We already looked at Mark's comments about my profession-telemarketing. He finds my description 'chilling' and thinks this shows I'm a sociopath. He also called me a Marxist which is kind of in-apposite I think. For someone to be both I think is pretty unusual.
"...If I get them to buy something they don't wholly need or perhaps shove them a little into it, why should I feel guilty? These same people don't give a crap about my struggles and if they elected better politicians we might have more socially beneficial things for people to do than telesales..."
"This is a chillingly honest revelation of your sociopathic tendencies, although it doesn't surprise me in the least."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/03/mark-sadowksi-and-latest-adventures-of.html
In my response I asked Mark who's the real sociopath here-people who get into telemarketing-or the society that gives them no better options? The society who lets a homeless man die in the snow as recently occurred here in NY.
Morgan Warstler showed some actual human empathy in response-one could say that one of the defining features of a sociopath is a lack of basic human empathy. Mark may well have empathy in other contexts but I guess not in the case of a struggling telemarketer whose skeptical of Market Monetarism.
" Saxie, Your own job is why you should support GI/CYB and NGDPLT. I think you'll admit (tell me if you disagree with any):"
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/03/market-monetarism-and-supply-side.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29
Ok, as he's kind enough to look out for me I'll tell him what I disagree with. Maybe he feels better disposed to me in discovering that I actually have a job-perhaps he thought I was a career 'welfare cheat' and is pleasantly surprised.
"1. At full employment, labor has more leverage."
Ok, that's an undeniable fact. So far I totally agree.
"2. By moving welfare to GI/CYB, the choices of labor for dream jobs dramatically improves. It basically subsidizes creative class jobs, so that jobs that are no as personally inspiring, or more rote, etc. of are done for Fortune 1000, etc PAY MORE than they do now."
Ok, I don't know that I agree. I did read his GI proposal awhile ago but don't remember exactly why it means this. I have an idea-though the MMT Job Guarantee that Morgan considers anathema I think is based on the same principle-putting a floor on wages. In the MMT plan, everyone who wants a job gets one-if they can't find one the government gets them one-though not necessarily a government job.
"3. Sumner prefers using GI/CYB to get full employment to using NGDPLT. Meaning he recognizes, like Farmer, and I think even all Keynesian econs, Fiscal should be optimized to promote productivity gains and growth. To MM, that means just bc MP do the lift, doesn't mean Fiscal authorities should be dumb."
Sumner prefers GI to NGDPLT? That's news to me. I suspect Morgan is inferring this more than anything Sumner explicitly said.
"My point is you get up and work for a living, and WELFARE as currently constructed, undermines the value of your labor. Those people staying out the labor force, doesn't mean you earn more."
Interesting argument.
"I know it feels to you like thats the case, but you are imagining a system where they STOP GETTING WELFARE and enter workplace. I and Sumner etc are talking about the welfare CONTINUING and the recipients ALSO get paid for working."
Ok, here I'm not sure if I'm getting what he's saying or he's actually saying the opposite. Does he want the system where they stop getting welfare and enter the workplace-that's what I assume he wants-or they continue getting welfare and enter the workplace-it sounds like this is what he 'and Sumner' are for here yet that's the opposite of what I understood he wanted.
I don't know if I'm reading these sentences right or not. I would actually prefer that they keep welfare until they don't need it. My guess is that GI assuming it would work at all would be like the EITC-conservatives and liberals like it for different reasons.
"This doesn't drive your wages down, it INCREASES YOUR RELATIVE VALUE. Because instead of being a 3 of 10 you become a 5 of 10."
In principle this may be true. The trouble is that conservatives and liberals will see GI or MMT or anything as achieving different goals. Conservatives will see it as a way to get rid of the welfare state. Liberals as a way of expanding it-which is more or less the point with NGDPLT as well.
If Morgan can clarify what he meant here it would help. I often here Mark knock Morgan as being a nut job-kind of like Major Freedom, who I do think is a nut-but Morgan seems to me to have done more thinking about these issues than almost any other conservative I can think of.
"...If I get them to buy something they don't wholly need or perhaps shove them a little into it, why should I feel guilty? These same people don't give a crap about my struggles and if they elected better politicians we might have more socially beneficial things for people to do than telesales..."
"This is a chillingly honest revelation of your sociopathic tendencies, although it doesn't surprise me in the least."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/03/mark-sadowksi-and-latest-adventures-of.html
In my response I asked Mark who's the real sociopath here-people who get into telemarketing-or the society that gives them no better options? The society who lets a homeless man die in the snow as recently occurred here in NY.
Morgan Warstler showed some actual human empathy in response-one could say that one of the defining features of a sociopath is a lack of basic human empathy. Mark may well have empathy in other contexts but I guess not in the case of a struggling telemarketer whose skeptical of Market Monetarism.
" Saxie, Your own job is why you should support GI/CYB and NGDPLT. I think you'll admit (tell me if you disagree with any):"
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/03/market-monetarism-and-supply-side.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29
Ok, as he's kind enough to look out for me I'll tell him what I disagree with. Maybe he feels better disposed to me in discovering that I actually have a job-perhaps he thought I was a career 'welfare cheat' and is pleasantly surprised.
"1. At full employment, labor has more leverage."
Ok, that's an undeniable fact. So far I totally agree.
"2. By moving welfare to GI/CYB, the choices of labor for dream jobs dramatically improves. It basically subsidizes creative class jobs, so that jobs that are no as personally inspiring, or more rote, etc. of are done for Fortune 1000, etc PAY MORE than they do now."
Ok, I don't know that I agree. I did read his GI proposal awhile ago but don't remember exactly why it means this. I have an idea-though the MMT Job Guarantee that Morgan considers anathema I think is based on the same principle-putting a floor on wages. In the MMT plan, everyone who wants a job gets one-if they can't find one the government gets them one-though not necessarily a government job.
"3. Sumner prefers using GI/CYB to get full employment to using NGDPLT. Meaning he recognizes, like Farmer, and I think even all Keynesian econs, Fiscal should be optimized to promote productivity gains and growth. To MM, that means just bc MP do the lift, doesn't mean Fiscal authorities should be dumb."
Sumner prefers GI to NGDPLT? That's news to me. I suspect Morgan is inferring this more than anything Sumner explicitly said.
"My point is you get up and work for a living, and WELFARE as currently constructed, undermines the value of your labor. Those people staying out the labor force, doesn't mean you earn more."
Interesting argument.
"I know it feels to you like thats the case, but you are imagining a system where they STOP GETTING WELFARE and enter workplace. I and Sumner etc are talking about the welfare CONTINUING and the recipients ALSO get paid for working."
Ok, here I'm not sure if I'm getting what he's saying or he's actually saying the opposite. Does he want the system where they stop getting welfare and enter the workplace-that's what I assume he wants-or they continue getting welfare and enter the workplace-it sounds like this is what he 'and Sumner' are for here yet that's the opposite of what I understood he wanted.
I don't know if I'm reading these sentences right or not. I would actually prefer that they keep welfare until they don't need it. My guess is that GI assuming it would work at all would be like the EITC-conservatives and liberals like it for different reasons.
"This doesn't drive your wages down, it INCREASES YOUR RELATIVE VALUE. Because instead of being a 3 of 10 you become a 5 of 10."
In principle this may be true. The trouble is that conservatives and liberals will see GI or MMT or anything as achieving different goals. Conservatives will see it as a way to get rid of the welfare state. Liberals as a way of expanding it-which is more or less the point with NGDPLT as well.
If Morgan can clarify what he meant here it would help. I often here Mark knock Morgan as being a nut job-kind of like Major Freedom, who I do think is a nut-but Morgan seems to me to have done more thinking about these issues than almost any other conservative I can think of.
Mike, I think there's a problem with the title to this post.
ReplyDeleteSaxie,
ReplyDeleteImagine MP according to Sumner is Superman - NO MATTER WHAT it can unstick wages prices, solve money illusion - bc if you print money and buy enough of the safe assets, you CAN IN EVERY INSTANCE IN HISTORY lift he price level - no matter HOW BIG the asteroid, Superman can move it.
OK, now, think about Fiscal policy, thats like the cops vs. the robbers.
GI/CYB is THE police strategy that MOST reduces cops need for Superman.
This is why Sumner will agree GI?CYB > NGDPLT.
NGDPLT doesn't create the most productive growth oriented economy.
That you think this is Sumner's point means you aren't getting the full point - which i keep saying.
NGDPLT is INSURANCE against REALLY BAD FISCAL ECONOMIC POLICY.
That's partially why you misread Sumner on MP neutering / off setting / moving last Fiscal.
On a personal note, I can't believe you don't reread GI/CYB more often:
http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-income-choose-your-boss-the-market-based
I don't blog, I have a bunch of policy proposals and I rewrite / modify them here and there to better explain them to people.
Anyway, READ it, so you get why #2 is right. Imagine your relative worth as suddenly 30M are suddenly ready to have the smarter guys who live near them, start to direct their labor. Because that is what happens. The 30M get levered mostly to the benefit of their own neighborhood.
Again, to close, Scott would PREFER we did G?CYB as any other possible fiscal policy, every time you hear him or any other conservative say Minimum Wage is a problem - that's a cheer for GI/CYB.
Because conservatives ALL understand we are not going to force workers to LIVE on their earnings.
REREAD THAT.
Conservative INSTEAD mean PRICE the labor AS FAT AND WELFARE SUPPORTED LABOR.
Imagine a group of starving men who get no welfare, they are going to negotiate a HIGHER WAGE, bc they would rather be criminals than work for the wage.
We use welfare to reduce crime.
NOW THAT WE HAVE fed and comfy non-criminals - the wage they negotiate GOES DOWN..... bc if they don't work, they don't lose the wage, they lose the WELFARE!
So all 30M enter workforce and YOU SAXIE make more than them including their welfare. your wage goes up and your costs of buying things goes down.
Mike ,
ReplyDeleteTo help satisfy your sociopathic tendencies , you might want to twist the knife in the gut of your MM visitors by showing them this :
http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/the-growing-mess-which-will-be-left-behind-by-the-abenomics-experiment/
a sample :
"...Whichever way you look at it, it is clear that the preferred mechanism for overcoming deflation – using monetary policy to generate inflation expectations and increased “demand pull” inflation – simply isn’t working: the increase in base money isn’t passing through to broader money in the economy."
On the jobs topic , if you decide to interview for one of those GI / CYB gigs , practice up on saying : " Yes , massa. "
Their number one job skill they're looking for is boot-licking , ass-kissing servility.
Marko
This is why I get so bummed out...
ReplyDeleteSax already admits that at full employment labor has more leverage.
My plan, GI/CYB, increases that leverage tot he point where employers are saying "yes massa" to employees.
Let's think about the average upper middle class family trying to use this system:
When they find a kick ass full time nanny who ALSO cleans AND is willing to drive to their nice neighborhood (bc she'd no in any way required too) and they get her for $6 per hour - $240 a week, they are THRILLED.
The nanny is making $380 tax free! And not living in.
She and her partner / another single mom whatever (someone else maxing out income on GI like her), are making $760 combined AND:
The cost of their daycare is $50 a week
The cost of getting nails done: $5
Cost of fancy coffee on way to work $1.50
AND the machine is SHOWING OTHER DESPERATE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS parents that she keeps getting rehired, so they bid to $7 - maxing out.
She is now picking amongst multiple offers at the cap. Our concern is literally that some might game the system to pay her extra on the side, but WHO CARES?
Now think about the wheelchair bound 73 year old who already has medicare and SS, but thinks she'd ALSO like to work part-time - the machine allows her to dip into and handle teleservice inbound calls - the cost to entrepreneur who hired her - $2 an hour x 20 hours.
She has 100 job offers like this, since she works from home and generally rates above average in customer service. She chooses based on work hours, or how much she likes the company, but she's never saying "yes, masa"
She's making an extra $7500 a year, and staying familiar with new technology, and you know who suffers???
The guy in Bangalore who was working for $3 per hour including the tariff on his phone line, the call center he works at.
It shouldn't be this hard to get people who claim to understand the market to see what changes when workers are "underpriced"