The correct size of the AML is zero.
It may seem to many that at Geektimes and Habrahabr there are only solid proponents of unconditional basic income (basic income). I managed to read many publications in favor of AML, but I did not see a single critical article. And what could be more important than the pluralism of opinions?
Many who support the AML idea are not at all ideological socialists. Reading how this new wondrous world is presented to us by journalists, willy-nilly, you succumb to the charm of simple solutions. After all, of course, what remains for a person when robots take away all the work from him? What, besides the retirement pension of humanity, can be at the end of the working career of human civilization: we have worked hard for these centuries, now it's the turn of the car
But let's go back to reality. Look around, does this scientific and technical progress destroy jobs? Have we reached the point when all work is automated and we just have nothing else to do?
')
Jobs are a direct result of the success and profitability of new businesses. There is no other way to create a job, except to create the need for someone to hire a worker. The more difficult it is for businesses to be born and grow, the less you should expect someone to hire a couple more hands. And what a trouble when you start milking an established business, shifting to it the concern for the welfare of its employees, inventing taxes, benefits, subsidies, insurance and other social obligations hanging weights on the legs of a trained athlete, you attach the same weights to the legs of those who are still planning to start.
The simplicity of starting a business is not the number of hours for processing paperwork. This is the ratio of risk and profitability: relatively what resources you need to sacrifice, relative to the possible profit from them. Simply, this is when you invest the minimum, and expect to increase it. I was at the speech of the founder of Levenguk, and he very simply gave an estimate of the risk of selling goods without issuing a cash receipt - 12,000 rubles, less than the cost of the cash register (at the time of the speech). The less you have to risk, the greater the chances that you will stretch long enough to become profitable.
Economic prosperity with the stroke of a pen. Is this something you did that made inquiring minds of the past look for the philosopher's stone? Certain logic is traceable. After all, if fiat money replaced gold, then fiat money production - what if not the industrial embodiment of the philosopher's stone?
But the trouble is, value is not created in parallel with the creation of a new bill. Value is the equivalent of human labor, aspirations, packed in a convenient form of cash and cashless payments. When you buy something, you declare: “I am ready to work such and such number of hours, days, months and years to possess it”, and not exchange the cut paper for the desired product. Printing money, you simply dilute the capital created and created by the labor of the people - from which inflation and hyperinflation happen.
Receiving from the state a decent standard of living without hitting your finger with your finger, you simply force someone to work instead of you and withdraw part of his labor to your advantage. The erroneous idea that money is a resource that is mined in the pockets of rich people leads us into a society in which it is less profitable to work, less profitable to save - and the profit becomes less and less than more people refuse to save, invest and work.
Wouldn't it be better to encourage people to look for work and do business? If you really want to distribute money to people, why not introduce a negative income tax, which assumes that you, working, get more money without paying the state a part of your salary or income? Even low-paid work becomes a little better if you can save a large part of your salary than now.
I heard that in one country in Southeast Asia (if I am not mistaken in Vietnam), an employer also adds some quantity of rice to the salary. It is quite obvious that you can buy rice yourself and it would be easier to add its value to the wage itself. But the prevailing stereotype about a good position includes “free” rice. And unless we, exchanging a part of the salary, on social security and pensions promised by the state, we do not do something similar?
There is an opinion that AML is a way to pacify crime. People will stop stealing, stealing and robbing if they are full and healthy. A very controversial idea, but even agreeing with it, would it not be the best method to get these people to work? To teach them how to fish, instead of giving them fish daily for coupons? Will these people have an incentive to grow professionally, to earn more and feel their own value, than to give them a fixed amount that you can’t increase by any means, except to steal a neighbor's AED, and a lot of free time, so that they look for ways to occupy themselves something?
Let's be honest and let's face it. What grew on the basis of unemployment benefits? Hereditary unemployed in large families, street gangs selling drugs, industrial robbery, ghettos, where the work of the police is less or completely ineffective. Do you just want to give them more money? Or make more ghettos?
We associate economic prosperity with the amount of money, the more money as it seems to us, the more prosperity. However, it’s not at all the number of zeros on a bill that speaks of wealth, but the quantity of goods and services that you can purchase. Politicians should not come up with the minimum cost of labor, but work on cost reduction and the number of alternatives to any service or product. After all, as you know, a fully efficient market creates a minimum markup - efficiency means that the cheapest way of production has been found, a distribution channel, such a minimal price has been given that there is no reason to create a similar product and sell it a little cheaper. And what is most surprising is that the market itself strives for efficiency, it does not need to be sent there with kicks and splits, just as living organisms did not require any instructions from the government to make the way from primitive creatures to modern ecosystems and rationality.
Many who support the AML idea are not at all ideological socialists. Reading how this new wondrous world is presented to us by journalists, willy-nilly, you succumb to the charm of simple solutions. After all, of course, what remains for a person when robots take away all the work from him? What, besides the retirement pension of humanity, can be at the end of the working career of human civilization: we have worked hard for these centuries, now it's the turn of the car
Scientific and technological progress destroys jobs
But let's go back to reality. Look around, does this scientific and technical progress destroy jobs? Have we reached the point when all work is automated and we just have nothing else to do?
')
Jobs are a direct result of the success and profitability of new businesses. There is no other way to create a job, except to create the need for someone to hire a worker. The more difficult it is for businesses to be born and grow, the less you should expect someone to hire a couple more hands. And what a trouble when you start milking an established business, shifting to it the concern for the welfare of its employees, inventing taxes, benefits, subsidies, insurance and other social obligations hanging weights on the legs of a trained athlete, you attach the same weights to the legs of those who are still planning to start.
The simplicity of starting a business is not the number of hours for processing paperwork. This is the ratio of risk and profitability: relatively what resources you need to sacrifice, relative to the possible profit from them. Simply, this is when you invest the minimum, and expect to increase it. I was at the speech of the founder of Levenguk, and he very simply gave an estimate of the risk of selling goods without issuing a cash receipt - 12,000 rubles, less than the cost of the cash register (at the time of the speech). The less you have to risk, the greater the chances that you will stretch long enough to become profitable.
If you can not create jobs - because you can create a salary?
Economic prosperity with the stroke of a pen. Is this something you did that made inquiring minds of the past look for the philosopher's stone? Certain logic is traceable. After all, if fiat money replaced gold, then fiat money production - what if not the industrial embodiment of the philosopher's stone?
But the trouble is, value is not created in parallel with the creation of a new bill. Value is the equivalent of human labor, aspirations, packed in a convenient form of cash and cashless payments. When you buy something, you declare: “I am ready to work such and such number of hours, days, months and years to possess it”, and not exchange the cut paper for the desired product. Printing money, you simply dilute the capital created and created by the labor of the people - from which inflation and hyperinflation happen.Receiving from the state a decent standard of living without hitting your finger with your finger, you simply force someone to work instead of you and withdraw part of his labor to your advantage. The erroneous idea that money is a resource that is mined in the pockets of rich people leads us into a society in which it is less profitable to work, less profitable to save - and the profit becomes less and less than more people refuse to save, invest and work.
A reasonable alternative to AML
Wouldn't it be better to encourage people to look for work and do business? If you really want to distribute money to people, why not introduce a negative income tax, which assumes that you, working, get more money without paying the state a part of your salary or income? Even low-paid work becomes a little better if you can save a large part of your salary than now.
I heard that in one country in Southeast Asia (if I am not mistaken in Vietnam), an employer also adds some quantity of rice to the salary. It is quite obvious that you can buy rice yourself and it would be easier to add its value to the wage itself. But the prevailing stereotype about a good position includes “free” rice. And unless we, exchanging a part of the salary, on social security and pensions promised by the state, we do not do something similar?
But after all, AML is a great way to drive people into the ghetto!
There is an opinion that AML is a way to pacify crime. People will stop stealing, stealing and robbing if they are full and healthy. A very controversial idea, but even agreeing with it, would it not be the best method to get these people to work? To teach them how to fish, instead of giving them fish daily for coupons? Will these people have an incentive to grow professionally, to earn more and feel their own value, than to give them a fixed amount that you can’t increase by any means, except to steal a neighbor's AED, and a lot of free time, so that they look for ways to occupy themselves something?
Let's be honest and let's face it. What grew on the basis of unemployment benefits? Hereditary unemployed in large families, street gangs selling drugs, industrial robbery, ghettos, where the work of the police is less or completely ineffective. Do you just want to give them more money? Or make more ghettos?
Everything should not be free, but cheap
We associate economic prosperity with the amount of money, the more money as it seems to us, the more prosperity. However, it’s not at all the number of zeros on a bill that speaks of wealth, but the quantity of goods and services that you can purchase. Politicians should not come up with the minimum cost of labor, but work on cost reduction and the number of alternatives to any service or product. After all, as you know, a fully efficient market creates a minimum markup - efficiency means that the cheapest way of production has been found, a distribution channel, such a minimal price has been given that there is no reason to create a similar product and sell it a little cheaper. And what is most surprising is that the market itself strives for efficiency, it does not need to be sent there with kicks and splits, just as living organisms did not require any instructions from the government to make the way from primitive creatures to modern ecosystems and rationality.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/372367/
All Articles