6 ms·

I see you're getting downvoted, but you are absolutely right. If the wages for job X in location Y are too low to be affordable, people will either relocate or

by jmckib 12y ago

I see you're getting downvoted, but you are absolutely right. If the wages for job X in location Y are too low to be affordable, people will either relocate or find a new job, causing the wages for job X in location Y to increase. I don't see a good reason to interfere with this process.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
There is a simple reason: human beings are not fungible. The economy should serve people, not the other way around.
- jmckib 12y ago
  I think you missed the point. I am arguing that a union would benefit bus drivers at the expense of all other people.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  And your proposed solution is what? let's replace "Bay Area" with something else with limited land: "Hawaii". Imagine Hawaii is the next place everyone wants to live. A billion people want to live there in fact (choose any number that makes you comfortable believing it's not simply a "build more housing units" problem), some who have already been there a long time, some who haven't. This drives the cost of living up. Some people now can't afford to live there. Some of these folks have been there a long time. Some of them have not. What solution is there to this problem other than "somebody doesn't get to live in Hawaii"?
QuantumChaos 12y ago
I appreciate you and DannyBee's comments. It is disheartening to me that basic economics is treated here as right wing propaganda. Mainstream economics won against all other theories academically. Yet many otherwise educated people are unaware of fundamentals such as the welfare theorems (or dismiss them out of hands with "muh frictions").
- jmckib 12y ago
  Thanks! Here's my economic explanation for why people don't understand economics or have intelligent political opinions in general: there's just no incentive to. Understanding economics is hard, and for the individual there's really no penalty for not understanding it. This is why you have otherwise brilliant people who just don't seem to understand basic supply and demand. Not saying this is true in every case, some people just have a different opinion of the tradeoffs involved, e.g. they're willing to accept slower economic growth in exchange for less creative destruction. My hope is that this becomes less and less true as people become more mobile. Imagine if you could just teleport to a political jurisdiction that is more aligned with your opinions. Suddenly, the penalty for not understanding economics could be very high.
  - QuantumChaos 12y ago
    Have to disagree with you there. Educated people tend to be well informed and hold sensible opinions on global warming, vaccination, and education (and often hold silly opinions on nutrition, even though there is a very strong incentive). Economics is unique as something where people disdain the mainstream. One notable difference (you can see it in this thread) is that people assume economists are somehow different from other academics. That academics in general can be trusted, but economists are sellouts. What they miss is that there is no significant difference between Economics as a field, and other fields. They get paid slightly more, but otherwise the journals, professional organizations, tenure committees, etc. are exactly the same. There is literally no point where the capitalist comes along with bags of money for his obedient intellectual servants. The real reason people don't accept the mainstream is that it is very dismal. It says that your revealed preference proves that you value a cup of coffee in every morning over the life of an African (since you could donate that money to life saving charities). It says that inequality can't be fully ironed out because some people are more productive than others. It says that there is no way to shuffle around interest rates, bank accounts, etc. and make everyone better off. It says that there is no easy way to make the world better, because the free market has already maxed out the easy gains. Personally, I think that the best way to encourage people to be more open to the mainstream, is to tell the other side of the store. Economics is also uplifting. It says that when you work for a company, you are creating value, and that that value can and does help people other than yourself (through the tax system). I also believe that tech has very large positive externalities (especially once you understand that taking people's jobs isn't an externality). Finally, it enables people to embrace the positive, self-affirming aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, without going to extremes. I do feel guilty that I don't do more for the people who are worst off. But at least I can enjoy my money, and my life, without feeling guilty that I'm driving some artist out of the current trendy area.

by jmckib 12y ago

TeMPOraL 12y ago

There is a simple reason: human beings are not fungible. The economy should serve people, not the other way around.

jmckib 12y ago
I think you missed the point. I am arguing that a union would benefit bus drivers at the expense of all other people.
DannyBee 12y ago
And your proposed solution is what? let's replace "Bay Area" with something else with limited land: "Hawaii". Imagine Hawaii is the next place everyone wants to live. A billion people want to live there in fact (choose any number that makes you comfortable believing it's not simply a "build more housing units" problem), some who have already been there a long time, some who haven't. This drives the cost of living up. Some people now can't afford to live there. Some of these folks have been there a long time. Some of them have not. What solution is there to this problem other than "somebody doesn't get to live in Hawaii"?

QuantumChaos 12y ago

I appreciate you and DannyBee's comments. It is disheartening to me that basic economics is treated here as right wing propaganda. Mainstream economics won against all other theories academically. Yet many otherwise educated people are unaware of fundamentals such as the welfare theorems (or dismiss them out of hands with "muh frictions").

jmckib 12y ago
Thanks! Here's my economic explanation for why people don't understand economics or have intelligent political opinions in general: there's just no incentive to. Understanding economics is hard, and for the individual there's really no penalty for not understanding it. This is why you have otherwise brilliant people who just don't seem to understand basic supply and demand. Not saying this is true in every case, some people just have a different opinion of the tradeoffs involved, e.g. they're willing to accept slower economic growth in exchange for less creative destruction. My hope is that this becomes less and less true as people become more mobile. Imagine if you could just teleport to a political jurisdiction that is more aligned with your opinions. Suddenly, the penalty for not understanding economics could be very high.
- QuantumChaos 12y ago
  Have to disagree with you there. Educated people tend to be well informed and hold sensible opinions on global warming, vaccination, and education (and often hold silly opinions on nutrition, even though there is a very strong incentive). Economics is unique as something where people disdain the mainstream. One notable difference (you can see it in this thread) is that people assume economists are somehow different from other academics. That academics in general can be trusted, but economists are sellouts. What they miss is that there is no significant difference between Economics as a field, and other fields. They get paid slightly more, but otherwise the journals, professional organizations, tenure committees, etc. are exactly the same. There is literally no point where the capitalist comes along with bags of money for his obedient intellectual servants. The real reason people don't accept the mainstream is that it is very dismal. It says that your revealed preference proves that you value a cup of coffee in every morning over the life of an African (since you could donate that money to life saving charities). It says that inequality can't be fully ironed out because some people are more productive than others. It says that there is no way to shuffle around interest rates, bank accounts, etc. and make everyone better off. It says that there is no easy way to make the world better, because the free market has already maxed out the easy gains. Personally, I think that the best way to encourage people to be more open to the mainstream, is to tell the other side of the store. Economics is also uplifting. It says that when you work for a company, you are creating value, and that that value can and does help people other than yourself (through the tax system). I also believe that tech has very large positive externalities (especially once you understand that taking people's jobs isn't an externality). Finally, it enables people to embrace the positive, self-affirming aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, without going to extremes. I do feel guilty that I don't do more for the people who are worst off. But at least I can enjoy my money, and my life, without feeling guilty that I'm driving some artist out of the current trendy area.