6 ms·

Higher wages for dirty jobs would certainly spur innovation in labour saving devices to reduce the amount of manual labour. "Dirty" jobs being paid more certai

by rmc 11y ago

Higher wages for dirty jobs would certainly spur innovation in labour saving devices to reduce the amount of manual labour. "Dirty" jobs being paid more certainly does sound a little more ethical than today, where those with little options have to work those dirty jobs to keep their house and to eat, and they are paid low.

Chronic51 11y ago
Dirty jobs will pay more. But their rent will also increase. Net negative for them.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  It may be possible to control the outcomes of property owner's greed with heavy taxation on non-owner occupied properties? Certainly it wouldn't work to leave rent increases uncontrolled as landlords would then just increase prices (in the UK at least).
- chongli 11y ago
  Their rent won't increase. It'll decease because they can quit their dirty job and move somewhere nice with low rent but few jobs, like a small town.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
How would it spur innovation? After enacting a BI, we've just reduced the labor supply and funneled resources toward consumption (since rich people invest, poor people consume, and we've shifted resources from rich to poor). Labor supply = Labor servicing consumption + labor servicing investment Rearranging this implies: Labor providing investment = labor supplied - labor providing consumption Simple arithmetic shows we now have less resources devoted to investment. So how will this innovation actually occur? I realize demand for it might go up, but if supply doesn't increase correspondingly, so what?
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  >funneled resources toward consumption (since rich people invest, poor people consume, and we've shifted resources from rich to poor) // That's a natty turn of phrase but I'm calling bullshit. Rich people invest with the excess financial wealth they have after they've consumed hugely more than a poor person. Give me more money and I can afford to eat better (reduced healthcare burden), can repair my house (reducing total resources needed over the lifetime of the building; and again there are health implications). Give that money to someone rich and yes, they will invest - sucking more value away from the populous without producing more value - but they'll also do things like buying a private jet which consumes/pollutes hugely and wastes resources. Perhaps some of the wealthy won't be able to have private islands and maintain their more liquid assets, for shame. Why not cooperatives and micro-investment? Why does a rich capitalist have to be the investor and suck all the value from the system?
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    If you believe that the rich consume and the poor invest, then the best stimulus during times of recession is tax cuts for the rich. I take it this is your preferred policy for the next recession? There is no particular reason investment has to come from rich people. That's just how western economies seem to work. As I noted, in Namibia, poor people do seem to invest new wealth.
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      Where did I say that the poor invest (they do, in The West, eg in pensions, but we're talking generalities)? We're all clearly consumers. Rich people costume more than there share, they still have excess financial wealth to invest. Redistributing this would allow poorer people opportunity to take part in investment which in turn should lead to more redistribution. Tax increases for the rich in recession would (with a similarly naive analysis to the one you proffered) reduce the tax burden on the poor and allow then to become richer, increasing their consumption. Millions can buy a new TV instead of one person getting a yacht.

by rmc 11y ago

Chronic51 11y ago

Dirty jobs will pay more. But their rent will also increase. Net negative for them.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
It may be possible to control the outcomes of property owner's greed with heavy taxation on non-owner occupied properties? Certainly it wouldn't work to leave rent increases uncontrolled as landlords would then just increase prices (in the UK at least).
chongli 11y ago
Their rent won't increase. It'll decease because they can quit their dirty job and move somewhere nice with low rent but few jobs, like a small town.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

How would it spur innovation? After enacting a BI, we've just reduced the labor supply and funneled resources toward consumption (since rich people invest, poor people consume, and we've shifted resources from rich to poor). Labor supply = Labor servicing consumption + labor servicing investment Rearranging this implies: Labor providing investment = labor supplied - labor providing consumption Simple arithmetic shows we now have less resources devoted to investment. So how will this innovation actually occur? I realize demand for it might go up, but if supply doesn't increase correspondingly, so what?

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>funneled resources toward consumption (since rich people invest, poor people consume, and we've shifted resources from rich to poor) // That's a natty turn of phrase but I'm calling bullshit. Rich people invest with the excess financial wealth they have after they've consumed hugely more than a poor person. Give me more money and I can afford to eat better (reduced healthcare burden), can repair my house (reducing total resources needed over the lifetime of the building; and again there are health implications). Give that money to someone rich and yes, they will invest - sucking more value away from the populous without producing more value - but they'll also do things like buying a private jet which consumes/pollutes hugely and wastes resources. Perhaps some of the wealthy won't be able to have private islands and maintain their more liquid assets, for shame. Why not cooperatives and micro-investment? Why does a rich capitalist have to be the investor and suck all the value from the system?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  If you believe that the rich consume and the poor invest, then the best stimulus during times of recession is tax cuts for the rich. I take it this is your preferred policy for the next recession? There is no particular reason investment has to come from rich people. That's just how western economies seem to work. As I noted, in Namibia, poor people do seem to invest new wealth.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    Where did I say that the poor invest (they do, in The West, eg in pensions, but we're talking generalities)? We're all clearly consumers. Rich people costume more than there share, they still have excess financial wealth to invest. Redistributing this would allow poorer people opportunity to take part in investment which in turn should lead to more redistribution. Tax increases for the rich in recession would (with a similarly naive analysis to the one you proffered) reduce the tax burden on the poor and allow then to become richer, increasing their consumption. Millions can buy a new TV instead of one person getting a yacht.