mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (02/08/85)
In article <595@tty3b.UUCP> mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: >The consequences are such only if capital is allowed to >define economic fact. Unemployment is a poltical problem, not an >economic fact. That it remains is evidence of lack of >political will to solve it. > >Mike Kelly But Mike, every time somebody points out the political actions needed to solve the unemployment problem, you get upset. The three things usually pointed to are: 1) Getting rid of the minimum wage laws. 2) Placing labor and corporate monopolies on equal legal footing. 3) Lowering the welfare payment levels to the point where working is preferable to staying in the program. Do you have a counter-proposal for political action that will solve the unemployment problem? <mike
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/10/85)
>In article <595@tty3b.UUCP> mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: >>The consequences are such only if capital is allowed to >>define economic fact. Unemployment is a poltical problem, not an >>economic fact. That it remains is evidence of lack of >>political will to solve it. >> >>Mike Kelly > >But Mike, every time somebody points out the political actions needed >to solve the unemployment problem, you get upset. The three things >usually pointed to are: > >1) Getting rid of the minimum wage laws. >2) Placing labor and corporate monopolies on equal legal footing. >3) Lowering the welfare payment levels to the point where working is > preferable to staying in the program. > >Do you have a counter-proposal for political action that will solve the >unemployment problem? > > <mike Unemployment is a political and an economic problem, but the problem isn't *how to eliminate unemployment* or even how to reduce it. The problem is to recognize that unemployment is likely to continue, and that it is probably a good thing, PROVIDED THAT THE POLITICAL PROBLEM IS SOLVED. If I am making widgets, and using 10 man-hours to make one widget, a machine that can make them in one man-hour should be cost-effective for me no matter what the capital cost, if I sell enough widgets. Hence, I should fire 90% of my workforce, and sell cheaper widgets. This is probably good for society as a whole, as well as for me, because more production is achieved with less effort. But it isn't good for the workers I fire, as matters stand. The problem is what those workers can do. They are trained as widget-makers, and no-one wants widget-makers. Perhaps they can be retrained as bomble-makers, but soon there will be a bomble-making machine. I contend that society would be better off training these people to appreciate leisure, and to pay them WELL for not making widgets, so that we all can have cheaper (and probably better) widgets. If they wanted to work DESPITE being better paid for not doing so, we should then and only then help them to find work. The problem of modern technology is that it is NOT NECESSARILY BEST for society that most people find productive work. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/13/85)
> Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > If I am making widgets, and using 10 man-hours to make one widget, a > machine that can make them in one man-hour should be cost-effective > for me no matter what the capital cost, if I sell enough widgets. > Hence, I should fire 90% of my workforce, and sell cheaper widgets. > This is probably good for society as a whole, as well as for me, > because more production is achieved with less effort. But it isn't good > for the workers I fire, as matters stand. The problem is what those > workers can do. They are trained as widget-makers, and no-one wants > widget-makers.... This problem has come and gone innumerable times in human history. > I contend that society would be better off training these people to > appreciate leisure, and to pay them WELL for not making widgets, so > that we all can have cheaper (and probably better) widgets. If they > wanted to work DESPITE being better paid for not doing so, we should > then and only then help them to find work. Where do we get the money to pay these people WELL for not making widgets? Raise the price of widgets? You are right that workers should be retrained for new jobs when old jobs become obsolete (for whatever reason). Education should probably be subsidized, as it better than pays for itself in helping to provide an employable (ie, trained for needed jobs) work force. But subsidizing people to not work is just plain wasteful. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (02/15/85)
Yes, I do have a counter proposal. It is not only mine, but has been discussed many times in Congress, usually initiated by the Congressional Black Caucus, who have a great interest in unemployment due to the incredibly high unemployment rates among American Blacks (at least double the white rate, and often worse). We should make a significant cut in defense spending, somewhere between 25% and 50%. The tax code should be reformed to tax all income, regardless of source, and impose a single high floor, somewhere around $15,000. These two actions together would seriously address the deficit (which, despite his pious claims to the contrary, Ronald Reagan has been the single biggest contributor to with his outlandish defense budgets.) A good portion (around $80 billion) of the remaining money should be dedicated to a massive public works program in the U.S. Roads and bridges need to be rebuilt. The train system needs new right-of-ways. Mass transit should be built in areas where it is needed. Approached properly, this is not only an opportunity to provide much needed repairs to America's infrastructure, but also a significant opportunity to train people in these jobs. Why don't we do this? Certainly not because it costs too much. We're spending four times as much on the military. Certainly not because we can't afford it; can we "afford" unemployment and misery for 10% of our people? No, it's just a lack of political will to address the problem.
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (02/17/85)
In article <602@tty3b.UUCP> mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: >We should make a significant cut in defense spending, somewhere between 25% and >50%. The tax code should be reformed to tax all income, regardless of source, >and impose a single high floor, somewhere around $15,000. These two actions >together would seriously address the deficit (which, despite his pious claims >to the contrary, Ronald Reagan has been the single biggest contributor to >with his outlandish defense budgets.) A good portion (around $80 billion) of >the remaining money should be dedicated to a massive public works program in >the U.S. Roads and bridges need to be rebuilt. The train system needs new >right-of-ways. Mass transit should be built in areas where it is needed. >Approached properly, this is not only an opportunity to provide much needed >repairs to America's infrastructure, but also a significant opportunity to >train people in these jobs. Sounds like a good idea (better than what we have now, anyway). Let me tell you what I see as the problems, and maybe you can tell me the fix, or why they aren't problems. First, your tax plan is going to (in words I think are yours) transfer money from the middle class to the rich. I suspect that there will be *much* trouble pushing something that obvious through congress. Second, you claim it would reduce the deficit. Good. Now, you're going to spend money and make it bigger again. Bad. Why not strip the welfare system of it's middle-class parasites, and net yourself another couple of hundred billion, thus giving you an excess? Third, how are you planning on keeping that $80 billion from turning into $20 billion or so after you pay a government bureaucracy to handle it? Fourth, what are you planning on doing about the unions whos toes are going to be stepped on by the non-union workers you would (presumably) be hiring? Those are just the problems I see. I'm sure other people will see other problems. BTW, mike, when did RR say he had reduced the deficit? <mike