3 ms·

> So new jobs and high pay are bad? They're bad for the people who don't have them, like teachers, restaurant workers, and custodial staff...people who are als

> So new jobs and high pay are bad? They're bad for the people who don't have them, like teachers, restaurant workers, and custodial staff...people who are also "workers".

refurb 2y ago
Don't have what? Teacher, restaurant workers and custodial staff have jobs. But regardless, your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less? Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" because deprecates existing things? If so, how far does this go? Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience such good results? This seems like an "anti-progress" mindset.
- dventimi 2y ago
  > Don't have what? new jobs and high pay > your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less My argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad for the people who don't have them. Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? > Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who don't share in the benefits of that progress. Are you going to argue otherwise? > Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience such good results? No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you?
  - refurb 2y ago
    > Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? Yes > No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who don't share in the benefits of that progress. Are you going to argue otherwise? But people do share in them, even if they themselves don't get a new job and higher pay. The most obvious one is taxes - these new jobs create new taxes that go to the government to be spent on society. Beyond that, isn't it better if your fellow citizen who was unemployed has a job now? Or if they switched from a lower paying job to a higher one? That's a societal benefit. > No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you? You missed my scenario. If a new drug comes out, is it bad that someone benefits when the people who didn't get the new drug (because it wasn't available) don't benefit?
    - dventimi 2y ago
      >> Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? > Yes This ought to be good. Let's hear it. > these new jobs create new taxes that go to the government to be spent on society Wealthy people pay a lower tax rate than non-wealthy people do. That means the tax system is a net transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. Try again. > Beyond that, isn't it better if your fellow citizen who was unemployed has a job now? Not if my fellow citizen outbids me on an apartment, no, it isn't. > You missed my scenario No, I presented a different scenario. Sorry for not playing along
      - refurb 2y ago
        > Wealthy people pay a lower tax rate than non-wealthy people do. That means the tax system is a net transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. Try again. Please provide a source. Youre also ignoring the fact that even with a lower rate (which you haven’t proven), they may still pay more overall which benefits society. > Not if my fellow citizen outbids me on an apartment, no, it isn't. So you’re prefer if your fellow citizen was left unemployed, rather than you being outbid on an apartment? It sounds like you’d prefer to keep poor people down rather than have to spend more time finding housing. Isn’t that selfish? > No, I presented a different scenario. Sorry for not playing along Why would you refuse to give your thoughts?
        dventimi 2y ago
        > Please provide a source. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-omb-cea-report-billionaires-pay-an-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-of-just-8-2/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-... > Youre also ignoring the fact that even with a lower rate (which you haven’t proven), they may still pay more overall which benefits society. Yes. I'm ignoring it because it's not relevant. Think about it. Suppose for the sake of argument 400 people took 99% of the output of the nation (~$23 trillion in 2023), and since we're supposing, let's be generous to your argument and suppose those 400 pay a higher tax rate of say 40%. That's ~$9 trillion in taxes or roughly double what the IRS actually collected. Sounds pretty good, right! Except...that leaves the remaining 300 million with a per capita income of less than $1000 per year. Would you prefer this supposed situation in which the richest 400 pay even more in total taxes (and tax rate) than they actually do in reality? > So you’re prefer if your fellow citizen was left unemployed, rather than you being outbid on an apartment? It sounds like you’d prefer to keep poor people down rather than have to spend more time finding housing. Isn’t that selfish? Wrongo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma "left unemployed" is not the only alternative. There are others. "Employed but with an income the same as mine" is one. Given the choice between my fellow citizens taking home so much more than I do such that I can't afford to live in my city, and my fellow citizens taking home the same as I do such that I can afford to live in my city, I would choose the latter. Would you choose the former? > Why would you refuse to give your thoughts? Why did you stop beating your wife? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question I haven't refused to give my thoughts on your scenario. I chose not to elaborate on your scenario. I did "give my thoughts", however. No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you? Do you that first word "No" there? That's me giving my thoughts on the "yes/no" question you'd asked. The rest is me asking for your thoughts on a different scenario, which as far as I'm aware you've not given. Would you say you "refuse" to give your thoughts on this question?

> So new jobs and high pay are bad? They're bad for the people who don't have them, like teachers, restaurant workers, and custodial staff...people who are also "workers".

refurb 2y ago

Don't have what? Teacher, restaurant workers and custodial staff have jobs. But regardless, your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less? Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" because deprecates existing things? If so, how far does this go? Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience such good results? This seems like an "anti-progress" mindset.

dventimi 2y ago
> Don't have what? new jobs and high pay > your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less My argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad for the people who don't have them. Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? > Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who don't share in the benefits of that progress. Are you going to argue otherwise? > Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience such good results? No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you?
- refurb 2y ago
  > Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? Yes > No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who don't share in the benefits of that progress. Are you going to argue otherwise? But people do share in them, even if they themselves don't get a new job and higher pay. The most obvious one is taxes - these new jobs create new taxes that go to the government to be spent on society. Beyond that, isn't it better if your fellow citizen who was unemployed has a job now? Or if they switched from a lower paying job to a higher one? That's a societal benefit. > No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you? You missed my scenario. If a new drug comes out, is it bad that someone benefits when the people who didn't get the new drug (because it wasn't available) don't benefit?
  - dventimi 2y ago
    >> Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them? > Yes This ought to be good. Let's hear it. > these new jobs create new taxes that go to the government to be spent on society Wealthy people pay a lower tax rate than non-wealthy people do. That means the tax system is a net transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. Try again. > Beyond that, isn't it better if your fellow citizen who was unemployed has a job now? Not if my fellow citizen outbids me on an apartment, no, it isn't. > You missed my scenario No, I presented a different scenario. Sorry for not playing along
    - refurb 2y ago
      > Wealthy people pay a lower tax rate than non-wealthy people do. That means the tax system is a net transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy. Try again. Please provide a source. Youre also ignoring the fact that even with a lower rate (which you haven’t proven), they may still pay more overall which benefits society. > Not if my fellow citizen outbids me on an apartment, no, it isn't. So you’re prefer if your fellow citizen was left unemployed, rather than you being outbid on an apartment? It sounds like you’d prefer to keep poor people down rather than have to spend more time finding housing. Isn’t that selfish? > No, I presented a different scenario. Sorry for not playing along Why would you refuse to give your thoughts?
      - dventimi 2y ago
        > Please provide a source. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-omb-cea-report-billionaires-pay-an-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-of-just-8-2/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/09/23/new-... > Youre also ignoring the fact that even with a lower rate (which you haven’t proven), they may still pay more overall which benefits society. Yes. I'm ignoring it because it's not relevant. Think about it. Suppose for the sake of argument 400 people took 99% of the output of the nation (~$23 trillion in 2023), and since we're supposing, let's be generous to your argument and suppose those 400 pay a higher tax rate of say 40%. That's ~$9 trillion in taxes or roughly double what the IRS actually collected. Sounds pretty good, right! Except...that leaves the remaining 300 million with a per capita income of less than $1000 per year. Would you prefer this supposed situation in which the richest 400 pay even more in total taxes (and tax rate) than they actually do in reality? > So you’re prefer if your fellow citizen was left unemployed, rather than you being outbid on an apartment? It sounds like you’d prefer to keep poor people down rather than have to spend more time finding housing. Isn’t that selfish? Wrongo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma "left unemployed" is not the only alternative. There are others. "Employed but with an income the same as mine" is one. Given the choice between my fellow citizens taking home so much more than I do such that I can't afford to live in my city, and my fellow citizens taking home the same as I do such that I can afford to live in my city, I would choose the latter. Would you choose the former? > Why would you refuse to give your thoughts? Why did you stop beating your wife? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question I haven't refused to give my thoughts on your scenario. I chose not to elaborate on your scenario. I did "give my thoughts", however. No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you? Do you that first word "No" there? That's me giving my thoughts on the "yes/no" question you'd asked. The rest is me asking for your thoughts on a different scenario, which as far as I'm aware you've not given. Would you say you "refuse" to give your thoughts on this question?