4 ms·

Can't we reasonably argue that there is a psychological, emotional or social cost in having some people much worse off than others?

lutusp 14y ago
Certainly, but that's not the difficulty. The difficulty is not in stating the problem, but imagining trying to solve it. Problem: some will suffer emotionally and psychologically by being underemployed or unemployed. Solution: There isn't one. Welcome to reality. At one extreme, we have a negative utopia run by a techno-elite that designs, builds and installs an army of robots to relieve everyone of dull, repetitive, boring jobs, and thereby produces an unequal distribution of wealth even more extreme than what is true at present. At the other, we have another negative utopia in which no on goes wanting, resources are distributed according to Marxist ideals (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs). I think the second has already been tried, and failed, and I don't think the automation of labor will change the outcome. Between the negative utopias, we have some version of reality, without the ability or the will to force any extreme solution onto the public. We'll just muddle along and adjust to the future, to the degree that we can foresee, and deal with, its effects.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
I wouldn't describe some people suffering from envy as "tragic". Similarly, if a bunch of racists feel anger because black people can now eat at the same diner as them, I think the word "tragic" would be the wrong word.
- foobarqux 14y ago
  The argument was that the example given wasn't necessarily a Pareto improvement, even if one was trying to put aside issues of social justice by invoking economics.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Assuming that the open source version is at least as good as a doctor, how is it not a Pareto improvement? "Social justice" is a typically poorly defined, loftily written way of replacing "I'm jealous" with "it's not faaaiir".
    - foobarqux 14y ago
      Because, as I said "there is a psychological, emotional or social cost in having some people much worse off than others". In order to invoke Pareto optimality you must define utility functions and you can justify essentially any policy by omitting costs and externalities in those functions.
wisty 14y ago
There's lots of critics of the current US healthcare system who think so. Jerry on $30k a year (without insurance) currently posts pictures of his spots to 4chan, and get's told "it's cancer, you're gonna die", "cut it off", "no prob, it's nothing", and even less useful suggestions.

lutusp 14y ago

Certainly, but that's not the difficulty. The difficulty is not in stating the problem, but imagining trying to solve it. Problem: some will suffer emotionally and psychologically by being underemployed or unemployed. Solution: There isn't one. Welcome to reality. At one extreme, we have a negative utopia run by a techno-elite that designs, builds and installs an army of robots to relieve everyone of dull, repetitive, boring jobs, and thereby produces an unequal distribution of wealth even more extreme than what is true at present. At the other, we have another negative utopia in which no on goes wanting, resources are distributed according to Marxist ideals (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs). I think the second has already been tried, and failed, and I don't think the automation of labor will change the outcome. Between the negative utopias, we have some version of reality, without the ability or the will to force any extreme solution onto the public. We'll just muddle along and adjust to the future, to the degree that we can foresee, and deal with, its effects.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

I wouldn't describe some people suffering from envy as "tragic". Similarly, if a bunch of racists feel anger because black people can now eat at the same diner as them, I think the word "tragic" would be the wrong word.

foobarqux 14y ago
The argument was that the example given wasn't necessarily a Pareto improvement, even if one was trying to put aside issues of social justice by invoking economics.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Assuming that the open source version is at least as good as a doctor, how is it not a Pareto improvement? "Social justice" is a typically poorly defined, loftily written way of replacing "I'm jealous" with "it's not faaaiir".
  - foobarqux 14y ago
    Because, as I said "there is a psychological, emotional or social cost in having some people much worse off than others". In order to invoke Pareto optimality you must define utility functions and you can justify essentially any policy by omitting costs and externalities in those functions.

wisty 14y ago

There's lots of critics of the current US healthcare system who think so. Jerry on $30k a year (without insurance) currently posts pictures of his spots to 4chan, and get's told "it's cancer, you're gonna die", "cut it off", "no prob, it's nothing", and even less useful suggestions.