4 ms·

> But ... covering unemployment or serious illness ... these are examples of things that require a much (much) larger societal unit to be really effective. Rea

by kqr 4y ago

> But ... covering unemployment or serious illness ... these are examples of things that require a much (much) larger societal unit to be really effective. Really? How many hours of labour per year does it actually take to feed, shelter and provide medical care for a person? I'd be surprised if it was more than 20 % of the hours I work today, meaning I could – barring a system that concentrates the spoils of my labour in the hands of the few – provide this assistance for four people besides myself. As you may know, the unemployed and seriously ill number fewer than half of the population, so I think we'd be fine. I mean yes, that stuff takes specialisation, and that probably requires a larger community. (If only 0.1 % of the population are medical doctors, then we need 1000 people to have one doctor). But those numbers sort of work out in the world today, so I don't know why they wouldn't in a different world.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> How many hours of labour per year does it actually take to feed, shelter and provide medical care for a person? To medieval standards of medical care and food, sure. Past that we need training and specialisation, both of which increase the number of people the average person can support.
- ryanmcbride 4y ago
  The standard of care many americans get is already well below medieval standard (none)
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > standard of care many americans get is already well below medieval standard (none) This is nonsense. Emergency care, accessible to all, is practically magic compared to that time. And preventative care largely wasn’t a thing.
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      As long as you're okay with being bankrupt
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > long as you're okay with being bankrupt One, dead or debilitated versus bankrupt. Two, no: Medicaid, charity, et cetera. It’s not a good system. But comparing it to pre-medical care is stupid beyond belief.
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        Charity and medicare don't cover everyone. There are people who make a little too much to get on medicare but are still close to the poverty line. Charity is wildly hit or miss with luck as the biggest factor
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > there are people who make a little too much to get on medicare but are still close to the poverty line Yet you're still going to pretend this is the same as nobody having medicine.
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        >nobody having medicine. As far as I can see, you're the only one making this statement
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > you're the only one making this statement What do you think medieval medicine, which pre-dates even the germ theory, means?
        kevviiinn 4y ago
tomrod 4y ago
The argument of linear transfers, which is "my work could feed five people," seems logically false since there is a very real marginal productivity incentive. If your job pays you 20% of your current salary, do you want to work as hard? Typically, though of course not always, the answer will be no. You'll work less, you'll take on less high-effort-required activities, and so on. This effectively means transfers are subadditive and you couldn't perform such algebra across a society. EDIT: Note for the numerous driveby downvoters that have failed to engage in discussion, thereby decreasing the quality of conversation. I am not against using wealth transfers where appropriate. My comment simply calls out that "my work is enough to feed five people" does not equate to "my work will feed five people through wealth transfers."
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think you have a fair point, but it is important to note that the drop off in effort and utility depend on whether the worker is directly involved in the support of others. That is to say, it is very different if I take 20% of my time and directly give it to someone as support versus if I just trust that 20% of my time is taxed and somehow makes it too to one of 350 million people in the country.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Correct. There are decreasing returns to scale on taxation (which also justifies the Laffer curve/supply side/Voodoo economics, but that's another set of philosophical problems). The literature on optimal taxation is large and interesting.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I agree that someone could make an argument about losses and effectiveness, but my point was even simpler than that. When it comes to someone's willingness to work more to help another, I think contact and proximity to the recipient plays a big factor in what people are willing to do.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
We're not discussing a different world, we're discussing this one. Your doctor example is a good one. If you actually need 1000 people to have 1 doctor, and 1 doctor can treat and care for 999 people, then you need a community of around 1000 people to have "mutual aid" function for medical care (or very good luck in happening to have a doctor in a smaller community). This means that mutal aid care based in units of city blocks is not likely to work, but basing it in units of neighborhoods or larger probably will.
- mharig 4y ago
  Just to put your numbers to reality: I just roughly estimated the density of doctors in my childhood in 70s Germany: around 1:5000 to 1:10000. And the density of psychologists/psychatrists was around 1:100000. IMHO, that was and is enough.
aschearer 4y ago
> How many hours of labour per year does it actually take to feed, shelter and provide medical care for a person? If said person has Parkinsons, dementia, etc. the medical care/assistance alone is likely to be measured in hours per day. Easily approaching most of one's waking hours for bad cases. As boomers enter senescence the strain on the healthcare system will be immense, I predict. Whole lot of asses to wipe.

by kqr 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> How many hours of labour per year does it actually take to feed, shelter and provide medical care for a person? To medieval standards of medical care and food, sure. Past that we need training and specialisation, both of which increase the number of people the average person can support.

ryanmcbride 4y ago
The standard of care many americans get is already well below medieval standard (none)
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > standard of care many americans get is already well below medieval standard (none) This is nonsense. Emergency care, accessible to all, is practically magic compared to that time. And preventative care largely wasn’t a thing.
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    As long as you're okay with being bankrupt
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > long as you're okay with being bankrupt One, dead or debilitated versus bankrupt. Two, no: Medicaid, charity, et cetera. It’s not a good system. But comparing it to pre-medical care is stupid beyond belief.
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        Charity and medicare don't cover everyone. There are people who make a little too much to get on medicare but are still close to the poverty line. Charity is wildly hit or miss with luck as the biggest factor
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > there are people who make a little too much to get on medicare but are still close to the poverty line Yet you're still going to pretend this is the same as nobody having medicine.
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        >nobody having medicine. As far as I can see, you're the only one making this statement
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > you're the only one making this statement What do you think medieval medicine, which pre-dates even the germ theory, means?
        kevviiinn 4y ago

tomrod 4y ago

The argument of linear transfers, which is "my work could feed five people," seems logically false since there is a very real marginal productivity incentive. If your job pays you 20% of your current salary, do you want to work as hard? Typically, though of course not always, the answer will be no. You'll work less, you'll take on less high-effort-required activities, and so on. This effectively means transfers are subadditive and you couldn't perform such algebra across a society. EDIT: Note for the numerous driveby downvoters that have failed to engage in discussion, thereby decreasing the quality of conversation. I am not against using wealth transfers where appropriate. My comment simply calls out that "my work is enough to feed five people" does not equate to "my work will feed five people through wealth transfers."

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think you have a fair point, but it is important to note that the drop off in effort and utility depend on whether the worker is directly involved in the support of others. That is to say, it is very different if I take 20% of my time and directly give it to someone as support versus if I just trust that 20% of my time is taxed and somehow makes it too to one of 350 million people in the country.
- tomrod 4y ago
  Correct. There are decreasing returns to scale on taxation (which also justifies the Laffer curve/supply side/Voodoo economics, but that's another set of philosophical problems). The literature on optimal taxation is large and interesting.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I agree that someone could make an argument about losses and effectiveness, but my point was even simpler than that. When it comes to someone's willingness to work more to help another, I think contact and proximity to the recipient plays a big factor in what people are willing to do.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

We're not discussing a different world, we're discussing this one. Your doctor example is a good one. If you actually need 1000 people to have 1 doctor, and 1 doctor can treat and care for 999 people, then you need a community of around 1000 people to have "mutual aid" function for medical care (or very good luck in happening to have a doctor in a smaller community). This means that mutal aid care based in units of city blocks is not likely to work, but basing it in units of neighborhoods or larger probably will.

mharig 4y ago
Just to put your numbers to reality: I just roughly estimated the density of doctors in my childhood in 70s Germany: around 1:5000 to 1:10000. And the density of psychologists/psychatrists was around 1:100000. IMHO, that was and is enough.

aschearer 4y ago

> How many hours of labour per year does it actually take to feed, shelter and provide medical care for a person? If said person has Parkinsons, dementia, etc. the medical care/assistance alone is likely to be measured in hours per day. Easily approaching most of one's waking hours for bad cases. As boomers enter senescence the strain on the healthcare system will be immense, I predict. Whole lot of asses to wipe.