4 ms·

if everyone's salary is raised by $600 what do you think happens? I'll tell you, $600 is the new zero that gets you nothing.

recursive 6y ago
How does arithmetic work under this system? If $600 gets you nothing, then what does 2 * $600 get you?
arcticbull 6y ago
That isn't actually how that works, for a lot of interesting reasons, but the most objective answer I can give you is this. Since the 1970s, the M2 money supply has 15X'd, but inflation has only divided value by 7. Just increasing the supply of money in an economy doesn't cause inflation on a 1:1 scale. If everyone made an extra $600, they would more than likely obtain an additional $280 in added welfare. I think it's not an unrealistic way of looking at it to say that our floor is $280, and in reality, we could see up to $600 or more in net welfare added. What you're actually doing is bringing the poor and the wealthy closer together, reducing inequality. In places with a $15 minimum wage, standard of living actually goes up for the poorest citizens.
- glofish 6y ago
  Ok I'll bite. How much do you think would entice someone to be a cashier and work 8 hours a day when someone on unemployment in the current system gets say $3600/month. Imagine a poorer state where you can easily make do with $3.6K per month. My question is pretty much what would you have to pay someone to show up for a somewhat unpleasant workplace when they don't need an income for a decent life already? (and they would lose their previous income if they did work) I think the math is not so simple there.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > My question is pretty much what would you have to pay someone to show up for a somewhat unpleasant workplace when they don't need an income for a decent life already? (and they would lose their previous income if they did work) Market rates. Without answering your question directly, that's my answer. Somewhat unpleasant workplaces should be automated, and people should be paid a living wage. If you want them to go to work pay them market rates, or make it pleasant. That's a society I want to live in. The market rate should be determined as whatever they need to pay you above a basic existence to motivate you to do a specific job -- not above death. I'm not sure why you're advocating a society that, out of some moral imperative around the value of work, creates unpleasant workplaces at wages you can barely live on, and considers that a job well done. Mandatory and uncomfortable is a minimum standard most developed nations left behind a long time ago. Yes this may cost me more, but you know what, if that means I don't have to stumble over heroin needles and homeless encampments on my way to work, that's a fair trade.

recursive 6y ago

How does arithmetic work under this system? If $600 gets you nothing, then what does 2 * $600 get you?

arcticbull 6y ago

That isn't actually how that works, for a lot of interesting reasons, but the most objective answer I can give you is this. Since the 1970s, the M2 money supply has 15X'd, but inflation has only divided value by 7. Just increasing the supply of money in an economy doesn't cause inflation on a 1:1 scale. If everyone made an extra $600, they would more than likely obtain an additional $280 in added welfare. I think it's not an unrealistic way of looking at it to say that our floor is $280, and in reality, we could see up to $600 or more in net welfare added. What you're actually doing is bringing the poor and the wealthy closer together, reducing inequality. In places with a $15 minimum wage, standard of living actually goes up for the poorest citizens.

glofish 6y ago
Ok I'll bite. How much do you think would entice someone to be a cashier and work 8 hours a day when someone on unemployment in the current system gets say $3600/month. Imagine a poorer state where you can easily make do with $3.6K per month. My question is pretty much what would you have to pay someone to show up for a somewhat unpleasant workplace when they don't need an income for a decent life already? (and they would lose their previous income if they did work) I think the math is not so simple there.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > My question is pretty much what would you have to pay someone to show up for a somewhat unpleasant workplace when they don't need an income for a decent life already? (and they would lose their previous income if they did work) Market rates. Without answering your question directly, that's my answer. Somewhat unpleasant workplaces should be automated, and people should be paid a living wage. If you want them to go to work pay them market rates, or make it pleasant. That's a society I want to live in. The market rate should be determined as whatever they need to pay you above a basic existence to motivate you to do a specific job -- not above death. I'm not sure why you're advocating a society that, out of some moral imperative around the value of work, creates unpleasant workplaces at wages you can barely live on, and considers that a job well done. Mandatory and uncomfortable is a minimum standard most developed nations left behind a long time ago. Yes this may cost me more, but you know what, if that means I don't have to stumble over heroin needles and homeless encampments on my way to work, that's a fair trade.