We are able to, and need to, ensure there is justice for labor, for basic human rights.
A worker-owned collective is not able to abuse its workers for the benefits of its owners.
> Humans are fundamentally selfish and vile, and they will always oppress each other if given the opportunity and incentive.
Speak for yourself.
There have been accounts of divers, for example, losing their oxygen source and then in survival mode killing their best friend trying to obtain life-giving breathe.
This type of behavior seems to be the norm.
There are also many horrific accounts during hurricane Katrina along these lines. Some of these were covered by NPR.
It goes to show that if shit ever really hit the fan, you might have to be prepared for zombie-like behavior.
> Speak for yourself.
Aren't you advocating confiscatory policies where you take value one person has worked for and give it to someone who hasn't? That, and the infrastructure to maintain it, sounds pretty oppressive.
What is to be done? (What then must we do?)
Thanks.
> What is to be done? (What then must we do?)
Change the policy. Labor is a commodity because we as a society have decided to make it so. If we want to change it, there are lots of options available: More stringent labor laws. Higher minimum wage. Stronger unions. UBI.
The challenge is not in figuring out what to do. That part is clear. The hard part is execution because, at least in the U.S., buyers of labor have much more political clout than sellers.
What about the other side of some of these things, UBI in particular? How do you account for inflation and higher costs for goods?
Example (and I know it's overly simplified): minimum wage goes up to $20/hour. People have more buying power, so they buy more (demand increases). Costs of goods go up. Buying power is reduced. Another call to increase minimum wage is issued. Cycle repeats.
How do you reconcile these very real consequences? Can we really say that the benefits outweigh them?
Answer is: they may very well have more benefits, but we can't know without doing them - and the consequences of getting it wrong could be permanently damaging.
> Can we really say that the benefits outweigh them?
That's a judgement call. And there is more at play here than just inflation. The economy is a very complex dynamic system. My point is that these things are not consequences of the laws of physics which we are powerless to change. These things are consequences of decisions we make as a society. These decisions are not easy, but they are ours to make.
Yes, you will (unless you do a flat capitation so thst everyone’s taxes are equal to their benefits, but what’s the point of that?) Downward redistribution is inflationary (in CPI terms) because of differences in the marginal propensity to spend, in the same way that upward concentration creates asset price inflation because of marginal propensity to invest.
Any economic policy that changes prices can be seen as inflationary if you pick the right index. The CPI is not what matters. What matters (to workers) is the ratio of the CPI to wages. It doesn't matter if the CPI rises (temporarily) as long as wages rise faster. As long as you are not actually just printing new money, the system will eventually reach a new equilibrium where workers have more bargaining power than they do today and capital holders have less. That is an attainable policy goal. The problem is that that the moment capital has all the bargaining power, and capital wants low wages, so that's what we have. As I pointed out earlier, this is great if you're buying, not if you're selling.
Since UBI isn’t likely to drive wages up (and, if as often proposed it replaces or offsets minimum wage, it may drive them down at the low end), I don’t see any real difference there, even if it was correct (I agree that what matters to workers qua workers is real [that is, CPI-adjusted] wages, and to consumers qua consumers real income; but that doesn’t alter the definition of inflation, just notes the inflation per se is not the concern for those groups in those roles.)
UBI is likely to lead to inflation, is unlikely to lead to general real wage increases (though that’s complicated), but will lead to real income increases in the low end of the distribution unless cranked too high high too fast (and there are negative feedback controls that should avoid that problem unless deliberately subverted, say by indexing UBI to inflation.)
That is far from clear. If workers don't have to worry about ending up destitute if they lose their job they will have more bargaining power. They would also be able to allocate more resources towards acquiring new skills.
One of the reasons workers put up with shitty working conditions is that the alternative, more often than not, is to end up on the street. Remove that from the equation -- by whatever means -- and lots of things will change.
If we are worried about inflation we can use the same economies of scale to give people that depend on minimum wage things they would not be able to afford.
Housing,healthcare,education,food.
That's a macro view. Drilling down there will be some products that get more attention, some less. Say, Bezos buys one fewer yacht, and his employees switch from dollar store cat food to Chicken McNuggets. Prices will jiggle around, but there's no increase in the money supply and so no net inflation.
Data repeatedly shows that there isn't a consistent effect from increases to the minimum wage -- as expected. There are too many other factors in the price of goods, and minimum wage changes get lost in the noise.
Care to share that data?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Empirical_studies