4 ms·

But shouldn't we account for that and adjust accordingly so we aren't ruining society in a race to the bottom? It's all choices, we don't HAVE to allow it to ha

But shouldn't we account for that and adjust accordingly so we aren't ruining society in a race to the bottom? It's all choices, we don't HAVE to allow it to happen.

renewiltord 6y ago
Should we? I don't see why one guy making $70k and two guys making nothing is superior to three guys making $20k.
- dmitriy_ko 6y ago
  Economy is not a zero-sum game. There's no reason you can't have everyone making $70K.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Sure. And that's a no-brainer. We'd all agree on that. The interesting part is when there are trade-offs. So that's my position on the trade-off.
    - Communitivity 6y ago
      This is getting into a discussion of Universal Basic Income, which I am a big fan of. But I'd posit that salaries are not a zero-sum game, in the microcosm or the macrocosm. Within a company each department head likely gets a certain amount of raises to distribute within their department, maybe enough to give most people X%, but also enough to give 2 or three 1.5X%. The company itself has a limited amount it can spend on labor costs. Within a country there is the monetary supply. There is approximately $1.5 trillion physical currency in circulation. That equates to about $5k per person. Yes there is money that is not backed by physical currency, but the more of that you create (or the more physical currency you create) the higher inflation goes. If we want UBI then we need to back it with something. The Saudis backed it with their annual oil profits, Alaskans the same, and the Norwegians straight out created an investment fund from oil surplus profits. Getting to a workable UBI is not going to be a stopgap fix, and will likely take around 50 years to implement correctly. It's doable from a technical perspective, in a number of ways. I worry about the political perspective. Our parties are divisive and one party can tear down any of the works of a past administration. So what is to prevent the UBI investment fund being repurposed, similar to Social Security's outcome.
  - kofejnik 6y ago
    if everyone is making $70k, everything simply becomes more expensive (so it doesn't matter if they make $70k or $700k)
    - Avicebron 6y ago
      But if the model is built to support this then it isn't an issue. If you see my earlier post about hypothetical improvements we can make to our global economy. If everyone is making more and industry is growing within the country then more classical economics applies (e.g. the pie is growing). In this scenario it's not an issue. It's only when there isn't positive growth that inflation is a huge issue.
subhobroto 6y ago
> so we aren't ruining society in a race to the bottom Nope. What is going on here is the person from India gets to now enjoy a much higher quality of life (because 50% of a U.S. salary gets you a lot in India) while the person from California sees their effective take home pay decrease (because their costs continue to grow but not their salary) Definitely not a race to the bottom but it sucks to be the person from California.
- oneplane 6y ago
  On the other hand, the person in India will relocate thousands of miles for practically any job, while the person in California will pretend that life is hard because of someone else's doing instead of moving to a place they can afford better.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  So in short what you're saying is yay globalism? Bring everyone down to a lowest mean existance possible, we shouldn't protect our interests?
  - subhobroto 6y ago
    > So in short what you're saying is yay globalism globalization is happening whether we want it to or not. > we shouldn't protect our interests I made no comments either way. ... but, sure, let's think about this. If you were to pass rules and regulations to stop globalization from happening, what would the top 3 be?
    - Avicebron 6y ago
      Well I won't claim to be the thought leader on this, however I'm happy to look at some hypothetical ideas. To be clear I'm not looking to reverse globalization completely or stop it. Rule 1: International trade deals forbid offshoring of manufacturing. Example, cars from Ford can't be made in Mexico for 1/10th the price. This is universal and enforceable by dissolution of companies that don't comply. Rule 2: Stringent regulations to prevent Tax and location based gaming of Rule 1. Ford doesn't get to pay taxes in Tahiti, incorporate a mailbox in Mexico so they can make their cars there, but take advantage of US infrastructure for the rest of their business. Rule 3: Companies reaching a monopoly size will be broken up into relatively equal sized companies, importantly those companies will be competing in similar regions. It's not like AWS and Amazon. It's like two Amazons. I'm sure figuring out the codebase and IP will make many jobs for lawyers and engineers. Maybe less for the MBA's. EDIT: For rule 3 I forgot to add that the break up forces innovation as similar companies are competing now in the same market. It's an engine of growth built into the system.

But shouldn't we account for that and adjust accordingly so we aren't ruining society in a race to the bottom? It's all choices, we don't HAVE to allow it to happen.

renewiltord 6y ago

Should we? I don't see why one guy making $70k and two guys making nothing is superior to three guys making $20k.

dmitriy_ko 6y ago
Economy is not a zero-sum game. There's no reason you can't have everyone making $70K.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Sure. And that's a no-brainer. We'd all agree on that. The interesting part is when there are trade-offs. So that's my position on the trade-off.
  - Communitivity 6y ago
    This is getting into a discussion of Universal Basic Income, which I am a big fan of. But I'd posit that salaries are not a zero-sum game, in the microcosm or the macrocosm. Within a company each department head likely gets a certain amount of raises to distribute within their department, maybe enough to give most people X%, but also enough to give 2 or three 1.5X%. The company itself has a limited amount it can spend on labor costs. Within a country there is the monetary supply. There is approximately $1.5 trillion physical currency in circulation. That equates to about $5k per person. Yes there is money that is not backed by physical currency, but the more of that you create (or the more physical currency you create) the higher inflation goes. If we want UBI then we need to back it with something. The Saudis backed it with their annual oil profits, Alaskans the same, and the Norwegians straight out created an investment fund from oil surplus profits. Getting to a workable UBI is not going to be a stopgap fix, and will likely take around 50 years to implement correctly. It's doable from a technical perspective, in a number of ways. I worry about the political perspective. Our parties are divisive and one party can tear down any of the works of a past administration. So what is to prevent the UBI investment fund being repurposed, similar to Social Security's outcome.
- kofejnik 6y ago
  if everyone is making $70k, everything simply becomes more expensive (so it doesn't matter if they make $70k or $700k)
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    But if the model is built to support this then it isn't an issue. If you see my earlier post about hypothetical improvements we can make to our global economy. If everyone is making more and industry is growing within the country then more classical economics applies (e.g. the pie is growing). In this scenario it's not an issue. It's only when there isn't positive growth that inflation is a huge issue.

subhobroto 6y ago

> so we aren't ruining society in a race to the bottom Nope. What is going on here is the person from India gets to now enjoy a much higher quality of life (because 50% of a U.S. salary gets you a lot in India) while the person from California sees their effective take home pay decrease (because their costs continue to grow but not their salary) Definitely not a race to the bottom but it sucks to be the person from California.

oneplane 6y ago
On the other hand, the person in India will relocate thousands of miles for practically any job, while the person in California will pretend that life is hard because of someone else's doing instead of moving to a place they can afford better.
Avicebron 6y ago
So in short what you're saying is yay globalism? Bring everyone down to a lowest mean existance possible, we shouldn't protect our interests?
- subhobroto 6y ago
  > So in short what you're saying is yay globalism globalization is happening whether we want it to or not. > we shouldn't protect our interests I made no comments either way. ... but, sure, let's think about this. If you were to pass rules and regulations to stop globalization from happening, what would the top 3 be?
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    Well I won't claim to be the thought leader on this, however I'm happy to look at some hypothetical ideas. To be clear I'm not looking to reverse globalization completely or stop it. Rule 1: International trade deals forbid offshoring of manufacturing. Example, cars from Ford can't be made in Mexico for 1/10th the price. This is universal and enforceable by dissolution of companies that don't comply. Rule 2: Stringent regulations to prevent Tax and location based gaming of Rule 1. Ford doesn't get to pay taxes in Tahiti, incorporate a mailbox in Mexico so they can make their cars there, but take advantage of US infrastructure for the rest of their business. Rule 3: Companies reaching a monopoly size will be broken up into relatively equal sized companies, importantly those companies will be competing in similar regions. It's not like AWS and Amazon. It's like two Amazons. I'm sure figuring out the codebase and IP will make many jobs for lawyers and engineers. Maybe less for the MBA's. EDIT: For rule 3 I forgot to add that the break up forces innovation as similar companies are competing now in the same market. It's an engine of growth built into the system.