4 ms·
Rather than being an ethical or moral question of whether they "deserve" (i.e., they're only deserving of it if they are directly responsible for it) a better w
by fnordsensei 8y ago
Rather than being an ethical or moral question of whether they "deserve" (i.e., they're only deserving of it if they are directly responsible for it) a better wage or not, why not just look at it like an indicator that the overall economy might be becoming less healthy?
A low-income earner is more likely put any extra money they acquire towards the local economy rather than, for example, lodging it in the Cayman Islands for storage. This is good for keeping the local economy healthy, from which may come the next person to create a technological breakthrough.
We generally want the median person to have money to spend with our businesses rather than slowly edging towards living in a slum.
- lazyjones 8y ago> why not just look at it like an indicator that the overall economy might be becoming less healthy? Because it isn’t. We have other indicators for that and GDP growth is one of them. Median wages are affected by so many factors that they invalidate such conclusions. Also, wages aren’t the only money available for spending, there‘s capital income too.
- adrianN 8y agoLow-income earners probably don't have much capital income that they could spend on the local economy.
- fnordsensei 8y agoThe modern equivalent of "let them eat cake."
- lazyjones 8y agoLet's not resort to such vage speculation. Low-income earners definitely have more to spend than unemployed people and unemployment is rather low right now in the USA.
- fnordsensei 8y agoThe point wasn't particularly about a person with $1 having more resources than the person with $0, but how healthy the local businesses in an area are given how many dollars are in circulation around it, and what the trend of this looks like. That is, in the medium-to-micro, not in the macro economics. Anyone who has ever had a body is probably familiar with the concept of the whole seeming OK, while there's something unhealthy happening in the small. I'm not rejecting other metrics, but I don't think this is irrelevant to the economy at large. The comment you're replying to pointed out that the absence of a wage or presence of a low wage probably does not correlate with an equivalent amount of passive income for the vast majority. You reject this and call it "vague speculation", for which I assume that the alternative theory is that there's a substantial majority of passive income earners at the bottom of society. It's an interesting theory.
- lazyjones 8y ago> You reject this and call it "vague speculation", for which I assume that the alternative theory is that there's a substantial majority of passive income earners at the bottom of society. It's an interesting theory. It's possible. More economically savvy people = more early retirees. Higher rents could also be a factor (some people might be able to sustain their families with previously worthless property and low wages). Let's not call these people "bottom of society" though. I know a few with 0 wages and 7 figure capital incomes.
- normal_man 8y agoSomething like 40% of Americans have zero savings and would be ruined by a medium health emergency or unexpected car repair. What are you talking about.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoYet GDP is a terrible indicator for health of an economy, at least as bad as basing it on wages.
- andrei_says_ 8y agoSo I guess the question is are we measuring economy in the context of human beings or human beings in the context of economy?