71–80 of 309 posts
Imagine if the current protests against inequality (and thereabouts) going on all around the world would be reported, scrutinized, and debated as much as when any of the established "enemies" have civil unrest. How quickly would things change?
Imagine if instead of people protesting against income inequality, they protested against value contribution inequality...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if instead of people protesting against income inequality, they protested against value contribution inequality...
What do you say to people who are protesting against income inequality because they benefit from it and know how unfair the whole thing is? Say I received a million $ from my father (that's income inequality, isn't it?) and now I'm saving all my work income because I can live on my capital gains from "gifts" and watch all my friends work harder and harder to try and earn few extra cents while I'm getting richer doing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most young people are paradoxically for unfettered immigration I'm not sure that is true.
The woke young programmers of the bay (and elsewhere) consider any form of border control racist. I've seen this queried for exceptions, eg for convicted rapists and the rabid blue hairs torn that suggestion apart as a 'racist straw man'.
> The woke young programmers of the bay (and elsewhere)
These are not the same.
The illusion that there is one thing called capitalism needs to go. Because of it, the discussion always goes to "oh, you think communism will be better? We will have gulags before the month is over!" Most people are unaware there are like 9 different schools of thought in economics, which complement each other. They might have heard of Keynesian and neo-liberal. Of all places, HN readers should know about Schumpeter…
In the US, it's less active protest and more things like slacking off heavily at work because it's a treadmill we can't win. We have absolutely no incentive to work hard when doing so doesn't materially affect income. We as a nation have basically told people "no, you can't have a comfortable life or save for retirement because your parents' generation still needs to get 10% annual growth to make their retirement mat…
> We have absolutely no incentive to work hard when doing so doesn't materially affect income. And you think that would improve under socialism or communism?
Suggesting two binary extremes and ignoring the possibility of a spectrum of outcomes in a multifaceted problem
We aren’t toddlers so try not use juvenile logic
In the US, it's less active protest and more things like slacking off heavily at work because it's a treadmill we can't win. We have absolutely no incentive to work hard when doing so doesn't materially affect income. We as a nation have basically told people "no, you can't have a comfortable life or save for retirement because your parents' generation still needs to get 10% annual growth to make their retirement mat…
Occupy Wallstreet did happen but it was torpedoed by identity politics, the establishment only permits fervent discussion about gender and skin color.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We have absolutely no incentive to work hard when doing so doesn't materially affect income. And you think that would improve under socialism or communism?
Since they didn’t say that you are presenting a false dilemma. Suggesting two binary extremes and ignoring the possibility of a spectrum of outcomes in a multifaceted problem We aren’t toddlers so try not use juvenile logic
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is immigration tied to lower wages? Searching for it yields rather the opposite.
You're a) expanding the labor pool with b) people willing to work for less money than the locals. How you think that doesn't drive down wages is beyond me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a free-market proponent who isn't 100% sold on all of the democratic socialism stuff, I don't understand how anyone can deny that having your literal physical well-being tied to your employment is not an enormous problem for anyone who values the efficient allocation of labor/capital (which should hopefully be everyone?) It's literally just a cash-equivalent (in that nearly every employer is going to provide a pla…
Could you rephrase that first paragraph without the triple negative? It sounds like you are saying that having your physical well-being tied to employment is good for efficient allocation of labor/capital, but I have some problems with this claim and I’d like to check that this is what you’re actually saying. The economic problem is that having well-being tied to employment pushes people towards employment short-term…
Also, having your health care, retirement and general well-being tied to a particular job reduces employee "freedom", which in his point of view is not efficient.