Then the staff or A-B are usually filipino, Vietmanese or Indonesian. Its more salary then back where they're from - and it has interesting cultural changes in their socities.
In the philippines, these are called "OFW" families. daddy is never home, but because he works "abroad" his family can have newer stuff, be in a better neighborhood, etc.
Merchant marine, sure, but naval? Wouldn’t both officers and crew be the nationality of the force in the vast majority of cases?
whether it's farming, cruises, factories, transportation, etc.
not supporting it, but that's the current setup.
For factories, you sometimes have the problem of the factory shutting down after the locals become dependent on it.
For migrant working, it's hard on the children of the family and it causes tension between the families not participating.
Philosophically, one could argue it's exploitation and is very close to slavery except the small amount of pay. Until this type of work is extinct I don't think one can morally campaign for UBI can you?
Currently this type of work is apparently necessary so we've accepted that the system cannot either pay the more wealthy citizen's wage nor up the wage of the foreign workers.
Is there a demand to up the wage of these non-represented workers that make far below minimum wage?
Is there a demand to up the wage of minimal wage for citizens and are the foreign workers mentioned?
Is there a demand for UBI for citizens to not work at all while foreign workers pick up the slack?
What you describe is not exploitation, people are working of their own will and that's the best deal they can have.
When you'll eliminate those jobs with income redistribution and minimum wage those people (especially if they're coming in from a different, poorer country) will just be out of a job.
It may be the best option for these people, but you are exploiting their poverty for your profit, otherwise you'd pay the minimum wage.
It's the people who cry minimum wage hikes while exploiting this business that make my blood boil.
I agree about UBI, it's immoral, period.
But yes people supporting near slave labor while also wanting UBI does make my blood boil, lazy fucks.
As does child-trafficking, bank bailouts, defense contract laundering, nepotism, etc.
Gotta have ice cold veins to counteract all that blood boiling bullshit in the world, dontcha.
This is a 5 minute budget analysis and not even a real thought process, but people get so emotional about these things that all rational thought goes by the wayside of any benefits that might occur. People might not have so much worry about job insecurity of being one bill away from homelessness. Higher education would be more attainable for so many people. A single income family might be able to take care of a child while one of the parents focused on educating and helping the child become a decent member of society.
If you don't want to help fix the present and the future then you shouldn't complain about it. If you're fine with the direction everything is going, then that's great.
In that, say the US pays UBI, which people use to purchase basic goods, which come from non-US manufacturers.
(and I realize this next flies in the face of 200 years of economic theory)
... But if UBI is a bridge to a post-scarcity society, then shouldn't the emphasis be on post-scarcity? Not just redirecting funds? Which is to say, funding highly automated manufacturing of basic, non-customized, functional good to zero?
The present system requires you to have active hands in the creation of these commodities or you don't get a share. In the face of increasing efficiencies, offshoring, etc. people's offer of labor may not find a buyer, making them unemployable. That's where UBI comes in, to assure that post-scarcity is enjoyed by all, not just those that have marketable labor.
Where this gets complicated is the moralizing. But it's not the moral thing to let your neighbor starve when you've got surplus food, even if there's some game theory that you will generate free riders, or some of these people aren't "deserving", or working folks divert a little bit more of the fruits of their labor than they already do, or other societies that are a race to the bottom of human welfare will out-compete us.
I have no issue with income distribution of a social value store since allowing it to be monopolized to prop up the value of a minority rich, to let millions starve, or die of preventable disease is immoral and violent.
I don’t believe Elon Musk is worth billions. I just can’t take his real stuff.
Letting our social value store be co-opted by a handful of memes isn’t exactly free agency, speech, or market of ideas. When “get job, buy stuff” is the one true sentence, why believe ideas like freedom matter?
Money is an abstract distributed ledger conceived of from our old way of imprinting quantity on clay tablets, to track trade.
We’re lead around by gossip, fads, trends… memes… where to look for the best paying jobs, sales… by restricting acceptable discourse around not the literal solution to problems, but the expectations we solve them for corporations to own, and leverage for profit with “fair apportionment” dictated by Byzantine economic math not even the experts can penetrate (there was just a story on HN about how no one knows who owns what in any clear way; it’s all ad hoc to fit a narrative; Google Varoufakis)
We’re told that’s just how it goes and it’s all correct and politically policed for correctness. Yet last year we saw in the news they just hand out hundreds of millions to those in the political network and make everyone else work for them in return.
Relative network effects are the reality of physics and it makes a good concept for understanding society. Adam Smith called for equality of condition to prevent gross inequality and extreme division of labor making for humans dumber than any animal (paraphrasing).
Bring on the universal healthcare, and economics that protect the biological well-being of all people first and force austerity on a minority in the form of an aristocracy
It would be nice if people spent just a tiny amount of time studying economics before pronouncing on it.
A US dollar, for example, is backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States Government", and this has an objectively measurable value (because there are pairs of almost identical securities where one has "full faith and credit" and the other doesn't).
Unless your argument is "all securities and currencies are imaginary," of course, which has no practical value.
Please note that I'm a far-left socialist and I consider capitalism destructive to the planet. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in economics.
What we should realize through the study of economics is just how screwed things are. Anyone with any math sense should see inflation deflates buying power for the public, and has nothing to do with real trade but belief that a billionaire is leveraging real property so well on his own… oh wait all of humanity serves him by not changing the rules to serve themselves. What a convenient self fulfilling prophecy.
The math makes it obvious which people are winning and science makes it obvious no one is more than one of seven billion. Somehow it’s miraculously a specific few winning big.
Stop listening to it all. People trade. That’s it. There’s no need to speculate and manage the behavior to send billionaires in space on empty promises of humans …magically… becoming the first space faring civ. Sure seems to give Bezos a helluva life. I’m crazy though; humanity has never succumbed to shared fallacy at scale before.
Who knows, maybe healthcare and education for all actually empower the kid who goes on to engineer the next big leap, but contemporary political memes filter those break throughs out by miserly tracking currency debts.