5 ms·

Imagine a desert island with three inhabitants: W, P, & U. W climbs trees every day to fetch coconuts and then swims them across the channel to a neighboring i

Imagine a desert island with three inhabitants: W, P, & U. W climbs trees every day to fetch coconuts and then swims them across the channel to a neighboring island where she barters them away for drinking water and then swims back with jugs full of water. P used to help W with the tree climbing, but is now too old to do the work. However, he long ago made a deal with W, and she's a man of her word, so she keeps him supplied with enough fresh water to get by every day. Still, when the yield of coconuts becomes bad, or when there's a glut of coconuts on the neighboring island, she is liable to feel that there is an excess of pensioners on the island. U is in desperate need of water and would do almost anything, but he doesn't know how to swim or climb trees. Now, tell me: How does the existence of U help get the fresh water that P needs? How does the existence of P help U find a way to earn his water?

RobertoG 9y ago
Imagine a desert island with three inhabitants: W, P, & U. They are primates descending from groups inhabiting the savannah. As all the groups of this kind, they take care of the group whenever there are enough resources. If they are not forced by harsh circumstances, they don't leave to die of hungry the old. In the improbable case that one member of the group doesn't know how to do almost anything, somebody (maybe the older and experimented P predicting that he will be too old for working someday), will teach him how to do it so the economic welfare of the group improve. In the other hand, imagine now that the group is made of Homo Economicus. Wait, why are we imagining this? Such creature doesn't exist.
- _benedict 9y ago
  You're responding to a totally different point to the one made by the parent. Their point only shows that it is possible to have unemployment and an excess of pensioners. It would have been easier to point out that an excess of pensioners != not enough workers. They're clearly different statements. But the illustration also served the purpose. It did not, as far as I can tell, in any way suggest W should let U and P die, only demonstrated their simultaneous lack of utility for the workforce.
  - RobertoG 9y ago
    Fair enough. So, as I understand it, the argument is that unemployed people is unemployed not because the economy is so productive (we have coconuts and water for everybody with very little job) but because they are not enough qualified. In other words, there are not enough qualified workers as demanded, and that is the reason we see real wages going up and up all the time.
nosmas 9y ago
Well, P could take steps to help U learn to help W. e.g. giving them a bit of water, and training them to help W; instead of blaming U for the poor coconut yield. Which in turn would help W yield more coconuts, or be flexible to diversify how they get water to be robust against the coconut market. I get how you example illustrates how the amount of P's aren't dependant on the number of U's, but I think this example is too microscopic. I think there's another factor to consider. W doesn't give water directly to P, there's G who takes a little bit of water from everyone. G has enough water for themselves, and instead of drinking just the water they need, or helping U to make their island economy better, they decide to bathe in the water. Then when P wants some water like G has promised and there's none left, they blame U. Which makes W and P angry at U. The situation is more like G is taking a little bit of water from everyone, and there's yet another person on the island E. E is in charge of delegating coconut fetching tasks to W and up until recently P. G decided E should also be in charge of distributing water that comes from G to W and P. E realizes that once P leaves, there will only be one coconut fetcher. So, worried that they won't be getting enough water to give to G, E gives less water to W instead of hiring and training U to help this coconut fetching business. This isn't good because eventually W will become a P, and E will have no one, and G will not be getting water from E. Everyone becomes a U because G decided to give water to E to delegate instead of directly to W, P, and U.
- mac01021 9y ago
  ?! Why do you want to add so many additional people to my already overcrowded island?!
orangecrush4000 9y ago
Prostitution, that's how

RobertoG 9y ago

Imagine a desert island with three inhabitants: W, P, & U. They are primates descending from groups inhabiting the savannah. As all the groups of this kind, they take care of the group whenever there are enough resources. If they are not forced by harsh circumstances, they don't leave to die of hungry the old. In the improbable case that one member of the group doesn't know how to do almost anything, somebody (maybe the older and experimented P predicting that he will be too old for working someday), will teach him how to do it so the economic welfare of the group improve. In the other hand, imagine now that the group is made of Homo Economicus. Wait, why are we imagining this? Such creature doesn't exist.

_benedict 9y ago
You're responding to a totally different point to the one made by the parent. Their point only shows that it is possible to have unemployment and an excess of pensioners. It would have been easier to point out that an excess of pensioners != not enough workers. They're clearly different statements. But the illustration also served the purpose. It did not, as far as I can tell, in any way suggest W should let U and P die, only demonstrated their simultaneous lack of utility for the workforce.
- RobertoG 9y ago
  Fair enough. So, as I understand it, the argument is that unemployed people is unemployed not because the economy is so productive (we have coconuts and water for everybody with very little job) but because they are not enough qualified. In other words, there are not enough qualified workers as demanded, and that is the reason we see real wages going up and up all the time.

nosmas 9y ago

Well, P could take steps to help U learn to help W. e.g. giving them a bit of water, and training them to help W; instead of blaming U for the poor coconut yield. Which in turn would help W yield more coconuts, or be flexible to diversify how they get water to be robust against the coconut market. I get how you example illustrates how the amount of P's aren't dependant on the number of U's, but I think this example is too microscopic. I think there's another factor to consider. W doesn't give water directly to P, there's G who takes a little bit of water from everyone. G has enough water for themselves, and instead of drinking just the water they need, or helping U to make their island economy better, they decide to bathe in the water. Then when P wants some water like G has promised and there's none left, they blame U. Which makes W and P angry at U. The situation is more like G is taking a little bit of water from everyone, and there's yet another person on the island E. E is in charge of delegating coconut fetching tasks to W and up until recently P. G decided E should also be in charge of distributing water that comes from G to W and P. E realizes that once P leaves, there will only be one coconut fetcher. So, worried that they won't be getting enough water to give to G, E gives less water to W instead of hiring and training U to help this coconut fetching business. This isn't good because eventually W will become a P, and E will have no one, and G will not be getting water from E. Everyone becomes a U because G decided to give water to E to delegate instead of directly to W, P, and U.

mac01021 9y ago
?! Why do you want to add so many additional people to my already overcrowded island?!

orangecrush4000 9y ago

Prostitution, that's how