41–50 of 68 posts
I wonder if there are companies out there working on innovative ways to fill this space. After all, not _everything_ will be a coffee shop...right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two type of people: Those who are self-motiviated, and those who aren't. Or rather, there's a continuum. Most people aren't that self-motivated so they mostly do nothing. Those who are, will continue to contribute to society regardless if they got paid or not.
They will choose where they contribute and will modulate the risks they take as a function of pay-off, though. These aren't things you see hitting instantly, but it affects decisions at the margin and eventually nickels add up.
A society can have totally different ways of compensating someone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those who do produce the wealth unproductive others live on will decide to not bother (look up "go Galt"). Has this ever happened? Has anyone at any wealth level ever simply stopped making money because he was upset about taxes? I hear a lot of small-time sole proprieters talk about it, but I've never heard reliable reports of it actually happening.
Has anyone at any wealth level ever simply stopped making money because he was upset about taxes? Yes, it happened to Ronald Reagan. When the top tax rate was 90% (he was an actor at the time), he chose to make only two movies/year. He saw little point in making more movies since he wouldn't get paid for it. http://toomuchonline.org/the-tax-that-turned-ronald-reagan-r...
Meanwhile, a true artist, would make movies no matter what the top tax rate was, because he had the urge to. Artists have worked for nothing for ages, in order to create.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guaranteed income. If the economy doesn't require everyone's labor, a bunch of people just shouldn't work, so make sure they can eat and you're done. I don't understand all this American obsession with jobs for everyone.
At least one prominent American, Thomas Paine (of the American revolution) advocated a guaranteed minimum income for everyone in his pamphlet Agrarian Justice, which was a real fascinating read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice The US Social Security administration keeps a full text of the pamphlet online: http://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent last year living next door to the mall. I went there for food, clothing, and some candles and that's about it. I live 1 block from a Best Buy and still buy all my electronics online, and I am happy to replace the local bookstore which died with my kindle. Thanksgiving was the last time I went into a grocery store (Peapod). Gas is just about the only thing I can't buy online and buying an electric car is becom…
The malls aren't for you, they're for people--predominately women--who shop recreationally.
I have no numbers to back this up, so if anyone does I would be very interested in seeing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those who do produce the wealth unproductive others live on will decide to not bother (look up "go Galt"). Has this ever happened? Has anyone at any wealth level ever simply stopped making money because he was upset about taxes? I hear a lot of small-time sole proprieters talk about it, but I've never heard reliable reports of it actually happening.
pg has a great essay on this: http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html . A quick summary is that yes, people probably do choose not to do certain kinds of work when taxes are too high, but not in the way that Bill O'Reilly tends to advertise it - it's unlikely that someone is going to quit a high-paying job because their marginal tax rate went up a point. However, if you're undertaking an endeavor with a 5% chance o…
Still a bit different from the classic "going galt," though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There can't be a billionaire without millions of wage slaves Except for where there can. Economic productivity is nowhere close to decoupling from population mass yet, but when it does, you won't need low or semi-skilled workers. There is a careful calculus happening at every level comparing the productivity of a human versus machines (and other humans). To deny that competitive spirit, à la Greece or Italia, builds…
Except for where there can. Economic productivity is nowhere close to decoupling from population mass yet, but when it does, you won't need low or semi-skilled workers. You don't need workers to have productivity, but you need people not being rich to have riches. And those people need to be fed, clothed, etc. And they also need money, to be able to buy things and services, else you cannot sell them. So, you either t…
If you define rich to mean "I have way more than I will ever need" then there is ultimately no reason that everyone can't be rich. It just takes a while to get there.
Personally I'd prefer the latter. Eliminating poverty makes everyone better off.
This post raises a bigger question for the US: What will we do with all of the vacant retail space that is abandoned as shopping continues to go online? I wonder if there are companies out there working on innovative ways to fill this space. After all, not _everything_ will be a coffee shop...right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There can't be a billionaire without millions of wage slaves Except for where there can. Economic productivity is nowhere close to decoupling from population mass yet, but when it does, you won't need low or semi-skilled workers. There is a careful calculus happening at every level comparing the productivity of a human versus machines (and other humans). To deny that competitive spirit, à la Greece or Italia, builds…
Except for where there can. Economic productivity is nowhere close to decoupling from population mass yet, but when it does, you won't need low or semi-skilled workers. You don't need workers to have productivity, but you need people not being rich to have riches. And those people need to be fed, clothed, etc. And they also need money, to be able to buy things and services, else you cannot sell them. So, you either t…
You need people not being rich to have riches
Echoing another point made in this thread, but wealth differentials doesn't mean you need to have poor people. The least well off person in a society may not have everything they want - most people don't and probably should not, if we want aspiration and ambition to have a place in the future - but they'll have their basic human rights fulfilled (a roster that gains mass with economic development).