Do you believe "I cannot come into work because I cannot afford gas" will be viable?

[Rasulis]

The problem with this "should" is that you're dealing with a century of urban design that's already been done "wrong", and in many cases, it's not reversible, not without tearing a hell of a lot down. Like, at least 30% of an existing city, and that's on the low end. You need to insert a lot of residential complexes into what's currently commercial space, and a lot of commercial space into residential areas. Suburbs need to largely vanish, at least in the single-detached-home form, in favor of higher density, shrinking the city borders in the process (the more sprawl, the less walkable, and the more difficult to establish mass effective and efficient mass transit). This also isn't something you can do piecemeal; not really, not if you're expecting the problem to be solved in less than another century or so.

You can do small development projects that include mixed-use zoning, greater density, and street design that encourages walkability, but that's gonna improve things in that neighbourhood, not the city as a whole. And there's still greater issues with mass transit that operate at the city level which can't properly be addressed proactively, but have to reactively serve the city as it currently exists.

I agree we should have dense, urbanized cities with minimal suburb sprawl and a strong focus on walkability and minimizing personal vehicle use, but we're already deep down the rabbit hole in the Americas, and it's gonna cost about as much to fix that as it cost to build these cities the way they already are.

My wife and I have always been fascinated by the concept of 15-minute city. In fact, it is one of the main factors, after living next to a National Forest for 6 years, we decided to relocate to Inner Sunset, San Francisco.

[Tentim]

Sounds like a great opportunity for economic revival by dumping a ton of money into public works projects vis a vis the New Deal, quite frankly.

I mean the reality of the situation will be multiple families living in a single apartment to afford rent or renting a bed for certain hours of a day.

The problem is the people feeling the pinch are those that are not really in any kind of demand by society and you are not going to convince a lot of useful people to lower their standard of living drastically for them.

[Elegiac]

I mean the reality of the situation will be multiple families living in a single apartment to afford rent or renting a bed for certain hours of a day.

The problem is the people feeling the pinch are those that are not really in any kind of demand by society and you are not going to convince a lot of useful people to lower their standard of living drastically for them.

Nice strawman. A transition away from car culture and suburban-style city planning is not an argument for "drastically lowering anyone's standard of living", however.

Also, the notion that there are 'useless' and 'useful' people is kind of stupid since we do not live in a the sort of society where someone's economic value is contingent on their social contribution.

[Endus]

Also, the notion that there are 'useless' and 'useful' people is kind of stupid since we do not live in a the sort of society where someone's economic value is contingent on their social contribution.

Nearly the entire globe is run on consumer-based economies. The primary contributions people have to economic value and growth is by virtue of being consumers, not laborers. Labor only matters in evaluating whether the economy can meet consumer demands; if it can, then more labor is not needed, but more consumers are always beneficial (at least, until you hit resource limits).

A lot of this "useful people" stuff looks at laborers as "useful" and that labor is required to "justify" your contribution to society, but acting as a consumer is what actually achieves those goals, in practice.

[BeepBoo]

A lot of this "useful people" stuff looks at laborers as "useful" and that labor is required to "justify" your contribution to society, but acting as a consumer is what actually achieves those goals, in practice.

"You should be so honored that someone needs you to do something for them and be willing to do it for them just because of that reason!"
Nope! I only do things for people who do things for me. Fuck your needs, I have my own I want filled and am looking for laborers to fulfill them. I don't expect something from nothing, or something from just existing, and I recognize people I engage with have their own wants, so I negotiate trade.

Ergo, the value IS on the labor side of the house, not the consumer side. You're only as valuable as what you can do for others if you want something from them.

[Elegiac]

"You should be so honored that someone needs you to do something for them and be willing to do it for them just because of that reason!"
Nope! I only do things for people who do things for me. Fuck your needs, I have my own I want filled and am looking for laborers to fulfill them. I don't expect something from nothing, or something from just existing, and I recognize people I engage with have their own wants, so I negotiate trade.

Ergo, the value IS on the labor side of the house, not the consumer side. You're only as valuable as what you can do for others if you want something from them.

Say you don't understand the difference between macro and microeconomics without saying it. In macro terms the value is on the consumer side, at least in modern western economies. Which is precisely why supply side economics doesn't work.

But even if that weren't the case, the people who get rewarded in our societies are not the people who work the hardest anyway.

[Endus]

"You should be so honored that someone needs you to do something for them and be willing to do it for them just because of that reason!"

This has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about. You're talking about the economic value of labor, whereas I was pointing out that no modern economy is driven by the value of labor.

Nope! I only do things for people who do things for me. Fuck your needs, I have my own I want filled and am looking for laborers to fulfill them.

And?

We're not talking about microeconomics.

If you can't tell the difference, then you don't deserve a seat at the table because you don't have any clue what you're talking about.

I don't expect something from nothing, or something from just existing

Not something anyone argued, actually.

Though on that note, why shouldn't people get a decent life just by virtue of existing? We can afford to provide that. Why does human suffering and hardship hold such value to you?

Ergo, the value IS on the labor side of the house, not the consumer side. You're only as valuable as what you can do for others if you want something from them.

That's . . . not how the economy works. At all. It isn't how labor is valued, it isn't how products are valued, it isn't how property is valued. It's just not how modern economics works, at any scale, micro or macro.

[BeepBoo]

Say you don't understand the difference between macro and microeconomics without saying it. In macro terms the value is on the consumer side, at least in modern western economies. Which is precisely why supply side economics doesn't work.

It's both. Both sides are required. Micro feeds macro. keynesian economics can DIAF.

But even if that weren't the case, the people who get rewarded in our societies are not the people who work the hardest anyway.

Not sure what you're on about, but it's not about who works hardest. Never has been. Some people get so big their money does all the work for them simply because they get to function as a bank and offload all their responsibilities onto other people. To even get to that point definitely requires generations worth of work, though.

I'd personally love to be so successful I could bequeath my kid a life of never having to work. That means I worked hard enough for two peoples' lives. That's fantastic.

- - - Updated - - -

This has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about. You're talking about the economic value of labor, whereas I was pointing out that no modern economy is driven by the value of labor.

And if one society's economy relies entirely on import without any production themselves... how successful do you think their economy would be?

Not something anyone argued, actually.

I know your thoughts on this matter, so I just skipped to the end since we've had this discussion before.

Though on that note, why shouldn't people get a decent life just by virtue of existing? We can afford to provide that. Why does human suffering and hardship hold such value to you?

Ah. There it is. And the answer is the same every time: most people who matter wouldn't just do shit for someone without getting anything back in return. I know I wouldn't. I don't care that I can generate enough value to float 10 bums. I don't want to, and I won't be party to that. I'd rather keep all my resources and effort for my own selfish endeavors.

That's . . . not how the economy works. At all. It isn't how labor is valued, it isn't how products are valued, it isn't how property is valued. It's just not how modern economics works, at any scale, micro or macro.

Everything is valued based on supply and demand and what types of trade can be struck from those desires vs what resources people have access to. Everything starts at that baseline and scales up from there. Just because you can handwave a lot of that stuff in macro models doesn't mean it has no actual impact.

[Endus]

It's both. Both sides are required. Micro feeds macro. keynesian economics can DIAF.

As opposed to what? Because supply-side economics have been pretty thoroughly and objectively debunked as non-functional, at this point.

https://equitablegrowth.org/neither-...ide-economics/

The same can't be said for Keynesian economics, which has stood the test of time.

Not sure what you're on about, but it's not about who works hardest. Never has been. Some people get so big their money does all the work for them simply because they get to function as a bank and offload all their responsibilities onto other people. To even get to that point definitely requires generations worth of work, though.

This is trivially false. Literally all it takes is "currently having enough wealth to be a member of the owner class". It doesn't take any labor.

Which just further exposes the lie behind trying to tie one's standard of living to labor, in the first place.

I'd personally love to be so successful I could bequeath my kid a life of never having to work. That means I worked hard enough for two peoples' lives. That's fantastic.

But you can't do that. You made an ideological claim that one should only gain financial support by virtue of laboring to earn it. And then you violated that principle with your own hypothetical child.

Shows how much you don't actually believe the rhetoric you're trying to push.

The only difference between your admission and what we're proposing is that with us, we're suggesting we make sure everyone's kids don't have to work. Why isn't that even more fantastic?

- - - Updated - - -

And if one society's economy relies entirely on import without any production themselves... how successful do you think their economy would be?

See, you're deeply confused, because I never suggested there wouldn't be any production. I said the economy's success was not predicated on production, primarily.

It would really help if you had a basic grasp of economics theory before spouting off.

Ah. There it is. And the answer is the same every time: most people who matter wouldn't just do shit for someone without getting anything back in return. I know I wouldn't. I don't care that I can generate enough value to float 10 bums. I don't want to, and I won't be party to that. I'd rather keep all my resources and effort for my own selfish endeavors.

Again, you're talking about sociopathically selfish microeconomics, not macroeconomics.

This is what I mean by you not having any grasp of basic concepts in economics theory.

Everything is valued based on supply and demand and what types of trade can be struck from those desires vs what resources people have access to. Everything starts at that baseline and scales up from there. Just because you can handwave a lot of that stuff in macro models doesn't mean it has no actual impact.

Prices aren't based solely on supply and demand. You need to stop getting your economics theory from youtube videos aimed at children. It's impossible to have a discussion with you, because you don't understand the field or the terminology.

[Shadowferal]

"You should be so honored that someone needs you to do something for them and be willing to do it for them just because of that reason!" Nope! I only do things for people who do things for me. Fuck your needs, I have my own I want filled and am looking for laborers to fulfill them. I don't expect something from nothing, or something from just existing, and I recognize people I engage with have their own wants, so I negotiate trade. Ergo, the value IS on the labor side of the house, not the consumer side. You're only as valuable as what you can do for others if you want something from them.

Majority of workers who quit a job in 2021 cite low pay, no opportunities for advancement, feeling disrespected

[BeepBoo]

As opposed to what? Because supply-side economics have been pretty thoroughly and objectively debunked as non-functional, at this point.

Right. I suppose every theme park in existence just sprung up due to people writing scrooge mcduck begging him to build one. As opposed to them just being built and people coming as a result.

https://equitablegrowth.org/neither-...ide-economics/

I'm not reading anything from a site called "equitablegrowth".

This is trivially false. Literally all it takes is "currently having enough wealth to be a member of the owner class". It doesn't take any labor.

Correction: it took labor to get there. Someone, somewhere, at some point in time had immensely valuable labor and decided to gift their many normal-life's worth to someone else. The labor was done and rewarded or continued to be rewarded because it was, in fact, just _that_ valuable.

But you can't do that. You made an ideological claim that one should only gain financial support by virtue of laboring to earn it. And then you violated that principle with your own hypothetical child.

Again, labor can have more value than you can feasibly spend in a lifetime. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with capitalizing on that and using it to create your own empire.

See, you're deeply confused, because I never suggested there wouldn't be any production. I said the economy's success was not predicated on production, primarily.

Again, it's in equal parts. You can have all the demand in the world, but production has to be able to match it. All you're arguing is chicken or egg. I'm arguing both happen and are equally valuable on the scale of driving forces. Yes, everything ultimately boils down to "someone wanted something."

Prices aren't based solely on supply and demand. You need to stop getting your economics theory from youtube videos aimed at children. It's impossible to have a discussion with you, because you don't understand the field or the terminology.

What else would they be based on? Willingness to pay is just one form of demand. Ability to pay is also an influencer of demand. If you're going to boil everything down to demand side economics, I get to boil down everything to some form of influence on demand and supply for the pricing.

Unless you're talking about governmental policy interference with things like setting a price ceiling through regs, but that's not economics. That's government fucking with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Majority of workers who quit a job in 2021 cite low pay, no opportunities for advancement, feeling disrespected

Literally any time I quit a job was because I wanted more money, and I've never been hurting for money. That doesn't mean 0% of the economy is predicated on labor. We have to have the ability to create the supply via labor to fulfill a demand or the demand doesn't matter. Case-in-point: pretty sure everyone wants a cure for cancer and the first person to MAKE one (an actual cure) is going to be a billionaire, but what's stopping us? Surely you don't think it's a lack of demand.

[Edge-]

Literally any time I quit a job was because I wanted more money, and I've never been hurting for money.

Reminder that one persons anecdotal experience does not make their experience the rule, or norm.

Case-in-point: pretty sure everyone wants a cure for cancer and the first person to MAKE one (an actual cure) is going to be a billionaire, but what's stopping us? Surely you don't think it's a lack of demand.

Yeah, but would curing cancer be more profitable than treating it? I'll bring out this 'ol article once more - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/gold...ess-model.html

Yes, it's Goldman doing a research report vs. a biotech firm, but do you think these aren't conversations had at the same firms that keep selling Insulin at upwards of a 30x markup on the price, despite none of them having extensive R&D costs to cover as the drug was invented in the 1920's, aren't having these same discussions?

[Endus]

Right. I suppose every theme park in existence just sprung up due to people writing scrooge mcduck begging him to build one. As opposed to them just being built and people coming as a result.

That's not what "supply-side economics" talks about.

But even in that context, if there isn't a pre-existing demand for something like that theme park, that theme park will fail. If your pet theory were correct, no business could fail to sell its product; the act of creating that product would inherently create demand. That's simply, obviously, not how anything works, and it's pretty spectacularly silly as an idea in the first place.

I'm not reading anything from a site called "equitablegrowth".

And? I don't have to convince you of anything, and you can maintain whatever bubble you want to maintain for yourself.

But that won't lead to you having valid, defensible arguments. And I don't need to convince you that you're wrong. We're speaking to our shared audience, here. I'm convincing them that you're wrong.

Debate's never about changing the opponent's mind. I don't know where that misconception started.

Correction: it took labor to get there. Someone, somewhere, at some point in time had immensely valuable labor and decided to gift their many normal-life's worth to someone else. The labor was done and rewarded or continued to be rewarded because it was, in fact, just _that_ valuable.

This is all, again, trivially false. All it takes is inheritance, or exploitation, or possibly, winning a massive lottery or the equivalent. No one is becoming a billionaire through their own hard work. Literally no one.

Sure, if you're able to exploit a worker class so that the product of their labor goes to you rather than the workers, you can make billions off their work, but that's not your labor.

Again, labor can have more value than you can feasibly spend in a lifetime. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with capitalizing on that and using it to create your own empire.

Missing the point and pretending you didn't directly contradict your own claims.

You claimed no one should be supported, they should labor for their support.
You then said you'd want your children to be supported without laboring.

That's a direct ideological contradiction. You're engaging in hypocrisy.

Again, it's in equal parts. You can have all the demand in the world, but production has to be able to match it. All you're arguing is chicken or egg. I'm arguing both happen and are equally valuable on the scale of driving forces. Yes, everything ultimately boils down to "someone wanted something."

Demand drives production. If there's demand, you can escalate production fairly easily to meet that demand; you're selling out with ease and garnering premium prices, so you've got plenty of revenue with which to expand. If you've hit a resource cap, obviously, no demand in the world can boost production.

Meanwhile, production cannot create demand for a product no one wants. Your wares stay on the shelves and producing even more just ends up with your product being landfilled and you out of business.

Production's important, yes, but it always is driven by demand. Claims of the reverse have been tested and, in every case, failed.

What else would they be based on? Willingness to pay is just one form of demand. Ability to pay is also an influencer of demand.

To set pricing? Size of market, competition, complementary products, consumer spending capacity/income, demographic shift, stability/predictability of economic futures, and that's off the top of my head.

And no, "ability to pay" is not an "influencer on demand". There's a significant poorly-met demand for housing in North America right now. Prices have escalated beyond most first-time buyers' ability to spend. The demand remains, but the low supply of lower-income housing means many consumers have to be satisfied with something else, like renting an apartment or even sharing with roommates. The demand still exists, supply is not changing to address it, and those people just continue to not be homeowners, despite their demand. Their ability to pay does not translate to a lack of demand, and that unmet demand not triggering a surge in supply demonstrates that those two factors aren't the only ones at play.

If you're going to boil everything down to demand side economics, I get to boil down everything to some form of influence on demand and supply for the pricing.

It's not about "boiling everything down", at any point. It's about useful patterns and models that describe actual economic activity.

Supply-side theories do not.

Unless you're talking about governmental policy interference with things like setting a price ceiling through regs, but that's not economics. That's government fucking with it.

Again, trivially false, regulatory action is absolutely a component of economics. Are you seriously trying to argue that the entire field of economics theory willfully ignores regulatory reality in favor of wildly delusional fantasies about a world free of regulation? That's literally insane and you can't possibly be serious.

[Edge-]

But even in that context, if there isn't a pre-existing demand for something like that theme park, that theme park will fail.

There's no noodle shop near me, which sucks. One actually opened up last year. Man, it's their market! Surely them being the only noodle shop they'll do great, right? It's in the main shopping center near other successful restaurants and businesses, so it's not like it's in the ass-end of nowhere.

They seem to have closed last month, because there's a new restaurant there. Which sucks, because I kept meaning to go try it out but never did. Guess I wasn't the only one, and that demand doesn't just magically exist to satisfy the supply.

[Tentim]

Nearly the entire globe is run on consumer-based economies. The primary contributions people have to economic value and growth is by virtue of being consumers, not laborers. Labor only matters in evaluating whether the economy can meet consumer demands; if it can, then more labor is not needed, but more consumers are always beneficial (at least, until you hit resource limits).

A lot of this "useful people" stuff looks at laborers as "useful" and that labor is required to "justify" your contribution to society, but acting as a consumer is what actually achieves those goals, in practice.

Then people are flourishing simply by consuming and buying power is sky rocketing no?

I can understand what you are trying to say. It is just so fundamentally wrong and short sighted its difficult to even refute seriously.

If you have a population constantly putting in less value then they take out you are not going to have the miraculous post scarcity society that would allow that level of consumption.

[Endus]

Then people are flourishing simply by consuming and buying power is sky rocketing no?

When things like stimulus packages or minimum wage hikes boost consumer power? Observably so, yes. People are still not "flourishing", because such measures are not implemented strongly at all in the USA, due to the continued trickle-down propaganda nonsense and that neither political party really cares that much about the worker class; both are strongly supportive of the owner class. So of course there's little long-term gain, when Keynesian systems are only ever used as temporary measures in periods of crisis (where they do produce gains.)

I can understand what you are trying to say. It is just so fundamentally wrong and short sighted its difficult to even refute seriously.

And yet, you cannot rationally explain why, and you made no attempt to.

If you have a population constantly putting in less value then they take out you are not going to have the miraculous post scarcity society that would allow that level of consumption.

See, this is abject nonsense. There is no "putting in value" and "taking out value" in the equation, in the first place. Consumption is not a "withdrawal" from the economy, it is the economy. Plus, the effects of labor in creating productive capacity are only relevant in terms of meeting production demands from consumers.

Look at it this way. Imagine there's a future where 100% of productive labor can be done by AI machinery which is self-repairing and self-manufacturing. The human labor costs to manage the entire economy boil down to the few technicians needed to keep that machinery running, and hypothetically, even that could be automated. So, once there is zero human labor required to maintain production, there is zero "putting in value", but the machinery continues to punch out consumer products and provide trade goods to those who need it, how is that economy functioning? By your argument, there's zero "input", and yet, output continues to scale up.

The reason it works is because your base premise there is just incorrect. That's not how economies function. There is absolutely no expectation or requirement that every consumer contribute labor to the economy. They contribute value to the economy by virtue of being consumers, alone. Labor only matters in meeting that demand. The goal of any economy should be to minimize labor force participation while maintaining consumer supply.

Where does the value come from for children's products? Children don't provide labor to the economy. And yet, the children's goods economy doesn't collapse, because what you describe does not make any sense.

And the moment you admit their parents can pay for goods their children need, you've admitted the error your base argument made. Namely, that there's absolutely no need for all participants in an economy to labor.

Every time we test a basic income system, the outcomes are incredibly positive, economically and socially. And yet, those tests largely get shut down prematurely, because capitalists absolutely panic at the idea that their model could be compared, knowing it'll expose the grift at the core of the system.

[BeepBoo]

no business could fail to sell its product; the act of creating that product would inherently create demand.

CAN and WOULD are two different things. I don't suppose that there's no such thing as failure. My point is that supply can supersede demand as the driving factor. Again, all the demand in the world won't get met if labor isn't there to fulfill it.

All it takes is inheritance, or exploitation, or possibly, winning a massive lottery or the equivalent. No one is becoming a billionaire through their own hard work. Literally no one.

Your vision of what "work" is is extremely narrow. Not only are you ignoring the initial setup part that is the actual labor you're thinking of, you're entirely discounting the labor to negotiate with people those contracts of "exploitation" and the pyramid below. Just because it's not 100% all someone's own labor doesn't mean they aren't contributing to it even in part, some way/shape/form. That's why they get like $.01 of every dollar the company makes. Because that's the part their own labor played in enabling the rest of that labor.

Sure, if you're able to exploit a worker class so that the product of their labor goes to you rather than the workers, you can make billions off their work, but that's not your labor.

Again, you're ignoring large swathes of what I'd consider labor in economic activity. Labor is anything anyone does to make something. A stock br0 trading all day is working to create his money and portfolio. He's not creating the actual value for whatever the company is making, but he is contributing. You don't need to be responsible for 100% of something to be able to claim labor is where the value is.

Missing the point and pretending you didn't directly contradict your own claims.

no, you're being intentionally obtuse when you know full well BOTH YOU AND I are talking about your idiotic idea that government/society/everyone at large should be laboring for everyone unwillingly just so everyone gets to live. I'm 100% fine with people willfully gifting the value of their labor as they see fit.

You claimed no one should be supported, they should labor for their support.

You're forgetting the implied "by the government"

production cannot create demand for a product no one wants

production CAN create demand no one knew they had or hadn't conceptualized until the product existed.

Production's important, yes, but it always is driven by demand.

No, it's not. And you're proving the point yourself below with the housing example. There isn't demand for the plethora of 5 over 1 rentals springing up everywhere. There's demand for purchasable housing. Yet, the labor is creating something else and people are still settling for it. No initial demand being shifted by what supply is creating as opposed to what supply CAN theoretically create.

To set pricing? Size of market, competition, complementary products, consumer spending capacity/income, demographic shift, stability/predictability of economic futures, and that's off the top of my head.

Nice list of things that can be split into supply and demand.

And no, "ability to pay" is not an "influencer on demand".

it is. Unreasonable demands might as well be non-existent demands because no labor will fill them, even if they exist.

There's a significant poorly-met demand for housing in North America right now. Prices have escalated beyond most first-time buyers' ability to spend. The demand remains, but the low supply of lower-income housing means many consumers have to be satisfied with something else, like renting an apartment or even sharing with roommates. The demand still exists, supply is not changing to address it, and those people just continue to not be homeowners, despite their demand. Their ability to pay does not translate to a lack of demand, and that unmet demand not triggering a surge in supply demonstrates that those two factors aren't the only ones at play.

Sounds like you're making an argument that supply is controlling the economic activity of housing and not demand. Hmm.

[Tentim]

When things like stimulus packages or minimum wage hikes boost consumer power? Observably so, yes. People are still not "flourishing", because such measures are not implemented strongly at all in the USA, due to the continued trickle-down propaganda nonsense and that neither political party really cares that much about the worker class; both are strongly supportive of the owner class. So of course there's little long-term gain, when Keynesian systems are only ever used as temporary measures in periods of crisis (where they do produce gains.)



And yet, you cannot rationally explain why, and you made no attempt to.



See, this is abject nonsense. There is no "putting in value" and "taking out value" in the equation, in the first place. Consumption is not a "withdrawal" from the economy, it is the economy. Plus, the effects of labor in creating productive capacity are only relevant in terms of meeting production demands from consumers.

Look at it this way. Imagine there's a future where 100% of productive labor can be done by AI machinery which is self-repairing and self-manufacturing. The human labor costs to manage the entire economy boil down to the few technicians needed to keep that machinery running, and hypothetically, even that could be automated. So, once there is zero human labor required to maintain production, there is zero "putting in value", but the machinery continues to punch out consumer products and provide trade goods to those who need it, how is that economy functioning? By your argument, there's zero "input", and yet, output continues to scale up.

The reason it works is because your base premise there is just incorrect. That's not how economies function. There is absolutely no expectation or requirement that every consumer contribute labor to the economy. They contribute value to the economy by virtue of being consumers, alone. Labor only matters in meeting that demand. The goal of any economy should be to minimize labor force participation while maintaining consumer supply.

Where does the value come from for children's products? Children don't provide labor to the economy. And yet, the children's goods economy doesn't collapse, because what you describe does not make any sense.

And the moment you admit their parents can pay for goods their children need, you've admitted the error your base argument made. Namely, that there's absolutely no need for all participants in an economy to labor.

Every time we test a basic income system, the outcomes are incredibly positive, economically and socially. And yet, those tests largely get shut down prematurely, because capitalists absolutely panic at the idea that their model could be compared, knowing it'll expose the grift at the core of the system.

I might not have time to have a full debate on this but I can at least start. Increasing the minimum wage or stimulus packages ( would you mind if I referred to those as basic universal income? Different thing I know but it feels like that is what you are getting at) is a stop gap measure at best. Without strong price protections and consumer watch dog groups all those measures effectively do is increase poverty long term.

The market won't just stay the same once the largest group of people suddenly have increased buying power the cost for necessities will rise at an equal rate rapidly. In effect all you accomplish with such an action is to wipe out savings and drag more people into poverty.

I agree with you that in the future when we move past scarcity via automation. Until then though there needs to more productive members of society to carry those leeching off it.

The children's product bit does interest me and I'm going to answer it in two parts both necessities and non essential products.

For necessities it isnt uncommon for people to dread the idea of having children out of fear they cannot afford them. It isnt a big issue here as housing hasn't really skyrocketed but inflation has those living modestly worried. Children while wonderful are seen as a financial burden. When it comes to non essential items toys, entertainment, etc. Those with excess capital are always allowed luxuries.

I would argue those tests are positive because they are just that... tests. They are small in scale limited to the local economy and they are not expected to last. There is a world of difference between a test and a new norm.

[Endus]

CAN and WOULD are two different things. I don't suppose that there's no such thing as failure. My point is that supply can supersede demand as the driving factor. Again, all the demand in the world won't get met if labor isn't there to fulfill it.

Not "labor". "Productivity".

This is what I meant by you not using terms correctly.

Your vision of what "work" is is extremely narrow.

That's how technical jargon works.

Not only are you ignoring the initial setup part that is the actual labor you're thinking of, you're entirely discounting the labor to negotiate with people those contracts of "exploitation" and the pyramid below.

You're describing things that aren't labor as labor, and that's not reasonable.

Just because it's not 100% all someone's own labor doesn't mean they aren't contributing to it even in part, some way/shape/form. That's why they get like $.01 of every dollar the company makes. Because that's the part their own labor played in enabling the rest of that labor.

This is trivially false. You're pushing propaganda.

Again, you're ignoring large swathes of what I'd consider labor in economic activity.

I could not care less what you want to mistakenly identify as "labor". I'll stick to economic definitions, thanks.

Labor is anything anyone does to make something.

This is incorrect. If I spend time building a big LEGO set, I have spent time and effort making something. It is not "labor", not unless someone is paying me to do it or I am self-employing to produce something for sale (could be the completed set, could be me making a Youtube video of assembly, etc).

no, you're being intentionally obtuse when you know full well BOTH YOU AND I are talking about your idiotic idea that government/society/everyone at large should be laboring for everyone unwillingly just so everyone gets to live. I'm 100% fine with people willfully gifting the value of their labor as they see fit.

You haven't made a single argument why that's "idiotic", other than your personal animus against certain people for reasons you can't actually rationally explain.

You're forgetting the implied "by the government"

I'll state that overtly if you like. I'm fully aware a basic income system or the like would be government-administered and paid for with taxation. That isn't a big secret, I just assumed it was common understanding.

production CAN create demand no one knew they had or hadn't conceptualized until the product existed.

This is not true. There can be demand that was not satisfied yet, but that demand always comes first.

At best, you can boost production to such a degree you flood the market and have to drop prices, which can allow your products to satisfy greater demand at price points that were outside the window of your prior customer base.

No, it's not. And you're proving the point yourself below with the housing example. There isn't demand for the plethora of 5 over 1 rentals springing up everywhere. There's demand for purchasable housing. Yet, the labor is creating something else and people are still settling for it. No initial demand being shifted by what supply is creating as opposed to what supply CAN theoretically create.

I have literally no idea why you think that's supporting your case. You literally just described production not satisfying current demand and not creating new demand.

Nice list of things that can be split into supply and demand.

Incorrectly. You could split them into "orange" and "purple", too, but that would be just as pointless.

it is. Unreasonable demands might as well be non-existent demands because no labor will fill them, even if they exist.

That's literally not how demand systems even work. You really need to learn the basics of economics theory, dude. Unmet demands aren't nonexistent, they're unmet. The obvious difference being if you can find a way to satisfy that demand at an acceptable price point, you can make a profitable business venture out of that, whereas trying to sell a product for which the demand is truly nonexistent is always a losing prospect.

- - - Updated - - -

I might not have time to have a full debate on this but I can at least start. Increasing the minimum wage or stimulus packages ( would you mind if I referred to those as basic universal income? Different thing I know but it feels like that is what you are getting at) is a stop gap measure at best. Without strong price protections and consumer watch dog groups all those measures effectively do is increase poverty long term.

I wouldn't be satisfied describing them as BUI, since BUI isn't a stopgap, it's meant to be an ongoing permanent solution. That's a big reason why basic income systems are suggested; it stops the economy from staggering from stopgap to stopgap by crafting a permanent, stable, self-adjusting system (indexing values to cost-of-living).

I flatly disagree with the idea that it "increases poverty", at all, but we'll get into that because you explained further.

The market won't just stay the same once the largest group of people suddenly have increased buying power the cost for necessities will rise at an equal rate rapidly. In effect all you accomplish with such an action is to wipe out savings and drag more people into poverty.

See, what you're describing here is that capitalists will boost prices for no reason but exploitative price-gouging at consumer's expense, and the obvious answer to what the problem is there is the capitalists and their personal greed, not the basic income system.

I'm not saying capitalists wouldn't act that way, but I'm also not a supporter of capitalism. As my sig should've at least implied. And I'd rather we blame the actual problem, in your example, than to suggest capitalists must be allowed to profiteer off human misery just, like, because.

I agree with you that in the future when we move past scarcity via automation. Until then though there needs to more productive members of society to carry those leeching off it.

I suggest you stop looking at it in terms of "number of people contributing", and start looking at "meeting the productivity demands of the economy". Automation, for instance, vastly reduces the labor need for a given production capacity. Automation meaning less people need to work should be seen as a positive, not somehow a failure.

And if we're gonna talk about "leeches", why aren't we talking about the capitalists? Capitalism, as a body of theory, requires that the owner class (the capitalist) gain income via profits from the means of production, off the labor of others. They "do" nothing, other than having property title to the means of production, but garner the massive lion's share of the gains from the economy nevertheless. How is that anything but "leeching"?

And why are we blaming those who cannot work instead, for getting the basic minimums of a modest level of comfort?

Seriously, blame the guys with the megayachts.

The children's product bit does interest me and I'm going to answer it in two parts both necessities and non essential products.

For necessities it isnt uncommon for people to dread the idea of having children out of fear they cannot afford them. It isnt a big issue here as housing hasn't really skyrocketed but inflation has those living modestly worried. Children while wonderful are seen as a financial burden. When it comes to non essential items toys, entertainment, etc. Those with excess capital are always allowed luxuries.

This is, frankly, a strength of basic income systems; it removes the economy anxiety of child-rearing. Not only do single unworking parents get their basic levels of income, you could either set that basic level to account for children by default, or create a separate additional stipend for children (I favor the former because it's simpler and you avoid any concerns about people spamming kids out for the checks they get, but it's a point for discussion and I'm not saying there's a clear answer).

I would argue those tests are positive because they are just that... tests. They are small in scale limited to the local economy and they are not expected to last. There is a world of difference between a test and a new norm.

That's literally just refusing to believe the results of the tests because you don't want to believe them. Let's support a long-term test that settles those concerns and get some better data; that's the more-reasonable response.

[Tentim]

Not "labor". "Productivity".

This is what I meant by you not using terms correctly.



That's how technical jargon works.



You're describing things that aren't labor as labor, and that's not reasonable.



This is trivially false. You're pushing propaganda.



I could not care less what you want to mistakenly identify as "labor". I'll stick to economic definitions, thanks.



This is incorrect. If I spend time building a big LEGO set, I have spent time and effort making something. It is not "labor", not unless someone is paying me to do it or I am self-employing to produce something for sale (could be the completed set, could be me making a Youtube video of assembly, etc).



You haven't made a single argument why that's "idiotic", other than your personal animus against certain people for reasons you can't actually rationally explain.



I'll state that overtly if you like. I'm fully aware a basic income system or the like would be government-administered and paid for with taxation. That isn't a big secret, I just assumed it was common understanding.



This is not true. There can be demand that was not satisfied yet, but that demand always comes first.

At best, you can boost production to such a degree you flood the market and have to drop prices, which can allow your products to satisfy greater demand at price points that were outside the window of your prior customer base.



I have literally no idea why you think that's supporting your case. You literally just described production not satisfying current demand and not creating new demand.



Incorrectly. You could split them into "orange" and "purple", too, but that would be just as pointless.



That's literally not how demand systems even work. You really need to learn the basics of economics theory, dude. Unmet demands aren't nonexistent, they're unmet. The obvious difference being if you can find a way to satisfy that demand at an acceptable price point, you can make a profitable business venture out of that, whereas trying to sell a product for which the demand is truly nonexistent is always a losing prospect.

- - - Updated - - -



I wouldn't be satisfied describing them as BUI, since BUI isn't a stopgap, it's meant to be an ongoing permanent solution. That's a big reason why basic income systems are suggested; it stops the economy from staggering from stopgap to stopgap by crafting a permanent, stable, self-adjusting system (indexing values to cost-of-living).

I flatly disagree with the idea that it "increases poverty", at all, but we'll get into that because you explained further.



See, what you're describing here is that capitalists will boost prices for no reason but exploitative price-gouging at consumer's expense, and the obvious answer to what the problem is there is the capitalists and their personal greed, not the basic income system.

I'm not saying capitalists wouldn't act that way, but I'm also not a supporter of capitalism. As my sig should've at least implied. And I'd rather we blame the actual problem, in your example, than to suggest capitalists must be allowed to profiteer off human misery just, like, because.



I suggest you stop looking at it in terms of "number of people contributing", and start looking at "meeting the productivity demands of the economy". Automation, for instance, vastly reduces the labor need for a given production capacity. Automation meaning less people need to work should be seen as a positive, not somehow a failure.

And if we're gonna talk about "leeches", why aren't we talking about the capitalists? Capitalism, as a body of theory, requires that the owner class (the capitalist) gain income via profits from the means of production, off the labor of others. They "do" nothing, other than having property title to the means of production, but garner the massive lion's share of the gains from the economy nevertheless. How is that anything but "leeching"?

And why are we blaming those who cannot work instead, for getting the basic minimums of a modest level of comfort?

Seriously, blame the guys with the megayachts.



This is, frankly, a strength of basic income systems; it removes the economy anxiety of child-rearing. Not only do single unworking parents get their basic levels of income, you could either set that basic level to account for children by default, or create a separate additional stipend for children (I favor the former because it's simpler and you avoid any concerns about people spamming kids out for the checks they get, but it's a point for discussion and I'm not saying there's a clear answer).



That's literally just refusing to believe the results of the tests because you don't want to believe them. Let's support a long-term test that settles those concerns and get some better data; that's the more-reasonable response.

When it comes down to it I think I agree with the premise of your beliefs I just don't think human nature will allow for it. It might very well be a dystopian view but I can't imagine a world in the near future where there isnt exploitive work. I could more readily believe the working class would be killed off on mass then allowing them to live free.