|
|
#81
03-28-2007, 06:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
"the janitors of today [. . .] live better than the kings and queens of past centuries" I find it hard to believe that the man I see sweeping up the office just now lives better than did, say, Queen Victoria. But I suppose it depends on how we define "better" and I'm willing to listen. [/ QUOTE ] Queen Victoria is still pretty recent, but she didn't have iPods, cell phones, automobiles, 747s, air conditioning, 500 channels on TV, antibiotics, fresh fruit year round, dentistry, antibiotics, birth control, realtime streaming stock quotes, ACCUVIPAR doppler radar, satellite communications... 
|
|
#82
03-28-2007, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "the janitors of today [. . .] live better than the kings and queens of past centuries" I find it hard to believe that the man I see sweeping up the office just now lives better than did, say, Queen Victoria. But I suppose it depends on how we define "better" and I'm willing to listen. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know about you, but I'd be much happier living in some crappy apartment with air conditioning, TV and the Internet than being the richest person 2,000 years ago. Some people who care more about power than about comfort might disagree. [/ QUOTE ] The richest people back then didn't have to work a day. I think you are overvaluing things like TVs and AC and undervaluing free time. [/ QUOTE ] They also routinely died as babies, or had rotting teeth as adults.
|
|
#83
03-28-2007, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "the janitors of today [. . .] live better than the kings and queens of past centuries" I find it hard to believe that the man I see sweeping up the office just now lives better than did, say, Queen Victoria. But I suppose it depends on how we define "better" and I'm willing to listen. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know about you, but I'd be much happier living in some crappy apartment with air conditioning, TV and the Internet than being the richest person 2,000 years ago. Some people who care more about power than about comfort might disagree. [/ QUOTE ] The richest people back then didn't have to work a day. I think you are overvaluing things like TVs and AC and undervaluing free time. [/ QUOTE ] They also routinely died as babies, or had rotting teeth as adults. [/ QUOTE ] Again, this is such a corner case since there were SO FEW people of such great privilege. Even if a few people back then were better off than the janitors of today, clearly the 5th percentile of today is better off than the 95th percentile of 500 years ago. 99th and 1st percentiles are a bigger stretch.
|
|
#84
03-28-2007, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "the janitors of today [. . .] live better than the kings and queens of past centuries" I find it hard to believe that the man I see sweeping up the office just now lives better than did, say, Queen Victoria. But I suppose it depends on how we define "better" and I'm willing to listen. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know about you, but I'd be much happier living in some crappy apartment with air conditioning, TV and the Internet than being the richest person 2,000 years ago. Some people who care more about power than about comfort might disagree. [/ QUOTE ] The richest people back then didn't have to work a day. I think you are overvaluing things like TVs and AC and undervaluing free time. [/ QUOTE ] It's not possible to overvalue AC. I can barely even imagine how people could have lived without it.
|
|
#85
03-28-2007, 06:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
Again, this is such a corner case since there were SO FEW people of such great privilege. Even if a few people back then were better off than the janitors of today, clearly the 5th percentile of today is better off than the 95th percentile of 500 years ago. 99th and 1st percentiles are a bigger stretch. [/ QUOTE ] That's true. But like I said, Victoria was pretty recent. I might trade places with her (but probably not). Constantine? No way.
|
|
#86
03-28-2007, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I am reminded of a post in the John Edwards thread a couple days ago in which one of your fellow-ACists wrote: Maybe I'm just selfish but if I had $10 million plus a sweet wife I'd retire and spend time with her instead of running for President. This person has a backward bending supply curve! The greater his income, the less he will work. This is not an uncommon sentiment. For people who see their incentives in this way, a greater level of taxation would create more wealth, not less. [/ QUOTE ] Apparantly you don't understand this point of view very well. Once that goal of "$10 million and retire" becomes unavailable, this type of person instead simply seeks to get by doing as little as they need to to survive rather than worrying about all those luxuries they'd have gotten with that $10 million. As one of these types of people, I know. Luxuries are great and desirable, but if the level of work required to get them is too high, they're no longer worth it. Furthermore, getting to that $10 million and no longer "working" can actually make a person far more productive. A person might, for instance, want to be a writer but not think they could seriously persue it as a career, but then when they "retire" they give it a shot. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure what your post is try to say from an economics standpoint. The labor supply curves for individuals vary widely depending on the individual, as well as other factors such as the type of work involved. The point at which the curve bends backward varies as well. But I think it does bend backward at some point for almost everyone. If you ask someone how many hours a week they would work if they got paid $100/hour versus how many they would work if they got paid $10/hour, I think you would get different answers from different people. But I think if you asked people how many hours a week they would work if they got paid $100/hour versus $100,000/hour at the same job, most people would work far less at $100,000, unless (a) they were so wealthy that they barely had to work at any price, or (b) they liked their job so much that it gave them more noneconomic utility than anything else they could be doing. The tax rate for both of these exception groups won't really influence their productivity.
|
|
#87
03-28-2007, 06:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Again, this is such a corner case since there were SO FEW people of such great privilege. Even if a few people back then were better off than the janitors of today, clearly the 5th percentile of today is better off than the 95th percentile of 500 years ago. 99th and 1st percentiles are a bigger stretch. [/ QUOTE ] That's true. But like I said, Victoria was pretty recent. I might trade places with her (but probably not). Constantine? No way. [/ QUOTE ] What about a Roman Emperor with loads of sex slaves, all the alcohol he wants (hookers and blow of the time?), all day to sit on his ass and crap in his gold toilet. I mean, come on, that had to be better than cleaning crap from McDonalds. You can't be serious. It's not like these guys have plasmas and ipods.
|
|
#88
03-28-2007, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "the janitors of today [. . .] live better than the kings and queens of past centuries" I find it hard to believe that the man I see sweeping up the office just now lives better than did, say, Queen Victoria. But I suppose it depends on how we define "better" and I'm willing to listen. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know about you, but I'd be much happier living in some crappy apartment with air conditioning, TV and the Internet than being the richest person 2,000 years ago. Some people who care more about power than about comfort might disagree. [/ QUOTE ] The richest people back then didn't have to work a day. I think you are overvaluing things like TVs and AC and undervaluing free time. [/ QUOTE ] It's not possible to overvalue AC. I can barely even imagine how people could have lived without it. [/ QUOTE ] You must live in a climate that isn't suited for it. Tons of people live without it now. Doesn't Europe lack AC in a large percentage of homes?
|
|
#89
03-28-2007, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am reminded of a post in the John Edwards thread a couple days ago in which one of your fellow-ACists wrote: Maybe I'm just selfish but if I had $10 million plus a sweet wife I'd retire and spend time with her instead of running for President. This person has a backward bending supply curve! The greater his income, the less he will work. This is not an uncommon sentiment. For people who see their incentives in this way, a greater level of taxation would create more wealth, not less. [/ QUOTE ] Apparantly you don't understand this point of view very well. Once that goal of "$10 million and retire" becomes unavailable, this type of person instead simply seeks to get by doing as little as they need to to survive rather than worrying about all those luxuries they'd have gotten with that $10 million. As one of these types of people, I know. Luxuries are great and desirable, but if the level of work required to get them is too high, they're no longer worth it. Furthermore, getting to that $10 million and no longer "working" can actually make a person far more productive. A person might, for instance, want to be a writer but not think they could seriously persue it as a career, but then when they "retire" they give it a shot. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure what your post is try to say from an economics standpoint. The labor supply curves for individuals vary widely depending on the individual, as well as other factors such as the type of work involved. The point at which the curve bends backward varies as well. But I think it does bend backward at some point for almost everyone. If you ask someone how many hours a week they would work if they got paid $100/hour versus how many they would work if they got paid $10/hour, I think you would get different answers from different people. But I think if you asked people how many hours a week they would work if they got paid $100/hour versus $100,000/hour at the same job, most people would work far less at $100,000, unless (a) they were so wealthy that they barely had to work at any price, or (b) they liked their job so much that it gave them more noneconomic utility than anything else they could be doing. The tax rate for both of these exception groups won't really influence their productivity. [/ QUOTE ] Ah- the old "Keep the really smart people poor enough so they keep working argument".
|
|
#90
03-28-2007, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
If you ask someone how many hours a week they would work if they got paid $100/hour versus how many they would work if they got paid $10/hour, I think you would get different answers from different people. [/ QUOTE ] When I studied economics there wasn't still any good conclusion whereas to what the macro effect of wage increase would be in terms of working hours put in. It is not impossible that we reach a point where a general wage increase will lead to fewer hours put in, depends on how people value free time vs money. It will also differ from group to group, region to region.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
