4 ms·
> Herein lies the problem with the job creators argument. It is not fundamentally wrong, but it is wrong for the current level of inequality. We are past the op
by sageikosa 14y ago
> Herein lies the problem with the job creators argument. It is not fundamentally wrong, but it is wrong for the current level of inequality. We are past the optimum and, for society and the economy to gain efficiency, inequality must be reduced.
Are you suggesting we get rid of the unemployed? That would certainly increase "society efficiency", I think (not sure how we measure that again). But if we want to reduce society to numbers, its easier to get larger swings in variables if we have smaller population sets to work with. We don't have to get rid of everybody to meet optimal efficiency numbers, because the process of getting rid of people will definitely provide job opportunities for others.
- civilian 14y agoYeahhh, I don't think that's what he was suggesting. You were proving Godwin's Law, right?
- sageikosa 14y agoNo. Since he's advocating chucking morality out the window, I can only assume he had something special and immoral planned (which largely went unexplicitly stated). The most efficient isn't to spread a limited wealth over a large number of people, but to reduce the number of people with little wealth. After all, since we've thrown out the concept of society as a means to protect principles of justice for individuals, we can surely afford to sacrifice some individuals for those lucky enough to be left in the selected set. But you're right, he was probably only suggesting theft.
- sergiosgc 14y agoI suggested nothing of the sort. Your comment is a perfect example of the need to discuss inequality outside of the moral framework. Just for reference, in terms of efficiency, you'd want every available worker producing added value. Unless your definition of "get rid" is deport or kill, having unemployment worsens efficiency.