4 ms·

That "save 90%" seems to be ignoring any possibility that the original developer might have a comparative advantage.

by dasmoth 10y ago

danbruc 10y ago
Even if it takes them five times the effort, they can still save 50 %, but without a concrete example it is hard to argue. But we can also look at it from a very different point of view - if everybody would try to live for ten years on the work of one year, then we would have a problem. This alone shows that this is not a sustainable behavior and looking at it this way avoids the need to know any specific details. EDIT: I think I made a mistake in my argument but I have to rethink this and will leave it as it for the moment.
- mikekchar 10y ago
  Just want to encourage you to think about it, because I'm curious what you think. > if everybody would try to live for ten years on the work of one year, then we would have a problem. I suspect this is the crux of the issue because I completely agree with this even though it is arguably untrue. For example, let's imagine that I could farm for a year and by making preserves could live on the food for 10 years. If everybody wanted to do this, then there would be no problem. We would all work for 1 year and eat for 10. Assuming that there are enough resources, it will not cause any problem at all. In the same way, when the 1st world switched to a 40 hour week, it did not cause a problem. In fact, the extra leisure time resulted in the demand for goods and services. This combined with minimum wage meant that people would buy things and spur the economy. So why do both of us think there is a problem? I suspect that it has to do with growth. To make a different example, imagine that I take a loan and use the money to build a business. Without the money, I can't do business and therefore people can't use the products I make and growth for everyone is restricted. Let's say that I choose, instead, to spend the loan on Farmville. Now, the makers of Farmville get some income, which they will appreciate. Some of that will trickle down into the economy and help other businesses as well. But quite a lot of the money will be tied up in things like the rapid rise of real estate prices. This doesn't really generate any growth because no work is done. If you compare the 2 situations: one builds a business making things that other people can use and overall society grows. In the other, we are mostly transferring wealth and only growing a little bit based on the small amount that trickles down to people who use it for something productive. In the case where someone wants to work 1 year and receive money for 10, we have 1 year of growth producing work and 9 of simply spending the money. As a society, there is a balance of stoking the economy (the distribution of money acts as a kind of oil that allows production to increase), and ensuring that money is used efficiently. Sitting on a passive income for 10 years means that society is deprived of 9 years of production -- and subsequent growth resulting from the use of those products. Do I think one is morally better or worse? Not really. But I think, as a society, we should choose what we want to encourage.

That "save 90%" seems to be ignoring any possibility that the original developer might have a comparative advantage.

by dasmoth 10y ago

That "save 90%" seems to be ignoring any possibility that the original developer might have a comparative advantage.

Even if it takes them five times the effort, they can still save 50 %, but without a concrete example it is hard to argue. But we can also look at it from a very different point of view - if everybody would try to live for ten years on the work of one year, then we would have a problem. This alone shows that this is not a sustainable behavior and looking at it this way avoids the need to know any specific details. EDIT: I think I made a mistake in my argument but I have to rethink this and will leave it as it for the moment.

mikekchar 10y ago
Just want to encourage you to think about it, because I'm curious what you think. > if everybody would try to live for ten years on the work of one year, then we would have a problem. I suspect this is the crux of the issue because I completely agree with this even though it is arguably untrue. For example, let's imagine that I could farm for a year and by making preserves could live on the food for 10 years. If everybody wanted to do this, then there would be no problem. We would all work for 1 year and eat for 10. Assuming that there are enough resources, it will not cause any problem at all. In the same way, when the 1st world switched to a 40 hour week, it did not cause a problem. In fact, the extra leisure time resulted in the demand for goods and services. This combined with minimum wage meant that people would buy things and spur the economy. So why do both of us think there is a problem? I suspect that it has to do with growth. To make a different example, imagine that I take a loan and use the money to build a business. Without the money, I can't do business and therefore people can't use the products I make and growth for everyone is restricted. Let's say that I choose, instead, to spend the loan on Farmville. Now, the makers of Farmville get some income, which they will appreciate. Some of that will trickle down into the economy and help other businesses as well. But quite a lot of the money will be tied up in things like the rapid rise of real estate prices. This doesn't really generate any growth because no work is done. If you compare the 2 situations: one builds a business making things that other people can use and overall society grows. In the other, we are mostly transferring wealth and only growing a little bit based on the small amount that trickles down to people who use it for something productive. In the case where someone wants to work 1 year and receive money for 10, we have 1 year of growth producing work and 9 of simply spending the money. As a society, there is a balance of stoking the economy (the distribution of money acts as a kind of oil that allows production to increase), and ensuring that money is used efficiently. Sitting on a passive income for 10 years means that society is deprived of 9 years of production -- and subsequent growth resulting from the use of those products. Do I think one is morally better or worse? Not really. But I think, as a society, we should choose what we want to encourage.