3 ms·

If we didn't let people use money to stroke their ego / indulge themselves, how much of an incentive do people have to produce wealth? If I couldn't trade mone

If we didn't let people use money to stroke their ego / indulge themselves, how much of an incentive do people have to produce wealth? If I couldn't trade money for interesting machines, I would take an easier job and contribute less to the world. I'm not alone in this, but the status quo that lets me keep the majority of my earnings is what encouraged me to better myself and become valuable. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to replace the pipes in Flint, I'm just saying that we have more good ideas than we have other people's money. Sure, replace the pipes in Flint but don't do it in a way that means replaced pipes are the last pound of flesh we're ever going to get out the wealthy. Beyond that, it's important to build limits into policy - remember the adage that 8 out of 9 people enjoy gang bangs. Just because something makes more people better off doesn't mean we can discount the costs to those who are made worse off.

kolleykibber 8y ago
What would you do when AI gives you the opportunity to do whatever you want without scrabbling for the dollar? When the incentive to produce wealth is gone, would you work years of your life to purchase things to impress people who have no care for you?
- crowdpleaser 8y ago
  I'd explore the world on the machines I own and will eventually own.
jonnycomputer 8y ago
1. Making yourself wealthy doesn't necessarily make everyone better off. The social welfare cost of wealth creation is not always the same. 2. If you couldn't trade money for interesting machines, then you'd likely do something else with it. If you could keep less of the money you earn than you do now, you'd probably continue doing exactly what you are doing now. In fact, you might work harder at it because you'd need to afford to buy those things that you really want. There is a point at which taxation is counter-productive, but I guarantee it is far below the level at which people can individually afford their own luxury yachts and private jets, especially when the pleasures these afford might be gotten by joining exclusive clubs that jointly can afford them. 3. Lead poisoning cause social welfare costs that persist across generations. The net utility gained by ensuring tens of thousands can be healthy and productive members of society instead of societal burdens far exceeds those you mention. 4. Suppose some very rich person spends an extra 100k on a golden toilet to replace his old silver toilet. I guarantee you that utility gained by that replacement is greatly exceeded by buying a homeless family a home with it. So, yeah, definitely, lets put the two on equal footing.
- crowdpleaser 8y ago
  >Making yourself wealthy doesn't necessarily make everyone better off. The social welfare cost of wealth creation is not always the same. No dispute there, but if people are engaging in counterproductive wealth transfers, there's a case for intervention and we don't need to amend the tax code for that. >If you couldn't trade money for interesting machines, then you'd likely do something else with it. Not really, I'm not super interested in luxury / the simple pleasures in life are often enough for me. I would work to make sure I could afford hamburgers, but I'm not the sort of person who would put in additional effort to eat steak. If I couldn't play with machines, I would play with my mind and recreational drugs. Taxation isn't the only thing that discourages work - regulations on what we can buy and how we can use it discourage as much. If supersonic flight were more legal, I can promise you that I'd buy a jet, but since that's not an option, I'm saving the money for early retirement. If we're trying to design a policy that encourages people to do productive things, we can have a rock talk. However, if we're simply trying to eliminate wealth gradients in a way that makes materially poor people better off, understand that's a one time event. And there's usually a reason poor people are poor, if they squander their one-time redistribution money, you're really going to wish people were out there working and producing surplus value for you to redistribute to those who can't take care of themselves. 3. Again, I don't dispute the ROI of this investment. My point is that we have more investment opportunities than we have money. Malaria nets, childhood nutrition, primary schooling for girls, etc - there are great places for us to park money. How would you prioritize? 4. Why stop at precious metal toilet seats and houses? Why not redistribute everything owned by above-median wealth holders to below-median wealth holders and erase any gradient of material well-being? Again, my concern is redistributionists tend to offer no limits on what they want to distribute. This is the same line of attack that incels use to advocate for redistribution of sexual access.
skybrian 8y ago
A world in which some people retire early after making a lot of money (there is an enthusiast community advocating this) doesn't actually seem all that bad? There will always be younger people willing to step into those jobs and do the work so they can retire early too. If they love the work, they'll be willing to do it for a reasonable salary, rather than to make mega-millions. But if they don't, why should we throw money at them to prevent them from retiring? (Edited.)

kolleykibber 8y ago

What would you do when AI gives you the opportunity to do whatever you want without scrabbling for the dollar? When the incentive to produce wealth is gone, would you work years of your life to purchase things to impress people who have no care for you?

crowdpleaser 8y ago
I'd explore the world on the machines I own and will eventually own.

jonnycomputer 8y ago

1. Making yourself wealthy doesn't necessarily make everyone better off. The social welfare cost of wealth creation is not always the same. 2. If you couldn't trade money for interesting machines, then you'd likely do something else with it. If you could keep less of the money you earn than you do now, you'd probably continue doing exactly what you are doing now. In fact, you might work harder at it because you'd need to afford to buy those things that you really want. There is a point at which taxation is counter-productive, but I guarantee it is far below the level at which people can individually afford their own luxury yachts and private jets, especially when the pleasures these afford might be gotten by joining exclusive clubs that jointly can afford them. 3. Lead poisoning cause social welfare costs that persist across generations. The net utility gained by ensuring tens of thousands can be healthy and productive members of society instead of societal burdens far exceeds those you mention. 4. Suppose some very rich person spends an extra 100k on a golden toilet to replace his old silver toilet. I guarantee you that utility gained by that replacement is greatly exceeded by buying a homeless family a home with it. So, yeah, definitely, lets put the two on equal footing.

crowdpleaser 8y ago
>Making yourself wealthy doesn't necessarily make everyone better off. The social welfare cost of wealth creation is not always the same. No dispute there, but if people are engaging in counterproductive wealth transfers, there's a case for intervention and we don't need to amend the tax code for that. >If you couldn't trade money for interesting machines, then you'd likely do something else with it. Not really, I'm not super interested in luxury / the simple pleasures in life are often enough for me. I would work to make sure I could afford hamburgers, but I'm not the sort of person who would put in additional effort to eat steak. If I couldn't play with machines, I would play with my mind and recreational drugs. Taxation isn't the only thing that discourages work - regulations on what we can buy and how we can use it discourage as much. If supersonic flight were more legal, I can promise you that I'd buy a jet, but since that's not an option, I'm saving the money for early retirement. If we're trying to design a policy that encourages people to do productive things, we can have a rock talk. However, if we're simply trying to eliminate wealth gradients in a way that makes materially poor people better off, understand that's a one time event. And there's usually a reason poor people are poor, if they squander their one-time redistribution money, you're really going to wish people were out there working and producing surplus value for you to redistribute to those who can't take care of themselves. 3. Again, I don't dispute the ROI of this investment. My point is that we have more investment opportunities than we have money. Malaria nets, childhood nutrition, primary schooling for girls, etc - there are great places for us to park money. How would you prioritize? 4. Why stop at precious metal toilet seats and houses? Why not redistribute everything owned by above-median wealth holders to below-median wealth holders and erase any gradient of material well-being? Again, my concern is redistributionists tend to offer no limits on what they want to distribute. This is the same line of attack that incels use to advocate for redistribution of sexual access.

skybrian 8y ago

A world in which some people retire early after making a lot of money (there is an enthusiast community advocating this) doesn't actually seem all that bad? There will always be younger people willing to step into those jobs and do the work so they can retire early too. If they love the work, they'll be willing to do it for a reasonable salary, rather than to make mega-millions. But if they don't, why should we throw money at them to prevent them from retiring? (Edited.)