5 ms·

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

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...
  - lentil_soup 11y ago
    Not working does not mean sitting watching TV
clavalle 11y ago
>What about the marginal utility of time? Everyone gets 24 hours in a day. The 'copious amounts' of free time of welfare recipients is capped. The same cannot be said of monetary wealth. Therefore the marginal utility of time has a lower limit that does not exist for the marginal utility of monetary wealth. >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. In both scenarios the disadvantaged party cannot walk away from the transaction without loss in value. In this case, your implicit definition of 'better off' is 'lose less than they would otherwise'. If you have just crawled out of a desert on the verge of death of dehydration and I sell you a cup of water for $100,000 and a pinky finger you may be 'better off' under your definition. Would you say that it is overall a value positive transaction?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Therefore the marginal utility of time has a lower limit... So what? If we were to impose some cap on income (say $1B/year) would it suddenly be "exploitative" to charge any income tax? If not, then this argument is a red herring. Would you say that it is overall a value positive transaction? Yes. Of course, your analogy is silly - a better comparison would be a resort near the desert which charges $2.50 for a bottle of water. All anyone is proposing is that welfare people get a job that pays the same rates that the workers supporting them get paid.
  - clavalle 11y ago
    >If we were to impose some cap on income (say $1B/year) would it suddenly be "exploitative" to charge any income tax? Maybe not at $1B/year (that marginal dollar is damn near infinitesimal at that point). But maybe if the cap was, say, $50K (or in that rough ballpark) a year characterizing income tax as exploitative could be a concept worthy of exploring. Especially if we are talking about taking 40% their usable income or more as the article is proposing for the poor assuming they are expecting them to work 8 hours a day.

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...
- lentil_soup 11y ago
  Not working does not mean sitting watching TV

clavalle 11y ago

>What about the marginal utility of time? Everyone gets 24 hours in a day. The 'copious amounts' of free time of welfare recipients is capped. The same cannot be said of monetary wealth. Therefore the marginal utility of time has a lower limit that does not exist for the marginal utility of monetary wealth. >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. In both scenarios the disadvantaged party cannot walk away from the transaction without loss in value. In this case, your implicit definition of 'better off' is 'lose less than they would otherwise'. If you have just crawled out of a desert on the verge of death of dehydration and I sell you a cup of water for $100,000 and a pinky finger you may be 'better off' under your definition. Would you say that it is overall a value positive transaction?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Therefore the marginal utility of time has a lower limit... So what? If we were to impose some cap on income (say $1B/year) would it suddenly be "exploitative" to charge any income tax? If not, then this argument is a red herring. Would you say that it is overall a value positive transaction? Yes. Of course, your analogy is silly - a better comparison would be a resort near the desert which charges $2.50 for a bottle of water. All anyone is proposing is that welfare people get a job that pays the same rates that the workers supporting them get paid.
- clavalle 11y ago
  >If we were to impose some cap on income (say $1B/year) would it suddenly be "exploitative" to charge any income tax? Maybe not at $1B/year (that marginal dollar is damn near infinitesimal at that point). But maybe if the cap was, say, $50K (or in that rough ballpark) a year characterizing income tax as exploitative could be a concept worthy of exploring. Especially if we are talking about taking 40% their usable income or more as the article is proposing for the poor assuming they are expecting them to work 8 hours a day.