7 ms·

Of course. The only reason people work is because the expected value of their work maximizes their utility curve when compared to the opportunity costs. I go to

Of course. The only reason people work is because the expected value of their work maximizes their utility curve when compared to the opportunity costs. I go to work because I need money to live. I find employment by maximizing the pay I'm able to get conditional om my skillset and preferred job functions. But I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> But I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others. This is a good example of a "thought-terminating cliché"[0]. In this case, the statement assumes its own veracity, which makes it difficult to respond to in a discussion. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...
- gruez 3y ago
  Ironically by invoking "thought-terminating cliché", you are partaking in the very offense you accuse the parent of. Is it fair to redistribute wealth from people who are working, to give it to people who don't? There's plausible arguments for both sides, but rather than trying to argue for why we should, you drop a link to some fallacy on wikipedia and call it a day.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    > Is it fair to redistribute wealth from people who are working, to give it to people who don't? I kinda think you missed the point. This is actually just another one of those clichés. Surely you can see how this sort of communication doesn't promote a healthy discussion. Is there an argument that you want to make or are you just going to demand that someone argue against your cliché?
    - gruez 3y ago
      >I kinda think you missed the point. This is actually just another one of those clichés. Surely you can see how this sort of communication doesn't promote a healthy discussion. And sticking to calling out fallacies while failing to discuss the object level question is? >Is there an argument that you want to make or are you just going to demand that someone argue against your cliché? 1. if you look carefully I'm not the person that you originally accused of using "thought-terminating cliché" 2. You really haven't really presented any arguments for the original argument was a "thought-terminating cliché". All you did was assert that was the case and posted a wikipedia link.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        I am the original commentor. My intention was to form an assertion that could be disproved via a counterexample. Let me try again: Why should citizen A have to involuntarily transfer their private property gained through voluntary economic transactions to citizen B?
        tenebrisalietum 3y ago
        Why should citizen B defend citizen's A extreme wealth in a state of war? Citizen A's property ceases to be private without a maintained defense.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        National defense is a public good. It is permissible to tax for public goods (nonrivalous, nonexcludable). Welfare ia decidely not a public good. Apples to oranges.
        tenebrisalietum 3y ago
        National defense protects the public against external threats. Welfare protects the public againt poverty. Both benefit the public.
  - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
    Working parents transfer (some) wealth to non-working children so they can survive. Is that unfair?
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Not unfair. That is a voluntary transaction.
      - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
        I don't think it is, because if you don't feed your children, you'll probably be charged with a crime.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        Can we agree that shouldn't be the case? Or if we decide the state has a say in some capacity, you can give your children up if you don't want their burden?
mypastself 3y ago
Not sure how that was your takeaway from my comment. I was challenging the parent comment’s assertion that CEOs continuing to work after gaining riches implies that poor people would still seek out employment if they were given basic income.
shuntress 3y ago
> I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others First, this is an extremely toxic attitude. Second, do you really think that people living paycheck-to-paycheck in jobs that are just barely tolerable enough to keep them from quitting are "maximizing their utility curve when compared to the opportunity costs"? Much more likely is they are stuck at a low local maxima because they can't afford to spend 2 weeks looking for a job that would better fit their skillset and preferred job functions.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > Much more likely is they are stuck at a low local maxima because they can't afford to spend 2 weeks looking for a job that would better fit their skillset and preferred job functions. Yes, that is quite possible, and I believe my comment covered that possibility by constraining their poaition against the opportunity cost. In this case, the opportunity cost of working is not searching for another job. But if you can't afford food while searching for another job, obviously you should work. Hence! why I am a proponent of private charity. Under those same conditions, said person could go to their church, local org, etc. and see if anyone would be willing to assist them in a job search or while they did search. This solution is much preferable to me than involuntary theft of money from everyone to support a maybe chance of finding something else.
  - shuntress 3y ago
    Reorganizing the same systems under the control the church by dissolving the state is not an appropriate way to maintain a system of self-governance.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Not everything has to be under a chrurch. It was just the classic example. Plus it's not the reorganization of the same systems. I propose a completely voluntary system. It is more economically efficient than thr state run system.
tenebrisalietum 3y ago
> But I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others. Therefore inheritance should be illegal, because it potentially allows for the capability of spending stored productive capacity on a full life of leisure.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

> But I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others. This is a good example of a "thought-terminating cliché"[0]. In this case, the statement assumes its own veracity, which makes it difficult to respond to in a discussion. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...

gruez 3y ago
Ironically by invoking "thought-terminating cliché", you are partaking in the very offense you accuse the parent of. Is it fair to redistribute wealth from people who are working, to give it to people who don't? There's plausible arguments for both sides, but rather than trying to argue for why we should, you drop a link to some fallacy on wikipedia and call it a day.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > Is it fair to redistribute wealth from people who are working, to give it to people who don't? I kinda think you missed the point. This is actually just another one of those clichés. Surely you can see how this sort of communication doesn't promote a healthy discussion. Is there an argument that you want to make or are you just going to demand that someone argue against your cliché?
  - gruez 3y ago
    >I kinda think you missed the point. This is actually just another one of those clichés. Surely you can see how this sort of communication doesn't promote a healthy discussion. And sticking to calling out fallacies while failing to discuss the object level question is? >Is there an argument that you want to make or are you just going to demand that someone argue against your cliché? 1. if you look carefully I'm not the person that you originally accused of using "thought-terminating cliché" 2. You really haven't really presented any arguments for the original argument was a "thought-terminating cliché". All you did was assert that was the case and posted a wikipedia link.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      I am the original commentor. My intention was to form an assertion that could be disproved via a counterexample. Let me try again: Why should citizen A have to involuntarily transfer their private property gained through voluntary economic transactions to citizen B?
      - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
        Why should citizen B defend citizen's A extreme wealth in a state of war? Citizen A's property ceases to be private without a maintained defense.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        National defense is a public good. It is permissible to tax for public goods (nonrivalous, nonexcludable). Welfare ia decidely not a public good. Apples to oranges.
        tenebrisalietum 3y ago
        National defense protects the public against external threats. Welfare protects the public againt poverty. Both benefit the public.
- tenebrisalietum 3y ago
  Working parents transfer (some) wealth to non-working children so they can survive. Is that unfair?
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Not unfair. That is a voluntary transaction.
    - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
      I don't think it is, because if you don't feed your children, you'll probably be charged with a crime.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        Can we agree that shouldn't be the case? Or if we decide the state has a say in some capacity, you can give your children up if you don't want their burden?

mypastself 3y ago

Not sure how that was your takeaway from my comment. I was challenging the parent comment’s assertion that CEOs continuing to work after gaining riches implies that poor people would still seek out employment if they were given basic income.

shuntress 3y ago

> I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others First, this is an extremely toxic attitude. Second, do you really think that people living paycheck-to-paycheck in jobs that are just barely tolerable enough to keep them from quitting are "maximizing their utility curve when compared to the opportunity costs"? Much more likely is they are stuck at a low local maxima because they can't afford to spend 2 weeks looking for a job that would better fit their skillset and preferred job functions.

hellojesus 3y ago
> Much more likely is they are stuck at a low local maxima because they can't afford to spend 2 weeks looking for a job that would better fit their skillset and preferred job functions. Yes, that is quite possible, and I believe my comment covered that possibility by constraining their poaition against the opportunity cost. In this case, the opportunity cost of working is not searching for another job. But if you can't afford food while searching for another job, obviously you should work. Hence! why I am a proponent of private charity. Under those same conditions, said person could go to their church, local org, etc. and see if anyone would be willing to assist them in a job search or while they did search. This solution is much preferable to me than involuntary theft of money from everyone to support a maybe chance of finding something else.
- shuntress 3y ago
  Reorganizing the same systems under the control the church by dissolving the state is not an appropriate way to maintain a system of self-governance.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Not everything has to be under a chrurch. It was just the classic example. Plus it's not the reorganization of the same systems. I propose a completely voluntary system. It is more economically efficient than thr state run system.

tenebrisalietum 3y ago

> But I don't see why people with lower skillsets or utility curves that weigh leisure more highly than work activities should be allowed to leech off the productive capacities of others. Therefore inheritance should be illegal, because it potentially allows for the capability of spending stored productive capacity on a full life of leisure.