Walgreens freezes salary

[PAtoPharm]

Ah, I think we have a simple misunderstanding. While I do think it shows a certain character flaw to bounce around from professional school to professional school (if you were being objective about it I suspect you would agree), I also think you are making the right choice by getting out. In fact I think I have told you that over and over again. So nice straw man argument, but no, I still agree with your choice to leave pharmacy school. It is obvious you wouldn't be happy in the professional, so why pursue it?

At this point, who a actually WOULD be well-advised to attend (or stay enrolled, if they're already there) in pharmacy school? Can you actually say that signing up for no future pay raises, a saturated job market that is being cited by chains (the most common pharmacist employer) as a point of justification for freezing/lowering salaries, and a likely impending takeover of the field by Amazon would all be worthwhile for someone to endure if they are truly passionate about pharmacy?

In other words, the point I was making is that it seems like you wanted to insist that pharmacy doesn't suck overall and that it's just not a good fit for me on a personal level, although it's still a worthwhile endeavor to pursue for people who are passionate enough about the work. Let's get real... as time goes on and the outlook of pharmacy becomes more and more bleak, it becomes an objectively bad investment of time/money/effort.... ESPECIALLY for someone who has the potential to be successful in a challenging program. Now, the irony seems to be that the types of students who really could make pharmacy work (tenacious, hard-working, willing to outcompete 90% of their classmates, etc.) would be doing themselves a disservice by going to/staying in pharmacy school.

As for me, I am simply more and more astounded as time goes on that my decision to leave pharmacy school is turning out to be such a smart one. I guess it's because in most cases, running away from a challenge usually ends up coming at a price for someone, usually in the form of the rewards of persevering through whatever they decided to abandon becoming even more worthwhile.

In other words, it would have been poetic justice for a report to have been released a few weeks after I dropped out detailing a reversal of the job market trend, or for the provider status bill to have passed, or for something else to have occurred that would've made it clear that I made at least some degree of a mistake. But instead, things just keep getting worse and worse, so it's almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy in reverse.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wagrxm2000]

If pharmacist paid $15/hour, you wouldn't be interested in doing it. You can tell yourself whatever you want, but deep down you know damn well that the high salary is the main reason you wanted to do this. I'm sure that of the professions that paid well, pharmacy was your favorite...and that's fine...I'm the same way...but let's not lie to ourselves and pretend that money isn't the #1 reason the vast, vast majority of people work at all, let alone in retail pharmacy.

We didn't get paid this much when I first started. Did I choose a profession that paid well? Sure, but it isn't why I joined this profession.

Kids now a days do choose this profession solely for the money, which is sad and hurting those that chose it for the correct reasonings.

 

[CynicalIntern]

As for me, I am simply more and more astounded as time goes on that my decision to leave pharmacy school is turning out to be such a smart one. I guess it's because in most cases, running away from a challenge usually ends up coming at a price for someone, usually in the form of the rewards of persevering through whatever they decided to abandon becoming even more worthwhile.

I am simply more and more astounded as time goes on that since you have joined SDN, you have wasted two years and tens of thousands of dollars and have zero marketable skills to show for it, and continue to portray yourself as so much more intelligent than the masses who told you two years ago not to do it in the first place.

 

[wagrxm2000]

At this point, who a actually WOULD be well-advised to attend (or stay enrolled, if they're already there) in pharmacy school? Can you actually say that signing up for no future pay raises, a saturated job market that is being cited by chains (the most common pharmacist employer) as a point of justification for freezing/lowering salaries, and a likely impending takeover of the field by Amazon would all be worthwhile for someone to endure if they are truly passionate about pharmacy?

In other words, the point I was making is that it seems like you wanted to insist that pharmacy doesn't suck overall and that it's just not a good fit for me on a personal level, although it's still a worthwhile endeavor to pursue for people who are passionate enough about the work. Let's get real... as time goes on and the outlook of pharmacy becomes more and more bleak, it becomes an objectively bad investment of time/money/effort.... ESPECIALLY for someone who has the potential to be successful in a challenging program. Now, the irony seems to be that the types of students who really could make pharmacy work (tenacious, hard-working, willing to outcompete 90% of their classmates, etc.) would be doing themselves a disservice by going to/staying in pharmacy school.

As for me, I am simply more and more astounded as time goes on that my decision to leave pharmacy school is turning out to be such a smart one. I guess it's because in most cases, running away from a challenge usually ends up coming at a price for someone, usually in the form of the rewards of persevering through whatever they decided to abandon becoming even more worthwhile.

In other words, it would have been poetic justice for a report to have been released a few weeks after I dropped out detailing a reversal of the job market trend, or for the provider status bill to have passed, or for something else to have occurred that would've made it clear that I made at least some degree of a mistake. But instead, things just keep getting worse and worse, so it's almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy in reverse.

Stop, please stop.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I am simply more and more astounded as time goes on that since you have joined SDN, you have wasted two years and tens of thousands of dollars and have zero marketable skills to show for it, and continue to portray yourself as so much more intelligent than the masses who told you two years ago not to do it in the first place.

It's a delusional defense mechanism.

 

[Pharmacy Kid]

At this point, who a actually WOULD be well-advised to attend (or stay enrolled, if they're already there) in pharmacy school? Can you actually say that signing up for no future pay raises, a saturated job market that is being cited by chains (the most common pharmacist employer) as a point of justification for freezing/lowering salaries, and a likely impending takeover of the field by Amazon would all be worthwhile for someone to endure if they are truly passionate about pharmacy?

In other words, the point I was making is that it seems like you wanted to insist that pharmacy doesn't suck overall and that it's just not a good fit for me on a personal level, although it's still a worthwhile endeavor to pursue for people who are passionate enough about the work. Let's get real... as time goes on and the outlook of pharmacy becomes more and more bleak, it becomes an objectively bad investment of time/money/effort.... ESPECIALLY for someone who has the potential to be successful in a challenging program. Now, the irony seems to be that the types of students who really could make pharmacy work (tenacious, hard-working, willing to outcompete 90% of their classmates, etc.) would be doing themselves a disservice by going to/staying in pharmacy school.

As for me, I am simply more and more astounded as time goes on that my decision to leave pharmacy school is turning out to be such a smart one. I guess it's because in most cases, running away from a challenge usually ends up coming at a price for someone, usually in the form of the rewards of persevering through whatever they decided to abandon becoming even more worthwhile.

In other words, it would have been poetic justice for a report to have been released a few weeks after I dropped out detailing a reversal of the job market trend, or for the provider status bill to have passed, or for something else to have occurred that would've made it clear that I made at least some degree of a mistake. But instead, things just keep getting worse and worse, so it's almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy in reverse.

I want to get my history straight. Did you go to AA school to pharmacy school then PA? Or PA to pharmacy to AA?

 

[PharmtoCS]

(Clint Eastwood Voice) GET OFF MY THREAD.

 

[PAtoPharm]

I am simply more and more astounded as time goes on that since you have joined SDN, you have wasted two years and tens of thousands of dollars and have zero marketable skills to show for it, and continue to portray yourself as so much more intelligent than the masses who told you two years ago not to do it in the first place.

You're right, I made a monumental mistake by not listening to the people who told me to stay out of pharmacy school in the first place. But I would like to say that my 2-semester charade through P1 year hasn't all been a waste; after seeing the pharmacy job market and profession in general take a nosedive (even here in my relatively undesirable, medium-sized GA city), I realize that in any profession, graduates will go wherever they have to go to get a job and start paying off $150k-$200k in student loans. So after finishing PA school, I will absolutely plan on completing a 1-year residency, even if I would otherwise be able to get a job in the same specialty without completing a residency, because the pharmacy saturation disaster has shown me the importance of having a differentiated skill set that the majority of others don't have.

It occurred to me to say that shadowing a few PAs at a local hospital the other day. During the shadowing, I met a group of PA students from a program in GA who were completing a rotation at the hospital, and even though it was a relatively small group, every single one of them had the "dude less than a year to go and then we're done with school forever! YEA BOI!" attitude, and it's pretty clear that a hugely significant part of the motivation for attending PA school in the first place is for the perk of getting in and out after just over 2 years of additional schooling.

Yes, that is definitely part of the PA profession's appeal, but according to the HRSA stats we've all seen, the PA profession will eventually be saturated as well (even if this day is still 7-8 years off)... and when that day comes, I have a feeling that the PAs who will be the most secure/valued in their jobs will be those who have as much experience and as many qualifications as possible -- I.e., residency completion in addition to work experience. But I only developed after witnessing what's happening to the pharmacy profession as a result of schools plowing forward with a full-steam-ahead oversaturation of the job market, as well as after seeing the long-time members here comment about how they're glad they had the foresight to complete a residency and get good experience after that, or to combine their pharmacy background with a non-pharmacy discipline (e.g., gwarm01 and IT). So in a way, pharmacy hasn't totally been a waste for me....

... but yeah, it pretty much has.

 

[PAtoPharm]

I want to get my history straight. Did you go to AA school to pharmacy school then PA? Or PA to pharmacy to AA?

First went to AA school. Wasn't able to continue after failing a single lab class. Due to the likely onset of an as-of-yet undetermined mental illness, I found myself in pharmacy school. Now, I'm trying to get into general PA school, once and for all.

 

[PAtoPharm]

It's a delusional defense mechanism.

I will not deny that some undiagnosed form of mental illness largely influenced my decision to start pharmacy school

 

[AlwaysContrary]

I will not deny that some undiagnosed form of mental illness largely influenced my decision to start pharmacy school

LMAO

 

[gwarm01]

I legit had a conversation with a colleague who told me they will start investing in their 401k when they turn 40... I just about threw up thinking about all that investment income lost over the years. I started mine the day I was eligible for a match.

With market factors trending increasingly away from the favor of pharmacists I think it is foolish to not have an emergency fund too.

Yikes. There is no excuse for that.. Even if you don't max it, always go for the employer contribution. I understand if you make $10/hr, putting in 5 or 10 percent of your paycheck is something you are going to feel. No one making a pharmacist salary has any excuse. It's just a shame that financial education isn't better in our country.

I've been emphasizing the importance of investing to the pharmacy techs that are on my informatics team. They are about to get a substantial boost to their pay when we officially change their paycode from pharmacy technician to analyst (a move I would have done on day 1 but it isn't my call). One of them is 22 years old, very bright and unencumbered with student loan debt. She could retire early with well over a million in her account with only a 10% contribution.

Hopefully they listen to that and don't think it's the same as my constant rambling about investing in automation and battery tech. Which you should all do now to reap the benefits in ten years.

 

[Saiyo]

ha, everyone always said to max 401k but my contribution is actually capped due to some dumb "HCE" rule...

In other news I didn't get a raise either. Should've guessed when my boss made a comment about how sometimes he's glad when they don't increase his pay because they'll expect more work out of him....

 

[PharmtoCS]

I will not deny that some undiagnosed form of mental illness largely influenced my decision to start pharmacy school

In this case then you need to stop posting in this forum and get help. I would highly recommend getting treatment before you start your next professional program or you'll likely end up in the same predicament as you are right now.

 

[PAtoPharm]

In this case then you need to stop posting in this forum and get help. I would highly recommend getting treatment before you start your next professional program or you'll likely end up in the same predicament as you are right now.

Well, I was half-kidding on the basis of thinking, in retrospect, how in the hell could someone choose to do what I did despite being fully aware of the state of the pharmacy profession? Could mental illness be the only explanation? What about all the other students who are still insisting on attending pharmacy school? Are they simply uninformed, in denial, potentially mentally ill as well, etc.? And so on...

 

[Amicable Angora]

And yet again guess what this has become yet another PAtoPharm thread.

 

[PAtoPharm]

And yet again guess what this has become yet another PAtoPharm thread.

Ok, let's get it back on track. Who do you think will be the next pharmacy chain to announce a salary freeze and/or possible salary decrease -- CVS, Walmart, grocery chains, etc.? Maybe even Costco?

Also, the scanned-in letter from Walgreens Corporate has a line about them being in the process of re-configuring the general employment/pay structure they're going to be offering within the next year or so. What do you the new terms of employment with Walgreens as a pharmacist will be? I think salaries could hit a new low of $90k, PTO won't start being accrued until the second year of FT service, the 401k match will be slashed. Let's hear some guesses from everyone else.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Ok, let's get it back on track. Who do you think will be the next pharmacy chain to announce a salary freeze and/or possible salary decrease -- CVS, Walmart, grocery chains, etc.? Maybe even Costco?

Also, the scanned-in letter from Walgreens Corporate has a line about them being in the process of re-configuring the general employment/pay structure they're going to be offering within the next year or so. What do you the new terms of employment with Walgreens as a pharmacist will be? I think salaries could hit a new low of $90k, PTO won't start being accrued until the second year of FT service, the 401k match will be slashed. Let's hear some guesses from everyone else.

Why do you care, this isn't your profession?

Go post on your future failed profession instead.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Dude doesn't seem to realize that the vast, vast majority of us will be employed and making six figures well into the future...but whatever...he/she clearly wants the profession to fail to justify personal decisions. Which is rather petty, but whatever.

 

[jblil]

Why do you care, this isn't your profession?

Go post on your future failed profession instead.

If absolutely nobody responds to his posts (by putting him on "Ignore"), he will go away.

It's clear that it's a mental case.

 

[deleted820760]

Lol. I was like, what is everyone so worked up about? I don't see PAtoPharm posting again. Then I realized I had already put him on ignore after he tried to hijack a thread a couple weeks ago.

You guys should try it. Put him on ignore. Then you don't have to read his broken record nonsense.

 

[PAtoPharm]

Why do you care, this isn't your profession?

Go post on your future failed profession instead.

... Maybe because at this point, I simply have an interest in following the future (downward) trajectory of the pharmacy profession since I was once in pharmacy school? Like I said in a previous post, someone doesn't have to be a software engineer to have a general, passing interest in product development news coming out of Microsoft, Google, or Apple. It's okay to have an interest in a particular subject matter (including a profession) even if someone no longer has a vested interest in the profession.

Dude doesn't seem to realize that the vast, vast majority of us will be employed and making six figures well into the future...but whatever...he/she clearly wants the profession to fail to justify personal decisions. Which is rather petty, but whatever.

Maybe so, but as an aside, how much harder are you going to have to work to earn that six-figure paycheck? And is it really still going to be "six-figures" in 6-8 years after inflation has had a chance to catch up? (of course, this is also assuming that there won't be any pay decreases, or reductions in PTO or benefits)

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Maybe so, but as an aside, how much harder are you going to have to work to earn that six-figure paycheck? And is it really still going to be "six-figures" in 6-8 years after inflation has had a chance to catch up? (of course, this is also assuming that there won't be any pay decreases, or reductions in PTO or benefits)

I'll work about as hard as I do now. I have a reputation as a hard worker. I don't really mind working hard. I value my time more than my effort.

Yes, it will still be "6 figures" for the forseeable future. Even with inflation. Pay is very, very unlikely to decrease. Wages are generally sticky and the current urban surplus isn't going to drive wages that low. The pendulum is swinging now to the point where people are overstating the work situation vs 10 years ago where people thought it was bulletproof.

And PTO/Bennies aren't going anywhere, either. HR departments generally don't go there. You'd see the old fashioned lay off the old people, hire cheaper young people move before you see that.T hese major corporations have the same set of benefits for everyone from cashier to pharmacist. They aren't going to do anything too aggressive that will cause pharmacists to unionize or simply leave and open up their own pharmacies. No raises for one year? Meh, nobody's signing a union card over that.

 

[wagrxm2000]

... Maybe because at this point, I simply have an interest in following the future (downward) trajectory of the pharmacy profession since I was once in pharmacy school? Like I said in a previous post, someone doesn't have to be a software engineer to have a general, passing interest in product development news coming out of Microsoft, Google, or Apple. It's okay to have an interest in a particular subject matter (including a profession) even if someone no longer has a vested interest in the profession.



Maybe so, but as an aside, how much harder are you going to have to work to earn that six-figure paycheck? And is it really still going to be "six-figures" in 6-8 years after inflation has had a chance to catch up? (of course, this is also assuming that there won't be any pay decreases, or reductions in PTO or benefits)

Then please create a new account, stop bashing our profession, a profession that has made many pharmacists millionaires, and simply contribute to conversations.

Everyone's issue is the bashing and gloating.

 

[FlavyFlav]

Had the talk, no raise this year. This isn't going to change how I work as I enjoy what I do, and I have a solid staff under me. However, this is accelerating my plans to either change over to store management or attempt a move upwards into corporate even though these will most likely affect my current living conditions. It will be difficult to pick up and move, but I would rather be prepared than to face a potential pharmacist unemployment line. I don't believe it will get that bad, but I do know you don't put all your eggs in one basket.

 

[doublehh03]

Had the talk, no raise this year. This isn't going to change how I work as I enjoy what I do, and I have a solid staff under me. However, this is accelerating my plans to either change over to store management or attempt a move upwards into corporate even though these will most likely affect my current living conditions. It will be difficult to pick up and move, but I would rather be prepared than to face a potential pharmacist unemployment line. I don't believe it will get that bad, but I do know you don't put all your eggs in one basket.

You know there are LESS corporate positions available right? And they're less stable.

 

[FlavyFlav]

You know there are LESS corporate positions available right? And they're less stable.

I do know this.. but at least they aren't having their raises frozen.

 

[VA77]

I agree that a 1 year pay freeze isn't going to make much of a difference as far as employment or unions go. I do wonder about wage deflation and underemployment. We know that corporate has been playing with the hours so one has to wonder if they will touch the 3rd rail of wages. Personally, I think they will continue to cut the hours. I can't wait to see admission data for this year considering that it has already been in decline for that last several years. The new schools that sold the idea of opening a school to their trustees are going to have to explain why they opened. Of course, some schools got such a huge endowment to open that they just took the money and ran. Can't blame them on that. Just going to be very interesting over next 5 years to how low the decline is and how willing schools are to take subpar talent.

 

[lord999]

My idea of the real screw you in this business is if everyone becomes a non-benefits casual employee (part-timer). Why pay benefits if you can have just one PIC with "benefits" and all staff at straight compensation? Heck, it's worth a $10 raise if as a supervisor, I could get you to work 20 hours a week and not have to pay out the 401k match or health insurance. That's the way industry analytics works, contract to contract, company to company. It's why I still have a day job as I couldn't take the stress of having to always be hungry for the next contract.

The degrees of shackles are proprietorship, white collar employee (you have operational independence), blue collar employee (you do not have operational independence), and then casual employee. Medicine is going through the same issues but they are not as far along the process as we are, and we are not as far as the PT's who rarely get even FT employment these days (far easier to contract and get a bunch of part time).

Goodbye wage slave, hello precariat?!
The End of the Working Class - The American Interest

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/5gqq4z/what-the-****-is-the-precariat-and-why-should-you-care-293

And then there's the unnecessariat, where the majority of pharmacist complaints are about. The difference between them and us is a lot smaller than we'd like to acknowledge.
After the precariat, the unnecessariat: the humans who are superfluous to corporations

 

[WVUPharm2007]

My idea of the real screw you in this business is if everyone becomes a non-benefits casual employee (part-timer). Why pay benefits if you can have just one PIC with "benefits" and all staff at straight compensation? Heck, it's worth a $10 raise if as a supervisor, I could get you to work 20 hours a week and not have to pay out the 401k match or health insurance. That's the way industry analytics works, contract to contract, company to company. It's why I still have a day job as I couldn't take the stress of having to always be hungry for the next contract.

The degrees of shackles are proprietorship, white collar employee (you have operational independence), blue collar employee (you do not have operational independence), and then casual employee. Medicine is going through the same issues but they are not as far along the process as we are, and we are not as far as the PT's who rarely get even FT employment these days (far easier to contract and get a bunch of part time).

Goodbye wage slave, hello precariat?!
The End of the Working Class - The American Interest

What the **** Is the ‘Precariat,’ and Why Should You Care?

And then there's the unnecessariat, where the majority of pharmacist complaints are about. The difference between them and us is a lot smaller than we'd like to acknowledge.
After the precariat, the unnecessariat: the humans who are superfluous to corporations

David Simon said all of that **** in The Wire over a decade ago.

 

[Dred Pirate]

ha, everyone always said to max 401k but my contribution is actually capped due to some dumb "HCE" rule...

In other news I didn't get a raise either. Should've guessed when my boss made a comment about how sometimes he's glad when they don't increase his pay because they'll expect more work out of him....

what type of setting do you work in where you hit the HCE?

 

[panasoniku]

what type of setting do you work in where you hit the HCE?

I also hit HCE, but you should be allowed after tax contributions. Nice thing is that you can roll those into a ROTH IRA if and when you leave that company.

Back on topic - I heard they froze pharmacist salaries to increase tech salaries to be more competitive? I wouldn't have survived retail back in the day without my techs; they are grossly underpaid for what they do.

 

[Momus]

I also hit HCE, but you should be allowed after tax contributions. Nice thing is that you can roll those into a ROTH IRA if and when you leave that company.

Back on topic - I heard they froze pharmacist salaries to increase tech salaries to be more competitive? I wouldn't have survived retail back in the day without my techs; they are grossly underpaid for what they do.

You need to read what Walgreen posted again, especially read the last part. There is no mention they will raise tech salaries. They simply freeze pay because they want to increase profit. They care about the shareholder, NOT their employees. Long term business profit is their number one priority, nothing else matters. They don't care about their labor pool, it's abundant and readily available. This move is entirely profit driven. There is absolutely no indication and no reason for them to reduce profit (business performance) by increasing tech wages.

 

[Charcoales]

They know their employees (esp pharmacists) are trapped there. What are they going to do? Only so many positions that do not require residency at this point.

 

[Saiyo]

what type of setting do you work in where you hit the HCE?

Just work regular hospital, my pay isn't even that spectacular so I guess it just kinda sucks to be me haha

 

[Dr Wario]

So the question is, as CVS how do you respond to this? Do you follow suit with Walgreens and freeze salaries or do you declare the moral highground and announce that you are going to find other ways to maintain profit? Perhaps you will be able to poach all of the good pharmacists and be able to let go of all your underperformers.

 

[gwarm01]

So the question is, as CVS how do you respond to this? Do you follow suit with Walgreens and freeze salaries or do you declare the moral highground and announce that you are going to find other ways to maintain profit? Perhaps you will be able to poach all of the good pharmacists and be able to let go of all your underperformers.

Come on, man! Making me spit my coffee all over my keyboard with that.

 

[Jbrl]

You need to read what Walgreen posted again, especially read the last part. There is no mention they will raise tech salaries. They simply freeze pay because they want to increase profit. They care about the shareholder, NOT their employees. Long term business profit is their number one priority, nothing else matters. They don't care about their labor pool, it's abundant and readily available. This move is entirely profit driven. There is absolutely no indication and no reason for them to reduce profit (business performance) by increasing tech wages.

As a supposedly politically correct message, that is a very blunt assessment from corporate. I'm surprised they went as far as discussing market conditions and using that as justification for freezing salaries...

It sends a strong implicit message to everyone out there: they don't care you or about the risk of decreased productivity because the supply of grads is so high that they can just replace you for someone cheaper. Truly awful.

 

[Sine Cura]

CVS already puts pharmacists in a position to verify >= 500 a day on their own where the lack of tech ratios allow it (that is a more efficient utilization of pharmacist labor, if the pharmacist can actually handle it, compared to Walgreens) so why would Walgreens really care about losing people to CVS

 

[BidingMyTime]

I wonder if it would be possible for Walgreens to reduce salary for current employees?

Why wouldn't it be possible? It's at-will employment.

We didn't get paid this much when I first started. Did I choose a profession that paid well? Sure, but it isn't why I joined this profession.

This. My first pharmacist job was $18 something/hr. My primary reason for picking the career, was it was a stable career that I could enjoy working at. Of course, this was years ago, and COL was completely different....but still. I never expected pharmacy to be a 6 figure salary.

Yikes. There is no excuse for that.. Even if you don't max it, always go for the employer contribution.

This. I've never maxed out my contribution, but I have always contributed from day 1 of eligibility at least the maximum that my employer would max. Employer maxing is "free" money, it amazes me how many people don't take it seriously, especially pharmacists.

 

[grizzlesgrizzlies]

David Simon said all of that **** in The Wire over a decade ago.

The creator of 'The Wire' says the US needs a basic income due to the 'death of work' from automation - Business Insider

David Simon, creator of the popular HBO series "The Wire," and most recently "The Deuce," has voiced his support for a system of wealth distribution known as universal basic income, in which every citizen receives a regular sum of money just for being alive.

"I think we've reached the point in terms of the death of work, and where we're going in society and automation, that we should already be guaranteeing people a basic income," Simon recently told New Yorker editor David Remnick on The New Yorker Radio Hour podcast.

In his podcast interview, Simon pointed to the threat of robotic automation as grounds for implementing basic income. Economists have issued numerous forecasts that predict huge swaths of the American workforce, perhaps as much as 50%, could lose their job over the next 20 years to highly intelligent software and factory robots.

Advocates of basic income say redistributing the wealth produced by those efficient systems — in effect, something akin to a dividend — would give people the means to avoid menial work and still live above the poverty line.

Basic income would be "an incredible boon to the country, and it would honestly take into account that we don't need as many Americans to run this economy as we once did," Simon said.

Critics of basic income tend to voice two big concerns about the system: that giving people free money will sap the drive to work out of potential employees, and that people (especially those in poverty) will spend the money on bad habits.

Simon disagreed, arguing that families who receive between $20,000 and $40,000 a year, depending on the size of the basic income payments, would actually boost the country's prosperity.

"You give families that kind of money, it's all going back into the economy," he said. "It's not going into mutual funds. It's going right back into the economy."

There haven't been any major formal studies in developed countries to determine whether people who get a basic income would work less or use the money to buy things like drugs and alcohol. But studies in the developing world have suggested that when people receive cash transfers on a regular basis, they are most likely to spend the money on education, home repair, or starting or growing a business.

Research in these developing nations has also found that alcohol and tobacco use may decline with basic income, as some experts suspect the extra money alleviates stress and makes people less inclined to drink or smoke to cope with a negative situation.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The creator of 'The Wire' says the US needs a basic income due to the 'death of work' from automation - Business Insider

David Simon, creator of the popular HBO series "The Wire," and most recently "The Deuce," has voiced his support for a system of wealth distribution known as universal basic income, in which every citizen receives a regular sum of money just for being alive.

"I think we've reached the point in terms of the death of work, and where we're going in society and automation, that we should already be guaranteeing people a basic income," Simon recently told New Yorker editor David Remnick on The New Yorker Radio Hour podcast.

In his podcast interview, Simon pointed to the threat of robotic automation as grounds for implementing basic income. Economists have issued numerous forecasts that predict huge swaths of the American workforce, perhaps as much as 50%, could lose their job over the next 20 years to highly intelligent software and factory robots.

Advocates of basic income say redistributing the wealth produced by those efficient systems — in effect, something akin to a dividend — would give people the means to avoid menial work and still live above the poverty line.

Basic income would be "an incredible boon to the country, and it would honestly take into account that we don't need as many Americans to run this economy as we once did," Simon said.

Critics of basic income tend to voice two big concerns about the system: that giving people free money will sap the drive to work out of potential employees, and that people (especially those in poverty) will spend the money on bad habits.

Simon disagreed, arguing that families who receive between $20,000 and $40,000 a year, depending on the size of the basic income payments, would actually boost the country's prosperity.

"You give families that kind of money, it's all going back into the economy," he said. "It's not going into mutual funds. It's going right back into the economy."

There haven't been any major formal studies in developed countries to determine whether people who get a basic income would work less or use the money to buy things like drugs and alcohol. But studies in the developing world have suggested that when people receive cash transfers on a regular basis, they are most likely to spend the money on education, home repair, or starting or growing a business.

Research in these developing nations has also found that alcohol and tobacco use may decline with basic income, as some experts suspect the extra money alleviates stress and makes people less inclined to drink or smoke to cope with a negative situation.

Hes not the only one. Elon Musk, Zuckerberg, and several other silicon valley types see a future where UBI is the only way to save capitalism.

But this all goes to show how The Wire is the most important fictional work created so far this century.

 

[wagrxm2000]

The creator of 'The Wire' says the US needs a basic income due to the 'death of work' from automation - Business Insider

David Simon, creator of the popular HBO series "The Wire," and most recently "The Deuce," has voiced his support for a system of wealth distribution known as universal basic income, in which every citizen receives a regular sum of money just for being alive.

"I think we've reached the point in terms of the death of work, and where we're going in society and automation, that we should already be guaranteeing people a basic income," Simon recently told New Yorker editor David Remnick on The New Yorker Radio Hour podcast.

In his podcast interview, Simon pointed to the threat of robotic automation as grounds for implementing basic income. Economists have issued numerous forecasts that predict huge swaths of the American workforce, perhaps as much as 50%, could lose their job over the next 20 years to highly intelligent software and factory robots.

Advocates of basic income say redistributing the wealth produced by those efficient systems — in effect, something akin to a dividend — would give people the means to avoid menial work and still live above the poverty line.

Basic income would be "an incredible boon to the country, and it would honestly take into account that we don't need as many Americans to run this economy as we once did," Simon said.

Critics of basic income tend to voice two big concerns about the system: that giving people free money will sap the drive to work out of potential employees, and that people (especially those in poverty) will spend the money on bad habits.

Simon disagreed, arguing that families who receive between $20,000 and $40,000 a year, depending on the size of the basic income payments, would actually boost the country's prosperity.

"You give families that kind of money, it's all going back into the economy," he said. "It's not going into mutual funds. It's going right back into the economy."

There haven't been any major formal studies in developed countries to determine whether people who get a basic income would work less or use the money to buy things like drugs and alcohol. But studies in the developing world have suggested that when people receive cash transfers on a regular basis, they are most likely to spend the money on education, home repair, or starting or growing a business.

Research in these developing nations has also found that alcohol and tobacco use may decline with basic income, as some experts suspect the extra money alleviates stress and makes people less inclined to drink or smoke to cope with a negative situation.

Sorry I've seen too many people selling food stamps for money to spend on pointless stuff and now you want to give these people $20k and think it will boost the countries prosperity? That is laughable.

 

[PumpkinSmasher]

Sorry I've seen too many people selling food stamps for money to spend on pointless stuff and now you want to give these people $20k and think it will boost the countries prosperity? That is laughable.

Such an amazing show! I am enjoying the Deuce so far....

 

[gwarm01]

Sorry I've seen too many people selling food stamps for money to spend on pointless stuff and now you want to give these people $20k and think it will boost the countries prosperity? That is laughable.

It may seem ridiculous today, but in a world where automation has taken over all but the most skilled labor it will have a place. It would likely be a stopgap until we reach a true post-scarcity society.

Of course, that's just science fiction. Reality will be far more horrible than we can imagine. There will likely be no government assistance. Either the poor will eat the rich or the rich will send their deathbots against the poor.

We are certainly living in interesting times.

 

[Amicable Angora]

And what will happen is exactly what happened when dual family incomes started: instead of having twice the spending power, the economy jacked up the prices on everything so people were poorer than when it was only a single worker.

Hand out free money and the prices will get jacked up all too easily mark my words.

 

[Dr Wario]

Hes not the only one. Elon Musk, Zuckerberg, and several other silicon valley types see a future where UBI is the only way to save capitalism.

But this all goes to show how The Wire is the most important fictional work created so far this century.

It is amazing how the left continues to try to blame its broken policy of wealth redistribution on an ever shrinking group of people. Their continued mantra seems to be, "if we could only get that group of people into our fold of destitution, we could then finally show our system actually works!" I mean, food stamps, welfare, medicaid and obama phones are just not enough, its those 50% who pay federal taxes, no its the 10% who actually save for the future, no its the 1%ers that have a few billion between them yeah that will fix everything if they just join us!

 

[owlegrad]

I mean there's no way around it. Machines are going to replace us all. So it's either going to be basic or a fight to the death for everyone. What other option is there? There just aren't enough jobs to go around.

 

[northeast-southwest]

It may seem ridiculous today, but in a world where automation has taken over all but the most skilled labor it will have a place. It would likely be a stopgap until we reach a true post-scarcity society.

Of course, that's just science fiction. Reality will be far more horrible than we can imagine. There will likely be no government assistance. Either the poor will eat the rich or the rich will send their deathbots against the poor.

We are certainly living in interesting times.

I agree, there will be a massive uprise from the poor in the next couple decades.

 

[zelman]

...so a Walgreens salary freeze is leading to...The Matrix? Guys, this thread might have gone off the rails.