6 ms·

Other people also work hard to help their kids. Many even work multiple jobs and gruelling hours. The point is, we have a system that doesn't reward hard work,

by yedava 10y ago

Other people also work hard to help their kids. Many even work multiple jobs and gruelling hours. The point is, we have a system that doesn't reward hard work, but instead rewards rentiers, people who do no productive work (relatively speaking) and yet keep getting rich.

cookiecaper 10y ago
Yeah, this is the point that the parent is making. Basically, you're arguing that access to resources should be predicated upon a) the quantity of labor rather than its value; and b) that access should only last as long as the effort is continually expended (curious re b: how many days can one take off before access to resources is denied? what if I want to take a year off to focus on a business? what if you think my business is a sham and not a legitimate expenditure of effort? are some people entitled to resource access without effort, and if so, which people, and why?). People who want to leave an inheritance for their kids argue instead that access to resources should be predicated upon a) the value of their contributions rather than the amount of labor; and b) access to any excess resources should persist until they are fully exhausted by the owner's willful use, without regard to the amount of effort involved in earning it. Only one of these models scales, not just in a free society, but any society. The perspective that idlers should not get to eat while laborers starve is solid, but the plans that have been proposed to resolve it are impractical. The fact is that to some extent, inequality and unfairness will always be around. That's due to the fundamental functions of the physical world that cause scarcity, not how nice or kind the people who surround you are, so just trying to make better people won't solve the basic problem of inequity (it may, however, prevent class oppression).
- __s 10y ago
  The scarcity of wealth might as well be compared to the scarcity of diamonds
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Quite the contrary. While the scarcity of diamonds is enforced by a small cabal of diamond hoarders, the scarcity of labor is enforced by unchangeable biological demands that are universal across the human family. Biology will always place a limitation on the amount of labor that one can expend, and psychology, which is an only slightly more pliable abstraction on top of biology, limits it further. Humans are biologically programmed, as part of the survival instinct, to preserve as much energy as possible. They will only expend hard effort when they are convinced that it will provide them with tangible and necessary benefits (where necessary means that the brain sends rewards in response to the anticipated benefit). Inasmuch as wealth refers to the ability to command labor, either directly (like hiring an employee) or indirectly (like paying for the work product of another organization's employees), there are real limits that can't be circumvented. As automation and technology enable us to a) prevent or seriously impede natural corrosive processes that destroy our work product and b) generate more useful goods and services with increasingly-less dependence on human effort, I agree that "wealth", for the value of wealth that means access to conveniences and luxuries, will become more generally available as we continue to improve.
- mcguire 10y ago
  "People who want to leave an inheritance for their kids argue instead that access to resources should be predicated upon a) the value of their contributions rather than the amount of labor; and b) access to any excess resources should persist until they are fully exhausted by the owner's willful use, without regard to the amount of effort involved in earning it." It's a very compelling argument, except that in practice it seems to evolve into access to resources being predicated on a) the ability to extract resources from the system via external factors rather than labor or contributions.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    I agree that systemic exploitation by carving out an unfair advantage is a bad thing and that it happens frequently right now. I talked about it in another comment in this thread. [0] However, even if we agree that someone's gains were based on unfair rules, that's not justification for pilfering a family's nest egg. If we allowed them to accrue that money legally, it's theirs, and we just need to correct the loopholes and move on. Dismantling the free markets and systems of exchange enabled by private property only results in shifting every advantage to a tiny centralized core (usually government ministers, bureaucrats, and their families and staffs) who quickly grow rich while 90%+ of the population becomes impoverished. It is simply not possible for any government to produce a sufficient central plan, no matter how well-meaning or knowledgeable the planners. The world's natural chaos doesn't allow for it. We saw this tried many times in the 20th century and there's not one success story to come out of it. People must be free to make their own price and value judgments in an organic marketplace because it's the only thing that can adapt quickly enough to the real world, and the only thing that actually provides some advantage resilience to keep a dishonest, exploitative pirate class from pillaging the economy with stunning rapidity. Ask yourself why this clear fact is often misrepresented as its polar opposite, and consider the interests of the propagandists with reference to that misrepresentation. There is too much inequality today. We should work to fix that, but no one seems interested in paying attention to the details that are necessary to do so because the propagandists are too busy whipping them into a frenzy about the need to confiscate the assets of the 1% and transfer control of that money to their friends in the government. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13566113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13566113
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  Except that most people on the other side of this issue are not calling for a 100% tax on inheritance or a 100% tax on all income above a certain level. I'd be happy with a return to the tax rates of the late 90s before all of this "tax cuts for the rich" nonsense got started. Your philosophical approach seems to be inching toward an argument between the libertarians and the communists and their ideal policy on tax rats. I think that is kind of a false choice myself.
234dd57d2c8dba 10y ago
Sorry the school system lied to you, you're supposed to work smart, not hard. Flipping burgers for 14 hours a day doesn't improve society, which is why it doesn't pay anything. Get a real job if you want to make money. Improve people's lives.
- wccrawford 10y ago
  I get paid a lot more than a burger flipper. But I don't think I improve society of makes people's lives better than a burger flipper does. No, I get paid a lot more because my work allows my boss to make more money per hour of my work than flipping burgers would.

by yedava 10y ago

cookiecaper 10y ago

Yeah, this is the point that the parent is making. Basically, you're arguing that access to resources should be predicated upon a) the quantity of labor rather than its value; and b) that access should only last as long as the effort is continually expended (curious re b: how many days can one take off before access to resources is denied? what if I want to take a year off to focus on a business? what if you think my business is a sham and not a legitimate expenditure of effort? are some people entitled to resource access without effort, and if so, which people, and why?). People who want to leave an inheritance for their kids argue instead that access to resources should be predicated upon a) the value of their contributions rather than the amount of labor; and b) access to any excess resources should persist until they are fully exhausted by the owner's willful use, without regard to the amount of effort involved in earning it. Only one of these models scales, not just in a free society, but any society. The perspective that idlers should not get to eat while laborers starve is solid, but the plans that have been proposed to resolve it are impractical. The fact is that to some extent, inequality and unfairness will always be around. That's due to the fundamental functions of the physical world that cause scarcity, not how nice or kind the people who surround you are, so just trying to make better people won't solve the basic problem of inequity (it may, however, prevent class oppression).

__s 10y ago
The scarcity of wealth might as well be compared to the scarcity of diamonds
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Quite the contrary. While the scarcity of diamonds is enforced by a small cabal of diamond hoarders, the scarcity of labor is enforced by unchangeable biological demands that are universal across the human family. Biology will always place a limitation on the amount of labor that one can expend, and psychology, which is an only slightly more pliable abstraction on top of biology, limits it further. Humans are biologically programmed, as part of the survival instinct, to preserve as much energy as possible. They will only expend hard effort when they are convinced that it will provide them with tangible and necessary benefits (where necessary means that the brain sends rewards in response to the anticipated benefit). Inasmuch as wealth refers to the ability to command labor, either directly (like hiring an employee) or indirectly (like paying for the work product of another organization's employees), there are real limits that can't be circumvented. As automation and technology enable us to a) prevent or seriously impede natural corrosive processes that destroy our work product and b) generate more useful goods and services with increasingly-less dependence on human effort, I agree that "wealth", for the value of wealth that means access to conveniences and luxuries, will become more generally available as we continue to improve.
mcguire 10y ago
"People who want to leave an inheritance for their kids argue instead that access to resources should be predicated upon a) the value of their contributions rather than the amount of labor; and b) access to any excess resources should persist until they are fully exhausted by the owner's willful use, without regard to the amount of effort involved in earning it." It's a very compelling argument, except that in practice it seems to evolve into access to resources being predicated on a) the ability to extract resources from the system via external factors rather than labor or contributions.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  I agree that systemic exploitation by carving out an unfair advantage is a bad thing and that it happens frequently right now. I talked about it in another comment in this thread. [0] However, even if we agree that someone's gains were based on unfair rules, that's not justification for pilfering a family's nest egg. If we allowed them to accrue that money legally, it's theirs, and we just need to correct the loopholes and move on. Dismantling the free markets and systems of exchange enabled by private property only results in shifting every advantage to a tiny centralized core (usually government ministers, bureaucrats, and their families and staffs) who quickly grow rich while 90%+ of the population becomes impoverished. It is simply not possible for any government to produce a sufficient central plan, no matter how well-meaning or knowledgeable the planners. The world's natural chaos doesn't allow for it. We saw this tried many times in the 20th century and there's not one success story to come out of it. People must be free to make their own price and value judgments in an organic marketplace because it's the only thing that can adapt quickly enough to the real world, and the only thing that actually provides some advantage resilience to keep a dishonest, exploitative pirate class from pillaging the economy with stunning rapidity. Ask yourself why this clear fact is often misrepresented as its polar opposite, and consider the interests of the propagandists with reference to that misrepresentation. There is too much inequality today. We should work to fix that, but no one seems interested in paying attention to the details that are necessary to do so because the propagandists are too busy whipping them into a frenzy about the need to confiscate the assets of the 1% and transfer control of that money to their friends in the government. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13566113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13566113
nikdaheratik 10y ago
Except that most people on the other side of this issue are not calling for a 100% tax on inheritance or a 100% tax on all income above a certain level. I'd be happy with a return to the tax rates of the late 90s before all of this "tax cuts for the rich" nonsense got started. Your philosophical approach seems to be inching toward an argument between the libertarians and the communists and their ideal policy on tax rats. I think that is kind of a false choice myself.

234dd57d2c8dba 10y ago

Sorry the school system lied to you, you're supposed to work smart, not hard. Flipping burgers for 14 hours a day doesn't improve society, which is why it doesn't pay anything. Get a real job if you want to make money. Improve people's lives.

wccrawford 10y ago
I get paid a lot more than a burger flipper. But I don't think I improve society of makes people's lives better than a burger flipper does. No, I get paid a lot more because my work allows my boss to make more money per hour of my work than flipping burgers would.