5 ms·

They will if we tax human suffering. Internalize the externalities. It's not complicated.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tsotha 15y ago
Let me see if I understand you. You'd rather people be unemployed than have the opportunity to work a (by your standards) crappy job? What do you intend to do with all the people who get taxed out of a job? What about people who work crappy jobs in China but aren't employed by multinationals? Shall we tax them too? That's going to be kind of a hard sell, isn't it? I mean, the Chinese people might have this crazy idea they ought to decide what's allowed to happen in China.
- zmj 15y ago
  Why does everyone need a job? There are many people without jobs already. We call them 'retirees'.
  - tsotha 15y ago
    Sure, but retirees had many decades to save up enough money to survive without a job. Since poverty is the default condition of human existence, i.e. all you have to do to be poor is not do anything to make money, most people will need some kind of gainful employment.
    - forensic 15y ago
      The direct cause of poverty is the police. A naturally born human goes into the forest and hunts for deer to eat. Then the police arrest him and throw him in jail. He was not born poor; he had a forest full of food. The police made him poor. In this way what you are calling natural poverty is actually a creation of civilization. The natural state of a human is that he may live off the land. Civilization has broken this connection in favor of the state and so the state has an obligation to the human to provide him with a fair chance. Note that the superrich or even the middle class are not born in poverty. Rather they are born with silver spoons in their mouth. How is that justice? These wealthy families then engage in nepotism to ensure the wealth of their offspring at the expense of the poor. This is deeply unmeritocratic and is injustice. For these upper classes to then turn around and tell the poor to be enslaved or die is the height of evil.
      - tsotha 15y ago
        >In this way what you are calling natural poverty is actually a creation of civilization. The natural state of a human is that he may live off the land. Civilization has broken this connection in favor of the state and so the state has an obligation to the human to provide him with a fair chance. No, actually. Civilization is what is necessary to avoid periodic famines. There's a reason the hunter-gather existence fell out of favor. It's only an idyllic lifestyle to people who haven't really thought about it. On the subject of the state having an obligation to provide a "fair chance", well, a fair chance isn't handouts, no matter how much other people may have. We have a system in which you can apply your talents to accumulate resources. It works very well. >Note that the superrich or even the middle class are not born in poverty. Rather they are born with silver spoons in their mouth. How is that justice? Is it justice that some people are better looking than others, or have better health? Is it justice that some people find a compatible mate and others don't? It's not the state's job to dispense "justice" - if it was I'd have a hot girlfriend. Even the court system isn't there to dispense justice - it's there to carry out the law. >These wealthy families then engage in nepotism to ensure the wealth of their offspring at the expense of the poor. Nepotism doesn't mean what you think it means. The wealthy families invest their money in an effort to stay wealthy, that much is true. But the side effect is poor people get wealthier, not poorer. >This is deeply unmeritocratic and is injustice. For these upper classes to then turn around and tell the poor to be enslaved or die is the height of evil. That's a little hyperbolic. "Enslaved"? Who's enslaved? A job is a free exchange - you get money for the work you do. If you don't like it do something else. That's not slavery, that's just life.
        anthonyb 15y ago
        > Civilization is what is necessary to avoid periodic famines. There's a reason the hunter-gather existence fell out of favor. It's only an idyllic lifestyle to people who haven't really thought about it. Not actually true. Most hunter-gatherers were better fed and healthier than people living in cities - they worked for a couple of hours a day gathering food. It fell out of favour because city dwellers were eventually able to fortify and outproduce on the better land, forcing everyone else to the outskirts.
- forensic 15y ago
  Scarcity is a myth. There is plenty of food and shelter for everyone. If there are no jobs then take the wealth from the superrich and use it to feed the poor. Human life trumps property rights. The superrich job creators are not creating jobs. Time we took their money and put it to better use.
  - tsotha 15y ago
    >Scarcity is a myth. There is plenty of food and shelter for everyone. But only because people have incentives to produce food and shelter. Take away those incentives and there will certainly be scarcity. >If there are no jobs then take the wealth from the superrich and use it to feed the poor. Human life trumps property rights. No it doesn't. Or rather, you can't have a functioning economy without property rights, and then you'll have millions starving. We've been down this road, so this shouldn't be a point of contention. It's no coincidence China's economy didn't start growing until they junked all that silly Marxist claptrap and started to respect property rights. I just have to ask - how old are you? I don't see how anyone could have reached middle age and hold these opinions.
    - forensic 15y ago
      There is a happy medium between outright fucking communism and outright corporate fascism. The superrich acquired their wealth through illegitimate means: nepotism, cronyism, bribery, monopoly, oligopoly, war-mongering, and all sorts of predatory scams. Money acquired through illegitimate means is illegitimate and anti-meritocratic. Property rights do not apply to those who distort markets for their own benefit or avoid competing in the marketplace by creating a cartel or bribing a politician. Superrich who engage in this behaviour are making themselves bigger than the market and bigger than the state, they are making themselves into autocrats, aristocrats, plutocrats, tyrants, slave-holders. China is a slave state dominated by unmeritorious Party cronies and their nepotism. Chinese workers are slaves. The proper response to slavery is rebellion and liberation. Humans are obligated to provide for themselves, not to be enslaved by psychopathic businessmen and broken economic systems. When CEOs award themselves $100million salaries and golden parachutes they are engaging in cronyism and oligopoly. The free market no longer holds sway and this is immoral. Money gained through these methods is not private property, it is stolen goods. Anyone who distorts a market or corners a market is an enemy of the public and forfeits their property.
olalonde 15y ago
Those Foxconn workers would be worse off without their job (otherwise, why not quit?). Of course, when you have millions of employees, there will inevitably be some nut-jobs among them.[1] Also, I think you misunderstand the meaning of externalities. From Wikipedia:[2] In economics, an externality, or transaction spillover, is a cost or benefit not transmitted through prices that is incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit. As far as I know, everyone part of the iPhone manufacturing process agreed so. Disclosure: I live a few blocks away from the Foxconn's plant in Shenzhen. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9006988/Mass-suicide-protest-at-Apple-manufacturer-Foxconn-factory.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9006988... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- wagerlabs 15y ago
  That must be the Longhua plant (Foxcon City) because no way I would want to live near the Guanlan one ;-). I spent a few weeks at the Guanlan iPhone factory at the end of 2010, debugging my device driver.
  - olalonde 15y ago
    Yes, near the Longhua plant ;)
teyc 15y ago
Actually, the FoxConn workers are making a lot more than their parents, and in fact are sending money home. I don't think you could say that of anybody in US, even a university graduate. The real problem in US is everything is expensive.
prophetjohn 15y ago
I think it's fair to include in our assessment how much these people would be suffering if these jobs weren't available. People take these jobs because they're the best thing available. They definitely suck when compared to our sit-in-a-chair-programming-all-day jobs, but would they even be able to afford to live without them? The solution is probably for these places to voluntarily start providing better working conditions and pay, which is unlikely to happen. However, I can't say with certainty that taking those jobs away from them and bringing them back here is going to provide a net gain for those people.
- forensic 15y ago
  You're so timid. The solution is obvious. Take wealth from the privileged superrich and use it to educate the poor. And I mean actual education, like khans academy, not fake education, like American public schools (politically correct obedience training) When 1% of the population hordes 50% of the wealth through nepotism, cronyism, monopolies, oligopolies, and bribing politicians, the solution to poverty is obvious. Guillotines. The markets can't be free when bribery, nepotism, cronyism, monopoly and oligopoly dominate them. Free the markets from the cartels of privilege.
  - temphn 15y ago
    Communism and the French Revolution didn't solve poverty. Quite the opposite, China was far more brutal and unequal under communism than capitalism. And Salman Khan can do Khan Academy because he was able to become super rich from Wall Street.
    - forensic 15y ago
      Who said anything about communism? The French revolution was ultimately a huge success that robbed countless monarchies of their power. Instead of requiring teachers to slave away on wall street before they teach, we should just pay them for every pupil who goes to them. Let's organize society based on simple scientific observations instead of having faith in the superrich masters of the world. Your faith in the superrich reminds me of an evangelical Christian having faith in their god regardless of how bankrupt that god has shown himself to be. It's time society arranged itself according to the wisdom of the scientists instead of the authoritarian superrich and their evangelical slaves.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Let me see if I understand you. You'd rather people be unemployed than have the opportunity to work a (by your standards) crappy job? What do you intend to do with all the people who get taxed out of a job? What about people who work crappy jobs in China but aren't employed by multinationals? Shall we tax them too? That's going to be kind of a hard sell, isn't it? I mean, the Chinese people might have this crazy idea they ought to decide what's allowed to happen in China.

zmj 15y ago
Why does everyone need a job? There are many people without jobs already. We call them 'retirees'.
- tsotha 15y ago
  Sure, but retirees had many decades to save up enough money to survive without a job. Since poverty is the default condition of human existence, i.e. all you have to do to be poor is not do anything to make money, most people will need some kind of gainful employment.
  - forensic 15y ago
    The direct cause of poverty is the police. A naturally born human goes into the forest and hunts for deer to eat. Then the police arrest him and throw him in jail. He was not born poor; he had a forest full of food. The police made him poor. In this way what you are calling natural poverty is actually a creation of civilization. The natural state of a human is that he may live off the land. Civilization has broken this connection in favor of the state and so the state has an obligation to the human to provide him with a fair chance. Note that the superrich or even the middle class are not born in poverty. Rather they are born with silver spoons in their mouth. How is that justice? These wealthy families then engage in nepotism to ensure the wealth of their offspring at the expense of the poor. This is deeply unmeritocratic and is injustice. For these upper classes to then turn around and tell the poor to be enslaved or die is the height of evil.
    - tsotha 15y ago
      >In this way what you are calling natural poverty is actually a creation of civilization. The natural state of a human is that he may live off the land. Civilization has broken this connection in favor of the state and so the state has an obligation to the human to provide him with a fair chance. No, actually. Civilization is what is necessary to avoid periodic famines. There's a reason the hunter-gather existence fell out of favor. It's only an idyllic lifestyle to people who haven't really thought about it. On the subject of the state having an obligation to provide a "fair chance", well, a fair chance isn't handouts, no matter how much other people may have. We have a system in which you can apply your talents to accumulate resources. It works very well. >Note that the superrich or even the middle class are not born in poverty. Rather they are born with silver spoons in their mouth. How is that justice? Is it justice that some people are better looking than others, or have better health? Is it justice that some people find a compatible mate and others don't? It's not the state's job to dispense "justice" - if it was I'd have a hot girlfriend. Even the court system isn't there to dispense justice - it's there to carry out the law. >These wealthy families then engage in nepotism to ensure the wealth of their offspring at the expense of the poor. Nepotism doesn't mean what you think it means. The wealthy families invest their money in an effort to stay wealthy, that much is true. But the side effect is poor people get wealthier, not poorer. >This is deeply unmeritocratic and is injustice. For these upper classes to then turn around and tell the poor to be enslaved or die is the height of evil. That's a little hyperbolic. "Enslaved"? Who's enslaved? A job is a free exchange - you get money for the work you do. If you don't like it do something else. That's not slavery, that's just life.
      - anthonyb 15y ago
        > Civilization is what is necessary to avoid periodic famines. There's a reason the hunter-gather existence fell out of favor. It's only an idyllic lifestyle to people who haven't really thought about it. Not actually true. Most hunter-gatherers were better fed and healthier than people living in cities - they worked for a couple of hours a day gathering food. It fell out of favour because city dwellers were eventually able to fortify and outproduce on the better land, forcing everyone else to the outskirts.
forensic 15y ago
Scarcity is a myth. There is plenty of food and shelter for everyone. If there are no jobs then take the wealth from the superrich and use it to feed the poor. Human life trumps property rights. The superrich job creators are not creating jobs. Time we took their money and put it to better use.
- tsotha 15y ago
  >Scarcity is a myth. There is plenty of food and shelter for everyone. But only because people have incentives to produce food and shelter. Take away those incentives and there will certainly be scarcity. >If there are no jobs then take the wealth from the superrich and use it to feed the poor. Human life trumps property rights. No it doesn't. Or rather, you can't have a functioning economy without property rights, and then you'll have millions starving. We've been down this road, so this shouldn't be a point of contention. It's no coincidence China's economy didn't start growing until they junked all that silly Marxist claptrap and started to respect property rights. I just have to ask - how old are you? I don't see how anyone could have reached middle age and hold these opinions.
  - forensic 15y ago
    There is a happy medium between outright fucking communism and outright corporate fascism. The superrich acquired their wealth through illegitimate means: nepotism, cronyism, bribery, monopoly, oligopoly, war-mongering, and all sorts of predatory scams. Money acquired through illegitimate means is illegitimate and anti-meritocratic. Property rights do not apply to those who distort markets for their own benefit or avoid competing in the marketplace by creating a cartel or bribing a politician. Superrich who engage in this behaviour are making themselves bigger than the market and bigger than the state, they are making themselves into autocrats, aristocrats, plutocrats, tyrants, slave-holders. China is a slave state dominated by unmeritorious Party cronies and their nepotism. Chinese workers are slaves. The proper response to slavery is rebellion and liberation. Humans are obligated to provide for themselves, not to be enslaved by psychopathic businessmen and broken economic systems. When CEOs award themselves $100million salaries and golden parachutes they are engaging in cronyism and oligopoly. The free market no longer holds sway and this is immoral. Money gained through these methods is not private property, it is stolen goods. Anyone who distorts a market or corners a market is an enemy of the public and forfeits their property.

olalonde 15y ago

Those Foxconn workers would be worse off without their job (otherwise, why not quit?). Of course, when you have millions of employees, there will inevitably be some nut-jobs among them.[1] Also, I think you misunderstand the meaning of externalities. From Wikipedia:[2] In economics, an externality, or transaction spillover, is a cost or benefit not transmitted through prices that is incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit. As far as I know, everyone part of the iPhone manufacturing process agreed so. Disclosure: I live a few blocks away from the Foxconn's plant in Shenzhen. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9006988/Mass-suicide-protest-at-Apple-manufacturer-Foxconn-factory.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9006988... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
wagerlabs 15y ago
That must be the Longhua plant (Foxcon City) because no way I would want to live near the Guanlan one ;-). I spent a few weeks at the Guanlan iPhone factory at the end of 2010, debugging my device driver.
- olalonde 15y ago
  Yes, near the Longhua plant ;)

teyc 15y ago

Actually, the FoxConn workers are making a lot more than their parents, and in fact are sending money home. I don't think you could say that of anybody in US, even a university graduate. The real problem in US is everything is expensive.

prophetjohn 15y ago

I think it's fair to include in our assessment how much these people would be suffering if these jobs weren't available. People take these jobs because they're the best thing available. They definitely suck when compared to our sit-in-a-chair-programming-all-day jobs, but would they even be able to afford to live without them? The solution is probably for these places to voluntarily start providing better working conditions and pay, which is unlikely to happen. However, I can't say with certainty that taking those jobs away from them and bringing them back here is going to provide a net gain for those people.

forensic 15y ago
You're so timid. The solution is obvious. Take wealth from the privileged superrich and use it to educate the poor. And I mean actual education, like khans academy, not fake education, like American public schools (politically correct obedience training) When 1% of the population hordes 50% of the wealth through nepotism, cronyism, monopolies, oligopolies, and bribing politicians, the solution to poverty is obvious. Guillotines. The markets can't be free when bribery, nepotism, cronyism, monopoly and oligopoly dominate them. Free the markets from the cartels of privilege.
- temphn 15y ago
  Communism and the French Revolution didn't solve poverty. Quite the opposite, China was far more brutal and unequal under communism than capitalism. And Salman Khan can do Khan Academy because he was able to become super rich from Wall Street.
  - forensic 15y ago
    Who said anything about communism? The French revolution was ultimately a huge success that robbed countless monarchies of their power. Instead of requiring teachers to slave away on wall street before they teach, we should just pay them for every pupil who goes to them. Let's organize society based on simple scientific observations instead of having faith in the superrich masters of the world. Your faith in the superrich reminds me of an evangelical Christian having faith in their god regardless of how bankrupt that god has shown himself to be. It's time society arranged itself according to the wisdom of the scientists instead of the authoritarian superrich and their evangelical slaves.