Isn't economic class the only real way to judge "privilage"?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Seanchaidh:

As for entrepreneurship, don't you think there would be a lot more creative entrepreneurship if people didn't have to worry about maintaining the ability to live a comfortable life if their venture fails?

Right, but how much are people losing if, say, the governments gives a person the money to start a dairy farm on a 20 year loan? They drop out after 3-4 years, the machinery is still there ... hopefully most of the herd ... the fencing ... the feed sheds... the pens ... and so on. Like most businesses, when one goes under it's often the cyclical interest on debts that causes the most damage to the indebted.

And I could see it as a really effective way of getting people to work the land, rebuild local buildings through their own efforts, and so on.

To put it more poignantly ... it's no less disastrous than merely taxing people more who make money off exploitative labour practices, to only give people a bigger paycheque. If you tax people to merely give everyone a paycheque from what you tax, what exactly are you getting beyond exploited workers feeling more exploited to simply get a slightly bigger paycheque?

Ultimately you could recreate the positives of a UBI with a better welfare system for the poor. And ultimately, would you rather people have the power to try to achieve the potential they see in themselves ... to be their own boss ... or be merely an exploited worker with a larger paycheque?

Plus it also in part solves rental stress and housing affordability. Someone rebuilds a storefront, builds a store room adjunct to 'totally not live in' but really live in. It's amazing how much you save when you write off a place you totally don't sleep in as a 'storeroom' for tax purposes.

I was a part business owner with others and technically homeless for two years. Easily saved me 20k+, doesn't do much for your social life though.

I don't think any of these ideas are exclusive. I don't think a UBI should replace structural reforms to the economy, however I do think that it's a good first step to putting a little more bargaining power on the side of workers: if you don't need a job for a comfortable life with adequate entertainment, desperation is no longer driving people to accept smaller portions of the surplus. UBI and high taxes on the rich are about making democracy possible. We can flesh out what exactly to do about the economy after we've fixed our politics and neutralized the means by which capitalists can wage propaganda war.

Seanchaidh:

As for entrepreneurship, don't you think there would be a lot more creative entrepreneurship if people didn't have to worry about maintaining the ability to live a comfortable life if their venture fails?

Ironically, statistics tell exactly the opposite. Strong welfare and easy access to good and stable jobs tend to slow down Entrepreneurship. And that's because it significantly reduces the amount of entrepreneurs who launch their venture/business out of need while the amount of entrepreneurs by "choice" remains relatively stable.

generals3:

Seanchaidh:

As for entrepreneurship, don't you think there would be a lot more creative entrepreneurship if people didn't have to worry about maintaining the ability to live a comfortable life if their venture fails?

Ironically, statistics tell exactly the opposite. Strong welfare and easy access to good and stable jobs tend to slow down Entrepreneurship. And that's because it significantly reduces the amount of entrepreneurs who launch their venture/business out of need while the amount of entrepreneurs by "choice" remains relatively stable.

I don't think that situation is precisely analogous, as strong welfare is often means-tested in some way (which does give rise to a plausible 'welfare trap' argument). In any case, easy access to good and stable jobs sort of undercuts the need for entrepreneurship anyway. And I don't think that entrepreneurship-out-of-desperation is anything I want to be promoting either.

Seanchaidh:

I don't think any of these ideas are exclusive. I don't think a UBI should replace structural reforms to the economy, however I do think that it's a good first step to putting a little more bargaining power on the side of workers: if you don't need a job for a comfortable life with adequate entertainment, desperation is no longer driving people to accept smaller portions of the surplus. UBI and high taxes on the rich are about making democracy possible. We can flesh out what exactly to do about the economy after we've fixed our politics and neutralized the means by which capitalists can wage propaganda war.

Well ... yeah, but Australia has a fairly decent progressive tax system. Arguably it's about 'as good as it gets' without prosecuting tax """avoidance""" with more scrutiny. But the problem is that you can't really escape the boom-bust cycle. That's what hurts all the poor. Boom or bust, as a Australia is a glorious example of both.

For instance, booming economy ... but land prices alone are seeing people thrown out on the street. And people make mistakes. I've lost money. Everyone loses money and makes bad investments, or accidents, or gets injured. It's just a matter of time before you have the 'unjustly burdened' factor for anyone who needs to work for a living. Like, I could not work for a living through investments. Or I could buy a house and numerous other status symbols. And even if I don't take out a loan to do so, suddenly I have to work for a living. And the thing is, the nature of our education system doesn't prepare anyone for the innumerable economic and financial pitfalls.

If I still have my marbles by the time I'm forty ish, I'm thinking about starting my own board game cafe. Someplace I can cosplay (atmosphere building), play board games, and serve drinks and light meals, host tournaments, sell board game products and more... But the reason why I'll wait until 40-45 is because I'm going to treat it as 'fun work', not one where I have to make profits. Break even, lose no more than 60k-70k a year after concessions ...

It'll be hard work, but it will be fun hard work.

That and I figure it's a way of giving back by employing people to work out of my pocket as opposed to do so to profit off them. And I think it's important that one learns work isn't just a job. Or it shouldn't just be a job.

Average research associate gets paid fuck all, but they're still pretty happy people. Research associates have actually a pretty high degree of job satisfaction. Anybody will tell you; "It's not the pay, it's the people and being on the edge of the known."

Scientists don't complain about decades of study culminating in a job that barely pays 70k per annum.

And there is literally no reason why work in general shouldn't be able to emulate this idea of exploration of industry, and exploration of human enegy and creativeness. I think that's the society we should try to embrace. Why we need to pursue ideas of no interest credit for people to be productive and be entertaining and be constructive on their own terms with the capacity to pay back through this pursuit of self-expression and adventure.

And I can't think of a better way to have that society than not making it be about profits through exorbitant interest returns that only benefit the banks and their shareholders, or by locking so many poor people into working at places like Walmart, being paid a fifth of the productivity they contribute. No one else benefits.

Moire over, it's through this creative energy that the wellspring of new ideas come forward. New concepts of doing things, breakthroughs in research, paradigm changing stuff...

-------

As for the propaganda aspect...

I actually think the best way is just trying to teach 13 year olds merely of all the bullshit practices banks will get up to when they're older. How much money they could make not putting money into a maturation fund, but rather into the ASX. How easy it is to register yourself as a business and get away with offsetting ridiculous aspects of your lifestyle on the taxpayer. How a politician can become a corporate board member of not just one company immediately after their stint as a representative.

You teach kids the naked truth of Australia's hypercapitalism and that alone will arm an entire generation to dislike the current state of play. And that's what educators should be doing.

The one thing I realized as a high school teacher (Years 7-12 here), is that kids as young as 13 knew they were being fucked by the system... like it was an instinct we all have in the back of our brain that we're constantly being played ... just that they lacked the life experience of how life will inevitably fuck them. So I say the answer is, as always, schools. Teach kids how much they get fucked if they just leave their savings in a bank. Teach kids to be hypercapitalists by instead of being independent business owners, get together with 4 like-minded people they can trust to split the debt burdens and profit off eachothers skills and natural talents and form co-operative networks of industry and tax off-setting... and play the system that way...

No doubt then current 'capitalists' will call them 'socialists', then.

How can we claim to be teachers if we don't protect students by teaching them compound interest, consumer psychology, or aspirational branding strategies? Kids as young as 13 know the world sucks because they see it, they hear it, they internalize all of it. And I honestly think if more classes were dedicated to showing just how soul-sucking and how awful some of these companies are when trying to manipulate you if you're not careful, will do way more than any type of political ad campaign.

And the thing is we may get our chance sooner rather than later, because groups like BIS are predicting a couple of years till the next big financial shock.

So either we can use that event to push for change ... or we have to wait an entirely new boom before we start advertsing how it could all have been avoided in the first place...

Push for commerce classes to be mandatory and covers all this stuff ... kids are remarkably honest and call out bullshit when they see it, and why wait for them to be well and truly enculturated adults before trying to show them this stuff?

For the grand majority of us, a dealing with the bank or other large debt inducing event can be life changing in everyway. So why not air out all that potential ugliness to properly prepare kids for the wide open world?

That alone will change up the political debate.

Not only that, getting cadres of young people screaming how they want to build their own businesses, not work for old, rich fuckwits and pushing governments for cheaper and more transparent business lending practices, as well as more comprehensive corporate tax rates and policing to even the playing field, will kind of put the oligarchs off-balance ... they haven't got a leg to stand on in terms of 'muh capitalism'.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Seanchaidh:

It depends on how you address the poverty. Something like targeted worker retraining programs are a far cry from a universal income guarantee.

I don't get this argument. Surely UBI is a capitulation to class divides? Shouldn't the focus be on giving people easier access to industry as well as a share of its prosperity as opposed to 'capitalism, only everybody gets a paycheque'. Sure, it's a nice idea but it merely predicates itself on centralized hierarchies which inevitably is a problem for the people on the lowest social rungs to begin with.

Instead of a UBI, why not government 0% interest loans to start up co-operative industry and create better means to be rewarded one's productivity?

Because most of the people who are really poor have other problems leading to poverty. There is drug abuse. There are people who are really bad with money. There are huge numbers of people with depressions or other mental illnesses. There are people without any valuable skill having failed several attempts to attain some. There are people who are sick and can't do anything for weeks.

Giving out loans for startups will mostly lead to nothing but huge debts and failed buissnesses. It is not that easy to make entrepreneurs.

Do you know how many attempts have been made to transform "the poor" into "productive members of society" ? None of them ever really worked. Not even communism with full employment prescribed by law could find actually useful activities for everyone, even with the whole national industry at disposal.

Your measures will always only work for some people. It will work better if you have something resembling a class society and strong discrimination. But it will never be able to get rid of poverty.

Work should be lifelong vocational education and self-improvement. Not simply a job. Soldiers should be artists of death, not a uniform. Engineers enigmatic masters of machines and the local environment. Teachers shouldn't be employees of a centralized schoolyard and collection of buildings, but should be roving adventurers of knowledge, and the school should be wherever the lesson can be known through exemplification. History should be taught in archives and museums, for example.

Nice.

And how would you want to ever achievethat ? Ok, i get the school thing, which people do try ... with lackluster result.

But work is work because things need to be done and because you don't have someone waiting who really really wants to do them.
Also with current industrialization levels most work needs a lot of experience and competence.

Random Gamer:
Practically speaking, I suppose you're right.
Yet, if we look at an ideal model where poverty simply just doesn't and cannot exist, then that wouldn't be required, because if people wanted to cast you off because you're gay or Black or whatever, you could just tell them to go pound sand and still enjoy the same standards of living, the same earning, and the like.

Well... in theory. People may have jobs or other commitments which bind them to the original home, and that isn't even approaching the emotional damage caused by disownment.

Random Gamer:

But, to go back to what I said right above, I tend to think you have to tackle the economic issue at least at the same time as the other ones, because they're bigger, and you have to solve the wealth redistribution issues first if you want to truly improve the lot of all the various minorities. If you get rid of sexism in a capitalistic society, you give the women nice sunbathing chairs on the Titanic deck, but they're still going to sink - though they will have a nicer spot to overwatch their demise.
These issues are important, of course, but you'll never be able to fully solve them if you don't solve the economic issue as well, and probably first. Doesn't mean we shouldn't address them at all, but that it's foolish to let minorities think everything will be fine if racism / -phobias / sexism are getting rid of; most of them will still get shitty working conditions, jobs and wages. What's needed is to move ahead on all these points, and anyone caring about any kind of inequality has to care about economic inequalities, otherwise that hard work will have very limited benefit.

I think, then, that we're both in agreement that the issues shouldn't take precedence over eachother; that we can, and should, tackle more systematic economic inequalities at the same time as other initiatives to deal with social stuff.

Satinavian:
Because most of the people who are really poor have other problems leading to poverty. There is drug abuse. There are people who are really bad with money. There are huge numbers of people with depressions or other mental illnesses. There are people without any valuable skill having failed several attempts to attain some. There are people who are sick and can't do anything for weeks.

And if you read the rest of my post, you'd note I added in that you could merely improve welfare services directly to the poor. Moreover not all averagely poor people have drug problems. They are single parents, they are temp workers struggling to find reliable work, they are the people who get injured and spend months out of the workforce, or maybe suffer a crippling debt or suffer an emotional event that sabotages their livelihoods.

The point of giving new avenues of less restricted business models a chance to thrive will help create a more genuinely meaningful employment environment.

Not merely give everyone a paycheque.

I don't need the UBI, I don't want government money. It is infinitely better instead of giving all the people like me a UBI, you instead turn that money into putting it in the hands of the disadvantaged who do have better ideas of future industry. Ones that will create new demands for labour, and new demands for new types of labour.

I would rather see government money assisting people with new ideas for industry, or research, or labour models, or market participation ... and giving them the best opportunity to thrive.

If we can't make small business be competitive and vibrant, we lose all active competition.

Giving out loans for startups will mostly lead to nothing but huge debts and failed buissnesses. It is not that easy to make entrepreneurs.

Evidence, at all? I mean when I look at the average 'Aussie battler' I don't see idiots who can't research how to start a company. They're average people ... not some magically filthy masses who are survival impaired or crippled. Some of them might be business owners already, or intimately familiar with the types of businesses they work in ... it's just that either through interest on debts they owe, or because of low wages, that knowledge isn't rewarded as much as it would be.

Do you know how many attempts have been made to transform "the poor" into "productive members of society" ? None of them ever really worked. Not even communism with full employment prescribed by law could find actually useful activities for everyone, even with the whole national industry at disposal.

And yet, you want to persist a style of system that has them be perpetually exploited and suffer interest on top of any loan when they do seek to improve their lives? Also, so what? Most businesses go under, yet business lending itself isn't any less restricted. Average people do strike up an enterprise, and to make that even easier AND more productive, we need better lending practices.

If you can't promote better business models, newer business models, you will not see a thriving and diverse marketplace for labour.

Your measures will always only work for some people. It will work better if you have something resembling a class society and strong discrimination. But it will never be able to get rid of poverty.

Dare I say, it would probably help the average working poor person who decides to start a business... There's a metric fuckton of them, and good on them. The point is to not populate the lending scene with only sharks from (in Australia) the 'Big Four' banking "competitors" that will actively cause their inability to function or their capacity to thrive early on.

I don't see the problem with fostering a better building society model for business lending. Building societies are better banking models for promoting small enterprise and home ownership.

Nice.

And how would you want to ever achievethat ? Ok, i get the school thing, which people do try ... with lackluster result.

Okay, I was a teacher for awhile ... I can tell you I've never had students more engaged with history than on an excursion and when I or a guide could explain the history of something they could see with their very eyes. More over, the idea of decentralising education is going to have positive outcomes as long as we don't treat subjects of their inquiry as merely 45 minute classes.

VETs are a thing, and as far as I'm aware these have always shown to be positive additions to high school education for seniors.

But work is work because things need to be done and because you don't have someone waiting who really really wants to do them.
Also with current industrialization levels most work needs a lot of experience and competence.

Well, for one, we could create more building society models for business lending with less restrictive terms of interest laden repayment that helps individuals tailor their industry participation towards providing what they believe is the best kind of service for the public at large and what they can provide ....

That's one thing we could start doing.

generals3:

Ironically, statistics tell exactly the opposite. Strong welfare and easy access to good and stable jobs tend to slow down Entrepreneurship. And that's because it significantly reduces the amount of entrepreneurs who launch their venture/business out of need while the amount of entrepreneurs by "choice" remains relatively stable.

Right but how exactly does that impact the argument that we should be promoting dynamic, small enterprise through better lending practices which, in part, goes on to relieve employment stress to begin with? Surely the solution isn't everyone working in a megacorporation, just with a slightly better paycheque? Honestly I'd rather have a roll of the dice and try to be my own boss again.

The way you get 'good, stable jobs' is through labour demand, and you don't get labour demand without good market activity.

Anbd even if you can make the argument entrepreneurship rises during times of economic hardship, surely then the argument should be to make small business viable and reduce pressures from business lending to start ups? Running a business is fucking stressful, I agree ... but it's pretty rewarding. It's not for everyone, but then again it merely has to be a viable alternative for those that it is for.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
It is infinitely better instead of giving all the people like me a UBI, you instead turn that money into putting it in the hands of the disadvantaged who do have better ideas of future industry. Ones that will create new demands for labour, and new demands for new types of labour.

Most people don't have any ideas for future industry let alone viable ones. Which is the main reason they don't try to start a buissness. Even the few ones who have good ideas are rarely able to make them reality even if they have enough money to give it a try.

I don't know much about Australia, but here in Germany we actually do give out 0% gouvernment loans to poor people who want to start a buissness. We even give out gouvernment sponsored classes in "how to start a buissness" and have free councellors for what are the regulations etc.
It actually doesn't cost the gouvernment a lot of money because still the majority of evenpoor people don't give it a try. And nearly all of the startups are nothing new or revolutionary. It is nearly always things like "opening a restaurant" or "trying to do do the same thing as before, but now as contractor".

And yet, you want to persist a style of system that has them be perpetually exploited and suffer interest on top of any loan when they do seek to improve their lives? Also, so what? Most businesses go under, yet business lending itself isn't any less restricted. Average people do strike up an enterprise, and to make that even easier AND more productive, we need better lending practices.

Germany is different than Australia. We have a lot of people who want to be lenders but nearly no one who wants to borrow money. Private debt to GDP is 149 compared to your 223. Buissnesses don't want a lot of money either, esspeccially small and middle size buissness (which is really important here, see all the talk about "German Mittelstand") is not really keen to take out loans. That is why interests are low and have been for years.

Dare I say, it would probably help the average working poor person who decides to start a business... There's a metric fuckton of them, and good on them. The point is to not populate the lending scene with only sharks from (in Australia) the 'Big Four' banking "competitors" that will actively cause their inability to function or their capacity to thrive early on.

Ok, now it is suddenly working poor instead of just poor. As in people who actually don't have any medical, behavioral or mental problems keeping them from doing any job.

We once tried to those entrepeneurs too. Do you know what the result was ? They started their own buissness and nearly always worked for the same people in exactly the same position for slightly more money on the hand but without all the gouvernment protections and social securities they would have had as employees (and the employer would have had to pay). Which means they only got exploited more than before (that is until we forbade this by law)

But work is work because things need to be done and because you don't have someone waiting who really really wants to do them.
Also with current industrialization levels most work needs a lot of experience and competence.

Well, for one, we could create more building society models for business lending with less restrictive terms of interest laden repayment that helps individuals tailor their industry participation towards providing what they believe is the best kind of service for the public at large and what they can provide ....

That's one thing we could start doing.[/quote]Which won't chance anything about how the work that needs to be done is done or by whom or how much they like it.

Satinavian:
Most people don't have any ideas for future industry let alone viable ones. Which is the main reason they don't try to start a buissness. Even the few ones who have good ideas are rarely able to make them reality even if they have enough money to give it a try.

Seems a failure of education rather than some form of systemic problem with people. The differences between successful enterprises and failed ones are often not a matter og intellect, but lack of opportunities to capitalise or weather a financial shock.

The world hummed along quite fine when there was a far higher degree of small business ownership and small business employment at the turn of the 20th century. Small to medium sized enterprise is still thr workhorse of most Western countries. It's still the staple of our consumption... despite the Amazons and the like.

I don't know much about Australia, but here in Germany we actually do give out 0% gouvernment loans to poor people who want to start a buissness. We even give out gouvernment sponsored classes in "how to start a buissness" and have free councellors for what are the regulations etc.
It actually doesn't cost the gouvernment a lot of money because still the majority of evenpoor people don't give it a try. And nearly all of the startups are nothing new or revolutionary. It is nearly always things like "opening a restaurant" or "trying to do do the same thing as before, but now as contractor".

And yet, despite ridiculous levels of exposure to affected markets, Germany weathered the last financial shock with aplomb. I haven't seen Germany since I was 10 ... but I have seen snapshots of places in Germany that I did visit. And things are farcry from that dire environment I saw. There is a good reason to allow cheaper credit options to start ups. Because money doesn't just disappear once it's in common market. That start up employs craftspeople to build a storefront. Employs delivery trucks to transport a new restaurant grade stove cooktops. That start up increases demands on otherwise cheap labour, inflating a worker's ability to negotiate if sufficiently productive.

It's better that a government give someone the 600k-800k to afford renovations with labour costs, initiakl stocks and afford that 3 year lease, at 0% FR 20/30 year loans and living costs while waiting for market consumption, consumer loyalty and brand familiarity to grow... than a bank giving you a 4.125% FR 30 yearloan...

To put it simply... by giving government the means to do much of scrupulous private lending, with additional risk projection analysis and monitoring of business and financial projection planning you create a more honest market. Because business leases go up on the basis of what banks are willing to lend. Not about how good your project planning is.

It was the same as the GFC. Banks were more than happy handing out subprime loans. A government is more interested just whether you can pay it back and how much lending they can do without artificially pricing leases out of common access.

Germany is different than Australia. We have a lot of people who want to be lenders but nearly no one who wants to borrow money. Private debt to GDP is 149 compared to your 223. Buissnesses don't want a lot of money either, esspeccially small and middle size buissness (which is really important here, see all the talk about "German Mittelstand") is not really keen to take out loans. That is why interests are low and have been for years.

Then why are you comparing the two? I can tell you now, what's causing much of the financial stresses on Australians is leaving lending almost solely in the hands of the big banks.

The people demanding that 4-4.5% FR.

Ok, now it is suddenly working poor instead of just poor. As in people who actually don't have any medical, behavioral or mental problems keeping them from doing any job.

The poor, like with 90+% of anxiety and depressive disorders, can attribute most of their suffering to environmental stressors.

We once tried to those entrepeneurs too. Do you know what the result was ? They started their own buissness and nearly always worked for the same people in exactly the same position for slightly more money on the hand but without all the gouvernment protections and social securities they would have had as employees (and the employer would have had to pay). Which means they only got exploited more than before (that is until we forbade this by law)

The end result was a country that weathered the best of any European nation the effects of the GFC, despite higher general financial market exposure and potential for volatility.

The end result is one of the few countries that receive a substantial portion of 30%-40% of every dollar from global Chinese goods trading without being a major resources exporter.

The end result is a country that by capita has the most vibrant and tech savvy start up scenes on the globe.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

The end result was a country that weathered the best of any European nationthe affects of the GFC, despite ridiculously higher general exposure and potential for volatility.

No.

While our many small and middle sized buissnesses are a really important part oof that (along with a reluctance to take loans which might not be able to be payed if the economy goes down), those buissnesses are not started by the poor of the country or by handing out opportunities for investment money.

Those buissnesses are nearly always started by people coming out of our apprenticeship system, having learned a craft for years under a master of the craft and having shown their ability with their masterwork. The other alternative is academics especcially engineers and the like starting a buissness producing something that got shut down in the company they worked in before.
Those are not our poor people. Those are people with many years of work experience learning and honing very valuable skills having had a proper or even above average income before.

Our actually poor people are those who don't have any skills our system deems valuable. people who couldn't finish school with any passing grades. People who couldn't convince anyone to take them as apprentice (even though many apprenticeship positions can't be filled).
And also people working jobs as "unskilled labor". Those people are treated like crap here. Germany values wealth less han skill and knowledge but that doesn't mean that people at the bottom are treated that much nicer. Add to that that the economy really doesn't need unskilled labor nearly as much as it could get (open borders and stuff) and this is the segment of minimum wage workers (or even worse, seasonal minimum wage workers).

Loans don't change any of that. And yes, the gouvernment does try to provide certain free job education courses, but the results are lackluster.

I am really not oppossed to cheap credit for startups, quite the contrary. But i reject completely the idea that this is a way to battle poverty. Startups tend to be an activity of the middle class.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here