You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] Staross 7 points 10 points (+17|-7) ago  (edited ago)

Well we know some things from historical experience.

  • It doesn't affect growth on long time scales (which is mainly determined by technological progress and education)
  • It reduces revenue inequalities
  • If it's applied only in a small geographical region some might lose and some might win. It creates fluxes at the boundary. These sort of measures are usually better country wise for that reason.

Source: Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century


[–] waldojim42 4 points 27 points (+31|-4) ago 

I'm sorry, but "reduces revenue inequalities" sounds like hippy speak for "they didn't bother getting educated or learning a skill, but they make as much as your skilled position does."


[–] Volcris 5 points 9 points (+14|-5) ago 

economics educated person here, it means if your sys admins are happy to take burger flipping jobs for the same pay, you need to pay more for qualified sys admins. When you increase wages at the bottom, wage increase trickles up to more skilled positions because wages above the bottom are controlled by opportunity cost, and opportunity cost rises with the bottom. This helps redistribute wealth to the middle class as well as lower class.

Of course, you sound like ass hole speak for "I know nothing about money, wages, economics or politics and I have a narrow skillset in a field that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but those guys on fox news and the chain emails by buddies and I forward sound about right".


[–] BiscuitFever 5 points 1 points (+6|-5) ago 

Since when does making a livable wage make you a lazy person? You sound like someone who doesn't understand how the real world works.


[–] Staross 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

More like that:

If you are interested in the subject I recommend you read Piketty's book though, it's pretty good.