Answer to your question on Middle-out 3. What do you mean by "the work we do"?


@spuncho 3. When you say that the economy should reward "the work we do," surely you don't mean all work. For example, if I go out into my yard and start digging holes and filling them back in again, you certainly agree that I'm not entitled to any reward. So how do we decide which work is worth rewarding and how much we should reward it?

That's where the market decides. Though the market is not free, there is a market. If I do work for myself, it is up to me to decide whether or not I'm entitled to a long leisurely bath in scented oils, etc. Mind you, we're assuming you own the property in which you're digging the holes. Now let's look at the car wash market. It's a chore to wash your car, but it's also a chore for your neighbour to wash his car, or to mow the lawn. Unless you are particularly altruistic, it seems likely to me that you would make an agreement with him for payment on completion of the task. Sometimes I barter haircuts for babysitting; that was the reward agreed upon. So by "work" I mean "the work we do for other people according to an agreement we made together." I am in such an agreement with my employer. It sets the terms and scope of my employment and means that I get treated with dignity and paid at the agreed rate.

Okay, let's talk about the market. Should the market decide how much you get paid? Well my skillset is fairly specialised so I get paid more than many administrators who work in call centres, so I'm not as much at the mercy of the market as your shelf-stacker or McBurger-flipper. I personally think it's fair to give workers a share of the profits they help to produce. It's obscene to think of some fat cat literally rolling in money while his poor workers have to go to the food bank because they're not paid enough.

What, then, is the role of the market? To establish the terms and the scope of supply and demand. You may well have seen in my blog posts that I believe our social problems are mostly demand-side. The fact that people want things is Demand. The fact that people are willing to provide them with these things for money or for other considerations is Supply. So you see, it's not always about money per se. The market decides that more call centre workers are needed who can actually comprehend English and provide accurate feedback in the system notes, so employment agencies, jobs boards, and other intermediaries get business providing these workers. However, the market is not just about how willing a worker is to work for the amount offered. Such a simplistic view is one of the reasons we've got food banks. No, the market is pulled this way and that by cost of living considerations, accessibility (no, I'm not going to take that job in Chorley, it's too far away), opportunities for professional advancement, and the social aspects (it's no fun being bullied at work). Distortions via artificial constraints (e.g. outsourcing to India to force wages down over here), pressure to force wages upwards by unions and social justice groups, and the existence of welfare programs that effectively subsidise low-paid jobs all play their part. The fact is, the market does not present a level playing field and subsidising jobs is unsustainable in the long term. If companies keep their wages low but the cost of living increases, workers will require more welfare. If that happens, the welfare bill goes through the roof.

Basic Income would do the same thing; subsidising low-paid jobs by disguising the economic impact of being paid at that wage. While people at the lowest and highest levels would benefit the most, the ever-shrinking middle would eventually collapse beneath the weight of stagnant wages and the flat tax Scott proposes to pay for it. Even under a progressive tax regime you'd have the same problem because you're taking from the middle (who, proportionally, have always borne the brunt of the tax burden) to pay both the top and the bottom income-earners. And the top-level income earners are like trees — you'd be amazed at what you find beneath all the leaves. Yes indeed, all of those dependents that they would normally support without asking for a dime from us would each be entitled to their own Basic Income payout. So no, it doesn't simplify things, it complicates them. Sorry, I knew it might come up as a possible solution but I'm opposed to subsidizing fat cats because they're too damn greedy to pay the living wage. As for smaller businesses, they need customers, and a higher wage for low-paid workers would create the demand they need to make a profit.

Finally, I have to mention the work that needs to be done but doesn't get paid, e.g. caring for the elderly, etc. I don't see why a workfare scheme can't be put together that provides welfare benefits as a condition for doing such necessary things. Now the terms of your volunteering would be your own within an agreed framework: petting kitties at the local cat's home to tame them is fine, petting your own cat at home is not a service to the community. But the idea is to provide you with recogniseable skills and experience to get you into the job market. E.g. caring for the elderly (to the value of the benefits received) sets you up for customer service or care work either as a community-based scheme or in a care home. Working in a charity shop should give you retail experience in which you learn stock-taking and how to operate a till, which is transferable to other areas of the retail industry. You might get into fashion or window-dressing. You get the idea. I'm not in favour of humiliating poor people or in exploiting them, but if they do things to help in the community they should be able to build on the experience gained to create careers in the industry they're most keen on. And yes I would include internships in that.

Reply · Report Post