5 ms·

>a cash payment could conceivably make less efficient (and paternalistic) forms of in-kind wealth transfers unnecessary Nobody said that this new form of wealt

>a cash payment could conceivably make less efficient (and paternalistic) forms of in-kind wealth transfers unnecessary Nobody said that this new form of wealth transfer will replace existing forms of wealth transfer. The goal here is that it would run in tandem with existing forms of redistribution. It is a delusion that it will ever be enough. Once UBI is in place, other forms of egalitarianism will soon follow until communism is attained. These initiatives are but like a hammer seeking to equalise all the nails on a given piece of wood. >America - transfers wealth already in many ways I'm both well aware and firmly opposed to all forms of wealth transfer (inflation, welfare programs, excessive taxation et al). It is beyond atrocious and I couldn't speak less favourably of it.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
c0nducktr 10y ago
I find the transfer of wealth from workers to capitalists pretty atrocious myself.
- _andromeda_ 10y ago
  I know it seems that way on the surface but some people (typically entrepreneurs) take on more risk than most people are willing to stomach. They (capitalists) in turn are rewarded with the multiplication of their capital investment when things pan out. If the opposite happens, they're the ones who suffer the consequences and they learn to make better decisions next time round. That is why I'm typically against government bailouts - they get in the way and undermine this natural occurrence as opposed to letting the markets weed out poor decisions and inefficiencies. Workers should also be compensated according to the quality of work (read: value brought in) that they produce. Workers can and should be wealthy too under this premise.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    > I know it seems that way on the surface but some people (typically entrepreneurs) take on more risk than most people are willing to stomach. It isn't compensation for entreprenurial risk that people object to, but compensation for risks taken with Other People's Money (OPM), where the government supplies an implied safety net (Too Big to Fail). By extension, people object to success (whether though skill or luck) for a risk-taking entrepreneur including entry into the ranks of the capitalists, that group of people who have enough money that participation in OPM schemes is enough to sustain their membership in the exclusive club. In other words, the prize for winning the game once shouldn't include getting to play risk-free from then on. > Workers should also be compensated according to the quality of work (read: value brought in) that they produce. Workers can and should be wealthy too under this premise. OK, so what is the flaw in the current setup that prevents workers from receiving their share of the wealth created? How do you think the system should be changed?
    - _andromeda_ 10y ago
      > OK, so what is the flaw in the current setup that prevents workers from receiving their share of the wealth created? How do you think the system should be changed? I have no problem with that and I agree with you (but you don't seem to think so). I think it works very well. It's brilliant that many companies have ESOPs. Early employees that take on risk by joining fledgling companies get huge rewards when things pan out. Even workers who come into the business at later stages can get huge gains of they are deemed to bring in proportional value. >government supplies an implied safety net (Too Big to Fail). I am very much against this myself. I despise it even. Socialised losses and privatised gains are evil.
      - webmaven 10y ago
        > I think it works very well. This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't think the current setup works very well, at least not for the bottom 3/4 of the US population. Basically, it was working OK until circa 1975, after which point any gains in improved productivity started accruing to owners of capital almost exclusively. And the more capital you have, the larger your share of those gains, in a superlinear fashion. Meanwhile worker compensation (as measured in constant dollars) has stagnated and even shrunk somewhat recently.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

c0nducktr 10y ago

I find the transfer of wealth from workers to capitalists pretty atrocious myself.

_andromeda_ 10y ago
I know it seems that way on the surface but some people (typically entrepreneurs) take on more risk than most people are willing to stomach. They (capitalists) in turn are rewarded with the multiplication of their capital investment when things pan out. If the opposite happens, they're the ones who suffer the consequences and they learn to make better decisions next time round. That is why I'm typically against government bailouts - they get in the way and undermine this natural occurrence as opposed to letting the markets weed out poor decisions and inefficiencies. Workers should also be compensated according to the quality of work (read: value brought in) that they produce. Workers can and should be wealthy too under this premise.
- webmaven 10y ago
  > I know it seems that way on the surface but some people (typically entrepreneurs) take on more risk than most people are willing to stomach. It isn't compensation for entreprenurial risk that people object to, but compensation for risks taken with Other People's Money (OPM), where the government supplies an implied safety net (Too Big to Fail). By extension, people object to success (whether though skill or luck) for a risk-taking entrepreneur including entry into the ranks of the capitalists, that group of people who have enough money that participation in OPM schemes is enough to sustain their membership in the exclusive club. In other words, the prize for winning the game once shouldn't include getting to play risk-free from then on. > Workers should also be compensated according to the quality of work (read: value brought in) that they produce. Workers can and should be wealthy too under this premise. OK, so what is the flaw in the current setup that prevents workers from receiving their share of the wealth created? How do you think the system should be changed?
  - _andromeda_ 10y ago
    > OK, so what is the flaw in the current setup that prevents workers from receiving their share of the wealth created? How do you think the system should be changed? I have no problem with that and I agree with you (but you don't seem to think so). I think it works very well. It's brilliant that many companies have ESOPs. Early employees that take on risk by joining fledgling companies get huge rewards when things pan out. Even workers who come into the business at later stages can get huge gains of they are deemed to bring in proportional value. >government supplies an implied safety net (Too Big to Fail). I am very much against this myself. I despise it even. Socialised losses and privatised gains are evil.
    - webmaven 10y ago
      > I think it works very well. This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't think the current setup works very well, at least not for the bottom 3/4 of the US population. Basically, it was working OK until circa 1975, after which point any gains in improved productivity started accruing to owners of capital almost exclusively. And the more capital you have, the larger your share of those gains, in a superlinear fashion. Meanwhile worker compensation (as measured in constant dollars) has stagnated and even shrunk somewhat recently.