Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#91

Post by conanbatt »

js8 wrote: post #89
conanbatt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As this conversation goes, its nature, it lacks any concept of morality. Why is a rock a rock is not a moral question, and it doesn't merit one in my opinion. I think you have to reveal what is the moral question you have about preventing that natural result, and I can try to answer why such a thing doesn't bother me at all.

The OP asked: "Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why" You responded: "In general the supervisor or manager provides more value than an employee under his command." I asked: "why do you think this is the case" And I got the pretty much textbook economics reply. But I am not asking about what economists think, I wonder about what you think.…

I think the one that pays the manager believes its more valuable, and that if the value wasn't there, the ones that doesn't pay managers will make a killing and soon infect the rest with that idea.

In general I see people getting what people are willing to give them, even when its an 'unfair' situation (i.e. the son of the business man getting preferred treament).

The opposite, people getting what they have by taking it from people unwillingly, which I find aberrant, is seldom what happens in this scenario, and more what happens with proposed solutions around income inequality.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#92

Post by mcny »

conanbatt wrote: post #91
js8 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP asked: "Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why" You responded: "In general the supervisor or manager provides more value than an employee under his command." I asked: "why do you think this is the case" And I got the pretty much textbook economics reply. But I am not asking about what economists think, I wonder about what you think.…

I think the one that pays the manager believes its more valuable, and that if the value wasn't there, the ones that doesn't pay managers will make a killing and soon infect the rest with that idea. In general I see people getting what people are willing to give them, even when its an 'unfair' situation (i.e. the son of the business man getting preferred treament). The opposite, people getting what they have by taking…

> I think the one that pays the manager believes its more valuable, and that if the value wasn't there, the ones that doesn't pay managers will make a killing and soon infect the rest with that idea.

> In general I see people getting what people are willing to give them, even when its an 'unfair' situation (i.e. the son of the business man getting preferred treament).

> The opposite, people getting what they have by taking it from people unwillingly, which I find aberrant, is seldom what happens in this scenario, and more what happens with proposed solutions around income inequality.

Are you talking about taxes or ransom? I am all for progressive tax rates and as a poor person I do not support tax cuts for the wealthy (just wanted to clarify that). That being said, we need to fight income inequality just like we need to fight against "nature" in every other scenario. Someone talked about "information asymmetry" a while back. I think all companies should be required to make compensation (salary, bonus etc) information public for all employees and contractors. I don't see how we can get rid of income inequality as long as there is something "they" know that "we" don't.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#93

Post by maxxxxx »

Helmet wrote: post #70
maxxxxx wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What do you mean? Have you considered the relationship between income and the "rate the economy grows"?" I have considered that. In my view wages of the middle class should grow at the same rate the top incomes grow. To me that would indicate a healthy and long term sustainable economy.

In my view wages of the middle class should grow at the same rate the top incomes grow. What does this mean? What do you mean should and who is in the "top"? By should, you mean we should peg "middle-class" wages to some index that will track the growth of "the top" - thereby forcing privately owned business owners to pay what the government tells them to? And what if they can't, they just have to close up shop? Can…

You know exactly what I mean. You just want to take my point to a ridiculous level to kill the argument.

Over the last 30 years the average salary of top management has grown a lot while the salaries of most other works have stagnated. If a company is successful the salaries of all employees should grow at the same rate. The CEO is already making more money so he is already rewarded more for his role.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#94

Post by conanbatt »

mcny wrote: post #92
conanbatt wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the one that pays the manager believes its more valuable, and that if the value wasn't there, the ones that doesn't pay managers will make a killing and soon infect the rest with that idea. In general I see people getting what people are willing to give them, even when its an 'unfair' situation (i.e. the son of the business man getting preferred treament). The opposite, people getting what they have by taking…

> I think the one that pays the manager believes its more valuable, and that if the value wasn't there, the ones that doesn't pay managers will make a killing and soon infect the rest with that idea. > In general I see people getting what people are willing to give them, even when its an 'unfair' situation (i.e. the son of the business man getting preferred treament). > The opposite, people getting what they have by…

> Are you talking about taxes or ransom?

Some people would ask what is the difference. Im not quite there, but sympathetic to the idea.

> I am all for progressive tax rates and as a poor person I do not support tax cuts for the wealthy (just wanted to clarify that)

This is a technically problematic issue that i think the public does not quite understand.

There is a concept called the statuatory incidence of taxes and the economic incidence of taxes. The first one is who signs the check to the government, the second one is who ends up paying for it. So if for example someone said that "now employers will pay 100% of the social security tax)", it might look to the untrained eye, that taxes are lowered on employees. But actually, it will reduce wages just as much, and in the end, the employee is still paying for it.

Progressive taxation has this debate in economics: the excess wealth of the rich always get invested, which increase competition for labor, which rises wages. (very classical economics). At the same time, when the government seizes that money, a huge chunk is eaten out by the machinery. For example, some goes to the military, some goes to the government machination, some goes to the collector.

Add to that, that now the wealthy will spend money to avoid the tax, which reduces the amount you will tax in comparison to what would have been spent or invested.

I'm not sure if it technically holds true, and this is a debate amongst economists, but the thinking that taxing the rich will help the poor is not as simple at its stated, and I strongly opposed the mentality of "that guy has to much, lets shoot him".

> I think all companies should be required to make compensation (salary, bonus etc) information public for all employees and contractors

I think its even easier for the IRS to do it, since they already collect that data, and it will also inform on the effective tax rates people are paying, leading to a more informed society. I am all up for public salaries, after all ,mine was already forcefully disclosed in the US as an immigrant, lets get the rest in.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#95

Post by sn9 »

brightball wrote: post #47
imgabe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think of it like oxygen. We don't pay for the air we breathe. You don't need an "air" utility to pipe breathable air into your house and have to pay them a monthly bill (yet anyway). You just breathe. You want to breathe harder? Go ahead. Everyone on Earth could run wind sprints all day and we wouldn't run out of air. It replenishes itself naturally. Once we can do the same with potable water, food, shelter, we'll…

That's really the question though: Who produces the food, water, shelter? What are the required incentives for them to continue dedicating their scarce time to continuing to produce it? What are the incentives or rewards for them to invest in the infrastructure, equipment, etc for them to create that? Who maintains it and how are they compensated for doing so? What benefit do they gain for committing their time to th…

Scarcity of energy is the real bottleneck.

Once the cost of production/storage/transmission of energy has gone down to effectively zero, everything else falls into place.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#96

Post by pault »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #53
pault wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For better or worse, production workers are seen as fungible and managers (ideally) have deep domain expertise and knowledge of the company's operations that allow them to multiply the efficiency of the people working under them. I am aware that in reality this is not always the case. Edit: In your car analogy, the management aren't the engine; they're the driver.

And yet when you need the car to move people or cargo from one place to another, then suddenly the driver becomes as fungible (sometimes even more) as the car itself. I don't think there's really any moral justification for managers earning more than their subordinates. It's all power and scarcity at play. Managers get more because there is less of them and they are in position to ask for more.

In this (stretched to breaking) analogy, drivers aren't necessarily fungible since most of them will drive the car off a cliff, and the great ones will turn a Ford into a Ferrari.
Post reply on HN