Buying vs Saving Economic Theory
-
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
The cost of the top tourists spots, say the Colosseum and Louvre, would go up to keep crowds down while places like the central Texas Gulf Coast that sees zero tourism today would get busier. Tourism would change, naturally, as top places got more expensive and more places stepped in to fill the vacuum.
Those places are already cheap today - why aren't people going there now? and why would they suddenly want to start going there in the future?
Is it because they simply can't, because lack of time and finances? I suppose, but we look at how much the population has already congregated at the coasts, I think it would get even worse in a situation where you go anywhere because there would be little to nothing holding you down.
Of course, how do you handle the transition of the current middle class, or even the wealthy - i.e. the beach houses, etc... you're putting 98% all on the same level, most of those awesome places to live would have to be completely redone, or they would simply be vacant - but you still have the rare resource of beach front property, other than the 2% who will probably get more than the 98%, how do you decide who gets to be at the ocean and who doesn't?
Yes we've moved away from the economy discussion, perhaps this post needs to be in your new thread?
-
@coliver said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@dafyre said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Think of "work" as "productive work" and then realize that 98% are not working today.
What is "productive work" building buildings and bridges and roads... That certainly seems productive...
Lots of which can be done with half or a third of the crew and additional automated machinery. Which we are starting to see more and more of in the US, road crews often have people sitting there with a stop sign... how is that considered productive work?
Right, if we had automated cars, no need for that. And if the machinery was self driving, that's a ton less crew. We are just a few years away from nearly all road construction being fully automated AND being able to happen during the holidays and weekends instead of during rush hour.
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
In the future we expect that most people will be idle and that there will be almost no work to be done, yet we expect the economy to continue to grow. An economy is the buying power of what you have, not the amount of busy work you can keep people doing.
This is the part that I don't understand how it sustainable.
Where is the concern? We create more, have more money... it's what we currently do that is potentially not sustainable. Anything that grows the economy without negatives is more sustainable than something that does not.
It's nearly impossible to think of a situation where 98% of the world doesn't work. Now that 98% wants to do whatever they want, that having a job prevented them from doing if for no other reason than they didn't have time.
So two things:
- Work doesn't power the economy, so having people working does nothing to maintain sustainability.
- Think of "work" as "productive work" and then realize that 98% are not working today.
OK, that's fine - but people need something to do. And personally I feel that most people need an outside source telling them what that something is. Otherwise they become listless. In the short term, if you tried to enact this today, even if you gave everyone enough to buy whatever they wanted to have fun locally (damn hard to put a cap there, right?)
No, they don't. That's the American "make everyone feel they have to be a factory worker" education talking. No one thought that before it was part of the school system indoctrination. It was introduced by big business to the education system to make people more complacent in blue collar, repetitive jobs so that they would feel "good" about being someone else's slave. If people need something to keep them busy, they will find it. Movies, music, painting, exercise, travel, reading, dancing, walking, photography, knitting, building unnecessary buildings, gardening, you name it.
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
I bet crime would still skyrocket.
Why? It increases no known crime factor but reduces or eliminates nearly all known ones. No one has to resort to crime to make ends meet. No one is in the "nothing to lose" scenario and sees crime as a chance to get out - everyone has their base income and freedom to lose so crime is a much worse alternative than it is for people out of work today. No one needs to be bored because no one is so poor that they can't have televisions, books, movies, whatever. What would make people commit crimes if no one is in a position for it to make sense? And no one should be bored, literally no one works because they are bored, they work for money. That's why it is called work and not "happy fun time."
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
The cost of the top tourists spots, say the Colosseum and Louvre, would go up to keep crowds down while places like the central Texas Gulf Coast that sees zero tourism today would get busier. Tourism would change, naturally, as top places got more expensive and more places stepped in to fill the vacuum.
Those places are already cheap today - why aren't people going there now? and why would they suddenly want to start going there in the future?
Supply and demand. People don't have the time or money to vacation AT ALL. Cheap is relative. Why are YOU not on the beach right now? It's free in most of the world. So why have you chosen to be at work instead? I think that your answer will explain everything to you.
Italy is 90% barren coast. You want beach, you can go there and have a thousand miles of it in Italy to yourself. Same in Texas.
Whole amazing hill towns are abandoned. Places your die to live in they are so beautiful. But no local jobs, so no one lives there.
See how people not needing to be at work changes everything?
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Is it because they simply can't, because lack of time and finances? I suppose, but we look at how much the population has already congregated at the coasts, I think it would get even worse in a situation where you go anywhere because there would be little to nothing holding you down.
People are concentrated in cities, which are sometimes on the coast. In Europe they are not. Almost no one is tied away from the coasts today, anyone living away from a coast does so against their personal financial interests (nearly so.) Take you for example, if you moved to the coast you could make more money. It isn't your job holding you back from moving. Same for essentially everyone not already at a coast. The coasts have all of the jobs (with Chicago being considered a coastal city.)
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Of course, how do you handle the transition of the current middle class, or even the wealthy - i.e. the beach houses, etc... you're putting 98% all on the same level, most of those awesome places to live would have to be completely redone, or they would simply be vacant - but you still have the rare resource of beach front property, other than the 2% who will probably get more than the 98%, how do you decide who gets to be at the ocean and who doesn't?
Yes we've moved away from the economy discussion, perhaps this post needs to be in your new thread?
People still GET to work. Anyone who wants to contribute can do so. That will create the classes. It's that we take the bottom class and make it pretty attractive. Think Star Trek world.
No one is blocked from working, just no one has to.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
I bet crime would still skyrocket.
Why? It increases no known crime factor but reduces or eliminates nearly all known ones. No one has to resort to crime to make ends meet. No one is in the "nothing to lose" scenario and sees crime as a chance to get out - everyone has their base income and freedom to lose so crime is a much worse alternative than it is for people out of work today. No one needs to be bored because no one is so poor that they can't have televisions, books, movies, whatever. What would make people commit crimes if no one is in a position for it to make sense? And no one should be bored, literally no one works because they are bored, they work for money. That's why it is called work and not "happy fun time."
Most criminals have those things today, yet they commit crimes anyhow. Granted the making ends meet is probably (though I really don't know) a leading factor, it's not the only one.
Crime will be because of boredom (regardless of the amount of toys available to them), and the excitement factor, and because of the rare item issue I mentioned earlier.
I should add that I do believe that crime would probably tapper off over time as people get used to being in that situation and start finding their own things to do.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
The cost of the top tourists spots, say the Colosseum and Louvre, would go up to keep crowds down while places like the central Texas Gulf Coast that sees zero tourism today would get busier. Tourism would change, naturally, as top places got more expensive and more places stepped in to fill the vacuum.
Those places are already cheap today - why aren't people going there now? and why would they suddenly want to start going there in the future?
Supply and demand. People don't have the time or money to vacation AT ALL. Cheap is relative. Why are YOU not on the beach right now? It's free in most of the world. So why have you chosen to be at work instead? I think that your answer will explain everything to you.
Italy is 90% barren coast. You want beach, you can go there and have a thousand miles of it in Italy to yourself. Same in Texas.
Whole amazing hill towns are abandoned. Places your die to live in they are so beautiful. But no local jobs, so no one lives there.
See how people not needing to be at work changes everything?
yeah i got there before your post with the end of mine.
Of course it creates whole new problems, like people want to live there now, so now new infrastructures will need to be created to enable it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Is it because they simply can't, because lack of time and finances? I suppose, but we look at how much the population has already congregated at the coasts, I think it would get even worse in a situation where you go anywhere because there would be little to nothing holding you down.
People are concentrated in cities, which are sometimes on the coast. In Europe they are not. Almost no one is tied away from the coasts today, anyone living away from a coast does so against their personal financial interests (nearly so.) Take you for example, if you moved to the coast you could make more money. It isn't your job holding you back from moving. Same for essentially everyone not already at a coast. The coasts have all of the jobs (with Chicago being considered a coastal city.)
I don't agree with this. My standard of living would be much lower if I moved coastal. Sure I could probably make more money, but live in a much smaller house, like 75% smaller, and be crowded, etc. While there would be a few gains, I don't think they outweigh the costs to me personally.
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
I bet crime would still skyrocket.
Why? It increases no known crime factor but reduces or eliminates nearly all known ones. No one has to resort to crime to make ends meet. No one is in the "nothing to lose" scenario and sees crime as a chance to get out - everyone has their base income and freedom to lose so crime is a much worse alternative than it is for people out of work today. No one needs to be bored because no one is so poor that they can't have televisions, books, movies, whatever. What would make people commit crimes if no one is in a position for it to make sense? And no one should be bored, literally no one works because they are bored, they work for money. That's why it is called work and not "happy fun time."
Most criminals have those things today, yet they commit crimes anyhow. Granted the making ends meet is probably (though I really don't know) a leading factor, it's not the only one.
Crime will be because of boredom (regardless of the amount of toys available to them), and the excitement factor, and because of the rare item issue I mentioned earlier.
While some criminals have those things, it is very, very few. Crime is essentially never related to boredom, that's not a real world factor. Jobs do not keep people from being criminals, that's not a thing. Having people have enough money to not have any reason to commit crimes, that's a thing and currently jobs provide that. But the idea that crime comes from boredom has no support that I've ever heard of. If this is true, it suggests that all people, when given vacation time from work, consider a holiday crime spree.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Of course, how do you handle the transition of the current middle class, or even the wealthy - i.e. the beach houses, etc... you're putting 98% all on the same level, most of those awesome places to live would have to be completely redone, or they would simply be vacant - but you still have the rare resource of beach front property, other than the 2% who will probably get more than the 98%, how do you decide who gets to be at the ocean and who doesn't?
Yes we've moved away from the economy discussion, perhaps this post needs to be in your new thread?
People still GET to work. Anyone who wants to contribute can do so. That will create the classes. It's that we take the bottom class and make it pretty attractive. Think Star Trek world.
No one is blocked from working, just no one has to.
Now this is interesting... So, if a person wants to work for a company they can - but what if that employee is bad for the company? it's no different than today in a lot of ways, only now that person has potential mental issues because - but that was true even before they wanted to work there... so...
rambling thought is all.
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Is it because they simply can't, because lack of time and finances? I suppose, but we look at how much the population has already congregated at the coasts, I think it would get even worse in a situation where you go anywhere because there would be little to nothing holding you down.
People are concentrated in cities, which are sometimes on the coast. In Europe they are not. Almost no one is tied away from the coasts today, anyone living away from a coast does so against their personal financial interests (nearly so.) Take you for example, if you moved to the coast you could make more money. It isn't your job holding you back from moving. Same for essentially everyone not already at a coast. The coasts have all of the jobs (with Chicago being considered a coastal city.)
I don't agree with this. My standard of living would be much lower if I moved coastal. Sure I could probably make more money, but live in a much smaller house, like 75% smaller, and be crowded, etc. While there would be a few gains, I don't think they outweigh the costs to me personally.
For most people, the gains are significant. And bigger house than is useful I think most people would think would lower the quality of life - more to clean, more to deal with. Big enough, yes, you want that. But on the coast salaries basically double or triple (just in big generalities.) But my point was that there is nothing in your career holding you away from the coast. It is that you don't WANT to live on the coast that makes you not live there. Are you suggesting that your desire to live there would change if you didn't have to work? Why, if making more money alone woudln't have done it, it seems that simply not needing to work would be less effective in convincing you to move.
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Of course, how do you handle the transition of the current middle class, or even the wealthy - i.e. the beach houses, etc... you're putting 98% all on the same level, most of those awesome places to live would have to be completely redone, or they would simply be vacant - but you still have the rare resource of beach front property, other than the 2% who will probably get more than the 98%, how do you decide who gets to be at the ocean and who doesn't?
Yes we've moved away from the economy discussion, perhaps this post needs to be in your new thread?
People still GET to work. Anyone who wants to contribute can do so. That will create the classes. It's that we take the bottom class and make it pretty attractive. Think Star Trek world.
No one is blocked from working, just no one has to.
Now this is interesting... So, if a person wants to work for a company they can - but what if that employee is bad for the company? it's no different than today in a lot of ways, only now that person has potential mental issues because - but that was true even before they wanted to work there... so...
rambling thought is all.
Yes, did you think that it was going to be a crime to attempt to work? Not so at all, it's just that everyone gets baseline money so that no one HAS to work.
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
The cost of the top tourists spots, say the Colosseum and Louvre, would go up to keep crowds down while places like the central Texas Gulf Coast that sees zero tourism today would get busier. Tourism would change, naturally, as top places got more expensive and more places stepped in to fill the vacuum.
Those places are already cheap today - why aren't people going there now? and why would they suddenly want to start going there in the future?
Supply and demand. People don't have the time or money to vacation AT ALL. Cheap is relative. Why are YOU not on the beach right now? It's free in most of the world. So why have you chosen to be at work instead? I think that your answer will explain everything to you.
Italy is 90% barren coast. You want beach, you can go there and have a thousand miles of it in Italy to yourself. Same in Texas.
Whole amazing hill towns are abandoned. Places your die to live in they are so beautiful. But no local jobs, so no one lives there.
See how people not needing to be at work changes everything?
yeah i got there before your post with the end of mine.
Of course it creates whole new problems, like people want to live there now, so now new infrastructures will need to be created to enable it.
Why would more people move to the coast when currently more people are stuck on the coast than want to be there? Wouldn't it create a migration away from the coast once there is no need to be stuck in big cities with high costs? Lots of people like city living and will stay. But tonnes and tonnes that have to do it today for work and careers will head for wide open country - be in small villages, a farm, a mountain cabin or an Italian hill top. I would expect a massive de-urbanization given that most urban habitation exists for work purposes alone.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Is it because they simply can't, because lack of time and finances? I suppose, but we look at how much the population has already congregated at the coasts, I think it would get even worse in a situation where you go anywhere because there would be little to nothing holding you down.
People are concentrated in cities, which are sometimes on the coast. In Europe they are not. Almost no one is tied away from the coasts today, anyone living away from a coast does so against their personal financial interests (nearly so.) Take you for example, if you moved to the coast you could make more money. It isn't your job holding you back from moving. Same for essentially everyone not already at a coast. The coasts have all of the jobs (with Chicago being considered a coastal city.)
I don't agree with this. My standard of living would be much lower if I moved coastal. Sure I could probably make more money, but live in a much smaller house, like 75% smaller, and be crowded, etc. While there would be a few gains, I don't think they outweigh the costs to me personally.
For most people, the gains are significant. And bigger house than is useful I think most people would think would lower the quality of life - more to clean, more to deal with. Big enough, yes, you want that. But on the coast salaries basically double or triple (just in big generalities.) But my point was that there is nothing in your career holding you away from the coast. It is that you don't WANT to live on the coast that makes you not live there. Are you suggesting that your desire to live there would change if you didn't have to work? Why, if making more money alone woudln't have done it, it seems that simply not needing to work would be less effective in convincing you to move.
Oh but it does. Because while I don't agree with the double or triple in salary, working is what keeps my wife where she is. She likes her job - Heck @wirestyle22 said the same about his future wife. She loves her job and likely will never move from the state because of it. If both were suddenly jobless and not worried about money, the next thing to consider would be being close to family. For me personally, I have no family other than my wife to be concerned with (they moved away years ago).
As for house - granted I don't need a 4,000 sqft home to be happy, but 2500 is a near requirement. And in coastal areas that much house typically cost double or triple what mine does. And if it's anywhere near a beach (say within 1 mile) it's probably 10x as much. So the next question is what are my other gains for moving to a coast? If you move to the right area you can get a fairly mild climate, OK that's a plus, but population crowding in big cities is a huge negative. Large cities often have more services for the niche, so that's a plus.
I guess I'd like to know what additional pluses you think are there?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
The cost of the top tourists spots, say the Colosseum and Louvre, would go up to keep crowds down while places like the central Texas Gulf Coast that sees zero tourism today would get busier. Tourism would change, naturally, as top places got more expensive and more places stepped in to fill the vacuum.
Those places are already cheap today - why aren't people going there now? and why would they suddenly want to start going there in the future?
Supply and demand. People don't have the time or money to vacation AT ALL. Cheap is relative. Why are YOU not on the beach right now? It's free in most of the world. So why have you chosen to be at work instead? I think that your answer will explain everything to you.
Italy is 90% barren coast. You want beach, you can go there and have a thousand miles of it in Italy to yourself. Same in Texas.
Whole amazing hill towns are abandoned. Places your die to live in they are so beautiful. But no local jobs, so no one lives there.
See how people not needing to be at work changes everything?
yeah i got there before your post with the end of mine.
Of course it creates whole new problems, like people want to live there now, so now new infrastructures will need to be created to enable it.
Why would more people move to the coast when currently more people are stuck on the coast than want to be there? Wouldn't it create a migration away from the coast once there is no need to be stuck in big cities with high costs? Lots of people like city living and will stay. But tonnes and tonnes that have to do it today for work and careers will head for wide open country - be in small villages, a farm, a mountain cabin or an Italian hill top. I would expect a massive de-urbanization given that most urban habitation exists for work purposes alone.
OK that's true - but I don't know how mass it would really be. But there would definitely be some.
And as discussed earlier, that would create a whole set of situations to resolve - like more roads, more grocery stores, often having fewer choices - either that or no grocery stores and everything is delivery based.
etc. -
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Of course, how do you handle the transition of the current middle class, or even the wealthy - i.e. the beach houses, etc... you're putting 98% all on the same level, most of those awesome places to live would have to be completely redone, or they would simply be vacant - but you still have the rare resource of beach front property, other than the 2% who will probably get more than the 98%, how do you decide who gets to be at the ocean and who doesn't?
Yes we've moved away from the economy discussion, perhaps this post needs to be in your new thread?
People still GET to work. Anyone who wants to contribute can do so. That will create the classes. It's that we take the bottom class and make it pretty attractive. Think Star Trek world.
No one is blocked from working, just no one has to.
Now this is interesting... So, if a person wants to work for a company they can - but what if that employee is bad for the company? it's no different than today in a lot of ways, only now that person has potential mental issues because - but that was true even before they wanted to work there... so...
rambling thought is all.
Yes, did you think that it was going to be a crime to attempt to work? Not so at all, it's just that everyone gets baseline money so that no one HAS to work.
No not a crime to attempt to work.. a neglect of those who want to so they can be part of the 2%, but aren't good enough.
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Of course, how do you handle the transition of the current middle class, or even the wealthy - i.e. the beach houses, etc... you're putting 98% all on the same level, most of those awesome places to live would have to be completely redone, or they would simply be vacant - but you still have the rare resource of beach front property, other than the 2% who will probably get more than the 98%, how do you decide who gets to be at the ocean and who doesn't?
Yes we've moved away from the economy discussion, perhaps this post needs to be in your new thread?
People still GET to work. Anyone who wants to contribute can do so. That will create the classes. It's that we take the bottom class and make it pretty attractive. Think Star Trek world.
No one is blocked from working, just no one has to.
Now this is interesting... So, if a person wants to work for a company they can - but what if that employee is bad for the company? it's no different than today in a lot of ways, only now that person has potential mental issues because - but that was true even before they wanted to work there... so...
rambling thought is all.
Yes, did you think that it was going to be a crime to attempt to work? Not so at all, it's just that everyone gets baseline money so that no one HAS to work.
No not a crime to attempt to work.. a neglect of those who want to so they can be part of the 2%, but aren't good enough.
But there won't be a desire by people to be in the 2% is, I think, what Scott is getting at. Some people get psychological rewards for working and would be paid for their time in addition to the base income everyone else gets. There would still be a gap but the people who desire to move up will and those that want to pursue other endeavors now have the ability and freedom to do that.
-
@coliver said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Of course, how do you handle the transition of the current middle class, or even the wealthy - i.e. the beach houses, etc... you're putting 98% all on the same level, most of those awesome places to live would have to be completely redone, or they would simply be vacant - but you still have the rare resource of beach front property, other than the 2% who will probably get more than the 98%, how do you decide who gets to be at the ocean and who doesn't?
Yes we've moved away from the economy discussion, perhaps this post needs to be in your new thread?
People still GET to work. Anyone who wants to contribute can do so. That will create the classes. It's that we take the bottom class and make it pretty attractive. Think Star Trek world.
No one is blocked from working, just no one has to.
Now this is interesting... So, if a person wants to work for a company they can - but what if that employee is bad for the company? it's no different than today in a lot of ways, only now that person has potential mental issues because - but that was true even before they wanted to work there... so...
rambling thought is all.
Yes, did you think that it was going to be a crime to attempt to work? Not so at all, it's just that everyone gets baseline money so that no one HAS to work.
No not a crime to attempt to work.. a neglect of those who want to so they can be part of the 2%, but aren't good enough.
But there won't be a desire by people to be in the 2% is, I think, what Scott is getting at. Some people get psychological rewards for working and would be paid for their time in addition to the base income everyone else gets. There would still be a gap but the people who desire to move up will and those that want to pursue other endeavors now have the ability and freedom to do that.
What I'm saying is that what if you @coliver wants to move up - but all companies find you wanting - so they won't hire you - granted, that's no different from today - I was simply asking the question.
