3 ms·

That's...not what a Ponzi scheme is. Also, lol at entire population using roads at exactly the same rate, I've been subsidizing rural and exurban lifestyles my

That's...not what a Ponzi scheme is. Also, lol at entire population using roads at exactly the same rate, I've been subsidizing rural and exurban lifestyles my whole urban lifetime.

endisneigh 5y ago
How is it not a Ponzi scheme? You need more people to fund the previous beneficiaries. You think the math works if the population never increases? Consider how you’d fund it if the population decreased and immigration did not exist.
- letmeinhere 5y ago
  So in your mind Charles Ponzi innovated the principle of factoring in the likelihood of growth into economic planning? And any investment that is premised on that growth is thus a Ponzi scheme? I guess we can use words however we want, sure. Also, again, lol that roads pass this criteria. No expectation of growth and expanding tax bases there...
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Requiring growth is not a Ponzi scheme, requiring additional investors for the initial ones to be paid is. Do you have an actual rebuttal?
    - charcircuit 5y ago
      Where do you think the additional inventors come from (especial if everyone is forced to invest)?
    - letmeinhere 5y ago
      It's hard to rebut your arguments when you don't really explain them, instead relying on scarewords that don't fit at all. Who are the "additional investors"? The children? In what way would parental leave had been a horrible misstep if they do not show up? Seems like a wash. Or are the additional investors individuals and families who won't ever need paid leave, don't care about their neighbors, and don't care about the next generation of residents? If so, Ponzi schemes are when market participants indirectly spend money on things that they don't 100% agree to? So, like, every interaction in life outside of the household that one individual might fully dominate?
      - yokoprime 5y ago
        I think the parent post is a troll, willingly or not. Leave it, he or she has made up their mind that infrastructure and services are a Ponzi schm. Sigh.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn’t make someone a troll smh.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        The additional investors are all individuals necessary in taking care of the new children directly or indirectly. You introduce paid leave, which is fine, this creates more demand for children which is also fine. So now you have more children. Who’s going to take care of these people? Presumably child care workers who are disproportionately women. And if those women have children as well? Who replaces them? And who replaces the women who originally were on leave? If you think every industry can absorb 12 weeks (original proposal) of paid leave you’re in for a ride awakening. That’s if everyone only has a single child, by the way. Multiple children only compound the problem. If you believe this problem will sort itself out you should consider that in San Francisco day care can be as high as 3000 a child per month. Keep in mind about 3 years of day care is necessary. So that’s almost 100k after tax. Even someone making 400k a year before tax would notice that. And that’s only daycare. That being said this kind of Ponzi scheme isn’t really a big deal because that’s basically just having kids in a nutshell. However if you’re trying to convince your fellow citizens to pay for it you’re need some luck.
- nucleardog 5y ago
  Is there any indication it actually requires continued growth to break even? Given average salary where I am and roughly average tax rate, a typical household with two working adults is going to pay somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2m in tax over their working life. Paying 3% of that back to them is not going to break the bank. There are other programs vying for their tax dollars, but I can't see any inherent reason why it requires population growth to fund the benefits unless as you look at a timeline longer than a single tax year. As well, kind of an odd program to make that argument on. Parental leave is one of the few programs where you can pretty definitely guarantee the population growth since it's paying out for population growth that has already happened.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    I see what you're saying, but parental leave is a direct cost, but there are subsidiary costs, such as the lost productivity as well as the lifetime resources to raise the newly born child that require more people to subsidize. If a child were something that required no ongoing resources to provide for, then yeah I'd agree with you. That being said I didn't really properly articulate that, so the way I described it I'd have to concede that perhaps it's not a Ponzi scheme.
    - kristjansson 5y ago
      The benefit side of that equation is the perpetuation of human society, so it’s worth some investment. Humans and economies aren’t cost minimizers, they’re utility maximizers.

That's...not what a Ponzi scheme is. Also, lol at entire population using roads at exactly the same rate, I've been subsidizing rural and exurban lifestyles my whole urban lifetime.

endisneigh 5y ago

How is it not a Ponzi scheme? You need more people to fund the previous beneficiaries. You think the math works if the population never increases? Consider how you’d fund it if the population decreased and immigration did not exist.

letmeinhere 5y ago
So in your mind Charles Ponzi innovated the principle of factoring in the likelihood of growth into economic planning? And any investment that is premised on that growth is thus a Ponzi scheme? I guess we can use words however we want, sure. Also, again, lol that roads pass this criteria. No expectation of growth and expanding tax bases there...
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Requiring growth is not a Ponzi scheme, requiring additional investors for the initial ones to be paid is. Do you have an actual rebuttal?
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    Where do you think the additional inventors come from (especial if everyone is forced to invest)?
  - letmeinhere 5y ago
    It's hard to rebut your arguments when you don't really explain them, instead relying on scarewords that don't fit at all. Who are the "additional investors"? The children? In what way would parental leave had been a horrible misstep if they do not show up? Seems like a wash. Or are the additional investors individuals and families who won't ever need paid leave, don't care about their neighbors, and don't care about the next generation of residents? If so, Ponzi schemes are when market participants indirectly spend money on things that they don't 100% agree to? So, like, every interaction in life outside of the household that one individual might fully dominate?
    - yokoprime 5y ago
      I think the parent post is a troll, willingly or not. Leave it, he or she has made up their mind that infrastructure and services are a Ponzi schm. Sigh.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn’t make someone a troll smh.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      The additional investors are all individuals necessary in taking care of the new children directly or indirectly. You introduce paid leave, which is fine, this creates more demand for children which is also fine. So now you have more children. Who’s going to take care of these people? Presumably child care workers who are disproportionately women. And if those women have children as well? Who replaces them? And who replaces the women who originally were on leave? If you think every industry can absorb 12 weeks (original proposal) of paid leave you’re in for a ride awakening. That’s if everyone only has a single child, by the way. Multiple children only compound the problem. If you believe this problem will sort itself out you should consider that in San Francisco day care can be as high as 3000 a child per month. Keep in mind about 3 years of day care is necessary. So that’s almost 100k after tax. Even someone making 400k a year before tax would notice that. And that’s only daycare. That being said this kind of Ponzi scheme isn’t really a big deal because that’s basically just having kids in a nutshell. However if you’re trying to convince your fellow citizens to pay for it you’re need some luck.
nucleardog 5y ago
Is there any indication it actually requires continued growth to break even? Given average salary where I am and roughly average tax rate, a typical household with two working adults is going to pay somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2m in tax over their working life. Paying 3% of that back to them is not going to break the bank. There are other programs vying for their tax dollars, but I can't see any inherent reason why it requires population growth to fund the benefits unless as you look at a timeline longer than a single tax year. As well, kind of an odd program to make that argument on. Parental leave is one of the few programs where you can pretty definitely guarantee the population growth since it's paying out for population growth that has already happened.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I see what you're saying, but parental leave is a direct cost, but there are subsidiary costs, such as the lost productivity as well as the lifetime resources to raise the newly born child that require more people to subsidize. If a child were something that required no ongoing resources to provide for, then yeah I'd agree with you. That being said I didn't really properly articulate that, so the way I described it I'd have to concede that perhaps it's not a Ponzi scheme.
  - kristjansson 5y ago
    The benefit side of that equation is the perpetuation of human society, so it’s worth some investment. Humans and economies aren’t cost minimizers, they’re utility maximizers.