2 ms·

> but pay them a fair and reasonable wage for doing nothing I subscribe to some limited belief that prices rise (where possible) to meet demand. See San Franci

by all2 8y ago

> but pay them a fair and reasonable wage for doing nothing I subscribe to some limited belief that prices rise (where possible) to meet demand. See San Francisco housing prices, or Madison, WI housing prices as companies attract and pay their employees quite a lot. So, just paying people a "living wage" isn't enough. If that's a route we go in (and I sincerely hope we don't) we need to handle every aspect of living; housing, food, medicine, etc. Just dolling out dollars/euros isn't enough. > or do we as a society expect to try to get as close to a fair and living wage as possible for everyone no matter how much value they add Paying regardless of performance will destroy productivity. People tend to do a "gradient descent" algorithm in work, finding some local minima of effort for their pay. I understand not all people are like this. I'm only saying I think that enough people do, that paying some fixed minimum for all no-matter-the-value will destroy economic growth.

Aloha 8y ago
If you paid people a wage that didn't tie them to a place, or if they could get that 20 bucks an hour no matter where they lived, they'd likely relocate to someplace cheaper. What do we do with all the people who's jobs are automated out of existence? Do we prevent the automation from happening, or do we just pay people for doing nothing? That's the question I'm positing.
- all2 8y ago
  We allow them to start businesses with little to no overhead. Let them solve problems as they see them and hire people to help. Even with the explosion of software related businesses, the actual growth of new small businesses has been grinding to a halt [0]. I'd argue that this is specifically a regulation and paperwork issue from local all the way up to Federal levels. If we want to "create jobs" for people who are displaced, we need to allow for new jobs to be created. The government can't "create" jobs, no matter how much money it has or taxes it levies. Unless everyone works for the government. Then we're on our way to some kind of bureaucratic totalitarianism. [0] "Firm Size" - https://www.bls.gov/bdm/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship.htm https://www.bls.gov/bdm/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship.ht...
  - Aloha 8y ago
    I'll note - at no point I mentioned the government as a driver in this - this is a societal question - government might be the mechanism to do it - but government cannot initiate it - we as a society must form a consensus on what to do with the displaced first. Broadly I'd also agree with you, the regulatory environment makes running any sort of business needlessly complex and difficult, and tends to increases the capital requirements greatly - though I'd argue that state and local regulations are the primary burdens at this point.
  - ska 8y ago
    It certainly helps to make it easier to start businesses. I think it's a great idea, but even in the most optimistic scenario though it is a fractional (but worthwhile!) solution. Reducing bureaucratic burden and improving access to capital can make a real difference though.
mediaman 8y ago
You're referring to a type of supply curve that rises sharply to the right as demand increases and where that supply curve has limited ability to react in a new equilibrium. Small increases in demand result in large increases in price but extra supply cannot be brought to the market to push pricing down. This is mostly true in cases with artificially limited supply. You mention real estate, which is a good example in cities where (1) large employers are moving in, (2) zoning is constrained, and optionally (3) extra land is difficult to get, either because of geography or sprawl. Most goods are not like this. Food, for example, does not typically have permanently higher prices after an increase in demand, because the supply curve will also change (additional supply is provided). Same with televisions, cars, refrigerators, computers, household consumables, etc. Therefore, I don't think it makes sense to throw out the baby with the bathwater: yes, real estate is not a normal market for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean that spreading dollars around doesn't work for everything else. Real estate may need some special solutions, such as relaxing zoning laws, housing subsidies, evaluating code impact on construction costs, mass transit investment to increase travel efficiency, property tax on vacant properties, etc.

by all2 8y ago

Aloha 8y ago

If you paid people a wage that didn't tie them to a place, or if they could get that 20 bucks an hour no matter where they lived, they'd likely relocate to someplace cheaper. What do we do with all the people who's jobs are automated out of existence? Do we prevent the automation from happening, or do we just pay people for doing nothing? That's the question I'm positing.

all2 8y ago
We allow them to start businesses with little to no overhead. Let them solve problems as they see them and hire people to help. Even with the explosion of software related businesses, the actual growth of new small businesses has been grinding to a halt [0]. I'd argue that this is specifically a regulation and paperwork issue from local all the way up to Federal levels. If we want to "create jobs" for people who are displaced, we need to allow for new jobs to be created. The government can't "create" jobs, no matter how much money it has or taxes it levies. Unless everyone works for the government. Then we're on our way to some kind of bureaucratic totalitarianism. [0] "Firm Size" - https://www.bls.gov/bdm/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship.htm https://www.bls.gov/bdm/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship.ht...
- Aloha 8y ago
  I'll note - at no point I mentioned the government as a driver in this - this is a societal question - government might be the mechanism to do it - but government cannot initiate it - we as a society must form a consensus on what to do with the displaced first. Broadly I'd also agree with you, the regulatory environment makes running any sort of business needlessly complex and difficult, and tends to increases the capital requirements greatly - though I'd argue that state and local regulations are the primary burdens at this point.
- ska 8y ago
  It certainly helps to make it easier to start businesses. I think it's a great idea, but even in the most optimistic scenario though it is a fractional (but worthwhile!) solution. Reducing bureaucratic burden and improving access to capital can make a real difference though.

mediaman 8y ago

You're referring to a type of supply curve that rises sharply to the right as demand increases and where that supply curve has limited ability to react in a new equilibrium. Small increases in demand result in large increases in price but extra supply cannot be brought to the market to push pricing down. This is mostly true in cases with artificially limited supply. You mention real estate, which is a good example in cities where (1) large employers are moving in, (2) zoning is constrained, and optionally (3) extra land is difficult to get, either because of geography or sprawl. Most goods are not like this. Food, for example, does not typically have permanently higher prices after an increase in demand, because the supply curve will also change (additional supply is provided). Same with televisions, cars, refrigerators, computers, household consumables, etc. Therefore, I don't think it makes sense to throw out the baby with the bathwater: yes, real estate is not a normal market for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean that spreading dollars around doesn't work for everything else. Real estate may need some special solutions, such as relaxing zoning laws, housing subsidies, evaluating code impact on construction costs, mass transit investment to increase travel efficiency, property tax on vacant properties, etc.