2013 June 17 Monday
Rubio Staffers: Only Star Performers Deserve Jobs
While robots are destroying jobs on a massive scale the US Senate is trying to increase the influx of low skilled workers. In spite of the illegal influx a declining number of high school grads and high school drop-outs are working. Even the illegals can't find enough work. This comment by a staffer of US Senator Marco Rubio shows hostility to the vast majority of American workers (and people who used to be workers who are unemployable in the current labor market).
ďThere are American workers who, for lack of a better term, canít cut it. There shouldnít be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just canít get it, canít do it, donít want to do it. And so you canít obviously discuss that publicly.Ē
Not every worker is a star performer. In fact, few workers are star performers. That's the idea about the star performers: they are the exceptions. What Rubio's staffers are saying is that anyone who isn't exceptional (way over 90% of workers) don't deserve their job and deserve to have their job taken by imported workers. Screw the masses in other words.
The "don't want to do it" are far outnumbered by those who are seen as useless by the employers. Most of those could have easily found factory jobs and worked at them successfully 50 years ago. Outsourcing, immigration, robots, and information systems are cutting demand for less skilled workers. Yet the majority of the US Senate want to flood the labor market, especially at the low end. This will only make that problem much worse.
The Senator really believes exactly what his staffer said in background. But he neve argues it in public.
We strongly objected to the magazine including that background quote in the piece because itís not what Sen. Rubio believes or has ever argued.
Rubio's aides have their knives out for workers in every sector of the US economy.
Rubio Aide 2: But the same is true for the high-skilled workers.
Rubio Aide 1: Yes, and the same is true across every sector, in government, in everything.
One downside to the decline of the private sector labor unions: there's no strong organized force left against the unbridled power of capital.
By Randall Parker at 2013 June 17 08:35 PM
RP: "there's no strong organized force left against the unbridled power of capital."
Spengler might take issue with the notion that blood is not a strong organized force. Of course, what does Spengler know? He thought that asexual group organisms, such civilizations, age and die like sexual organisms. Tell that to dog vomit slime mold and eusocial humanity is even more relentless. No what's really going on is that centralization is an inevitable product of failing to tax liquid value of assets at the long term economic growth rate and distribute the proceeds as a citizen's dividend. Such centralization yields centralized power which then corrupts. Its no mysterious "aging" process -- its just bad system design.
@james: seriously though, what would you do different?
@james: seriously though, what would you do different?
Maybe congressional staffers can be replaced by robots or immigrants. I mean, how hard a job can it be? I could imagine a robot answering telephone calls from constituents. Want to listen in?
Caller: Hello! Is this Senator Rubio's office?
Robot Staffer: Yes. You have reached the office of Senator Marco Rubio. Please state your name and place of residence.
C: This is Joe Blow from Jacksonville.
RS: (Slight pause). Hello, Mr. Blow. What can I do for you today?
C: I want to express my opinion about that immigration bill.
RS: (Click. Brrrr.). Please go ahead.
C: I'm against this bill, which sells out American workers to special interests and is a demographic godsend for the Democratic party.
RS: (Somewhat mechanically). Thank you for expressing your opinion. I will inform the Senator as to how you feel.
C: Wait, I'm not done yet. You tell Rubio that he's a big fat idiot if he supports this piece of trash, and that nobody in my family will ever vote for him again if he does. Furthermore ....
RS: Thanks for calling and have a nice day. The Senator is always happy to hear from his constituents and will consider your views very carefully. Goodbye.
Seriously? Eusocializing humanity was an incredibly Bad Idea for reasons that E. O. Wilson points to but denies. Depending on your definition of "civilization" it entails eusocializing humanity (ie: civis means centralized population structure which, as E. O. Wilson points out, is a primary driver of eusocializaiton in a vicious cycle -- although those who worship cities as the ultimate expression of human potential, such as Ayn Rand and Karl Marx would call it a virtuous cycle). Technologization may be a requirement for eusocialization but the converse is not true. Indeed, the true structure of scientific revolutions appears to entail yeoman farmer types, such as Newton, whose physical independence and resulting generality of skills yields creative and independent thought.
However, I'll not burden you further with those thoughts here. I, too, have been raised to biological dependence on this slime mold and the thought of suddenly being thrust into a society of independent small holders whose interactions are not required for reproductively successful family formation.
So, "Seriously", if you want to make this slime mold work, with all of its mind-numbing specialization and without the system state excursions Spengler talked at length about, I gave the prescription: Don't tax economic activity and don't deliver social goods through bureaucracies but instead tax liquid value of assets at the long term economic growth rate (approximated by modern portfolio theory's risk free interest rate) and continually distribute the proceeds with no means testing. That will make a really robust dog vomit slime mold.
Its probably good to point out that sortcracy: sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them would be a natural and even inevitable result of such a distributionist net asset tax system as people would use their dividend stream as a kind of land rent to assortatively migrate where they were welcome by mutual consent (contract) to privately owned and managed human ecologies.
I agree with James Bowery. I used to think a citizens share or direct payments to citizens was a batty ridiculous idea. This was before outsourcing, mass immigration, and robosizing every thing in sight. I used to think large salaries for large corp. presidents was reasonable but I realized they don't do anything for the economy at large. Maybe the old timers in 1780 or so who proclaimed all corporations as a devilish evil were correct.
I saw an economist the other day saying the pay the elites were taking home was not anywhere near their addition to the productive capacity of the economy. In many cases I believe they are negative and should be paying us.
James Dale Davidson and Sir Rees-Moog predicted that this would happen after the Soviet Union fell in the book "The Sovereign Individual". The capitalist would have no further competition so they would shaft the average people with no mercy.
It wouldn't hurt if we printed our own money. Why pay the federal reserve? Of course the last person to do that got a bullet in his head.
Randall you may think you're babbling at the void when you tell your readers to cut cost and find new ways to live. I'M LISTENING. I'm finding ways to live off of extremely low income. I'm not so sure I can increase my income by a lot. Too old, but I can sure watch what I have now to greatly lower recurring cost. Income wise I probably screwed. My major problem being I'm smart enough to know I'm screwed yet not quite smart enough to know how to get out of it.