4 ms·

I think we're closer together than you might think. In fact, I'm not sure where we fundamentally disagree. If we agree that measures that might (or might not) r

I think we're closer together than you might think. In fact, I'm not sure where we fundamentally disagree. If we agree that measures that might (or might not) reduce aggregate nationwide income, such as the safety net, are worth the cost, then why do you a priori rule out measures in corporate governance that might have similar effect? They a track record in very successful economies. I'm not saying I know the proper measures and their effects, but why not consider what has worked better elsewhere? Working people in those countries, if I understand correctly, have better lives - the benefits from these measures may outweigh the lost benefits to them (if any) from reduced national aggregate income (if any). > I think there are also strong arguments on the other side, though they usually aren't very well articulated in the common media. I'm a little surprised to read that! The arguments for the other side are not only well articulated, they have won the day for generations. > I'm not really sure why people focus so much on inequality. Inequality can increase simply because the top goes up. Does it make you worse off if someone else is richer? It's not that someone else is richer (a common false stereotype spread by people on the right about people on the left, that they are crazy people who hate the rich and want to make everyone poor). The problem is that a great number of people are not benefiting, and if they aren't benefiting then what is the point? It also doesn't make them better off that Bezos is richer. In the end, the goal is helping individuals, not aggregate money in the economy. The latter tends to help the former, but not without careful policy.

darawk 8y ago
> I think we're closer together than you might think. In fact, I'm not sure where we fundamentally disagree. If we agree that measures that might (or might not) reduce aggregate nationwide income, such as the safety net, are worth the cost, then why do you a priori rule out measures in corporate governance that might have similar effect? Ah, yes, you're right. This is the crux of our disagreement. So, I believe in the strong social safety net for two reasons: 1. It is fundamentally ethical to raise the minimum standard of living. 2. It also allows us to remove the pseudo-safety nets from corporate governance. I want to give people a UBI so that they don't have to work, and then eliminate the minimum wage. If Amazon wants to pay people $2/hour to stock shelves and not give them bathroom breaks, that's great. If those people have meaningful options, then they're free to make that choice for themselves, and either nobody will work for them, or if people do, they truly will be ok with that arrangement. I want to empower workers by giving them options, rather than by refereeing companies. The sort of utopian vision that I have is one where everyone receives cash payments such that they can live decently without working, and has some form of variance smoothing for e.g. healthcare, so that they are not tethered to their jobs in any way. Then we'd have a truly competitive market in labor, where companies really compete to keep people, because people have meaningful options. I think that kind of economy would be insanely productive. It'd be easy for someone to quit their job and start their own business, because there'd be very little risk to doing so. There'd be less friction in starting and operating a business, because it'd require less government oversight. > It's not that someone else is richer (a common false stereotype spread by people on the right about people on the left, that they are crazy people who hate the rich and want to make everyone poor). The problem is that a great number of people are not benefiting, and if they aren't benefiting then what is the point? It also doesn't make them better off that Bezos is richer. Ya, so I think that gets to it. It's not about inequality of state it's about inequality of growth. I would prefer to let Bezos get rich by whatever extreme form of capitalism he wants, and then tax him to pay for a safety net. In other words: Bezos is really good at making money. So let's let him do it. Giving workers input into that process is just going to make him worse at it. He'll make less money. Let's let him make all the money, and then find a way to share in the profits ex-post.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > I want to empower workers by giving them options, rather than by refereeing companies. That's very interesting. Denmark, IIRC, does or recently did have a similar political deal between employers and employees: Low restrictions on the labor market in return for high unemployment insurance. The effects were similar to what you describe: Employees with more freedom, not being tied to jobs, able to take risks, and a much more liquid labor market. (If you're interested, I think the article was in Foreign Affairs maybe five years ago, but no promises.) I've always liked that concept but didn't think of taking it to the extent that you're suggesting. I'd still put some limits on it, but that's a very interesting idea. Thanks. I'll add that I'd define the safety net as providing food, shelter, healthcare, and all the education they can make use of (with something like a GPA minimum to prevent waste of that resource). At this point in history, with the incredible wealth of advanced economies, nobody should face shortages of those things. Good talking to you.

darawk 8y ago

> I think we're closer together than you might think. In fact, I'm not sure where we fundamentally disagree. If we agree that measures that might (or might not) reduce aggregate nationwide income, such as the safety net, are worth the cost, then why do you a priori rule out measures in corporate governance that might have similar effect? Ah, yes, you're right. This is the crux of our disagreement. So, I believe in the strong social safety net for two reasons: 1. It is fundamentally ethical to raise the minimum standard of living. 2. It also allows us to remove the pseudo-safety nets from corporate governance. I want to give people a UBI so that they don't have to work, and then eliminate the minimum wage. If Amazon wants to pay people $2/hour to stock shelves and not give them bathroom breaks, that's great. If those people have meaningful options, then they're free to make that choice for themselves, and either nobody will work for them, or if people do, they truly will be ok with that arrangement. I want to empower workers by giving them options, rather than by refereeing companies. The sort of utopian vision that I have is one where everyone receives cash payments such that they can live decently without working, and has some form of variance smoothing for e.g. healthcare, so that they are not tethered to their jobs in any way. Then we'd have a truly competitive market in labor, where companies really compete to keep people, because people have meaningful options. I think that kind of economy would be insanely productive. It'd be easy for someone to quit their job and start their own business, because there'd be very little risk to doing so. There'd be less friction in starting and operating a business, because it'd require less government oversight. > It's not that someone else is richer (a common false stereotype spread by people on the right about people on the left, that they are crazy people who hate the rich and want to make everyone poor). The problem is that a great number of people are not benefiting, and if they aren't benefiting then what is the point? It also doesn't make them better off that Bezos is richer. Ya, so I think that gets to it. It's not about inequality of state it's about inequality of growth. I would prefer to let Bezos get rich by whatever extreme form of capitalism he wants, and then tax him to pay for a safety net. In other words: Bezos is really good at making money. So let's let him do it. Giving workers input into that process is just going to make him worse at it. He'll make less money. Let's let him make all the money, and then find a way to share in the profits ex-post.

forapurpose 8y ago
> I want to empower workers by giving them options, rather than by refereeing companies. That's very interesting. Denmark, IIRC, does or recently did have a similar political deal between employers and employees: Low restrictions on the labor market in return for high unemployment insurance. The effects were similar to what you describe: Employees with more freedom, not being tied to jobs, able to take risks, and a much more liquid labor market. (If you're interested, I think the article was in Foreign Affairs maybe five years ago, but no promises.) I've always liked that concept but didn't think of taking it to the extent that you're suggesting. I'd still put some limits on it, but that's a very interesting idea. Thanks. I'll add that I'd define the safety net as providing food, shelter, healthcare, and all the education they can make use of (with something like a GPA minimum to prevent waste of that resource). At this point in history, with the incredible wealth of advanced economies, nobody should face shortages of those things. Good talking to you.