3 ms·
> Do you believe that I will take better care of myself or be a better father in the long run if I get a one-time bonus of $917? Your POV fails to take into ac
by dls2016 7y ago
> Do you believe that I will take better care of myself or be a better father in the long run if I get a one-time bonus of $917?
Your POV fails to take into account the utility and time-value of the redistributed dollars. It's the difference between some unelected doofus having tons of power because of their stationary dollars, or building a universal pre-k and/or healthcare system.
I know I'd personally work less if I wasn't "blessed with the opportunity of choice" of terrible insurance plans offered by my employer where an emergency appendectomy leads to $5k in bills... or if I could work 75% time and reduce daycare hours.
- Consultant32452 7y agoIt's still not clear to me how we are going to get the outcome you're looking for. If the wealth is redistributed to the people (the mechanism isn't important) then that amounts to a few thousand dollars per person. This isn't the kind of money that would allow wide-spread reduction in work hours. My expectation is that most people will liquify that wealth and spend it over a long weekend. Do you have a different expectation? If rather than being given directly to the people, instead the state keeps that money, are you predicting that Donald Trump will use it to build you a new school?
- dls2016 7y agoRegarding reduction of work hours, I’m a subscriber to the prevalence of “bullshit jobs” theory. Remove the power from corporate overlords via redistribution and put those resources under more democratic control. As a bonus people will take ownership over their schedule. Sure, with less people working we may not have forty choices of toilet paper or same day delivery of counterfeit trinkets... but I’m more than ok with that. It will be necessary to reduce carbon emissions, anyway.