5 ms·

The per capita gross world product was approximately ~$18k/yr in 2017. No matter how efficiently you redistribute resources, you cannot exceed this number. Ins

by krapht 7y ago

The per capita gross world product was approximately ~$18k/yr in 2017. No matter how efficiently you redistribute resources, you cannot exceed this number. Instead we really need to invest more in productivity gains for the world's bottom 90%.

ceejayoz 7y ago
That would be true if the poor just socked that $18k away into savings. We know this isn’t the case.
- krapht 7y ago
  What would be true? Sorry, I don't follow.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    The world's wealthy sock away a larger percentage of their wealth than the poor. Virtually every penny the poor obtain winds up back in the economy, and because of the economic multiplier effect, those pennies have a greater impact as they wind their way through the system. https://ips-dc.org/wall_street_bonuses_and_the_minimum_wage/ https://ips-dc.org/wall_street_bonuses_and_the_minimum_wage/ > All those dollars low-wage workers spend create an economic ripple effect. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers, standard economic multiplier models tell us, adds about $1.21 to the national economy. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of a high-income American, by contrast, only adds about 39 cents to the GDP.
    - _jgdh 7y ago
      That's a false choice. It's not a choice between paying banker bonuses or giving minimum wage workers an increase. Also, while I agree with the premise that it's better to increase the minimum wage could you explain why folks investing their bonuses in the stock market and therefore directing their capital towards productive companies is worse than consumers spending their money directly?
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        > It's not a choice between paying banker bonuses or giving minimum wage workers an increase. Sure it is. When the last round of tax cuts were configured, deliberate choices were made that affected different income brackets in different ways. The levers can be tweaked to direct the benefits to the poor, the wealthy, the middle class, etc. > could you explain why folks investing their bonuses in the stock market and therefore directing their capital towards productive companies is worse than consumers spending their money directly? I already did, with a linked source for further details.
bem94 7y ago
Doesn't that assume that $18K will get you as far in one place as it does in another?
- krapht 7y ago
  We could get into arguments over purchasing power parity, but regardless, 18k is not a large sum even in $YOUR_FAVORITE_POOR_NATION. There's a limit just in terms of purchasing raw material goods which do not vary in price across the globe since they are commodities.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Come on. The per-capita GDP in Congo is somewhere between $700 and $800.
    - selectodude 7y ago
      And they live about as well as you would expect on $800/yr. Sure you can get a house for $1000 but it doesn’t have running water or electricity. In countries that poor, basic infrastructure will cost you, at a real rate, more than it would in a rich country.
      - adrianN 7y ago
        Maybe they would have the money to invest in infrastructure if everybody got 18k per year.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    That's more than the median income in Romania and only 15% or so less than the median (after tax) income in Berlin.
  - _jgdh 7y ago
    $18k is a fantastic sum in India. The top 20% of fresh computer science grads are lucky to get that much. I would have no trouble living on that much income (+adjusted for inflation) for the rest of my life if I lived in India.
imtringued 7y ago
Investor: Why would I invest into more productivity gains for poor people that can't afford my products?
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The per capita gross world product was approximately ~$18k/yr in 2017. No matter how efficiently you redistribute resources, you cannot exceed this number. This assumes distribution can have no positive impact on output, which is certainly not an established fact.

by krapht 7y ago

ceejayoz 7y ago

That would be true if the poor just socked that $18k away into savings. We know this isn’t the case.

krapht 7y ago
What would be true? Sorry, I don't follow.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The world's wealthy sock away a larger percentage of their wealth than the poor. Virtually every penny the poor obtain winds up back in the economy, and because of the economic multiplier effect, those pennies have a greater impact as they wind their way through the system. https://ips-dc.org/wall_street_bonuses_and_the_minimum_wage/ https://ips-dc.org/wall_street_bonuses_and_the_minimum_wage/ > All those dollars low-wage workers spend create an economic ripple effect. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers, standard economic multiplier models tell us, adds about $1.21 to the national economy. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of a high-income American, by contrast, only adds about 39 cents to the GDP.
  - _jgdh 7y ago
    That's a false choice. It's not a choice between paying banker bonuses or giving minimum wage workers an increase. Also, while I agree with the premise that it's better to increase the minimum wage could you explain why folks investing their bonuses in the stock market and therefore directing their capital towards productive companies is worse than consumers spending their money directly?
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      > It's not a choice between paying banker bonuses or giving minimum wage workers an increase. Sure it is. When the last round of tax cuts were configured, deliberate choices were made that affected different income brackets in different ways. The levers can be tweaked to direct the benefits to the poor, the wealthy, the middle class, etc. > could you explain why folks investing their bonuses in the stock market and therefore directing their capital towards productive companies is worse than consumers spending their money directly? I already did, with a linked source for further details.

bem94 7y ago

Doesn't that assume that $18K will get you as far in one place as it does in another?

krapht 7y ago
We could get into arguments over purchasing power parity, but regardless, 18k is not a large sum even in $YOUR_FAVORITE_POOR_NATION. There's a limit just in terms of purchasing raw material goods which do not vary in price across the globe since they are commodities.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Come on. The per-capita GDP in Congo is somewhere between $700 and $800.
  - selectodude 7y ago
    And they live about as well as you would expect on $800/yr. Sure you can get a house for $1000 but it doesn’t have running water or electricity. In countries that poor, basic infrastructure will cost you, at a real rate, more than it would in a rich country.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Maybe they would have the money to invest in infrastructure if everybody got 18k per year.
- adrianN 7y ago
  That's more than the median income in Romania and only 15% or so less than the median (after tax) income in Berlin.
- _jgdh 7y ago
  $18k is a fantastic sum in India. The top 20% of fresh computer science grads are lucky to get that much. I would have no trouble living on that much income (+adjusted for inflation) for the rest of my life if I lived in India.

imtringued 7y ago

Investor: Why would I invest into more productivity gains for poor people that can't afford my products?

dragonwriter 7y ago

> The per capita gross world product was approximately ~$18k/yr in 2017. No matter how efficiently you redistribute resources, you cannot exceed this number. This assumes distribution can have no positive impact on output, which is certainly not an established fact.