The Public Sector - A Different Perspective

[tomandlu]

What is the point of that.....firstly we can't afford it, secondly why pay people to do stuff for the sake of it when they could be working doing something more useful and productive in their free time, their own time......a job is only worth doing if it is a job that is needed for at a price that people can afford to pay ie us who will pay for it by extra taxes or extra debt and debt interest.......a mum at home baking a cake and looking after the children has got to be better than sitting in some office doing nothing useful but wanting to be paid for it, because it is 'worth it' when it is clearly not.

That a parent should be raising their own kids, I take as a given, but that's another kettle of fish. I do question the notion that we cannot afford it. It would certainly require a progressive and effective taxation system (if LVT is the best way to achieve that, then fine). Capitalism is in danger of consuming itself - or at least its customers. Remember - a good capitalist doesn't seek to create jobs; he seeks to destroy them.

[winkie]

That a parent should be raising their own kids, I take as a given, but that's another kettle of fish. I do question the notion that we cannot afford it. It would certainly require a progressive and effective taxation system (if LVT is the best way to achieve that, then fine). Capitalism is in danger of consuming itself - or at least its customers. Remember - a good capitalist doesn't seek to create jobs; he seeks to destroy them.

The public sector is hugely wasteful, maybe because in many areas it is overstaffed with overpaid staff and many areas understaffed with underpaid staff.....too big, too self important, too set in their ways, too complacent....too big to fail. Much the same as some of the big corporates that have it all their own way as if it was the only way......less is more, smaller is better.....bring back recognise and value our small and medium enterprises who take all the risks without the comforts and security of the highly paid 'I'm all right jacks' you can't get rid of me, or else, the ones that are close to the money therefore it is easier for them to help themselves.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

How would this idea create any wealth? Seems to just divert resources from the wealth creators instead.

[tomandlu]

How would this idea create any wealth? Seems to just divert resources from the wealth creators instead.

The wealth is there - it's not wealth creation that's the primary problem; it's wealth absorption.

It's simple mathematics - optimised productivity will always lead to lower wages unless it is matched by either a redistribution of wealth or new sources of productivity and economic activity.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

The wealth is there - it's not wealth creation that's the primary problem; it's wealth absorption.

It's simple mathematics - optimised productivity will always lead to lower wages unless it is matched by either a redistribution of wealth or new sources of productivity and economic activity.

and the wealth absorbtion has been driven by the state and fundamentally taxation, special state licenses, privileges, state enforced scarcity and the associated behavioural effects, not sure how giving the cause even greater authority over wealth distribution is going to solve the problem when they are responsible for the wealth distribution that has created the problem

Edited November 14, 2013 by Maria Gorska

[Habeas Domus]

What exactly is this CI you are talking about??

Criminology and military

Counter-intelligence

Confidential informant

Compliance Inspection (USAF)

Chief Inspector, a police rank

Education

Channel Islands High School

California State University, Channel Islands

Finance

The NYSE symbol for CIGNA Corporation

Locations and continental services

Ci County, in Hebei, China

Central Islip, New York

Cayman Islands

Chile, FIPS country code and obsolete NATO country code digram

Cocos Island, off the Republic of Costa Rica

Coney Island

Cocos (Keeling) Islands, an external territory of Australia

Christmas Island, an external territory of Australia

Kiritimati, another island by the name of "Christmas Island" in the Pacific Ocean

Côte d'Ivoire, ISO country code digram

.ci, the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Côte d'Ivoire

The IATA airline designator for China Airlines (Taiwan ROC)

Channel Islands

Channel Islands of California

Qi, in Tongyong Pinyin

Carbonia-Iglesias, a province in southern Italy

[tomandlu]

What exactly is this CI you are talking about??

In this context, Citizens Income.

BTW we have several threads going about CI (well, one at least - the Swiss one), so I'd suggest trying to keep this thread distinct (and I'm as culpable as anyone).

To put the question at its simplest - can the state manage distribution of the benefits of optimised production and, if so, how?

[Mr Jib Fingers]

The wealth is there - it's not wealth creation that's the primary problem; it's wealth absorption.

It's simple mathematics - optimised productivity will always lead to lower wages unless it is matched by either a redistribution of wealth or new sources of productivity and economic activity.

Why will productivity always lead to lower wages? Up until the 70s they rose at the same time.

As already pointed out the rentiers have used the state to redistribute the money to themselves so unless that problem is solved (preferably by less state) then nothing will change.

The idea of increasing the amount of hours worked in the country without increasing productivity or increasing wealth is a bad one.

[wonderpup]

only thing which actually works is the capitalism and free market

Communism worked well- for a while.There were periods where the USSR was out performing the USA So it's by no means a given that free markets are the all time solution.

It could be that capitalism has it's own internal contradictions that will eventually bring it down just as communism was brought down. One obvious example being the contradiction between the pressure to automate as many jobs as possible while retaining demand for goods and services.

No one would argue that labor saving technology should be restrained- but without paid work the citizen cannot consume the products of that labor saving technology.

As presently configured the free market has no real response to this contradiction.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

Communism worked well- for a while.There were periods where the USSR was out performing the USA So it's by no means a given that free markets are the all time solution.

It could be that capitalism has it's own internal contradictions that will eventually bring it down just as communism was brought down. One obvious example being the contradiction between the pressure to automate as many jobs as possible while retaining demand for goods and services.

No one would argue that labor saving technology should be restrained- but without paid work the citizen cannot consume the products of that labor saving technology.

As presently configured the free market has no real response to this contradiction.

What is to stop people priced out of jobs by technology trading with each other?

[Traktion]

Rather than thinking about public and private sectors, try seeing it as involuntary and voluntary sectors. The latter should always preferable.

How do we stop voluntary trades from becoming involuntary is the question.

[crashmonitor]

No need for CI+.

I'm guessing there would have to be a long transition period for certain welfare dependent people to adjust to an income of say £10,000 from maybe several times that on full housing benefit, especially in London. You would need to give people time to move, no doubt it would be considered a human rights abuse upon the entitled masses who have gotten use to helping themselves to more than their fair share. Of course at the moment it is the low paid in work who are shafted by welfare lifers and their parasitic landlords who also feed off the welfare......but some people are more equal and the human rights of those that try and do the right thing don't count.

Edited November 15, 2013 by crashmonitor

[wonderpup]

What is to stop people priced out of jobs by technology trading with each other?

They have nothing to sell except the labor that has no commercial value due to automation.

It's true that the unemployed could all wash each others windows or mow each others lawns- but if no one has any hard currency to pay for the work then none of them could afford to buy a packet of chewing gum no matter how hard they worked.

[winkie]

They have nothing to sell except the labor that has no commercial value due to automation.

It's true that the unemployed could all wash each others windows or mow each others lawns- but if no one has any hard currency to pay for the work then none of them could afford to buy a packet of chewing gum no matter how hard they worked.

Now chewing gum isn't exactly a necessity is it......but I am sure if someone was desperate to have some there would be some natural way they could work out how to make some.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

They have nothing to sell except the labor that has no commercial value due to automation.

It's true that the unemployed could all wash each others windows or mow each others lawns- but if no one has any hard currency to pay for the work then none of them could afford to buy a packet of chewing gum no matter how hard they worked.

And what is stopping them creating their own currency between themselves so they can trade freely with each other?

Also they will have access to some technology, just not the most advanced.

[John51]

To put the question at its simplest - can the state manage distribution of the benefits of optimised production and, if so, how?

Could be possible.

Most of the public sector workers I know admit to around 50% of their department staff being unnecessary, though a few are up against it, understaffed and underpaid. Full on efficiency would be a mistake imo, there needs to be some slack to cover the unforeseen.

We could ask them, individually, what they'd like to do that in their opinion makes a positive improvement to society. This could have those with an interest in the quality of education helping out even if not actually teaching. Or those interested in parks and recreation putting their talents towards that cause.

[Damik]

They have nothing to sell except the labor that has no commercial value due to automation.

It's true that the unemployed could all wash each others windows or mow each others lawns- but if no one has any hard currency to pay for the work then none of them could afford to buy a packet of chewing gum no matter how hard they worked.

perhaps you missed that every western capitalistic society got a thing called: a social benefits system

and if the stuff such as food, cars, electricity etc is made by free robotic labour then it will be provided for free; such as Linux or public libraries these days

[Damik]

1/ Communism worked well- for a while.There were periods where the USSR was out performing the USA So it's by no means a given that free markets are the all time solution.

2/ It could be that capitalism has it's own internal contradictions that will eventually bring it down just as communism was brought down. One obvious example being the contradiction between the pressure to automate as many jobs as possible while retaining demand for goods and services.

3/ No one would argue that labor saving technology should be restrained- but without paid work the citizen cannot consume the products of that labor saving technology.

4/ As presently configured the free market has no real response to this contradiction.

1/ Stalin called people like you "useful idiots"

2/ Nope. Free markets are quite happy to destroy the demand to improve the productivity. Such as manufacturing of long bows and arrows.

3/ Nope. They will be able to consume the products as they will become cheaper or free.

4/ You do not understand what the free market does, what is it's role and how it can fail and require external regulations.

[Damik]

The idea of 'public bad private good' is way to simplistic.

fullfy, some feedback for you from the public sector experts:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/10452189/China-unveils-sweeping-economic-reforms.html

Reform advocates say Beijing must curb the privileges and dominant role of state companies they say are inefficient and a drag on growth.

[tomandlu]

1/ Stalin called people like you "useful idiots" - So you agree with Stalin?

2/ Nope. Free markets are quite happy to destroy the demand to improve the productivity. Such as manufacturing of long bows and arrows. - Sorry, can you explain what this means? Genuinely curious.

[tahoma]

What is to stop people priced out of jobs by technology trading with each other?

I visited a client the other day who works in a shared office block in Brum.

While waiting for the lift I observed the list of residents. 95% were technology based, particularly internet. All jobs that did not exist 25 years ago.

Anyone who thinks technology results in a net cost in jobs is a twit.

It results in a net drain in jobs for people who don't want to think much, because computers can be programmed to replace them. But overall, it's a plus with new opportunities arising every second.

[wonderpup]

And what is stopping them creating their own currency between themselves so they can trade freely with each other?

Nothing- just as there is nothing stopping you from creating your own currency. The problems arise when you need to buy something from people who want to be paid in another currency.

[wonderpup]

1/ Stalin called people like you "useful idiots"

2/ Nope. Free markets are quite happy to destroy the demand to improve the productivity. Such as manufacturing of long bows and arrows.

3/ Nope. They will be able to consume the products as they will become cheaper or free.

4/ You do not understand what the free market does, what is it's role and how it can fail and require external regulations.

If you agree that productivity can destroy demand then you understand the point I was making- the more efficient our technology becomes the less economic value it creates.

But since capitalism is a system dependent on the exchange of economic value a technology that destroys economic value would-if it continued to evolve- bring down that system.

Our current technology is a massive deflationary force that is eroding the value of more and more people's labor- either because it eliminates their jobs directly or because it eliminates their ability to monetize their output.

[wonderpup]

I visited a client the other day who works in a shared office block in Brum.

While waiting for the lift I observed the list of residents. 95% were technology based, particularly internet. All jobs that did not exist 25 years ago.

Anyone who thinks technology results in a net cost in jobs is a twit.

It results in a net drain in jobs for people who don't want to think much, because computers can be programmed to replace them. But overall, it's a plus with new opportunities arising every second

How many people do you think do jobs that require genuine creative thinking? The answer is not that many. Most people's jobs are fairly routine and as you point out- computers can be programmed to replace them.

There will always be work for the genuinely smart and the resourceful- but in your experience does this description apply to the majority of people or to a minority?

If the latter then it's entirely likely that technology will result in a net cost in jobs- unless you are expecting a sudden evolution in the mindset and capabilities of the average citizen.

[Damik]

If you agree that productivity can destroy demand then you understand the point I was making- the more efficient our technology becomes the less economic value it creates.

But since capitalism is a system dependent on the exchange of economic value a technology that destroys economic value would-if it continued to evolve- bring down that system.

Our current technology is a massive deflationary force that is eroding the value of more and more people's labor- either because it eliminates their jobs directly or because it eliminates their ability to monetize their output.

Nope. It will not destroy the system.

For example food production. 500 years ago 95% of population was full time (10h per day) involved in the food production. Now it is only 5% of the population and food costs a single adult from about £4 per day. Less than 1h of his / her work on minimal wage.

Or Linux, which is often free. Or free TV paid by the adverts. Or Internet which costs about 3h of work on the minimal wage per month.

And as the back up there is the state benefit system.

Majority of the costs of any product or service is the human labour. If the human labour is replaced by free robotic labour basic food, transport and shelter will be also free.

So potentially only about 10% of population will be actively working. Your last remaining capitalists.

The problems you should be afraid are, what people will do with these amount of free time. Such as alcohol and drug abuse ...

Edited November 16, 2013 by Damik