leady wrote:Anyone though that doesn't believe that a $20k citizen wage won't come with a huge set of moral hazards is close to massively deluded. Hell as soon as I'd paid off my mortgage I'd be sitting back and doing nothing for 50 years...
Anyone that believes that a $20K citizen wage comes with a huge set of moral hazards is massively deluded. There, now we have two completely unsupported opinions. High five!
*shrug* Ignore the moral aspect entirely. Regardless of if moral or not, it's a significant incentive change. Incentives do change human behavior. This isn't intrinsicly good or evil, it's just a thing.
The key is to determine what those behavior changes are likely to be. For this, actual testing is really best, as without that, it's easy for people to simply make assumptions, or to miss important elements.
Failing that, we have a number of economic models
Tyndmyr wrote:That's not how sampling works.
It most certainly is, in this case, because no one is claiming that the salaries of the S&P500 CEOs = the average of all other CEOs. You are the one who has decided that unless every CEO is paid millions, CEO pay is not a real issue.
You have been making statements about "CEO pay". This is as ridiculous as me describing "food service" pay as an industry of the wealthy, simply because a couple of chefs are well paid.
The fact that workers are not spread evenly between CEOs is trivial and unrelated. It is not a point in it's favor, it merely demonstrates the bias.
No, given that we're discussing the difference between what front-line workers are paid and what the CEO of the company is paid, the number of people working in companies that express this dynamic is very much at issue. When we're discussing inequality, the status of the CEOs where people actually work matters.
Comparing "all workers" to "not all CEOs" is just invalid.
The total number of CEOs is significantly larger. I do not believe that you simply are unaware of this. Even if you restrict it to publicly traded, that's about 19,000 stocks in total, US only*. 1500 would be an excellent sample size for that quantity if it was distributed randomly. Taking the top 1500, not even a little valid.
It's perfectly valid for the way I am using the information. You want to cram your statistical average with the "CEOs" of primary schools and local governments. That is a dishonest way to avoid talking about CEO pay.
There are a crapton of primary schools. They do not usually have CEOs. There's 100k public schools in the US alone. A simple look at the numbers indicates that "runs a primary school" is not being used synonymously with "CEO". However, private, for-profit schools exist. These can totally have a CEO. That's...really no different than any other industry.
State and local governments, likewise, sometimes own industries. Publicly owned in whole or in part, but run as a company. So, yes...they're doing the same job, and their numbers are relevant.
Additionally, even if you WERE correct, it is incredibly dishonest to argue that a sampling error of about 1% makes the data worthless, but your error of about 99.7% is perfectly okay.
EMTP wrote:This was brought up in the context of suggesting a band of salaries according to which the CEO could not make more than 100 times the lowest-paid employee. For a policy like that, there is no necessity that all CEOs make millions. Your woebegone blue-collar state government CEOs (and, just to reiterate, WTF?) would simply not be affected.
That is *a* context in which CEOs have been brought up. It is not the only one.
And I explicitly replied that they would mostly not be affected.
In any case, it would be a matter of restructuring for companies to subdivide to avoid any significant impact. So, you contract out your janitor staff instead of doing it in house. Meh. Not a lot of net change.
I, bluntly, am not a CEO, and even the average CEO wage is more than I make. I'm hardly poor, but 150kish is probably more than most of us make. However, this is a reference to, again, the curious tendency to only worry about inequality within certain bands. Ie, those who make more than the speaker, usually. OBVIOUSLY, that's too much money. But there's a lack of concern about people making far, far less money overseas. Why? Where is the line, and why does it exist? What methodology are we using here, and why is it valid?
What is morality? Does the universe have a beginning? Does the tree make a sound?
Your questions are irrelevant to the issue, mine are not.
What concerns people about CEO pay, and the reason you get more concern about that than you do about, say, Facebook billionaires, is that to many people, it does not seem as if the CEOs are doing much for their millions and millions and millions of dollars. And those CEOs, in many cases, feel free to pay poverty wages to thousands of their front-line employees, lending to fiascos like Walmart's $6.2 billion of taxer payer money for food stamps and other welfare for their employees
How would basic income not result in this exact same scenario? Walmart isn't going to be suddenly struck with generosity.
Radical inequality within a field is frequent, particularly at the very high end. The very top sports stars command an impressive salary compared to average, likewise the very top movie stars make a stunning wage, while the idea of the starving actor waiting tables unable to get a gig is something of a steriotype.
What do all these fields have in common? They have comparatively few openings. Competition is brutal. Therefore, being merely average in such a field is simply not good enough. Such fields are playing with only a small chunk of the bell curve. See also, CEOs.
Right, and can you show any evidence that this brutal competition has in fact led to better, smarter, more effective CEOs? Or that these folks are in any way an elite, or doing a job the average blue-collar worker could not?
It is usually simply assumed that a person who trains for a specialized field is superior to a randomly selected individual. It seems patently obvious that in most cases, success is highly related to experience, training, etc. Now, of course, we can demonstrate this. Actual random selection of workers is highly unusual, but we can pick out trends. Do more experienced workers perform better than less experienced workers? Surely most fields will have a nice range of experience to pull data from.
So, do we see a random distribution of CEO performance compared to experience, skills, and personality traits? Well, no. http://booth.chicagoexec.net/public/public_files/kks.pdf
Yes, not all of these are helpful...certainly not in all situations, but there are indeed strong correlations between skills and performance.
Therefore, we can easily extrapolate that not any blue collar worker could do the same job, as skillsets are not universal.
Really, it's no different than how you'd show that not any blue collar worker could be a professional football player or whatever else. Sure, some probably could, but they would be very exceptional individuals, definitely not average.
Skipping over the emotion bit, since this is already lengthy and I suspect it could devolve into personal bickering.
It is not a matter of stupidity, per se(intelligence is a distribution, of course)...it is a matter of structuring financial benefits so as to overwelm other incentives. You will have stupidity either way, in roughly the same degree, discounting second order effects. However, if a person makes $20k/yr for doing nothing, but makes comparatively little more for giving up a large degree of time, having to pay for child care, having to maintain transportation, etc, they may decide that the costs simply outweight the benefits, and cease working. As finances are the dominant reason for employment, any significant change to this would significantly alter the employment landscape.
This will affect society negatively in a number of ways, some of which are not easily undone. If your society has most of it's poor simply stop working for a number of years, any skills or relevant work experience they possess will atrophy, and if they do decide to return to work, they will be further disadvantaged, even compared to their initially poor position.
You are arguing that it is important for your long-term prosperity to work and gain skills. I repeat my question: Are you saying that America's workforce is not smart enough to come to the conclusion you just did about the value of work? [/quote]
If incentives for the individual do not match the needs of society, then you get undesirable behavior. This isn't due to stupidity. A rational person works without the environment he has, even if that environment is imperfect.
If you give a person incentives to do bad things for society, then...yeah. A crapton of perfectly smart folks will do that.
The problem with a basic income is not something that can be addressed by making people smarter.
Ah, but here is your error, because I didn't claim they were a basic income. Let's look at the quote in context:
The context is in responding to basic income with a "this is why we think it should work" argument. Your post specifically listed it as a reason why a basic income was a good idea. It was #3 on your list. But, it doesn't actually show why a basic income should work.
I mean, if you have data showing that needs based wealth transfers are helpful, that doesn't exactly support shifting AWAY from needs based wealth transfers.
If you want to make the claim that one program of unconditional cash transfer is going to have radically different effects than another program of unconditional cash transfer, feel free to make that argument.
Obviously. There is more to a program than conditions.
Additionally, your norway example was not "without conditions". The wealth was not spread evenly. This was even in the bit you quoted. Therefore, there were conditions, and the results cannot be generalized to an entirely different scenario.
You have given a great number of generalities.
It's always funny when someone who posted one link to one Koch-funded think tank's screed accuses the person offering source after source of speaking in generalities.
Linkspam is not data. Bashing sources based on connections to folks you dislike is not data.
And here, I see you yet again, not giving specifics as to what you are proposing.
You have not laid out anything like a plan in significant detail. In particular, you have skimmed over cost, instead focusing on grand, poorly supported benefits, with no attempt at a comparison to the current system.
If you can't multiply $10k by the US population, I don't think that's my problem.
I...did exactly that. In the post you are quoting.
And seriously, if that's as far as your plan got, it's not much of a plan.
I probably would not immediately cut the kids a check from the day they pop, so cut about 25% of the cost there. No more Social Security, food stamps, etc; that'd save about $1.5 trillion. What's left is not really all that much.
Average lifespan is about 79 years. So, you're not gonna give out any benefits until almost age 20? Even if it's only until age 18, you expect a single mom with a few kids to be living on the same 10k/yr as a single guy with no dependents?
And you want to ditch food stamps, social security, etc.
And I thought ya'll were AGAINST the poor dying in ditches....