> I find this definition interesting because it seems to me there’s a very prevalent portrayal in media pointing towards the opposite, that is that humans left alone (read, without some powerful/wealthy authority) will unravel into the most depraved state imaginable.
That's not surprising as the media, speaking generally, is a class which aligns itself closely with the ruling class and is incentivized to maintain the status quo.
Um...how many stories in the media, from the front page of the NYTimes to top-grossing movies, are about the incompetence & evils of governments & members of ruling classes?
I'm thinking that the problem is audience bias. Outside of a few little niches, running "All Is Well in Happy Valley"-type stories does not pay the bills.
> Um...how many stories in the media, from the front page of the NYTimes to top-grossing movies, are about the incompetence & evils of governments & members of ruling classes?
I don't have a copy of today's NYT so I'll leave it to someone else to perform the exercise. But it's besides the point. You're asking the wrong question. Again speaking generally, when the media criticizes the "incompetence & evils of governments" it is in effort to elevate or promote some other government party, or to promote their alternative program or policy, not to fundamentally alter the system of government itself. When they criticize a member of the ruling class it frequently is part of a coordinated PR campaign organized by another member of the ruling class.
Anyone part of the media who veers too off course the path of allowable opinion is quickly reigned in or let go.
Compared to today? In the past century hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered by states. Compare that with any "private sector" killing, now or in "early civilization" and the mounds of bodies are non-existent by comparison.
That's because wages aren't flat. All of the studies which claim wages are flat make one or more methodological errors. The errors primarily being 1) using different price deflators when calculating price inflation vs wage inflation and 2) not including the value of benefits in their calculation of wages. Studies which avoid those methodological errors have shown that wages have kept pace with inflation.
I think there's some confusion here because often when talking about "flat" or "stagnant" wages people are referring to the idea that inflation outpaces wage increases (which is wrong, and the point I was addressing). But even taking into account how you're referring to "flat" wages, the logic is still wrong. If we take a worker today who earns the same wage, in inflation adjusted dollars, as a worker in, say, 1985, today's worker has a hugely increased standard of living, better healthcare, longer life expectancy, etc.
> If we take a worker today who earns the same wage, in inflation adjusted dollars, as a worker in, say, 1985, today's worker has a hugely increased standard of living, better healthcare, longer life expectancy, etc.
Is this actually true? In the US, healthcare costs in particular have outpaced inflation meaning that a worker earning the same in inflation-adjusted dollars is getting worse care. This is backed up by the fact that life expectancy has started to decline[1].
Finally, saying that "you're better off than 1985" does not address the fact that the economy has not just kept pace with inflation. That growth is going somewhere and it's not into the wages of the middle class. Inequality is not just bad for the people at the bottom. It has a tendency to destabilize politics as people realize that the game is rigged and swing towards the political extremes.
Economic ignorance abounds in these comments. Tariffs are more accurately termed a punitive tax on consumers. A country enacting reciprocal tariffs is like shooting a hole in your boat to get back at your neighbor who shot a hole in their own boat. It makes no sense.
I mean, it doesn't make sense if everyone is playing fair. You can't negotiate without being willing to sacrifice something to hurt the other side. In war, that's soldiers, in trade wars, that's the consumer.
Ideally, everyone looks at their own tariffs and decides these aren't worth it, because, like you said, they hurt consumers. This means everyone lowers tariffs and life continues better than it was before.
Actually, it doesn't make sense even if everyone is not playing fair. Self-harm is self-harm. What kind of negotiating is that? "If you shoot a hole in your boat I'll shoot one in mine!"
I disagree. I think in a lot of cases buyers should or would demand transparency (ie. has this house ever been flooded?), but I don't think it's a strict requirement in the broad sense you may be implying.
Transparency can be subjective. For example, a person sells 100 shares of ACME stock to a savvy buyer. A short time later the stock triples in value, and the seller sues the buyer because they were not "completely transparent" about their knowledge that the stock would rise.
Of course, in all of this I am not talking about deliberate fraud which would be strictly forbidden in a free market.
I was talking about market transparency; it's more like the person selling the shares sells them to one person at a discount and another person at a high price. For a free market to function, the buyer would need to know the other prices people have paid for the same goods.
If you don't have that, a free market can't work well.
When you buy something in a free market, you should know its quality, characteristics and the price on the market. You should also know its provenance, relative supply and transport/marketing cost. That's transparency. It lets you buy things and make the most efficient choices, which is why it's fundamental for a free market.
The criteria you specify for transparency is subjective and I don't agree that all of those criteria are strictly necessary. Specifically, I don't agree that knowledge of "provenance, relative supply and transport/marketing cost" is required of a buyer at all in a free market, though they may personally have an interest in those things. I would venture that most consumers know and care very little about those things.
>If you don't have that, a free market can't work well.
>which is why it's fundamental for a free market
What's important is the principle of subjective value--that the buyer and the seller value what they are getting more than what they are giving up--and that can happen without the various criteria of transparency you outline. Certainly there are cases where market actors will demand some of those (and many cases they will not), but I wouldn't state it's a foundational requirement the market must be built upon.
We don't currently have a free market, and most customers definitely do not know the provenance, relative supply or transport/marketing cost of almost anything they buy. They trust food, for example, because the government secures it and regulates it.
>What's important is the principle of subjective value--that the buyer and the seller value what they are getting more than what they are giving up--and that can happen without the various criteria of transparency you outline.
No, that's important to a market period. A free market is a specific thing.
You need the other things to move away from the necessity of government regulation (transparency, for example.) If you don't know what's in that apple and nobody is going to make sure it's safe, you can't buy or sell it efficiently.
Even absent government regulation, I still don't see consumers being terribly concerned about the source of their apple. Why? Because the quality of it is reflected by the reputation of the seller. But even if I were to concede the argument for the particular case of food, that does not mean that knowledge of provenance is a prerequisite for a free market.
>You need the other things to move away from the necessity of government regulation
I guess this is the crux of the matter. You are suggesting that transparency must pre-exist a free market, I am suggesting that a free market pre-exists transparency, and when necessary transparency will be demanded by the consumers.
>You are suggesting that transparency must pre-exist a free market, I am suggesting that a free market pre-exists transparency, and when necessary transparency will be demanded by the consumers.
The issue, I think, is that we have a different definition for a free market. A free market, by the definition I am using, functions at peak efficiency and is free from monopoly and large stakeholder or government intervention/regulation. For that to occur, the kind of transparency I'm talking about must theoretically be present.
If transparency came afterward, what happened prior would not be perfectly efficient and would be vulnerable to monopolization, intervention or unbalanced deals and so would not, by definition, be a free market.
I find the term "your data" bothersome. Just because there is a piece of data out there that pertains to you it doesn't make it "your data". Some will contend that the data is only gathered through a violation of your privacy, but I don't agree--in most cases, particularly the big tech companies who clearly spell out in their ToS, privacy policy, etc. what data they're gathering.
"So right away, let us cast aside the technological protocols, that are usually referred to as “the internet”, that of which was built upon that make accessing or publishing information public between two or more machines…
Because talking about such things would require most internet users to cast aside social constructs they willingly suspend on a daily basis upon engaging with such technology/services (without any care to understand for oneself, one might add) and then demand collectively in retrospect to have their cries pacified while continuing to use such services (of which, most for free).
Yup, let us look past all that and believe (because that’s all we can do for ourselves) that institutions/organizations/companies/governments, that all consist of our fellow human beings in all of our qualities and flaws, can provide for the individual that which he chooses not to do for himself, to a satisfactory level in which his desires are forever coddled and placated." "The Banality of Privacy As A Service" [0]
At least the European legal perspective is that yes, there actually is such a concept as "your data" that is inherently yours and you have certain rights pertaining to that data no matter what - allowing your interests and rights to that data override what others can do with that data even if they have it and obtained it legally. Legal possession of private data doesn't imply unrestricted right to use that data for all purposes.
For example, even if it was originally gathered with your permission, that permission can be revoked; EU GDPR will clarify the exact process of how that can be done.
"Just because there is a piece of data out there that pertains to you it doesn't make it "your data"."
Yes it does.
"Some will contend that the data is only gathered through a violation of your privacy"
That it is.
" but I don't agree--in most cases, particularly the big tech companies who clearly spell out in their ToS, privacy policy, etc. what data they're gathering."
So I suppose in your mind that whatever a company wants to do is fine, and that's your prerogative. But in the real world, that's simply not true. And in the real world, this data is derived purely from me. It absolutely is MY data, and they have no right to collect it without my consent, and they have no right to sell it to others without my consent. To believe otherwise is to believe that a person does not have personal agency, and that a person is not in charge of themselves.
>So I suppose in your mind that whatever a company wants to do is fine, and that's your prerogative.
Non sequitur and a red herring.
>To believe otherwise is to believe that a person does not have personal agency, and that a person is not in charge of themselves.
Non sequitur. Someone owning data about you has nothing to do with denying someone's "personal agency". Quite the opposite. I would suggest someone recording the actions you make is a testament to the principle of personal agency. You can own yourself and your choices all day long, but you don't control the consequences of those actions. Furthermore, if you're saying someone cannot record things that they observe, you are denying them their personal agency. (As an aside, I find your appeal to "personal agency" curious given your previous assertion that people are irrational, implying the foolishness of such a principle).
>But in the real world, that's simply not true. And in the real world
In the real world there are a myriad of legal jurisdictions, with a myriad of laws whose principles and motives often are contradictory. I am not arguing from the perspective of the status quo. Individuals can also demonstrate cognitive dissonance.
Please answer the following questions:
1) If I observe you walking down the street and I see you wearing a pair of Adidas athletic shoes, and I make a mental note to myself "s73v3r_ wears Adidas athletic shoes", do you own my thought?
1a) If yes to #1 how do you justify owning a stranger's thoughts?
2) If I write down the thought in my notepad, do you own the entry in my notepad?
2a) If yes to #2 how do you justify owning an entry in a stranger's notepad who expended their labor creating?
If you answered no to #1 and yes to #2 then you have a contradiction you need to account for (data is data whether it is in memory or persisted). If you answered no to #1 and no to #2 then you have established the principle that you do not own data about you. If you answered yes to #1 and yes to #2 then it would be good for you to at least be explicit so those who are following the argument understand your premise.
Sure people are rational, even though you as an external actor may not agree with their motives. Even a schizophrenic is rational given what they have to work with.
I'm not sure what perfect information has to do with anything. It's impossible that perfect information could ever exist.
I suppose you have your own definition for "perfectly rational" that you're standing by, and that's fine. But I fail to see the point. How is that relevant to this thread?
I originally posted that people wouldn't use these web services if they didn't receive some benefit from it, and you've done nothing more than present red herrings.
No one who is employed is paid "the true value of their labor". Every exchange, whether it's dollars for a good or dollars for labor, happens because of the subjective value the exchange provides to the exchangers.
>Business owners exploit the basic human need for food and shelter to underpay low-skill workers.
You could equally (and wrongly) say that workers exploit businesses basic need for labor. It's economic nonsense.
No, I'm equating one statement of economic nonsense with another statement of economic nonsense. It was a reductio ad absurdum. Unless there are severe external market constraints pushing down the demand of labor, an employer would never be able to "exploit the basic human need for food and shelter".
But the low-skill, minimum wage jobs? No. Those wages are effectively set by the government. Every time an employer hires someone at minimum wage, they're really saying "I would pay you less if I legally could." And that's where the rich are making sure minimum wage stays low.
Few things hurt the poor, in particular unskilled minorities, like minimum wage. Those people are effectively outlawed from the labor market because their marginal productivity doesn't make the cut. This is why there is often exceptions in minimum wage laws when it comes to hiring youth and the disabled. This is also why you've seen labor unions lobbying for a $15/hr minimum wage, with exemptions for those in the union.
> Few things hurt the poor, in particular unskilled minorities, like minimum wage. Those people are effectively outlawed from the labor market because their marginal productivity doesn't make the cut.
Hogwash. Are you sincerely arguing that an hour of work doesn't produce $9-15 (or whatever the minimum wage is, plus other overhead) of revenue for the company they work for?
I'm not sure what's so hard to believe about that. It's not even a controversial statement. Are you suggesting that if labor were cheaper the market would not consume more of it?
If there's a demand for X amount of product, and it will take Y people to provide the labor to supply that product, then businesses will hire Y people. They're not going to hire more than Y just because they can.
The only time the market will consume more labor because its cheaper is if the amount of labor they already had was already insufficient, in which case if they really needed more people, they would have already hired them.
That's just wrong and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics.
If labor were much cheaper, I personally might be willing to hire a maid, a gardener, a masseuse, a cook, etc. Similarly a retail business might hire more cashiers, or have more staff on the floor to answer customers questions and help them find things. A gas station might provide a full service experience for their customers. You could do this analysis for virtually any type of business and given cheaper labor they would hire more people.
Why is this so? Because the demand for labor, like goods, is infinite.
The relevant hurdle for an hour of labor is not the marginal revenue but rather the contribution margin (marginal revenue minus [non-labor] variable costs) of that hour.
You’re correct that minimum wage breaks supply and demand but not in the way you think. When an employer pays someone minimum wage what is being said is “someone would do this job for less but the government won’t let me hire them”.
I'm going to disagree with the second part of your comment, because it implies that the employee being hired wouldn't be willing to do it for less themselves.
In any case, without a minimum wage, low-skill wages become a race to the bottom as people become more and more desperate for work. Someone might be willing to work for $1/hour because they're fine living in a cardboard box behind their workplace and eating scraps from the garbage.
But that only allows income inequality to worsen. The rich get even richer as they sit back and laugh as the employees essentially auction themselves to lower and lower wages. Upward mobility dies as the ability to seek extra education and training disappears because you gotta work 100 hours/week just to survive.
So yeah, I suppose minimum wage breaks supply and demand for wages, but I'd argue that's a damn good thing.
> it implies that the employee being hired wouldn't be willing to do it for less themselves.
I agree the person who would work for less might even be the person taking the minimum wage job.
I disagree that this decreases class mobility though. Lowered labor costs mean lower barrier of entry to starting your own business. There’s a floor to how much it costs to start a labor dependent business and it’s based on minimum wage. That means you need substantial capital to get started. Also, lower wages means lower prices which disproportionately benefits poor people.
So infect those poor people with memes that encourage having tons of kids so that there's a lot more poor people to compete for less and less jobs (as automation moves the means of production to family owned land / equity holdings)?
What does "deserving" have anything to do with it? That's entirely subjective. If Sam gave his wealth to a plumber, the plumber wouldn't have been any more "deserving". If he gave it to a hospital, the hospital wouldn't be any more "deserving". No one "deserves" wealth.
Because they have now a disproportionate amount of power, compared to the average citizen, to influence the lives of all of us, to hurt other people, to purchase power and influence to enrich themselves further to the detriment of others. That is not a fair arrangement.
That's not surprising as the media, speaking generally, is a class which aligns itself closely with the ruling class and is incentivized to maintain the status quo.