A Simple Question about the Current US Economy

Author: Math_Enthusiast
Politics
Society
Economics

Posts

Total: 160
#121
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,276
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Contrary to popular belief you are not paid for how hard you work or how long you work. You are paid by the number of dollars in profit you generate in a given time period. You can dig ditches by hand with a shovel  12 hours a day 7 rays a week, you still wont make over $20 and hour. The digging is a cost that can only be marked up so much.  Almost all jobs are a cost of doing business. Say you make $20 an hour doing whatever it is that you are doing. Your employer has to generate at least $80 an hour in profit minimum just to justify your $20.00 an hour salary and maybe make 10 to 15% profit after expenses. "That's called over head" Things like being your personal bookkeeper, cost of materials, rent the list is endless.
Topic's author
#122
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 239
1
2
8
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
1
2
8
-->
@sadolite
Contrary to popular belief you are not paid for how hard you work or how long you work.
I already addressed this point on page 1, especially post #7.
#123
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,821
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
“Hmm… and if people like Musk don’t wish to be government employees?”

Then instead of doing something that they are incredibly good at and therefore likely earning a very good salary they can get a job that they are bad at and earn a much smaller salary.

“Where does the investment capital come from?”

Taxpayers.
^^^ How is your prescription distinct from government ownership of what are now private entities?
#124
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,821
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
If Musk’s net worth were to get cut in half or double, I wouldn’t be losing any sleep over it either way. It is funny how so many people assume that Musk is merely a hoarder of wealth in a zero-sum game, as if he keeps shelves full of custom-made, million dollar bills in his own personal vault— maybe even with his own face on them?

Instead, the reverse is true— Musk and his ilk are wealth/value creators. They bring value via creativity and innovation. For sure, there are CEO’s out there who are not worth their millions in salary (not that Musk receives a cash salary) and are pretty much guilty of corporate mismanagement or even malfeasance. But then there are CEOs who are worth every penny they get, and this is a concept that is foreign to many. There are CEOs whose success has become the success of countless investors, but they haven’t managed to create utopia, so they must stink.
#125
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
If Musk’s net worth were to get cut in half or double, I wouldn’t be losing any sleep over it either way. It is funny how so many people assume that Musk is merely a hoarder of wealth in a zero-sum game, as if he keeps shelves full of custom-made, million dollar bills in his own personal vault— maybe even with his own face on them?

Most of that comes from the logical mistake that because resources on the planet are finite, then wealth creation MUST be a zero sum game.

In reality, it's human innovations that has always defined the exact value of the finite resources. That upper limit of innovation approaches infinity.

A hundred years ago, people were throwing away Uranium as a natural deadly poison. Today, we can power entire cities with just a few Kg of it. 100 years from now, we could maybe power the entire planet on the same amount.
Topic's author
#126
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 239
1
2
8
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
1
2
8
-->
@cristo71
How is your prescription distinct from government ownership of what are now private entities?
I realize that a semantic distinction is causing us some problems here. If the government holding the value of a company's stocks while not actually directly controlling said company is government ownership of that company, then there isn't a difference. What I just described, however, is not the same thing as central planning, and I think that that's an important point.
#127
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
Taxpayers.
^^^ How is your prescription distinct from government ownership of what are now private entities?

Bingo.

#128
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,276
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
In your defense and mine, all I read was your first post. And in that post you ask if Elon does more work, thus my response.
Topic's author
#129
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 239
1
2
8
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
1
2
8
-->
@sadolite
I figured as much. I just wanted to direct you to the right place.

#130
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,821
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I realize that a semantic distinction is causing us some problems here. If the government holding the value of a company's stocks while not actually directly controlling said company is government ownership of that company, then there isn't a difference. What I just described, however, is not the same thing as central planning, and I think that that's an important point.
It sounds as though your idea has the most in common, real world speaking, with China. No expert on China here, but it has companies which are run by non governmental employees, but the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) always has the right and authority to intervene in various enterprises as it sees fit.

#131
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
There's also the logical fallacy that wealth creation is a linear function. And for most people, this is true. You punch in. Push a button x amount of times. You get y salary.

Investment is never a linear function. So comparing the wealth an investor creates to a person pushing a button for x amount of seconds will always seem like a "social injustice"

So when one frames it as "earning 1 dollar for every second", the OP is purposefully being dishonest about the wealth creation. They are not comparable at all.
#132
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 6,114
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I was responding to the OP. What part of your response was directed at me?
#133
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
believe that people should be employed to make good investments, and the resulting large quantities of wealth should be controlled by the government and used for public interest.
That is how communism operates. The wealth is controlled and owned by the government chosen by the people.
#134
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Is Elon Musk doing more work in one minute than everyone in an average American household combined does in 4.5 years?
Of course not, but we both know that.

I would rephrase and perhaps rethink your question though. A person's income/wealth in theory, ideally, is supposed to reflect that person's contributions to society. That comes in many different forms, not only how hard one works but what ideas one has contributed and what problems they have solved that lead to improvements in the quality of all our lives.

The problem with right wingers on this is that they seem to think capitalism answers this question almost tautologically. So if one became a billionaire that is proof in and if itself that their contributions were massive. The reality is however far different.

What they miss is that every billionaire today is just building on top of systems put in place by others for which they are merely taking advantage of. Joe Rogan has become a huge figure in the podcasting world. He could not have accomplished any of this without a strong functioning internet and the technology in place to produce these shows. A tech startup that blossoms into a multi billion dollar company could not have accomplished want of this without an educated workforce and infrastructure in place to make it happen. A top tier professional athlete didn't invent the sport, create the branding model, or figure out how to get their games broadcasted.

Contrary to the typical right wing "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps all by myself" fantasy, the fact is that we live in a society and no one benefits from the contributions of others more than the super rich.
Topic's author
#135
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 239
1
2
8
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
1
2
8
-->
@cristo71
If Musk’s net worth were to get cut in half or double, I wouldn’t be losing any sleep over it either way. It is funny how so many people assume that Musk is merely a hoarder of wealth in a zero-sum game, as if he keeps shelves full of custom-made, million dollar bills in his own personal vault— maybe even with his own face on them?

Instead, the reverse is true— Musk and his ilk are wealth/value creators. They bring value via creativity and innovation. For sure, there are CEO’s out there who are not worth their millions in salary (not that Musk receives a cash salary) and are pretty much guilty of corporate mismanagement or even malfeasance. But then there are CEOs who are worth every penny they get, and this is a concept that is foreign to many. There are CEOs whose success has become the success of countless investors, but they haven’t managed to create utopia, so they must stink.
The problem here is that 1.61% of our GDP is being used just to make sure Musk (not billionaires in general, Musk is sucking up this much wealth on his own) is being "properly rewarded" with needless luxury after needless luxury. Money is the method by which we represent material value, not the other way around. When we don't see the money, all we see is a country that imports its necessities, uses its own abundant resources on luxuries, and then complains that its citizens can't meet their basic material needs. Whether you agree with my proposal or not, there is surely a problem here.
Topic's author
#136
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 239
1
2
8
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
1
2
8
-->
@cristo71
It sounds as though your idea has the most in common, real world speaking, with China. No expert on China here, but it has companies which are run by non governmental employees, but the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) always has the right and authority to intervene in various enterprises as it sees fit.
Firstly, I am not proposing any government intervention in the enterprises of a business. That difference aside, I think it's important to note that I wouldn't trust the US government with this system, let alone the Chinese government. That isn't saying very much, though, because I don't trust the US government to do the things that the US government already does.
Topic's author
#137
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 239
1
2
8
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
1
2
8
-->
@Mharman
You said this:

Value is subjective. If more people value your work, you will get more money. It’s really that simple.

Do you really think the average joe could do Elon Musk’s job?
I felt that what I was saying also applied to the above, so I included you on it.
#138
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
The problem here is that 1.61% of our GDP is being used just to make sure Musk (not billionaires in general, Musk is sucking up this much wealth on his own) is being "properly rewarded" with needless luxury after needless luxury. 
Why would you care if Musk receives 1.61% of GDP if he created > 1.61% GDP in value for millions of Americans?

You never did dispute the fact he created more value to the consumers than the money he received for compensation in trade.

If Musk were to disappear, so would that 2% of GDP value he created.

Whether you agree with my proposal or not, there is surely a problem here.
Absolutely there is a problem. Marxist education has brainwashed people into thinking it's justifiable to destroy 2% GDP so that one person can't get 1.61% compensation trading his created value for dollars. That's a massive problem that needs to be fixed if society is to continue evolving and advancing.
Topic's author
#139
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 239
1
2
8
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
1
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Why would you care if Musk receives 1.61% of GDP if he created > 1.61% GDP in value for millions of Americans?
Because I don't believe that what someone "deserves" is a good excuse to drain our resources for their luxuries.

You never did dispute the fact he created more value to the consumers than the money he received for compensation in trade.
That's because I don't deny it.

If Musk were to disappear, so would that 2% of GDP value he created.
Everyone needs to make money somehow. Unless you're concerned that people like him will stop working out of spite under the new system at the cost of being able to pay for their basic needs, I see no reason to believe that they would "disappear".
#140
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
The problem here is that 1.61% of our GDP is being used just to make sure Musk (not billionaires in general, Musk is sucking up this much wealth on his own) is being "properly rewarded" with needless luxury after needless luxury. 
Because Tesla and SpaceX are profitable companies. It allows Elon Musk to afford those luxuries. He is not dependent on the government for his paycheque.
#141
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Unless you're concerned that people like him will stop working out of spite under the new system at the cost of being able to pay for their basic needs, I see no reason to believe that they would "disappear".
If everyone did the bare minimum, society would crawl to a standstill. Imagine every societal function running at or below the efficiency of government services. There's no logical reason to advocate for a system that punishes overproducers.

Again, you do not dispute that around 2% of GDP would disappear if Musk produced the bare minimum to survive.
#142
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
a good excuse to drain our resources for their luxuries.
Already addressed this. Resources are enhanced through innovation, that is: our finite material resources only have a value to "drain" ONLY when innovation is applied. And you do not dispute that innovation is an inexhaustible resource if properly rewarded and justifiably permitted.


#143
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
a good excuse to drain our resources for their luxuries.
Already addressed this. Resources are enhanced through innovation, that is: our finite material resources only have a value to "drain" ONLY when innovation is applied. And you do not dispute that innovation is an inexhaustible resource if properly rewarded and justifiably permitted.
Are Trump’s tariffs an innovation?
#144
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,206
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Shila
Are Trump’s tariffs an innovation?
Yes, an innovation of Nazi Germany.

Topic's author
#145
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 239
1
2
8
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
1
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Already addressed this. Resources are enhanced through innovation, that is: our finite material resources only have a value to "drain" ONLY when innovation is applied. And you do not dispute that innovation is an inexhaustible resource if properly rewarded and justifiably permitted.
I think I've done a good enough job explaining how massive the number 402 billion is. With that in mind, do you really think that that sheer level of excess is needed to incentivize innovation? Once again, Terence Tao has made a lot of major contributions to the math scene. Sure, they aren't nearly as valuable as Elon Musk's contributions. That's why he doesn't make anywhere near what Musk does. Even so, what he does requires the same level of skill and effort if not more, and it is well over the "bare minimum" that you are so convinced anyone paid by salary only will do. Humans are motivated by receiving a greater reward than the effort that we put in, not by receiving a greater reward than the value that we produced. For example, if I offered you $10,000 to push a button that would magically reduce the amount of food human beings need in everyone other than you, you probably wouldn't respond "Of course not! Pushing that button is worth way more than $10,000! Offer me $1,000,000,000,000 and then I'll do it." unless you were some kind of greedy psychopath. I am proposing that we use this fact about human psychology to save trillions of dollars. (Yes, trillions. We aren't only talking about Musk here, even though he's the prime example.)
#146
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,372
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I'd like to know how Musk is creating >1.6% GDP for millions of Americans? He hires people to build cars. He pays those people. He sells cars. If he takes a massive amount of the return on that, he's mostly just creating wealth for himself. Someone else gets a car. Not necessarily an American. Then he buys up massive swaths of land and nobody can afford a house. They can live in their shitty Tesla I guess. Lay it out in plainer terms than that. Who says GDP is for everyone?
#147
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,372
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
The inexhaustible innovation line is some dumb bullshit too. How do you not feel like a clown writing this bullshit?
#148
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
Feel like debating that? You take the con position?
#149
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,821
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Firstly, I am not proposing any government intervention in the enterprises of a business. That difference aside, I think it's important to note that I wouldn't trust the US government with this system, let alone the Chinese government. That isn't saying very much, though, because I don't trust the US government to do the things that the US government already does.
Hmm. Now it sounds as though you are advocating for a benevolent dictatorship. That is arguably the best form of government— as long as the benevolent dictator stays in power.

#150
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,206
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@cristo71
Hmm. Now it sounds as though you are advocating for a benevolent dictatorship. That is arguably the best form of government— as long as the benevolent dictator stays in power.
A dictatorship is always better than democracy. Even the worst dictator is always better than any government of majority. The dictator can be killed and replaced by a better one, but government of majority cannot be replaced in any way, thus it can never improve nor it has any incentive to improve. Democracy is the worst form of government.