34 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

What about the scumbag slave labor boss?

They are quickly exposed. No one sells their labor to them. Your real name. Your real reputation. If you want to get “subsidized” labor, you better keep most of your hires happy.

BAHAHAHAHAAA!!

Hey, guy, Australia called – they want their shitty government policy back.

ReplyReply
mygif

Well, obviously you have two classes of employees – ones you pay okay (but run into the ground and generally treat like crap), and a larger pool that you pay $40 a week solely to generate positive feedback.

Also, I love the assumptions that: a) all the people hiring and all the people who can fill those jobs live within a 5 mile radius of each other, b) none of those people are going to ever be related to each other, and c) that the “creative class” is really clamoring for a way to make a subsistence-level income with all the worst aspects of freelancing and full-time employment lumped together.

ReplyReply
mygif

Well, obviously, the key to this plan is that the subhuman filth disadvantaged folks need to be really hungry to go after the jobs we make available.

So that’s why we’ll start slashing their SNAP benefits by ten percent for every month they’re unemployed. Gotta stay hungry so you can go get that money!

ReplyReply
mygif
DensityDuck said on March 25th, 2014 at 9:57 am

“The 74 yr old woman in a wheelchair who wants to work to keep busy?”

It’s funny because this is almost a direct quote from “Starship Troopers”.

ReplyReply
mygif

If reputation = how much money a person or corporation (same thing, right?) made, Microsoft, Taco Bell, Exxon, every cable TV provider, every phone company, etc. would have been bankrupted years ago.

ReplyReply
mygif

Personally, this was the laugh out load bit for me:

Under GI/CYB, dedicated artisans, singers, pianists, muralists, bloggers, gardeners, bakers, yoga instructors, etc. now have their DREAM JOB.

Our creative class will market themselves as willing to take any $40 wk offer doing the thing they love most, as long as someone offers to pay them for it. Utilitarian hedonists unite!

Right. So, if you can find some company willing to pay $40 a week to “do art” you can quit your job and live on that fat $280 a week check. That works out to $1100 a month, by the way, which is almost enough to afford rent and utilities in most American cities. It might cover some food too. It won’t cover some painter’s supplies or a piano (much less a piano tuner to keep it in tune), nor will it cover promotional costs or anything like that. But hey, it’s a dream job, right? And if there’s no company hiring “stay at home piano composer,” well, then you’re forced into some other drone job. But it’s still a dream job, right?

Now, if I want to game this system, here’s how I do it. I hire people at a high rate with the contractual requirement that they rate me on week 1 and at the end of their contract. That way, I get the “I’m thrilled to have a new job that’s paying” bounce to my rep. Then every week I cut their rate by $20 along with a “bad performance review,” citing their inability to meet some arbitrarily difficult performance/production requirements. If I know it takes 40 hours a week to make 100 gizmo’s, then I set my “high pay scale expectations” to about 120 gizmos. Each week I keep cutting their income, along with a dire threat (and another piece of a paper trail) that I’ll rate them as poor workers.

ReplyReply
mygif

I’m no economist but these three ideas took me about 5 minutes to come up with. It seems obvious the biggest money is in finding a way to be a middle man. But even the currently employed can take advantage. Goods production is also a huge market.

As an individual:
Hey Boss, I will take a pay cut from my current pay rate down to $1/hour in exchange for you giving me 80% of the difference in the form of other incentives such as stock, store discounts, etc. Now I make nearly the same amount because of the Gov’t program plus the extra incentives so I’ve given myself a large raise by taking a pay cut. You as my employer have saved significant money by not paying me as much and giving me goods or whatever worth less than the money you save in pay. If those incentives are tracked and not allowed, there are other things you can give me without breaking the letter of the law. A company night at a professional sports game (where if you can’t attend you still get tickets you could sell), a boss taking employees out to lunch every day. Etc.

As an employer:
Hey Walmart, fire all your workers and hire my small company to staff your store. You just pay your managers. That saves you millions in taxes and benefits. You pay my company $5/man-hour of labor you need. You don’t pay the people, you pay on a contract to me. You don’t even have to pay minumum wage for your labor, let alone paying benefits. I hire these people at $1/hour. They make more than they would working a non-full-time position at the store anyway, I make more money the more people I hire, the company is not participating in the system they are just hiring a staffing company, and everyone gets a government check.

Hey kids, why go to college when you graduate high-school? Why not just come make shoes for me that I can sell to Nike for pennies. You get a stable job, if you find something better, good for you. But if you want to do the minimum needed to pay for your teenage priorities like booze and x-box games, come here. Your parents will be so proud you have a job, and who cares what we pay because you are getting a bunch of money from the government anyway. Why study and work hard to advance when you could do the bare minumum and get paid pretty well.

ReplyReply
mygif

Oh, come on. Your are making this too hard.

Open up a hundred bank accounts. Get a hundred social security numbers. Lie. $110,000/mo.

ReplyReply
mygif

Man, I don’t have any ideas for gaming the system but I just love the complete obliviousness necessary to have a system where workers are obligated to take jobs if offered (albeit choosing freely amongst all available jobs), and then say that employers won’t be able to exploit workers because workers can choose not to work with exploitative employers.

I mean that is just amazing. How dumb do you actually have to be. In addition to all the other obvious and glaring and deep problems with the setup, obviously, and the many ways it’s fundamentally unrealistic and naive, but there’s something astounding about being able to say that.

ReplyReply
mygif
Erik Lund said on March 25th, 2014 at 1:56 pm

And this is what you get for following Morgan Warstler’s link spam, Chris. Someone needs to get him a job in retail middle management so he can learn what supervising new hires is really like.

ReplyReply
mygif
Eli Balin said on March 25th, 2014 at 2:28 pm

He lost me at “Using Paypal and an OPEN SOURCE MASHUP of Monster.com and eBay”.

ReplyReply
mygif

Why is the Right so obsessed with turning our workforce into China? I’ve literally had someone tell me we’re bad off because “we’ve outsourced our poor to China” and we need cheaper labor to compete.

If everyone is broke, who is going to buy all the expensive shoes and TVs? The wealthy elite doesn’t buy THAT many TVs.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Now unnecessary illegal immigrants are being priced out or the market. It is only truly the jobs that NO ONE will take, that illegal immigrants can afford to stay and do. We’d ALL want them to stay.”

Is he implying they are taking all the good jobs now?.

Man I’d love to pick apples for 15 hours a day, but the damn illegal immigrants have a lock on that market.

ReplyReply
mygif

I tried to read the linked proposal, but it made me feel like either I’d suffered head trauma or the writer had. And I don’t have any bumps or bruises.

ReplyReply
mygif

I don’t know how other people would abuse the system, but I’m pretty sure I’d gladly pay $40 a week just to have a personal lackey do whatever I want. Heck, I could splurge once a month and have a full squad of minions for a week. Think of the possibilities!

ReplyReply
mygif
Heksefatter said on March 25th, 2014 at 4:54 pm

This is so stupid and disgusting that I am not even going to soil my brain by finishing reading it.

ReplyReply
mygif
@JayDzed said on March 25th, 2014 at 7:01 pm

Wow, that is a special mix of privileged ***hole, sheer stupidity and naivete.

And I barely made it past the first couple of paragraphs.

ReplyReply
mygif

Found it. Direct quote from the dumb paper, emphasis mine:

Hire more than one person, receive kick-backs, and be found not requiring them to work in the eyes of society, you go to prison.”

The paper makes exactly zero mentions anywhere of owners paying themselves a salary — proof positive of the writer’s “benevolent job creators will fix all problems, have infinite money” mindset — so let’s assume that it’s allowed, and the government will give them their debit card too, but the same rules apply. You’re forced to pay yourself a salary. Yes, this is very stupid and many owners forgo a salary, especially when their business is new/doing poorly, but the whole thing’s very stupid, so it fits in.

So: I’m going to start a business and hire my friend Joe. My business is watching TV on Saturday and forming an opinion on what I watched. (Hey, the author wanted to subsidize the arts!) If he pedantically insists on some proof of “work”, we will create a website where Joe will make a weekly update telling everyone if he enjoyed the shows he watched or not. Just a sentence or two, don’t wanna bore the readers.

Joe will now start a business of his own, hiring me as sole employee. This business will be watching TV on Sundays.

Joe and I will each pay each other a $40 weekly salary. I’m giving this system the absolute minimum benefit of the doubt and assuming that something as simple as a “you only get one account per SSN and the government won’t put more than $240 into it per week no matter what” rule will be in effect. (If it’s not, obviously you just create a couple hundred businesses and hire yourself for reach one. That’s easy. My solution is better because it is not so self-evident.)

Joe and I each make $240 a week, tax-free, for watching TV on the weekends. Not bad at all, especially since our Monday to Fridays are still free. If Joe and I already had full-time jobs, we can continue to work them and draw that salary, as before. We pocket the extra grand a month that we didn’t actually need and laugh at the plebs trying to get by on what is literally our pocket money.

ReplyReply
mygif

I already get enough of this Ayn Rand insanity from the Fox News playing on the break room tv at the terrible retail job I took because I can’t get a real job even with a degree.

Sidenote: If this reputation nonsense actually worked then these companies would be out of business …
http://consumerist.com/2014/03/18/have-fun-breaking-down-this-years-worst-company-in-america-bracket/

Kinda hard for Palpal/eBay to be part of the solution when they’re already part of the problem.

ReplyReply
mygif
Cookie McCool said on March 26th, 2014 at 9:35 am

This article has the same earnest, faux-factual, pie-in-the-sky tone of a sports writer trying to sell the notion of, say, the Detroit Lions winning the Super Bowl for the next 30 years. Why, if the players would all just play like they’re supposed, and if no other team would try to win, I’m sure you’ll see how we are guaranteed sport supremacy, world without end!

ReplyReply
mygif

so you can’t hire someone who hires someone who hires you. but can you hire someone who hires someone who hires someone who hires you? can you hire someone who hires someone who hires… n+1?

If you can – find the number of people that’s allowed in a loop and form a coop. I actually approve of this because the 5mile radius thing means people will get to know their neighbours.

If you can’t – divide society into employers and employees. you can’t do both, because you’ll end up in a loop EVENTUALLY. okay, no, if every person you employ is employee-only and every person who employs you is employer-only, that’s stable. otherwise…

ReplyReply
mygif

Joe and I will each pay each other a $40 weekly salary.

He does state that cycles like that are not allowed. It’s less clear about how that works with relatedness/cohabitation constraints. (It’s also unclear what those relatedness constraints are. Cousin? Second cousins? How many degrees of removal? Are their significant others excluded? Roommates?)

If you don’t have any constraints, Joe hires a relative or roommate of yours, and they hire one of Joe’s and so on until you run out of people not in the chain who would be willing to share resources.

Since that’s obvious abuse, we’ll assume that if you’re related or cohabiting, you’re considered the same person when searching for cycles. Which means some perfectly safe circumstances are now forbidden: Alice works for Bob’s company. Bob’s daughter Carol works for Eve. But Eve is Alice’s sister, which would form a cycle.

On top of this, it’s unclear who large corporations count as for cycle-finding purposes. Stockholders? Boards of Directors? Executives? Managers? You might end up in situations where employees must avoid owning stock in the company at all costs, lest they find themselves unemployable. How much stock can one company own of another before they get included into the employment graph?

It’s incredibly obvious this idea is halfbaked. For $1/hour, people will submit a lot of really stupid, trivial jobs. E.g., I want you to come over to my place each morning to iron my newspaper, so it’s nice and warm and my fingers don’t get stained by the ink. $5/week. The mechanisms to prevent abuse are either trivially circumventable, or cause all sorts of unintended consequences, and right now it would make it a solid business strategy to hire an army of workers to do Mechanical Turk work all day. So long as they earn more than $1/hour, everyone gets ahead.

Because the first $6/hour of wages are free, this will encourage employers to keep wages as low as possible – if the median employee’s weekly income is $400 (i.e. $10/hour, or maximum wage allowed by the system), it costs the employer $280/week. Dropping the weekly income to $280 ($7/hour), it only costs the employer $40/week. Paying employees $7/hour instead of $10/hour saves the company money by a factor of 7, rather than 1.4 as expected. The quality of employee you could get for $10 would have to be worth seven $7/hour employees.

ReplyReply
mygif

Would have taken MGK’s prize offer seriously if he offered bitcoins. :| 0/10 Your reputation is ruined, sirrah! I say to you good day! I said good day! I will not tip my fedora to you!

ReplyReply
mygif

@Andrew: hey, don’t knock the noble Krugerrand. It provided valuable foreign exchange to South Africa for many years! How many crumbling, corrupt, monstrous police states has Bitcoin supported, eh? :P

ReplyReply
mygif
Johnathan said on March 27th, 2014 at 9:37 am

Wait a second… how does this work with professionals such as doctors who incorporate and then pay themselves a salary? Could a money-hungry doctor pay themselves 40$ a week for that extra couple of hundred dollars?

More realistically, could *I* incorporate and pay myself 40$ a week? If I pay each week’s salary out of the previous week’s takings, that’s a steady trickle of free money!

ReplyReply
mygif

“Every American middle class family who wants to hire cheap gig labor loves it”

TRANSLATION: “I want slaves”

ReplyReply
mygif

The “no loops” rule shows a profound lack of knowledge about how economies work, but luckily this isn’t ever going to be a working economy anyway.

Even without loops, you can have arbitrarily long make-work job chains where one guy can spend $40 to force the government to pay thousands of people $240 (net) each. Or probably set things up where everyone in the chain is, I don’t know, mining bitcoin for the person at the front of it.

Or just do an old-fashioned chain letter.

ReplyReply
mygif

Only individuals and incorporated SMBs earning less than $3M per year can bid. This is not subsidized labor for Fortune 1000. Under this plan, their labor costs go up.

“Well hell, this company’s NOT earning more than $3M a year! See, the electronics department is technically a separate company, separately incorporated, just operating out of the same space. Small businesses often do that for convenience, you know. We’re leasing the space from a separate company that earns about $2.9 million a year leasing this and two other properties. Like a lot of small businesses, we’ve chosen to outsource certain management tasks to a series of other companies, all quite legally separately incorporated. Sure, it looks like a huge chain store, it functions like a huge chain store, and it generates profit like a huge chain store, but in reality it’s a whole bunch of plucky small businesses, each of which is separately entitled to subsidized near-slave labor. Nobody in the company makes more than a buck an hour except five guys at the top. I mean companies! Plural!”

Christ, this game’s already going on. It’s been going on so long that when Sam Seaborn outlined it on The West Wing fifteen years ago, it was in a flashback to before then.

ReplyReply
mygif

Would have taken MGK’s prize offer seriously if he offered bitcoins. :|

Clearly he meant to say “Dunning-Krugerrands.”

ReplyReply
mygif

Game the system? Sure.

Get some kid who’s fast on the keyboard to sign up for every good job offered, then scalp these jobs to people desperate for work in return for twenty percent of the take. Split this with the kid, as both of you are necessary but replaceable.

And if I win you post a permanent link to my book at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JBMDKCI
because while I genuinely cannot work a regular job for health reasons, I’m still not a mooch.

ReplyReply
mygif
Mike Scott said on March 30th, 2014 at 7:02 am

The easiest workround of all is “I’ll ‘hire’ your partner to do nothing if you’ll ‘hire’ my partner to do the same. Then your partner can ‘hire’ me and I’ll ‘hire’ your partner, and all four of us get the income for doing nothing.”

ReplyReply
mygif

@Terminus

I don’t think they call them “slaves” anymore. I’m pretty sure its “interns” now.

ReplyReply
mygif

Your peeps have easily done the best of everyone I’ve asked to try and game the system.

If you are confident, or even adventurous, or even bored, let’s do an hour long podcast, you hit me with every hack they have, and you can think of, and I’ll defend it. Trial by fire.

I’ll give you $50, and you can give it to whichever reader whose argument you think best whipped me.

In return I get a copy of the podcast to publish, and the practice smashing skulls.

Tell me when, and I’ll make it happen.

ReplyReply
mygif

I’m one of those BIG idealists, and I thought you were insulting Basic Income Guarantee at first.

Then I looked at the link. Wow, way to miss the point of BIG. Seriously, this is almost the opposite of my take on the workability and desirability of refundable tax credits. I’m not sure I care enough to go back and read the whole thing.

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments