5 ms·

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 an

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.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      Let's say this too: We need either: A floor for labor price , or Subsidies (assistance) , or We accept that some people are just not going to exist and or show up for work because they are not viable economically. Which is it? People laboring and getting enough to exist and show up for work can make skills and other arguments to further improve on their value, sell their labor, whatever. This is about the nearly half of us who labor and do not receive enough to fund their labor, exist and show up for work basically. I don't care how we solve this, and proposed one idea where we value things differently, change the basies the economy depends on. We could do that, it may be a great idea, and it would eliminate a big problem with the overly simple supply / demand theory of labor value in play today. Say we do agree to a subsidy. Great! Then we also need to agree people need that and quit fucking with them about getting it too. No shame, etc... just an ordinary condition where we don't value their labor high enough, yet we need them economically viable, able to exist, show up for work, etc... Re: Free time Right now, one third of my life, approximately, coupled with another third for sleep, together provide for "my" remaining third which is the third where I get to do what I want. I may invest some of that third. Did for many years, which made my labor third a hell of a lot more valuable. Not everyone can do this. We don't even have the jobs available if everyone were to do this! I may fuck that third right off too. Rest, play, fuck, whatever right? No worries, as adults, it's our third! Yay! Now, when I must eat into that third to exist and show up for work? Nope. That's extremely high value time. Here's one cost, investment. If one's labor does not fund existing and showing up for work, the solution is often more labor, right? Well, now that eats into either sleep, or our personal third of time. Often both. That costs a person investment time! That investment time is extremely high value time. I would be worth one hell of a lot less had I repeated how I lived my life in the labor markets today. Seriously. Not sure I would make it in the same way. Some of my kids really struggle in ways I did not. Same root cause: Labor failing to deliver enough income to exist and show up for work. I tossed some dollar figure out there when I probably should not have. This is another way to get at that value. And finally, food for thought: What defines wealth? The basic definition involves time. Wealthy people can self purpose far more of their time. This speaks right to what I'm getting at, and it's subtle! A person making a ton of money, yet who is enslaved to it, unable to purpose their time, is as poor as someone laboring a ton, lacking income needed to even purpose their time. Both cannot make use of their time beyond labor, and or sleep. A trust fund baby, or someone who just sold a company, having fuck you money is quite wealthy in the time sense. So is the person living lean, requiring very little to live and do what they will. Hope this helps. I'm not going to respond on this further, and thanks to those of you being good discussion partners. I enjoyed this.

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.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Let's say this too: We need either: A floor for labor price , or Subsidies (assistance) , or We accept that some people are just not going to exist and or show up for work because they are not viable economically. Which is it? People laboring and getting enough to exist and show up for work can make skills and other arguments to further improve on their value, sell their labor, whatever. This is about the nearly half of us who labor and do not receive enough to fund their labor, exist and show up for work basically. I don't care how we solve this, and proposed one idea where we value things differently, change the basies the economy depends on. We could do that, it may be a great idea, and it would eliminate a big problem with the overly simple supply / demand theory of labor value in play today. Say we do agree to a subsidy. Great! Then we also need to agree people need that and quit fucking with them about getting it too. No shame, etc... just an ordinary condition where we don't value their labor high enough, yet we need them economically viable, able to exist, show up for work, etc... Re: Free time Right now, one third of my life, approximately, coupled with another third for sleep, together provide for "my" remaining third which is the third where I get to do what I want. I may invest some of that third. Did for many years, which made my labor third a hell of a lot more valuable. Not everyone can do this. We don't even have the jobs available if everyone were to do this! I may fuck that third right off too. Rest, play, fuck, whatever right? No worries, as adults, it's our third! Yay! Now, when I must eat into that third to exist and show up for work? Nope. That's extremely high value time. Here's one cost, investment. If one's labor does not fund existing and showing up for work, the solution is often more labor, right? Well, now that eats into either sleep, or our personal third of time. Often both. That costs a person investment time! That investment time is extremely high value time. I would be worth one hell of a lot less had I repeated how I lived my life in the labor markets today. Seriously. Not sure I would make it in the same way. Some of my kids really struggle in ways I did not. Same root cause: Labor failing to deliver enough income to exist and show up for work. I tossed some dollar figure out there when I probably should not have. This is another way to get at that value. And finally, food for thought: What defines wealth? The basic definition involves time. Wealthy people can self purpose far more of their time. This speaks right to what I'm getting at, and it's subtle! A person making a ton of money, yet who is enslaved to it, unable to purpose their time, is as poor as someone laboring a ton, lacking income needed to even purpose their time. Both cannot make use of their time beyond labor, and or sleep. A trust fund baby, or someone who just sold a company, having fuck you money is quite wealthy in the time sense. So is the person living lean, requiring very little to live and do what they will. Hope this helps. I'm not going to respond on this further, and thanks to those of you being good discussion partners. I enjoyed this.