• 10A@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This varies wildly by industry. Some are zero-sum, some are positive sum. And the age of an industry is usually the defining factor for this, which means most industries turn into zero-sum. Take for instance nuclear fuel pellets. A company who takes part in such an industry is in a zero-sum one because of how limited the demand is for it. And the demand for nuclear fuel pellets doesn’t change much at all because of how long it takes to build new reactors, how much political force it takes to build one, etc. A company in such an industry can’t expand the total demand much at all, so there is no new value they can add.

    I’m not formally trained in economics or game theory, but this doesn’t seem right to me. Anyone employed in the manufacture of nuclear fuel pellets adds value to the economy simply by virtue of showing up for work, and doing whatever it is they do.

    An MIT graduate with past business experience and their foot in the door a decade and a half ago isn’t really evidence that just anyone can start a new business today to compete with google.

    Again, entrepreneurs usually need to fail, and build upon those failures, before finding success. It’s normal.

    The fact that he’s an MIT grad doesn’t mean much. Anyone can start a Google competitor, but the kind of people who do are the same kind of people likely to want to attend MIT.

    Not everybody can afford to have a failed company on their hands.

    Almost everyone can, though not everyone wants to. It’s stressful and time-consuming, though also rewarding in a variety of ways. Even if it fails.

    I think that is a fun idea and I would fully support it. I think you’d be surprised at the amount of “socialist” policies that are widely popular. It would be a difficult thing to pull off though given that most people don’t really know how to write in leagalise, and how many policies need to be rather complicated or need a high level of understanding to make sense.

    Thanks! I wouldn’t be at all surprised by the popularity of socialist policies. Kids are naive. There’d be a ton of things like “Free ice cream for everyone!” As a serious policy proposal it would be objectionable, but as a playful idea it’s fun to imagine. As for legalese and complications, you could make suggestions to improve someone else’s idea.

    Food + Housing + Basic utilities + Transportation + Healthcare (if not already universalized) + Maybe a 5-10% on top for discretionary spending.

    What kind of food? Caviar? What kind of housing? McMansions? What kind of basic utilities? All 800,000 TV channels? What kind of transportation? A Bugatti? What kind of healthcare? Cosmetic surgeries for pets? It’s very hard to draw the line anywhere above $0, which is the technically correct number.

    If everybody owned land, it would be much closer to $0. But you still need to buy/get/pay for fertilizer, water, heating, taxes etc. Those things aren’t free. I would love to own my own self-sufficient homestead and have been rather obsessed with videos about it. I wish everybody had the money/land for it, but that’s not how things are.

    You can make your own fertilizer with compost. You can haul your own water up from the stream. You can chop your own wood for heating. Property taxes are a racket. Yes, this presumes everyone owns property of suitable acreage, and with a stream, and that’s unrealistic for everyone. But it’s entirely possible for some.

    I love those videos too. I try not to spend much time on YouTube, but on occasion I can easily lose an hour or two to My Self Reliance.

    But to your point about a “living wage”, it’s going to vary from $0 for some people on up to — I shudder to think what the upper bound of that range is.

    And additionally, everybody having their own homestead isn’t generally a good thing for efficiency, because economies of scale probably also applies to food production, and therefore it is more efficient to have industrial farming as the main food source.

    True, but as I mentioned I think economic efficiency is overrated.

    We aren’t all Jesus and are therefore subject to the negative effects of poverty.

    We can all strive to be more like Jesus. I know it’s not easy, but there’s so much value in trying.

    • PizzaMan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anyone employed in the manufacture of nuclear fuel pellets adds value to the economy simply by virtue of showing up for work, and doing whatever it is they do.

      But when they do that it doesn’t change the demand for nuclear fuel pellets. The demand is largely static, so in order to sell X more pellets, X pellets from other producers must go unsold/not made. Somebody else has to lose, which makes it a zero sum game.

      The fact that he’s an MIT grad doesn’t mean much.

      It does. Not everybody is an MIT grad or has the skills to be one, and yet you say that just anybody can compete with google. That is a contradiction.

      Almost everyone can

      60% of the country cannot because they are living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford it.

      I wouldn’t be at all surprised by the popularity of socialist policies. Kids are naive.

      Basically every other developed nation seems to think otherwise. For example, we are more or less the only one without universal healthcare, that’s what’s naive.

      What kind of food? Caviar? What kind of housing? McMansions? What kind of basic utilities? All 800,000 TV channels? What kind of transportation? A Bugatti? What kind of healthcare?

      Basic food, not caviar. Basic housing, not mcmansions. Utilities should include heating, cooling, water, electric, literally just the basic necessitites, not cable. Etc.

      You’re splitting hairs at this point.

      It’s very hard to draw the line anywhere above $0, which is the technically correct number.

      Nobody can survive on $0. You need to have food water and shelter.

      Yes, this presumes everyone owns property of suitable acreage, and with a stream, and that’s unrealistic for everyone. But it’s entirely possible for some.

      If it is unrealistic for everyone then it isn’t a reasonable answer to what the minimum wage should be.

      it’s going to vary from $0 for some people on up to — I shudder to think

      If housing in this country wasn’t so fucked, it would probably be around $40-50k a year. Nobody is buying caviar and a bugatti with that budget.

      We can all strive to be more like Jesus. I know it’s not easy, but there’s so much value in trying.

      Blaming individuals for the failures of a system, and suggesting individuals change to deal with that defect in the system is irrational.

      • 10A@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But when they do that it doesn’t change the demand for nuclear fuel pellets. The demand is largely static, so in order to sell X more pellets, X pellets from other producers must go unsold/not made. Somebody else has to lose, which makes it a zero sum game.

        The production of anything means it’s not zero-sum. Demand can expand and contract over time in any market, but that doesn’t matter. If you grow an apple or produce a nuclear fuel pellet, you add value to the economy. Now if there are multiple sellers competing, then it’ll drive down the price. But we’re not discussing prices here.

        It does. Not everybody is an MIT grad or has the skills to be one, and yet you say that just anybody can compete with google. That is a contradiction.

        It’s a matter of drive. Anyone can try to compete with Google. Someone must be adequately driven, and reasonably intelligent to succeed. But everyone who fails will gain the opportunities to build on those failures and start a more successful venture.

        60% of the country cannot because they are living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford it.

        Again you can start a business for $0 or next to nothing.

        Basically every other developed nation seems to think otherwise. For example, we are more or less the only one without universal healthcare, that’s what’s naive.

        Why would we Americans care what other countries think? We’re blessed by God to be the greatest country on Earth. People flock from around the world to live here, and they want to so badly that they’re willing to become illegal just to live here. It’s very rare that you can find a principle applicable to other countries which also happens to be applicable to the US. If some other country wants to give out “free” ice cream to all of its citizens (in exchange, of course, for an obscenely high tax), they can have at it, for all we care.

        literally just the basic necessitites, not cable. Etc.

        My point was that it’s subjective what the “necessities” are. Some people like me will say it costs $0, while others may insist it’s a minimum of $250k. This is complicated by the fact that the dollar is worth dramatically different values in different parts of the country, a fact often ignored. Generally speaking it’s worth much less in urban areas.

        Nobody can survive on $0. You need to have food water and shelter.

        Again, grow your own food, haul your own water up from the stream, and build your own shelter out of logs you felled yourself. $0, just like our forefathers.

        If it is unrealistic for everyone then it isn’t a reasonable answer to what the minimum wage should be.

        Whoa, I thought we were discussing your notion of a “livable wage” as an abstract concept, but now you’re changing it to minimum wage. The concept of a minimum wage is evil for multiple reasons.

        First and foremost, it’s a free country, and so we’re all allowed to negotiate our own terms of business. If I want to hire someone for $1 a day, and that person agrees to the compensation, it’s nobody else’s business. Not yours, not the government’s, nobody’s.

        Secondly, minimum wages are absolutely disastrous for the economy, and that has been shown time and again. When you run a business, you have a certain budget to spend on compensation. Let’s say you want to hire two people to help you, and you can afford a maximum of $100 per day to hire them. That means you can pay them about $6 per hour maximum. Now some busybody steps in, and introduces an oppressive law that you have to pay more than $6. Well that sucks, doesn’t it. That means you can’t hire two people after all. You can still hire one person up to $12 per day, but you’ll have to overwork him to produce the results of two workers. Meanwhile somebody else will be jobless. Now let’s say the busybody comes back and says $12 is still too low! Well fine, that means you can’t hire anyone at all. So now we have two people who would have had jobs that are now jobless. And it also means you’ll need to find a robot that’s cheaper than $100 per day, because if you can’t then the government just drove you out of business.

        The concept of minimum wage is un-American and downright evil.

        Blaming individuals for the failures of a system, and suggesting individuals change to deal with that defect in the system is irrational.

        What system? We’re all individuals.

        • PizzaMan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The production of anything means it’s not zero-sum. Demand can expand and contract over time in any market, but that doesn’t matter. If you grow an apple or produce a nuclear fuel pellet, you add value to the economy. Now if there are multiple sellers competing, then it’ll drive down the price. But we’re not discussing prices here.

          Value to the economy isn’t the issue here though. The topic is about whether or not a company hurts another through competition, and economic value cannot explain or measure the of hurting other companies.

          If 10,000 fuel pellets are needed for the year, then the market will create and sell roughly 10,000 pellets for the year. If company A sells extra pellets, going from 1k/yr to 2k/yr those sales need to come from somewhere within that 10,000 demand limit. As a result all other companies lose 1k/yr in sales. Maybe the majority of that loss goes to company B or C, or maybe it is spread out. It would only be a positive sum game if the 10,000 pellet demand was able to increase, but it can’t due to the restrictive amount of reactors. As a result of all of this, this industry is a zero sum game.

          It’s a matter of drive.

          That’s a part of it, but not the whole.

          Again you can start a business for $0 or next to nothing.

          Even if that is true (which it is instead highly misleading), it has nothing to do with the impact of losing a business. One is the cost of startup the other is the cost of loss.

          Why would we Americans care what other countries think?

          I didn’t say that we should, but you said that kids are naive when it is instead developed nations that are implementing these policies.

          We’re blessed by God to be the greatest country on Earth.

          Seems to me that having the highest number of school shootings should instantly disqualify us from such a title.

          If some other country wants to give out “free” ice cream to all of its citizens (in exchange, of course, for an obscenely high tax), they can have at it, for all we care.

          Actually it doesn’t quite work out that way. Americans overall spend more on healthcare than most other nations because of how inefficient it is to have insurance companies leeching money away from the american people.

          Overall countries spend less on healthcare with socialized medicine.

          My point was that it’s subjective what the “necessities” are.

          Only to a degree. We can objectively measure the amount of food and water you need, what kind of shelter is the mimimally viable product while still being healthy, etc.

          Again, grow your own food, haul your own water up from the stream, and build your own shelter out of logs you felled yourself. $0, just like our forefathers.

          There is no such thing as a free lunch.

          Whoa, I thought we were discussing your notion of a “livable wage” as an abstract concept, but now you’re changing it to minimum wage.

          The two are tied together. There should be a minimum wage, and it should be a livable one. That’s how it was started and it should have stayed.

          The concept of a minimum wage is evil for multiple reasons.

          No it’s not. Poverty wages are what’s evil and the solution to them is a minimum, livable wage.

          If I want to hire someone for $1 a day, and that person agrees to the compensation, it’s nobody else’s business. Not yours, not the government’s, nobody’s.

          It is the business of the government to protect the people, and greedy corporations who pay poverty wages is one such thing that we need protection from.

          Secondly, minimum wages are absolutely disastrous for the economy, and that has been shown time and again.

          I disagree that it is disastrous, but even if it was I wouldn’t mind much since the economy is the main driving force for pollution.

          Let’s say you want to hire two people to help you, and you can afford a maximum of $100 per day

          Right there is your lie about it being $100 per day. These companies absolutely have the money to pay a living wage yet they only set the “maximum” they are willing to pay such that it is a poverty wage. These companies rake in billions upon billions of dollars a year in profits. The money is absolutely there they just like to pretend that it isn’t.

          What system? We’re all individuals.

          The government/capitalism.