Hacker News Reader

"There are always enough jobs." That's patently rubbish as can be seen all around the (1st) world at the moment.

However, I don't agree with the parent's comment that technology causes a lack of jobs - also obviously untrue if you look around you.

Currently we're on the tail-end of a recession, thus money isn't moving around, thus it's harder to insert one's self into the money stream.

As people start spending, jobs pick up. This is already happening in most of the richer parts of the recession hit world. Here in the UK, unemployment has been dropping steadily. New small businesses are appearing fast. Manufacturing's on the way up.

FWIW, I agree with everything after your very first sentence.

The fact that there aren't currently enough jobs could very well be an unquantifiable negative externality of having a minimum wage.

> The problem isn't a lack of jobs, it's the draining of capital flow that happen when the monetary system dries up. Whether you believe that to be unfairness or just some players being so adept at the game... that doesn't matter.

> The ball needs to move or people who want to play the game will be sitting out. If the ball is kept moving, even artificially, anyone who wants to play will get to play. The only ones left out would be willingly out or mentally/physically unable to play at all.

What you're saying may be true now, but surely it won't always be true? Who's to say that every mundane task won't (relatively soon) be automated? We need to start thinking about how we should deal with this.

>There are always enough jobs. There aren't enough jobs that people are willing to do for the money others are willing to pay.

Nice. "Work willing to be done for others willing to pay" is what defines a job. It only took you two sentences to make the rest of your post into rubbish capitalist handwaving.

>If I knew someone near me was living on <$1/day, I would raise their pay to $5 to do something mundane.

Please do this actually. Someone near you is living on <$1/day.

"It's not practical!" you'll say. That's because nothing you're saying is actually practical enough to be realistic.

Someone near you is living on <$1/day.

Oh yeah? Running $0 worth of income through a SNAP benefits calculator tells me that an individual with no job is entitled to $200/month. That's one anti-poverty program that blows past your <$1/day by almost an order of magnitude.

Not everyone is eligible.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibilit...

Anyone with <$1/day of income would be eligible, unless they have >$2000 in a bank account or other "countable" resources.

  Generally ABAWDS between 18 and 50 who do not have any dependent children can get SNAP benefits only for 3 months in a 36-month period if they do not work or participate in a workfare or employment and training program other than job search. This requirement is waived in some locations. 

  With some exceptions, able-bodied adults between 16 and 60 must register for work, accept suitable employment, and take part in an employment and training program to which they are referred by the local office. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in disqualification from the Program.

It's only for 3 months in a 36-month period.

For people without kids or other family responsibilities who can't even be bothered to show up for free, government-funded work-training?

That doesn't sound like being forced to live on $1/day to me. Yes, of course I can voluntarily not accept the money and goods being offered to me, but that's not really the point.

Wow, you and your fancy calculator sure showed me.

Anti-poverty programs don't automagically give $200 to everyone with no job. And (I assume) the $1/day was a somewhat arbitrary value anyway.

My point was simply that it's a wild exaggeration to assume there are more than a handful of people in the United States who are involuntarily living on <$1/day. Whether it's "arbitrary" or not, it's not even close to reality.