6 ms·

>They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. Are you willing to create value for other humans at less th

>They build human capital by demonstrating an ability/willingness to create value for other humans. Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. Value for humans works both ways...people value their own time (your watching TV example) it is true. But if they were sufficiently incentivised with added value, they would create value for others in order to improve the remainder of their own time. That's how it works. Enlightened self-interest, and all that. > I assume that you also believe taking money from others involuntarily and giving it to non-workers is not "exploitative"? Yes, I do because of the marginal utility of money. Taking $1000 from someone who has $10 mil. to feed a family a four for a month is not exploitative. The person with $10 mil. will not die or be in physical pain without that money. That money is worth less to them than it is to the family that very well might die, or at least be in pain, without it. Telling someone on the brink of total poverty, where they very well might starve over the next month, that they must work or die is exploitation. Exploitation is not about taking money it is about extorting someone with the threat of pain or death. It is a sure way to destroy value in a transaction. The alternative is to entice someone to create value for other humans through a value add transaction -- they end up with more value for themselves rather than bargaining to limit their loss through death or pain -- you know, why the rest of us that happen to be more wealthy choose to create value for others. The way to guarantee such a transaction is to make sure the person agreeing to that transaction is not making the decision to engage based on a physical threat. I don't know why this concept is so foreign. It is the same reason protection rackets are illegal.

danjayh 11y ago
> Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. Friend, hunger pain and risk of homelessness are what motivate many people to drag themselves to work. Without that threat, many people choose to be unproductive, and it makes society as a whole poor. If you take too heavily from those who are productive to enable this, it dicencentivises them. This has been demonstrated repeatedly -- in the USSR, in China's old system, in Cuba, in the DPRK, in Saudi Arabia (who, with less oil money, are having serious problems), and even in the Internet's beloved Denmark ... literally over and over and over. (ref for Denmark, since I know that will be one of the more contentious entries on my list: http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-student-loan-debt-is-hurting-denmarks-economy-2014-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-stud... ) Asking them to take what someone else is willing to give them for their work, without the threat of imprisonment from the government to motivate the giving, is not asking them to work for less than they're worth. Quite the contrary, it's asking them to work for an amount that exactly reflects the value other humans assign to their labor.
- creshal 11y ago
  So what exactly is Denmark's problem? Unemployment is still lower than average. Gini, HDI, GDP, all metrics you could wish for are excellent. Companies not finding enough engineers is a complaint you hear world-wide, from Germany to the US, usually followed by "so please reduce immigration restrictions so we can get Indians for half the wage instead".
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  That article about Denmark isn't proof of anything but that conservatives in Denmark don't like Denmark's welfare system.
- clavalle 11y ago
  >hunger pain and risk of homelessness are what motivate many people to drag themselves to work. Without that threat, many people choose to be unproductive That, in my view, smacks of rationalization of widespread exploitation of an entire sector of human beings. This forum is full of people that will not starve if they don't work -- at least not for a while. But the vast majority are doing what they can to create value in the world. Are they just better human beings than the poor who must be threatened in order to create value? Or have we built enough capital of one type or another to make the transaction of our time and effort and application of our capital worth it? An improvement of our lot? If all of us more fortunate creatures were told that we'd never turn a profit for our efforts, how many of us would put in that effort? I would wager not many (a situation that plagued most of those socialist systems you mentioned). The poor are put in a situation where they are asked to work but never profit. They must work to limit their loss. They must work to merely not die. It is little wonder that we have people that prefer welfare and don't do much to better their position because the alternative is to spend their time and effort pushing for -- nothing. What I would push for is not Socialism -- which is where everybody owns the means of production which is dragging everyone down into that same pitiable state of never being able harvest your own profit for your own efforts -- but merely giving the poor a guarantee that they will not die or be in pain -- enough food, housing, medical care to live. Those that need their labor will then have to entice them to work. They have to look at how much their labor is worth to them and try and pay them based on how much profit they can wring from the value they can create -- like lawyers are paid, engineers, management, skilled workers, professionals...literally everyone else. It's not crazy, it is how 3/4s of the population in the US conducts business. It is just an extension of that strong bargaining position in the free market to those in danger of having to work for less than their time is worth for no hope of bettering their position just to merely not die. It may mean that I have to take it on a bit of faith, but I trust that 1/4 at the bottom will work to better their position just like the rest of us if given the chance. I don't think we're any better, when it comes down to it.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. The article doesn't propose threatening anyone with pain or death. Did you read it? All it proposes is requiring people receiving free money to be willing to work for money instead (same as the people who are forced to give them free money). The person with $10 mil. will not die or be in physical pain without that money. That money is worth less to them than it is to the family that very well might die, or at least be in pain, without it. What about the marginal utility of time? The person with $10M is probably working hard. In contrast, the welfare recipient with copious amounts of free time will not die or be in pain if they spend some time working. Why do the time rich get a free pass while the money rich are forced to contribute? (The article explicitly advocates that people who will be in pain, i.e. those physically unable to work, would be exempt from such requirements.) I don't know why this concept is so foreign. It is the same reason protection rackets are illegal. A protection racket is when you threaten a person with violence if they don't give you money. Kind of like how tax financed welfare works, and not remotely like how the proposed "uber for welfare" works. In a protection racket, I am worse off than I would be if the racketeer and I never encountered each other. In the proposed uber for welfare scheme the recipient is better off.
- lentil_soup 11y ago
  "the welfare recipient with copious amounts of free time" So in your view, all welfare recipients are just sitting around watching TV? "The person with $10M is probably working hard" why? what makes you say that? Do millionaires work extra hard compared to everyone else?
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Most of those on TANF - the program this article discusses - are in fact not working. The 36% or so who are already working would be unaffected by this proposal. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-welfare-recipients-already-have-one/ http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-wel...

danjayh 11y ago

> Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. Friend, hunger pain and risk of homelessness are what motivate many people to drag themselves to work. Without that threat, many people choose to be unproductive, and it makes society as a whole poor. If you take too heavily from those who are productive to enable this, it dicencentivises them. This has been demonstrated repeatedly -- in the USSR, in China's old system, in Cuba, in the DPRK, in Saudi Arabia (who, with less oil money, are having serious problems), and even in the Internet's beloved Denmark ... literally over and over and over. (ref for Denmark, since I know that will be one of the more contentious entries on my list: http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-student-loan-debt-is-hurting-denmarks-economy-2014-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-stud... ) Asking them to take what someone else is willing to give them for their work, without the threat of imprisonment from the government to motivate the giving, is not asking them to work for less than they're worth. Quite the contrary, it's asking them to work for an amount that exactly reflects the value other humans assign to their labor.

creshal 11y ago
So what exactly is Denmark's problem? Unemployment is still lower than average. Gini, HDI, GDP, all metrics you could wish for are excellent. Companies not finding enough engineers is a complaint you hear world-wide, from Germany to the US, usually followed by "so please reduce immigration restrictions so we can get Indians for half the wage instead".
Kristine1975 11y ago
That article about Denmark isn't proof of anything but that conservatives in Denmark don't like Denmark's welfare system.
clavalle 11y ago
>hunger pain and risk of homelessness are what motivate many people to drag themselves to work. Without that threat, many people choose to be unproductive That, in my view, smacks of rationalization of widespread exploitation of an entire sector of human beings. This forum is full of people that will not starve if they don't work -- at least not for a while. But the vast majority are doing what they can to create value in the world. Are they just better human beings than the poor who must be threatened in order to create value? Or have we built enough capital of one type or another to make the transaction of our time and effort and application of our capital worth it? An improvement of our lot? If all of us more fortunate creatures were told that we'd never turn a profit for our efforts, how many of us would put in that effort? I would wager not many (a situation that plagued most of those socialist systems you mentioned). The poor are put in a situation where they are asked to work but never profit. They must work to limit their loss. They must work to merely not die. It is little wonder that we have people that prefer welfare and don't do much to better their position because the alternative is to spend their time and effort pushing for -- nothing. What I would push for is not Socialism -- which is where everybody owns the means of production which is dragging everyone down into that same pitiable state of never being able harvest your own profit for your own efforts -- but merely giving the poor a guarantee that they will not die or be in pain -- enough food, housing, medical care to live. Those that need their labor will then have to entice them to work. They have to look at how much their labor is worth to them and try and pay them based on how much profit they can wring from the value they can create -- like lawyers are paid, engineers, management, skilled workers, professionals...literally everyone else. It's not crazy, it is how 3/4s of the population in the US conducts business. It is just an extension of that strong bargaining position in the free market to those in danger of having to work for less than their time is worth for no hope of bettering their position just to merely not die. It may mean that I have to take it on a bit of faith, but I trust that 1/4 at the bottom will work to better their position just like the rest of us if given the chance. I don't think we're any better, when it comes down to it.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. The article doesn't propose threatening anyone with pain or death. Did you read it? All it proposes is requiring people receiving free money to be willing to work for money instead (same as the people who are forced to give them free money). The person with $10 mil. will not die or be in physical pain without that money. That money is worth less to them than it is to the family that very well might die, or at least be in pain, without it. What about the marginal utility of time? The person with $10M is probably working hard. In contrast, the welfare recipient with copious amounts of free time will not die or be in pain if they spend some time working. Why do the time rich get a free pass while the money rich are forced to contribute? (The article explicitly advocates that people who will be in pain, i.e. those physically unable to work, would be exempt from such requirements.) I don't know why this concept is so foreign. It is the same reason protection rackets are illegal. A protection racket is when you threaten a person with violence if they don't give you money. Kind of like how tax financed welfare works, and not remotely like how the proposed "uber for welfare" works. In a protection racket, I am worse off than I would be if the racketeer and I never encountered each other. In the proposed uber for welfare scheme the recipient is better off.

lentil_soup 11y ago
"the welfare recipient with copious amounts of free time" So in your view, all welfare recipients are just sitting around watching TV? "The person with $10M is probably working hard" why? what makes you say that? Do millionaires work extra hard compared to everyone else?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Most of those on TANF - the program this article discusses - are in fact not working. The 36% or so who are already working would be unaffected by this proposal. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-welfare-recipients-already-have-one/ http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-wel...