4 ms·

> Is mung beans, rice, and a shared room in a house "living" enough or does everyone need their full maximized-carbon-footprint atomized solo lifestyle in orde

by kartan 7y ago

> Is mung beans, rice, and a shared room in a house "living" enough or does everyone need their full maximized-carbon-footprint atomized solo lifestyle in order to "live"? That is the straw man fallacy. You moved the post from a discussion about fair salaries to one about everybody sharing the same house and eating only beans and rice. The question is if delivery drivers should have a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life. Do you agree that "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life? > Another variety of "fair" that seems to be gaining mindshare is the idea that you deserve a "living wage" for literally any full-time job, which is a new idea unsubstantiated by economic reality. I mean this one, that is why I said: " that allows them to have a decent life.". > unsubstantiated by economic reality The opposite is true. More equal societies have higher economic output. Reducing poverty reduces crime, reduces health care costs, etc. Even better makes people's lives better. So, it is a positive feedback loop.

core-questions 7y ago
> You moved the post from a discussion about fair salaries to one about everybody sharing the same house and eating only beans and rice. Only because it was not defined what was meant by "fair". I'm not going to agree to some premise only to be hoist up by it later. Maybe I don't agree people deserve a "fair" salary by your standards, maybe I do by other standards. > Do you agree that "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life? What's a decent life? Is there something indecent about having beans, rice, and a roof? Isn't it better than what many people have had, historically? It's not what I want, I doubt it's what they want, but is it _unfair_? Why? > More equal societies have higher economic output. No. Societies which have higher economic output are more capable of artificially subsidizing "equality" by redistributing income. You cannot take poverty, spread it around, and make richness. You can take richness and spread it around and help abate poverty, but only to a certain extent.
- kartan 7y ago
  I guess that we both agree that you need resources to create wealth. Without resources, wealth cannot be created. I guess, that we both agree that you need education, knowledge and science to use that resources in an efficient way. That technology+resources create wealth. My argument, for which I provide some links, is that you need to redistribute that wealth so everybody profits form it for that wealth to be sustainable: "Economic growth provides the basis for overcoming poverty and lifting living standards. But for growth to be sustained and inclusive, its benefits must reach all people." * https://blogs.imf.org/2017/09/20/growth-that-reaches-everyone-facts-factors-tools/ https://blogs.imf.org/2017/09/20/growth-that-reaches-everyon... * https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-grow... But, maybe we have different values and that is the root cause of our disagreement. I think that giving everybody enough to cover their needs is the goal of society. To remove poverty is a goal to achieve. Higher economic output is not a goal, but a means to achieve the goal of humans well being. Improving the economy is a means for humans to live better.

by kartan 7y ago

core-questions 7y ago

> You moved the post from a discussion about fair salaries to one about everybody sharing the same house and eating only beans and rice. Only because it was not defined what was meant by "fair". I'm not going to agree to some premise only to be hoist up by it later. Maybe I don't agree people deserve a "fair" salary by your standards, maybe I do by other standards. > Do you agree that "delivery drivers" should get a fair salary that allows them to have a decent life? What's a decent life? Is there something indecent about having beans, rice, and a roof? Isn't it better than what many people have had, historically? It's not what I want, I doubt it's what they want, but is it _unfair_? Why? > More equal societies have higher economic output. No. Societies which have higher economic output are more capable of artificially subsidizing "equality" by redistributing income. You cannot take poverty, spread it around, and make richness. You can take richness and spread it around and help abate poverty, but only to a certain extent.

kartan 7y ago
I guess that we both agree that you need resources to create wealth. Without resources, wealth cannot be created. I guess, that we both agree that you need education, knowledge and science to use that resources in an efficient way. That technology+resources create wealth. My argument, for which I provide some links, is that you need to redistribute that wealth so everybody profits form it for that wealth to be sustainable: "Economic growth provides the basis for overcoming poverty and lifting living standards. But for growth to be sustained and inclusive, its benefits must reach all people." * https://blogs.imf.org/2017/09/20/growth-that-reaches-everyone-facts-factors-tools/ https://blogs.imf.org/2017/09/20/growth-that-reaches-everyon... * https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-grow... But, maybe we have different values and that is the root cause of our disagreement. I think that giving everybody enough to cover their needs is the goal of society. To remove poverty is a goal to achieve. Higher economic output is not a goal, but a means to achieve the goal of humans well being. Improving the economy is a means for humans to live better.