Eugine_Nier comments on Why is Mencius Moldbug so popular on Less Wrong? [Answer: He's not.] - Less Wrong

9 Post author: arborealhominid 16 November 2012 06:37PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (259)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 01 June 2013 03:09:36AM 1 point [-]

Indeed. The non-worker Paris Hilton is much higher status than the average unemployed person,, which would motivate the average unemployed person to take up jobs where they are available.

Why? If your point is that they'll be motivated to work so that they can earn enough money to be as rich as Paris Hilton, then my point is precisely that redistributing wealth from those who work to those who don't makes this motivation less effective. If your point is something else, could you spell it out in more detail.

Comment author: Juno_Watt 01 June 2013 02:50:57PM 1 point [-]

Why? If your point is that they'll be motivated to work so that they can earn enough money to be as rich as Paris Hilton, then my point is precisely that redistributing wealth from those who work to those who don't makes this motivation less effective

In a society with no welfare system, someone with no job or inherited wealth will have an income of zero and be a the bottom of the status ranking. In a society with a typical welfare system, someone with no job or inherited wealth will have a minimal income, and still be a the bottom of the status ranking. The people at the top will also have a little less in absolute terms, and still be top rank. So: no. Your point might apply to some extreme form of redistribution, that aims to give everyone the same income, but that has never been put into practice.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 04 June 2013 01:47:54AM 2 points [-]

My point is that the shallower the slope of the pre vs. post-redistribution graph the more other factors besides money will motivate people. A big part of the problem is that (at least in the US) the slope is particularly narrow at right around the point where taking a low paying job would cause someone to loose their welfare benefits.

Comment author: Juno_Watt 06 June 2013 04:42:05PM 1 point [-]

Cutting welfare to below subsistence level is not the only or best solution. You can also raise minimum wages, or supplement incomes

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 07 June 2013 02:23:08AM 2 points [-]

You can also raise minimum wages,

This does have the unfortunate side effect of reducing the number of entry level jobs they can get, so it's not at all clear this would make it easier for people to get of welfare.

or supplement incomes

Yes, Milton Friedman proposed something similar.

Comment author: Juno_Watt 08 June 2013 01:37:54PM 1 point [-]

This does have the unfortunate side effect of reducing the number of entry level jobs they can get, so it's not at all clear this would make it easier for people to get of welfar

The evidence is mixed.. It's widely believed that minimum wage schemes negatively impact young people, but that can be worked around by exempting them.