robertthull23

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by robertthull23 4y ago

   Correct, once the labor pool is expanded to include those people, the value of the work is re-adjusted, since value is relative to all options available. I did mention income being a rough approximation, implicitly acknowledging unpaid work
2. 2.▲
   by robertthull23 4y ago

   Why do you frame work as a reward and not a chore? Yes, contributers are better than freeloaders. By your logic, a dog walker is equivalent to a doctor, and given only enough resources to save one of their lives, we should toss a coin.
3. 3.▲
   by robertthull23 4y ago

   ?woH
4. 4.▲
   by robertthull23 4y ago

   That's an insightful way to think about it. I just realized we're operating under large scale Feudalism? Poor people work 1 day/week (or so inefficiently that it should be considered 1 day/week), and therefore should be
5. 5.▲
   by robertthull23 4y ago

   Yes, those are choices.
6. 6.▲
   by robertthull23 4y ago

   Continued: Poor person: "I don't buy from McDonalds because it's unfair their prices as a percentage of income are higher for me than for rich people." That's how retarded it sounds to me hearing people talk about t
7. 7.▲
   by robertthull23 4y ago

   Focusing on the percent of income paid in taxes is a trick to convince poor people to vote to raise taxes. Income = Rough approximation of your contribution to society. Income Taxes = Penalty for contributing, but also another contribution