4 ms·

> Notice I don't have money in any of that? You do, when you speak of value. Money is how we measure value. Your monologue is a bit like talking about how tall

> Notice I don't have money in any of that? You do, when you speak of value. Money is how we measure value. Your monologue is a bit like talking about how tall things are and saying you haven't mentioned a unit of measurement and therefore the meter somehow a separate concept. Value exists independent of money. Money is a way to measure value. > Today, roughly half of labor in the US does not yield enough to fully fund continuing to exist and or show up for work! Or they've chosen to volunteer their labor, as I do, because they don't need more income. Or they're studying to increase the future value of their work. > The actual work, wealth created, wealth maintained (it comes with it's own costs and risks), are all centered on labor. This isn't true. Perhaps I'm an artist and I live through selling my inventory. Perhaps I'm living on income from a hit app I published. There's plenty of wealth that isn't centered on current labor at all, especially in the field of technology. > You are asking others to value your past work as justification for your current position in life No, I'm not. The valuation has already occurred, voluntarily. I haven't asked; rather others have offered and I accepted. > Money is why. Money does a lot of good, and a lot of bad too. Money is a measure of value which exists independent of any currency system. Money isn't a why, it's just how we measure, and an intermediary form to allow value to be fungible. Instead of trading my hammer for my living expenses, I can trade my hammer for money. Money doesn't create the value of my hammer, it just measures it. > Funding things also has value, but it's not the same thing, I don't agree. Investment is a type of work like any other. Funding is, at its core, a value exchange. If what you say is true, and wealth is always a measure of labor (and I don't think it is) then it is exactly the same thing -- using money as an intermediate measurement. > A point I am making is valuing past works too highly actually does harm to society overall, and I've explained why and how that can be. I don't think you've made this point at all, much less having explained it.

ddingus 5y ago
Well, let us make it really simple: Labor is how we create wealth. It is the only way we create wealth. Wealthy people get to purpose more of their time than poor people do. Time is money, money is time, OK? Wealth can be assigned a value in terms of money. Now, those who created the means expect to be valued and for the means to have value. The basis for that value is the additional wealth per labor unit the means makes possible. As for their value... let's just call that a promise or suggestion of mutual benefit in the future and leave it there. A great creator, innovator will make others around them wealthy, unless they require too much for having done the work. This is not hard to see. With that in mind, let us further assign a dollar amount to all of that. Once we do, then we also assign dollar amounts to labor so they may be traded with greater efficiency and or flexibility. With me so far? When the dollar amount of that past work output is valued high, it can be said the greater percentage of wealth created by labor goes to those who own the means, tools. Value too high, and labor fails to deliver enough value for the laborers. It may cost them more to perform the labor than said labor delivers to them. And there is the harm done. It may make more sense for laborers to abandon that expensive, though productive means, and secure more value per unit of labor, despite being less productive, and or potentially non compliant. They may simply employ the means and pay less, or nothing too, creating conflict. Regardless of what the law is, or any of us may say or feel, the human costs and risks always present themselves and must always be met, or the people cease to exist. Given how undesirable ceasingbto exist is, society often makes up the difference via subsidy, assistance of various kinds. This mostly assures more compliance, and does cost everyone. And there you have increased crime, black markets of various kinds driven by people whose labor fails to generate enough wealth relative to their costs and risks associated with their existence and or showing up for work. Taking money out of all that would look the same, just without the dollars. It might look like that owner of the means having a large food store, or requires too much compensatory labor for their benefit, leaving the others in town poor, in that their labor fails to meet their collective costs and risks, which leaves them time poor, and therefore not wealthy, despite a means of being more wealthy available.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  > Labor is how we create wealth. It is the only way we create wealth. No. As noted above, wealth is also generated from capital. Sometimes in conjunction with labor, sometimes not. > Wealthy people get to purpose more of their time than poor people do. No. Everyone has the same amount of time in a day. A better way to phrase this is that some people produce more wealth per unit of time than others. > Now, those who created the means expect to be valued and for the means to have value. No. I would say that the means are valuable, objectively, and independent of the desires of their creators. The focus on expectations here is irrelevant. > And there is the harm done. No. The value is not a subjective moral figure, it is actual. It represents actual utility, actual demand. There is much greater harm done by ignoring these types of objective economic truths -- the kind of harm that reliably destroys societies and causes mass famine and death. > or the people cease to exist. This is why we have what's called "tax and spend capitalism," where we take a significant portion of gains and use them to provide a safety net. I've paid roughly half of all of my life's production in taxes, and much of this goes to providing these safety nets. I've additionally written grants and made other large gifts to support others. The amount I have left to live on might be less than 10% of the value of my work product. Your suggestion that we might need to ignore basic economic realities to provide for others simply doesn't follow. We don't need to do things that way and when we have, historically, it has never succeeded.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    >wealth is also generated from capital. Sometimes in conjunction with labor, sometimes not. No, it is not ever created with capital. Capital does not have agency. It is a vehicle for the product of labor. By itself, it is nothing. This can be confusing and hard to see. Take it back to basic principles and it becomes much easier. >Everyone has the same amount of time in a day. A better way to phrase this is that some people produce more wealth per unit of time than others. I do not believe you understood. Our lives are roughly divided into thirds. One to sleep, one to work, one to live. When costs and risks are high, more time is required to meet them, and when unmet, people cease to exist. Poor people's lives are basically two thirds work, one to sleep. Essentially, very little time not purposed for them. They work all the time and have no choice in the matter. This can also be expressed as having little to no free agency. Very wealthy people have almost none of their time purposed for them. This can be expressed as having almost entirely free agency. They may work all the time, or be at leisure. Their choice.

ddingus 5y ago

Well, let us make it really simple: Labor is how we create wealth. It is the only way we create wealth. Wealthy people get to purpose more of their time than poor people do. Time is money, money is time, OK? Wealth can be assigned a value in terms of money. Now, those who created the means expect to be valued and for the means to have value. The basis for that value is the additional wealth per labor unit the means makes possible. As for their value... let's just call that a promise or suggestion of mutual benefit in the future and leave it there. A great creator, innovator will make others around them wealthy, unless they require too much for having done the work. This is not hard to see. With that in mind, let us further assign a dollar amount to all of that. Once we do, then we also assign dollar amounts to labor so they may be traded with greater efficiency and or flexibility. With me so far? When the dollar amount of that past work output is valued high, it can be said the greater percentage of wealth created by labor goes to those who own the means, tools. Value too high, and labor fails to deliver enough value for the laborers. It may cost them more to perform the labor than said labor delivers to them. And there is the harm done. It may make more sense for laborers to abandon that expensive, though productive means, and secure more value per unit of labor, despite being less productive, and or potentially non compliant. They may simply employ the means and pay less, or nothing too, creating conflict. Regardless of what the law is, or any of us may say or feel, the human costs and risks always present themselves and must always be met, or the people cease to exist. Given how undesirable ceasingbto exist is, society often makes up the difference via subsidy, assistance of various kinds. This mostly assures more compliance, and does cost everyone. And there you have increased crime, black markets of various kinds driven by people whose labor fails to generate enough wealth relative to their costs and risks associated with their existence and or showing up for work. Taking money out of all that would look the same, just without the dollars. It might look like that owner of the means having a large food store, or requires too much compensatory labor for their benefit, leaving the others in town poor, in that their labor fails to meet their collective costs and risks, which leaves them time poor, and therefore not wealthy, despite a means of being more wealthy available.

throwaway09223 5y ago
> Labor is how we create wealth. It is the only way we create wealth. No. As noted above, wealth is also generated from capital. Sometimes in conjunction with labor, sometimes not. > Wealthy people get to purpose more of their time than poor people do. No. Everyone has the same amount of time in a day. A better way to phrase this is that some people produce more wealth per unit of time than others. > Now, those who created the means expect to be valued and for the means to have value. No. I would say that the means are valuable, objectively, and independent of the desires of their creators. The focus on expectations here is irrelevant. > And there is the harm done. No. The value is not a subjective moral figure, it is actual. It represents actual utility, actual demand. There is much greater harm done by ignoring these types of objective economic truths -- the kind of harm that reliably destroys societies and causes mass famine and death. > or the people cease to exist. This is why we have what's called "tax and spend capitalism," where we take a significant portion of gains and use them to provide a safety net. I've paid roughly half of all of my life's production in taxes, and much of this goes to providing these safety nets. I've additionally written grants and made other large gifts to support others. The amount I have left to live on might be less than 10% of the value of my work product. Your suggestion that we might need to ignore basic economic realities to provide for others simply doesn't follow. We don't need to do things that way and when we have, historically, it has never succeeded.
- ddingus 5y ago
  >wealth is also generated from capital. Sometimes in conjunction with labor, sometimes not. No, it is not ever created with capital. Capital does not have agency. It is a vehicle for the product of labor. By itself, it is nothing. This can be confusing and hard to see. Take it back to basic principles and it becomes much easier. >Everyone has the same amount of time in a day. A better way to phrase this is that some people produce more wealth per unit of time than others. I do not believe you understood. Our lives are roughly divided into thirds. One to sleep, one to work, one to live. When costs and risks are high, more time is required to meet them, and when unmet, people cease to exist. Poor people's lives are basically two thirds work, one to sleep. Essentially, very little time not purposed for them. They work all the time and have no choice in the matter. This can also be expressed as having little to no free agency. Very wealthy people have almost none of their time purposed for them. This can be expressed as having almost entirely free agency. They may work all the time, or be at leisure. Their choice.