2 ms·

>It's getting to the point where every realistic path to success is rooted in gambling/chance. I don't see how that's true? If you're well educated in somethin

by ericd 3y ago

>It's getting to the point where every realistic path to success is rooted in gambling/chance. I don't see how that's true? If you're well educated in something useful and you're conscientious, there are a lot of corporate jobs that pay more than enough to sock away a good amount of savings, especially if you're willing to stay frugal. And if you're not particularly well educated in the college sense, but are willing to work hard, good tradespeople are in incredibly high demand. But certainly, some sectors have become more difficult to make your way in. In terms of investing/gambling, the Buffett method of buying solid companies that make things that people need at a reasonable price is still much more reliable than hopping on the latest hype train. The hordes of WSB/GME bagholders would have been much better off just buying into Berkshire and then doing something more productive with their time. But I guess that's less fun than chanting "apes together strong" and imagining that you're sticking it to the hedge funds. Anyway, I hope we can channel some of this disaffection and anger into getting a carbon tax passed, with a rebate and border adjustment. In addition to being the best hope I see against climate change, it will likely make local manufacturing more competitive, and therefore give people who want to do those kinds of jobs more leverage to demand better pay. And since the rich are responsible for much more carbon generation than the poor, an equal rebate should leave the poor ahead even despite the inflation it would cause, and help reduce wealth inequality.

xracy 3y ago
> I don't see how that's true? https://www.brookings.edu/articles/stuck-on-the-ladder-wealth-mobility-is-low-and-decreases-with-age/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/stuck-on-the-ladder-wealt... ^ This is real easy to look up. Google "Wealth/social Mobility" and you can find articles about how sticky it is. People who are poor, stay poor. People who are rich, stay rich. There's a lot of data about this. Taxing people is definitely the way to do this. IDK why you think a carbon tax would have any effect on this (we should absolutely do a carbon tax, just this isn't what it's solving). Wealth tax would be the thing to do for this.
- ericd 3y ago
  That’s a different type of wealth mobility than I usually see - usually low wealth mobility is saying that if your parents are poor, then you’re unlikely to change that for yourself. But this seems to be saying something much weaker - that the older you are, the less likely you are to change your status. Which, yeah, most peoples’ path gets more and more set over time. I’m not sure that’s something we should be trying hard to change? The goal is usually to make it so people have a shot at determining their own path, which this doesn’t seem to say isn’t the case. Just saying that a carbon tax would be inherently redistributive, and also give lower income people more negotiating power. And more importantly, short of an energy breakthrough that makes fossil fuel uncompetitive, it’s the best hope we have against climate change. Most people generally really dislike wealth taxes. They’re inherently intrusive.
  - xracy 3y ago
    I realized that you are assuming we can properly attribute carbon with a carbon tax. I think this would be a hard problem for the IRS and they would be much better able to associate wealth to folks using a wealth tax. You have to directly tax what you want to discourage. Indirect almost never works unless you have a strong understanding of the system.
    - ericd 3y ago
      Well, I don’t want to discourage wealth, I want to discourage carbon emissions. It’s not a tax on people, you attribute carbon by tacking the tax on new carbon entering the carbon cycle (fossil fuels) at the time of extraction or importation. That adds to the inputs cost of everything that’s fossil-fuel intensive, and the price increase should flow through to the end consumer. For things that are manufactured in countries without an equivalent tax, you do what’s called a border adjustment, essentially a carbon-intensity-based tariff, and to encourage countries to jump onboard with their own carbon tax, and not attempt to disadvantage your manufacturing, you make it a pessimistic estimate. And you can make it revenue neutral (and redistributive) by dividending out all revenue equally, to help offset the price increases. If someone’s carbon footprint is lower than average, they end up ahead.

by ericd 3y ago

xracy 3y ago

> I don't see how that's true? https://www.brookings.edu/articles/stuck-on-the-ladder-wealth-mobility-is-low-and-decreases-with-age/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/stuck-on-the-ladder-wealt... ^ This is real easy to look up. Google "Wealth/social Mobility" and you can find articles about how sticky it is. People who are poor, stay poor. People who are rich, stay rich. There's a lot of data about this. Taxing people is definitely the way to do this. IDK why you think a carbon tax would have any effect on this (we should absolutely do a carbon tax, just this isn't what it's solving). Wealth tax would be the thing to do for this.

ericd 3y ago
That’s a different type of wealth mobility than I usually see - usually low wealth mobility is saying that if your parents are poor, then you’re unlikely to change that for yourself. But this seems to be saying something much weaker - that the older you are, the less likely you are to change your status. Which, yeah, most peoples’ path gets more and more set over time. I’m not sure that’s something we should be trying hard to change? The goal is usually to make it so people have a shot at determining their own path, which this doesn’t seem to say isn’t the case. Just saying that a carbon tax would be inherently redistributive, and also give lower income people more negotiating power. And more importantly, short of an energy breakthrough that makes fossil fuel uncompetitive, it’s the best hope we have against climate change. Most people generally really dislike wealth taxes. They’re inherently intrusive.
- xracy 3y ago
  I realized that you are assuming we can properly attribute carbon with a carbon tax. I think this would be a hard problem for the IRS and they would be much better able to associate wealth to folks using a wealth tax. You have to directly tax what you want to discourage. Indirect almost never works unless you have a strong understanding of the system.
  - ericd 3y ago
    Well, I don’t want to discourage wealth, I want to discourage carbon emissions. It’s not a tax on people, you attribute carbon by tacking the tax on new carbon entering the carbon cycle (fossil fuels) at the time of extraction or importation. That adds to the inputs cost of everything that’s fossil-fuel intensive, and the price increase should flow through to the end consumer. For things that are manufactured in countries without an equivalent tax, you do what’s called a border adjustment, essentially a carbon-intensity-based tariff, and to encourage countries to jump onboard with their own carbon tax, and not attempt to disadvantage your manufacturing, you make it a pessimistic estimate. And you can make it revenue neutral (and redistributive) by dividending out all revenue equally, to help offset the price increases. If someone’s carbon footprint is lower than average, they end up ahead.