4 ms·

No, the bottom line is that people respond to incentives, and that politicians are too blind to notice even the most obvious of perverse incentives in whatever

No, the bottom line is that people respond to incentives, and that politicians are too blind to notice even the most obvious of perverse incentives in whatever schemes they happen to dream up.

briandon 14y ago
How about this for an incentive: Want your children to grow up in a developed country with a social safety net so that they won't trip over toothless senior citizens scavenging for recyclables in garbage bins to sell for spare change to pay for a place to sleep for the night? Great, then be a responsible entrepreneur and don't try to slither through every crack in every law designed to keep the society that your kids will grow up in healthy.
- planetguy 14y ago
  That's not how incentives work.
- hgsj700 14y ago
  The economic illiteracy on HN is a little baffling. The incentive to live in your utopia is apparently not sufficient enough for those entrepreneurs who are probably much more concerned about breaking even.
  - briandon 14y ago
    People running multiple 49-worker companies and opening satellite factories up in developing countries to avoid sharing profits with their workforce(s), having once-a-week meetings, and the like are struggling to break even? If you would like to see the terminal state of a laissez-faire society, you can visit Hong Kong. More luxury cars on the road than anywhere else you'll ever see and plenty of the toothless, recyclables-scavenging senior citizens that I referenced earlier as well. Hundreds of thousands of people living in literal wire mesh cages because that's all that they can afford. A wealth gap that yawns like a chasm. It's easy to advocate policies when you think that you'll never have to actually submit yourself to living in the society that those policies will ultimately create.
    - wlievens 14y ago
      I think the argument here is not that it's a bad idea to create a safety net state. The argument is that as long as no law is broken, there is no such thing as "exploiting a loophole". Politicians should just learn to design better laws with less loopholes.
      - dmix 14y ago
        The choice: 1) pay a couple lawyers $300k to minimize taxes 2) pay the government $1 million Both are legal. Choose one.
        wlievens 14y ago
        If the laws are drawn up well, then option (1) is in no sense unethical.
      - briandon 14y ago
        A: So you have three 49-person companies ... That's odd. B: I employ no more than 49 people in each of my companies and start new companies as necessary to avoid sharing profits with my employees, having to deal with worker councils, and the like. Playing corporate twister to evade the clear intent of laws sure seems like loophole exploitation to me. In addition to working around the intent of laws that empower workers, organized groups of business owners are constantly trying to overturn those laws and, in the meantime, discourage enforcement.
        wlievens 14y ago
        I think the problem is with "intent of laws". Laws should minimize the degree to which intent plays a role, because intent is subjective, and therefore subject to very expensive and wasteful litigation.
  - dsrguru 14y ago
    You're making it sound like every decision people make is a financial one. That's factually untrue. Most people make decisions on the combined basis of self-interest and their personal views on morality. There are plenty of things people could do to ruin the lives of other people that aren't technically illegal, and ruining other people's lives can have financial gain, especially if those other people are business competitors. Yet we don't do those things. Why? Because self-interest isn't the sole driving force behind human behavior. It's one component. So while I happen to agree in this specific case that taking advantage of these kinds of legal loopholes for personal gain is to be expected and that the incentives need to be changed, it seems ridiculous to call people economically illiterate for understanding that behavior is not determined solely by self-interest.
- CWuestefeld 14y ago
  slither through every crack in every law How are we supposed to ascertain the difference between a loophole that we should pretend not to notice, versus an engineered incentive, where the regulators are intentionally giving us a nudge to behave in that way?
  - briandon 14y ago
    How are we supposed to ascertain the difference between a loophole that we should pretend not to notice, versus an engineered incentive, where the regulators are intentionally giving us a nudge to behave in that way? Use empathy. (1.) Imagine that you are one of the people who are going to be affected by your decision. Better yet, imagine that your parent/spouse/child is the one going to be impacted. (2.) Next, assume that the law was crafted with the best interests of society at heart or, if it's a flawed law, try to reason out the intent assuming that the author was someone with empathy. (3.) Try to cause the greatest good or at least minimize the harm of the action that you're about to take.
    - gaius 14y ago
      I'm imagining the massive problem of youth unemployment in France because employers aren't willing to take the risk of a bad hire. How's that for empathy?
      - briandon 14y ago
        Think critically for a moment about how it came to be that you were able to parrot the talking point about the percentage of unemployed youth in France but are seemingly unaware that employers are free to fire new workers during multi-month trial/probation periods or why the living standard of the one-fifth of French youth who are unemployed at any given moment is higher than that enjoyed by fully-employed people in the same age group in developed countries where employees have far weaker protections. It's sad that it's so easy for the proverbial one percenters to get everyone else, who should know better, on board with their agenda. Rather than copy and paste, I refer you to: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3953883 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3953883
glanch 14y ago
How do you give business owners an incentive to pay more to the government than they already do?

No, the bottom line is that people respond to incentives, and that politicians are too blind to notice even the most obvious of perverse incentives in whatever schemes they happen to dream up.

briandon 14y ago

How about this for an incentive: Want your children to grow up in a developed country with a social safety net so that they won't trip over toothless senior citizens scavenging for recyclables in garbage bins to sell for spare change to pay for a place to sleep for the night? Great, then be a responsible entrepreneur and don't try to slither through every crack in every law designed to keep the society that your kids will grow up in healthy.

planetguy 14y ago
That's not how incentives work.
hgsj700 14y ago
The economic illiteracy on HN is a little baffling. The incentive to live in your utopia is apparently not sufficient enough for those entrepreneurs who are probably much more concerned about breaking even.
- briandon 14y ago
  People running multiple 49-worker companies and opening satellite factories up in developing countries to avoid sharing profits with their workforce(s), having once-a-week meetings, and the like are struggling to break even? If you would like to see the terminal state of a laissez-faire society, you can visit Hong Kong. More luxury cars on the road than anywhere else you'll ever see and plenty of the toothless, recyclables-scavenging senior citizens that I referenced earlier as well. Hundreds of thousands of people living in literal wire mesh cages because that's all that they can afford. A wealth gap that yawns like a chasm. It's easy to advocate policies when you think that you'll never have to actually submit yourself to living in the society that those policies will ultimately create.
  - wlievens 14y ago
    I think the argument here is not that it's a bad idea to create a safety net state. The argument is that as long as no law is broken, there is no such thing as "exploiting a loophole". Politicians should just learn to design better laws with less loopholes.
    - dmix 14y ago
      The choice: 1) pay a couple lawyers $300k to minimize taxes 2) pay the government $1 million Both are legal. Choose one.
      - wlievens 14y ago
        If the laws are drawn up well, then option (1) is in no sense unethical.
    - briandon 14y ago
      A: So you have three 49-person companies ... That's odd. B: I employ no more than 49 people in each of my companies and start new companies as necessary to avoid sharing profits with my employees, having to deal with worker councils, and the like. Playing corporate twister to evade the clear intent of laws sure seems like loophole exploitation to me. In addition to working around the intent of laws that empower workers, organized groups of business owners are constantly trying to overturn those laws and, in the meantime, discourage enforcement.
      - wlievens 14y ago
        I think the problem is with "intent of laws". Laws should minimize the degree to which intent plays a role, because intent is subjective, and therefore subject to very expensive and wasteful litigation.
- dsrguru 14y ago
  You're making it sound like every decision people make is a financial one. That's factually untrue. Most people make decisions on the combined basis of self-interest and their personal views on morality. There are plenty of things people could do to ruin the lives of other people that aren't technically illegal, and ruining other people's lives can have financial gain, especially if those other people are business competitors. Yet we don't do those things. Why? Because self-interest isn't the sole driving force behind human behavior. It's one component. So while I happen to agree in this specific case that taking advantage of these kinds of legal loopholes for personal gain is to be expected and that the incentives need to be changed, it seems ridiculous to call people economically illiterate for understanding that behavior is not determined solely by self-interest.
CWuestefeld 14y ago
slither through every crack in every law How are we supposed to ascertain the difference between a loophole that we should pretend not to notice, versus an engineered incentive, where the regulators are intentionally giving us a nudge to behave in that way?
- briandon 14y ago
  How are we supposed to ascertain the difference between a loophole that we should pretend not to notice, versus an engineered incentive, where the regulators are intentionally giving us a nudge to behave in that way? Use empathy. (1.) Imagine that you are one of the people who are going to be affected by your decision. Better yet, imagine that your parent/spouse/child is the one going to be impacted. (2.) Next, assume that the law was crafted with the best interests of society at heart or, if it's a flawed law, try to reason out the intent assuming that the author was someone with empathy. (3.) Try to cause the greatest good or at least minimize the harm of the action that you're about to take.
  - gaius 14y ago
    I'm imagining the massive problem of youth unemployment in France because employers aren't willing to take the risk of a bad hire. How's that for empathy?
    - briandon 14y ago
      Think critically for a moment about how it came to be that you were able to parrot the talking point about the percentage of unemployed youth in France but are seemingly unaware that employers are free to fire new workers during multi-month trial/probation periods or why the living standard of the one-fifth of French youth who are unemployed at any given moment is higher than that enjoyed by fully-employed people in the same age group in developed countries where employees have far weaker protections. It's sad that it's so easy for the proverbial one percenters to get everyone else, who should know better, on board with their agenda. Rather than copy and paste, I refer you to: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3953883 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3953883

glanch 14y ago

How do you give business owners an incentive to pay more to the government than they already do?