4 ms·

Of course, there are a lot of jobs that aren't done because they're economically unviable - from dance to ministry to full-time parenting. The author is working

by beat 10y ago

Of course, there are a lot of jobs that aren't done because they're economically unviable - from dance to ministry to full-time parenting. The author is working from a hidden assumption in most economic discussion - that all value can be measured in dollars. If you can't put a dollar value on it, it has no value. That is, of course, bullshit. But it doesn't stop them. Beyond food, shelter, health care, communication, transportation... what are our needs, exactly? What problem do we solve by having most adults devoting the majority of their waking hours to something they actively dislike?

criddell 10y ago
> The author is working from a hidden assumption in most economic discussion - that all value can be measured in dollars. Can you have an economic discussion without measuring things in dollars? Aren't value measurements intrinsic to economics?
- beat 10y ago
  If you go that direction, then you have to acknowledge that there is work that can't be measured economically. That there is value that can't be measured in dollars. This deliberate exclusion is already happening. I'm suggesting we should acknowledge the deliberate exclusion, or start including it, even if it makes the arguments more complex.
FussyZeus 10y ago
This is always the problem. I get it, activity that generates additional wealth is always preferred but it's not the only way a given person can contribute to society. There's a economically solid argument to pay people to sit at home and not commit crime, start riots, devalue property by being homeless, or anything else vast numbers of people with no options currently do. Paying for someone's apartment and living expenses is FAR cheaper than the economic value lost by them devaluing property and tying up Emergency Services.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  If the purpose of a BI is to protect productive members of society from destructive bandits, why not just wall ourselves off from them? That seems far cheaper. Newark, NJ causes a lot of harm to taxpayers who are forced to funnel resources to it. As far as I'm aware, bandits from Newark do not generally stage raids into Hoboken to steal resources from the productive folks living there. Can you provide a back of the envelope calculation suggesting how an economically solid argument might work?
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    I could but someone beat me to it: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person-costs-taxpayers/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/... That was minus 4 years worth of inflation and even then, if you take the most optimistic homeless numbers versus the most pessimistic housing numbers, it's still only a few hundred more. Frankly I'd much rather my tax dollars went to that than a ton of other things we blow way more money on.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      That's not really what I was asking about. I was asking about a comparative cost between a) paying people who would otherwise "commit crime, start riots, devalue property" or b) just walling ourselves off from them. You're just comparing two different versions of (a).
      - FussyZeus 10y ago
        Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. My apologies. Anyway addressing that point, putting aside the humanitarian issues of "if you aren't going to behave the way we want you to, you get thrown out of society and are left to presumably starve and die" the simple fact is that walling them off is going to be exceptionally difficult to do, just for the logistics and the construction required. Not to mention, even if you make the laws pretty permissive, I have a feeling you'd have a lot more have-nots than haves, and at the end of the day, numbers do matter...
winstonewert 10y ago
Actually, it seems to me that you can put a dollar value on dance, ministry, or full-time parenting. Anyone who choses to engage in these activities rather than a more lucrative career demonstrates that they value those activities more than the career in question. On the other hand, those who choose the career over those activities demonstrate that they value the money more than those activities. It seems to me that the problem isn't that you can't put a monetary value on these activities. The problem is that these activities have high positive externalities. Most of the benefits due to these activities accrue to society at large, and not the individual engaging in the activity. As a result, individuals will tend to undervalue the activity compared to its total societal value.
seanalltogether 10y ago
> What problem do we solve by having most adults devoting the majority of their waking hours to something they actively dislike? Everyones problems, your problems, my problems. I spend every week interacting with people that I give money to that solve small but important problems for me. In fact I have to call my bank soon to help me solve a problem with initiating a wire transfer, and i have no doubt the person on the other end of the line hates working in a call center, but I still need his help solving a problem.

by beat 10y ago

criddell 10y ago

> The author is working from a hidden assumption in most economic discussion - that all value can be measured in dollars. Can you have an economic discussion without measuring things in dollars? Aren't value measurements intrinsic to economics?

beat 10y ago
If you go that direction, then you have to acknowledge that there is work that can't be measured economically. That there is value that can't be measured in dollars. This deliberate exclusion is already happening. I'm suggesting we should acknowledge the deliberate exclusion, or start including it, even if it makes the arguments more complex.

FussyZeus 10y ago

This is always the problem. I get it, activity that generates additional wealth is always preferred but it's not the only way a given person can contribute to society. There's a economically solid argument to pay people to sit at home and not commit crime, start riots, devalue property by being homeless, or anything else vast numbers of people with no options currently do. Paying for someone's apartment and living expenses is FAR cheaper than the economic value lost by them devaluing property and tying up Emergency Services.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
If the purpose of a BI is to protect productive members of society from destructive bandits, why not just wall ourselves off from them? That seems far cheaper. Newark, NJ causes a lot of harm to taxpayers who are forced to funnel resources to it. As far as I'm aware, bandits from Newark do not generally stage raids into Hoboken to steal resources from the productive folks living there. Can you provide a back of the envelope calculation suggesting how an economically solid argument might work?
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  I could but someone beat me to it: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person-costs-taxpayers/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/... That was minus 4 years worth of inflation and even then, if you take the most optimistic homeless numbers versus the most pessimistic housing numbers, it's still only a few hundred more. Frankly I'd much rather my tax dollars went to that than a ton of other things we blow way more money on.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    That's not really what I was asking about. I was asking about a comparative cost between a) paying people who would otherwise "commit crime, start riots, devalue property" or b) just walling ourselves off from them. You're just comparing two different versions of (a).
    - FussyZeus 10y ago
      Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. My apologies. Anyway addressing that point, putting aside the humanitarian issues of "if you aren't going to behave the way we want you to, you get thrown out of society and are left to presumably starve and die" the simple fact is that walling them off is going to be exceptionally difficult to do, just for the logistics and the construction required. Not to mention, even if you make the laws pretty permissive, I have a feeling you'd have a lot more have-nots than haves, and at the end of the day, numbers do matter...

winstonewert 10y ago

Actually, it seems to me that you can put a dollar value on dance, ministry, or full-time parenting. Anyone who choses to engage in these activities rather than a more lucrative career demonstrates that they value those activities more than the career in question. On the other hand, those who choose the career over those activities demonstrate that they value the money more than those activities. It seems to me that the problem isn't that you can't put a monetary value on these activities. The problem is that these activities have high positive externalities. Most of the benefits due to these activities accrue to society at large, and not the individual engaging in the activity. As a result, individuals will tend to undervalue the activity compared to its total societal value.

seanalltogether 10y ago

> What problem do we solve by having most adults devoting the majority of their waking hours to something they actively dislike? Everyones problems, your problems, my problems. I spend every week interacting with people that I give money to that solve small but important problems for me. In fact I have to call my bank soon to help me solve a problem with initiating a wire transfer, and i have no doubt the person on the other end of the line hates working in a call center, but I still need his help solving a problem.