Benefits increase purifies the worker pool, improving the motivation ballence.

[alan2here]

1. The rules of benefits (employment conditional gareenteed income) are adjusted slightly, to make unemployment a more attractive choice.

2a. Most employees stay employees.

2b. Some of the least intrinsically motivated, the most harmful, leave and no longer work.

I don't mind allowing these people not to work, they at least won't be doing much harm, and even with whatever you consider to be the trashiest of daytime TV they cannot avoid some new learning, boredom may well even force them to improve areas of there lives and learning they would otherwise neglect which is positive in itself, they may well even start contributing positively while not officially in a job such as online or in societies.

3. The remaining employees are better able to take up the slack, being a more motivated group, likely more open to new ideas, at a huge boost to performance, of the "manual farmer to combine harvester" sort, and resulting in these sorts of innovations loosing much resistance. This benifits everyone, even those having to "pay for the slackers".

4. Wait an appropriate time and return to 1.

Thus there is a target employment level, one that's much lower than the harmful 100% that assumes everyone is an identical collective being with identical levels of motivation.

I'd suggest perhaps 50% but think that the innovation arising from this would likely make an unemployment level this low hard to achieve, an adjustment the other way could always be made when falling below this level.

I know many are irritated that they must work while others don't, but those complaining are the very people who probably shouldn't work, or at least take a break for a while.

[Spendulus]

1. The rules of benefits (employment conditional gareenteed income) are adjusted slightly, to make unemployment a more attractive choice.

2a. Most employees stay employees.

2b. Some of the least intrinsically motivated, the most harmful, leave and no longer work.

I don't mind allowing these people not to work, they at least won't be doing much harm, and even with whatever you consider to be the trashiest of daytime TV they cannot avoid some new learning, boredom may well even force them to improve areas of there lives and learning they would otherwise neglect which is positive in itself, they may well even start contributing positively while not officially in a job such as online or in societies.

3. The remaining employees are better able to take up the slack, being a more motivated group, likely more open to new ideas, at a huge boost to performance, of the "manual farmer to combine harvester" sort, and resulting in these sorts of innovations loosing much resistance. This benifits everyone, even those having to "pay for the slackers".

4. Wait an appropriate time and return to 1.

Thus there is a target employment level, one that's much lower than the harmful 100% that assumes everyone is an identical collective being with identical levels of motivation.

I'd suggest perhaps 50% but think that the innovation arising from this would likely make an unemployment level this low hard to achieve, an adjustment the other way could always be made when falling below this level.

I know many are irritated that they must work while others don't, but those complaining are the very people who probably shouldn't work, or at least take a break for a while.

Slackers Unite!

All slackers heed the call!

All slackers work industriously to get slacking rights!

Wait....

[Gronthaing]

Or, you know, automate as much as possible. Then reduce working hours for the remaining jobs to the minimum, or provide universal basic income. And I also believe most people will end up searching for ways to contribute even if not through an official job. Everyone has their interests and hobbies after all.

[deluxeCITY]

The problem with this is that the remaining people who pick up the slack are not only now underpaid because they are working harder for the same paycheck (or at least getting paid a less equitable wage). They are also essentially paying for others not to work because they will also need to pay higher taxes in order to pay for these unemployment benefits

[alan2here]

Slackers Unite!

All slackers heed the call!

All slackers work industriously to get slacking rights!

Wait....

Exactly, what a waste to keep them in the loop of slacking, and kinda insulting, they are motivated, almost every human is, they just need the right environment, or not to be in the wrong environment, to realise.

Or, you know, automate as much as possible. Then reduce working hours for the remaining jobs to the minimum, or provide universal basic income. And I also believe most people will end up searching for ways to contribute even if not through an official job. Everyone has their interests and hobbies after all.

[alan2here]

The problem with this is that the remaining people who pick up the slack are not only now underpaid because they are working harder for the same paycheck (or at least getting paid a less equitable wage). They are also essentially paying for others not to work because they will also need to pay higher taxes in order to pay for these unemployment benefits

Lower employment levels means they'll be fewer workers to spread the pay between. So there is more money to pay each, they needn't be working for the same paycheck.

Don't pay thease workers enough and they will take benefits instead.

There is also less slack to take up, because more and more of the dead weight is gone, when somone says "let's automate this", there is little objection and plenty of assistance.

Employees will increasingly have to advertise jobs, like the army does in the UK, while I'm not keen on the fighting, they do show good practise in this respect, in employment.

In that they don't say "The army, it's a job and you need a job.", they say "The army, it's amazing, help people all over the world.", or "The army, it's very hard, you'll love the challenge, most people are too puny for this, but maybe not you with a bit of commitment.", they even sell discipline as a positive attribute you'll enjoy them giving you, somthing I can identify with from enjoying a type of this in sport training.

Also products get cheaper over time, we just get more demanding for specs too, that it itself a ballence that has some give.

[Bitcoin12345]

You are a fool, spewing out poison with every word that your utter

Firstly, you want 50% of people to be unemployed so that those that remain employed can have higher wages at the expense of your fellow human beings. You want to get ahead by treading on others, climbing the ladder and pulling it up behind you. Nobody chooses to live in poverty and for you to assert so is a reflection of your total misguidance and judgemental attitude.

You also say that people watching daytime TV 'cannot avoid some new learning', thus implying that all unemployed people are stupid and do not wish to learn new things as a matter of course, this is as stupid as saying that black people are inferior to white people and lack motivation, it is clearly untrue and tarnishes a whole group of people with the same brush based not upon evidence, but your vile and judgemental attitude. I have an idea, how about you go and learn new things, educate yourself about how people really live their lives rather than living with a ridiculous sense of self superiority.

You then move on to say that most people are too 'puny' when faced with 'it's very hard, you'll love the challenge', again no evidence to justify such a statement, just your vile judgement rearing its ugly head again. You even have the audacity to imply that some people are impure in the title of the thread, this just shows what is in your heart, you have utter disregard for your fellow human beings, you care for nothing but yourself, you are happy for others to live in poverty as long as you can have a better life. Well let me tell you something, with your spelling errors ('ballence, thease') maybe you would be one of those 'dead weights', you are just assuming that it would be others and not you, again because you somehow think you are better than others and I'm sure you would then be the first to criticise the system that you are advocating now.  

You also assert that it would leave more money to be shared out, well believe it or not everybody has to eat and have clothes and shelter and moving them from work where they can pay for more of it themselves to a position where others have to pay for it would actually leave less money in the coffers, even a child could work that out. But lets just assume for a minute you were correct, where do you think the extra money would go, you think it would go to the likes of you? If so, you are more deluded than I first thought (and I think you are incredibly deluded). The 85 richest people in the world have a combined wealth equal to that of the poorest 3.5 billion people, with this level of inequality in the world, what makes you think for one second that the supposed extra wealth that would be available would be shared among you, it would go to the very richest people as it does now and for you not to realise this just shows your gargantuan level of arrogance and ignorance. You are despicable.

Views like these are destructive and are the cause of so many of the worlds problems, the fewer people that take any notice of you the better.

[Bitcoin12345]

I'm surprised alan2here has not replied yet, either he has come to his senses or he doesn't have a coherent argument to make because arguments based on prejudice are clearly ridiculous, I wonder which?

[Gronthaing]

I'm surprised alan2here has not replied yet, either he has come to his senses or he doesn't have a coherent argument to make because arguments based on prejudice are clearly ridiculous, I wonder which?

He has most likely not replied yet because he isn't around. He was last active at 12:12:43 PM according to his profile. And I might be wrong, but I didn't understand his point to be what you're making it out to be. He specifically starts with a gradual increase of unemployment benefits, to make that a more attractive option, and to force companies to better cater to their remaining employees. I don't think the plan was to let those without a job to starve to death.

[Bitcoin12345]

I'm surprised alan2here has not replied yet, either he has come to his senses or he doesn't have a coherent argument to make because arguments based on prejudice are clearly ridiculous, I wonder which?

He has most likely not replied yet because he isn't around. He was last active at 12:12:43 PM according to his profile. And I might be wrong, but I didn't understand his point to be what you're making it out to be. He specifically starts with a gradual increase of unemployment benefits, to make that a more attractive option, and to force companies to better cater to their remaining employees. I don't think the plan was to let those without a job to starve to death.

But to make those that are currently employed unemployed simply so he can line his own pockets and have a larger slice of the pie is utterly immoral. It would plunge people into poverty because he believes he is worth more than them and should have more money at their expense. And how nice of him not to allow them to 'starve to death', are people supposed to thank him because they would not 'starve to death' under his vision. I'm sure people with some sense can see that making some people live in abject poverty to make some other people richer is ludicrous. If he wants more money maybe he should advocate rising living standards for ALL, that way more people would require more goods and services and would have the means to pay for them, his plan would be cutting off his nose to spite his face.

[Gronthaing]

I'm surprised alan2here has not replied yet, either he has come to his senses or he doesn't have a coherent argument to make because arguments based on prejudice are clearly ridiculous, I wonder which?

He has most likely not replied yet because he isn't around. He was last active at 12:12:43 PM according to his profile. And I might be wrong, but I didn't understand his point to be what you're making it out to be. He specifically starts with a gradual increase of unemployment benefits, to make that a more attractive option, and to force companies to better cater to their remaining employees. I don't think the plan was to let those without a job to starve to death.

But to make those that are currently employed unemployed simply so he can line his own pockets and have a larger slice of the pie is utterly immoral. It would plunge people into poverty because he believes he is worth more than them and should have more money at their expense. And how nice of him not to allow them to 'starve to death', are people supposed to thank him because they would not 'starve to death' under his vision. I'm sure people with some sense can see that making some people live in abject poverty to make some other people richer is ludicrous. If he wants more money maybe he should advocate rising living standards for ALL, that way more people would require more goods and services and would have the means to pay for them, his plan would be cutting off his nose to spite his face.

Ok, one last attempt. The process he proposed is voluntary. You can choose to continue working as before, or take unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits will be raised, and from reading the rest, I assume to decent living standards. If you want more, you can still join some other job, or participate in the economy through other means. Those who remain working will probably see their wages raised due to fewer employees, that's true. And as he said in his last reply, if the workers see they aren't being paid enough, they can take the unemployment benefit instead (which means it has to be high enough for it to be a good choice). But at the same time, workers would also be required to spend more from their income as taxes, to pay for the unemployment benefits of those that chose not to work.

[Bitcoin12345]

I'm surprised alan2here has not replied yet, either he has come to his senses or he doesn't have a coherent argument to make because arguments based on prejudice are clearly ridiculous, I wonder which?

He has most likely not replied yet because he isn't around. He was last active at 12:12:43 PM according to his profile. And I might be wrong, but I didn't understand his point to be what you're making it out to be. He specifically starts with a gradual increase of unemployment benefits, to make that a more attractive option, and to force companies to better cater to their remaining employees. I don't think the plan was to let those without a job to starve to death.

But to make those that are currently employed unemployed simply so he can line his own pockets and have a larger slice of the pie is utterly immoral. It would plunge people into poverty because he believes he is worth more than them and should have more money at their expense. And how nice of him not to allow them to 'starve to death', are people supposed to thank him because they would not 'starve to death' under his vision. I'm sure people with some sense can see that making some people live in abject poverty to make some other people richer is ludicrous. If he wants more money maybe he should advocate rising living standards for ALL, that way more people would require more goods and services and would have the means to pay for them, his plan would be cutting off his nose to spite his face.

Ok, one last attempt. The process he proposed is voluntary. You can choose to continue working as before, or take unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits will be raised, and from reading the rest, I assume to decent living standards. If you want more, you can still join some other job, or participate in the economy through other means. Those who remain working will probably see their wages raised due to fewer employees, that's true. And as he said in his last reply, if the workers see they aren't being paid enough, they can take the unemployment benefit instead (which means it has to be high enough for it to be a good choice). But at the same time, workers would also be required to spend more from their income as taxes, to pay for the unemployment benefits of those that chose not to work.

Okay, even if this was voluntary, in order to make people want to take benefits over work they would have to be very generous indeed, providing living standards close to that of those remaining workers, otherwise there would not be an incentive to leave work. In order for the benefits to be at this level, the people remaining in work would have to pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes in order to make it possible, and with (as he advocates) 50% of people (working) having to pay for the other 50% with comparable living standards, they would have to pay almost all of their earnings in tax, so far from making the remaining workers wealthier, it would have the complete opposite outcome. The only way in which he would be able to become wealthier (as was his intention), unemployed people would inevitably have to live in poverty with much lower living standards than the remaining workers. So either he is incredibly naive and hasn't thought this through at all or as I suggested in my previous posts, he doesn't care about other people as long as he gets wealthier, one of these must be the case.   

[Gronthaing]

Okay, even if this was voluntary, in order to make people want to take benefits over work they would have to be very generous indeed, providing living standards close to that of those remaining workers, otherwise there would not be an incentive to leave work. In order for the benefits to be at this level, the people remaining in work would have to pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes in order to make it possible, and with (as he advocates) 50% of people (working) having to pay for the other 50% with comparable living standards, they would have to pay almost all of their earnings in tax, so far from making the remaining workers wealthier, it would have the complete opposite outcome. The only way in which he would be able to become wealthier (as was his intention), unemployed people would inevitably have to live in poverty with much lower living standards than the remaining workers. So either he is incredibly naive and hasn't thought this through at all or as I suggested in my previous posts, he doesn't care about other people as long as he gets wealthier, one of these must be the case.   

I don't know if his intention was to become wealthier as you claim (at least by reading his posts in this thread I didn't get that), but I would say there are other possibilities than those you posted. On the one hand, you have automation which would become more attractive as wages went up, and there was less fear of displacing workers. On the other hand, not everything can be automated, and companies would have to provide really attractive conditions for the remaining workers. So, call me naive, and I'm sure there is a lot missing in this picture, but production would probably increase as automation takes hold, which could lead to a better standard of living for everyone. Now, I know this would require wealth not being concentrated at the top as it is today. Maybe one way to avoid this would be to move to worker owned and managed companies instead.

[Bitcoin12345]

Okay, even if this was voluntary, in order to make people want to take benefits over work they would have to be very generous indeed, providing living standards close to that of those remaining workers, otherwise there would not be an incentive to leave work. In order for the benefits to be at this level, the people remaining in work would have to pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes in order to make it possible, and with (as he advocates) 50% of people (working) having to pay for the other 50% with comparable living standards, they would have to pay almost all of their earnings in tax, so far from making the remaining workers wealthier, it would have the complete opposite outcome. The only way in which he would be able to become wealthier (as was his intention), unemployed people would inevitably have to live in poverty with much lower living standards than the remaining workers. So either he is incredibly naive and hasn't thought this through at all or as I suggested in my previous posts, he doesn't care about other people as long as he gets wealthier, one of these must be the case.   

I don't know if his intention was to become wealthier as you claim (at least by reading his posts in this thread I didn't get that), but I would say there are other possibilities than those you posted. On the one hand, you have automation which would become more attractive as wages went up, and there was less fear of displacing workers. On the other hand, not everything can be automated, and companies would have to provide really attractive conditions for the remaining workers. So, call me naive, and I'm sure there is a lot missing in this picture, but production would probably increase as automation takes hold, which could lead to a better standard of living for everyone. Now, I know this would require wealth not being concentrated at the top as it is today. Maybe one way to avoid this would be to move to worker owned and managed companies instead.

Well at least there is something we potentially agree on, I also believe that automation can increase productivity and efficiency and has the potential to be of huge benefit for everyone. However, you are right in the fact that I believe there is a lot missing from picture, not least of which is the elephant in the room, money. The whole time people are working in order to get money, automation will be at odds with the needs of workers because inevitably, more automation equates to fewer workers that are needed, which of course would not be in their interest. In order for automation to be truly beneficial for workers, money should be taken out of the equation. I believe that money is the root of so many of the problems that we face in the world today and a world without money (or at least a world with real money, not fiat) would be infinitely better than what we have now.

As for your idea of worker owned and managed companies, I think that is a brilliant idea and would stop many of the exploitative practices that companies use now.

[alan2here]

I'll have more time tomorrow and reply in more detail.

I'm unemployed, and cannot see by any of my inital 3 posts, how anyone concluded that I was interested in more income at the expense of the unemployed either way.

[alan2here]

so that those that remain employed can have higher wages at the expense of your fellow human beings.

You've read my first three posts and came to that conclusion?

thus implying that all unemployed people are stupid and do not wish to learn new things as a matter of course

No, I state that even without trying, unemploment results in learning new things.

lack motivation, it is clearly untrue and tarnishes a whole group of people with the same brush

The whole group being most people. You probbably think yourself that without payment very little work would get done. Motivation is largly cultural, take the way that the vast majority are put off wanting to explore mathematics for life by the way it is often taught in schools.

You then move on to say that most people are too 'puny' when faced with 'it's very hard, you'll love the challenge'

You've deliberately taken this out of context. I was referring to the sentiment in UK army advertising, and I have no reason to doubt that being in the army is tough. Challenge is an intrinsic motivation.

imply that some people are impure in the title of the thread

And then in the first post of the thread, explain that people forced into a job gives it, the company, impurity, that is both socially and economically bad.

with your spelling errors

Thats cheap, and tedious.

from work where they can pay for more of it themselves to a position where others have to pay for it

Society pays, produces, for them either way, the same.

even a child could work that out

And your complaining about my tone?

[alan2here]

they would have to pay almost all of their earnings in tax

Tax would likely increase, but not this much.

so far from making the remaining workers wealthier, it would have the complete opposite outcome.

The goal is not to make the remaining workers wealthier.