturers and caregivers, and men providers, especially for young children. It is also why women are disproportionate in early childhood care and education jobs (it gets somewhat more even with older kids; e.g there is a much higher proportion of male teachers at most high schools compared to elementary schools or preschool/daycare).

⬐ hirako2000

It is sad to see the most logical comment out there is getting downvoted given the logical aptitudes of this community.

Statistics show you are right, evolutionary biology says you are right.

⬐ edmundsauto

Evolutionary bio makes psychology look like Newtonian physics, in terms of objectivity and generalizability.

Statistics show the combined result of nature and nurture. How would you even begin to design an ethical study that could prove causation?

⬐ hirako2000

Stats and evolutionary biology converge on this topic. On the opposite side, we have politically loaded opinions.

⬐ edmundsauto

And in the middle are most people, who are skeptical about the value from evo bio. Again, the statistics are only descriptive - it is not easy to tease apart nurture from nature.

There's very little reason to think "statistics and evolutionary biology convergence" reveals any truths in this case. The only conclusion to draw here is that confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

⬐ edmundsauto

Do you realize how hard it would be to disentangle nature from nurture on a gender-wide, cross-cultural study? You have some unchecked assumptions about biology - there may be indicators at a very crude level, but I don’t even know how you could design a real world study that would support conclusions you take as assumptions.

⬐ Misdicorl

I agree with your conclusion. Childcare is a societal issue that needs to be addressed at the societal level. Women who stay at home is a poppycock solution.

At a cynical minimum it wastes tremendous resources. I want smart, competent, engaged women to have children. I also want them to choose how to direct their considerable energies as they see fit.

⬐ hirako2000

I'm all with you. I'm denouncing the dogma that put women to work. It doesn't imply that women should be kept off the work force.

⬐ Frost1x

If we make childcare a societal issue then we need to broaden that to make it easier for anyone and everyone to not only care for children but have children. There are plenty of those who want children but can't have them for a variety of reasons, some of which are other related costs (medical, legal adoption, etc.).

If you select childcare alone you bias towards those can easily have children which can foster resentment and opposition for tax based support. We already do this a bit where everyone pays for for public schooling regardless to if they have children or not and we also subsidize parents further by allowing them to be claimed as dependents.

Let's not keep this limited and make it so anyone wanting a child through a socially acceptable method be able to afford them long term since ultimately that's more generically what we're taking about.

⬐ dboreham

I don't think it was dogmatism -- it was the need to have money. The cost of living rose such that families needed two incomes.

⬐ kwhitefoot

Even where it is not strictly necessary for women to work having women in the workforce can be an economic advantage. For instance it is plausible that the increasing proportion of women in work since the 1950s has contributed as much to Norway's economy as the oil.

⬐ hirako2000

It is dogmatism. Just look at the propaganda from the 50s and 60s. And all the way to today, it is less cheesy but nonetheless propagandist: schools educating boys and girls to get jobs, encouraging girls to be more ambitious, campaigns to get women in industries they are not interested in, and to fight for equal pay. Add to that how politically incorrect the comments I made are. If that is not a dogma, I don't know what is.

⬐ dboreham

"the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others"

So you're saying that the general progression away from the patriarchy wasn't evidence-based?

⬐ IkmoIkmo

> The dogmatism of putting all women to work for the last 50 years.

> The problem of childcare cost is unsolvable with women at work, it's as simple as that.

What kind of nonsense is this?

One in six women never go on to have children, it's great news that these women's access to the labour market has improved.

Second, childcare ratios aren't 1 to 1. In fact they're about 1 to 4 for babies <1 year, 1 to 10 for 5 year olds, and 1 to 12 at school age. Suppose all women had children (they don't), society still greatly benefits from the efficiency of a childcare ratio as high as 1:12 as opposed to women caring for their child 1:1.

Third, children aren't permanently children, and certainly not permanently babies. The first few years requires a lot of parental or private childcare, but afterwards kids mostly go to school for most of the day. A woman will have at least 45 years between adulthood and retirement and most of that kids won't need constant parental care like the first few years. Making sure women stay active in the labour force (even part-time) will greatly help their chances in the labour market throughout their career.

Fourth, I see no reason why we're speaking about women rather than about parents. Providing income and childcare are shared responsibilities. It's fine to arrange it in your own family as you wish, but society shouldn't speak about these topics as if they should only apply to women.

⬐ Spooky23

I worked on a remote work program for a large company about a decade ago. One of the objectives was to improve retention of female professionals.

Women have two heavy drivers for leaving the workforce - pregnancy/early childhood (age 20-35) and caregiving (45-60). This is a big deal, as when you lose a skilled attorney, engineer, or product manager, it’s difficult to replace them.

Offering work flexibility was projected to reduce this attrition by 30-50% depending on occupational category.

⬐ hirako2000

I do expect some sensitivity when daring to question women being in the work force rather than prioritising the care of their own children. Let me be clear first, I entirely agree with you that society shouldn't tell us what is right with this regard. But society has spoken, the dogma of having women be the same as men and get to work. With the pretence of more freedom and independence of course. I don't speak for women, nor men. Each person is free to decide whether they should enter the workforce or not. I'm not advocating that women shouldn't be allowed to work.

I disagree with the ratio argument you've proposed, I'm sorry 1 carer for 12 toddlers is undeseriable. Ask any stay-at-home moms how it goes when they get their 3rd kid. And a carer will never care as much as a parent, so 1 to 12 is surely compromising on the children well being.

I would gladly consider parents rather than women, but for the vast majority of human history it appears that females have been rather focusing on taking care of home and children. Things can be arranged differently, but there are surely some deep rooted reasons as to the adoption of the role fulfilled by women for so long, and it must have shown superiority over having men take that role since it has survived across very different cultures.

We aren't hunter gatherers, we are even past the sedentary model that organised societies for millenia, so models can and better be questioned, but the childcare dead end needs to be looked at the way it is. It is not working.

Yes children grow up, I give you that. And of course it is natural for women who were mostly taking care of their own children to find an occupation, work is one. My comment was in the context of the child care chaos we've created. Not in the context of trying to hijack the thread into claiming women should not be in the workplace.

⬐ danShumway

Surprising sexism aside, I think the broader point here is that focusing on specifically the women is kind of weird and unnecessary. The issue isn't that men and women are being treated equally, the issue is that both parents are expected to work.

If women drop out of the workforce, are employers suddenly going to start doubling salaries so household income will stay the same? If not, then this isn't really a problem with gender roles, it doesn't seem.

It sounds to me like the thread of logic you're following is:

- Women have started working more, so child care is harder

- Child care costs went up during the pandemic, so more workers of all genders are staying home to care for their children directly

- Therefore, there's a labor shortage.

Well, the obvious conclusion from that thread of logic is that employers apparently need women to work in order for the economy to keep functioning, and if they stop working and stop sending their kids to daycare then there'll be a labor shortage.

If you don't have a plan to fix that problem, then complaining about gender roles seems kind of useless. If you're worried about the direction of childcare and you think more women should be in that role, then shouldn't you be happy that more people are staying home now to take care of their kids, and that this is forcing the market to adjust salaries to meet the new numbers of available workers?

You can't both have your cake and eat it, you can't be upset that women aren't staying home to look after their kids and upset that there are fewer available workers to hire once parents start staying home to watch their kids.

⬐ hirako2000

I am not upset women aren't staying home to take care of children. I'm upset that women have so willingly been trapped in fighting for their rights to be part of the Labour force, and in the end have to work full time without the ability to afford child care.

At least you got a few things right. Yes, women have been working "more" and it has created the difficulty to get their children proper care. It's rather logical. You can add to that it is not just women's problem. It's men's too. It is our problem : we have a model that cannot solve an absolute road block: if women work, and get equal pay, then childcare become out of reach to a large portion of the population. Unless you increase the kids to carer ratio of course, or build robots as carer. I think the issue with the work arounds are rather obvious. Or maybe not since I've only commented with simple logical critics but many won't cease to conceive a society with women taking care of their children until a proven solution comes along.

I don't have a plan to fix that problem, no. That's why I blame the dogma that introduced the problem in the first place. And I refer to the previous model that worked for millenia, which is a gender based role system. It doesn't have to be that way, but sure let's consider any way, but I don't see why criticising today's model and referring to one that worked is useless.

⬐ danShumway

So I guess same question as I ask below. Are you happy with the current labor shortage, do you see it as a good thing?

It seems like it's directly addressing a problem you have with the current state of child-rearing, and that in order to move to the model you prefer, businesses necessarily need to get used to the fact that fewer people are going to apply for jobs and that they'll have to pay workers more.

This should be a good thing as far as you're concerned, right?

⬐ hirako2000

I'm sorry there is no labour shortage, there is inadequate training. Unaffordable universities mostly not delivering on their promise. That was meant to create what looks like a labour shortage. Train, and increase wage, suddenly you will find more workers to fill those jobs. Yes. A higher pay would put back women at home and in community participation which is what a good portion past 30 would much prefer. A couple to work less and take care of children rather than chasing affordable childcare services, it won't happen in a taxed market in economy that paying for a full time service would work unless for those who earn significantly more of course.

⬐ wrycoder

> If women drop out of the workforce, are employers suddenly going to start doubling salaries so household income will stay the same?

Taken in reverse, that's pretty much what happened when women entered the workforce in large numbers. It now generally takes two incomes to support a household, where it used to take one. (Yes, the standard of living and expectations in general are higher these days, but still.)

⬐ danShumway

Well then this thread is very odd, because if people have that perspective about why current wages are what they are, then I don't understand what they're complaining about with the current labor shortage. They should see lower supply driving up wages as a good thing.

⬐ wrycoder

Yes, for the government to respond to wage inflation by allowing inflation in the general market basket of goods would be an error imo.

⬐ unpolloloco

And to add some more nuance to point 4: there were a LOT of people who could have retired years ago, but chose not to for various reasons. This was their reason. I've seen estimates as high as 2M extra people in the US have just flat out retired due to covid (some left under their own volition, some not - but few of them are coming back). This isn't just old people either - early retirees are a sizeable contingent here.

⬐ Arete314159

The estimates I saw were 3.5 million took early retirement.

Also, sorry this is grim, but the pandemic has also killed hundreds of thousands of people. Many of them were workers.

⬐ fragmede

Your second point, grim as it may be, is probably worth larger consideration. I'm projecting here, but I believe many of them were the kind of people that had 3 jobs in order to make ends meet and couldn't take time off to get the vaccine, and the subtext is that the economy was actually more reliant on that tiny pool of people (<0.2% of Americans) than we realized!

⬐ esyir

I'd doubt it. Those in said positions are the younger portion of the population and thus at dramatically lower risk of death.

⬐ dv_dt

I think there is actually a lot of data that many of the low wage positions are long term jobs for a middle aged to older demographic.

⬐ unpolloloco

Your point still stands (those people had high contact jobs), but most of the people who died did so prior to vaccine availability. It's only been the past ~4-5 months where there's been widespread availability. And there are very few people at this point (in the US) who haven't gotten the vaccine solely because of their scheduling (though that reason might be cited as a clean justification!). It's clearly vaccine hesitancy...

⬐ Arete314159

Yes, many of the workers who died were in front-line / public-facing jobs. I heard "line cook" was one of the jobs with the highest mortality level. So tragic.

⬐ EricE

"but the pandemic has also killed hundreds of thousands of people." Apparently it wiped out the flu too.

Take COVID stats with a huge grain of salt - the reporting around them has been (and still is) grossly politicized :p

⬐ Tarsul

and dont forget those who cant work anymore because of (most serious versions of) long covid.