3 ms·

What GP is talking about is a centrally planned economy, and what you are referring to (basic income) is wealth redistribution, these are basically orthogonal i

by pliny 11y ago

What GP is talking about is a centrally planned economy, and what you are referring to (basic income) is wealth redistribution, these are basically orthogonal issues. You can have a centrally planned economy where people are only paid if they work, and their pay is proportional to the value they create (so no wealth redistribution occurs), and you can have an economy built entirely around unregulated enterprise where the government taxes income/consumption/use of common goods like land or oil etc. and pays everyone an equal share of the taxes collected.

WalterBright 11y ago
You can on paper have a centrally planned economy where people are paid according to the value they create, but not in practice. The trouble is that bureaucratic proxies are used to determine value, and people inevitably game those proxies.
- JamesBarney 11y ago
  This is not just true of governments, but any large coordinated human activity like corporations. I would imagine that the majority of salaries in the U.S. get determined by bureaucratic proxies.
  - WalterBright 11y ago
    There is some use of proxies (with the inevitable attendant gaming), but in profit oriented companies it remains largely at the discretion of the manager(s).
    - JamesBarney 11y ago
      Unless you are directly working for the owner of the company your manager is just a bureaucratic proxy for the Owner/CEO/Board/Shareholders. Managers also generally only have limited control over your salary. If your engineering manager thinks you as a developer contributed more than a VP because of your innovation he would not be able to write you a check for $200,000 as a bonus to reward you for your value creation.
      - WalterBright 11y ago
        My point is the manager is not a bureaucratic rule. Rules can and inevitably are gamed. Managers know who is producing and who isn't - heck, everyone in the office knows who the performers and slackers are. It's really hard to game that. Managers can't authorize a check for $200,000, but they can go to bat for you with top management, who can. It would be a mistake to assume this doesn't happen.

by pliny 11y ago

WalterBright 11y ago

You can on paper have a centrally planned economy where people are paid according to the value they create, but not in practice. The trouble is that bureaucratic proxies are used to determine value, and people inevitably game those proxies.

JamesBarney 11y ago
This is not just true of governments, but any large coordinated human activity like corporations. I would imagine that the majority of salaries in the U.S. get determined by bureaucratic proxies.
- WalterBright 11y ago
  There is some use of proxies (with the inevitable attendant gaming), but in profit oriented companies it remains largely at the discretion of the manager(s).
  - JamesBarney 11y ago
    Unless you are directly working for the owner of the company your manager is just a bureaucratic proxy for the Owner/CEO/Board/Shareholders. Managers also generally only have limited control over your salary. If your engineering manager thinks you as a developer contributed more than a VP because of your innovation he would not be able to write you a check for $200,000 as a bonus to reward you for your value creation.
    - WalterBright 11y ago
      My point is the manager is not a bureaucratic rule. Rules can and inevitably are gamed. Managers know who is producing and who isn't - heck, everyone in the office knows who the performers and slackers are. It's really hard to game that. Managers can't authorize a check for $200,000, but they can go to bat for you with top management, who can. It would be a mistake to assume this doesn't happen.