3 ms·

> - Do you want to live on more than USD 17.3k per annum? By itself this is meaningless. What does it buy where you are? Most places that’s more than enough to

> - Do you want to live on more than USD 17.3k per annum? By itself this is meaningless. What does it buy where you are? Most places that’s more than enough to live comfortably. Anyway, money is only useful to decide who starves.

duxut_staglatz 7y ago
The more accurate question is do you want to live with whatever goods can currently be bought with USD 17k in the US today?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- RaiseProfits 7y ago
  I’m not seeing the productivity gains anyway, buddy, I work for minimum wage and you’re barking up the wrong tree. Growth doesn’t matter if it doesn’t reach the people.
  - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
    Yes, indeed. But growth does matter if it reaches the people, which is scythe's point.
    - RaiseProfits 7y ago
      Right, so growth in its current state is a wealth vacuum distributing wealth from high impact places to low impact places. I don’t see how that works as an argument for MORE growth.
      - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
        Then we should have more growth _and_ a better distribution of the gains from growth. But merely better distribution without growth leaves us in the USD17k scenario. The original comment point is that there is that growth is needed (but not sufficient) if one wants both conditions he pointed out to happen - which is most people.
scythe 7y ago
>Most places that’s more than enough to live comfortably. “Comfortably” is certainly a matter of opinion. But that 17.3k is a purchasing-power parity average, targeted at HN’s largely rich-country leadership. The nominal average income per person in the world is 11.4k. http://m.statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-gdp-capita.php http://m.statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-gdp-capita... So we have taken the usual cost of living adjustments into account, and the question is, do you want to live on the equivalent of 17.3k per capita US relative to the cost of living in most of the US — somewhere like, say, Pittsburgh?
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  It’s difficult to try and frame this. The price of any goods with constrained supply (higher education, housing and land) tend to increase to meet people’s ability to pay. It might make more sense to think in terms of a carbon budget if we are thinking about sustainability.
- RaiseProfits 7y ago
  The major issue with this isn’t growth, it’s landlords and medical care having irrationally high prices based around a return on a good that should have no profit. Fuck growth.

duxut_staglatz 7y ago

The more accurate question is do you want to live with whatever goods can currently be bought with USD 17k in the US today?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
RaiseProfits 7y ago
I’m not seeing the productivity gains anyway, buddy, I work for minimum wage and you’re barking up the wrong tree. Growth doesn’t matter if it doesn’t reach the people.
- duxut_staglatz 7y ago
  Yes, indeed. But growth does matter if it reaches the people, which is scythe's point.
  - RaiseProfits 7y ago
    Right, so growth in its current state is a wealth vacuum distributing wealth from high impact places to low impact places. I don’t see how that works as an argument for MORE growth.
    - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
      Then we should have more growth _and_ a better distribution of the gains from growth. But merely better distribution without growth leaves us in the USD17k scenario. The original comment point is that there is that growth is needed (but not sufficient) if one wants both conditions he pointed out to happen - which is most people.

scythe 7y ago

>Most places that’s more than enough to live comfortably. “Comfortably” is certainly a matter of opinion. But that 17.3k is a purchasing-power parity average, targeted at HN’s largely rich-country leadership. The nominal average income per person in the world is 11.4k. http://m.statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-gdp-capita.php http://m.statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-gdp-capita... So we have taken the usual cost of living adjustments into account, and the question is, do you want to live on the equivalent of 17.3k per capita US relative to the cost of living in most of the US — somewhere like, say, Pittsburgh?

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
It’s difficult to try and frame this. The price of any goods with constrained supply (higher education, housing and land) tend to increase to meet people’s ability to pay. It might make more sense to think in terms of a carbon budget if we are thinking about sustainability.
RaiseProfits 7y ago
The major issue with this isn’t growth, it’s landlords and medical care having irrationally high prices based around a return on a good that should have no profit. Fuck growth.