Citizen's Wage

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10092
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:31 pm UTC

This thread has kind of a crapton of pro/con inequality stuff in it. It didn't start with your post on this page. I have absolutely no problem with responding to multiple posts at once, or addressing when I am doing so. You were the one who got all accusatory, not me.

The only point in clarifying the response chain is because you acted as if I were supposed to be defending ucim's viewpoint. I'm not. My viewpoint is different, and I have no interest in defending that particular chain in reasoning. I am happy to discuss inequality, as I have repeatedly in this thread, you just seemed to have strange ideas regarding what I was talking about. So, I clarified. Is this enough meta-conversation, or are you going to stall still further? I believe I last discussed the incredible lack of real world evidence in favor of a Citizen's Wage, and pointing out that observing that inequality exists is not sufficient to support this as a superior solution. Have you come up with data to support some universal income scheme being better than other forms of safety nets?

I mean, if there's absolutely no data, then I guess, continue with the ad hominems, I suppose. Looks like it's the best you've got.

Trebla wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The general thrust of the conversation thus far has been that we should convert over to a citizen's wage in preparation for these technological developments or because it is a better system than current social welfare systems, depending on who is doing the arguing. In either case, a pro-active approach is being argued for, not merely that it is the inevitable result of the passage of time, etc.


If it's inevitable, it seems like a proactive approach would mitigate the difficulties that some people would feel when getting to that as a balance in an "after-the-fact" fashion. If we can meaningfully predict (big IF, I know) that automation is going to cause the loss of ~3M jobs between 2021 and 2025 in the trucking industry alone (even if just temporarily while new industries arise around them), then I don't see why we wouldn't consider a citizen's wage (as well as other options) proactively to deal with a problem even if we don't technically have the problem yet.

Back to futurism, we don't need a driverless society to switch to driverless trucking. The segments of the population that see the greatest benefit (i.e., trucking) will be the first to move into the technology. So while it may take 100 years to truly get to a driverless society, it takes significantly less to supplant the trucking industry. (I kind of hate that I used this as an example since it's not the only industry that will likely get redefined in unprecedented ways by automation).


The precise example isn't critical, I think, we can swap that out if a different one works better.

The inevitability of it seems doubtful. It hasn't arisen as a system in any country yet, I think it's awfully premature to insist that it'll inevitably arise in them all. Hell, even though democracy has had a pretty good run, it's been around a long time, and isn't universal yet. I think very few social changes actually are inevitable, and social change can often be particularly slow. I'm not sure that forcing it to happen early is necessarily advantageous, either. Even if future changes would make something optimal in the future, that doesn't make it optimal now.

Sure, being able to predict job losses is great, but nothing about a CW grants us additional predictive power. Nor does it establish why a CW is the proper solution to use for the problem. It's a solution seeking a problem. People have invented this system that seems really nifty, and are casting about for a reason to use it. I am as skeptical of that as I would be a salesman who walks up to my door, certain that his product is the cure for whatever ails me. The step about comparing a CW to existing solutions usually seems to be skimmed over, and it seems like you'd want to establish that fairly well to justify restructuring society and employment in a pretty major way.

User avatar
Thesh
Has the Brain Worms, In Case You Forgot.
Posts: 5011
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Thesh » Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:59 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I mean, if there's absolutely no data, then I guess, continue with the ad hominems, I suppose. Looks like it's the best you've got.


Seriously? You accused me of lying about the positions of others, when I did not. You are a liar and now a hypocrite.

As for your position on inequality, please. You don't care; you're entire economic philosophy is concern trolling, since it's nothing but an academic exercise to you. You've never proposed a solution to an economic problem, agreed with a solution to a problem, or even agreed that there should be a solution a problem, except when the problem directly involved government. Inequality is an actual problem today, but your position is simply "Well, is it?" So please, explain where I'm misrepresenting your views. Because it seems pretty clear to me that you don't actually care about inequality, as it exists today. I've never seen you show a hint of empathy for anyone in poverty, or any concern whatsoever for the disparity we have today, so how can I possibly come up with a different conclusion?
But I do and I don't want to care anymore.
If I close my eyes, would it spare me the sight of decay, corruption?
How we nurture destruction and everything that will doom us all.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 4800
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby ucim » Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:25 am UTC

I don't know what people think I think of (income) inequality, but it's just a thing that happens. It's a symptom of the way the economy and the power system is working. Some have more, some have less; this is true of money, power, intelligence, strength, charisma, and other things that affect how one's life will go. I don't think equality in itself is something to be striven for, nor is inequality something to be lauded. It would be nice if there were some minimum below which nobody went, but achieving that without bad side effects isn't easy, and might not even be possible, given the way people are.

Bringing it back to just money, remember that money is just a bookkeeping artifact. It's not a thing. It's an IOU. Take a(n overly) simple case: A tropical island with three people. One farms, one builds shelters, and one cooks. It's very windy, so shelters have to keep being rebuilt each week, but it doesn't take all that long. Cooking of course happens relatively instantly. Farming takes months, so the farmer has to promise to deliver crops in exchange for having his house rebuilt every week or so. To keep track of these promises, the three agree that coconut husks that bear a certain symbol (that they each make together) will serve as coinage, and evidence of promises made. The husks originally started out as IOUs from the farmer, but they enter circulation and nobody remembers what they really mean, since they trade freely. So the farmer pays coconut husks to the builder every week to rebuild the hut, and to the cook to pay for meals. At harvest time, they give the husks back to the farmer in exchange for the harvest. Forty-two husks per house, two husks per meal, 2190 husks for a year's worth of crops. 4380 husks are in circulation. Sunlight is free. Everything evens out; there is perfect equality. The husks circulate freely, so sometimes the builder will pay the cook extra for another meal, or the cook will pay the builder extra for a nicer hut. Sunlight remains free.

Due to climate change, there is less wind, and the huts now last all year. Demand for huts goes down and the builder falls into relative poverty. But the farmer has more husks now, which he pays the cook to make better meals. The cook gets rich because the cook saves all his husks rather than buy a bigger house or more food for himself.

Enter a guaranteed basic income (so that the builder doesn't starve?). Each person needs 4380 husks per year to live, plus their own sweat equity, so half that will be the guaranteed basic income. 2190 husks, guaranteed.

Where do they come from? How does the economy react? How do the people react?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Trebla
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Trebla » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:04 pm UTC

ucim wrote: Forty-two husks per house, two husks per meal, 2190 husks for a year's worth of crops. 4380 husks are in circulation. Sunlight is free. Everything evens out; there is perfect equality. The husks circulate freely, so sometimes the builder will pay the cook extra for another meal, or the cook will pay the builder extra for a nicer hut. Sunlight remains free.
... snip for brevity...
Where do they come from? How does the economy react? How do the people react?


I really like this example, and I think it highlights that a high level of "automation" may be a necessary pre-requisite to this type of wage. Climate change already reduced the cost of houses by 98%. If technological advances reduce the other two aspects by sizable portions (a fridge means the chef only cooks once a week to feed them all... a tractor cuts farming effort by 90%... made up numbers, but good enough to illustrate), then the overall needs per person per year are a few hundred husks down from several thousand.

It's easiest to see where the CW would come from... the gov't (The Council of The Three) collects taxes and pays each member a living wage. How does the economy/people react? Harder to say (but in an economy this size, those are the same question). Each person is now working only a fraction of what they need to to get by and still living at the same level of luxury as before. Perhaps they enrich their culture (make instruments)? Pursue more technological advancements (invent a boat)? Design a better lean-to? What happens if one decides it's not worth it to do their work? Another picks it up to get more income for more luxury... what happens if they all decide this? I... don't know.

Tyndmyr wrote:The inevitability of it seems doubtful. It hasn't arisen as a system in any country yet, I think it's awfully premature to insist that it'll inevitably arise in them all. Hell, even though democracy has had a pretty good run, it's been around a long time, and isn't universal yet. I think very few social changes actually are inevitable, and social change can often be particularly slow. I'm not sure that forcing it to happen early is necessarily advantageous, either. Even if future changes would make something optimal in the future, that doesn't make it optimal now.


I guess here we may just agree to disagree... autonomous cars seem close enough to reality that some people (myself included) think they're inevitable in the not so distant future. (I didn't mean that a CW was inevitable, but that the economic changes caused by Artificial Intelligence advances are... I see that may not have been clear upon re-reading). And a CW may not be the proper solution, but the current welfare system does not seem like it could support significant increases to unemployment caused by automation without evolving, so SOME alternate system will be necessary. Heck, if welfare evolves enough so that "everyone" is getting it, it becomes a CW, doesn't it?

morriswalters
Posts: 6356
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:14 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Where do they come from? How does the economy react? How do the people react?
The whole idea is a little vague. But to begin with you already know the answers to some of your questions. Money is already being distributed to achieve some of the effects people are talking about. I thought the testing was to see if doing it this way was more efficient and produced better results. And testing will answer the rest of your questions, assuming that the testing can measure what it needs to measure.

For the economy in general it would be interesting to see if this improves the stability of our culture. It seems to me that stability has a value, in that when we put money into society to reduce the level of inequality, we get something back for that investment that is real and measurable. If that were true then lack of investment could also have real consequences. But you have to understand fully the underlying assumptions you would have to make. Demographics trends and so on. Planners and dreamers seem to have an optimistic bias.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 4800
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby ucim » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:51 pm UTC

Trebla wrote:It's easiest to see where the CW would come from... the gov't (The Council of The Three) collects taxes and pays each member a living wage.
The builder has little or no husks to pay taxes with, so it all falls on the cook (and the farmer). Each one has to give up one third their income in order to support the citizens' wage. But on top of that, there are more husks in circulation now then there is value, since houses aren't being built much any more. (Yes, the houses are more valuable because they last longer, but that's not reflected in the husks, which are in essence IOUs to the farmer.)

Everyone happens to get free housing, but there are now more husks chasing the value of cooking and crops than there is value in the cooking and crops. Husks lose value, and the CW has to be raised, which is a double impact on the cook and the farmer.

As you point out, this is just a welfare state.

morriswalters wrote: I thought the testing was to see if doing it this way was more efficient and produced better results. And testing will answer the rest of your questions, assuming that the testing can measure what it needs to measure.
Yes it will, but the answers will only be valid if the system is closed. You can't dump money in from outside and call it a valid test. And you can't leak the economy to or from outside either, for similar reasons. And it has to be big enough (county wide at least) so that people don't know each other.

So... we'll see.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10092
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:03 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I mean, if there's absolutely no data, then I guess, continue with the ad hominems, I suppose. Looks like it's the best you've got.


Seriously? You accused me of lying about the positions of others, when I did not. You are a liar and now a hypocrite.

As for your position on inequality, please. You don't care; you're entire economic philosophy is concern trolling, since it's nothing but an academic exercise to you. You've never proposed a solution to an economic problem, agreed with a solution to a problem, or even agreed that there should be a solution a problem, except when the problem directly involved government. Inequality is an actual problem today, but your position is simply "Well, is it?" So please, explain where I'm misrepresenting your views. Because it seems pretty clear to me that you don't actually care about inequality, as it exists today. I've never seen you show a hint of empathy for anyone in poverty, or any concern whatsoever for the disparity we have today, so how can I possibly come up with a different conclusion?


Look, the topic here is a Citizen's Wage. Not empathy or inequality. Yeah, I can see how those things connect to the topic, but they are not themselves the topic. And in any case, having empathy doesn't make you correct.

As for the misrepresentation, I explicitly said that I did not view inequality as either a feature or a bug. And then you attacked me for viewing inequality as a feature. Which is pretty much the same thing you said about Ucim. I'm willing to talk about how it relates to a CW, but you steadfastly refuse to supply any evidence, and repeatedly resort to purely emotional attacks on individuals, as you have again here. You are not providing the slightest bit of evidence, merely attacking others.

So, to be clear, I do not care in the slightest how much empathy others have, in the context of trying to find a correct solution. Hell, an answer can be produced by a soulless computer who cares not one whit for anything, and be exactly as correct as someone who has a surplus of it.

ucim wrote:Due to climate change, there is less wind, and the huts now last all year. Demand for huts goes down and the builder falls into relative poverty. But the farmer has more husks now, which he pays the cook to make better meals. The cook gets rich because the cook saves all his husks rather than buy a bigger house or more food for himself.

Enter a guaranteed basic income (so that the builder doesn't starve?). Each person needs 4380 husks per year to live, plus their own sweat equity, so half that will be the guaranteed basic income. 2190 husks, guaranteed.

Where do they come from? How does the economy react? How do the people react?

Jose


This example works. The husks can come from one of a few places. You can make more, which will of course cause inflation. 2190 husks every year would cause a shitload of inflation indeed. The people should probably not do that.

They could also borrow husks from someone. This would need to be an endless cycle of forever borrowing more, so at a certain point, one has to question how this works. Someone always lending, and never receiving repayment, is not really receiving any benefit to lending. And the amount needed is large, relative to the total economy. This seems to also have difficulty.

Lastly, one can take husks from another, presumably via taxation. In this case, the precise taxation scheme will determine the effects. If one is taking from each in the same proportion that they receive, the whole exercise is mostly pointless, and we are moving husks for nothing. It only makes sense as a way to redistribute income. Do they tax the saver more? Do they tax the builder less? Each has a number of consequences. If any significant percentage opt to cease working and live off half wages, that's going to impact the entire economy. To have a significant impact, it does not require that MOST people do so, only that a few do. Even if five or ten percent opt to quit, the economy dwindles in proportion. And perhaps not everyone quits, but some decide to work fewer hours, others decide to take longer vacations, and so on. It requires very little imagination to end up in a scenario in which the amount of work being done has significantly decreased.

It is rather difficult to posit a scenario in which the amount of work being done increases.

Yes, technological advancement would help. But it would help under the existing system as well, without incurring the costs of switching.

Trebla wrote:I guess here we may just agree to disagree... autonomous cars seem close enough to reality that some people (myself included) think they're inevitable in the not so distant future. (I didn't mean that a CW was inevitable, but that the economic changes caused by Artificial Intelligence advances are... I see that may not have been clear upon re-reading). And a CW may not be the proper solution, but the current welfare system does not seem like it could support significant increases to unemployment caused by automation without evolving, so SOME alternate system will be necessary. Heck, if welfare evolves enough so that "everyone" is getting it, it becomes a CW, doesn't it?


Ah, I understand, yes...some measure of advancing automation is inevitable, I agree on that much. I simply don't agree that it's escalating, or that the unemployment resulting from it is. Right now, the unemployment rate is decreasing, and while this is likely due to cyclical economy issues, I don't see a long-term trend of escalating, unmanageable unemployment. I'm interested in different ways to approach unemployment, of course, but I think the premise of an escalating problem is testable, and not supported by current data.

Now, if you flip it around and look at businesses, we *do* see something of a long term trend towards lower productivity(probably because low hanging fruit has been taken), and we also see some systemic inflexibility. I think some of that is a natural result of a high tech, high automation approach. One cannot easily take the investment in a plant that makes processors and swiftly reallocate it to something else. Much of that investment(both in people and equipment) likely cannot be reclaimed at all. Unskilled labor can switch jobs much more easily than skilled labor can. If there's a real social change, it's here.

User avatar
Thesh
Has the Brain Worms, In Case You Forgot.
Posts: 5011
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Thesh » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:23 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I mean, if there's absolutely no data, then I guess, continue with the ad hominems, I suppose. Looks like it's the best you've got.


Seriously? You accused me of lying about the positions of others, when I did not. You are a liar and now a hypocrite.

As for your position on inequality, please. You don't care; you're entire economic philosophy is concern trolling, since it's nothing but an academic exercise to you. You've never proposed a solution to an economic problem, agreed with a solution to a problem, or even agreed that there should be a solution a problem, except when the problem directly involved government. Inequality is an actual problem today, but your position is simply "Well, is it?" So please, explain where I'm misrepresenting your views. Because it seems pretty clear to me that you don't actually care about inequality, as it exists today. I've never seen you show a hint of empathy for anyone in poverty, or any concern whatsoever for the disparity we have today, so how can I possibly come up with a different conclusion?


Look, the topic here is a Citizen's Wage. Not empathy or inequality. Yeah, I can see how those things connect to the topic, but they are not themselves the topic. And in any case, having empathy doesn't make you correct.

As for the misrepresentation, I explicitly said that I did not view inequality as either a feature or a bug. And then you attacked me for viewing inequality as a feature. Which is pretty much the same thing you said about Ucim. I'm willing to talk about how it relates to a CW, but you steadfastly refuse to supply any evidence, and repeatedly resort to purely emotional attacks on individuals, as you have again here. You are not providing the slightest bit of evidence, merely attacking others.

So, to be clear, I do not care in the slightest how much empathy others have, in the context of trying to find a correct solution. Hell, an answer can be produced by a soulless computer who cares not one whit for anything, and be exactly as correct as someone who has a surplus of it.


Just to be clear, my problem isn't just your lack of empathy, it's that not helping people is specifically your goal. Whenever someone ever talks about doing anything to help anyone, there's Captain Concern Troll, having to come in and tell everyone how the bigger concern is that it might hurt business. Assholes like you are why there is so much suffering in the world; a strict dedication to not doing anything unless you can prove zero consequences ahead of time; until then, of course, we should stick with the default economic system which is unregulated capitalism.

And no, a heartless computer can't solve the problem, because whether or not something is a problem is a judgement call, and in this case it requires some capacity for empathy. Things like empathy are the single most important thing when deciding what problems actually are. But no, complete assholes like you want to look at the economy in a vacuum, and pretend like it's a consistent system governed by natural laws so you can pretend that it distributes income based on merit and thus justify why you are well off while others are suffering. Ignoring them, or even blaming them, makes it so much easier to live with. But hey, as long as you can make numbers agree with you, who gives a fuck about suffering?

You want to solve economics without empathy, the solution is simple: eliminate all labor laws, and increase unemployment massively. Then wages plummet until everyone has to work, and total output skyrockets! It's no wonder that people who view the world without sympathy or empathy tend to embrace libertarianism; they think it can all be done without concern for well-being.
But I do and I don't want to care anymore.
If I close my eyes, would it spare me the sight of decay, corruption?
How we nurture destruction and everything that will doom us all.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10092
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:38 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Just to be clear, my problem isn't just your lack of empathy, it's that not helping people is specifically your goal. Whenever someone ever talks about doing anything to help anyone, there's Captain Concern Troll, having to come in and tell everyone how the bigger concern is that it might hurt business. Assholes like you are why there is so much suffering in the world; a strict dedication to not doing anything unless you can prove zero consequences ahead of time, until then stick with the default economic system which is unregulated capitalism.


All people are people. Business owners, workers, whoever. Yes, I routinely point out the flaws whenever someone comes up with some way to remodel all of society. There are almost invariably costs that they haven't considered. These are not specific to business. In this particular example, we have one sector that's a winner, and other sectors that are losers, if we change systems to a CW.

It's only reasonable to evaluate if the result of these changes is a net gain or not.

And no, "unregulated capitalism" is not the default in any modern country. Regulations exist everywhere. The question is merely of which regulations are better, and why we should regulate. Can you argue against a position that isn't a strawman?

And no, a heartless computer can't solve the problem, because whether or not something is a problem is a judgement call, and in this case it requires some capacity for empathy. Things like empathy are the single most important thing when deciding what problems actually are. But no, complete assholes like you want to look at the economy in a vacuum, and pretend like it's a consistent system governed by natural laws so you can pretend that it distributes income based on merit and thus justify why you are well off while others are suffering. Ignoring them, or even blaming them, makes it so much easier to live with. But hey, as long as you can make numbers agree with you, who gives a fuck about suffering?


Computers CAN solve economics problems quite well. Of course economic systems have laws. Yeah, it's a complex area, but so is climate. And you don't seem to be questioning that modeling climate science is a reasonable objective.

The "blaming" hasn't been a big topic in this thread, I think. It also seems irrelevant to evaluating different economic models. I'm not sure why you're worried about it.

And if you actually want to minimize suffering, you're going to have to learn to shut up and multiply. It does not appear that this is your actual goal though. You seem to want to be declared correct simply because you included some lines about how much you care about people. Virtue signaling resulting in acceptance of your ideas, rather than having to deal with actually supporting them with evidence.

I dare say that scientists have accomplished more than all the bleeding heart redistributionists combined. Science literally killed two horsemen of the apocalypse, thanks to the green revolution and modern sanitation. If you have a beef with the scientific method, please feel free to demonstrate another one that works better.

You want to solve economics without empathy, the solution is simple: eliminate all labor laws, and increase unemployment massively. Then everyone has to work, and total output skyrockets! It's no wonder that people who view the world without sympathy or empathy tend to embrace libertarianism; they think it can all be done without concern for well-being.


If you believe you've found a simple solution to all of economics, you are probably wrong. This is also true for most other complex endeavors that many people spend lifetimes struggling with.

It is interesting, though, that you appear to believe that the economically optimal solution is NOT the way you have chosen. That, say, care for workers and what not will not pay off economically. You seem to believe that choosing the "right" path requires being inefficient. Why? What on earth defines that as right, then?

Libertarians generally do not actually make the assumptions you do. For instance, increasing unemployment massively is not something you'd expect to do in optimizing total output.

User avatar
Thesh
Has the Brain Worms, In Case You Forgot.
Posts: 5011
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Thesh » Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:All people are people. Business owners, workers, whoever. Yes, I routinely point out the flaws whenever someone comes up with some way to remodel all of society. There are almost invariably costs that they haven't considered. These are not specific to business. In this particular example, we have one sector that's a winner, and other sectors that are losers, if we change systems to a CW.


Or minimum wage, taxes, anything that is ever proposed. People here know everything has winners and losers (we aren't libertarians who think "mutually beneficial" is a magic word that alleviates suffering); and we don't need your condescending bullshit to acknowledge that. We've already thought of that and realized that the risks are small compared to the risk of doing nothing.

Tyndmyr wrote:And if you actually want to minimize suffering, you're going to have to learn to shut up and multiply. It does not appear that this is your actual goal though. You seem to want to be declared correct simply because you included some lines about how much you care about people. Virtue signaling resulting in acceptance of your ideas, rather than having to deal with actually supporting them with evidence.


I know this is a hard concept for you to understand, but I actually do care about people. And I am sick assholes who refuse to acknowledge that there are problems in the first place. This isn't me trying to be right, this is a deep seated hatred for what you and all of your kind represent. I am sick and tired of selfish pieces of shit doing everything they can to prevent anyone from alleviating suffering, by parroting intellectually lazy arguments that have been proven overblown time and time again.

Tyndmyr wrote:Libertarians generally do not actually make the assumptions you do. For instance, increasing unemployment massively is not something you'd expect to do in optimizing total output.

It lowers wages, which helps make businesses more profitable. This is exactly the argument you are making every time you tell us we shouldn't help people because businesses might get hurt. If you eliminate welfare and reduce wages enough, everyone has to work or they die; there is no greater incentive than this. By reducing economics to a mathematical model, without concern for people, you end up with slavery as that's what maximizes output.
But I do and I don't want to care anymore.
If I close my eyes, would it spare me the sight of decay, corruption?
How we nurture destruction and everything that will doom us all.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10092
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:23 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:All people are people. Business owners, workers, whoever. Yes, I routinely point out the flaws whenever someone comes up with some way to remodel all of society. There are almost invariably costs that they haven't considered. These are not specific to business. In this particular example, we have one sector that's a winner, and other sectors that are losers, if we change systems to a CW.


Or minimum wage, taxes, anything that is ever proposed. We know everything has winners and losers; and we don't need your condescending bullshit to acknowledge that. We've already thought of that and realized that the risks are small


Then it should be entirely possible to demonstrate that.

CW has a comparative lack of data for real world testing, and the tests that have occurred all have significant shortcomings that limit the results' applicability to the proposed instances of it. What you "know" means nothing if you cannot demonstrate that in a reasonably repeatable, coherent fashion for others to understand.

I mean, lots of people "know" that there's a god and all that, but I don't really care, because their knowledge doesn't meet any such standards.

I know this is a hard concept for you to understand, but I actually do care about people. And I am sick assholes who refuse to acknowledge that there are problems in the first place. This isn't me trying to be right, this is a deep seated hatred for what you and all of your kind represent. I am sick and tired of selfish pieces of shit doing everything they can to prevent anyone from alleviating suffering, by parroting intellectually lazy arguments that have been proven overblown time and time again.


Caring or hatred are irrelevant in terms of finding a efficient solution, mostly. You can care a lot. You can hate a lot. That doesn't make the math work out. Both motivations have resulted in some spectacular failures. And honestly, nobody is really keeping you from alleviating suffering, if you choose to do so. Opportunities to help others are easy to find.

People do resist attempts to remake society, true. Some of this is exacerbated by not providing evidence that doing so is a good idea. Nobody owes it to you to follow your orders and live the way you want them to. You must convince them(or at least, a good amount of them), that it's a good idea. If this is what bothers you, you don't really have an issue with "assholes" or "capitalism" or the like. It's that you hate democracy itself.

It lowers wages, which helps make businesses more profitable. This is exactly the argument you are making every time you tell us we shouldn't help people because businesses might get hurt. If you eliminate welfare and reduce wages enough, everyone has to work or they die; there is no greater incentive than this. By reducing economics to a mathematical model, without concern for people, you end up with slavery as that's what maximizes output.


If I've made such an argument here, by all means, feel free to quote it. Don't think I have, though. I think this is you hating on "capitalist" stereotypes.

I'm fairly confident that I've repeatedly brought up unemployment as a negative, not a positive for overall productivity.

I also don't think slavery is a terribly good system. I can get into why, if you'd like, but this seems like a significant diversion from the actual point of this thread. Still, feel free to start another thread if you want to defend slavery as the financially optimal system, I guess.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5152
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:38 pm UTC

Wait, is the purpose of citizen's wage to help people via replacing welfare, or is it to prepare for the upcoming automation apocalypse?

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1429
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: Citizen's Wage

Postby PeteP » Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:56 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Wait, is the purpose of citizen's wage to help people via replacing welfare, or is it to prepare for the upcoming automation apocalypse?

Primarily the first I assume but I do think it would also be a more robust system if we reach a point where automation reaches a point people like me think it will reach (though not for quite some time yet imo) and it begins reducing the job market.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests