5 ms·

Well, yes and no. The "self-sustaining city on Mars" bit is a pipedream, and not something we should spend serious amounts of money on in the 21st century. The

Well, yes and no. The "self-sustaining city on Mars" bit is a pipedream, and not something we should spend serious amounts of money on in the 21st century. There are no plausible catastrophes that could hit Earth that wouldn't randomly leave at least as many people still alive on Earth afterwards. The meteor killed most of the dinosaurs because they were unable to adapt to the climate after the impact. But some dinosaur species were able to adapt, thus we have birds today. Humans are immensely good at adapting. There is no question in my mind that several million people would survive both WW3 and a meteor like what killed the dinosaurs. The humans on Mars are redundant in that case. The only upside to Musk's idea is he (or at least someone) gets to pick who the survivors will be. To me the sensible thing to do would be to tax these people (Musk, Bezos, Gates etc) and have the government implement policies that used these funds for socialized healthcare, higher minimum wage, paid parental leave etc. - you know, what all other first-world countries already have.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> To me the sensible thing to do would be to tax these people (Musk, Bezos, Gates etc) and have the government implement policies that used these funds for socialized healthcare, higher minimum wage, paid parental leave etc. - you know, what all other first-world countries already have. They already do tax them, at higher rates than anyone else in society. And its long been observed that a 100% tax rate wouldn’t pay for the social programs you’re asking for, because the ultra-wealthy just don’t have that much wealth relative to current government revenue levels. As for socialized healthcare, we have it, perhaps you’ve heard of the affordable healthcare act and medicare. As for minimum wage, the US is 16th in the world. I’m not sure how you propose to translate taxes into a higher minimu wage, maybe a direct subsidy for workers? In any case they would then spend it on the same consumption goods as other miminum wage earners and put profit in the pockets of corporations and bid up the prices until equilibrium canceled out the increased wage. Paid personal leave? You want to pay people to not work because of some imaginary zeroes? Or you want to reduce the marginal productivity of capital in order to reduce the productivity of labor as well?
- danans 6y ago
  > a 100% tax rate wouldn’t pay for the social programs you’re asking for, because the ultra-wealthy just don’t have that much wealth relative to current government revenue levels. I don't think there are any real proposals to raise taxes only on the ultra wealthy. The super wealthy and the very wealthy would also pay higher taxes (let's say the top .5% of the income/wealth distributions), like they did for most of the post WWII era. If one is considering raising taxes to create a more equitable society, the upper middle class (say the 99%ile) should also see taxes reset to a marginally higher level, but that appears to be politically less feasible at the moment.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- semi-extrinsic 6y ago
  The claim that the ultra-rich are taxed at a higher rate than anyone else in society is provably false. In 2015 the US Congress Joint Committee on Taxation calculated [1, p. 7] that implementing the "Buffet rule" would bring in an additional $7 billion in tax revenue per year. In a nutshell the Buffet rule is making sure that the ultra-rich are taxed at no less than the same rate as a middle income family, namely 30%. In total the changes proposed in [1] would bring a net increase in revenue on taxation of individuals north of $50 bn per year, even while reducing the tax burden on low- and middle-income families. And no, the US does not have actual socialized healthcare. When you have parents sitting with a sick child in their car in the parking lot outside the hospital, waiting as long ad possible before they go to in, in case the kid gets better so they can avoid racking up a huge hospital bill, you've screwed something up real bad. This doesn't happen ever in any country in Europe, period. > Paid personal leave? You want to pay people to not work because of some imaginary zeroes? I don't understand at all the reference to imaginary zeroes here. My point is that government subsidised paid parental leave is a measure that significantly increases the quality of life of low- and middle-income families in the critical period of time when their children are very small. It's a no-brainer even financially, the ROI from increased productivity in the workforce over the span of a decade is strongly positive. If you let a woman take parental leave and take care of her babies for a couple of years total in her 30s, versus working her to the bone in that period, I guarantee you she will have a net increase in her productive labor output during her lifespan. [1] https://www.jct.gov/publications/2014/jcx-36-14/ https://www.jct.gov/publications/2014/jcx-36-14/
ben_w 6y ago
You make a lot of good points, but: > The "self-sustaining city on Mars" bit is a pipedream, and not something we should spend serious amounts of money on in the 21st century. Compared to the roughly $100,000 billion/year combined GDP of all nations, the $8 billion/year [0] Musk is trying to make the Mars colony cost is a rounding error, not “serious” money. [0] 1e6 people at $200,000/person, divided by 25 years for even the most optimistic timeline
- ethbr0 6y ago
  > rounding error, not “serious” money I think Gates and Musk have both shown that there's an effectiveness multiple between a single, informed donor and the government as far as funding is concerned. Government funding is larger in magnitude, but can't be targeted to the same degree and has blind spots.
- semi-extrinsic 6y ago
  There is no way that this is a realistic cost. If someone quoted you $200,000/person for building a 1 million person city from scratch in the middle of the desert, it would be a lowball figure. The Masdar city in Abu Dhabi was planned to cost $20 billion and house 40k people. That's $500,000/person, right here on Earth where breathable air and protection from cosmic radiation is completely free of charge, and you don't need to launch anything out of Earth's gravity well. So if Musk had a realistic way of reaching $200,000/person, he could start doing it on Earth and completely fund his Mars project purely from the profits of selling the Earthside city to someone else here on Earth.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    He is funding his Mars project from the profits of selling his spaceships to people here on Earth. I agree he’s probably being over optimistic about the price, unless he has a self-replicating factory skunkworks (which is also entirely plausible), but on the other hand Musk’s estimates are only factor of x2-x3 fantasy compared to subsequent delivered realities, better than the rest of the space sector even when he’s promising more.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> To me the sensible thing to do would be to tax these people (Musk, Bezos, Gates etc) and have the government implement policies that used these funds for socialized healthcare, higher minimum wage, paid parental leave etc. - you know, what all other first-world countries already have. They already do tax them, at higher rates than anyone else in society. And its long been observed that a 100% tax rate wouldn’t pay for the social programs you’re asking for, because the ultra-wealthy just don’t have that much wealth relative to current government revenue levels. As for socialized healthcare, we have it, perhaps you’ve heard of the affordable healthcare act and medicare. As for minimum wage, the US is 16th in the world. I’m not sure how you propose to translate taxes into a higher minimu wage, maybe a direct subsidy for workers? In any case they would then spend it on the same consumption goods as other miminum wage earners and put profit in the pockets of corporations and bid up the prices until equilibrium canceled out the increased wage. Paid personal leave? You want to pay people to not work because of some imaginary zeroes? Or you want to reduce the marginal productivity of capital in order to reduce the productivity of labor as well?

danans 6y ago
> a 100% tax rate wouldn’t pay for the social programs you’re asking for, because the ultra-wealthy just don’t have that much wealth relative to current government revenue levels. I don't think there are any real proposals to raise taxes only on the ultra wealthy. The super wealthy and the very wealthy would also pay higher taxes (let's say the top .5% of the income/wealth distributions), like they did for most of the post WWII era. If one is considering raising taxes to create a more equitable society, the upper middle class (say the 99%ile) should also see taxes reset to a marginally higher level, but that appears to be politically less feasible at the moment.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
semi-extrinsic 6y ago
The claim that the ultra-rich are taxed at a higher rate than anyone else in society is provably false. In 2015 the US Congress Joint Committee on Taxation calculated [1, p. 7] that implementing the "Buffet rule" would bring in an additional $7 billion in tax revenue per year. In a nutshell the Buffet rule is making sure that the ultra-rich are taxed at no less than the same rate as a middle income family, namely 30%. In total the changes proposed in [1] would bring a net increase in revenue on taxation of individuals north of $50 bn per year, even while reducing the tax burden on low- and middle-income families. And no, the US does not have actual socialized healthcare. When you have parents sitting with a sick child in their car in the parking lot outside the hospital, waiting as long ad possible before they go to in, in case the kid gets better so they can avoid racking up a huge hospital bill, you've screwed something up real bad. This doesn't happen ever in any country in Europe, period. > Paid personal leave? You want to pay people to not work because of some imaginary zeroes? I don't understand at all the reference to imaginary zeroes here. My point is that government subsidised paid parental leave is a measure that significantly increases the quality of life of low- and middle-income families in the critical period of time when their children are very small. It's a no-brainer even financially, the ROI from increased productivity in the workforce over the span of a decade is strongly positive. If you let a woman take parental leave and take care of her babies for a couple of years total in her 30s, versus working her to the bone in that period, I guarantee you she will have a net increase in her productive labor output during her lifespan. [1] https://www.jct.gov/publications/2014/jcx-36-14/ https://www.jct.gov/publications/2014/jcx-36-14/

ben_w 6y ago

You make a lot of good points, but: > The "self-sustaining city on Mars" bit is a pipedream, and not something we should spend serious amounts of money on in the 21st century. Compared to the roughly $100,000 billion/year combined GDP of all nations, the $8 billion/year [0] Musk is trying to make the Mars colony cost is a rounding error, not “serious” money. [0] 1e6 people at $200,000/person, divided by 25 years for even the most optimistic timeline

ethbr0 6y ago
> rounding error, not “serious” money I think Gates and Musk have both shown that there's an effectiveness multiple between a single, informed donor and the government as far as funding is concerned. Government funding is larger in magnitude, but can't be targeted to the same degree and has blind spots.
semi-extrinsic 6y ago
There is no way that this is a realistic cost. If someone quoted you $200,000/person for building a 1 million person city from scratch in the middle of the desert, it would be a lowball figure. The Masdar city in Abu Dhabi was planned to cost $20 billion and house 40k people. That's $500,000/person, right here on Earth where breathable air and protection from cosmic radiation is completely free of charge, and you don't need to launch anything out of Earth's gravity well. So if Musk had a realistic way of reaching $200,000/person, he could start doing it on Earth and completely fund his Mars project purely from the profits of selling the Earthside city to someone else here on Earth.
- ben_w 6y ago
  He is funding his Mars project from the profits of selling his spaceships to people here on Earth. I agree he’s probably being over optimistic about the price, unless he has a self-replicating factory skunkworks (which is also entirely plausible), but on the other hand Musk’s estimates are only factor of x2-x3 fantasy compared to subsequent delivered realities, better than the rest of the space sector even when he’s promising more.