4 ms·

I didn't make a moral argument. What I did do is make an economic one, and suggest how we value things change. A whole bunch of Economics is rooted in a few b

I didn't make a moral argument. What I did do is make an economic one, and suggest how we value things change. A whole bunch of Economics is rooted in a few basies that we all just take as givens. We don't have to. I also didn't make an equal economic value argument, for that matter.

bumby 5y ago
Sorry, maybe I misinterpreted your point. >"how much does it cost people, who hold other positions in life, to perform basic labors themselves? And the answer is expensive!!" What is the "expensive" assumption based on? Is it the opportunity cost? E.g., is the assumption that if I make $50/hr and I perform basic labor, I'm forgoing work that would otherwise be making money at that rate? Or is it that I don't have the skills for that basic labor and I would either have to get those skills or suffer the cost of doing the work unskillfully? If it's the former, I think there's enough friction in markets to erode that argument. E.g., I can't just decide to get another $50 through my skilled labor once I hire someone to shovel snow in my driveway for an hour. If the latter case were true, it would be skilled labor by definition and generally command higher wages. Or is there another basis for the expense of performing basic labor that I'm not considering from your point?
- ddingus 5y ago
  Ok, say I can make $100 / hour or even $50, just for shits and giggles. Our lives break down into thirds. One to work, one to sleep, one to do what we will and can as people. If I must do those basic labors, they either consume my sleep or free time, and if not, carry an opportunity cost of $50 / hour. My time is very valuable, both in a labor to income sense, and personally, in that I have plans for my time that must be balanced against basic labors being done. Paying what it costs for laborers to exist and show up for work is a no brainer. Worth it to me, again based on my own costs. There is "expensive" We can always find cases where basic labors do not carry those costs, or are difficult to handle as a market. We do those ourselves. However, making our own food, making our own shit and garbage dissappear, moving things, clean ups and all manner of basic labors combine to allow many of us the time freedom to earn more, do more. The value in that is high enough to require enterprises fund their labor fully. This may mean their overall profit is less. It should be, they didn't earn it. They didn't fund the labor. We did! Failure to do that comes with other costs, both real in the sense of the massive subsidies that end up unearned profit (our money goes into their bank account, funding labor they profit from on top of margin on goods and services rendered), and opportunity in that we see lower demand and that impacts many others who could earn more and or fund their labor as well. Again, laborers have a cost to exist and show up for work, and when their labor does not pay enough for those things, someone else's labor does, or the labor does not exist and will not show up for work. So which is it? Who pays and why? How we value things can change those answers dramatically, which is the economic argument I made. One last thing, and that is ignoring the cost of people for them to exist and show up for work, doesn't make those costs go away, it just hides them, and we end up paying them in all sorts of other ways that are expensive. That's another way to look at this. When a business does not make enough to fund its operation it closes, or dies in other words. The same is true for people. So not fully funding labor is expensive to literally everyone else except for the people not fully funding the labor they require.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >my sleep or free time, and if not, carry an opportunity cost of $50 / hour. This is the part I disagree with. The only time that is rated at $50/hr is the time you are producing something of economic value. Sleep and leisure do not warrant a $50/hr price tag in-and-of-themselves. In part, because of what I already mentioned: market friction prevents me from giving a 1-to-1 trade for sleep/leisure time to production. Just because I decide to wake up an hour early doesn't automatically mean an extra $50 worth of work is ready and waiting for me. >we end up paying them in all sorts of other ways that are expensive. I completely agree with this and think it's the governments job to ensure markets price these externalities appropriately.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      You get to disagree. I personally value my time differently. You are ignoring tons of labors saving you time and or providing a rich field in which to profit. You are ignoring time value. I did not ever say 1:1 at whatever rate. What I did, and continue to say is your work time would consume far more of your life sans basic labors you benefit from every day. Cost it how you want, but when suddenly faced with half your personal time gone, having to choose less, or less sleep, or less income delivering work, and in all cases a lot more physical activity in your life will absolutely cost you far more than you are allowing for here.
      - bumby 5y ago
        >You are ignoring tons of labors saving you time Please elaborate. I mean, the market is exactly how we price that time value. Whether I pay for basic labor or decide to do it myself is exactly based on the price I place on my free time minus how much I value learning something new minus the risk of a bad contractor. If you're not advocating the basic market pricing principles we already operate under, I'm not sure what you're advocating. Are you saying Tom Brady should pay his landscaper $175,000/hour simply because that's what the market has priced Tom Brady's personal economic differential value at? I'd be curious how you'd expect that to happen in practice. Even though you don't come outright and say it, it's beginning to come across as a Marxist ideal of "to each according to his ability", which I'm sure you already understand all the problems that poses. In the end, all it seems like you're saying is to factor in the externalities to get at a fair market price. If that's the case, I already said we agree. But the same point can be said with a lot more brevity.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > What is the "expensive" assumption based on? Is it the opportunity cost? Yes, and the basic assumption of free markets that competition drives prices to the minimum sellers are willing to accept (equal to opportunity cost of the units actually traded), and that this value per unit increases, so that the next unit must have an opportunity cost to the seller higher than the average of the prior units.

bumby 5y ago

Sorry, maybe I misinterpreted your point. >"how much does it cost people, who hold other positions in life, to perform basic labors themselves? And the answer is expensive!!" What is the "expensive" assumption based on? Is it the opportunity cost? E.g., is the assumption that if I make $50/hr and I perform basic labor, I'm forgoing work that would otherwise be making money at that rate? Or is it that I don't have the skills for that basic labor and I would either have to get those skills or suffer the cost of doing the work unskillfully? If it's the former, I think there's enough friction in markets to erode that argument. E.g., I can't just decide to get another $50 through my skilled labor once I hire someone to shovel snow in my driveway for an hour. If the latter case were true, it would be skilled labor by definition and generally command higher wages. Or is there another basis for the expense of performing basic labor that I'm not considering from your point?

ddingus 5y ago
Ok, say I can make $100 / hour or even $50, just for shits and giggles. Our lives break down into thirds. One to work, one to sleep, one to do what we will and can as people. If I must do those basic labors, they either consume my sleep or free time, and if not, carry an opportunity cost of $50 / hour. My time is very valuable, both in a labor to income sense, and personally, in that I have plans for my time that must be balanced against basic labors being done. Paying what it costs for laborers to exist and show up for work is a no brainer. Worth it to me, again based on my own costs. There is "expensive" We can always find cases where basic labors do not carry those costs, or are difficult to handle as a market. We do those ourselves. However, making our own food, making our own shit and garbage dissappear, moving things, clean ups and all manner of basic labors combine to allow many of us the time freedom to earn more, do more. The value in that is high enough to require enterprises fund their labor fully. This may mean their overall profit is less. It should be, they didn't earn it. They didn't fund the labor. We did! Failure to do that comes with other costs, both real in the sense of the massive subsidies that end up unearned profit (our money goes into their bank account, funding labor they profit from on top of margin on goods and services rendered), and opportunity in that we see lower demand and that impacts many others who could earn more and or fund their labor as well. Again, laborers have a cost to exist and show up for work, and when their labor does not pay enough for those things, someone else's labor does, or the labor does not exist and will not show up for work. So which is it? Who pays and why? How we value things can change those answers dramatically, which is the economic argument I made. One last thing, and that is ignoring the cost of people for them to exist and show up for work, doesn't make those costs go away, it just hides them, and we end up paying them in all sorts of other ways that are expensive. That's another way to look at this. When a business does not make enough to fund its operation it closes, or dies in other words. The same is true for people. So not fully funding labor is expensive to literally everyone else except for the people not fully funding the labor they require.
- bumby 5y ago
  >my sleep or free time, and if not, carry an opportunity cost of $50 / hour. This is the part I disagree with. The only time that is rated at $50/hr is the time you are producing something of economic value. Sleep and leisure do not warrant a $50/hr price tag in-and-of-themselves. In part, because of what I already mentioned: market friction prevents me from giving a 1-to-1 trade for sleep/leisure time to production. Just because I decide to wake up an hour early doesn't automatically mean an extra $50 worth of work is ready and waiting for me. >we end up paying them in all sorts of other ways that are expensive. I completely agree with this and think it's the governments job to ensure markets price these externalities appropriately.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    You get to disagree. I personally value my time differently. You are ignoring tons of labors saving you time and or providing a rich field in which to profit. You are ignoring time value. I did not ever say 1:1 at whatever rate. What I did, and continue to say is your work time would consume far more of your life sans basic labors you benefit from every day. Cost it how you want, but when suddenly faced with half your personal time gone, having to choose less, or less sleep, or less income delivering work, and in all cases a lot more physical activity in your life will absolutely cost you far more than you are allowing for here.
    - bumby 5y ago
      >You are ignoring tons of labors saving you time Please elaborate. I mean, the market is exactly how we price that time value. Whether I pay for basic labor or decide to do it myself is exactly based on the price I place on my free time minus how much I value learning something new minus the risk of a bad contractor. If you're not advocating the basic market pricing principles we already operate under, I'm not sure what you're advocating. Are you saying Tom Brady should pay his landscaper $175,000/hour simply because that's what the market has priced Tom Brady's personal economic differential value at? I'd be curious how you'd expect that to happen in practice. Even though you don't come outright and say it, it's beginning to come across as a Marxist ideal of "to each according to his ability", which I'm sure you already understand all the problems that poses. In the end, all it seems like you're saying is to factor in the externalities to get at a fair market price. If that's the case, I already said we agree. But the same point can be said with a lot more brevity.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> What is the "expensive" assumption based on? Is it the opportunity cost? Yes, and the basic assumption of free markets that competition drives prices to the minimum sellers are willing to accept (equal to opportunity cost of the units actually traded), and that this value per unit increases, so that the next unit must have an opportunity cost to the seller higher than the average of the prior units.